1964-10-16

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
20220-577i

[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 16, 1964


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit that animated the discussion initiated in the house on Wednesday afternoon by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) I move, seconded by Mr. Diefenbaker, that an humble address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:
To
Her Most Excellent Majesty Elizabeth the Second
By the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
The Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, wish humbly to convey to Your Majesty this expression of our deepest loyalty, affection and respect, and of our heartfelt appreciation of your recent visit to Canada.
The presence in our country of Your Majesty and His Royal Highness the Prince Philip on the occasion of the centennial of the meetings of the Fathers of Confederation held at Charlottetown and Quebec city warmed and moved the hearts of all true Canadians. Your messages will be an inspiration and guide to the Canadian people as we work together to achieve the national progress of which you spoke so movingly.
We pray that you may continue to reign for many years as our gracious and beloved sovereign.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Whereupon the members of the house rose and sang
God save the Queen
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Mr. Diefenbaker:
That the said address be engrossed, and that a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that the House of Commons had passed the said address and requesting Their Honours to unite with this house in the address by inserting therein the words "and Senate".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: May I address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether he has received a report to the effect that the government of mainland China has just exploded a nuclear bomb; whether he has any official report to make to the house, and whether this event, if it has taken place, will have any effect on Canada's policy regarding the feasibility of bringing China as quickly as possible into the community of nations in order that some measure of control with respect to nuclear weapons possessed by China as well as by other countries may be implemented.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The hon. gentleman who represents Digby-Annapolis-Kings sent me a note a few minutes ago indicating his intention to ask this same question. There is a Reuters report to the effect that the government of mainland China has detonated a bomb. I have no official confirmation of this report.
It will be recalled, however, that about a week ago it was indicated both in the United States and here in Canada that there was a possibility that within a very short period the Chinese government would detonate such a nuclear bomb. At that time I took occasion to draw attention to the provisions of article IV of the partial test ban treaty signed in August a year ago in Moscow by three of the great powers and later adhered to by 102 nations.
If a bomb has been detonated in China it will add to the radioactivity of the atmosphere, with all its consequences. I would hope-the government of Canada would hope -that no country already adhering to the test ban treaty would use this event as an occasion to withdraw its support of the test ban provisions.
In response to the final part of the hon. gentleman's question I can only say that I
9116	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry agree that this event confirms the desirability of mainland China itself supporting the test ban treaty.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the Canadian government intend to initiate any steps to encourage the bringing of the government of mainland China into the United Nations by itself establishing diplomatic relations with the government of China?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question, likewise, is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that recent news reports indicate that many officials personally appointed by Mr. Khrushchev are today being removed from office, does the minister have any word for the house with regard to developments in the Soviet union and the possible effect of these events upon the general world situation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this morning I had a visit from the ambassador of the Soviet union in Canada, who informed me that because of ill health Chairman Khrushchev has been relieved of the important responsibilities that were his as head of the government of the Soviet union. The ambassador took the occasion to state that I could be assured, and through me the people of Canada, that the foreign policy of the government of the Soviet union would not change. He also assured me that there would be no reversal of the policy of destalinization.
I	would simply like to add that I intimated to the ambassador what I proposed to say in the house this morning; that it will be important to see if the new leaders will have the will to move forward toward a peaceful resolution of the basic issues such as disarmament, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the division of Germany, which are so important in the future of our world. I can assure the new leaders that the Canadian government, and I am sure other western countries as well, will be prepared and indeed happy to work with them in patiently exploring and implementing peaceful and equitable solutions of these vital issues.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sorry I was not able to get in touch with him to give him notice. Is the conference on peace keeping operations to take place in Ottawa on November 2 and 3, as set out quite fully in an article in the Globe and Mail this morning; and does that very interesting article written by Mr. Stanley Westall accurately set out the plans and prospects for this conference?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article in question; therefore I am not in a position to comment on it.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, then, whether the minister would at some time make a statement to the house in respect of this conference. I would particularly suggest to the minister that he tell the house whether members of the opposition who are interested in this conference might be allowed to be present as observers. The conference is said in this article to be a low key conference, but perhaps that would not prevent members of the opposition being present.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, if I had a certain quality of humour I would of course say, in answer to the last comment of the hon. member, that this would be one good reason why the opposition should be present; but as I do not possess that type of sense of humour I will not make the observation.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Will the conference take place?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said in the house about a week ago, in answer to a question, that we fully anticipated that the conference would open on November 2. We had at that time unofficial information from some 11 countries of their willingness to accept formal invitations to attend. Formal invitations have now gone out, and I have no reason for believing that the conference will not take place on November 2.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Min-

ister of Justice whether in the course of an interview on the C.B.C. yesterday, dealing in particular with the formula for the amendment of the constitution, he was asked a question to this effect: "Does this formula mean that the door is now open for an associate state?" And did he reply thereto in approximately these words: "You might put it that way"?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I wonder whether, in the course of the relaxed and co-operative atmosphere which apparently prevailed in his discussions with the attorneys general, he discussed with them his views as to the necessity of finding a wider area if he is going to properly enforce the law with regard to restrictive trade practices; and did he ask any of the provincial attorneys general whether they were prepared to surrender any of their jurisdiction so he could secure this wider jurisdiction that he indicated he needs?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the restrictive trade practices commission was not, of course, on the agenda at the discussion and was not part of the discussion. As to whether any part of the formula, once it has been enacted, will be of some use in this direction will be left to the interpreters of the formula.
Mr. R. Gordon L. Fair weather (Royal): A
supplementary question. What consideration was given by the premiers and the attorneys general to the proposal for the entrenchment of the bill of rights in the new constitution?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the participants in the conference-I am not speaking just for myself when I ask for fairness-I think it would be a good thing for all members concerned to wait until the report on the deliberations and discussions has been published and circulated, because certainly most of the answers to these very interesting questions will be given in the text.


Mr. Fairweather:: When will that be?


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A supplementary question. I wonder if the minister would advise the house whether the formula which has been agreed upon by the minister and the provinces will contain provisions which
Inquiries of the Ministry will permit the acquisition of associate state status by Quebec or any other province or provinces in Canada.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the formula has nothing to do with the implications of the question just asked, and I think the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) can draw his own conclusions by reading the proposed formula, without having to ask my opinion on this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice, who was somewhat more generous in the information he gave in the course of this interview yesterday than he is to the House of Commons today, if he was not asked whether the formula would permit of an associate state in Canada. I simply ask him whether he was asked that question.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken that question was asked, even though I cannot remember exactly in what terms. Again, in this case I think the actual wording should be given in reply to the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad the minister suggests that. Now I would ask the Secretary of State whether he will secure from the C.B.C. a copy of the interview which was given yesterday by the Minister of Justice on the program "Aujourd'hui" and have it tabled in the house. We have the co-operation of the minister now.


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: I will see if I can satisfy the right hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker.



FAILURE TO INCLUDE FISHERIES REPRESENTATIVE IN MISSION TO CARIBBEAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the importance of the fishing industry to the economy of Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces generally, and the necessity in view of foreign competition to constantly expand our markets, will the minister inform the house why a representative of the fresh and salt fishing industry was not included in the trade mission sponsored by

Inquiries of the Ministry his department which leaves tomorrow for a three week visit to Bermuda, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Trinidad and Barbados?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The question was also put to me by one of my colleagues, and I am trying to ascertain the answer.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask the minister whether he would be kind enough to arrange, as early as possible and for as many members who may desire to participate, a tour of St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary so that all members may have a chance to see at first hand the deplorable conditions which exist there.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think I succeeded in arranging a pretty successful tour the other day for the hon. member for Skeena. As to his question this morning, 1 will give it consideration.



KINGSTON, ONT.-INQUIRY AS TO NEW CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. Has a final decision yet been taken on the construction of the proposed new complex of buildings for penitentiary facilities at Kingston? If this has not yet been done, will he make plans to assure that he will get the most knowledgeable advice on the design and structure of these new buildings?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, as to the first part of the question I must say that a final decision as to the exact nature of the complex and as to the plans has not yet been made by myself. With regard to the obtaining of advice, I must say that already specialist consultants from the United States have given their advice on the matter of plans and designs, but I repeat that as far as I am concerned I have yet to make my final decision thereon.


Siegfried John Enns: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to allow


a parliamentary committee to have a look at the plans and inspect them? Is there going to be an opportunity to do this?


Guy Favreau: I am seriously considering the question of a parliamentary committee on the matter of prisons and penitentiaries.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that according to the newspapers tenders have closed for the new penal institution at Springhill and there is an indication that there will be a delay of some six weeks before treasury board can approve the low bidder's contract, I wonder if the minister could look into this in the hope of speeding up the process of investigating these tenders and making an award at an earlier date.


Guy Favreau: I will, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. What steps have been taken or what steps are contemplated to prevent the closing later this month of the International Precision Company at Belleville, Ontario, thereby making it necessary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: -for some 70 skilled craftsmen to seek new employment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a question for the order paper.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is a very urgent question because later this month this plant will be closed and these men will be out of work.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: What is going to be done about it? That is the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If I am not mistaken this question has been asked two or three times before.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I should like to give notice to debate this matter at the first opportunity.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to

the Acting Minister of Transport. In view of the announcement by the Canadian Pacific Railway that they intend to reduce severely the passenger train service between Calgary and Lethbridge and between Lethbridge and Medicine Hat, would the minister consider requiring the board of transport commissioners to issue an order granting a little more time to the people involved to make representations to the board? I might say that this reduction in service is to become effective on October 21.


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the act, the minister has no power to require the board of transport commissioners to take such action. However, 1 will draw the hon. member's statement to the attention of the board right away.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister suggest to the railways at the same time that there be a moratorium on all passenger service cancellations until this matter has been thoroughly discussed on the bill which is going to be debated very shortly?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I can pass on the hon. member's statement to the railways, but I doubt that the two matters are related in a way that would warrant that kind of action being taken.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there are several other supplementary questions, but perhaps I could give notice to debate this matter at the adjournment hour.


George James McIlraith: Not tonight.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary secretary. Would he inform the house if the development plans for Jasper townsite to be announced in Jasper on Monday are based on the Oberlander report commissioned in 1962? If so, would he agree to table the report in the house, as was done in the case of a similar report for the Banff townsite?


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary lo Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, when the
Inquiries of the Ministry announcement is made I think it will probably answer the hon. member's question. I will bring the second part of his question, having to do with the tabling of the report, to the minister's attention on his return.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question on a related topic. Is the minister aware that there is a movement under way by public spirited citizens to make all the lots between Caribou street and Wolf street in Banff town-site available to the government of Canada for conversion into a beautiful park open to all visitors to Banff national park? If so, will the minister bring this subject-


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -to the attention of the Banff advisory council when he meets them next week? I ask this question Mr. Speaker, because I do not think the minister will be back in the house before he meets with the Banff advisory council.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware of the situation and will be discussing the matter with the Banff advisory council when he is there.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can I take it from the remarks of the parliamentary secretary that the minister is meeting the Banff advisory council on October 23, or around that time?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, he has offered to meet the council, and I would hope that a meeting will take place.



INQUIRY AS TO GREATER SUPPORT FOR TRAINING IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that for the second time Canadians have unexpectedly won gold medals at the Olympic games, in bobsledding last winter and in rowing yesterday, is the government giving consideration to more support for athletic events in Canada, particularly in preparation for the Olympic games?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree that it is so surprising. We have a great many very excellent athletes who are competing in the Olympics and I am sure we are all very proud of them, particularly of the

Inquiries of the Ministry two young men who in their second race together were able to win a gold medal tor Canada.
The government, of course, is always considering improvement of the fitness and amateur sport program. As my hon. friend knows, each year another $1 million is added until the $5 million originally planned has been expended. It is obvious that even when the $5 million is reached this will be insufficient to provide all the money necessary for capital works or for other uses to which money might be put, but the fact is that the government is from time to time giving increasing attention to the possibility of expanding this program.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, what did the hon. member mean by "unexpected" when it is Vancouver that is involved? Our athletes have won a gold medal and a bronze medal.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that in both cases, the bobsled team last winter and the rowing team this fall, the participants had difficulty in getting themselves and their equipment to the Olympics?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but that obviously did not deter them from carrying off the highest awards, and this situation is far from unique to Canada.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister of Justice advise the house whether the government is planning to give Hal Banks a gold medal for bail jumping?



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the pending S.I.U. elections I wonder whether the minister has now made a decision to bring the trustees before a standing or special committee of the House of Commons at this time, particularly since Mr. Banks has now shown up in New York and has his judicial thumb on some aspects of the election.


John George Diefenbaker: How do you know the government knows?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Por-tage-Neepawa.
[Miss LaMarsh.l


Siegfried John Enns: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, did the Minister of Labour hear my question? I asked him whether he was intending to bring the maritime trustees before a standing committee of the House of Commons, and I think it is an important question.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I heard the question. I answered it two days ago.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with respect to a question I put to the Minister of Labour today. Briefly, I asked him was it the intention of the government to bring the maritime trustees before a special or standing committee of the House of Commons to be questioned on matters affecting the S.I.U.
The minister said he had answered this question two days ago. I have checked Hansard very carefully, and this is the first opportunity I have to bring the matter to Your Honour's attention. My question was entirely different from the question put to the minister two days ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for Kootenay West. The minister has tried to mislead the house. He has been evasive and, above all, he has been most arrogant in his evasion so far as this matter is concerned. It is arrogance of the worst kind.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister, because it is a matter covering several departments. It has to do with the Kitsilano reserve property in Vancouver. Is it correct that a statement has been made in this connection indicating that the government will lease 15 acres of the 26 acre Kitsilano reserve site for a 99 year period to the city of Vancouver for park use at one dollar per year; that the C.B.C. will lease the buildings on this property from the city of Vancouver for a period of 10 to 15 years at an annual rental of $52,000 per year, and that the balance of the 26 acre site, namely 11 acres, on which the defence buildings stand, will be purchased by Vancouver for $250,000?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot confirm the details of the report to which my hon. friend refers, but as he knows there was a meeting a short time ago with representatives of Vancouver and as a result of that meeting an arrangement, which it is hoped will be mutually satisfactory, is being considered. We expect to be able to make an announcement shortly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask-


Robert William Prittie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burn-aby-Richmond on a point of order.


Robert William Prittie: On September 30 the hon. member for New Westminster attempted to ask a question about the C.B.C. and the Kitsilano site. He was ruled out of order and was told to put it on the order paper. I suggest that if that ruling applied then, it should apply on this occasion.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate the fact that someone in left field has given some information, Mr. Speaker, but this has to do with an agreement which I understand was made-


Robert William Prittie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a valid objection.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Leader of the Opposition has a right to ask this question. He is asking for confirmation or denial of a fact, and the other question asked by the hon. member for New Westminster was one seeking detailed information, I believe.


Frank Howard: Favouritism.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw that remark. I ask the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw the remark that the Chair has ruled on a favouritism basis.


Frank Howard: I will gladly bow to your request, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: I wanted to ask the Prime Minister in this connection if he would consider having this question submitted to a committee of the house for consideration, in view of the fact that if this suggestion is implemented it will cost the people of Canada, through the C.B.C., $5 million or $6 million, and there is a property available downtown that would not cost the Dominion of Canada anything.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, all these aspects of the matter have been and are being
Inquiries of the Ministry considered in regard to the proposed arrangement. If an arrangement can be agreed upon, as I believe it will be, I am sure this aspect of the matter will have been taken into-consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: May I ask the Minister of National Defence if he can give the house a firm date upon which he will make an announcement concerning the second part of the Suttie report; because I am sure the operation of the militia is being seriously and adversely affected by the delay in an announcement of cut-backs in militia units.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I am sure the hon. gentleman, after his long years of experience in this house, would never really suggest that such a course should be followed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask a supplementary question. The minister may have noted that I asked him if he could give us a firm date.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was surprised that the hon. gentleman asked that question, Mr. Speaker. I have already indicated that we will make this information available as soon as we can.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to pose a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and ask him whether he has any views to indicate to the house relating to a report that, because of a receding glacier, there is now a salt water port extending through the panhandle of Alaska into Canadian territory, and whether any plans for the development of such a port are being made.


Mr. Speaker:: Surely the hon. member knows this is a question for the order paper.


Frank Howard: On a question of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it is a question for the order paper. I posed it in all seriousness. If you suggest I put it on the order paper, I will.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should
know this is a typical question for the order paper.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: May I ask the
Minister of Justice if he is now prepared to answer the question I put to him yesterday concerning the escape of confidential documents from department files to the press?


Guy Favreau: No,
Mr. Speaker, but I have asked for a report on this. I shall be able to answer on Monday, probably.



INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS OF POLICE BRUTALITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the attorney general of the province of Quebec has ordered an investigation into alleged brutality by police in connection with the visit of Her Majesty the Queen, and in view of the fact that the federal government was in charge of security arrangements, is the Minister of Justice ordering a similar investigation?


Guy Favreau: report is forthcoming to me.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if he or the superintendent of the R.C.M. Police have received any complaints in this regard, either from citizens or from the press corps who were in attendance at the royal visit?


Guy Favreau: So far as I am concerned, in relation to the R.C.M.P., I have received no complaints about police activities. One must realize, first of all, that local policing is under the immediate jurisdiction of the local authorities and the Quebec attorney general, and it is proper that he should have initiated the investigation into the matter. In so far as the R.C.M.P. are concerned, no complaints have been received by the Minister of Justice but numerous congratulations have been received on the conduct of the R.C.M.P. in relation to the whole coverage of the Queen's visit.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries arising out of a reply he gave me yesterday to a question on the matter of base lines for fishing zones. The minister indicated that negotiations have been going on with Norway and Denmark. My question arises out of my recollection that he indicated earlier that negotiations with the United States on this subject had been completed. I am wondering, inasmuch as Norway, Denmark and these other countries are not involved on the west coast of Canada, if he could not indicate that some action is being taken at an early date with regard to the proclamation of base lines for the west coast.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: No, Mr. Speaker, no action will be taken until all negotiations have been completed.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, which has to do with the relationship between the government and parliament. As hon. members are aware, on several occasions during the course of this session I raised the question of some final enactment by Canada as a sovereign nation in case a decision is made to repatriate our constitution. In particular I asked whether this matter would be discussed at certain recent conferences.
On Monday, August 17, as recorded in Hansard at pages 6909 and 6910, I put a question to the Prime Minister about this matter. In particular I asked him whether it would be discussed at Charlottetown, and he said that it would be. That answer is found on page 6910 of Hansard.
After the Charlottetown conference was over I asked the Prime Minister a question regarding it, which will be found on page 7608 of Hansard for Thursday, September 3. To be precise, I asked him whether this matter had been discussed. This was the answer of the Prime Minister:

That matter was mentioned, but it was not discussed in any detail. It will certainly be considered by the attorneys general and the Minister of Justice.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, September 30, I asked the Minister of Justice whether this matter would be on the agenda of the then pending conference of the minister with the attorneys general of the provinces. My question is found at page 8609 of Hansard for that date. It was a bit lengthy and I do not need to read it, but it was the same question; would the matter of Canada taking a final stand herself be discussed at the then pending conference. The minister's reply was also lengthy. He went into certain details, but he concluded with these sentences:
But I must say I am very ready to consider the matter and to raise the point at the conference as it has been raised by my hon. friend. This once more goes to show how useful these discussions are.
Twice by the Prime Minister and once by the Minister of Justice the house was given the assurance that this matter would be discussed at these conferences. Yesterday, as recorded at page 9073 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Justice whether the matter had been discussed. The operative portion of his answer reads as follows:
No, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest that if the government had no intention of raising this matter at the recent conferences it could have told the house so, but what has happened is that the house was told on three occasions that it would be done. Yesterday we learned that it was not done. My point of privilege is surely quite clear. Parliament deserves better than this at the hands of the government.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $5,180,500.
Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, last evening at ten o'clock I was discussing a few unfair facets of the department's administration in their application to the national economy. About ten years ago a Liberal administration gave permission to the Del Monte company of California, a large food processing company in the United States, to buy out Canadian Canners, close down some canneries and thus cut off a large economic market for Canadian farmers. I mentioned this matter last
Supply-Trade and Commerce night with particular reference to the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox, where many factories were closed down.
I also discussed the vast outflow of union dues to the United States. These matters seem to complement one another, the closing up of Canadian industries by U.S. financial interests and the multimillion dollar flow of union dues from Canadian industry to the United States. The minister mentioned the progress made by Canadian industry, but in doing so I think his eyesight was in reverse. What a wonderful thing it would be for Canada if we could rid ourselves of United States industrial colonialism.
I am not against unions and I realize their necessity to collect dues for their funds, but I submit the unions should be strictly Canadian in nature, investing their money at home and drawing interest on it in Canada. Once their funds pass beyond our boundaries they are nothing but a detriment to our country. Only a very small proportion is returned to Canada in the form of payments made to union employees whenever they are on strike, and I would remind members of the committee that strikes per capita are less frequent in Canada than they are in the great republic to the south of us.
How long will we have to put up with this economic system of industrial colonialism? Lately we have heard a lot about repatriating our constitution. I say let us repatriate those millions of dollars which are going out of the country in the form of union dues, and which are a detriment to our economy because they represent a good share of our adverse trade relationship with the United States.
One of the main causes of the high cost of living is the taxation of business and industry. Increased taxation of industry by the government is an impediment to the export of our manufactured products to other countries, especially to those countries which have a more frugal and less luxurious standard of living than we enjoy. I pause here to congratulate Canada in this regard. We certainly have a very high standard of living here compared with the other countries with which we trade and with which we enjoy a preponderance of trade in our favour.
Does Canada know just what the end cost of high living will be? Will the Canadian people allow their government to tax them into oblivion, to tax them and their industry into a state where they sit among their luxury items of high living beside silent machines

Supply-Trade and Commerce which will no longer feed them and no longer allow the people even a plain living, let alone a luxurious one?
In conclusion there is one further point I wish to bring to the attention of the committee. It concerns taxation. Retailers of our country are concerned with all aspects of income tax and general taxation because of their pervasive influence on the economy of Canada and their impact on the profitability of small businesses. The small businessman is in narrow straits at the present time, and I would remind the committee, despite all the progress which has been made and despite the rosy picture which the minister has painted, that 1964 seems to hold the record for the number of bankruptcies this country has experienced; and most of these failures have been in the area of small business. Small businessmen are concerned that the burden of taxation should not exceed their ability to pay while remaining dynamically competitive, and they are anxious to ensure that the burden of business income tax is distributed equitably among all those who are engaged in business.
I realize these remarks do not apply directly to the department whose estimates are before us, but I pointed out last night the close liaison which is necessary between the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Finance, and that is why I bring these observations to the attention of the minister so that he may pass them on to his colleague, the Minister of Finance.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to discuss one single matter at this time. It touches the minister's department in three ways; first, with reference to the balance of payments in international trade; second, with regard to the government travel bureau; and third, with respect to the dominion bureau of statistics.
The subject I wish to mention, or one particular aspect of it, is the most alarming feature of our foreign trade at the present time, the state of the balance of payments on travel between Canada and other countries, particularly the United States. An examination of the figures provided by the dominion bureau of statistics discloses what I consider to be a real mystery which someone will have to analyze and solve very quickly. In 1960 Canada had a debit balance on travel with other countries amounting to $207 million, which was high. In 1961 this debit balance declined to $160 million. By 1962 it had gone down further to $43 million, and in 1963 the balance of the scales was tipped to the other side and for the first time in many years we

had a credit balance of approximately $13 million. The trend was in the right direction and the trend was good.
Just who should take the credit is unimportant. I could say, I suppose, that the trend had been started in 1960 and had carried on through 1963. But I do not think that in the realm of travel, government influence through the travel bureau, which is mainly an advertising agency, accounts for everything. So we have to look somewhere else to explain the situation I am now about to outline.
What is the situation in 1964? We do not, of course, have the figures for more than the first half of the year, but the figures we do have are shocking. In the first half of 1963 Canada experienced a debit balance of $90 million on travel. In the first half of 1964 there was a debit balance in the amount of $145 million, a very substantial increase. In the first quarter of 1964 the debit amounted to $96 million, the highest for over ten years. If we look back to the first quarter of 1963 we find the debit of $67 million was the lowest debit balance in the first quarter of the year for seven years. The second quarter of 1963 showed a debit of $23 million, the lowest for more than ten years. Then, as I have stated, in 1964 this debit increased substantially in the first quarter. It more than doubled in the second quarter. We do not yet have the figures for the third quarter in 1964 because it is too soon to have these returns, but from what I can gather the indications are that the picture will be no better.
Certainly travel was discouraged by a number of factors, one of which was bad weather. However, there were other factors, as I intend to show. As I said, the figures present something of a mystery because when one looks at the number of vehicles travelling between Canada and the United States, the number of people travelling by bus, air and rail, one finds that the difference between this year and previous years is not very great. In the first half of 1963 the number of vehicles of U.S. visitors was
1.120.000.	In the first half of 1964 it was
1.252.000.	This represents an increase of 11 per cent. Likewise the number of Canadians returning from the United States shows an increase between 1963 and 1964, in the first half of each year, of 11.4 per cent. This is roughly the same as the increase in the number of vehicles entering and leaving. Likewise the number of short term visitors, people who go and come the same day, amounted

to 1,693,000 in the first half of 1963. In the first half of 1964 the figure was 1,794,000, an increase of about 6 per cent. In the same category, vehicles returning from abroad showed an increase of 8.3 per cent, slightly higher but not much. So this alarming deficit to which I have referred cannot be accounted for on the basis of the numbers travelling between Canada and the United States.
In connection with dollars spent, in 1962 for the first half of the year we were in deficit in the amount of $133 million; in 1963 it was down to $90 million; in 1964 it is up to $145 million. I am referring to the deficit between those who travel abroad and those who visit Canada. We cannot seem to find out where the problem lies. Certainly it is not in the number of people travelling. Can it be that there are more people travelling abroad than we have been able to entice to visit us in Canada?
As I say, Mr. Chairman, this is a serious problem. The trend was going very well and the situation had been improving for the last four or five years, but this year it has reversed itself and the deficit is again back in the upward direction. I do not think, for example, that for the first half of the year you can blame this on the weather because the damage to the tourist business in Canada, generally speaking, is done in the summer. While there was an increasing amount of winter travel, it was in the wrong direction in 1964.
I think one of the reasons is that we are not taking enough interest in interprovincial travel within Canada. This is not something that the travel bureau has in general interested itself in over the years. Being a Canadian organization under the federal government they have occupied themselves, and rightly so, with bringing people from abroad into Canada. But I think the figures I have just quoted indicate the obvious trend, and I suggest that we have to make a more definite effort to keep within this country some of these people who travel abroad.
I think a very excellent example of this type of thing was the confederation centennial conference in Charlottetown, this year. I was one who took advantage of the invitation from the province of Prince Edward Island to visit them with my family this year, in spite of the fact that parliament was sitting every day and had sat continuously since February 18. Despite this I managed to find a week end and a few days at each end of it to get away and visit this province. I think
Supply-Trade and Commerce it was an excellent example of what we can do within Canada interprovincially; because a great many people who went to Prince Edward Island and whom I met there in a very short space of time said they had come because of the centennial arrangements in that province and the promise of good fellowship and a great welcome from the kind people in the maritime provinces and particularly in P.E.I. I think this also did a good deal for the other provinces of Canada which were in the line of travel.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, this is the answer, and I am raising the problem today to urge the minister, through the travel bureau and perhaps through government policy-because I think there will have to be a change in that policy-to make a greater effort to have Canadians spend their holidays in Canada. Often an affluent society, people who do well and make money, have the ambition to go elsewhere to spend their money. I have no doubt that this is part of the problem; that a great many of our people who have done well and have travelled either in their business or on holidays, have decided "I am going to take a holiday and I am going to Florida", or California or Europe or some other place outside Canada. This of course is something no one can prevent them doing; but I think the time has come when a sharp change in direction is called for if we are going to do anything about changing this deficit in travel account. The minister can go out and sell hard products that this country has to sell and at the same time be met with a deficit that is undoing all the benefit being created in other fields. In my opinion we have to take this aspect of the problem into very serious consideration.
There is one other matter I wish to raise, and I do so at this point because of the fact that I have always been interested in the tourist business and have a special interest in those people in the northeastern Georgian bay area who are operators of tourist establishments relying upon access by water, rental of boats, use of marinas and other water uses connected with the travel and tourist business. These people had a very bad summer this year. I am sure this will influence the figures we may get for the third quarter of the year. Many of them had very expensive operations to maintain, and they could not get their customers to the water to go boating; they had to send them to other places. Many people who heard of the low water problem

Supply-Trade and Commerce did not come at all; others came and stayed a much shorter period of time than before.
This is one factor, and it is a serious one. My reason for raising this question now is that the problem these people face in trying to attract clients for their businesses is caused by the low water levels of Georgian bay and lake Huron. This particular group for some reason is the most hard hit of all. I am given to understand that it has to do with their location, the prevailing winds, and so forth; but they were very hard hit.
It is possible to approach any department of government to get any assistance for these people. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources say "Well, there is not much we can do about it. We will try to get the water levels back, but this problem is not our affair". The Department of Public Works say "We will keep main entrances to navigation channels and main harbours open, but that is all we can do". The Department of Transport say "We are only concerned with major navigation, and not minor". So there is no particular place to which these people can go for assistance, though I must say that they will be encouraged to come here and present a brief to the committee on mines, forests and waters that is being set up.
I am raising this matter now because this is a group of people to whom the government should consider giving some special assistance. They are not asking for remuneration for loss of business; they are asking for some help in restoring the facilities that either nature or the government-or someone-took away from them. Whether they were taken away by natural causes, or by the deepening of the St. Lawrence seaway, or by any one of a number of other causes thus far suggested is immaterial. For a very small amount in comparison these people can be helped, and I hope the minister will take this particular group into account. This matter does require government consideration, not just the consideration of one department. There are various other groups who have also suffered this year, mainly because of weather and for the many other reasons which have been publicly stated.
I should like the minister if he can, or in consultation with his department, to tell me what has brought about this reversal of the balance of payments on travel account, and also to tell me what the government is going to do to correct it. There are two problems involved. One of them is money, which of


course is always important in the balance of payments. The second is the travel industry itself, which as everyone knows is the third largest producer of foreign currency in Canada. I think we have to find out what is the reason for this reversal. It may be that too many people are travelling abroad. If so, I suggest the government should undertake a special campaign to encourage people to travel in Canada, and this is only one suggestion which could be made.
Having watched this matter very carefully for quite a number of years I had reason to feel, even as late as last fall, that we were making progress in the travel field and were creating something of benefit to the national economy. We were reducing this terrible deficit which had been hanging over our heads for a number of years; but then when the figures for 1964 started to come out they showed a very marked and tragic reversal. This does not mean, of course, that our travel business has fallen off; there has been an increase, a very satisfactory increase, in travel in Canada. But unfortunately at the same time there has been a greater increase in money spent on travel abroad. I think a crash program on this one subject is called for, and I hope the minister and his department will find the answer.


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Chairman, if I may I should like to ask the minister a question having to do with wheat prices. May I ask him for the weekly prices of wheat, particularly in the 1963-64 crop year, and also for the dates of the major sales, including sales to Russia, Britain and China.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a few remarks, before the minister replies, relating to some of the comments made by my colleague the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I think his were the first remarks on the importance of tourism in the Canadian trade and commerce picture, and I would not want this important aspect of Canada's economy to be neglected.
It is, of course, a well known fact that tourism is the largest single item in international trade, and it is only in recent years that the government of Canada has become fully aware of its importance to our trading position. As a matter of fact, for many years this economic factor was neglected in a shocking manner and the Canadian government travel bureau, which was founded in the 1930's, became the orphan of departmental branches. It rotated from department to

department because no one could appreciate its tremendous economic impact. It was not until it settled in the new Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in the early 1950's that fresh appreciation of its economic significance was gained by the government. I think perhaps it was due to the fact that the whole concept of the establishment of the department of resources was to think in terms of the economic aspects of our resources and to begin planning in a coordinated and organized manner. The new awareness was also associated with the revolution of rising expectations which occurred following world war II and the lure of Canada's wilderness in an age of growing leisure time.
I was interested to hear the comments of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, who drew the attention of the committee to the rather encouraging change in the statistical position of Canada's tourist industry in recent years, when for the first time in many long years we came pretty close to having a balanced position on the international tourist account. He is aware, of course, as I am sure are the members of the committee, that this happy situation resulted from a vigorous stepped-up promotional program on the part of the Canadian government travel bureau. I think Canada is very fortunate in the men who are serving her in this bureau. In the few years I was associated with them as the responsible minister for northern affairs I began fully to appreciate their dedication to this important economic activity.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I cannot give any explanation of the reversal in our international tourist account situation referred to by my colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka. It might be that the United States market, upon which Canada had substantially depended until 1962, has reached the saturation point. Until 1962 the government of Canada exerted all its efforts in tourist promotion in the direction of the United States market, and there was a constant program of expansion of promotional activities. Perhaps the minister, when he replies, can give the committee some idea from his up to date contact with these statistics why it is that the position has reversed itself this year following the more favourable statistical position noted last year and for the past several years.
Perhaps he could also indicate just how far the program of expanding our tourist
Supply-Trade and Commerce promotion activities in the United States market has been developed. I know there were plans afoot and some already implemented to extend and expand the bureaux in the United States. The opening which took place in 1961 in California, which has now become the most populous state of the union, was to be the forerunner of other similar developments in the United States market. I have not seen any official announcement with regard to the opening of an office in Minneapolis to cover the important midwestern United States market, but I know this is in contemplation. I am sure, as has been the case in the tapping of the California market, that it will make a large contribution toward redressing the unfortunate trend referred to by my good friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka.
I have been reading any statements on the subject of tourism that have become available, particularly from the minister's office, and I have been pleased to see that he is personally dedicated to the continuation of this development. I am also pleased that in a recent series of speeches in which he has referred to Canada's booming economy he has given top attention to the important contribution made by Canada's expanding tourist industry. He has also given credit where credit is due, to the "Diefendollar" which was brought into effect in 1962. I think this is one of the main reasons for the sudden, encouraging expansion referred to by my friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka. This had an amazing psychological impact on United States tourists who for several years had laboured under the disadvantage, more psychological than economic, of the artificially inflated Canadian dollar on the international financial market.
I am sure that the decision of the government party to continue the "Diefendollar", notwithstanding their rather strident and almost hysterical criticism while in opposition, indicates that they have put aside political considerations in the interests of economic and fiscal reality. I am also sure that if this is accompanied by a continuation and expansion of the vigorous promotional program begun a few years ago in the United States market we will once again see a surge forward and a continuation of the trend toward a more balanced relationship on international account.
There is one further question I should like to raise. In 1962 a five year plan was launched by an announcement at the annual conference of provincial and federal tourist organizations. The plan was geared to coincide with the celebration of Canada's centennial

Supply-Trade and Commerce in 1967. I notice that the minister now refers to it in his speeches as a three year plan, but back in 1962 it was actually known as the five year plan. There has just been a change in the numerical designation.


Mitchell William Sharp: Last year it was four years.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is a change in the numerical designation. I remember the optimistic prophecies envisaging a figure of $1 billion in tourist earnings by 1967, confederation year, which were made at the commencement of the five year plan. I wonder how we are progressing along the road to a realization of the $1 billion target. I am on the side of the optimists in this regard. I think it will be quite easy to realize this figure so long as the government continues the vigorous promotional campaign which accompanied the launching of the program in 1962.
To my mind an integral part of the success of such a promotion is a rapid development of the new market in Europe. The decision was made to move into tourist promotion in the European market for the first time in 1962. If it is true, as the figures for the current year seem to suggest, that we are reaching the saturation point in the United States market, it is all the more urgent that we move forward with all possible speed to expand the program in Europe. We only have three years left in which to prepare Europeans for their friendly invasion of Canada in 1967.
The first opening occurred in London in September of 1962 and was to have been followed by similar openings in Paris and the capitals of other major European countries. I hope this program is going forward just as fast as is physically possible. I know there is a feeling of dedication among the officials of the Canadian government travel bureau, and I know that if support is available from the public treasury there is no limit to their dedication and enthusiasm with regard to the realization of the ambitious $1 billion target first announced in conjunction with the five year plan.
Become I resume my seat I should like to pay tribute to the private enterprisers in the important field of tourist development. The Canadian tourist association has played a major and expanding role in realizing the importance of tourism to the Canadian economy. I can understand the anxiety of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka with respect to interprovincial tourist trade, and there is no group more conscious of the economic importance of this aspect of tourism

than the Canadian tourist association. It is a theme that I think might well be pursued as it has been pursued in the past; and in view of the statistics indicating a reversal of the trend this year it might be taken as one of the important topics to be considered at the annual federal-provincial conference on tourism which, according to the usual schedule, should be just around the comer.


Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Chairman, in entering the debate at this time I am sure it will be appreciated that, as a member of parliament from British Columbia, my primary interest in trade development is in its effect on the economy of western Canada and the Pacific province in particular. Mine is not a narrow, regional interest, but rather in the substantial effect such trade development could have on the nation and the effect the accelerated development of the Pacific region could have on the growth of the nation as a whole.
I know that the minister has shown an awareness of the importance of Pacific policies. He was recently in Japan, and he knows the value of the sales of western grain to China and other Pacific markets. However, I wonder if he has not found, as he has turned his attention to the development of trade and commerce in that region, that we have never had in Canada, and we do not have now, a truly developed policy for the entire Pacific area, a policy that relates not simply to trade and commerce but to every other field of Canadian policy in relation to our Pacific neighbours. As we go beyond the direct field of trade and commerce and develop other policies that are required, such as external affairs policy, immigration policy and fisheries policy, we provide a basis upon which trade policies will be developed over a period of years. In a speech in Montreal on May 21 of this year Dr. Arthur J. R. Smith, director of the Economic Council of Canada, said:
Traditionally, Canadian interest in international economic affairs has been concentrated on the United States. Over recent years, dynamic developments in western Europe have obviously stimulated greatly increased attention by Canadians to economic affairs across the Atlantic. But no comparable accentuation of Canadian interest has appeared in economic affairs across the Pacific-and especially in the dramatic changes which have been taking place in the Japanese economy.
I think that is a valid criticism of Canadian policy in so far as it relates to the development of our interests throughout the entire Pacific basin. While I agree it is not the direct responsibility of the Minister of Trade

and Commerce to take into account those things that come within the jurisdiction of other ministers in the government, it is his responsibility to be very much aware of all the elements of policy that will assist him in the development of policies for Canada in the trade field. I feel that the minister probably is aware of this. I hope in his discussions he has encountered the necessity for this; for this is a policy area to which we must devote far greater attention than we have in the past.
I believe there are many elements that have to be taken into account in providing a basis for the expansion of our interests in the Pacific. We have to consider trade policies with nations both bordering upon and located within Pacific regions. This includes the states of the United States on the Pacific coast, and not forgetting for one moment the state of Alaska. We must consider the relationship of Canadian foreign policy to those policies already established by Canada's commonwealth partners in the Pacific and the United States; foreign aid programs now in effect, with special emphasis on expansion of aid programs to commonwealth nations in the Pacific, including southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent; north Pacific fisheries policy; the development of the interchange of peoples through educational aid programs and, as has just been emphasized, tourist travel; accelerated development of west coast harbour facilities, including northern and island ports; improved highway communication between the west coast and north central B.C. and the northern resource areas of the prairie provinces and the Peace river region of B.C. and Alberta; the exploration of either the feasibility or desirability of seeking a corridor through the Alaska Panhandle with free port facilities on the coast to tap the potential resources of northwestern British Columbia and the Yukon.
It is quite obvious that the suggestions I have made do not fall within the ministerial responsibility of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but they do fall within an area in which he is interested. The things I have suggested which should form the elements of policy in the Pacific will have a very definite effect on the expansion of trade in the whole of the Pacific region. I could come back to the question of communications. It will not be possible for the government of Canada to undertake the most advantageous trading arrangements in the Pacific if it is not possible for the newly developing resource areas in
Supply-Trade and Commerce British Columbia, the Yukon and the northern sections of the prairies to get their products rapidly and economically to coastal ports. It will be of no advantage to develop an expanded means of communication-and particularly I am thinking in terms of highway communications to the coast-if the coastal facilities are not adequate to handle the products, particularly the newly developed, highly specialized products that are coming out of our western industries.
These things are essential, and we have to consider them in the development of a trade policy. We have to take into account all these related policies which are part and parcel of our over-all objective, the development of the Canadian economy. I hope when he speaks the minister will indicate whether he is prepared to work together with the other members of the cabinet and with the governments of the provinces of western Canada, including British Columbia, to see what leadership all levels of government can give in the development of an integrated Pacific policy.
It is said that something like two thirds of the world's people live in the Pacific region or adjacent to it. We recognize that the economies of many of the nations in that area are underdeveloped. They are not yet at that point where they can trade with us on an equal basis. We have, however, sound reasons to consider the greater role that Canada may play in helping to improve the economic conditions of those nations, so that in due course we may be able to trade with them on a more equal basis and find markets for Canadian products which do not now exist, or in which we are finding competition from other resource developing nations difficult, or in which tariff policies perhaps are a hindrance.
In any event, when two thirds of the world's people are located in an area to which we have ready access through our Pacific coast, it is about time that Canada really devoted all its resources of knowledge and interest to the development of a policy that will give us a far greater share of the economic activity, political activity, trade activity, immigration and social interchange of people in the entire area. It is absolutely essential that we stop turning our attention completely either to the south or to the Atlantic, and consider that there may be a potential we have tended to overlook in an area that is just as much a part of the Canadian area of interest as any other part of the world.
We must recognize that in tapping trade markets in South America we can reach a

Supply-Trade and Commerce very substantial part of those markets through the Pacific ports. We tend to think of the Pacific ports as shipping wheat to China, as shipping coal and the products of the petroleum chemical industry to Japan, and we forget that those ports provide us with entry not only to the western U.S. markets but also to a very extensive part of the potential South American markets as well. Therefore, by every criteria we can find reason to expand our interest and develop our policy as it applies in the Pacific.
In Dr. Smith's speech, to which I referred earlier, he outlines on the final page what he considers to be the Japanese approach to their economic development in the present world of trade and commerce, of rapidly changing economies and technology. The points he outlines as being the objectives of the Japanese government are, I think, important in the creation of Canadian policy. These are some of the things he suggests the Japanese have done, and which I think we should examine with great care and perhaps adopt ourselves: -a broad capacity among decision makers in both the public and the private sectors of the economy to think in terms of longer range economic probabilities and potentials, and not merely in terms of short term opportunities and problems:
-a broad consensus as to what these potentials are, and what are the chief obstacles to their achievement;
-a broad understanding of the processes of economic growth, underpinned by objective and high quality economic analysis;
-a broad acceptance of the uncertainties and strains of rapid adjustments to change which are an invariable feature of swift economic growth; and
-a broad willingness to support government policies designed to promote economic growth.
If this has been the basis of Japanese policies; if this is what the Japanese people accept, both in public and private life; if this is what they believe they can and must accept to achieve their objectives, then we should be examining these policies as a basis for developing our own policy, because Japan has expanded at the most rapid rate of any nation in economic and industrial growth during the post-war period.
In that context we can think of the development of the Japanese merchant fleet and its shipbuilding industry. These are spectacular things of which those of us who live in the Pacific region are very much aware. We see their ships in our ports. We see the volume of commodities they are carrying to ports all over the world. We know what their strength is as a customer for our products. In B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba we know the importance of their purchases
[Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke) .1

from us, and we are well aware that Japan is buying some $200 million more a year from Canada than Canada is purchasing from it.
This is one nation in the Pacific upon which we have become very dependent in our trading relations, but there are other nations in the Pacific which, over the period of the next decade, will be developing and, if not as rapidly, will be improving their economies so as to enable them to trade on fairly equal terms with us. There will be a tremendous opportunity in those nations for our industries in western Canada, and I assume also for all industry throughout Canada which has developed skills and specialities to the point where it is able to meet the demands of export markets wherever they exist.
Therefore I think we must come back to a very careful analysis of all the elements of government policy in the Pacific if the minister is to achieve the maximum potential of trade policies in that region. I would think that the news which the newspapers have carried during the past few days would be of interest to him, in the sense that he himself should make it of interest to his colleagues the Minister of Public Works and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is the news that the great glacier in Tarr inlet in the Alaska Panhandle has receded at such a rate that it may be the inlet now extends ice free into B.C. and provides us with a corridor to the sea that would give us the shortest communication with the Pacific from the southern Yukon and northern B.C. resource region.
There would, of course, be problems in acquiring port facilities, perhaps even free port facilities in the United States if the recession of ice has not been such as to permit the creation of a port entirely on Canadian soil. This inlet could provide us with a further outlet on the Pacific, and it would tap a region that has had great difficulty in getting its products into world markets because of the problem of having to ship them through U.S. ports, of paying U.S. stevedoring wages, and encountering the difficulty of shipping them to outlets on the Pacific. If we can get the products of that region direct to the ocean, which provides the shortest route of sea communication, rather than having to transport them over railway lines to the more southern ports, then we can reduce the cost of getting raw material and manufactured products into world markets.
A few weeks ago I asked the Minister of Public Works whether any step was being taken to reconvene the conference that was

once held on national highway policy. I was surprised and disappointed when the minister indicated that there was no intention of reconvening the conference nor of proceeding with the national highway policy. It should be of tremendous interest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the question of national highway policy be considered in the context of getting Canadian products to the coastal ports, particularly in this instance to the Pacific coast ports, so as to move them into the markets that are and will be available for Canadian industry.
National highway policy is an integral part of trade policy. It is the part which will assist us to move our products at competitive costs and get them into world markets at more competitive prices than we can at present. This is a question of particular importance to the Pacific coast, where the construction of highways and the integration of a highway system are complicated by extremely rugged terrain, where the combined resources of the best government planning are essential if the network is to achieve its objective.
We on the Pacific coast know that the government of B.C. has gone into the shipping business in a big way through the construction of ferries. It is now moving from the north coast of Vancouver island into Alaska by providing car ferries, thus improving communications between Alaska and the west coast of B.C. But this will not solve the whole problem, and a proper land link between Vancouver island and the mainland appears more necessary as time goes on and pressure of traffic increases.
In the balance of time that may be available to me later in this debate I shall relate this matter to the policies of trade and commerce but now, Mr. Chairman, I note it is one o'clock.


The Chairman:: Order. It is my understanding that this item will stand, and that the committee will go on to other estimates at 2.30.
Item stands.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
L20. Advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection (1) of
Supply-National Revenue
section 37 of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of the acquisition, development, construction and improvement of land and buildings, $216,000.
Lucien Lamoureux: This item will be found on page 517 of the blue book.


Erik Nielsen: Before the committee passes this item I think we might draw to the attention of the minister a few of the inadequacies in national housing, and point out also one or two contrasts between what used to be the program of the national Liberal party as promised during two election campaigns and what has actually happened over the last two years.
Of interest to the committee I am sure is a recent report by the Ontario association of housing authorities which showed that hundreds of thousands of Canadians live in inadequate and substandard housing. An article published in the Montreal Gazette on August 28, 1964 under the heading "Public Housing Policy in Canada Criticized" may be of some assistance since it contains a condensation of the criticisms embodied in the Murray report. I quote from the Gazette of that date:
A report sharply critical of Canada's attitude towards subsidized public housing was presented to the federal government Thursday.
Based on a two year study by the Ontario association of housing authorities-
The length of time taken would certainly indicate that a good deal of care and consideration went into this assessment of national housing ills.
-the hundred thousand word report describes the public housing program as inadequate and late, "bearing absolutely no relationship to any realistic appraisal of the need in Canada."
It blames government inaction and public apathy for the fact that 750,000 families are forced either to live in dilapidated and overcrowded houses or pay an excessive portion of their income to escape bad housing.
It would be interesting to hear the minister's views on this particular criticism contained in the Murray report:
In order to achieve good housing for all Canadians by a 1980 target, 4,000,000 new or rehabilitated dwellings were needed including about 1,000,000 subsidized for low income and ill housed families.
The report tells us:
The study team, headed by Prof. James A. Murray of the University of Toronto, included amongst its recommendations the appointment of a federal minister of urban affairs and housing, a similar minister at the provincial level, and a national housing and urban advisory committee.
I believe the committee would also be interested to hear the minister's views on behalf of the government with regard to this particular recommendation. Perhaps the minister
9132	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Revenue would also inform the committee whether the subject of national public housing was among those matters which were considered at any of the recent federal-provincial conferences and, if not, whether this very pressing matter is to be referred to any such conference which may be held in the future. To continue this article in the Gazette:
The report found that about 87 per cent of Canadian dwellings are of reasonable quality.
But it also estimated that "about 570,000 younger families and 180,000 elderly families in the low income group were living in substandard conditions of dilapidation, doubling-up, overcrowding, or were paying excessive portions of their income to escape bad housing."
Another 170,000 elderly households and individuals were similarly troubled.
The report goes on to say:
"By 1964 Canada, which was the last nation in the western world to embark on assisted housing for low income families or elderly persons, had over a 15 year period laboriously achieved the unimpressive total of some 11,000 units of family-type public housing, 24,000 units of moderate-income housing, 1,000 units of low income co-operative housing and some 6,000 units of elderly persons housing.
Two fifths of 1 per cent of all housing units assembled in the post-war period were public housing units, with rentals subsidized to adjust shelter cost to family income."
I quote further from this article in the Gazette which, in turn, quotes from the report.
The study recommends that Canada should embark on a program which will aim at introducing low income families and elderly persons into the mainstream of community living.
These are matters which have been discussed with the minister and they are matters upon which I, and I am sure all members of the committee, would be interested to hear the minister's views. As far as I am aware, apart from one or two relatively minor alterations in our approach to housing over the last couple of years no policy has been produced to meet the valid criticisms which are contained in the Murray report.
It seems to me to be quite evident that public housing in this country suffers from fragmentation of authority, inability to make decisions and an overlapping and general confusion. We want to know from the minister what the government intends to do in order to clean up the national housing mess. I believe it can properly be called a national housing mess, particularly in the light of the Murray report. One of the more aggravating factors that gives rise to almost insuperable problems as far as the government's inability to cope with this national housing mess is concerned-


Mr. Hahn:: What did you do with it?


Erik Nielsen: My hon. friend from Toronto asks, what did we do with it. There were more housing starts in the few years the Progressive Conservative party held office than at any time in Canada's history. If the hon. member will check the d.b.s. statistics, he will find that this statement is quite accurate. The reason for that is quite evident, too, in the policies that were implemented during the years 1957 to 1963, policies which injected $750 million, for instance-I believe that is an accurate figure; it is that, or more -into the national housing field, policies which allowed residential construction in the north, where hitherto-that is, prior to 1957 -in my own riding, for example, only two N.H.A. homes had been built. Well over 100 were built immediately after 1958.


Mr. More:: Any more interjections?


Erik Nielsen: I say, Mr. Chairman, that we are faced with a national housing mess. The Murray report indicates this quite clearly. At the same time housing prices are pushed irresistibly upward. One of the factors which is causing this upward rise is the action of this government in imposing an 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. This has produced some disastrous results, which is now quite evident from d.b.s. figures that have been published. This situation cries out for rectification. I quote from the Tuesday, September 29, 1964, d.b.s. Daily Bulletin at page 2, where it is set forth that new residential construction in Canada had decreased by 25.1 per cent. The reasons attributed to that decrease are set forth at the bottom of page 2 of that Daily Bulletin as follows:
The upward drift of prices was reinforced in the second quarter. Most of the Increase of about 1 per cent in over-all prices took place in expenditure on gross fixed capital formation (up about 1.5 per cent), largely due to the implementation of the second stage of the sales tax on building materials and production machinery. New residential construction prices rose by almost 2 per cent. An increase of a little more than 2 per cent was recorded for the price of machinery and equipment.
That is the conclusion of d.b.s. In our view every effort should be made to reduce, and not to raise the price of housing; for if the price of housing goes up, it is elementary to conclude that fewer starts are going to be made on residential units and that the national public housing problem is going to be irritated and aggravated further. One of the matters this government has crowed about as being so effectual in order to meet the national public housing difficulty is the im-

plementation of the winter built home program, whereby a bonus of $500 is given to individuals if they commence construction at a time which, incidentally, simply is not practical in the northern half of the country. I am speaking of the northern portions of the provinces as well as the areas above the 60th parallel. I believe the subfloor stage must be reached by December 15. At that date, in most northerly areas of Canada, it is simply impossible to proceed any further than the subfloor stage because it is too cold. Housing must be completed by, I believe, March. Therefore you have a bracket of December 15 and the first three months in the new year when you cannot work in northerly climes unless the building is closed in; and yet you do not become eligible for the $500 bonus if your building is closed in before December 15. As a result you find very few individuals living in northern Canada being able to take advantage of this program.
This program does nothing at all to solve the native housing mess, which is a national disgrace and about which I will have a few words to say in a moment. I am not speaking now of the housing situation as represented by the igloos of the Eskimo people; I am speaking of housing with regard to the native Indian peoples throughout Canada, who live in the southerly areas as well as the more northerly areas of this country.
What did the minister and the Liberal party of Canada say they would do with regard to the housing problem in this country? I am going to quote from a pamphlet entitled, on its red front page, "Better places to live and work. The answer", published by the National Liberal Federation of Canada, 251 Cooper street in Ottawa. The Liberal party had all the answers when these circulars and pamphlets were distributed throughout the country, and yet they do not seem to have the courage of the conviction which is disclosed by the propaganda contained in them. The one from which I read says in part:
A new Liberal government will have a national plan to help municipal development. This plan will promote sound development projects in the places where Canadians live, where they need jobs.
It goes on, under the heading of "Clearing slums":
Our big cities need special development measures. They have slum areas where overcrowding and poor housing breed ill health, family tension, crime and juvenile delinquency; where adults cannot live well and children cannot get a proper start on the road to good citizenship. No Canadian family should have to live in these conditions.
Supply-National Revenue
What does the Murray report say about the hundreds of thousands of families which are living in precisely those conditions; conditions which this government has allowed to exist and worsen for two years, and conditions for which the government is concerned for its inaction by the Murray report.


Mr. Macaluso:: That is not accurate.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend suggests this is not accurate. He was not here when I was reading excerpts from the Murray report.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: I have read it.


Erik Nielsen: If he did not hear it the first time, it will take a moment to put my finger on it again. The Murray report blames government inaction, and the report gives the number of families in distress as 750,000. This is the Liberal pamphlet "The Answer" which I am sure my hon. friends opposite will recognize as being an official publication with which they were provided during the last two campaigns:
We have to attack these evils. A new Liberal government will provide vigorous leadership, working with provinces and municipalities in a cooperative plan of attack.
We want to know what this plan of attack is.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: All in 60 days.


Erik Nielsen: My hon. friend refers to the 60 days of blazing action, a phrase which I am sure the author is sorry ever to have uttered. We want to know what are these dynamic plans which are going to meet the criticisms of Professor Murray and his colleagues in the compilation of a report which took two years to prepare. I am sure that these studies which went into this report over the course of two years cannot be lightly brushed off by the government.
For this purpose-
The propaganda pamphlet goes on-
-the present federal contributions to urban renewal schemes are inadequate. A new Liberal government will increase federal aid to slum clearance schemes.
This has been done in the amendments to the act which went through this house a few months ago, but obviously it is not enough and it is too late. I recall sitting on that side and meeting this criticism of almost every piece of legislation put through during the six years the Progressive Conservatives formed the government. I remember the "four horsemen" over here saying that it

Supply-National Revenue was too little and too late. This is not a political charge; this is a charge made by an economics professor who knows his onions and hails from the University of Toronto. It is a charge which is the product of two years of study to make a realistic appraisal of the housing requirements of this country.
Then the pamphlet goes on to refer to a thorough program and says:
Liberal policies for municipal development will operate as a part of a thorough national development program.
Farming communities often face particularly burdensome costs for municipal services.
And further on it says:
In all areas, a new Liberal government will work with the provinces and municipalities in a major campaign to provide more low rental homes.
I should like the minister to explain to the committee, in view of the major campaign to provide more low rental homes which is referred to in the pamphlet, how many more low rental homes have been provided in the two years the government has been in office. I dare say the number the minister is able to quote will fall short of the assessment made by the Murray report.
Then this statement appears on every one of the pamphlets and nothing could be more fantastic:
The Liberal party has, for today's problems, the answers which are progressive, realistic and responsible.
We want some progressive, realistic and responsible answers from the government regarding such criticisms as those levelled by this impartial and hard hitting report, a report which exposes inaction, lack of planning and lack of responsible programs to clear up our national housing mess.
The argument of the Minister of Finance that employing men in March, April and May under the municipal winter works incentive program, and so on, and then laying them off in June, July and August represents some kind of solution to unemployment is, I think, one of the prime reasons perhaps which prompted the government to pass what I refer to as gimmick legislation, legislation such as the $500 winter built home bonus. This is what has prompted gimmick legislation rather than a realistic appraisal of what are the needs of national housing and the passing of legislation designed to meet those needs, and specifically those needs. If legislation is [DOT]designed to meet housing needs and criticism such as that I have cited from the Murray report, then the resultant benefits to employment will occur as a matter of course.
This point was made in an article which appeared in the Vancouver Province, a newspaper which circulates in the minister's own home riding, on August 31, 1964 under the heading: "A better place to spend defence dollars". It says:
A two year study by the Ontario association of housing authorities of Canada's attitude toward subsidized public housing declares this country's housing program is inadequate and late and that it bears "absolutely no relationship to any realistic appraisal of the need".
Then toward the end of the article the following appears:
A national housing program on this scale-
That is, the scale proposed by the report from which I have cited.
-might be the answer to those who question Canada's $1.6 billion annual outlay on a largely obsolete defence establishment but argue that if this country did not spend so much on defence it would invite unemployment and dislocate business and industry.
A billion dollars a year on new houses would go a long way to reduce the shortage of adequate housing and few can argue that it would not be a good substitute in every way for a corresponding cut-back in defence spending.
Home construction gives work to carpenters, plumbers, electricians, bricklayers, architects, earthmovers, cement men and moneylenders. Homebuilding dollars percolate through every level of the economy.
That is what one of the prominent newspapers in the minister's own home province feels about the situation.
I should like to refer to another article, this time appearing in the Charlottetown Guardian on September 1, 1964. This article also writes up the Murray report and says, in part:
Present legislation, the study finds, offers little hope of meeting the "distressing housing circumstances of thousands of Canadian families". In order to achieve good housing for all Canadians by a 1980 target, 4 million new or rehabilitated dwellings will be needed-
And then it goes on to quote the remainder of certain portions of the report.
I feel that the arguments which I have heard advanced by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance in tying in this housing legislation-this what I call gimmick legislation-to meet the unemployment situation, is not a proper approach. The proper approach is to design legislation to provide adequate housing to meet the needs of Canada. To adopt the arguments of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour is rather an infantile approach, I believe, to economics. Certainly I am not an expert economist but I am sure that even my hon. friends opposite agree with me that the

only way to meet housing requirements in this country is to design legislation which is intended to meet those requirements, not to design gimmick legislation merely as a sop to unemployment. This is an area in which I believe the government should be moving and planning, rather than indulging in meaningless gimmicks which do not provide the addition of one single house or provide any additional jobs on a year-round basis.
I hold in my hand a bulletin issued by an association with which I am sure the minister is familiar, the Vancouver housing association. They too make some fairly pointed criticisms. The bulletin is dated March 1, 1964 and one of their submissions is the following:
The Vancouver housing authority has applications on file from some 450 families, including many broken families, and 600 elderly persons. Many of these people are very poorly housed.
Under the heading "Too Many Cooks" the bulletin has this to say:
In an address given in January before the social planning council of metropolitan Toronto, Mr. Harold Clark, a member of the metropolitan Toronto housing authority, made a strong plea for simplifying the administration of public housing. After stating bluntly that, "today there is general frustration over the ineptness of government in the field of public housing, and there is also confusion", Mr. Clark went on to point out that there are no fewer than five separate local agencies and four levels of government responsible for the building or management of public housing in the Toronto area and that 56 separate steps, involving numerous agencies, have to be taken before a housing project can get under way. The net outcome has been that "C.M.H.C. and the provincial government working as a team, and pooling their vast resources of manpower and money power, have since 1958 constructed and turned over to the housing authority 352 units of family housing, or 7 per cent of the 1958 metropolitan Toronto target" of 5,000 units.
Perhaps the minister can bring us up to date on what progress has been made in the field of public housing so that we can compare the situation in 1960, the time the report covers, with that in 1963.
Before I sit down I want to say a word about native housing. As I have noted, new residential construction is down by 25.1 per cent and housing starts are down by 26 per cent. I have called native housing in Canada a national disgrace. I see the minister shaking his head. I am quoting d.b.s. figures taken from page 2 of the d.b.s. Daily Bulletin for September 29, 1964.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Perhaps I should interrupt the hon. member at this strategic moment to bring to his attention that his time has expired unless he has the consent of the committee to continue. Is it agreed?
Supply-National Revenue


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: I will just take two minutes to make my point to the minister with regard to native housing. I have called it a national disgrace and it is time that the government attacked this problem by taking off their kid gloves. They should embark immediately on a massive program of housing for native Indian populations on reserves. Present conditions on these reserves, and I am sure the minister is aware of them, are scandalous and carry with them the seeds of permanent social disaster. The minister is probably keenly aware of the disgraceful conditions in which most of our native populations in southern Canada live but if they are disgraceful in southern Canada they are absolutely appalling in northern Canada. In the Yukon, in the Northwest Territories and in the northern portion of the provinces living conditions are absolutely appalling. Some of the people live in tents all year round and others live in sod hut hovels.
I believe these conditions are an affront to the conscience of every Canadian. The government plays and plays with schemes to unload its responsibilities upon, in most cases, unwilling provincial authorities. I ask the minister this question. Why does the government not take a positive stand and come to grips with the very serious problems involving native housing conditions in this country rather than attempting to slough them off on the provinces? The minister will realize that I have reference to the plan for disposing of the Ungava Eskimos and a few other plans with respect to the native peoples of this country with which the government is playing around.
The conditions are a disgrace. As I have said, they are an affront to the conscience of every Canadian. There is no reason in the world why the minister, who reports to parliament as the minister responsible for C.M.H.C., cannot co-ordinate a scheme with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and his other cabinet colleagues to embark on a positive program to eliminate for all time the disgraceful and appalling housing conditions which, as I have said, are inviting permanent social disaster so far as the native populations of Canada are concerned.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, with all the unofficial notice the minister has had over many weeks, if not months, through the medium of questions on orders of the day, I certainly hope that the minister and the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing

Supply-National Revenue Corporation have come prepared this afternoon to give a most detailed explanation of and exhaustive reports on all operations concerning the Fraserview veterans rental and purchase scheme in the city of Vancouver. Since 1962 clear evidence has been presented in the house indicating the interest of veterans in Vancouver particularly and in general throughout Canada, as well as that of members from British Columbia in what has taken place at Fraserview in the city of Vancouver under the housing policy of the government or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The need for an exhaustive investigation in committee this afternoon would not have arisen had there been a commonsense and, realistic approach by either or both the government and C.M.H.C. in holding a public hearing in the city of Vancouver as promised, where the entire issue could have been placed on the table and decisions reached. In the alternative the whole question could have been referred to the veterans affairs committee of the House of Commons for the purpose of investigation and examination and making a report to the house. However, in view of the decision by the government or C.M.H.C. or both not to hold a public hearing in Vancouver as requested and promised, and not to refer the matter to the veterans affairs committee, members of the house have no other recourse than to insist, in fact demand that before this item passes we shall have the fullest information and the most complete explanation of policy. When I say the fullest information I do not mean only for the last two years. 1 hope the minister or the officials have information with them for everything on the balance sheet from the start of construction in 1949 up until the present time.
I ask for a balance sheet showing both sides, revenues and expenditures. I ask that the expenditure item disclose the cost of the land, the cost of servicing construction, the cost of construction, the maintenance cost, the insurance cost, the taxes and what has been written off by the central mortgage and housing as depreciation since 1949. Then the revenue item should disclose the rents and the sales. Then, Mr. Chairman, let us get the relationship between the rentals that are now being asked and the selling price which is being asked.
When I asked the minister a question a couple of days ago, and another member asked one 1 believe last week, we were told that everyone has signed a rental or sales agreement except 50. I believe that was the

figure. I am not in any position to challenge the figure of 50 and say it is right or wrong. I will accept the minister's statement. However, let me make this clear, or as clear as I possibly can: Even if there are only 50 who have not yet agreed to the sale price or signed a rental agreement, they are backed by the hundreds who have signed in so far as the principle those 50 are espousing is concerned. I will say, without fear of honest contradiction, that the majority of those who have signed within the last two years, signed because of intimidation and fear as a result of the letters they received to the effect that if they did not agree to the rental or the sale price, then they would get their eviction notice.
There are many who will bow to that sort of thing because they feel, what else can they do? I also used the word "fear". There may be a better word that escapes me at the moment. What are they up against right now? First, you have to find new accommodation in Vancouver or the lower mainland; there are the costs of moving, the disturbance to the home and children being torn from the only local friends they have; taken away from school and put in a new one. If you add all these things together, you will find the reason many people signed under protest, as a result of intimidation and fear. I am not speaking out of hearsay, sir. I have talked to a great many of these people as recently as one week ago in Fraserview itself.
Now, sir, we are asking for a balance sheet from 1949 until now. We are asking that the minister give us, from the record, the policy basis for the construction of these homes. What were the commitments, definite or implied at the time the veterans went into these homes? What was the position of the Liberal party up until last year with regard to the Fraserview situation, on the basis of which some 1,200 veterans in the city of Vancouver, in Fraserview, are being asked by the government and C.M.H.C. to make up the losses that have been incurred in the rest of Canada? We would like to know in detail why the government, whose heart bleeds for the veteran during election campaigns, now want to make a profit out of the veteran? To the best of my knowledge, they do not even intend to take into consideration in the selling price the depreciation which has been wiped off every year since construction. Of course, when I say "every year", I may be a little bit out. If my memory serves me correctly, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation said that the records of the first

few years had somehow been destroyed. I hope that since that answer was given in the house a couple of years ago, perhaps those records have been found and we can now have the complete story.
May I ask the minister, as he gives some thought to his answer, that he bring back into his memory Hansard page 754, October 22, 1962, which records the parliamentary return we received. This parliamentary return indicated that the total cost of 1,137 houses built in Fraserview, including land and servicing of the buildings, amounted to $11,340,452, which works out at an average of $9,972 per house. This was the average cost to the government in 1949. A profit has been made on the rentals and on the sales, and now you want to sell the houses to the veterans at more than they cost in 1949. On what basis of decency, sir, could there be any explanation? We will be interested in hearing it.
This is not just my own view. I know it is the view of the minister that what a Liberal candidate says when he is running for election must not be held against him if he is successful and becomes a member of the government. Here we have the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who is the member for Vancouver South, in which Fraserview is located, making the following statement. I want to read this to substantiate our request for decent treatment for the Fraserview veterans. This appeared in the 1963 election campaign, and I want to read every word on this page because this was directed to every veteran in Fraserview. I quote:
Arthur Laing
5957 West Boulevard, Vancouver 13, B.C.


An hon. Member:: Speak louder.


Harold Edward Winch: Supply-National Revenue under which these homes were constructed -not as a profit making enterprise by the government or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but to meet the need of those who offered their lives in the last world war-in view of the fact that the government did not see fit to honour this promise, and in view of the fact that this matter has not yet been referred to the veterans affairs committee, though I hope it will be, if we cannot receive the most complete and factual information on this matter this afternoon then this estimate should not pass.
The estimate should not pass unless the government is prepared to refer this matter to what I consider a most responsible body, the veterans affairs committee, representative of all parties in parliament, I believe composed almost 100 per cent of veterans who are concerned with veterans' problems and welfare under all departments of government. I suggest that this is the logical procedure, in order that we can proceed with the other business of the house. In conclusion, I hope we shall have a complete, factual, realistic, honest report on policy, expenditures and revenues on the Fraserview project from the first day of construction in 1949 to date.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, this lone item of $216,000 in the estimates for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the fiscal year 1964-65 is a very modest one, having regard to the nature and extent of the corporation's work. I would point out that the individual items which make up this $216,000 do not come within any of the remarks made by the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Harold Edward Winch: We did not hear anything from the hon. member for Vancouver South.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: But I do welcome the fact that the estimates come before parliament so that these hon. members and others have an opportunity of commenting on the activities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and on housing and allied programs of our country. I think I should add that I do not intend to make any detailed reply, except on the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation aspect of the Fraserview project. I did make a very comprehensive statement, or at least what several members, including the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said was a very comprehensive statement on the activities of the corporation when I introduced the bill which led to the amendment of the National Housing Act.

His memory must be failing him, or else he was not in the chamber on that occasion, or the hon. member for Yukon would never have made some of the statements he made here today. I have sent for a copy of the remarks I made on that occasion, and I would ask one of the pages to deliver it to the hon. member for Yukon because I think he will see that almost every point on which he spoke with the exception of better housing for Indians, was dealt with in these earlier remarks of mine.


Erik Nielsen: I was here.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I should also like to refer briefly to the Murray report, and I would point out to the committee that 75 per cent of the cost of that report was paid for by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That report was commissioned early in 1962 and it refers largely to the conditions that existed prior to 1962.
I would also point out to the hon. member for Yukon that the president of the Ontario association, Mr. Freiday, who assumed responsibility for preparation of the report, came to my office with Professor Murray. On that occasion there was also present the provincial minister of economics and development, whose government paid the other 25 per cent of the cost. We were complimented by Mr. Freiday and by Professor Murray upon having anticipated many of the points made in the report and upon having covered them in the legislation we introduced last May, supplemented by the legislation introduced in the legislature of the province of Ontario There have been several complimentary references to the government in connection with the actions taken in anticipation of the criticisms contained in the report.


Erik Nielsen: I compliment the minister, too.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Thank you. There was another point which the hon. member made this afternoon and which I think calls for some comment. As I announced in this house in late September, I think, we held a conference in Halifax-it was referred to as a symposium-attended not only by several provincial ministers and some deputies but by more than 50 municipal representatives. We discussed the amendments to the act and the possibilities under the new legislation When we convened not only the Halifax conference but the subsequent conference in St. John's I was acting, upon a suggestion which was made here in the house by one of the Toronto members, I think it was the hon. member for Danforth, who in the course

of his remarks on the amendments to the National Housing Act said he had a few constructive suggestions to make and offered the hope that at a later date they would be given attention. But in the main he was most complimentary about the program envisaged by this new act. He went on to make it clear, however, that in the absence of active co-operation and enthusiastic support from provincial and municipal governments this new act, of which I think we can all be very proud, would be meaningless. And he suggested a series of these conferences. The object was to ensure that every municipality in Canada or that every province in Canada would know of the possibilities and of the facilities which are now available under the new legislation. That was the purpose of these meetings.
The Halifax meeting was attended not only by the president of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but by all of the directors of the board with one exception. The vice president and other senior officials also were there, as were the members of parliament for that riding and some members of the legislature. Questions were answered and there was a really worth-while discussion. I think I can say the conference was a great success. Then on October 8, 9, and 10 I visited Newfoundland in company with the president, the vice president and other senior officials of C.M.H.C. There we found the premier together with several other ministers of the Newfoundland government in attendance with the deputy ministers and officials concerned. No fewer than 75 municipal representatives came to St. John's for this two-day symposium. I think it was a timely and helpful discussion. I will go further and say it was a very lively discussion- you cannot spend two days in Newfoundland without things being lively, especially when a question period is included.
We have arranged for meetings in Alberta on November 5 and 6. The meeting on November 5 will be held in Calgary and the meeting on November 6 in Lethbridge, while the federation of municipalities of the province of Alberta is holding its annual meeting. At the request of the federation we are holding the meeting at the same time. The provincial minister and I will be in attendance, along with the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on that occasion. Not only will the subject of housing generally be under discussion but the possibilities of using the new act for sewerage construction projects and, more particularly the advantages of an
Supply-National Revenue extensive program of urban renewal, will be discussed at length during that meeting.
I welcome this opportunity to make an announcement. A few weeks ago, I stated that the two provincial ministers concerned and
I	had agreed on the dates for the housing conference for eastern and southern Ontario as November 23 and 24, in Toronto. I have since found we were not able to get sufficient hotel accommodation for those dates. I also found that not only the mayor of Ottawa but the mayor of London, Ontario, and the mayor of Toronto felt it would be better to wait until after the municipal elections. This morning, with the assurance of the provincial ministers that they were in agreement, we changed the dates to December 16 and 17 by which time the elections will be over and some thought will have been given to who will be the leaders of housing programs by all the mayors and the reeves. So the meetings will be held in Toronto on December 16 and 17. The federation of mayors and reeves have been advised and are in agreement with the new dates.
Now I should like to make a special reference to the Fraserview veterans' housing project which, as the hon. member for Vancouver East has said, has been the subject of many questions. A series of questions has been asked in the house relating to the increases in rents which were introduced effective October 1 of this year. This housing project comprises 1,146 houses. They are units of two, three and four bedrooms. This is one of several projects completed after world war
II	under the 1948 and 1949 veterans' rental housing program. Hon. members may recall the statements which were made in answer to questions raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East and other hon. members. Approximately 12,000 houses were built across Canada during the two years which followed the passing of the legislation. All of them were rented to veterans of the second world war and of the Korean war.
I should like to make it clear-and this is apparent from the discussion which took place when the original legislation was passed-that this project was not intended to provide subsidized housing for veterans. It was intended to provide badly needed houses at fair rentals for veterans of the second world war and of the Korean campaign in large parts of Canada where the need arose. In 1954 it became apparent that the demand for rental accommodation for veterans was diminishing and that in most cities it was over. In that year the government of the day

Supply-National Revenue authorized the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to offer houses for sale to qualified veterans. However, before the houses could be placed on sale certain requirements had to be met. In the first place the corporation had obtained the co-operation of several cities and other municipalities in providing sites for the houses, and renegotiation with these municipalities had to take place. In addition an assurance had to be received from veterans' organizations and others that there was no longer an acute shortage in a particular city or municipality and that there would be sufficient demand from veterans to buy these houses if they were offered for sale, I might say that when they were initially offered for sale, the sale price of these houses was established on a national basis. But in setting prices for each individual project consideration was given to a series of factors, including the original cost of construction, the age and condition of the houses, their location and their fair market value at the time they were offered for sale. The government was to try, if this could be done in a reasonable way, to recover its full outlay in respect of these houses on a national basis. This policy resulted in sale prices which were somewhat higher than the actual cost in some communities where the market values were higher, and in prices which were somewhat lower in a number of communities where market values were lower. This policy enabled Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the instrument of the government concerned, to offer houses for sale in individual communities in the light of existing conditions there.
Because market values in Nova Scotia are quite different from market values in Ontario or British Columbia, you have higher prices in one place than in another. That is not surprising. But if you had sold a house in Vancouver that had gone up in value by $3,000 or $4,000, you would have upset the market conditions in that area and you would in effect have been bonusing, to the detriment of taxpayers, including other veterans, all projects in other parts of the country. It was felt they should not offer houses for sale in any city or town at prices likely to disrupt the market too radically.
There was also a serious objection to this program based on the fact that there would be serious speculation in some cities. Houses that might have cost $10,000 or $12,000 in 1949 or 1950 had in some instances appreciated in value, due to conditions in that particular city, by as much as $4,000 or $5,000.

It was agreed that if a veteran wanted to buy a house, to prevent speculation they would add right across Canada the sum of $1,000 per house, which was to be written off if the veteran remained in the house for a five-year period. It was to be written off at so much a year for five years. This technique, I might say, was known as the rebate procedure. I am assured, not only by the officials of central mortgage and housing but by veterans and others that this procedure has worked successfully in connection with projects in many parts of Canada.
Although the agreement with the city of Vancouver covering Fraserview was successfully renegotiated in 1955 to permit the sales program, they were not able to embark on sales immediately because final construction costs for the whole project were not known at that time. The Fraserview project was therefore the last one of the 10 or 15 or more projects throughout Canada that went on the market. The cost reports were completed by the end of 1958, and in February, 1959, the representatives of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation met with more than 500 of the Fraserview tenants and presented a schedule of proposed prices, together with terms of sale, and that schedule included this $1,000 mark-up which would be rebated if the veteran held the house for a five year period.
The meeting was in February, 1959, and there was almost unanimous acceptance of this schedule. The houses were offered for sale on May 1, 1959. I might say that the records show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fair value of the average housing unit in Fraserview was $2,000 to $4,000 per unit higher than the actual cost at that time. If they had been sold, it would have meant that every veteran in those houses, in addition to the other benefits he had received would have received a bonus of at least $1,000, because the $1,000 rebate would come into the picture if he had sold the house after a five year period.
Throughout this whole program of disposing of houses-this practice has been followed consistently in most parts of Canada- Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have disposed of thousands of these units under this program. In Vancouver, up to the beginning of June of this year, they had disposed of over 500 houses of the 1,140 or so that comprised this project. But during the whole of this period in every city or community in Canada that had a program of this kind semi-annual reviews were carried on

to determine whether the $1,000 rebate procedure should be retained in different cities. The corporation, through its staff and advisers, were also kept aware of market conditions not only in Vancouver but in other cities. In May, 1963, to encourage the sale of the Fraserview houses to veterans, a team of corporation appraisers was appointed specially to look into the Fraserview situation. They recommended the removal of the rebate. This is not surprising, because the five year period had elapsed, even in the case of British Columbia, in the period 1954 to 1959. They also recommended a reduction of $600 in the sale price of basementless houses.
But I would point out that in the same report that was made in the late spring of 1963 it was shown that existing rents were substantially below the level of houses of that quality in that part of Vancouver. On July 25, 1963, the $1,000 rebate was removed from the sale of these houses and the prices of the basementless units were reduced by the $600 recommended by the corporation's appraisers. However, at the same time the corporation announced rent increases ranging from $3.50 to $11.50 per month to take effect on September 1, 1963. Following this representations were made on behalf of the tenants by several people, including the hon. member for Vancouver South. I believe representations were also made by the hon. member for Vancouver East, but I know they were made by the hon. member for Vancouver South. As a result of representations from several sources, the rent increases were deferred and the minister then in charge, the late Jack Garland, after consulting with the corporation and receiving their agreement in this regard, arranged for an independent appraisal to be carried out with regard to the rentals that should be charged and as to the values of these houses.
The appraisal company that was brought in was Bell-Irving Realty Limited, of Vancouver, the president of which is a distinguished veteran, Brigadier Henry P. Bell-Irving. He has a distinguished war record; he was awarded the D.S.O. and O.B.E., and fought in Italy and on the western front. The firm's appraiser, Mr. E. W. Palmer, was eminently qualified for the task he was asked to perform. He is an accredited appraiser of the appraisal institute of Canada, a senior real estate appraiser in the society of real estate appraisers, a fellow of the valuers institute of London, England, and a member
Supply-National Revenue of the professional division of the realtors institute of British Columbia. He is considered by all who know him to be a highly qualified specialist in this field.
The Bell-Irving appraisal confirmed the corporation's report of May, 1963, but recommended that further reductions should be made in the sale prices of two basic house types in the amounts of $300 and $500. The corporation immediately implemented the reductions recommended by this independent appraiser; they were implemented on June 1, 1964, and since that time I understand that another 50 or so houses have been sold. The effect of these adjustments was to establish selling prices that are in the order of $500 to $600 below current market values in Vancouver. I ask the hon. member for Vancouver East to keep that in mind. This shows conclusively that the prices at which veterans are now able to buy them are in the order of $500 to $600 a house lower than the current market value for that type of house. At the time these reductions were effected the corporation's board of directors reaffirmed the previously recommended rent increases that should have taken effect in September, 1963. They reaffirmed them to take effect on October 1, 1964. In June last notices to that effect were sent out to the 601 tenants. They were given until September 15 to signify whether they wanted to enter into a new lease at the increased rents. I might say that the increase in rentals is due largely if not entirely to an increase in grants in lieu of taxes being paid to the city of Vancouver. There is no profit in it for the corporation. The increases do not cover the added amount paid on the Fraserview houses to the municipality. These rent increases range from $3.50 to $11 per month.
By the deadline of September 15, 419 of the 601 tenants had accepted, 38 had purchased their houses, 12 had vacated, leaving 132 not heard from. In the two weeks which followed, that is between September 15 and October 1, 59 more tenants made their decision and as of the close of business on September 30 the corporation then had 73 tenants from whom they had not heard. The corporation then sent out notices that since the tenants had not entered into these new arrangements they would be evicted. Of course this would not mean that if they had a good case they would be evicted; a judge of the court would listen to the reasons in any case coming before him. I have stated repeatedly that since this matter had been reduced to manageable proportions I was quite prepared to have the officials of the

Supply-National Revenue department consider each individual case, or if anyone wanted to take them up with me individually I would be pleased to do so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the minister a question. Could he tell the committee on what basis the appraisers set these rents? Was it on the basis of actual cost or a rent which would retire the investment which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has made, plus current expenses, or was it a rent which was based on current rents in the area?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The rents in all cases are lower than rents in the area for houses of similar value. The combination of circumstances to which I referred-the cost of the house, its condition and other factors-were all taken into consideration, as well as general rents in the area.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister is talking about the condition of the houses and I assume is talking about the sale price; but in determining these rents was the determination based solely on an economic rental to cover the investment of C.M.H.C. or was any other factor taken into consideration?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The rents were just enough to carry these houses, but not to make any profit out of the transaction. They are amortized to the amount of the balance owing so as to pay current taxes and maintenance and operating expenses.


Mr. Challerion:: Could the minister tell me at what rate was the amortization?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The amortization was on the basis of 2J per cent interest over a period of 50 years, credit being given for the amount which had accumulated up to that date.


Harold Edward Winch: Might I ask whether in this compilation the amount which had been cleared off through depreciation over the years was also taken into consideration?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Might I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that I be allowed to finish my statement. I have had prepared a table which will help answer these questions, and then if hon. members have any further questions I will do my best today to answer them.
As of the close of business on September 30 there were some 73 people who had not agreed to enter into new leases; two of the people who said they were going to did not in fact do so. Then in the two weeks which followed the notices of eviction which were sent out, certain other people indicated that


they wanted to stay on in the houses. This reduced the total of 73 to a total of 54 by a date in early October.
Yesterday I received from 18 other people -that is in addition to the 52 plus the two -altogether 54-signed letters addressed to me which obviously had been typed by the same machine, indicating an organized drive. These letters asked for a public hearing. All but 54 of these 600 odd tenants are paying the new rents and have paid them for the month of October. So that while over 500 people out of the 601 have entered into some new leasing arrangement, another dozen or more have vacated voluntarily and I think about 40 people have bought houses, you have at the outside, taking the 52 and 18, 70 people who are still complaining. These people have had the benefit of the lower rentals for more than a year. The corporation has not collected rents so as to carry this project for over a year. The corporation's appraisers recommended that these rent increases should take effect last summer. Further delay will be unfair to the people who have bought houses, and the 500 odd people who have entered into the new leases and are paying them without complaint. I am not saying that there are not people who do not complain. Of course, no one likes to have his rent raised and any one of us would complain of that. But many veterans have stated publicly that they do not want to be subsidized in these houses and are willing to pay, which is demonstrated by the fact that over 500 of them are paying the higher rents.
To explain the current rents and also the current selling prices I have had a tabulation prepared showing the individual type of houses and listing the original selling price, that is, the price at which these houses were offered in 1959 and which was almost unanimously accepted by the tenants. On the same sheet is shown the adjusted price as a result of the corporation's appraisal in 1963 and the independent appraisal in 1964. The rent is also shown; that is, the former rent, the new rent and the estimated fair market rent for each type of house. Rather than read this, Mr. Chairman-it would be difficult to follow if I just gave the isolated figures- I should like to table a copy of this tabulation and have it made part of Hansard.


Erik Nielsen: Might I suggest, Mr. Chairman, if the committee is agreeable, that the tabulation referred to by the minister be printed in Hansard at this stage of the minister's remarks.

Supply-National Revenue


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Is it


Some hon. Members:: 
Harold Edward Winch: May I also ask the minister if he has any tabulation of costs and revenues?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Not included in this form. I have it before me and if the hon. member will come into my office I will be glad to show it to him in detail.


Harold Edward Winch: I want to see it before the estimates pass.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I have extra copies of this sheet for each of the other parties if they wish to have one. The last column is headed "fair market rent", and that is the fair market rent in the opinion of the representative of the Bell-Irving firm who made the appraisal.
Hon. members will see that in each case the new rents are substantially below rental charges in the area.
That is all I wish to say on the subject of the Fraserview veterans' housing project, but I should also like to correct another impression that might have been created by an earlier statement. I am sure the committee will be interested to know that as of September 30 starts of new housing units in Canada were up in 1964 by 10.2 per cent over those reported for the same period in 1963.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the minister a question at this point? Is he suggesting that the d.b.s. news bulletin is inaccurate?

Supply-National Revenue


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: All I am suggesting is that the figures I am giving may be as of a different date and they may also represent a comparison with a different period. I am comparing the first nine months of 1964 with the corresponding nine months of 1963, and the figures show that starts actually are up by 10.2 per cent.


Erik Nielsen: I think the figures I quoted from the bulletin were for the same period.
I do not have it before me now because I gave it to Hansard, but my recollection is that the figure in the bulletin was as of the same date, September 29, 1964. If d.b.s. is wrong may I suggest there is an obvious lack of accurate communication between C.M.H.C. and d.b.s.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That may be but this is the figure and I am prepared to stand behind it. It is up 10.2 per cent for the first nine months. This means that if the winter housebuilding program meets with the same measure of success it did last year, and this is our expectation based on the applications for loans, housing starts in 1964 will be upward of 155,000 units, or the second highest year in Canada's history.


Erik Nielsen: Which was the highest?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think it was 1958. Prior to this year the second highest was 1963 which now takes third place. On the basis not only of my visit to Halifax and St. John's and the meetings that took place there, but also of my visit to Saskatoon where in company with the minister of the former government a federal-provincial housing project was opened and discussions were had at that time, as well as of visits that I have made to housing projects in Manitoba and Alberta and more recently to my native province of New Brunswick, I would say that a great deal of interest has been stimulated in housing and urban renewal. The scope of the projects, for instance, in the city of Hamilton, in the city of Windsor and in the city of Saint John is beyond belief. The same applies to cities in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is in the midst of one of its busiest and, I think, most challenging years. There is a lot of educational work to be done, but I believe sincerely that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is an efficient and dedicated organization and I invite the committee's early approval of their very modest estimate.


George Louis Chatterton: With regard to the column, "new rent", in the table the minister has given us, I think the minister said in his remarks that one of the factors considered was amortization of the outstanding capital, and the minister referred to a rate of 2| per cent. Is that correct?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Two and a half per cent. It was agreed in the initial stages when these houses were being built for veterans that the investment would be recouped over a period of 50 years at the rate of 2J per cent per year. This policy has been carried through, but when some years later a program of sale was embarked upon factors involving speculation and other things came into the picture and they were taken into consideration in determining market values in the respective areas. If I may leave rents aside for a moment, you will note that so far as the sale price is concerned in no case is the adjusted price higher than the original price. In some cases they are slightly higher than cost but they are not higher than the original price.


George Louis Chatterton: That is my next question. The adjusted sales price is less than the original-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, it is not higher.


George Louis Chatterton: It is less, I say. What factors were used in making that adjustment? Was the portion of the rent allocated by C.M.H.C. to depreciation considered?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: My information is that it was only one of the factors.


George Louis Chatterton: Would that be the major factor in considering adjustment?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think the major factor was that nobody would have to pay more than the house was worth and the object was to try not to disturb either prices or rentals in the particular areas involved. It is not just a case of being fair to a limited number of veterans, for whom I am sure every government would want to do the best it could. The fact is there are other people to whom the government has to be fair, the people who are paying the taxes that make these projects possible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with the hon. member for Vancouver East in protesting very strongly the treatment which has been meted out to veterans in the Fraserview housing project. I must say that my concern about this matter has not been

lessened to any degree by the outline the minister has just given to the committee. If anything it has been heightened.
The minister says that there were some 1,146 houses in this project and that they were a part of 12,000 low rental houses that were built for veterans across Canada. Then he went on to say that these were not to be subsidized houses but houses which were to pay the actual cost. But then he went on to say that when it was decided in 1954 to make them available for sale, the sale price in some communities of necessity had to be higher than cost in order not to disturb the market. I take it this means that if C.M.H.C. was going to balance out its operations over the entire 12,000 houses and if some of the houses were going to be sold for more than they cost, then in other communities they were going to be sold for less than they cost. The government which objected to subsidizing houses, was really asking the veterans to subsidize veterans' houses in some instances. Veterans in some parts of Canada were going to subsidize veterans in other parts of Canada. It seems to me the height of absurdity to object to government subsidization and yet to ask veterans to subsidize other veterans' houses in other parts of Canada.
The argument which the minister posed, that they could not disturb the market, seems to me like a typical real estate argument. These were veterans. These were men who had lost years of income. These were men who deserved special consideration from the country, and to say it was necessary to charge them more than cost merely for fear of disturbing the local real estate market seems to me the strangest argument I have ever heard advanced for charging veterans more than they should have been called upon to pay.
The minister says that by 1959 they had finally worked out what the cost of these houses would be and that for the Fraserview veterans' housing project the price set at that time was $2,000 higher than the actual cost. Of course, at that time there was to be a rebate of $1,000 but this was later cancelled and instead there is to be a reduction of $300 or $500 depending upon certain categories. If I understood the minister correctly, what he is really saying is that in order to balance out the total cost of the entire 12,000 houses the veterans in the Fraserview project who decided to buy their houses were going to be charged in 1959 $2,000 more than it actually
Supply-National Revenue cost to build those houses. Instead of a reduction of $2,000, there is a reduction of only $300 or $500 as the case may be. The minister is shaking his head, so I do not want to proceed on this line if I am wrong. May I ask the minister, is that not what he said? In 1959 the price which he said the veterans were prepared to accept in the schedule was $2,000 higher than the actual cost of constructing these homes? I notice the minister shaking his head, and I do not want to make a statement that is incorrect.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: What I was saying, or at least by nodding my head was indicating, was that the statement was not in accordance with what I tried to say earlier this afternoon. The new sale program was introduced in 1954, and was introduced in Vancouver in February of 1959. The original program was to provide houses at a modest rental for veterans who urgently needed houses when they returned from the two wars. You were converting a purely rental project to one giving the veterans an opportunity to buy the houses into which they had put some of their own efforts and to which they had become attached.
At that time, in 1954 and 1955, and in the case of Vancouver in 1959, you were going to sell the houses and it was no longer a case of getting just a rental that would cover it. With housing values as they were in Vancouver-I am sure the hon. member knows they were really higher than in Halifax or some other place-the government would get out of the sale project, not just a rental project, on a nation-wide basis without making or losing any money.
I should like to read into the record, for the benefit of the hon. member and also the hon. member for Vancouver East, a letter that was sent by the Fraserview community association. It is dated February 10, 1959 and it is addressed to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, re offer of sale of Fraserview homes. I quote:
Further to our telephone conversation with you this morning, we are pleased to report the outcome of the meeting of this association held last evening in the auditorium of Sir James Douglas school with reference to the above question.
This meeting was attended by more than 500 members of the Fraserview veterans' community. Subsequent to presentation of our report of the meeting with you on February 2 together with the schedule of prices upon which sale of the Fraserview homes will be based, and a subsequent detailed question period, a show of hands indication was called on two questions.
To the first, viz., approval in principle of the schedule of proposed home prices and terms, well over 90 per cent indicated affirmatively.

Supply-National Revenue
To the second, viz., how many had already made the decision to purchase upon receipt of the official offer, something over 50 per cent of those present so indicated.
This was borne out by the fact that they did.
In view of the size of this meeting, we feel that you will agree with us in regarding these results as quite decisive and as fully warranting your implementation of the proposed offer of sale forthwith.
We take this opportunity to express to you, Mr. Houston and to Mr. Clauson, our sincere appreciation and thanks for your sympathetic attitude and kind co-operation in this matter. It has been a pleasure thus to associate with you.
Now, you will see that the deal which came out of the two recent appraisals is better for these veterans who have remained there than had they taken advantage of this earlier offer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This does not alter in any way the point I was making. The Fraserview housing project was originally a rental project. In 1954 it was decided to offer these houses for sale. In 1959, the price which was set was not based on the cost to C.M.H.C. for that particular project, it was based on the cost of the entire 12,000 veterans' houses built across Canada. If I interpreted the minister's statement correctly so far as the Fraserview project was concerned, the prices at which these houses were offered in 1959 were $2,000 higher than the actual cost for that project, less the reduction which the minister is now producing of $300 or $500.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That is correct, with this modification, that they were also $2,000 lower than the fair market value for similar houses in that area.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not interested in the market value of houses in this area. I am interested in the Canadian people making these houses available at what it cost the Canadian government to construct and operate them. The minister is now talking about some other fact. These people are now going to pay more for these houses than they cost C.M.H.C. to build and operate.
Now the minister has defined the position which was taken in 1959. I want to point out that is not the position which the Liberal party took in 1959, or which they took in the election campaigns of 1962 and 1964. My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East, read into the record a copy of a letter sent out by the present minister of northern affairs, the member for Vancouver South, in 1963. Here is part of a letter he sent out in 1962 on exactly the same subject. It is

dated June 15, 1962, and was also sent to the veterans in the Fraserview housing project. I quote:
I think that home ownership is good and that the residents, having paid for depreciation of the houses and services in their rent for years should have the opportunity to buy their homes if they wish to, at cost, taking into account the depreciation they have already paid.
The present Conservative government says that at a price around $10,800 per home it is making the Fraserview houses available at cost. This is not the case. The actual average cost of house, land and services on C.M.H.C. books is approximately $6,600. If all houses are sold at an average of $10,800, C.M.H.C. will make a capital gain of just under $5 million.
It is imperative, of course, that C.M.H.C. return to those veterans who have already purchased their homes, the capital gain that C.M.H.C. has taken. The method of doing so will not be difficult to devise if fair principles are applied.
It is my intention to see to it that the intention expressed by C.M.H.C. to offer these properties for sale without capital gain is implemented. If this is done the houses can be made available for sale on monthly term payments approximately the same as is now being paid for rent.
Now, Mr. Chairman, surely that is quite plain. When the Liberals were in opposition, when they were seeking re-election, the member in whose constituency this project is located criticized the Conservative government because it was offering these houses for sale at a figure not approximating the cost for the particular project, but at a cost covering the entire 12,000 houses that had been built across Canada. The Liberal candidate, I assume speaking for the Liberal party, said these veterans should be entitled to buy those houses at what those particular houses cost C.M.H.C.


Erik Nielsen: Who said that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for Vancouver South, (Mr. Laing). He said that these houses stood on the books of C.M.H.C. at $6,600. He said that if they were charged $10,800, which was being suggested at that time, C.M.H.C. would be making a capital gain of just under $5 million.
I object strongly to any party taking one line when it is out of office and an entirely different line when it is in office. If the position the minister is taking now is a sound one, that the price charged for these houses should have nothing to do with the actual costs of this project but should be based on the cost of building 12,000 houses across Canada, then why did the Liberal party criticize this concept when it was introduced by the previous government, and why did the present minister of northern affairs, when he was running for office in this constituency, pledge

himself that these houses would be sold to the veterans at the actual cost, which would be about $2,000 less than they are being asked to pay; and why did he pledge that those who had already purchased their houses would get a rebate of the extra amount they had paid?
The minister wonders why there is a great deal of discontent in the Fraserview veterans' housing project. The people are discontented because they were told in 1959, and particularly in 1962 and 1963, by spokesmen for the Liberal party, that it was unfair to make them pay more than the houses cost in order simply to make up the losses which C.M.H.C. had incurred on other housing projects across Canada.
The people were told that if a Liberal government were elected the sale price of these houses would be reduced to actual costs, which would mean a reduction of about $2,000, and that those who had already purchased houses would get a rebate. On that basis surely these people had a right to expect, when a Liberal government was elected, that that promise would be kept.
I think the criticism which Liberal members expressed regarding the policy outlined in 1959 was a valid one, but I strongly object to their now coming in and defending the position that was taken in 1959, which the minister and his colleagues criticized in two general elections and promised to reverse if they were elected. So far as these people are concerned this is a complete betrayal of public trust. I presume a great majority of these people-maybe all of them for all I know-supported the minister of northern affairs, the member for Vancouver South, because they thought the statements which he made in the letter of June 15, 1962 which I have just read, and in the letter which my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East, put on the record, were a commitment on behalf of a responsible Liberal candidate, now a minister of the crown, and that that commitment would be kept. It has not been kept and that is why the present minister is incurring so much displeasure and so much discontent from these people.
I say to the minister that I am not at all satisfied to be handed this sheet of paper in which the minister tells us what was the original sale price offered in 1959, and what the adjusted price is after taking off the $300 or $500 as the case may be. This does not tell the committee what it cost C.M.H.C. to build these houses.
Supply-National Revenue
This committee has a right to a balance sheet. We have a right to know what it cast C.M.H.C. to buy this property, and to builci these houses. We have a right to know how* much was collected in rent, how much was written off in depreciation, what the operating costs have been and what the actual cost ought to be now if these people are going to get the houses at cost, as was promised in this letter of June 15, 1962 by the minister of northern affairs. We ought to have a balance sheet. We ought to have some facts-* not figures pulled out of the air.
For the minister to get up and say he has a letter from a group of people who had a meeting, saying that a lot of people by a show of hands were prepared to accept this schedule, is completely begging the question. The point at issue is that Liberal members promised they would get these houses at cost.
The tenants are not asking to be subsidized. They are not asking the government for any money. They are not asking C.M.H.C. to give them a handout. But they are asking that the Liberal party keep its promise.
It is very apparent from the sheet of paper which the minister has given us that these people are not going to get their houses at cost, and I say to the minister that before I will be satisfied I want to see a balance sheet. I want to know the actual costs to C.M.H.C. as of this present time. I want to know the figure at which these houses are being carried on the books of C.M.H.C. I want to know what prices would have to be charged these veterans in order to relieve C.M.H.C. of any financial liability with respect to this project and this project alone, because that is what was promised.
I want to know if the minister of northern affairs was correct in his letter of June 15, 1962, when he said these houses were being carried in the books of C.M.H.C. at $6,600. If he was correct, then the figures which the minister has given to the committee of the prices which they are going to charge, running all the way from $7,700 to $10,900, are a form of robbery. This is taking more money from these people than the houses cost, and it represents a complete breach of faith with the people in that constituency who took the minister of northern affairs at his word that these houses would be sold to them at actual book value.
The minister says that the number of persons who have not signed the leases for the increased rentals totals some 52 persons. That does not surprise me, but what does surprise
9148	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Revenue me is that there are still 52 who have not signed the leases. I do not know what choice these people had but to sign these increased rentals because they have had every possible form of duress imposed on them. They have been told repeatedly that they are going to be put out. When a man and his family are faced with the prospect of being evicted, he signs a lease no matter what the increase in rent.
I would certainly like more information than we have been given this afternoon as to why these increases in rent were necessary, whether this is an actual economic rent based on costs to C.M.H.C., or whether this is once more an attempt not to disturb the market. I would like the minister to inquire of C.M.H.C. just to what extent rentals in other projects are carefully checked, and in this connection I would like to draw his attention to a project in my own constituency.
I have already written him about it and he was kind enough to send me a reply. It has to do with the Woodland Park apartments in Port Moody, B.C. Though the minister has told me it is under the name of Port Moody Garden Apartments Limited the letters have all been sent out by Midwest Property Management Limited of 12,220 125th avenue, Edmonton, Alberta. I have a copy here of a letter which has been sent to one of the tenants in the Woodland Park apartments at Port Moody-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I think I told the hon. gentleman in my letter that I was convinced it must be this other organization. We know nothing of this midwest body. This is a limited dividend project. We have loaned money to them but we are not the landlords.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am quite aware the minister is not the landlord. However, I am pointing out that this particular landlord, as I pointed out in my letter to the minister, has posted in front of the property a sign which I myself have seen many times saying, "Government controlled rent-$76.50 for three bedrooms," and also giving the cost of the other suites. The tenants are told when they sign a lease that these are government controlled rents and that they cannot be increased without the consent of C.M.H.C. That is the question I am raising-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to answer it?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, I should like first of all to put the problem before the minister. In this particular instance, in the middle of the
[Mr. Douglas.!

year-this is a new project; people have only been in this apartment a few months-the rents were raised by $6 a month. That is $72 a year. And the reason given for increasing the rents was that taxes had gone up, and apparently C.M.H.C. which controls the rents authorized an increase. What I want the minister to tell us is the extent to which C.M.H.C. reviews these applications for increases in rents. I am sure the minister realizes the prospective tenants take seriously the fact that they see a sign in front of a housing project saying "Government Controlled Rents". They believe that having signed a lease the rent agreed on is at least good for a year, and that if there are any increases they will be justifiable. It is difficult for me to believe that in five months taxes on this project, a 100 house project, had gone up by $7,200 a year in respect of two high rise apartments. I want to know what attempt has been made to police this arrangement. There are two possibilities. Either the corporation is simply granting to these limited dividend companies the right to increase rents without a very careful examination of their financial statements, or factors other than taxes have been taken into consideration. I want to urge the minister and, through him, the corporation, to check very carefully these applications for rent increases by limited dividend companies. These companies do manage to attract tenants by virtue of the fact that they can advertise that rents are government controlled. If they are going to use this as a gimmick, then the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in turn has the responsibility to see that the rents are, in fact, controlled and that they are not raised half way through a year on the excuse that taxes have gone up in the course of the year, if they have not done so to such an extent as to make the increases justifiable. I should like to know whether in this case taxes actually went up by $7,200 in one year. I recognize that the corporation is responsible for a great many projects which are going on across Canada and that it has a great deal of work to do, but if these companies are given the right to advertise that rents are government controlled, then C.M.H.C. surely has a responsibility to the tenants to see that the rents are controlled and that any increases which are authorized are justifiable and necessary.


Mr. Stenson:: I have no intention of delaying the committee for long but there are a few observations I wish to make. Earlier this year

the minister spoke of land assembly projects which come under the control of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I asked the minister several questions at that time and I do not feel I received satisfactory answers to them.
The first question I had in mind is this: Why should land assemblies be set up in direct competition with private developers who are obliged to pay taxes on the property while holding it? I refer to the agreement which was signed with the city of Peterborough. It provides that no municipal tax rate or charge of any nature whatsoever shall be levied by the city while the lots are owned by or on behalf of the corporation. In 1952 the city turned over to the corporation 660 acres of land to develop. Since that day the city has received no tax revenue whatsoever from this property, so in effect the city has been asked to make a direct subsidy. No private developer has ever had such a concession made to him. I consider that the city of Peterborough has lost thousands of dollars in tax revenue over the past 12 years. This arrangement was set up in 1952 but there was no development in the area until 1957. If the present government intends to carry on with land assembly projects it should be asked to share in the cost of trunk services such as sewers, water mains and storm drains and also to bear some of the cost of providing main streets and thoroughfares. It should also be asked to pay its fair share of municipal taxes. All private developers in cities today are required to do this.
Another point I should like to bring out is this: If a city does not wish to carry on a scheme of this type and the property involved has not been developed after 10 or 15 years, the land should revert to the municipality and any moneys owing to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should be paid by the municipality. Why should the corporation be allowed to put its property-on the market to the highest bidder and keep the money for the government of Canada, when the corporation has made no investment in it and taken no risk? The only party which has been stuck for an investment is the city itself.
I feel that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should be careful where they set up land assembly projects. I do not feel they should come into an area, as they did in Peterborough, and sell the municipality a project which is not likely to be completed for 10, 15 or 20 years. This is exactly what
Supply-National Revenue was done in my constituency. I feel the project was too big for the area. It is well planned and it is a subdivision of which any city could be proud. On the other hand it has cost the city many thousands of dollars and I do not think it has cost this government or the provincial government anything. Right now the Peterborough land assembly is short of building lots and the corporation points the finger at the city, blaming the city for not keeping lots available. I know that if the city had received more financial assistance from the corporation it would have been in a better position to keep the lots coming forward.
I should like to ask the minister whether he does not feel projects of this type should share in the cost of the municipal services I mentioned earlier and also whether he does not agree that a municipality wishing to withdraw from such a project should be able to do so without the balance of the property reverting to the corporation, which would then make a substantial gain. I should also like to ask the minister whether he does not believe that land assemblies should be kept for public housing and for the construction of houses for older people and for people with small pensions.
There is one other point I would like to raise before resuming my seat. I think this matter was mentioned by the hon. member for Yukon, but I wish to raise it specifically. It refers to Indians. I believe they should have money available from Central Mortgage and Housing to build on the reserves. I would refer to a young constituent of mine, 25 years old, who came to the city of Peterborough, educated himself and now has a job in the city. He is married and wants to build a house for himself on the Indian reserve, under the provisions of the National Housing Act, and commute to Peterborough. He made application under N.H.A. to build a home on the property owned by him on the reserve, but was refused. I would like to ask the minister if there is not some legislation which would permit those living on Indian reserves to obtain such a loan. This is one way in which we could improve living conditions on reserves. I think the minister and his department should consider these suggestions and look into the possibility of making these loans available to deserving Indians.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, the minister has heard from the cities of Vancouver and Port Moody and now he will hear from Richmond. I do not wish to lay any charges against Central Mortgage and Housing or
9150	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Revenue Consolidated Building Corporation, which is involved with the construction of the Richmond Gardens project; but I just wish to relate to the minister some of the complaints I have received and pose some questions to him.
This has to do with the Richmond Gardens housing project in Richmond, B.C., which was built by Consolidated Building Corporation of Toronto. I think the concept is a very good one. They took a large tract of unoccupied land, laid out a fairly good subdivision pattern and built houses which from the exterior are very attractive. They completed the services. I believe the municipality was very well satisfied. However, there have been a considerable number of complaints about the quality of the workmanship and the finish of the houses generally. I wish to bring to the attention of the minister some of these complaints.
I am going to quote from a letter from one of my constituents to the manager of Central Mortgage and Housing of Vancouver. This letter is dated August 22, 1964. I shall not use the person's name, but the corporation of course has some of this correspondence on their file. This letter illustrates the type of complaint I have heard on a number of occasions concerning this particular project which was built under N.H.A. The person protesting had not been making his payments, and the letter concerned that point. Then it says:
I know my agreement with you. I know that it will take 25 years to pay this house. Can you guarantee that it will stand those 25 years?
When I made my agreement with you, I trusted that C.M.H.C. would make five careful inspections of this house, and especially because it is built by government loan.
Am I forced to buy a house where the foundation is completely fractured in three places; where framing is showing the poorest workmanship ever done; where the outside siding is filled with nail holes; insufficient or no overlap, broken and used asbestos shingles, as well as being wavy; where brick facing is loose with cracked base due to building mistakes; where the ceiling is wavy; where the basement floor is cracked all over, etc.
If your "inspectors" passed all these facts, I have not only been misled by C.B.C., but also have a wrong conception of C.M.H.C.
I am sure that this house does not meet N.H.A. minimum standards. It is wasting government money.
This complaint has been looked into by the corporation. There has been correspondence between this person and myself and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and between the minister and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. The house was to have been completed in December. This person moved
(Mr. Prittie.l

in in February and as late as September, last month, the corporation was still sending inspectors back to check on the workmanship and to see whether certain repairs had been carried out. This is a particular case, but others have come to my attention.
I said that I am not making charges, because I have not had an opportunity to personally inspect a number of these houses built under N.H.A. However, I did have an opportunity during one of my trips home recently to look at the type of row houses which have been built by the same company, but not with N.H.A. money; this was done with private mortgage money. The workmanship which I was shown at these places was very, very poor; the steps were of a very narrow type and the risers were of varying height. There was very poor workmanship on the woodwork generally, on the mouldings, and so on. There was some evidence that this corporation is perhaps not employing competent workmen who can do the work on time and do it well.
This may raise some doubt about the quality of inspections. I do not want to condemn C.M.H.C. inspectors out of hand, but I would ask these questions. Have they the time to do a proper job of inspection? Have they enough inspectors in the lower mainland area, in the Vancouver area, to do the work? If they have not enough inspectors to carry out the type of inspection that should be carried out, what is the reason for this? Are they not offering sufficient salary to get sufficient qualified building inspectors? If they have sufficient inspectors, why should these complaints be coming in? I should also like to ask the corporation, through the minister, to give us some idea of how many complaints they have received about this particular project. Have they investigated all these complaints? Have they found out whether or not they were ill founded? It seems to me that if members have received a great many complaints, surely the corporation has also, and I should like to know what type of investigation has been carried out.
With regard to the particular case I mentioned a few minutes ago, apparently the complaints were valid, because the inspectors made several return trips and the work was still not done satisfactorily. I would also raise this question and ask the minister to answer it. If a building company has developed a record of this type, and apparently because of the type of workmen they are hiring there are too many complaints from prospective or actual buyers, does this make any difference



IS, 1964

[Stage Direction]
to the corporation's dealings with the building company in the future? In other words, if there are too many complaints does that company continue to be an approved builder eligible to receive N.H.A. loans?
This is a very serious matter for the people in these houses. They are paying a considerable amount of money for them and will have to pay this money for many years to come. They are concerned that they receive value for their money. I know there have been some complaints that this particular project is not meeting N.H.A. minimum standards. The general type of housing construction in the area is of a higher standard than is the case with this project, which is simply meeting the minimum N.H.A. standards as to the spacing of the framing, 2 by 4's, joists, etc. I am very concerned about the complaints regarding the quality of the workmanship. The corporation has sent people back time and again to try and repair some of this poor workmanship. I simply conclude, Mr. Chairman, by asking whether C.M.H.C. has sufficient inspectors in the lower mainland area to carry out the kind of inspection that should be carried out. If they have not, why do they not have sufficient inspectors who are qualified to do this work? Also, has the corporation received a considerable number of complaints from this particular project, Richmond Gardens, and has it been found that these complaints were well founded?
Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting here patiently and I want to make a few remarks on this item. First of all I should like to say how much I appreciate the courtesy of the senior officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the keen attention they have paid to any complaints that have been directed to them by people in my constituency. I appreciate that very much because there are a few unusual and particular problems which have arisen during the last year. I was very glad they acted promptly in getting the facts and dealing with the situation, meeting the local representatives of the council in one case and certain other individuals on another occasion. I also recognize the good work which has been done by local officials. Sometimes one is misinformed and I have had a few letters criticizing local officials for delay in making arrangements for certain payments to be made in regard to the winter works program, I think the $500 for winter built houses. That was not the fault of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Supply-National Revenue but was occasioned, shall I say, by some delay in another department in making a payment.
I want to take this opportunity again to stress the need for continued and careful consideration of the needs of the residents in the smaller communities. I think there has been an improvement in this respect in recent years, but I do urge continued consideration of the particular problems which arise in smaller communities.
Second I want to urge once more-I am sure the minister supports me in this-that everything be done to utilize local materials. We have all these synthetic materials and newer types of materials these days, but there is no more interesting house today, both in its exterior and its interior, than one built from forest products. There is a great opportunity for even further research in this respect.
I would also say that I was very pleased that the local officials during the last year or so have met with responsible organizations in various communities to explain the operation of the act, the regulations, and so on. I urge a continuation of that policy because it removes a lot of misunderstanding. If you can get the co-operation of responsible groups such as chambers of commerce, labour organizations and farmers' organizations in the administration of the act, and in dealing with any problems which arise locally, I think matters generally are settled to the satisfaction of all concerned. The greater co-operation that exists in the administration of any department, the more democratic is the system.
I want to bring to the attention of the minister a problem which has interested me for some years and which has also particularly interested the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans' organizations in the country. I am referring to the problem of satisfactory housing for aging veterans who are capable of looking after themselves. I have discussed this question pretty thoroughly with a good number of veterans and with representatives from local organizations, and I have become well informed on the matter as a result of attendances at conventions of veterans' organizations, zone council meetings of the Royal Canadian Legion in my own constituency, attendance at branch meetings of the Legion and attendance at meetings of other organizations which are interested in this particular problem. I met some of the committee members of the Royal Canadian Legion on housing and discussed it with them,

Supply-National Revenue and I found that this problem was not just related to Kootenay West but was of concern across Canada.
I want to make a special appeal, Mr. Chairman, for some further consideration of the needs of these veterans for assistance under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, and in this regard to quote briefly from the report of the committee on aging veterans and housing of the Royal Canadian Legion. Their report deals with the needs of aging veterans for housing, and this is an extract from the report which was submitted to the nineteenth dominion convention at Halifax:
Provided that an aging veteran is physically and mentally capable of looking after himself, either alone or with help, and provided he has sufficient funds to live on and is adequately housed, he will be happier and it will, in every way, be better for him to remain an ordinary citizen enjoying his own comparative independence in his own community.
I heartily agree with that paragraph in the report because that has been my experience. I know a number of veterans in my own constituency who are desirous of living in satisfactory houses, not palatial quarters by any means, in the community. They have spent the greater part of their lives in these communities and wish to live among people they know, and this is the reason for this particular representation this afternoon. The report goes on:
It was further noted that while valuable help and co-operation was available from several of our provincial governments, there was little or no help received from our federal government, outside of the fact that a loan for building purposes could be secured from C.M.H.C. It was also the opinion of our committee that the sponsoring body had to pay far too high a rate of interest on the mortgage money (presently 5J per cent, while the interest rate under V.L.A. is only 31 per cent). The situation was further aggravated by the government's action last year imposing an accelerated sales tax on building materials which by next year will amount to 11 per cent. A request that Legion-sponsored housing for aging citizens be exempt from this tax was contained in the brief presented to the cabinet last November. To date we have received no relief on this. Construction of homes such as these is a non-profit venture and we feel that this tax is unjust. We do pay provincial taxes which we cannot object to, as we receive other considerations, but from the federal government, no assistance is provided other than a loan. We feel this should be of vital concern to the department of health and welfare.
I draw that to the particular attention of the minister who I see is listening most carefully to my remarks on this occasion. The report continues:
Your committee recommends that C.M.H.C. be requested to develop plans for smaller projects of
[Mr. Herridge.l
10 to 15 units, in the same way as plans are provided for veterans wishing to construct their own homes. This information would be of considerable help to our sponsoring groups who wish to do something for our senior people in the smaller towns and cities. It is further recommended that more detailed written instructions be made available outlining the requirements that have to be met by sponsoring groups to qualify for loans so sponsors of projects will become better acquainted with the requirements for same.
I heartily support that recommendation and urge that it be given favourable consideration.
I should like to quote another paragraph from this interesting report which I promised certain persons to bring to the attention of the minister:
At present, C.M.H.C. has a regulation that low-rental homes may only be used by people who are 60 years of age and over. It is recommended that this regulation be amended to permit disabled persons of any age to take advantage of this assistance.
I think that is a very good point indeed.
It was also suggested that further study should be given to the advisability of restricting admittance of those who, other than disabled persons, are over 65 years of age.
Another regulation which adds considerably to the cost of construction is with respect to the size of both suites and storage space. Persons with sufficient income, living in commercial, profit making buildings, are paying much higher rates for considerably smaller accommodation than that required by C.M.H.C. in our housing projects. The greater percentage of our units are far more elaborate than the requirements demand.
I do think that consideration should be given to evolving a design which meets the needs of those persons who wish to take advantage of the act to live under very modest circumstances.
If C.M.H.C. would reduce its requirements for space, this would result in greatly reduced construction costs.
I have mentioned these sections of this report because I think they are based on a very sound study of the situation by some very capable men who undertook to become members of this housing committee of the Royal Canadian Legion. As the result of the collection of information from various branches across Canada it represents the opinion of those persons who are interested and represents, shall I say, the need for consideration of changes in the regulations and administration to meet the circumstances.
I see I have been allowed to go three or four minutes overtime and I thank hon. members for their courtesy in this respect. I do urge the minister and his officials to give some consideration to the particular needs of

aging veterans who are quite capable of taking care of themselves and who want to continue to reside in the communities in which they have lived for many years.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the vote carry?


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to ask one very brief question. Is it possible for the minister to give a short progress report on the meetings which I understand have been commenced between representatives of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Department of National Defence and the city of Halifax and surrounding communities for the purpose of resolving the big problem there in respect of accommodation for navy personnel?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am glad to inform the hon. member that we had a good meeting in Halifax. It was held in Admiralty house. Admiral Brock and several of his officials were present. In fact, I understand that the officials who presented the case for the service personnel when the defence committee was in Halifax were represented at this gathering. It was agreed that a committee should be set up immediately upon which the service personnel would be represented and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I believe that Mr. Houston, who used to be in Vancouver and is now head of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the Atlantic provinces, is chairman of the committee. They are at work now trying to find a solution for this serious problem.
Supply-National Revenue


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the vote carry?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated earlier that he had the balance sheet on the costs of the Fraserview houses and I wonder whether we could get that now or when the committee meets again.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have it here. I would be glad to have it also printed in Hansard. It is a full page and it shows not only the costs but a breakdown of maintenance and operating expenses, payments in lieu of taxes and so on year by year up to 1962. It also shows the credits. It shows that the average operating loss per unit, charging for money at 21 per cent over the 50 year period, at the rental level that prevailed prior to October 1 of this year was $10.38 per unit.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister misunderstood me. I was talking about the sale price. Could the minister give us the balance sheet which would show us the essential thing we want to know, namely the figure on C.M.H.C.'s books at which these houses stand?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would be glad to. I have that here and I could put that in also as part of the record today provided I have the consent of the committee.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that these tables will be incorporated in the minister's remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables above referred to are as follows:]
Vancouver 6-Fraserview
Capital cost and financing statement as at December 31, 1963
Capital cost to Dec. 31/53 (The last unit was completed and turned over Nov/53).. $10,972,275
Additional capital cost 1954 to 1958	 308,177
Final capital cost	 $11,340,452
Cost breakdown as follows:
Land	 $ 1,202,390
Services	 2,241,751
Houses	 7,896,311



n
o
''i
o
o

o

w
Supply-National Revenue


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the minister this question? This would give us the figure at which these houses could be sold if the only purposes was to clear off all liabilities for C.M.H.C.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is this figure anywhere near the price at which the houses are being sold?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It was $4,381,005 at the time, when there were 630 houses still to be sold.


Fred Frise Stenson: Mr. Chairman, would the minister consider some time in the future the matter I raised regarding taxes?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will undertake to meet with the hon. member and give him the information he has requested today.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Chairman, I would be quite satisfied if the minister would take note of the questions asked and reply to me personally or by letter.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have taken note of the question and I can answer one of the questions asked now. I can assure the hon. member that if an approved lender or builder does not correct his practices he is struck off the list. The builder and the lender are treated in the same way. I will give a more complete answer to the hon. member either in writing or, if he prefers, in my office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate to acquaint this house that the Senate have passed the address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen, conveying to Her Majesty the expression of our deepest loyalty, affection and respect and of our heartfelt appreciation of her recent visit to Canada and have inserted in the blank space therein the words "Senate and".
I also have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate as follows:
Resolved-That the following address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General, namely:
Business of the House
To His Excellency General the Right Honourable Georges P. Vanier, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, upon whom has been conferred the Military Cross and the Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
The Senate.. .of Canada, in parliament assembled, have agreed to an address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen, conveying to Her Majesty the expression of our deepest loyalty, affection and respect, and of our heartfelt appreciation of her recent visit to Canada, in the manner set forth in our joint address hereto attached, and respectfully request that Your Excellency will be pleased to transmit the said address to Her Majesty the Queen.
Ordered-That the Clerk do go down to the House of Commons and acquaint that house that the Senate have passed an address to His Excellency the Governor General respectfully requesting that His Excellency may be pleased to transmit our joint address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen, conveying to Her Majesty the expression of our deepest loyalty, affection and respect, and: of our heartfelt appreciation of her recent visit to Canada, and more particularly set forth in the said joint address, and request the House of Commons to unite with this house in the address to His Excellency the Governor General by inserting therein the words "and Commons".


George James McIlraith: I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That this house do concur in the address of the Senate to His Excellency the Governor General, respectfully requesting that His Excellency may be pleased to transmit the joint address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen; that the words "and Commons" be inserted in the said address from the Senate; and that a message be sent to the Senate informing their honours that this house doth unite with the Senate in the said address.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (B) for the financial year ending March 31, 1965, was presented by Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (President of the Queen's Privy Council), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

George James McIlraith: If it is agreeable to the house, Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate the business for Monday now, rather than at six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: On Monday the government proposes to submit for consideration of the house item No. 77 on today's order paper,

Private Bills
the house in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-126, an act respecting hours of work, minimum wages, annual vacations and holidays with pay in federal works, undertakings and businesses. In the happy event of that being disposed of before the end of the day, we propose to submit for consideration several smaller bills and perhaps I should indicate them by the numbers of the items on today's order paper: item No. 51 on today's order paper; item No. 68 on today's order paper; item No. 32 on today's order paper and item No. 69 on today's order paper. Then, on Tuesday, regardless of the progress made on Monday, we should like to call for consideration of the house item No. 6 on today's order paper, that is the house in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to a consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



POST OFFICE ACT


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved: second reading of Bill No. C-43, to amend the Post Office Act (hate literature).
He said: Mr. Speaker, Canadian cities from Montreal to Vancouver in recent months have been inundated by hundreds of thousands of pamphlets, some of them by mail and some by door to door distribution. The material in these pamphlets has been of the kind that most of us thought would have disappeared with the defeat of Hitler's armies in Germany. Much of the material has been actual reprints from material which was published by the nazis in Germany. I am sure hon. members have seen copies of the infamous paper put out by the nazis called Der Sturmer which went to many homes across Canada. I have with me, as I am sure other hon. members have, some samples of the literature which has been distributed. One distributed in Toronto some months ago, which has been referred to in this house on a number of occasions, mailed from Scarborough and printed originally in Atlanta, Georgia, comes from the National White Americans Party. Mr. Speaker, I wish to read just a couple of lines from this pamphlet to indicate the kind of filth which is going into Canadian homes:
(Mr. Mcllraith.]
We believe in sending all negroes back to Africa whence they came. The negro races have never developed a civilization, discovered any new invention, written a great symphony, or even originated an alphabet. They are on a much lower level to the whites.
Coming a couple of days after Martin Luther King received the Nobel prize for work for peace, I think this indicates the level to which such material descends. Later on, the same pamphlet says:
On the Jewish question our policy is much stricter. We demand the arrest of all Jews involved in communist or Zionist plots, public trials and executions. All other Jews would be immediately sterilized so that they could not breed more Jews. This is vital because the Jews are criminals as a race, who have been active in anti-Christian plots throughout their entire history.
Last week in the city of Ottawa I received a pamphlet, apparently printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but mailed in Toronto, headed "Anti-Semitism, a Phony Bogey." Some weeks ago an Ottawa resident sent me a copy of a paper, put out in Ottawa, called The South End News, which is mailed through the facilities of the post office. Its issue of August 6, 1964 devoted a full page to the reprint from the Protocols of Zion, incidentally quoting Henry Ford as to the veracity of it, even though it is well known Mr. Ford made a public statement many years ago saying he realized this was a complete forgery.
This is the kind of material being distributed in Montreal and Toronto. I have also with me a statement issued by the secretary of the B.C. federation of labour, Mr. O'Neal, referring to the kind of material which is being distributed in Vancouver. In my own city of Winnipeg the Winnipeg junior chamber of commerce, in the summer issue of its magazine called Actimist, printed a whole page with a montage of the kind of pamphlets being distributed in Winnipeg.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that in proposing any kind of legislation which would restrict the rights of people in Canada to use the mails, I can be accused of infringing on the democratic rights of people, and that I can be accused of supporting censorship. However, since coming to this house I have consistently defended the rights of any and all groups, no matter what their opinions, no matter how small a minority, to have the widest democratic rights, above all the right to express their opinions. But it seems to me we must distinguish between democratic rights and licence, licence to incite to vio-

lence, licence to incite to kill, licence to attack people on the basis of race, creed, colour or religion.
For those of us who were born in Canada and who have lived under a democratic system of society, most of us looking at this kind of material would think it was ridiculous that it could not have any effect and that we ought to ignore it. But that was precisely the attitude taken by so many people in Germany, until it was too late.
A large number of organizations have called on the government to take action in respect to this matter. I am sure the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) know better than I do the organizations which have written them and which have passed resolutions urging action on this matter. I have seen some of the material. I have seen editorials, written in newspapers published in almost every city of Canada, calling on the government to take action.
I know that the Canadian Legion passed resolutions at its national convention. I know that the Canadian Labour Congress submitted a brief to the Minister of Justice calling for action. I know that the Canadian Jewish Congress has called for amendments to the Criminal Code. Just briefly I wish to refer to two of these submissions made to the government, in order to indicate the kind of proposals which the government has been asked to consider.
The Canadian Labour Congress, in a brief presented to the Minister of Justice on April 7, 1964, by the president of the congress, Mr. Claude Jodoin, made two specific recommendations, and I quote:
We call upon the government to enact legislation which would require the authors, publishers, distributors and printers of any printed matter being sent through the mails to identify themselves clearly on the face of the material which they disseminate. This legislation should be drafted in such a way as to require the identification of at least one responsible officer as well as that of the organization itself. It should also identify the Canadian accomplices in the distribution of materials printed outside of Canada.
If such a proposal had been adopted by the government it would in fact only be applying to this kind of material the same kind of provisions which we have in our legislation with respect to elections, which require that all election material have the person responsible for its printing identified on it. In fact it is similar to the kind of provisions which are in the labour relations
Private Bills
act, which require a union, during an organizing campaign, to identify itself on any printed material it distributes.
The Canadian Labour Congress in its brief also said:
We call upon the government to enact legislation making it illegal to publish statements which are designed to incite violence or disorder against groups because of the group's race, creed, colour, place of birth, national or ethnic origin.
On March 12, 1964 the Canadian Jewish Congress submitted a brief to the Minister of Justice and the Postmaster General, in which they made several specific proposals, one being that section 166(2) of the Criminal Code include the following:
Injury or mischief to a public interest shall include the promotion of hatred, contempt or hostility against a group of persons by reason of their particular race, national or ethnic origin, colour or religion.
And that a new section 62A should read:
Every person who publishes or circulates or causes to be published or circulated, orally or in writing, any matter or statement which is intended or calculated to incite violence or disorder against a group of persons of a particular race, national or ethnic origin, colour or religion, or against the members thereof, shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable for imprisonment for two years.
I know that both these briefs received very sympathetic consideration from the Minister of Justice. I know he is concerned, and rightly so, about the kind of hate literature which is being distributed. Nevertheless he and his officials have not been able to draft legislation which, though not accepting the specific proposals I have quoted, would at least begin to meet some of the problems which have arisen. It is for that reason I hope the house will give serious consideration to my bill today.
I recognize there may be difficulties. I recognize that once you begin to put any kind of prohibition on the freest dissemination of printed material you may run into difficulty. But, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that until the government brings in alternative legislation, which the Minister of Justice on a number of occasions has indicated the government is considering, the house should give sympathetic and favourable consideration to my proposal.
My proposal is a very simple one. It is merely an addition to section 7 of the Post Office Act, which would spell out the rights of the Postmaster General to restrict the mailing rights of people who are using the mails to distribute hate literature.
On Wednesday of this week, as reported at page 9041 of Hansard, the minister was

Private Bills
asked a question by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Walker), with respect to actions which he had taken in several cases. The minister made an excellent statement to the effect that he had already taken action against several people who had been found responsible for the dissemination of hate literature. I think the actions of the minister were very proper and very correct. I am concerned, however, that should he take similar action in the future his orders might be challenged, not simply before a board of review, which I understand is an internal organization, but on the basis that the hon. gentleman does not have the power under the Post Office Act as it now stands to issue orders of the kind he has already made.
The gist of my bill is simply to spell out the legislation so that there may be no question that the minister has the right to take action to remove mailing privileges from people who disseminate literature of this kind. As I said earlier, those of us who were born in Canada and who have lived here all our lives may not regard this as a very important matter. We may not feel that many people will be misled by this kind of filth which has been widely disseminated. However, to the people who have come from Europe, more than a million of them, from countries where literature of this kind was extensively used to divide people, this is a matter which is serious, which really is urgent, and in respect of which the government should take action and take action now.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Let me say at the outset of my remarks that nobody in this chamber is more disgusted or more shocked than I am at the distribution of the vicious material of the kind referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
To me it makes no difference whether this vile material is distributed through the mail or by any other means; it is offensive and objectionable and every reasonable effort must be made to stop it. Nobody is more anxious than I, or the government, to put an end to this filthy business and to protect the innocent persons in Canada who have suffered from such conduct.
As I have stated more than once in this house, my department is working closely with the Department of Justice in an effort not only to find some effective legislation to deal with this situation, but to find an effective means of applying existing laws to cut off what I think has properly been referred to as traffic in hate. We are trying to find a means of amending the law in a way which

will accomplish the purpose the hon. member had in mind when he introduced this bill.
I will admit frankly, however, that in searching for a solution to this problem we are on the horns of a dilemma. If, on the other hand, we do not take effective action against these nefarious traffickers in hate literature, this traffic is likely to continue. On the other hand, and this is what distresses me-and I know it distresses others with whom I have discussed it-if we do take strict measures to shut off the use of the mails to those who deal in hate literature we shall almost certainly prejudice the rights and freedom of the majority of Canadians and others who use our mails for decent and legitimate purposes.
Perhaps we should look back on history. It will be recalled that the privacy of the royal mails has always by law and practice been sacrosanct, at any rate in this country. In times of peace post office officials have never had the right to act as censors, to open deliverable letters and, more important, to decide what is objectionable or unacceptable correspondence. I believe that we in this house must make very sure that any action we may take to suppress the transmission of hate literature is not likely to result in a situation where government officials, with no trained jurists to guide them-and certainly the officials of my department are not trained jurists-would be called upon to exercise censorship of the mails and to impose their ideas of morality upon the public at large. I believe that legislation which would permit such a situation would be striking a blow at the very roots of our freedom of speech and expression. If today we decide it is illegal to express an opinion about a religious sect or group, then tomorrow why should we not make it illegal to attack a political party or to question the authority of the government? If there is one thing I have learned in the few months I have been Postmaster General, it is that the post office is really a service organization; it is in the business of carrying the mails expeditiously. It is not our responsibility or our business to decide what opinions are legal or illegal. Surely that is a matter for the courts. And when the courts have made the decisions as to what is right or wrong and what should or should not be distributed, then I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, the post office will exert every reasonable effort to carry that decision into effect when it has to do with the use of Her Majesty's mails.

Private Bills
I am well aware that certain sections of the Post Office Act and of the Criminal Code give the Postmaster General the authority to prohibit the use of the mails for illegal purposes and, as has just been mentioned by the hon. member for Winnpeg North, I have had occasion to exercise my powers under that statute more than once during the last few months. Twice I have issued orders, once in July and again in late September, under section 7 of the act under which I have been given the right, if I feel that a section of the Criminal Code is being broken, to prohibit the use of the mail for the distribution of indecent or scurrilous literature. I had no doubt about reaching the conclusion that the material in question was scurrilous and I had no hesitation in imposing these orders, the first of which now stands as a final order.
Obviously, however, an attempt has been made to get around my first order because directly it was put into effect another organization, with a name similar to the one I had prohibited, came into being. That is what happens in these cases. The organizations affected go under cover, adopt a new name and start out afresh. However, I have not hesitated to use my authority where I can in an effort to suppress the distribution of scurrilous literature whether by organizations or by individuals. We will block it in Canada, and we will block it coming into Canada if we have to.
In the last case-and the literature to which the hon. member has just referred is this type of literature-the literature was so vicious, so outrageous, so scurrilous that I felt I had very firm grounds for taking the action that I did. But I should point out and reiterate what I said a moment ago, that what has happened in this particular case illustrates the thing about which I am most concerned, namely that it drives these people underground and they seek the protection and privacy of the first class mail, which we cannot open. We cannot under such circumstances even perform the service we are performing now, if they resort to that practice. When this happens we have a very limited course of action open to us.
My department and the Department of Justice have this difficult problem under active and intensive study. We have not as yet, unfortunately, come up with what we consider to be an effective solution-that is to say, a solution that would stop the flow of hate literature but at the same time would not interfere with the right of free expression
or the privacy-and this is what concerns us -of the mails. If we had to open all letters in trying to find out whether or not hate literature or even vicious material was being distributed, we would come across all kinds of secrets and we would find ourselves acting as censors in many fields which are of no concern to the department.
It is my opinion that if a solution-and we must strive to find a solution-is to be found, it will lie in an amendment to the Criminal Code or some similar statute, rather than in changes in the Post Office Act. I say this because, as I intimated earlier, in my opinion-and I practised law for nearly 20 years before I went into business, and had some experience in the criminal courts as well as with constitutional law-the courts, which interpret the Criminal Code and our other statutes, are the logical persons, are the proper judges, of what literature is decent, what literature is vicious, what literature is legal and what literature is illegal. In my humble opinion it is not for post office officials to make such decisions, as I am sure most members of this house will agree.
Mr. Speaker, from the time the first newspaper was printed and the first broadside distributed, those whose views were offended have cried out for control, for censorship. It is easy to say, "This material is vicious," or "scurrilous," or "poisonous. Ban it from the mails". But I again say, who is to judge what is vicious, what is scurrilous and what is poisonous, unless it can be brought to the attention of some person charged with the specific responsibility, and brought before that person in a proper way? Especially, who is to make the decision as to just what sealed letters officials of the post office can open? If they do, what do you do with mail that comes in a plain envelope, first class mail? It will be said that some of the cases that have been discussed in the house, including some of those mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), this afternoon are very obviously scurrilous. I most certainly agree. But if we start, where do we stop? Do we prohibit the use of the mails to a newspaper because it attacks a political organization? Do we ban the use of mails to those religious publications that violently and intolerantly oppose other denominations?
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I loathe and detest the foul propaganda that has been circulated throughout this country by people with warped and twisted minds. I believe that every possible action should be taken against them under the law. But in saying that, Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Private Bills
Speaker, let us make sure that we do not set up a machine that is perhaps potentially more dangerous than the evil we are fighting. Let us make sure that the medicine is not worse than the disease. Let us make sure that our decisions as to what is right and what is wrong are made by the established process of law, by the courts, and not by officials of the post office or any other department. They certainly should not be made by persons whose prime job is to distribute the mail as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. They are not there to act as censors; they are there to do the job in the quickest and most expeditious way.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have received some of the literature that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has described. I think all members of this house join in agreeing that it is offensive, that it is deplorable that persons should take it upon themselves, first of all to write and then to distribute this kind of despicable material. I think too that when we understand that there is an opportunity, through paying a certain amount of postage, to deliver these things through the mail to a great many people who have not subscribed to them, they do take offence and resent the fact that this kind of material is being sent into their homes.
I have to agree, however, with the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) that there are some very serious problems involved in administering the provisions contained in Bill No. C-43. The minister mentioned-and I was pleased that he did mention these things- that a post office department is not and should not be a censorship bureau or organization; they are primarily, and perhaps even solely, concerned with being a service organization to deliver the mail. Therefore we run into the problem, because I do not see it provided for in the amendments to the act that are proposed to us, of who is going to decide what is in fact calculated to bring into hatred, ridicule or contempt any person or group of persons by reason of race, national origin, colour or religion. It is, as has been quite properly stated, a matter for the courts to decide as to what should be calculated to bring into hatred or ridicule any of these things.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this is not an easy matter. I think it is well that we have this bill before us so we may discuss this problem, cast some light on it and then give consideration to what can be done about it.

As has been said by both hon. members who have spoken, it is an offensive thing to receive some of these pieces of literature, but at the same time to amend the Post Office Act in such a way that you can prevent this literature being carried is perhaps not the way to deal with it. I think, too, that the Criminal Code should be amended so it could be made substantially more clear with regard to what would be an offence, to be decided by the courts, with regard to printing this kind of literature. But I do not think members of the house would be satisfied to set up any quasi judicial committee or board to really decide whether an offence had been committed, because the two or three pieces of literature from which the hon. member for Winnipeg North quoted are certainly extreme cases and there would be no problem in deciding that this was scurrilous, offensive, and so on. If we were to write into the statutes the provision that this be decided by the Post Office Department, they are certainly going to be presented with other pieces of literature not so extreme. Then it will be a problem of making a decision whether or not they are an offence under the act.
I want to join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) in expressing our distaste at the fact that it is possible for this sort of thing to be distributed; but at the same time I believe we must be pretty careful about charging the Post Office Department with a responsibility with which they are not equipped to deal, and further must be reasonably careful not to set up restrictions in the use of mail which really may not serve the purpose for which they are designed.


Mr. M. L. Klein (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) for the action he took in July and September of this year in passing judgment on this scurrilous literature and I believe he has earned the approval of every right thinking man, certainly in this house and in the Dominion of Canada.
It is not my purpose to deal with this matter at length but I should like to bring to the attention of the house a statement made by President Johnson after the assassination of President Kennedy. It is printed by the Institute of Human Relations of the United States and the quotation is as follows:
The time has come for Americans of all races and creeds and political beliefs to understand and to respect one another. So, let us put an end to the teaching and preaching of hate and evil and

violence. Let us turn away from the fanatics, from the far left and the far right, from the apostles of bitterness and bigotry, from those defiant of law, and those who pour venom into our nation's bloodstream.
Appearing in the Montreal Star of this week is an article dealing with the appearance of President Johnson in Corpus Christi, Texas, this Sunday. A raid had been made by the police and an ex-plumber was questioned, at whose home the police seized guns and nazi flags in connection with a reported plot to kill President Johnson this Sunday. The police chief and 25 deputies gathered up machine guns, automatic pistols, high-powered rifles, a mortar, a rocket launcher, live hand grenades and about 20,000 rounds of commercial and homemade ammunition, swords, several nazi flags, world war I and II German helmets, and so on. I bring this to the attention of the house in order to indicate that hate literature brings the kind of violence it breeds, especially in the state of Texas. Because where hate literature flourishes it creates an atmosphere which gives the assassin the courage which he would not have in a healthy and sane community.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house the fact that in discussing another bill dealing with group defamation there was a motion to send it to the external affairs committee as set out in the motion at page 5984 of Hansard. I would be happy to have this bill referred to that committee, since the motion stood in the name of the government, and particularly since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), at page 7823 of Hansard, is reported as saying:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this question of hate literature and the action to be taken under the Criminal Code has been under consideration by the government for months, would the minister consider setting up a special committee of the house to look into the whole problem, to hear the law officers of the crown, and to ascertain whether action has been taken in other parts of the world without interference with freedom, to the end that the house might favour the recommendation of amendments to the Criminal Code-
And so on. In view of the fact that the government seems to favour a committee for this type of subject matter, whether the external affairs committee or some other committee, and in view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, and I believe the leaders of other parties also favour committee consideration, I hope that a clinical study can be made of this bill by referring it and all other bills of this nature to that committee.
Private Bills


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) for the worth-while initiative he took in introducing Bill No. C-43 to amend section 7 of the Post Office Act.
Before proceeding with my remarks on this bill, I feel it would be proper to read section 7 of the Post Office Act:
(1) Whenever the Postmaster General believes on reasonable grounds that any person
(a)	is, by means of the mails,
(i)	committing or attempting to commit an offence, or
(ii)	aiding, counselling or procuring any person to commit an offence, or
(b)	with intent to commit an offence, is using the mails for the purpose of accomplishing his object, the Postmaster General may make an interim order (in this section called an "interim prohibitory order") prohibiting the delivery of all mail directed to that person (in this section called the "person affected") or deposited by that person in a post office.
The amendment provided for in Bill No. C-43 apparently would deny in effect the use of Her Majesty's mail to persons who address or disseminate hate literature calculated to foster hatred, cast contempt or ridicule on any person or group of persons for reasons of race, national origin, colour, religion, etc.
This matter, Mr. Speaker, has been brought up in this house many times before, and I entirely agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North who, with all his deep and sincere feelings, respects the rights and freedoms of every citizen of this country, whatever his tongue, religion, nationality or colour.
I am one of those who in this house have vehemently protested against the almost systematic poisoning of our youth and our whole population, as practised by certain publicity media in this country. The mails, Mr. Speaker, are not the only means used for discriminatory purposes. One only has to read certain newspapers and publications and look at certain television programs to realize the immense harm and sometimes irretrievable injury which some of those writings, programs or broadcasts can inflict upon the individual, the family and the Canadian population in general.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, in view of the fact that we did not get started on this bill until 20 minutes

Private Bills
after five o'clock, and also in view of the general interest in this matter and the very constructive suggestion made by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein), I wonder whether hon. members would agree that this bill should retain its position on the order paper?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house agree that this bill will retain its position on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following item was passed in committee of supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
Loans, investments and advances-
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
L20. Advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 37 of the National Housing Act, 1954, in respect of the acquisition, development, construction and improvement of land and buildings, $216,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday. October 19, 1964