1966-10-26

IMMIGRATION


Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly-Rouville) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that having united with them in the formation of a special Joint Committee to examine and report upon the White Paper on Immigration tabled in the House of Commons by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on October 14, 1966, the Members to serve on this Committee for the House of Commons will be Messrs. Aiken, Badanai, Baldwin, Bell (Carleton), Brewin, Crossman, Deachman, Dinsdale, Enns, Haidasz, Klein, Laprise, Macaluso, Munro, Nasserden, Orlikow, Pelletier, Prud'homme, Reid, Regimbal, Skoreyko, Tremblay, Wahn and Watson (Chateauguay-Hun-tingdon-Laprairie).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of standing committee on public accounts-Mr. Hales.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Orange: Does the Department of National Health and Welfare have any plans for moving the location of the medical clinic in Fort Smith from its present site to the Fort Smith general hospital and (a) if so, when (b) if not, does the department propose to provide additional or alternate clinical services to this community?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No. At one time such a move was planned but discarded when the cost of necessary alterations became known,
(a)	Not applicable, (b) Yes. This project has a high priority in the five year (1967-1972) health plan of the Department of National Health and Welfare proposed for the Northwest Territories.


REDEVELOPMENT OF LEBRETON FLATS. OTTAWA
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What has been the total cost to date of redevelopment of LeBreton flats in the national capital, broken down into (a) cost of acquiral of land and buildings (b) cost of demolition (c) other costs, specifying same?
2.	What additional costs, under each of these headings, are anticipated prior to the commencement of building construction or other utilization of the area?
3.	What is the total acreage which has been acquired?
4.	Of this, what has been set aside for (a) building construction, specifying proposed use (b) parkways (c) streets (d) parking areas and structures (e) parks (f) others, specifying proposed use?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The total cost of redevelopment of LeBreton flats in the national capital, broken down into: (a) cost of acquired land and buildings, $17,791,139.37; (b) cost of demolition, $335,000; (c) cost of improvements to roadways, curbing drainage, culverts, bridges, and landscaping, $206,750.39.
The above amounts have been expended to date.
2.	Estimated additional costs anticipated prior to commencement of building construction or other utilization of the area are as follows: (a) $1,000,000 for land and building acquisition; (b) $50,000 for demolition; (c) Other costs, $500,000 for roadways; $1,000,000 for utilities prior to scheduled occupation of portion of site by Department of Public Works for construction of Department of National Defence headquarters.
3.	The total area acquired is 145 acres, composed as follows: (a) 56 acres expropriated;
(b)	60 acres to N.C.C. from C.P.R. under railway relocation scheme; (c) 29 acres reclaimed from Nepean bay.
This does not include the 18 acres occupied by the streets.
4.	Land, including streets, has been set aside for the following uses: (a) Buildings, national defence headquarters, 27 acres; other federal government buildings, 34 acres; reserved for buildings, 16 acres; total, 77 acres, (b) Parkways, 32 acres, (c) Streets and proposed freeway right of way, 42 acres, (d) Parking areas and structures, 8 acres, (e) Parks, 4 acres. Total, 163 acres.

October 26, 1966
Questions


PAYMENTS TO QUEBEC UNDER SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Godin: 1.	Under the federal-provincial social allowances programs, does the federal government make payments to the province of Quebec (a) according to a list of names (b) in a total amount (c) at the beginning or at the end of a given period?
2.	What was the total amount paid by the federal government to the province of Quebec in 1964 under this plan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. During 1964 payments to the Province of Quebec for social allowances (allocation sociales) were made on the basis of reimbursement claims submitted under the Old Age Assistance Act, the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act. (a) Claims under these Acts were supported with lists showing number of recipients and amounts paid, (b) The claims were submitted by the province at the end of each month to cover expenditures made during the month,
(c)	See answer (b) above.
2. Federal payments to Quebec during the year 1964 were: Old Age Assistance, $15,951,007; Blind Persons, $1,830,146; Disabled Persons, $8,835,114; Total, $26,616,267.


PROSECUTING COUNSEL AGAINST J. H. VAN ULAR, CAP ROUGE, QUE.
Mr. Graffley: What law firm is acting as counsel for the prosecution, in an action taken against J. H. van Ular, of 14 de la Riviere, Cape Rouge, Quebec, which commenced in June 1965?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Roger Gosselin, 466 Couronne Street, Quebec city, P.Q.
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT FUND Question No. 1,996


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: 1.	As of October 1, 1966, what was the total amount to the credit of the Canadian Pension Plan investment fund?
2.	As of that date, in what special securities of what provinces and in what securities of Canada was such amount invested, and what was the amount invested in each such security?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1. On October 1, 1966, the total amount to the credit of the fund was $336,389,000.
2.
Securities purchased for the Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund to October 1, 1966
Jurisdiction Newfoundland Prince Edward Island New Brunswick Nova Scotia Ontario
f-Manitoba Manitoba	j- Manitoba
[-Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia Canada
Borrowing authority provincial Government
tt	tt
tt	<<
it	t*
it	i*
school capital financing authority development fund water supply board provincial government municipal financing corporation hydro and power authority government of Canada
Total
Amount
($000)
6,338
1,074
9,540
12,228
193,459
10,000
7,200
2,954	20,154
14,001 29,589 49,004 1,002 336,389


HEADQUARTERS OF VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Isabelle: 1. To the knowledge of the government, where are the headquarters of the following organizations [Mr. Mcllraith.l
located: Canadian Welfare Council, Canadian Diabetic Association, Canadian Red Cross Society, Canadian Foundation for Poliomyelitis and Rehabilitation. Victorian Order of Nurses, Health League of Canada, Canadian National Institute for the
October 26, 1966

Blind, National Heart Foundation of Canada, Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Paraplegic Association, Canadian Council for Handicapped Adults and Children, St. John Ambulance Society, Canadian Tuberculosis Association, Canadian Cancer Institute, Canadian Hearing Society, Canadian Mental Health Association, Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society, Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, Retarded Children's Association of Canada, Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada, Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation?
2. Does the federal government make annual grants to these organizations and, if so, how much by provinces?
Questions
Health League of Canada	15,000
Canadian Paraplegic Association	15,000
St. John Ambulance Society	15,000
Canadian Tuberculosis Association	20,000
Canadian Mental Health Association	15,000
Canadian Welfare Council	57,500
Canadian National Institute for the Blind	55,000
Retarded Childrens' Association of
Canada	25,000


Allan Joseph MacEachen: National Organization	Headquarters
Canadian Welfare Council	Ottawa
Canadian Diabetic Association	Toronto
Canadian Red Cross Society	Toronto
Canadian Foundation for Poliomyelitis and Rehabilitation	Toronto
Victorian Order of Nurses	Ottawa
Health League of Canada	Toronto
Canadian National Institute for
the Blind	Toronto
National Heart Foundation of
Canada	Toronto
Canadian Cancer Society	Toronto
Canadian Paraplegic Association	Toronto
Canadian Council for Handicapped
Adults and Children	Toronto
St. John Ambulance Society	Ottawa
Canadian Tuberculosis Association	Ottawa
Canadian Cancer Institute	Toronto
Canadian Hearing Society	Toronto
Canadian Mental Health Association	Toronto
Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism
Society	Toronto
Multiple Sclerosis Society of
Canada	Montreal
Retarded Childrens' Association of
Canada	Toronto
Muscular Dystrophy Association of
Canada	Toronto
Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation	Toronto
2. The Department of National Health and Welfare provides annual grants to the following organizations listed in 1. above:
Annual
Grant
Names of Organizations	1965-66
Canadian Red Cross Society	$ 10,000
Victorian Order of Nurses	20,000
Information as to the manner in which these organizations allocate part of their grant to their provincial affiliates is not available.


MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL COVERAGE FOR IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Have the Departments of National Health and Welfare and/or Manpower and Immigration received any representations from International Services of London requesting coverage for new immigrants to Canada of basic hospital protection for their first three months in this country in order to assist these new-comers?
2.	Have either or both of these departments received from the same source representations to allow monetary or other consideration for newly arriving pregnant wives and, if so, what consideration has been given?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: The Ministers of National Health and Welfare and Manpower and Immigration inform me that representations were made by International House of London concerning medical and hospitalization expenses incurred by newly arrived immigrants. Various arrangements have been in effect for many years to ensure adequate protection against such expenses during an immigrant's initial period of establishment in Canada, but only where the newcomer is not in a position to pay these costs himself.
Essentially, this coverage extends only to immigrants who become indigent or who are in receipt of some form of assistance from the Department of Manpower and Immigration. The representations in question go much further than this and suggest some form of protection for newcomers who might have their successful establishment jeopardized through the dissipation of all of their available capital by unexpected medical expenses. A study is being made to see what further measures might be considered.

October 26, 1966
Questions


C.N.R. TRAIN SERVICE, ICAPUSKASING-HEARST, ONT.
Mr. Habel: Will the government consider rescinding the Board of Transport Commissioners' order No. 122271, issued on October 11, 1966, effective November 15, 1966, allowing the C.NR. to discontinue the passenger train service between Kapuskasing and Hearst, Ontario, this being the one and only such passenger train service?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: It is unusual for the government to consider altering or rescinding an order of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada unless there has been a formal appeal. The right of appeal, of course, is available in this case.


POINTE-AU-PEIRE DOCK SIDING, RIMOUSKI, QUE.
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): In what year did the government decide to build the railway siding running to Pointe-au-Pere dock?


George James McIlraith: 1959.


FEDERAL BUILDING, PORT HOPE, ONT.
Mr. Webb: 1.	Was there any damage done to the new federal building at Port Hope, Ontario, on October 18 or 19, 1966?
2.	Who is responsible for the designing of the new federal building at Port Hope, Ontario?


George James McIlraith: 1. No. However, on the night of October 19, 1966, some lettering on the front of the building was damaged by the removal of the three letters "R", "A", "L".
2. Barnett, Rieder and Creighton, consulting architects, Port Hope, Ontario.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Howe (Wellington-Huron): 1. With regard to the announcement on November 26, 1963, by the Minister of National Health and Welfare of the establishment of a fund of $600,000 to promote an anti-smoking campaign, was a technical committee set up to deal with the specifics of the program and, if so (a) who were the members of that committee (b) has there been a report made by that committee and has it been tabled in the House?
[Mr. Bechard.l
2. With regard to the $200,000 of the total $600,000 of the fund set aside for research (a) what agency of government carried out this program (b) what were the results of their experiments (c) what is the balance if any, left in the fund?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Albert Béchard: Would Your Honour be so kind as to call notice of motion No. 167?

RELOCATION OF MICHEL-NATAL, B.C. Motion No. 167 Mr. Herridge:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all communications exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia with reference to the relocation of Michel-Natal in the community of Sparwood, British Columbia.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this notice of motion for the production of certain papers I would say that the motion is acceptable to the government, subject to our being able to obtain the consent of the provincial government to the tabling of the correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house that the notice of motion be deemed to have been adopted?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of fhe Opposilion):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister, following the suggestion that has come to me in writing from a number of people, whether the government of Canada has given consideration to making a contribution to a fund being raised in connection with the Aberfan, Wales, disaster as tangible evidence of Canada's deep sympathy in the tragedy.
Righf Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, that matter is under consideration. I know the house would approve of anything the government could do in such a worthy cause, as suggested by my right hon. friend.
October 26, 1966



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue and ask whether he is now prepared to table the letter which the officials of his department gave to Volkswagen approving the sale of some 10,000 cars to Studebaker, which cars were imported into Canada and later resold to Canadian Volkswagen, resulting in a loss to the treasury of some $2 million. I wonder if the minister has had time to consider whether he is prepared to table that letter.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated I would, in the house, yesterday, I have consulted with officials of my department. I had the letter brought to me and read it. From my review of the letter I could see no reason why I should not table it. However, I deemed it necessary that I should first obtain an opinion from my department as to whether the tabling of this particular letter, which was a general ruling, would affect the confidentiality which normally exists between taxpayers and my department.
Personally, from my reading of the letter I could see no reason why I should not table it, but in order that I would not establish a precedent whereby anyone might ask that any letters between taxpayers and the Department of National Revenue be tabled, I felt I should first obtain an opinion from my department. That opinion should be forthcoming, I would imagine, by tomorrow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the recipient of the letter has made public reference to it, it seems most proper that it be tabled. May I also ask the minister whether he has been able to refresh his memory since yesterday and can now tell us when the investigation by his department into this particular transaction began?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there is no necessity to refresh my memory in this regard. I stated yesterday that the investigation was started before the matter was raised in the House of Commons. As a matter of fact the particular examination of this transaction, in conjunction with our normal examination of entries under the automotive pact, which is the special responsibility of my department, was begun a number of months ago.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the minister give us an approximate date?


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister tell us whether he, or to his knowledge the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), discussed with any official of the Studebaker Company, with Mr. Barths of Volkswagen, or with any official of either firm any of the details of the general outline of the plan before these cars were imported into Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, of course I cannot answer for the Minister of Industry, but as far as I am concerned the answer is emphatically no.


John George Diefenbaker: Then would the minister say whether he had any discussions with officers of either of these corporations before or after the investigation, which has now been under way for several months, was commenced, and why there has been so much delay in regard to a matter as important as this?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that my department is responsible for making sure that automobile firms which are covered by the automotive pact and by the two orders in council, namely the one passed by this government and the preceding one passed by the previous government, are policed. This involves a continuous process of policing the entries which are made under the automotive pact to make sure that no customs duties are evaded and that the automobile firms comply with the requirements of the orders in council.


John George Diefenbaker: This transaction did not arise under the order in council which was passed by my government.


Edgar John Benson: The automobile firms have to comply with the requirements of, first, the order in council of the previous government, second, the one passed by this government and subsequently the automotive pact.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Did he or his colleague the Minister of Industry, when they gave approval to the Studebaker-Volkswagen deal, suggest or recommend to the company that the 17 per cent saving in duty should be passed on to the Canadian purchaser?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.
October 26, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Starr:: I wish to address a question [Translation] to the minister.	EDUCATION


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a question of privilege in connection with the answer I just gave. First of all I would like to point out that I cannot answer for the Minister of Industry. Second, I would like to say that I did not give approval to anything. It is the duty of my department to apply the law passed by this parliament, and the officials of my department endeavour to do this.
Any opinions we may hand down to any taxpayer in Canada are based on the law which is passed by parliament and approved by the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Megantic rising on a supplementary question?


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Megantic):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the answer given by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) to the effect that the officials of his department must abide by the present wording of the act, is it his intention to submit to the house a bill to correct the gaps in the present act so that his officials or his department are not placed in such a precarious situation as they are now.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there is something I should like to say in answer to the question put by the hon. member for Megantic. I think the amendment to the income tax law in the early 1950's is a good example of the fact that the letter of the law must be decided by the House of Commons. Certainly if the Minister of National Revenue had a great deal more discretion one could stop all sorts of schemes for the avoidance of taxation. I should like to point out that when we introduced section 138(a), which was to stop dividend stripping in Canada, hon. members on the other side of the house were violently opposed to this particular provision. The purpose of the provision was to stop the evasion of taxes in Canada under a law as passed by this house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Villeneuve.



FEDERAL POSITION RESPECTING ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. For the past two days he had the opportunity of hearing claims and representations from all the Canadian provinces, and especially from Quebec, in the matter of education.
Is it true that the Prime Minister stated that Ottawa's position is absolutely adamant in that respect, that it will not change with respect to any province?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Our position was made quite clear in the statement I issued at the beginning of the conference. I would be glad to send a copy to my hon. friend. The conference is continuing, and I think it would be wise for me not to make any statement on that conference until its completion on Friday.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: May
I ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister arrange to distribute copies of his speech to all members of parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to that.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: wonder if the Prime Minister, either himself or through another minister, could make a statement tomorrow indicating the total amount of increased assistance to education which has been proposed, and the estimated amount which will go to each of the provinces. There is considerable confusion in the country generally and amongst members of the house as to what is the situation in this regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do that. I think it would be a very good idea.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. If the Prime Minister is going to circulate copies of his speech to the conference it will be noted that at the end of that speech there is a table giving the gross amount which will be given to each province under the terms the Prime Minister outlined. I wonder if the Prime Minister could at the same time include a
IMr. Benson.]
October 26, 1966

table that would show the amount each province will lose as a result of programs which are to be discontinued, in order that we may know the net amount each province would be getting.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This would be rather difficult because the amount, to use my hon. friend's expression, they would lose would depend upon the extent to which they would avail themselves of the agreements in effect. It is not possible to make that estimate. I would be glad, when the statement to which reference has been made is given, to include our estimate so the house will know the difference between the position as it was and the position as we hope it will be at the end of this meeting.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the answer given earlier by the Prime Minister to the previous speaker.
With regard to the copy of his statement that he would like to submit to the house, can the Prime Minister tell us whether it will be a different statement than the one he made before the provincial premiers? Also, could we obtain the statement made by the minister of manpower on this subject?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why that should not be done. The minister of manpower made a statement yesterday which was made public, and I take it that could be circulated to members along with the original statement. Perhaps I should add, Mr. Speaker, that my original statement was sent to the leaders of the various parties.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the mass arrests and convictions for picketing at Peterborough in connection with court injunctions, and a similar situation in British Columbia, is the government or the Minister of Labour giving any consideration to the setting up of an inquiry into the application of injunctions in labour disputes, particularly with regard to picketing? Could the minister also tell the house what is the attitude of the government with respect to this very serious matter?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the matter is being considered by officials of my department. They have been in touch with officials of some provinces, I will not say all. There is nothing more I can say other than that the matter is under active study.



REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON MEDIATION IN RAILWAY DISPUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he is able to report to the house any progress in the mediation of the various matters in dispute between Canada's railways and the railway unions, which were referred to a board under the chairmanship of Mr. Carl Goldenberg at the beginning of September?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As hon. members might expect, Mr. Speaker, I do hear from the mediator from time to time. In fact, I have heard from him twice within the last week. All that I can say is that he is holding continuous discussions with both parties. The atmosphere seems to be good. There is nothing more I can say at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A supplementary question. Is the minister able to give an indication whether the mediator, the chairman, feels that he will be able to present a report prior to the deadline, if I might call it that, in mid-November? I refer to the deadline which is fixed in the statute.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member for Kamloops refers to the date fixed in the statute.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: November 15. It is too early for me to make a definite statement on that. I asked the mediator that very question last week, but I was informed that it was too early for him to say. He is making progress and, as I say, he has promised to keep me advised of any developments of importance.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, owing to my failure to convince the
October 26, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry government with regard to the old age security pension I put my question today to the Minister oi Energy, Mines and Resources. I would ask the minister whether he would say, in view of a factual report stating that beta-gamma ray activity at Port Hope, Ontario, is 20 times the safe level for humans, crops and farm animals, he is taking proper precautionary measures for the residents of that area.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durham was to ask me the same question. The report that waste from the Eldorado Mining and Refining plant at Port Hope is endangering the local people, crops and animal life in the area is contrary to fact. The company has a rigid and continuous system of inspection, the results of which indicate that there can be no injury to local inhabitants. Inspections conducted by the Ontario health authorities in May of 1965, in May of 1966 and again in August 1966 have indicated that the system of control is more than adequate, and that the health of the citizens of the area is in no way being affected.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question. I appreciate the answer of the minister, but I hold a report in my hand from a researcher at the University of Toronto who suggests that the activity is about 20 times the level permitted for general public safety.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member realize that he is not now asking a question but is making a statement?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is it correct that the estimated cost of the refit of the Bonaventure is now $8 million, rather than the $5 million which was estimated when the ship was put in for the refit?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think I had better take this question as notice. The original estimate was broken into several parts, that for the ship itself and that for some additional gear which was being installed on the ship. It seems to me that the total estimate was more of the order of the larger figure

mentioned, but I would prefer to take the question as notice and get the facts.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the sharp criticism of a means test which we heard from the government side last night, will the government make sure that there is no means test attached to the proposed increase in the old age pension?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, once again I have to ask my hon. friend to wait until the introduction of the legislation, when these matters will all be made clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the government has given itself additional time to draft this legislation, will it not reconsider its position regarding the means test?



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: My
question is for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister any information to give the house regarding the progress being made in the settlement of the wage dispute between the employees of Air Canada and the International Association of Machinists?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in the report of the conciliation board which was made public earlier this week, the board unanimously recommended to the parties that the members of the board be permitted to continue serving as mediators in the dispute. Mediation is continuing under the aegis of the three members of the conciliation board. I have no idea when the report of the mediators will be received. That will be determined, I presume, by the parties themselves.
October 26, 1966



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Has he received any protests against Bill No. C-170 and does his government intend to amend it in order to make the right to strike less illusory within the public service?



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I wonder if he has anything to report to the house about any report by the United States commission respecting the pipe line which was approved recently by the National Energy Board and this government. What is the status of this matter now before the United States board?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I only know that it is still before the Federal Power Commission. That Commission has not expressed views or opinions up to now.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister whether complaints have been received from various organizations in northern Ontario, civic authorities and the like, protesting against the alteration of the policy insisting that this pipe line be built through Canada rather than through the United States. What is the reaction of the government to those complaints?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is quite right, Mr. Speaker. A delegation from northwestern Ontario is coming this afternoon to see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, other ministers and-I should have mentioned him first-the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister's mind flexible, in advance?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Always flexible.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary
Inquiries of the Ministry question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Has the minister received representations, not only from northern Ontario or northwestern Quebec but from the Canadian pipe line industry as a whole, concerning the construction of a second pipe line through Canada instead of having it go through the United States? Has he received representations to that effect?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I could have answered the previous question by saying that there had been no change in policy, that the government had always maintained its position and that the main line would be in Canada.
In reply to the hon. member for Villeneuve, I must say that, as far as I know, there have been no representations from the people he mentioned but I must add that the project, as it stands now, provides for a second line to be built in northern Ontario in 1970.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister take this occasion to explain to the house how it is possible to carry more than 50 per cent in a 30 inch line and less than 50 per cent in a 36 inch line that carries 40 per cent more gas?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might attempt to say something on motions at some time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinfhe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could the minister give me now the answer he was supposed to give last Monday?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was absent Monday when I had the answer to his question ready-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I was here Monday, and that is the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

I invite the minister to reply to the question asked.
9128	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


John James Greene: There was a vote Monday, and I think the hon. member disappeared then-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me I should not have to rise here to ask for the protection to which I am entitled. If I did not vote, that is my own business, and it is not up to the Minister of Agriculture to lecture me. Mr. Speaker, in this regard you should be the first to call him to order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is quite right. No one may comment on his vote in any way, whether he votes or not. But the hon. member seems to draw conclusions which perhaps were not contained in the statement or words of the hon. minister.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) did not vote, because he was paired with me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The reason why I did not vote Monday was that the Liberal members as well as the member for Villeneuve would have been the first to accuse me of campaigning against French Canadians. It is through good taste for a French Canadian that I did not vote and those who claim that they are the protectors of French Canadians are the first to attack them.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should hear the reply of the Minister of Agriculture. I admonish him to limit his reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe-Bagot.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question raised last Thursday by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, I wish to inform him that I have received a letter from the Quebec Department of Agriculture, asking whether the federal government was prepared to contribute to the assistance program to apple growers, whose crop was damaged by a hail storm last June.
In my reply I indicated to the minister that my predecessor and myself had made it clear to the provinces, last year, that, in the

DEBATES	October 26, 1966
future, federal assistance contributions on account of crop losses would be granted through a crop insurance scheme.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Am I to understand that the federal government does not want to give anything in co-operation with the provincial government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is not in order and is controversial.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It is still the conclusion.


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: We are going to have a little vote on that.



EXPO '67 REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN ADVERTISING BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government given consideration to a substantial increase in the advertising budget of Expo '67 so that it might increase its advertising efforts in the United States?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The corporation of Expo is doing that.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, could I get an answer from the Minister of Agriculture?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At the moment we are engaged with another question. I understand the hon. member for Cumberland wishes to ask a supplementary question.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate the amount of the increase, also whether he is satisfied with the advertising program presently in effect? Does the minister think if the substantial increases requested are not granted the future of the fair will be jeopardized?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, it is true that we need to develop a more acute consciousness of the fair in the United States. The increases being sought now are for that purpose. They must be approved by the government of Quebec, the city of Montreal and the federal government. That approval is being sought now.
October 26, 1966



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesler-Hanis):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. In his absence the parliamentary secretary might take it as notice. Is the minister aware of any plan or intention of the Canadian National Railways to move dispatching and administrative offices from their present location in Nova Scotia to Moncton, New Brunswick?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I will be pleased to take this question as notice.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: In
view of the assurance given to this house by the Minister of Finance on the resumption of this session that he intended to bring in a supplementary budget by the end of the present month, and since the end of the month is fast approaching, may I ask whether the government still intends to bring in a supplementary budget by the end of the month or, if not, when it intends to do so?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not by the end of the month. That will be impossible because of the length of time which has been taken up in discussion of certain items on the order paper. However, the Minister of Finance hopes to bring it forward during the month of November.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister anything to report with respect to his inquiries as to the reason for the closing down of the Cominco-owned H. B. Mine at Salmo, British Columbia?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have a very long answer prepared for me to that question, but I think I can sum it up in three words; shrinking world markets.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Herridge: Has the government offered its good offices, or has the department come forward to do what it can to suggest a satisfactory solution to this problem which is so serious for the communities affected?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We do that on a continuing basis.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Can the Minister give an answer to the question I put last Monday to the Acting Prime Minister, that is will the federal government be represented at the conference to be held in Pembroke on Friday October 28 next, in connection with the Grand Canal project?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not that I know, Mr. Speaker. There are now so many conferences on water throughout Canada that if the minister and his officials had to partake in all of them, there would be very few people left in the department.



MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF LATE APPLICATIONS On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Labour who reports to parliament for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I wish to ask him whether the government would give consideration to reviewing some of the applications made in connection with the municipal development loan fund, particularly those which were made late due to errors or omissions or other difficulties over which the municipalities had no control.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is my understanding that the responsibility of C.M.H.C. in this respect is largely that of providing an inspection service for the Department of Finance. However, I will take the question as notice and take up the matter with the proper officials of the corporation and with the Minister of Finance if there is need to go further.
October 26, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



REPORTED PURCHASE BY NETHERLANDS OF F-5 PLANE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: I have a signal for the Minister of National Defence. Is the hon. gentleman in a position to confirm or amplify the news report in this morning's Globe and Mail that the F-5 aircraft known in Canada as the CF-5 is now being purchased by our Dutch allies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not in order to ask whether reports appearing in the press are correct.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: I have a question or a signal for the Minister of Labour. I would like to know when he will be prepared to announce a decision to make possible more reasonable rental scales for families in public housing in Windsor and elsewhere in Canada.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Recommendations of that nature usually come to the government, or at least to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, from the provincial government. I happened to be concerned and inquired about this very matter yesterday, and no actual application or formal request has been received as yet from the provincial authorities.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: I should like to call the attention of hon. members to the fact that the time allotted for questions is about to expire. However, the hon. member for Bruce has been trying to catch my eye for some 30 minutes, and perhaps the house would agree that he should be allowed now to ask his question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works and is related to questions raised in the past few days concerning the Canadian coat of arms. Would the

minister inform the house by whose authorization the advertising orders of his department carry the instruction "Coat of arms not to be printed"?


George James McIlraith: I am not aware of any such instruction. I had difficulty in hearing the last part of the question, so I will take it as notice.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker;: Does the minister wish to make a statement?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked a question to which I should like to reply today, if agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, with the consent of the house, perhaps. Is there unanimous consent that the minister may answer a question which was asked yesterday, although the question period has expired?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The hon. member inquired as to the present status of the C.B.C.'s application for deferment with respect to part I of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code as far as technical employees are concerned.
An application for deferment of part I of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code has been made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and was published in the Canada Gazette of December 11, 1965. Pursuant to section 53 of the code the operation of part I is accordingly deferred pending rejection of the submission or the making of an order under section 51. I might add that the application has been discussed on several occasions with both parties, and it is expected a decision will be reached in the near future.



WHEAT-MAINTENANCE OF DELIVERIES UNDER RUSSIAN CONTRACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to the question put by the member two days ago and not yesterday.
October 26, 1966


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the parliamentary secretary to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This is in reply to the question asked two days ago by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and directed to the Minister of Finance. Since the contract between the Canadian Wheat Board and the U.S.S.R. grain agency Exportkhleb was entered into prior to the time the grade pattern of this year's crop was known, the contract provided for delivery of quite a wide range of grades, high as well as low.
The minister is advised by the Canadian Wheat Board that the high grades of this year's crop should not interfere with deliveries against the Russian contract.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to further encourage the demand for housing by increasing the loan ratio for rental housing from 85 per cent of the lending value to 90 per cent of the lending value; by providing that loans made to persons who intend to purchase, improve and occupy existing housing be insurable on conditions similar to loans made for new housing; by increasing from eight and one-half billion dollars to nine and one-half billion dollars the aggregate amount of all loans that may be insured under the Act; by increasing from three and one-quarter billion dollars to four billion dollars the maximum charge on the Consolidated Revenue Fund for lending by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation; by authorizing the Corporation, with the approval of the government of the province concerned, to make loans for student housing projects which will not be restricted only to the accommodation of university students; by increasing from two hundred million dollars to three hundred and fifty million dollars the amount that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund as loans for student housing projects or reimbursement for losses sustained on loans for such projects; and by extending for an additional three years the period within which the construction of a sewage treatment project in respect of which a loan has been or is to be made under Part VIB of the Act must be completed if the municipality or municipal sewerage corporation is to be forgiven payment of a part of the principal amount of the loan and of the accrued interest thereon.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.
National Housing Act


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that all hon. members appreciate the role which the National Housing Act has played in the Canadian economy and appreciate the fact that this role has been most impressive during recent years. Perhaps I might add that I am certain that as we progress in a more advanced and complex society that act will have an increasingly significant impact on our human environment in Canada. If it is to do this, further amendments to the National Housing Act are, of course, to be expected from time to time.
Before offering a detailed explanation of the resolution now before the committee it might be appropriate-in fact, in my opinion it would be decidedly helpful-for me to make a statement concerning Canada's housing experience so far during the year 1966 and the impact which our housing statute has brought to bear on the economic and social fabric of our country. May I say at the outset that, although the role of the National Housing Act has been impressive, I realize all too well that this is not going to be one of the most successful years in the housing field, for a number of reasons. Perhaps the primary reason is that the forces which have dominated the entire economy during this past year continue to exert a major influence on the housing scene. Hon. members perhaps will recall that several months ago in this chamber I sounded a warning that after four successive years of rising housing output, reaching a record of 166,000 units last year, we must expect a marked drop in the rate of our residential growth in the year 1966. Figures now available for the first nine months of this year show that performance is more or less in accord with the levels of activity which we anticipated when I made that statement.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Between January 1 and the end of September of this year, 75,727 new dwellings were started in Canada in urban centres, as well as a much smaller number in the rural areas. This is a decrease in the urban centres of 23 per cent from the record achievement of some 98,000-odd in the same period in 1965. For the most part the decline was registered in the area of multiple dwelling construction, where there is a decrease of 34 per cent compared with a drop of only 6.3 per cent in the volume of single dwellings. Behind this slackened production rate, of course, is the fact that Canada today is developing at a pace exceeding any growth period in our

October 26, 1966
National Housing Act
history, a pace which I said during the course of the budget debate, and others have said also, in my view is too rapid for our own economic well-being.
The multitude of new projects that are being pressed forward in all areas of our national expansion have placed at a premium every dollar of investment funds available. One has to think only of my adopted province of British Columbia where we have under construction multimillions of dollars worth of plant in the forest industry alone. All these things require investment in office buildings and service buildings in different parts of the province, and that is in one industry only. The fact remains that, as I have said, every dollar is at a premium from the standpoint of investment. Perhaps that is not surprising because in a free enterprise economy money generally goes where the rewards are the greatest, and it is difficult for anyone who favours a free enterprise economy and a political philosophy based on free enterprise to be too critical of the efforts of our investors to channel their funds into areas where they will get the best interest rates, so long as these rates are not usurious or are not unreasonable.
The signs and portents of the current situation were obvious some time ago. All hon. members will recall perhaps that it was with that background, and on my advice as the minister responsible for the administration of the National Housing Act, that in January of this year the government raised the interest rate on mortgages from 6J per cent to 6| per cent. As a result of that action there was a noticeable resurgence of activity for a short time. That was particularly true during the months of January and February, but as more attractive opportunities for investment emerged out of the continuing intense competition for long term funds the advantage of this 2 per cent increase in the interest rate dimmed. Traditional lenders in respect of multiple dwelling investment withdrew their participation. This development, of course, did not come as a complete surprise, because as I have said more than once, the interest rate itself cannot work miracles; it can help, but when the competition becomes acute it falls short of the objectives that are set.
Nevertheless I can assure you that the rate, which now is at 6f per cent, is under continuous study. The fact that in respect of the bill now pending before a committee of this house a recommendation has been made

to parliament that the bank interest rate should be raised possibly to 7 per cent will necessitate further immediate study in this direction, and I may say that that study now is underway. The result of the competition, which we have had to date for funds, is that there have been practically no funds available for certain types of new residential construction this year since the beginning of March, except those funds made available by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the National Housing Act.
Despite the great need for an increased level of insured loans during 1966, I think it can safely be said that the National Housing Act actually is making a greater contribution to housing starts this year than in the record year 1965. I am sure members of the house will be interested to know that up to September 30 this year the number of applications for direct loans totalled approximately 45,000, an increase over last year's figure at this same date. Of this year's total number of dwellings, more than 32,000 were proposed for construction with direct loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That figure of 32,000 is almost 10,000 above the number recorded for the whole of 1965.
There is little doubt-and I referred to this in an answer I gave in this chamber within the last few days-that the volume of direct lending by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Canada will accelerate even further as this year's winter housebuilding program gains momentum. It is noteworthy that notwithstanding the cancellation of the $500 bonus payment offered in the programs of the three preceding winters, applications for houses to be constructed during the coming winter, 1966-67, are running well ahead of last year when there was the special $500 winter bonus. With the extended period of eligibility for assistance this year, I am convinced that we can look forward to a program this winter at least equal to if not better than that of last year.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
This program is especially significant under the circumstances that now prevail because without these direct loans thousands of families in Canada would not be able to get the new dwellings which they would like. I think I should make it clear that the government intends to pursue the course it has been following, but it is not our intention to pick up all of the slack that has resulted from the substantial withdrawal by private lenders from the residential field.
October 26, 1966

The work that we are doing in respect of these 32,000-odd houses represents an investment by the federal government of upward of $500 million or perhaps closer to $600 million or even $700 million. In this atmosphere of unparalleled economic expansion I think it would be unwise, and I am perfectly sure that most members of the house, if not all, will agree, if we were to channel in addition to the $600 million or so that I have mentioned further vast sums of public funds into the housebuilding field at this time. I am sure members will agree that such a course would be contrary to the government's policy of levelling out or extending our period of prosperity.
It has been and is our intention to ensure that funds allocated primarily for housing are utilized in those areas which hold the greatest potential for Canada's social and economic improvement as a whole. Let me refer here to the efforts that are being made in all parts of Canada to improve the living conditions of elderly people and to provide decent and healthful accommodations for families whose incomes deny them the ability to maintain homes on the open market. It is also our intention to help house the increasing number of university students who are seeking to live near universities while they are carrying on their studies.
At the same time there has been no hesitation and no hold-back in respect of federal government aid to the growing number of municipalities which are embarking on programs of civic improvement with National Housing Act assistance, and to certain other municipalities with special needs. This is most important to resource based communities in this country. We do not intend to relax for one moment our support in the provision of housing to serve the needs of the scores of vital new communities which are mushrooming into existence in the remote areas of all of our provinces and coming into existence to develop our natural resources.
In this connection I will never forget my impression of the tremendous development that is currently taking place in northern Alberta, in connection with the oil sands at Fort McMurray. Some 10 or 12 days ago I visited this richest known deposit of oil in the world. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being poured into this development, and houses must be provided. The same applies to the potash towns in Saskatchewan and to communities such as Gold River, Mackenzie,
National Housing Act
Prince George and others in British Columbia, as well as to new towns in Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland where our minerals and forestry resources are being developed at an impressive rate.
I am sure that anyone who is interested in social and economic benefits in this country will agree that none of these programs to which I have referred could possibly be curtailed. Despite the difficulties that we are having in financing housing we have managed to keep these housing ventures going at an encouraging level.
It might be well if I also referred to the record attained in the area of university housing projects. Twenty five loans have been made during the current year, totalling approximately $37 million, in most of the ten provinces for the provision of modern living quarters for approximately 6,000 students. This nine month total in housing loans for students is far in excess of the activity for the full year 1965 when less than $12 million was authorized. Incidentally, just within the last four or five days we have announced a loan to the Ontario Student Housing Corporation of nearly $12 million, $11,634,000, to be exact, to build the first part of the largest university housing complex in Canada. It is to be built on the campus of the University of Guelph and it will house nearly 1,700 students.
Equal success has been attained in our efforts across Canada to meet some of the serious and pressing needs for housing for low income families and especially for elderly persons. To the end of September, 42 such loans with an aggregate value of approximately $13 million had been approved for projects sponsored by non-profit organizations. This will provide roughly 1,100 self-contained housing units and hospital accommodation for more than 1,000 more people. This compares very favourably with the $14.2 million in 1965 for the development of approximately the same number of units.
Seven federal-provincial housing projects, providing 553 low-rental dwellings, have also been authorized as against four in 1965. There are a number of other achievements that I would like to refer to regarding what we have done in housing in the northern parts of the prairie provinces for the Indians and Metis who have left the reserves, and what we are doing in the Northwest Territories in the field of housing, but time does not permit. What I have referred to represents just some of the achievements that are

October 26, 1966
National Housing Act
being made today to meet these serious and urgent social needs. If these improved activities are to continue and if even greater progress is to be made in the over-all improvement of living conditions in Canada, we must be prepared to take new and additional steps through the refashioning of the National Housing Act.
During the past two years I have met and discussed with the provincial ministers who are my opposite numbers in all ten of the provinces, how the amendments to the National Housing Act which were made in 1964 and in 1965 have been working out. As a result of our discussions and out of the different symposia that have been held, some 10 or 11 across Canada, have come a number of good suggestions. Not all of them can be incorporated in the bill which I hope to introduce in the house shortly, because in the economic climate that now prevails that would be an unwise thing to do, at least in the opinion of the government. There are, however, a number of improvements that are urgent and imperative, and it is for this reason I have no hesitation in putting them forward at this time.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
To begin with, the government proposes in the resolution now being considered that the National Housing Act be amended so as to provide for the first time that loans may be made to persons who wish to purchase, improve and occupy existing housing. It is proposed that these loans will carry conditions similar to those which are now made in respect of new housing. While it is true that restricting National Housing Act lending to new houses largely accounts for the rapid expansion in housing starts and improved housing conditions during the last five or six years, there are in this country many potential home owners who simply cannot afford the luxury of new housing. To buy a house that people in the income tax bracket of over $10,000 a year would like to occupy represents an investment, I am told, of between $17,000 and $25,000 and, depending upon one's financial ability to finance, it might cost considerably more than that.
In communities like Windsor, a city with which I am somewhat familiar, many people are leaving the rural areas and moving into the city, and they require housing. This situation exists in other cities in this country. The only hope these people have of obtaining a house of their own rather than living in rented quarters is to buy an existing house

and repair it. There are many houses in all parts of this country, some built in the last century and others in the first decade or two of this century which, if modern heating, electrical and plumbing systems were installed, would provide very good homes with another 40 or 50 years of economic use.


The Chairman:: Order. I apologize for interrupting the minister, but I must advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the minister continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, through you I should like to thank hon. members for this indulgence. I shall try to be as brief as possible. While it is true that they cannot get new houses, there are many people with incomes of upwards of $5,000 who would like to buy houses. People with incomes of less than $5,000 can be accommodated today in public housing where you have rent related to income. But it is the group earning $5,000 and over which will benefit from provisions which will make it possible for them to buy a new house on the understanding that they will improve it. This will not only add to the housing stock


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister means "buy an existing house", does he not?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I thank the hon. member for the correction. As I was saying, these provisions will make it possible for people in this category to buy an existing house on the understanding that they will improve it.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would allow a question at this point? While the minister is dealing with this subject I should like to know whether the application of this proposed amendement to the act as outlined in the resolution is limited to people who do not now own a house. In other words, will someone who had bought an older house before the coming into effect of this proposed legislation be assisted, under this proposal, to carry out the modernization program to which the minister has been referring?
October 26, 1966


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: People who now own older houses can, as I think the hon. member knows, borrow up to $4,000 under the existing home improvements program and obtain the necessary guarantee from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We are thinking about people who want to buy an existing house and improve it, not about those who already have homes. This is the suggestion in the resolution.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The point of my question is this: Are those people going to continue to be limited to $4,000 when the proposed legislation comes into effect or will they be able to make improvements that would run above that amount?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that I am already trespassing upon the time of the committee, might I suggest that this is a very important matter and a very constructive suggestion which might better be discussed when the bill is before the committee. At that time we will be able to deal with these matters more leisurely and I will have more information at hand. I do not think it would require a very serious amendment. A modest extension of the present act could accomplish the purpose that we have in mind, namely, the opportunity to buy an existing house coupled with an agreement to improve it. There should perhaps be a ceiling on the amount these people could borrow in order that people with a great deal of money would not be able to move into this area and take advantage of the relatively low interest rate charged under the act.
We are trying to help those people in the lower and medium income tax brackets. This matter will be dealt with by regulation. I believe the maximum loan obtainable for a new house at the present time is $18,000 per unit. The level to be fixed might be lower than that or it might be the same, but that matter will be dealt with in the regulations. A certain amount of the loan would have to be earmarked for improvements. One reason for this is that we want to provide employment this winter for people who may suffer from seasonal unemployment. This is not the major objective but it is an important one.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question? Before the minister leaves this topic, could I ask whether it is proposed that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will make these loans on older houses or will they be insured loans made by private lenders?
National Housing Act


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am very glad the hon. member asked that question because this is not clear in the resolution. However, I am not disclosing any secrets when I express the hope that the traditional lenders will make these loans, and if the banks move into the picture and become lenders, although they have not been traditional lenders in this field, the same provisions would apply to them and the facilities available under the proposed legislation will be open to them. If, however, people cannot obtain a loan from one of the approved lenders, they will be able to obtain a loan for this purpose from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation if the bill is passed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: We believe that we may be able to improve the investment by traditional lenders and merchant builders by increasing the loan ratio. If any one of the housing corporations of the provinces wishes to borrow money today for housing, it can obtain up to 90 per cent of the value of the building; for instance, we will lend the Ontario Housing Corporation or the Quebec Housing Corporation 90 per cent of the value of the building. In the traditional construction industry, it is 85 per cent. We want to remove this discrimination and intend proposing that this level be increased to 90 per cent to make the situation uniform.
I am sure hon. members understand that there is throughout the country a great demand for new houses, and I believe we will improve this situation materially by the two changes to which I have just referred. We are also asking parliament to increase the $200 million that is available under the present act for university housing projects. We want to raise this figure to $350 million. The number of requests for loans in this respect is increasing to such an extent that we certainly will have to raise the level appreciably. The university population has increased very rapidly, as every hon. member knows. Full time university enrolment has risen tremendously. Two of our universities in British Columbia have, I believe, risen in population this year, one by approximately 600 and the other by over 1,000. British Columbia is the province I am most familiar with, but I know that the same situation exists all over Canada.
Until recently only a few universities were able to house out-of-town students on or near campus, but since the National Housing Act was introduced-and here I must give credit

October 26. 1966
National Housing Act
to the former government for introducing this improvement, which has been a very significant one-during the last six years loans for university housing have risen to the extent that housing accommodation is provided on or near campus for over 30,000 Canadian university students. The fact that today we are seeking additional funds to allow C.M.H.C. to carry on this essential program is an indication, based on detailed surveys in conjunction with the provinces, that there are still enormous residential shortages by the universities in every province in Canada.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
But as you will have noticed, this resolution seeks more than just an increase in funds to enable the university housing projects to continue. It also proposes that the National Housing Act be amended for the purpose of making loans, with the concurrence of the provincial governments concerned, for housing projects which will not be restricted to just university housing. The government has in mind, and this again comes out of the 11 symposia that were held across the country, housing projects for such institutions as vocational and training schools, training hospitals for nurses, and schools for special groups of handicapped people. All these groups have housing problems. For instance, Ontario contemplates the building of six community colleges. We know that Ry-erson is handicapped today and is badly in need of additional residential accommodation. It has been pleading for help for the past three years to my knowledge. If this amendment is accepted by parliament it will enable us to make loans for housing to institutions of this nature.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a question? Would this also apply to small private colleges?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think that that matter might also be discussed in committee. It might be that some of them might come in under the program, but others might not. If they are vocational or technical schools they probably would be eligible, but we can discuss it in committee.
In this legislation we also seek to extend for an additional three years the period within which the construction of a sewage treatment project must be completed if the municipality concerned is to be forgiven payment of a part of the principal amount of the loan and of the accrued interest. The government proposes that the forgiveness date for

loans made on sewage treatment projects be extended from March 31, 1967 to March 31, 1970. Our intention to do so was announced by the Prime Minister a little more than a year ago and was reaffirmed by me in this house earlier this year. I might say that the continued expansion of our urban areas has certainly rendered inadequate sewage system plants constructed even as recently as 20 years ago. I myself know of this from the inspections I have made.
Sewage continues to be poured into the country's streams and rivers, but much has been accomplished. The program to create employment introduced by the former government during the period of recession has not only helped to provide employment but has performed a very worth while service for the people of Canada in helping to clear up the pollution that exists in too many of our streams and lakes.
I think hon. members will be interested to hear the following figures. More than 1,000 loans have been made during the past five or six years to municipalities in every province to combat water and soil pollution; yet much remains to be done. Had we not asked for this extension, which we are now doing formally, many municipalities would have tried to rush to completion before March sewage facilities which they should take longer to plan and to instal and which we certainly hope they will be able to instal economically when the demand for expert workers is at a lower level than it is today. Furthermore, without this incentive of a 25 per cent forgiveness of principal and interest, many projects might never be started and many new projects which we hope will come forward in the months directly ahead might never be started because of a shortage of money.
Another item in the resolution refers to the financial requirements for the lending activities of the corporation; in other words it refers to the fact that we need money generally. Under the act we have authority to spend an aggregate $8.5 billion. Yesterday, in a casual conversation with the hon. member for Kamloops, I told him that while we could keep going for another few months we need or soon will need money urgently, so rather than come back to the house month after month or year after year we are now asking that the level of $8.5 billion be raised to $9.5 billion.
We are also asking that the limit in section 22 of the National Housing Act be raised from $3.25 billion to $4 billion for direct
October 26, 1966

lending. That will give us an extra $750 million, if the legislation goes through, for the purchase and improvement of existing houses, for another 31,500 or more direct loans next year and, if the situation improves, possibly for additional help in that same area.
In the main those represent the items that are set out in the resolution. I sincerely hope that hon. members will consider the amendments put forward by the government in this resolution to be important enough to merit swift approval. When we get this approval we will be able to start buying and improving some of these old houses that have been mentioned and start on help to vocational schools almost as soon as the ink is dry on the bill.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to put a question to the minister.
At the beginning of his speech on assistance to the building of university residences, the minister said the government had granted huge loans for that type of building. However, he did not give the figures for each province. I should very much like the minister to give us the exact amount of the loans granted each province under that item of assistance to university construction.
Would the hon. minister give us that information as a preamble to the debate?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am afraid I cannot give a breakdown province by province. I know it has been very substantial on a per capita basis in all the provinces. I think the largest loans have gone to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, but I will be glad to get the information and when we come to the appropriate clause in the bill I will supply it to the hon. member.


Mr. Keays:: Mr. Chairman, we have just heard the minister speak on the resolution which, although quite lengthy and comprising some seven separate programs, could be summarized as a request for additional funds for housing in Canada. The only factor that is new in the resolution relates to the right to purchase existing housing. May I remind the committee that this is part of the policy of our party and we are very happy to see it incorporated in the resolution.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
In his opening remarks the minister admitted that this has not been the most successful 23033-578
National Housing Act
year for housing in Canada, that the economic expansion has been too rapid for social and human welfare. We also have to admit that this has not been the most successful year and possibly the reason for this situation is the lack of long term planning of housing in Canada. I believe this matter has been raised many times before, but it seems we use housing as a buffer. We use it in boom periods and we use it in times of recession, but in a reverse way. This reminds me of a one-piston engine. When times are good we push the piston in and when times are bad we pull the piston out. I believe the construction industry is too important to be pushed around in this way by the legislators of our country. As everyone knows, the construction industry is very important. It is about the second largest industry and it ranks fifth in the number of people employed. These two factors alone should prove the importance of the housing industry to our country.
A few minutes ago the minister referred to expansion as being too rapid. I am wondering whether he is implying that the shortage of funds results solely from the boom period through which we are passing? May we not also say it is possibly a result of the failure to introduce the Bank Act amendments? If they had been introduced in 1965 there would have been funds available through the banking institutions for mortgage purposes. I believe the government is at fault for not having introduced the bank legislation early enough to have been of benefit to the housing industry in Canada in 1966.
There is another factor which has possibly contributed to the reduction in the amount of construction in the housing industry. I refer to the 11 per cent sales tax which was imposed by this government on building materials. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the majority of Canadians who build homes or who have homes built are not people who have much in the way of savings. They are people who from the time they are born have one hope and that is to some day own their own home. During a period of years they try to save whatever they can, and one day take the plunge to get a home for themselves. When you add the 11 per cent sales tax to the cost of a house you are discouraging many of these people who would be able to own their own homes and who would not have to go to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the funds required to build their homes. They may be able to contribute some $4,000 or $5,000 toward the cost of a $12,000 or

October 26, 1966
National Housing Act
$14,000 house. The fact is these people are not building homes because of the imposition of the 11 per cent sales tax. This tax itself has contributed to inflation. It is one of the many factors which have delayed housing construction in Canada.
When I speak about the long term policy of the government, I am thinking of the immigration policy which will be coming before us shortly. We expect there will be 125,000 or
150,000	immigrants coming to Canada each year. We are in a period in which the war babies of 1945 and 1946 are now approaching the age of marriage. It is anticipated that by 1970 we are going to need at least a million homes. This is a rather serious position in which to be. We are just concluding the year 1966, and in a four year period we will have to build one million homes in Canada. I believe that the government has delayed looking into this problem. Last year the long term aspect of the problem was emphasized so that by 1970 we would be able to supply these people with the houses they would require.
I have noted that the main weakness of the National Housing Act continues to be its urban nature. Somehow we must help the fellow who lives in the village or in the countryside. I was very happy, however, to hear the minister state some time ago that regional offices were to be opened in some of the rural areas of the country. Here again the problem is that there are not sufficient funds for mortgage purposes and there are not sufficient personnel to advise those who would like to build homes. We are slow in giving the service these people require.
I was happy to learn that if the private lenders do not make the necessary funds available, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will make direct loans. As I have said before, it is very important that this legislation be brought forward. However, it seems to me that today legislation should have been introduced concerning the senior citizens of our country because many of these people are living in homes that need repair. Many of them do not have the necessary means to undertake these repairs. If legislation of this nature had been introduced, we would be satisfying one segment of our economy involving people who are today crying for help from our governments.
These are the points of immediate concern. Pressure has come from all the building associations across Canada and I believe that pressure is justified because these people, as I have said, create jobs. However, the industry has been used as a buffer. There is no reason

for this because there is an urgent need for housing. What are we doing to stabilize the industry? During one period of the year people engaged in the industry are working and during the next six months they are not. Those who are engaged in research and design are rather important to an industry such as this. I should like to impress upon the minister again the need for a long term policy in connection with housebuilding in Canada.
I am very happy to learn that the minister is extending the sewage treatment project scheme under this act. This is one of our recommendations, and it is a provision that is important to the health and welfare of Canadians. We believe it should be made a permanent piece of legislation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I do not see anything whatever concerning the Municipal Development and Loan Act. As the minister mentioned earlier today, I realize that this matter is administered by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but it does come under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. I am very distressed to know that there will be no extension of this act, or so I have been informed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It was announced in the house some months ago by the Minister of Finance that it had been extended by three or six months, I believe, from July 1.


James Russell Keays: If my memory serves me correctly I believe it was extended for a three-month period until the end of September, 1966. Anyway, I hope that it will also commend itself to hon. members because there are many municipalities in the development stage which do not have the necessary funds to carry on their own projets and need the help of the state.
With regard to housing projects for university students, I have my feelings on this subject but I would say that as far as loans for such projects on campuses of vocational or technical schools are concerned this is a measure to be commended provided, as the minister stated, the approval and consent of the province concerned are obtained. I agree with this in principle, and I hope that some of these institutions will have the privilege of being granted loans to carry on with their work.
I am not going to prolong further the passage of the resolution; I simply wanted to make those few remarks. Once again I request the government to bring in a long-term
October 26, 1966



policy on housing at which we could have a good look. This would enable us to know for the next five years exactly where the industry is going to stand and how we are going to look after those who will require houses during that period.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the minister today with rather mixed feelings. First of all I had a feeling of great pleasure that finally the government was taking some new steps with regard to the housing situation in this country. However, to offset that the minister unfortunately did what so many ministers in the past have done. He talked about the forces affecting the economy, mouthed meaningless records that have nothing to do with the need for housing in this country, and used such expressions as "Last year showed a greater growth in housing than any growth in history". What in the world does that mean if you do not compare it with the actual need for housing in this country? It is meaningless; it is gobbledygook.
The record over the last ten years or so that 1 have been in this house indicates that every amendment which has been made to the housing act-and there has been at least one at almost every session of parliament since I have been here-has been putting one patch on another patch. There has never been bold leadership in the field, never any cognizance of what is the trouble and then trying to cope with it. When the forces of the economy have pushed the government to take one little step, they have then tried to claim great credit for it. Instead of looking at the problem and facing up to it by embarking upon a program to cope with it, housing has been used merely as a pressure gauge by this government, the government before it and the government before that. What we have had under these governments has been a steady procession of booms and busts. They have used housing as the number one weapon to bust the boom or to boom the bust, whatever the case may have been at any particular time.
However, in the resolution before us today there is for the first time a new factor in the housing field. We are very pleased to see the emergence of this new factor because it is one that we have recommended for many years both to this government and to the one before it. At long last the government is taking some new steps in this field. The government has at least taken a short step
National Housing Act
toward solving some of the housing problems facing us in Canada.
If this measure is carried through with vigour, it can achieve most excellent results. If on the other hand, as has happened far too often in the past, this is just more windowdressing, then it will be seen to amount to nothing else but that. I give one word of warning to the government. The people of Canada are not as easily fooled today as they have been in the past, and if this is just windowdressing the people of Canada will see through it very quickly.
The history of the action taken by the government in regard to housing has been a pretty sorry one in spite of the headlines we have seen from time to time. The government has always tried to make a virtue out of necessity. I noticed that a recent special study conducted by the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, O.E.C.D., shows that between the years 1953 to 1963 Canada slipped from fifth place to ninth place among 15 countries in North America and Western Europe with regard to meeting housing needs. Most damning of all is the fact that in this period Canada had the slowest proportional increase in housing completions of any country in the group. Certainly that is no record to be proud of.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Could he give us comparable figures showing where Canada stands from July 1, 1963 to the end of June, 1966?


Murdo William Martin: I am afraid I have not got those figures.
The minister mentioned that the National Housing Act has dealt in the past only with new housing. While this has perhaps helped to ease the pressure regarding the building and purchase of new homes, it has at the same time indirectly added to the housing problem facing the Canadian people. I say that for this reason. At the same time that the act was financing the building of new homes it was also adding to the problem with regard to older homes. The trend can be seen in any city one cares to visit. New homes tend to be situated in the suburbs or on the outskirts as far away as possible from the older part of town in which the blighted areas are usually found.
As I mentioned before, one of the reasons for the sorry record of government action in the housing field is that the situation has never been faced up to. The government has never embarked on a program really to solve

October 26, 1966
National Housing Act
the housing problem. The subject has always been used for some other purpose. It is the people in the low income brackets who require houses in Canada today. I think it is time the government faced the fact that the housing shortage and low incomes go hand in hand. No steps have been taken to cope with this problem. As the minister mentioned today, perhaps not in these exact words, in the past we have looked after people earning over $10,000 but with the amendments contemplated we should be able to look after those earning between $5,000 and $10,000. What about those earning less than $5,000?
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Murdo William Martin: Yes.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Did he not hear me remark that with the cost of houses today most people earning under $5,000 really have to resort to public housing? That type of housing has been moving at an encouraging rate during the last couple of years, particularly in Ontario.


Murdo William Martin: I am glad the minister asked that question because it leads me to my next point. Why is the cost of housing so high in Canada? We find in the report of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, to which I previously referred, that Canadians are forced to spend a greater percentage of the consumer dollar on rent than the peoples of any other industrialized country in North America or western Europe. Why? I think the reasons are not hard to find. They can be found in speculation, in inflated land prices and all the other things that make housing as expensive as it is in Canada. In the past we have not solved the problem. We have created a bonanza for speculators, real estate agents, loan agencies and contractors. But we have not solved the housing problem. The problem grows day by day. It is caused by our rapid growth, by inflated real estate values, by the lack of planning and by the influx of immigrants. The result has been that housing and shelter in this country take more of the consumer dollar than they do in any other country in North America or western Europe.
The proposed amendment making loans available for older houses finally recognizes the need to improve dwellings constantly, to prevent blight from growing in our towns and cities. We have urged this step for a long time. There are many old houses across the country needing only a little maintenance and

improvement, after which they will be as good and every bit as serviceable as any new house that may be built today. There are certain standards, of course, which have to be met. In the past standards have been set for new housing. As I said before, part of the problem is that with these standards and regulations the low income groups are and have been legally barred from taking advantage of the program. There are certain construction standards having to do with the size of buildings and the relationship of one building to another.
If we are to move into the field of older houses standards of maintenance must also be set up. Unfortunately, under the present form of assessment and taxation prevalent in our communities improvement is discouraged and blight is encouraged. People are hesitant about making necessary improvements to their property because the minute they do their assessment skyrockets and up go their taxes. The government must take this into consideration if an effort to cope with this problem is to be made.
The twin factors causing blight are low incomes on the one hand and greedy, uncaring and often unscrupulous landlords on the other. It is interesting to note, and every study will show this, that hardly any of the worst houses in our cities or towns are owner occupied. No matter which part of the country you look at, in the blighted areas you will find that the houses there are tenant occupied rather than owner occupied. Action must be taken in this field if this situation is to be corrected.
The over-all aim of any intelligent program to solve these problems should be by education and voluntary compliance with the regulations. If the government hopes to accomplish anything in this field, it will have to embark on a program of education. Legal enforcement should be the last resort, but it should be clearly understood that there will be legal enforcement where necessary.
Standards vary from place to place and from area to area. What may be suitable in southern Ontario may not be suitable for the northern part of the province. It is very difficult to set down specific standards but I think we should look at the basic essentials. In the report, "A Better Place To Live", sponsored by the Department of Municipal Affairs, Community Planning Branch, and
October 26, 1966

published in June, 1962, it is interesting to note the following on page 13:
The essentials to which Dr. Rose refers were. ..
A.	Fundamental physiological needs: Proper temperature, pure air, adequate natural and artificial light, quiet, adequate space for play and outdoor living.
B.	Fundamental psychological needs:	Adequate
privacy, opportunities for normal family and community life, ease of household operation, maintenance of cleanliness, aesthetic satisfaction.
C.	Protection against contagion: Pure water supply, toilet facilities, interior sanitation, exclusion of vermin, food storage facilities, sufficient sleeping space.
D.	Protection against accidents: Sound construction, fire protection, protection against electrical defects and gas poisonings, injuries in the home, traffic hazards.
These are the basic essentials for any housing program. It is easy to apply these essentials to the construction of new homes. It will not be so easy for older houses under the newly proposed plan, and greater care will have to be taken.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
We must keep in mind that throughout the history of our society we have always been able to create new problems at a greater rate than we have solved old problems. Whether it is atom bombs, automobiles on the highways or space travel, trying to travel to the moon before we learn how to behave among ourselves on earth, that statement holds true. The same thing applies to this field. That is why I urge the government to roll up its sleeves and get cracking. Do not be satisfied with announcing good intentions. Stop kidding yourselves and stop trying to kid the Canadian people. I remind the committee that the Canadian people are not as easy to kid as they used to be.
This is one of the reasons we find such great unrest across the country at the present time. There is unrest in the labour movement because the young people coming into the labour force are not willing to stand for what their fathers stood for all their lives. There is trouble in the political field because the age-old stories which used to go down so well are no longer acceptable. There is growing disillusionment and dissatisfaction with both the old-line political parties.
I urge the government, as I congratulate them on this new move, to follow these good words with good acts and make sure that this bill really works to meet the housing needs of this country.
National Housing Act [Translation]


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I shall take a few minutes to put forward my views on this resolution which was long expected by many Canadians.
In introducing his resolution, the minister did not fail to mention the importance of the National Housing Act. I share his views fully, for had it not been for that act, few heads of families even in higher income groups would own their own house today, or else they would have had to pay much more and pay much higher interests to buy it.
However, I regret, as pointed out by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) a while ago, that again the amendment proposed by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) seems to ignore heads of families with low incomes. I intend to deal with that later on in my brief statement. But before doing so, I should like to mention that the government feels the need to raise the percentage of the loans to make it somewhat easier for people to become home owners. In a nutshell, the government is encouraging Canadians to buy their homes.
The minister and the government have doubtless noticed that people avoid purchasing houses. One must wonder why. To my mind, it is not that they do not want to own a home, but rather because they cannot afford it, the cost of building having now become prohibitive compared to their income or salaries.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the reason for this negligence, if one can call it so-it is not negligence-is that the government does not seem to know what prevents people from buying their homes these days. The cost of houses has gone up chiefly because of the 11 per cent tax on building materials. When the government decided to levy this 11 per cent tax, it knew well enough to offer, at the same time, a $500 bonus on the construction of homes during the winter months.
Recently, the minister and the government cancelled that $500 bonus for winter construction, but they did not remove 11 per cent tax on building materials. The cost of a new home is therefore still considerably higher.
I feel that if the minister had wanted to be logical with himself, had he wanted his amendments to be rational, he would have obtained from the Minister of Finance and Receiver General (Mr. Sharp) and the government removal of that tax. Then, he would have seen that a far greater number of Canadians would have bought new homes.

October 26. 1966
National Housing Act
However, increasing the loan ratio for houses from 85 to 90 per cent of the loan value will certainly allow more workers to buy a new house or one built a few years ago, that is the kind which the minister likes to call "an old house". I congratulate the minister on proposing this amendment through which people who want to buy, improve and occupy a house already built will be able to obtain loans under the same conditions as those who want to buy or build a new house.
Mr. Chairman, this measure has long been awaited; it has long been requested, and I am sure it will be welcomed by the Canadian people for it will allow some of them to buy very soon the house which suits them and which they want and need.
However, we must consider the need for new housing. In 1965, according to statistics, there were 145,570 marriages in Canada, which, to my mind, makes for so many more new dwellings. It was not possible for me to get more recent figures, but I have here the number of private dwellings destroyed by fire in 1962, that is 62,353 dwellings.
Mr. Chairman, if we add to these figures the number of houses-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question? With regard to damage done by the 62,000 fires, does the hon. member have any record of the number of times the fire damage was repaired?


Gérard Laprise: I do not have those figures, Mr. Chairman, I have only those referring to fires in private dwellings for 1960, 1961 and 1962, and I quoted the 1962 figures. But surely, among these, a great many dwellings were completely destroyed and had to be, or will have to be, rebuilt.
The point I want to make is the yearly need for new houses. Also, a number of dwellings becoming completely untenantable either due to old age, or because of wind damage, or damage caused by other natural elements which destroy a certain number of dwellings.
However, we must allow for the number of dwellings which are abandoned after the death of the original occupants. These houses are fit for habitation and become available to others.
It is easy to understand that, each year, at least 200,000 new dwellings are needed.

Consequently, I believe this must be our aim, so that every family will be adequately sheltered.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal here with that part of the minister's statement where he says that until now loans had been made mostly to people with a high income, above average, and that from now on loans will be granted mostly to people with an annual income of $5,000 or more.
If you look at the figures supplied by the official researchers and if you refer to a certain report published in May 1966, which was prepared by the secretariat for special projects in the war against poverty in Canada, you find this:
According to the definition of "family", given by the census, the income of 23 per cent of Canadian families was less than $3,000 in 1961. Among the families headed by a woman, more than half had an income inferior to $3,000 and about two fifths of them had less than $2,000. Three fishermen families out of five, one lumbermen and farmers family out of two. and one labourer out of three had an income inferior to $3,000.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, that clearly indicates that there is in Canada a very large number of families whose income is inferior to $3,000 per year, who cannot take advantage of the present program announced by the minister and the government to become the owners of a house.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I feel this percentage is high and the government should look into the matter. I admit that the minister pointed out earlier, to the member for Timmins (Mr. Martin), I believe, that those people could live in public or low rental housing. But why could those families not become owners? Why force them to live in poor and unsuitable surroundings? Why must those families always live together in the same environment? Why could they not have the privilege, the right to choose for themselves the surroundings where they are going to live?
I admit that it is another aspect of the problem and the government should see that the income of all Canadians is increased. When we consider the conditions in our villages, towns and cities, we note that this provision of the law enables some landlords, whom I would call sharks, to take advantage of the situation, and make rather considerable profits by renting almost untenantable houses. Those people have to live in slums.
October 26, 1966

Mr. Chairman, I urge the minister and the government to look into this problem of families with low income, in order to enable them to purchase a house and to become owners, and I think that an aspect of the war against poverty must precisely be that anyone should be in a position to purchase a house or dwelling.
Once again, in the document quoted a moment ago, the author, dealing with housing, says, and rightly so-I noticed it myself very often, and I think that is common knowledge -that houses in general are much too small for the families occupying them.
In the document published in May 1966 and entitled "Aspects of Poverty", we find, on page 4:
In 1961, housing In Canada provided a number of rooms exceeding by one third the number of people, but in 60,000 houses, there were rooms for half the people only.
Mr. Chairman, that document proves that, even for existing housing, there is still much to do in that matter, and this an aspect which needs prompt consideration. I quote again:
Overcrowding, (the number of persons per room), is closely related to the levels of salaries. Only 18 per cent of families with an income of $6,000 or more in 1961, lived in houses providing less than one room per person. Among families whose income was inferior to $3,000 the proportion was 35 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, once again, that proves that for persons having an income under $5,000 a year, it is practically impossible to afford suitable housing, and even when they find housing in community centres, or in the so-called low-rent houses, they must live in houses much too small for their needs.
On page 5 of the same document, we read:
The less suitable houses were mostly occupied by older people-
Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether we give enough consideration to the housing of our pensioners.
In certain important centres, houses are being built for these people and I think that the National Housing Act of 1954, should help promote the building of those houses, but I think that there are still too many restrictions which impede the building of houses of that kind for these people.
I continue, or rather I return to the quotation:
The most inadequate housing units were mainly occupied by old people, divided families and Indians. For instance, 200,000 housing units occupied by people 65 years of age or over had no flush toilets. One divided family out of six had to
National Housing Act
share an apartment with others. Only 30 per cent of Indian houses had inside running water and only 9 per cent had inside toilets.
Those figures do not permit a precise assessment to the degree to which people live in completely inadequate houses because they cannot afford anything better in line with their means.
In that respect, there is no doubt that several hundreds of thousands of homes are really needed.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in view of those facts which have been compiled following some studies on poverty, I think that all possible means should be used to find such facilities and give each head of a family the possibility to house his wife and children in a proper home suited to their needs. Thus can a family progress properly.
The hon. member for Timmins referred a little earlier to a document showing what a home should include. Mr. Chairman, we find today that most of the existing houses fall short of such requirements. Therefore, I think that we should as soon as possible study in depth the housing situation in Canada.
I will not say more at this stage because the amendments proposed by the minister will somewhat improve the situation, and that is why I feel the bill should be introduced as soon as possible, so that those amendments can be implemented and the people in need given the privilege to acquire a house if possible before the year is over.
[Enplishl


Mr, Thompson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks with regard to the resolution which is intended to introduce the amendments to the National Housing Act. I should also like to make a few general comments on the housing situation. May I commend the minister on what he has outlined today in the resolution, if it represents all the amendments which are to be introduced following this discussion. While I believe the changes being introduced definitely are a move in the right direction and certainly provide a far better program than the incentive program, I am most concerned about the over-all picture of housing because I think the whole housing industry in the matter of construction of homes for Canadian people is rapidly falling behind the need. At the beginning I should like to make a few remarks in this regard before commenting on the resolution itself and the statement of the minister.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
According to statistics available, there will be only about 140,000 new units built in Canada in 1966. It is estimated that this will

October 26, 1966
National Housing Act
be 110,000 short of the nation's need. This is a serious situation because it is easier to cut back than it is to begin a building program again.
Another element of the building program which makes the situation more acute is that relating to the fact that houses now being built are of a cost standard far beyond the average wage earners' ability to pay for them. I am not talking only about the wage earner who receives less than $5,000 a year. Even for those making from $5,000 to $10,000 the price of houses is beyond their reach.
I was interested in noting some statistics which came to light just the other day about the constant increase in building costs. In the city of Toronto the average cost of a house sold this year was $27,000. That is up 22 per cent over the last year and a half. Certainly a home of this value is not only beyond the ability to buy of the wage earner who receives less than $5,000 per year; it is available only to those who actually earn $10,000 or more per year. The situation is rapidly developing into a crisis and will soon become one of our major problems in Canada.
It seems to be rather a paradox that, when we have such an abundance of building materials of every type one cares to mention and construction organizations, we are denied a sufficient number of homes because of a tight money policy. There is truly a crisis in the homebuilding industry and it is becoming more and more acute.
The minister said in his remarks today that the financial and economic policy of the government is directed toward warding off the threat of a dangerous inflation. He admitted that it is really the tight money policy which is in many ways restricting the industry and that in some measure he is attempting to solve the problem through these national housing amendments. I think that is a wrong philosophy, but I know that the minister who has presented this resolution is not personally responsible for this policy. Certainly it is governmental policy that is seriously affecting the present and future economy of the country.
In reading the Montreal Gazette this afternoon I noticed a cartoon in the financial section depicting two sons of the road talking to each other under the shade of a tree. One is saying to the other:
I've thought of going back to work.. .but prosperity brings inflation which begets recession which leads to depression which calls for tight money causing unemployment.. .and I'd be right back where I am now.

In addition to the provisions to be found in this resolution there is an urgent necessity for a financial and economic policy which will remove the problem of tight money which is now preventing the construction of homes at a rate to satisfy the increasing need of the people. We are falling behind by
110,000	units this year, which indicates that something is radically wrong. Not only are we going to be short by 110,000 homes but, as the minister has pointed out, people in the low income brackets are going to have to utilize public housing because they are denied the right to build new homes. Something must be done so they will have no difficulty in purchasing their own homes and carrying the associated financial responsibility.
Having said that, let me also state that I think the alternatives proposed by the minister are sound as far as they go. Certainly it is excellent to provide for the purchasing and rebuilding of older homes. This is one way to help the wage earner in the low income bracket. It will also solve a very real problem which I am told by men in the contracting industry now exists in that it is impossible to move into old sections of our cities and build new homes. Whenever that is done the value of the new home is automatically lowered without increasing the value of those homes which are already there. A program that will provide national housing funds for the purchase and repair of older homes I think is a program devised on a sound basis. As I said earlier, I am sure this will result in greater benefits than did the winter incentive program.
While this program may be good there is another problem involved. In order to meet the housing needs of this nation it will be necessary to move farther out than we have at the present time and build new homes in new districts and perhaps even develop satellite towns. I think this is one of the challenging aspects of a solution to the housing problem in urban centres.
I noted with interest the minister's remarks regarding university housing and the projects that are under way this year which will accommodate some 6,000 students. This is a satisfactory program but it ought to be extended on a broader scale. How can we expect to house the students at our universities unless this program is extended? I was surprised by what the minister said in regard to smaller, private institutions of learning not being eligible for this type of loan. Surely if we are going to avoid discrimination and be fair to one and all it is hardly right that just
October 26, 1966

the larger universities should be included in this program, with the smaller universities and private colleges being ineligible. I hope that will not be the case when the actual bill is placed before us.
There is another area of real need in the housing industry which falls legitimately within the responsibility and scope of reference of our national housing authority. Perhaps this is a municipal problem but it is one involved in providing the necessary expansion in home units across the country. I refer to the cost of land and services essential to any new home. Ten years ago the cost of land in relation to the value of a new house was about 10 per cent. Now that the cost of land and essential services in new areas has increased the relationship has gone up to between 25 per cent and 30 per cent. Surely that is completely out of balance and represents a further need for assistance to municipal authorities for the provision of new land and services in urban areas or satellite towns.
We are waiting with great interest for the introduction of the bill and we hope that as a result of what the minister has said the scope of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in respect of universities and municipalities will be extended to provide these necessary services in new areas, in addition to sewage systems and sewgae disposal plants. The plan to extend the authority of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to include the purchase of repairable homes is only the beginning of a wider program which I think is urgently necessary. Not only is the financial policy of the government unduly and harmfully restrictive at this time, but the situation that exists points up the fact that the authority of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation must be further extended in order that it may have the ability to meet the urgent demand for more housing units.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Again, Mr. Chairman, I remind the minister that there has been a great deal of talk about inflation, but I believe that instead of preventing inflation by reason of the policies of this government, all that is being done is building up inflationary pressures which are working to the detriment of not only the economy but the people themselves. We await with interest the introduction of the legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad indeed to see this resolution come forward and to be able to indicate that we support it. This is the first occasion on which I have had 23033-579
National Housing Act
the opportunity to discuss housing in this new parliament; in fact, it is the first occasion I have had the opportunity to discuss the subject since I ceased to be the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Housing Act in April, 1963. Prior to that time I had had some nine months experience and responsibility in this field. I look back with the greatest pleasure to that responsibility.
I would say without hesitation that looking at the proposals embodied in the resolution now before us, and anticipating the bill to be based on that resolution, in all particulars the changes appear to be improvements, and in some respects important improvements, upon the present legislation and programs authorized and in progress under that legislation.
The basis upon which government must approach housing legislation and housing programs in this country is readiness to match with government action the constant need for expansion and improvement in this area. It is amazing, when you look back over the history of this field, how constantly the needs of the country expand and how rapidly they change. I recall, thinking back quickly over the history within my personal knowledge, the improvements made in this field by one of my distinguished predecessors as minister responsible for the National Housing Act, a fellow townsman of the present minister, namely, Hon. Howard Green. I recall that by reason of the impetus and direction he gave in this field, housing starts in 1958 reached a record to that date of 164,632. In fact, Mr. Chairman, this record was not surpassed until seven years later, just last year, 1965, when housing starts reached a level of 165,568.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The figure was also slightly higher in 1964, I believe. There was just a few hundred difference.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am relying upon a report prepared for the Montreal District Homebuilders' Association. The minister says there was just a few hundred difference in 1964, so there is no real quarrel. I am merely emphasizing that the improvements made in 1958 stood until 1964-65, when they were surpassed by an increase of just under 1,000 housing starts. Therefore I think it will be agreed that what was done by my predecessor gave a substantial impetus to the housing industry of this country. Yet I recall that so rapid is the need for change in order to meet the changing requirements in this country

October 26, 1966
National Housing Act
that by the time of my stewardship just four years later a great many more changes and improvements were necessary. Therefore we undertook to overhaul the National Housing Act. I should like to point out to the committee the spirit and enterprise in which that overhaul was undertaken.
I discussed the matter with the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We agreed that there were very important and obvious areas of need. So I said to them, "I want you to assess the problems in both the short and long term and design, on the basis of your answers to those problems, the best possible housing program. Let us first come forward with recommended changes to the National Housing Act which will be the best we can possibly design on both the short and long term view. Be generous in your concept of what the need is and be forwardlooking in the answers you bring forward to those needs as you see them."
This approach was of course received with great enthusiasm by the officials concerned and it was in that spirit that they brought in the answers, which I recall were embodied in a document of considerable bulk, as can readily be imagined. I said, "Let us not worry about the difficulties that will arise. Obviously difficulties will arise and we cannot get everything we want. Let us put forward the best proposals we can frame, and then it will be my job to worry about how to get them through cabinet and that body known as treasury board."
The document was compiled in this spirit and embodied a very forward-looking program. I recall with distinct pleasure and gratification that it received cabinet approval in principle virtually intact. There were some changes and deletions-these are inevitable in a program of this type-but I had obtained approval to practically the whole document when what I can only call an untoward incident took place in February of 1963 resulting in the fall of the government.
The result was that my successor as minister of public works, the immediate predecessor of the minister responsible at the present time, was the beneficiary of this very fine document. I am happy to be able to record that all the changes recommended in that document, and perhaps one or two others, were incorporated in the amendments to the National Housing Act introduced by the present government in 1964.

I mention this piece of history primarily to emphasize the constant need for improving and updating legislation in this field and the constant need for planning for future growth. Those amendments were introduced in 1964, only three years ago. I recall also that in 1965 other amendments were made, though they were not so far reaching. Now in 1966 the minister is again coming forward with quite substantial recommendations for amendments, modifications and improvements. So it is clear, is it not, that this is a field of constant progress, constant change and one in which governments must be ready to match the needs with action?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
When we think of particular areas in which it is so obvious that the prospects of growth call for action, I believe we must take very serious account of the forecasts in the field of housing especially. I believe, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the reports that I have read and that I know other members of the committee have read, it is well within the realm of practical or conservative forecasts that there will be a need for an additional 700,000 or
750,000	units by 1970. Indeed, some forecasts and surveys that I have seen give rise to a reasonably-founded assumption that the need between now and 1970 may reach as many as one million units over and above what is presently available by way of housing accommodation in Canada. I think that even taking into account the lower range of that bracket it is a very formidable program, and we must therefore be prepared to plan on that scale. Although I have said that the proposals before us are improvements, I would have a very real reservation whether they form an adequate basis for planning and programming on the scale which I believe should be undertaken in Canada.
There are one or two other specific observations which I would like to make with respect to this program. While the objectives outlined by the minister also represent improvements and are practical and praiseworthy objectives, I think they leave one area still not covered. I refer primarily to smaller communities across Canada where conventional lenders do not operate. I base my criticism upon what the minister said and I will try to reproduce his statement in summary. He pointed out that the intent of these changes is to ensure that the funds allocated to housing are directed to those areas where the greatest social and economic benefits will follow. There can be no quarrel with that
October 26, 1966

statement of general principle, but it is with the omissions that I find fault. He mentioned specifically housing for aged people and for students, slum and city improvement and the provision of housing accommodation for the new resource based communities.
I am quite sure no one would quarrel with any of those projects being desirable objectives, but it is the omissions which I think are significant. Based upon my own impressions when I was the minister responsible, we still have not made adequate provision for the smaller communities which, because of the lack of conventional lending institutions in this field, are almost entirely dependent upon the direct lending activities of C.M.H.C. These communities have, to my knowledge, consistently lagged behind. To refuse them adequate attention now, while concentrating exclusively on the other areas, means a further deterioration in their relative position.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is our experience.


Mr. Fulion:: While I do not minimize for a moment the trend toward building up great metropolitan areas in Canada-this is where the majority of our people will live in the future-it would be folly to concentrate our effort solely in that direction; in fact, it would be foolish and undesirable. There are important elements in the continuing activities of our population being carried on in these smaller communities and, while urbanization should not be discouraged and efforts should be made constantly to improve the conditions of urban areas, a proportionate effort should be made to improve the conditions of those who require improved housing in the smaller communities across Canada.
I believe there are one or two other needs which are not adequately met by the proposals. I am referring especially to the problem of ensuring the availability of houses at a reasonable cost. This problem has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Red Deer so I shall not elaborate on it. I agree with him that this area has not been sufficiently covered by these proposals. I think that the need of long-term planning for the construction of residential housing and the need of the housing industry to have longterm programs laid down under which they can do their own planning are similarly not sufficiently covered. Here I am in complete agreement with the views expressed by the hon. member for Gaspe, so I will not develop this matter in detail at this stage.
23033-579J
National Housing Act
Finally, I should like to say that one of the other important areas not adequately dealt with in this bill is in the realm of assistance to builders and municipalities in enabling them to provide sites for new housing and new urban development. Greater assistance and flexibility are needed with respect to the standards of servicing and the provision of servicing in those new sites. I submit to the minister with respect that these areas are not adequately covered in the proposals now before us. I repeat without reservation the assurance I gave at the commencement of my remarks that, notwithstanding these criticisms, these proposals constitute substantial and important improvements for which we congratulate the minister. So far as they go we will certainly support them without reservation.


Mr. Slanbury:: Mr. Chairman, at the resolution stage of the new housing legislation I would like to welcome the new features of policy which are found in the resolution introduced by the minister. I want to mention in particular the provision for loans for student housing projects, which are no longer to be restricted to accommodation for university students, and to the provision for the purchase and improvement of existing housing.
As the minister is well aware, a substantial development of regional technical institutes has taken place in Canada. This is a development which all of us who are interested in the education and training of our young people welcome. But the development brings with it the problem of accommodating the students of these technical institutes.
A good example of this problem is found in metropolitan Toronto where Ryerson Polytechnical Institute now has an enrolment of more than 4,000 day students, about half of whom come from outside metropolitan Toronto and in fact from all parts of Canada. The availability of suitable residential facilities for these students has been deteriorating yearly as the student body has grown. Both federal and provincial governments have been contributing to the expansion of the program at Ryerson. The most recently announced expansion involves an expenditure of about $27 million for new instructional and administrative facilities, but of course the need for accommodating these students is growing at an alarming rate together with the expansion.
Therefore I welcome the minister's proposal that the loans which have been available for students' accommodation at universities be

October 26. 1966
National Housing Act
extended to technical institutes and to other post-secondary institutions which are developing so rapidly in our country and will form such an important part of our educational system.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The proposal to extend loans to persons purchasing and improving existing housing will, I think, be welcomed generally across the country. It has been noted that the upper income groups seem to be well served in their housing needs, that the lower income group is being served better and better by public housing, but that the large middle group representing perhaps 50 per cent of our total population is finding difficulty in obtaining either private or public housing. Lower cost private housing is normally provided by existing aging housing stock, and the proposal of the minister will make this stock more readily available to the large middle group of our population.
I suggest to the minister that the limitation on the loans which has been suggested might be reconsidered. It does seem to me that a top limit of $10,000 might perhaps be inadequate in many of the urban areas of Canada where the cost of even aging houses is substantially higher than that. I hope the minister will consider making some provision for more flexibility in the amount which can be made available under this program.
I believe that housing is a matter of vital national concern, although perhaps primarily a provincial responsibility. I am glad that the government, through its action in the past three years, has demonstrated its recognition of housing and urban development as matters of national importance. I hope that the development of federal interest and involvement in this field will mature before long into a full-fledged department of housing and urban affairs. I believe this would focus national attention and energy, as they need to be focused, on this very vital factor in our national life and growth.
I need hardly point out to hon. members that Canada is rapidly becoming an urban country. We are told that today seven out of ten Canadians live in urban areas, that by 1980 perhaps 70 per cent or 80 per cent of our population will live in urban centres of 30,000 or more. By the turn of the century about half of all Canadians will probably live in only nine huge cities. A prominent consultant and planner, Mr. Murray Jones, has described our society as being on the urban frontier. He

said we are still in the early stages of the devastating fact that by the next generation there will be no heritage other than the urban heritage. In addition, he states that for the first time in history practically everyone will be born and grow up in an urban environment, and that the sheer numbers involved are already bringing increasing evidence of social ills from the tensions and conflicts of large urban areas.
I believe that urban development is so basic to the quality of life in our country that it must be a matter of great national concern. I urge the minister and the government to continue the increased interest and concentration on the problems of urban areas which have been shown over the past few years. I urge the government to treat the problems of urban areas and the problems of housing as matters of the highest priority for the national government. I believe that in doing so it must recognize that the cities are in fact the new frontier of our country.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, we in the New Democratic Party welcome the amendments to the National Housing Act which are proposed in the resolution put forward by the minister. The minister stated that the National Housing Act had played a most impressive role. However, he underlined the necessity of making a greater impact in the future. We in this party certainly agree with those statements, especially that future amendments are necessary. One of the weaknesses of the National Housing Act has been the philosophy of the government with regard to its role. It still feels that it plays the role of the friendly banker. We disagree with this philosophy and think the government should take leadership in connection with the problems of housing by setting forth a national housing policy to take care of the housing needs of all Canadians.
It would be trite to say that there is a housing shortage in Canada. The figures presented by the minister this afternoon indicate how urgently housing is required. It is very disappointing to know that at the end of nine months there has been a 23 per cent decrease in housing from the figures for 1965. I well remember the statement of the minister in which he said that he contemplated a 10 per cent decrease in housing for the year 1966.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Did I not say 10 per cent to 15 per cent?
October 26, 1966


John Gilbert: All right, I will accept that, Mr. Chairman. He said from 10 per cent to 15 per cent, but at the moment we are experiencing a 23 per cent decrease which is not very encouraging. I think I should also put on the record the attitude of the minister with regard to the Canadian housing blight as revealed in an article in Canadian Labour for March, 1966. According to the article the minister stated in Toronto in December, 1964:
For all the talk about what we intend to do, for all our efforts, nearly 100,000 Canadian families live every waking moment of their lives under housing conditions that are really appalling-a disgrace to the communities in which they reside. The same 100,000 families cannot find other accommodation on the open market at rents they can afford to pay, and 20 per cent of all our occupied dwellings have very primitive bathing and toilet facilities. This, I suggest, is real poverty.
And quite apart from the despair and degradation of blight and decay, these neglected areas impose an unnecessary drain on the civic economy. Municipal services and other facilities cost more to provide, while assessments must decline. The extra overhead is subsidized by the taxpayers of the entire municipality-assessments must be increased in good areas to offset diminishing tax revenues in the run-down areas.
This is the attitude of the present minister with regard to housing problems, and with this we agree. I should like to review briefly some of the proposed amendments outlined in the resolution. We have, first, the suggestion to increase the ratio from 85 per cent to 90 per cent on rental housing. The question arises, where does this extra money come from? It is evident that it will come from the increase from $8.5 billion to $9.5 billion for insured loans. In his statement this afternoon the minister said that most of these moneys will be directed to the building of senior citizens homes, urban redevelopment and the provision of university accommodation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
With regard to urban redevelopment, which includes public housing, the main problem is to get sufficient money to sponsor projects. If the money is to come from these insured loans and there is a prevailing rate under the National Housing Act of 6| per cent, it is very difficult to persuade conventional lenders who are lending money at 8 per cent to participate in urban redevelopment programs.
One of the major faults of urban redevelopment has been that the federal government has placed complete responsibility for urban redevelopment upon the municipality without setting forth any guidelines. According to section 23 (I) of the National
National Housing Act
Housing Act, the municipalities are given the power to acquire and to clear lands for urban renewal. The definition of urban renewal is "a blighted or substandard area of a municipality". Yet no guide lines as to what is meant by "blighted or substandard area" are given. In other words, no provision is made for rehabilitation of homes save and except by means of home improvement loans, which are at a maximum of $4,000.
The minister said that most of his suggestions came from symposia. I recommend to him that the government change the definition of "urban renewal scheme". I suggest that he use the definition in section 20 (1) (b) of the planning act of Ontario, which states:
-"redevelopment area" means an area within a municipality, the redevelopment of which in the opinion of the Council is desirable because of age, dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement, unsuitability of buildings or for any other reason.
This would give the municipality much more scope in dealing with blighted areas under the act.
One of the striking features of urban redevelopment has taken place in Toronto in my riding. The main problem which confronted the Napier Place development was that of relocation. Here was an urban renewal scheme which had no plans for the relocation of the people of the area, who were mainly senior citizens. No accommodation was provided to which they could go while the public housing was constructed, and this imposed serious hardship on them. Second, many of the older folk were content to remain in the area but as a result of the expropriation proceedings were required to buy other homes. This imposed great hardship upon them because of the increased cost and the necessity of assuming a new mortgage. I should like to see the minister take some initiative in this problem by providing interest free loans to persons who are required to move as a result of urban redevelopment to cover the difference between what they receive upon expropriation and what they are required to pay for a new home.
I am sure the minister has heard many representations with regard to the problem of compensation as a result of urban redevelopment. Compensation has been interpreted by a provincial statute as the value to the owner, which is very difficult to define. I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to including in any urban redevelopment scheme provisions to deal with the 10 per cent who are forced to take compensation by reason of expropriation of property.

October 26, 1966
National Housing Act
Another major problem with urban redevelopment which the minister should take into account is the lack of money for recreational and social welfare facilities, as well as for the construction of schools. The main burden of providing recreational facilities and schools in redeveloped areas should not fall upon the municipality. I think the government should participate in the provision of money to build recreational and social facilities and new schools.
With regard to the amendment concerning older homes, the three conditions relating to the provision of financing are (1) purchase, (2) possession and (3) improvement. In his statement this afternoon the minister said this provision should help people with income over $5,000. I remind the minister that the average income last year of a borrower under the National Housing Act was $6,665; he was aged 35 years, married, with two children. In view of his statement in Vancouver that the maximum loan would be $10,000 and that of that amount $2,000 would have to be applied to improvements, I respectfully submit to him that it would be very difficult to apply this formula to places like Toronto. According to his own statement homes range in value between $17,000 and $25,000, and this is certainly the case in Toronto.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, when the minister brings forward this legislation I hope he does not restrict the maximum loan to $10,000 or apply the Same standards which are imposed in respect of new homes. Otherwise he will find that very little advantage is being obtained by the purchase of older homes vis-a-vis the occupation and improvement of them.
It would be unfair to say that home improvement loans have served their purpose adequately. In the report of C.M.H.C. last year it was indicated that for the fourth year there had been a serious decline in the number of loans granted under the act. The maximum loan is $4,000. If people are to improve homes it is essential that additional money be provided for the purchase. Many people who buy older property take out at least one mortgage, and many have two or three. Therefore the government must take active steps to take care of this very important problem.
In connection with increasing the amount of government-insured loans from $8.5 billion

to $9.5 billion, an increase of $1 billion, if we are to depend on insured loans, as the minister says, from the traditional or conventional companies we will have to impose upon them the altruistic spirit of shifting from their present interest rate of 74 to 8 per cent back to 6f per cent. The minister mentioned in his statement that one of the reasons we are having a real housing problem is the competitive interest rates prevailing. I hope that the minister can persuade the insurance companies to shift from an interest rate of 74 to 8 per cent to 6J per cent so that Canadians may be supplied with their housing needs. At the moment I have very little faith in that shifting taking place.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The next point is with regard to the increase of direct loans under C.M.H.C. I notice the figure is $750 million. If the average loan is to be $15,000 that means that there can be only 50,000 loans for homes. In Toronto alone the need is for 40,000 homes a year.
I quote from page 15 of the Monetary Times of October, 1966:
Toronto, which absorbs 125 new arrivals a day, needs 40,000 new homes a year. So critical is the demand, real estate salesmen have taken to pounding doors almost begging owners to sell. Homes in some areas have appreciated 20% just this year. Rents are soaring, and so too are prices. By normal budgeting yardsticks no Torontonian earning less than $10,000 can "comfortably" buy a new home.
If this is so, with Toronto needing 40,000 homes and the increase permitting roughly 50,000, it does not appear that the housing needs of Canadians will be adequately taken care of. It is interesting to note, speaking of Toronto, that the article refers to people earning $10,000. I ask the minister to tell the house how this legislation will take care of those people in the $5,000 to $10,000 bracket. When the minister suggests that public housing takes care of people earning less than $5,000, he is not basing his argument on facts.
We welcome the change increasing the amount for student housing projects from $200 million to $350 million. A severe restriction has been applied to university housing and the change to take care of students' housing is welcome, as is the change with respect to housing for other than university students.
I believe that the minister has received much correspondence with regard to Ryerson Polytechnical Institute in Toronto. I should like to quote from a letter received by most
October 26, 1966

hon. members, written by D. S. Simmons, chairman of the board of governors. He says in the second paragraph:
Our present enrolment is 4,200 day students. Half of these students come from outside Metropolitan Toronto. The availability of suitable private residential facilities for the students is not good and is deteriorating yearly. As you are perhaps aware, the board has recently announced an expansion program involving an expenditure of approximately $27 million for new instructional and administrative facilities. We are projecting for an increase in enrolment to the 10,000 level within the next five years.
That is almost three times the number of students they have today. I continue quoting:
Our need is, of course, pressing but is obviously growing at an alarming rate. Both the federal and provincial governments are contributing to this expansion program but our first concern is to provide instructional space. None of the $27 million I refer to will be devoted to residences. The board feels it must now pursue actively the matter of residential facilities.
We could not agree more fully, and we are encouraged by the leadership shown by the government in this legislation. We ask that increases continue to be made available to meet this pressing problem.
The final point I wish to make is with regard to the extension of the three-year forgiveness period to municipalities with respect to sewage projects. The report of the minister with regard to the number of municipalities taking advantage of this program is most encouraging. Certainly the government must be given full credit for extending the period.
What I have been saying in the last 15 minutes is that there is an urgent requirement for a federal ministry of urban affairs and housing. It is encouraging to note that during the last election the hon. member for St. Paul's said the same thing. During one of our debates the hon. member for Hamilton West mentioned this and today the hon. member for York-Scarborough repeated it. I am the fourth person to ask for a federal department of urban affairs and housing. Also, we should like to see C.M.H.C. directly responsible to a minister who can set forth a national housing policy, co-ordinate the housing needs of the provinces and municipalities, and set up a program to meet the social and economic needs of all Canadians in the housing field today. We look forward with bated breath to the amendments that will be set forth in the bill.
National Housing Act


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two comments to make before the resolution carries. First, I wish to commend the minister for what I understand to be a clause which will permit the government to support, through loans, student housing for married students. These loans will not be restricted only to the accommodation of university students. If I interpret it correctly it means that loans can be extended to include accommodation for married students. With the increase in married students on campuses this is a most important advance in student housing.
At the same time I hope the minister will give consideration to the necessity of finding better ways to finance student union buildings which are a necessary part of campus life. The minister has had many representations on this subject. A solution to the problem will have to be found at federal, provincial and local levels. More adequate means of financing student union buildings must be found, because student unions are important to campus life and to student activities.
When the legislation appears I hope we may find ways to accommodate both married students and the provision of student unions.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I wish to make a brief comment, Mr. Chairman, but before doing so, with the words of the last speaking echoing in our ears I think we must not forget the contribution of the right hon. member for Prince Albert in that he initiated assistance for student residences across Canada through C.M.H.C. Higher education has advanced immeasurably because of his farsightedness in that regard.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Will the hon. member permit a question? Did he not hear the tribute I paid to the former government on that score?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I beg your pardon. I did not hear the tribute. I know the minister is very fair and gives credit where credit is due.
The point I wish to make, and it has been made by other speakers, is that the National Housing Act and the operations of C.M.H.C. are not of truly national proportions because of the failure to come to grips with the rural realities of this country. C.M.H.C. operations tend to be concentrated more on traditional mortgage lines in the making of loans. I speak of traditional mortgage lines because the security taken has a relationship to actual real property value.

October 26, 1966
National Housing Act
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I know it is a bold step but if we are ever to extend the benefits of the National Housing Act to the villages and hamlets of Canada, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will have to evolve a new formula which will take into account the earning power of loan apphcants rather than simply the real estate security which is offered in connection with mortgages. Since I see officials of the corporation in the gallery I throw out this suggestion for consideration next time a resolution comes before us to amend the National Housing Act in the belief that we all have a duty to spread the benefits of this wonderful legislation as far and wide as we possibly can.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I was glad to hear the minister mention the importance of adequate housing in the resource growth areas of this country. He made reference to one such community currently under development in my own constituency-one of the instant towns, to use a phrase which has become current in British Columbia. I hope his words will be borne out by the effect of this legislation, especially as to the provision of adequate funds. Many of those who have entered areas where mineral and forest resources have been newly developed have encountered difficulty in securing adequate housing. For many years the concept was held in British Columbia and, indeed, across most of Canada, that men entering resource producing areas could be expected to leave their families and homes behind them for a long period, and be content with inadequate types of bunkhouse accommodation. Though there has been a change in outlook in this respect, the fact remains that in many areas of Canada men are being asked to go out and work in circumstances where normal home and community life are completely absent.
It will be a long time before those who are responsible for the production of so much of the basic wealth of this country can expect to enjoy the amenities which a great many of our citizens take for granted in our urban centres. Large scale projects of housing development have been assisted by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with the result that real planning has been made possible in communities such as the one at Gold River which the minister mentioned specifically. There are others in my constituency. However, there are communities which have been in existence over a long period where

these large scale undertakings have not developed to the same extent despite the fact that they have lately been growing in size and importance as a result of increased activity in the logging and mining fields.
I suggest that the program for the provision of housing in resource communities has been less adequate in these communities of longer standing than in certain other areas where completely planned communities have been built from scratch. I hope that as a result of this legislation steps will be taken to improve the situation in the older communities, making it easier for individuals and small builders to acquire adequate funds with which to provide necessary housing.
In this connection I remind the minister of a discussion he and I had a few months ago about the problems faced by a school board on Vancouver Island with respect to the provision of housing for the teachers it was hoped to attract to teach in a newly organized senior secondary school. I can inform the minister that the particular problem I discussed with him has been overcome and that the school is now in operation, with some fine teachers on the staff. Nevertheless, I point out that this was not done as a result of any aid by public housing authorities of Canada. Indeed, it was in spite of rather than because of those authorities that this was achieved. I hope that one of the results of this resolution will be to make housing money more easily available in adequate quantities in circumstances of this kind.
I receive a good many complaints about the high cost of the financial arrangements entered into for the provision of housing. Some of the housing which is being built is good according to ordinary Canadian standards but the high cost to those who need homes either for purchase or for rent is still a grave barrier.
The resolution mentions the improvement of older homes so that those whose incomes are neither above nor below certain levels may be assisted. In the new resource communities there are no older homes to be purchased, remodelled or improved. The increase may therefore not be sufficient to enable applicants to acquire new houses under the arrangements which have prevailed in the past. This is a serious problem and it has to be considered in connection with the continuous increase which has taken place in the level of interest rates, against which members of this party have spoken many times.
October 26, 1966	COMMONS
The minister rightly paid tribute to some oi the activities of the Conservative party. I am not detracting from anything he said in this connection when I point out that from the time proposals were originally brought forward by the Conservative party by Hon. Howard Green they were predicated on the assumption that housing would cost those who would live in it more and more because of higher interest rates. May I call it six o'clock?
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, possibly we might give the speaker a few more moments to conclude his remarks. We are on the resolution stage and members will have ample opportunity on second reading to speak again on the subject. The minister's estimates come up tomorrow and this will give the minister further opportunity to pursue this matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, a few members of our group are particularly desirous to speak on the resolution but unfortunately they are in a committee at the present time.
Progress reported.
DEBATES	9153
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whoever is acting as house leader for the government what we will be proceeding with tomorrow and the order in which we will be proceeding with the items. Whatever order is announced, I hope that order will be followed.


Mr. Robichaud:: Tomorrow I hope we can finish the resolution which has been under discussion this afternoon. This will be followed by the estimates of the Department of Labour, then the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and then interim supply.


Michael Starr: So that we may be able to plan ahead, what will be the business for Friday? Will it be interim supply?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It is expected that this order will be followed for the balance of the week.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, Oclober 27, 1966