1966-11-15

Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: I should like to make a clarification of what I said yesterday as reported on page 9840 of Hansard, having to do with the Auditor General's request for funds to supplement his vote from finance vote No. 15 "Contingencies".
I find that the request referred to, which is contained in a letter from the Auditor General's office dated October 19, was for "an amount of $29,800 now requested for the month of November, 1966 to recoup our salary allotment". While no specific reference was made to the mid-November payroll, the request covered a number of salary items up to and including November 30.
Subsequently a check with the office of the Comptroller of the Treasury revealed that the full amount required was $53,000 and accordingly this amount was released by Treasury Board authority dated November 10 from finance vote No. 15, "Contingencies".
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I would also like to state, Mr. Speaker, that at the appropriate moment I intend to table the legal opinion we received with respect to using funds from this particular vote.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Retreat, retreat and alibi.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the minister is making this statement on motions and it seems to me he should instead enter into the debate this afternoon and give us a proper chance to reply adequately. May I not reply now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My understanding is that the minister wanted to make a statement on privileges and I assume that there would be nothing wrong with the minister, if he wished, repeating the statement, when we enter the debate later on this afternoon.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If this is a matter of privilege may we not comment on it? Otherwise, what is this procedure?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. gentleman is correct. The minister is making the statement on privilege, and certainly the hon. member would be entitled to comment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I thought that was the situation and I was surprised the minister would do it in this manner instead of during the course of the debate which may go on this afternoon. We now have disclosed to the house an emendation, a correction-


John George Diefenbaker: Another retreat.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, another retreat, another correction-of the statement the minister made yesterday.
I pointed out yesterday in the course of debate that the minister was trying to create the impression that the Auditor General was in accord with everything he was doing. The minister then said that the Auditor General had asked for a certain amount of money, the sum of $53,000. The whole statement of the minister yesterday was obviously incorrect and this reinforces the suggestion I made yesterday for a full consideration of this matter, this peculiar financial transaction, by an appropriate committee of the house operating with the Auditor General, so that the house and the public at large will know exactly what was done in last week's computer exercise by the Minister of National Revenue and his colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Still licking their wounds.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of the fact that the matter was raised by way of privilege I would say I think there is no prima facie case of privilege.



FINANCE


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I would like to table a legal opinion

November 15, 1966
Immigration
obtained on November 10, 1966 from the Acting Deputy Attorney General with reference to the use of vote 15 to meet certain payrolls.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table this document?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will give leave; but in view of the importance of this document and its relevance to the debate of yesterday and today, could it not either be read into Hansard at this point or made an appendix to Hansard, as was done with the treasury board minutes yesterday?


Edgar John Benson: I am quite in agreement, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the document be attached as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of document above referred to see appendix.]


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the letter being tabled now is in answer to a request by the minister, and I would suggest that that request should be tabled along with the reply. It is all part and parcel of the same thing.


Mr. Speaker:: I am wondering how a request can be tabled. Certainly the record will speak for itself. The words spoken by the minister will obviously appear in the record and if this is what the hon. member wants to make dear-that this was done at the request of the minister-it will appear in the record.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Millon L. Klein (Cartier) moved: that the first report of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on immigration, presented to the house on Thursday, November 10, 1966, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, once again a request is made for reduction of quorum in a committee of the house.
This time I believe that there is a factor which adds some significance to the request of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on immigration, made up

of 36 members, 24 from the House of Commons and 12 from the other place. The quorum was set at 50 per cent of all the members of the committee which means that 18 or 19 members or senators had to be in attendance so that the committee may sit. Now, request is made to reduce the quorum to 12 members. The resolution adds also the following:
Provided that the two houses are represented. Since there are 12 senators on that committee, it would be enough for the 12 senators to be in attendance and one single member out of the 265 members of the House of Commons so that the committee may sit regularly and study any subject pertaining to immigration.
In my opinion, it would be a true indication of weakness and giving up of its rights on the part of the House of Commons, if we were to allow a committee to sit when only one representative of the House of Commons is in attendance and one of the results of that motion might be to let the Senate in the long run take over the said joint committee of the house and the Senate on immigration which could sit with only the 12 members from the Senate in attendance and only one representative of the House of Commons.
We can see in what predicament that committee would be placed. Then the House of Commons would leave its rights aside would give them up in favour of the other place and I find that situation quite abnormal. That committee is made up of 36 members and, in normal circumstances, the quorum would be 18 or 19, I think. This would mean that if the senators are in attendance, only six or seven members of the House of Commons must be present to have the quorum. I wonder why they want to reduce that quorum, since, and I am coming back again to that point because it is very important-there are several members in the House of Commons, such as my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), and myself, who do not sit on any committee, and who would be pleased to participate to the committee's business because we are interested in it; we are prepared to attend the sittings, to discharge our duty fully, and the hon. member of Sherbrooke will support me on that point. But we are not permitted to sit on the committees.
For instance, on the committee on finance, trade, and economic affairs, we are often obliged to wait or to start without quorum, even though members of parliament, such as the member for Compton-Frontenac, the member for Villeneuve and the member for
November 15, 1966



Red Deer (Messrs. Latulippe, Caouette and Thompson) are in attendance without being members of the committee. We are not members of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, but we attend all the sittings since we are interested in the business of the house. We take interest in the work we have been elected to perform. All those I named a moment ago are not even members of the committee but are taking part in the discussions, while those who are members do not attend and there is no quorum. That is completely illogical, Mr. Speaker.
Last week I made an appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). Referring to his respect for minorities, I said he should have the same respect for our minority here, in this corner-three independent members-asking him to see that we are appointed to at least one committee. Personally, I expressed the desire to be appointed member of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. I have not missed one meeting of that committee; I have attended regularly. There are many Liberal and Conservative members who have not even attended one meeting of that committee; in fact, there are seldom more than nine or 10 out of 24 who attend. We are ready to attend the meetings; there are five or six members of the Ralliement Creditiste, Social Credit and our group, who consider it their duty to attend the meetings without being members. This should be taken into consideration and 'members who want to take part in the work of committees should be accepted as members.
I once again make a personal appeal to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who are both responsible for the orderly pursuance of the business of this house and ask them to see to it that the members of the independent group are appointed to certain committees, since they are ready to work, to do their share and to cooperate. I think the Prime Minister should take the matter in hand personally and see to it that independent members, whose privileges are violated here, are appointed to committees.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) recalled the other day that he was on five committees. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I was not appointed to any committee.
Therefore, I repeat my request to the Prime Minister and I hope that he will remedy that situation which violates the most fundamental privileges of independent members.
Immigration


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Just a word, Mr. Speaker, to support the statement made by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). I hear some grumbling, I do not know what some are trying to say, but as pointed out by the hon. member for Lapointe, I am also aware of my responsibilities and the work I must do in the House of Commons. I am here from Monday to Friday, every week. We all get a parliamentary allowance of $18,000 a year. Personally, I am entirely willing to work for the country and my riding.
I have already asked several times to take part in the work of the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts. I have been requesting it for three months. But it would seem that the government is suffering from infantile paralysis, because it will not answer me and reinstate me. And yet, the problem is always the same, and reducing the quorum will not solve it; but rather granting the wish of members who want to sit on such and such committee will do the trick. In my opinion, that is how attendance will improve at committee meetings.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is quite right when he asks for the right, as a member of the house, to sit on parliamentary committees.
However, he does not always tell the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: The Liberal members are applauding, but they will applaud less in a moment because I know that last Thursday, when the Prime Minister left the house, he said to the hon. member for Lapointe: Join the ranks of the Liberal party and I promise that you will be on any committee you might want to sit on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Réal Caouette: Thus, Mr. Speaker, that does not prevent-I understand why the Liberals are saying "Oh, oh"-but I heard the Prime Minister with my own ears, not Liberal ears, but my very own.
It was a joke, of course, but at that time the hon. member for Lapointe was being invited in by being told: You will sit on any committee if you join the ranks of the Liberal party.
Mr. Speaker, it remains that reducing parliamentary representation on the said committee is completely illogical and I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe to the effect that the other place could take over

November 15, 1966
Immigration
complete control of that committee and members of the house would no longer have any influence then.
Now, if 18 or 19 members are to sit on the immigration committee, and if the Liberals or the Conservatives do not have time to attend its meetings, I feel that the independents who wish to do so should at least be allowed to attend and be appointed members, without the quorum having to be reduced. Let us be logical. The parliament should not accept, straight off, proposals whereby the number of members required for the committee to operate would be reduced from 18 or 19 to 12.


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on this matter? I believe the time has come when the house should consider legislation which would limit speakers on these matters to members from the two parties electing the largest number of members to this house. If that were the case this whole matter would be resolved.


Gilles Grégoire: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
Are we to understand from the remarks made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) that he would like members from the two main parties only to have the right to speak on such a matter, while we, of the other parties, whether N.D.P, Creditistes, Social Credit or Independents, would not be allowed to do so? If I understood the member for Grey-Bruce correctly, that is what he meant-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order. There is obviously no question of privilege.

Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to suggest that the proposal made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce is unworthy of that hon. gentleman.


Mr. Smallwood:: It is not.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he would be prepared to advance the same argument in those provinces where the Conservatives do not have any members whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.
[Mr. Caouette.l



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister in connection with the repeated press references to the effect that Canada is leading other nations to bring about the setting up of a committee to enable the Secretary General of the United Nations to arrive at a plan whereby communist China may be admitted to the Security Council, and the Republic of China relegated to a position in the General Assembly. Is it a fact that these negotiations are going on, and that the United States and the empire of Japan are taking the strongest possible objection to Canada's action, which to both of them is retrogressive?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the house last week, Canada is engaged in consultations with other governments in preparation for the China item in the United Nations which will come up, it is understood, on November 18 in the General Assembly. The house will also recall that the Secretary of State for External Affairs told the General Assembly on September 26 of the growing opinion in Canada that if the United Nations is to realize its potential capacities we must make some further advance toward the objective of universality, particularly in regard to continental China which represents such a significant portion of the world's population. The Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out then, and I should like to stress again here, that there are fundamental obstacles lying in the way of resolving this issue, and it is not possible to predict whether this year's debate will be any more productive of a solution than have been those in the past.
Our consultations at the moment are concerned with the possibility of some further and equitable progress being made at this assembly toward universality of membership. It is too early to indicate whether or not it will be possible to do this.


John George Diefenbaker: First, Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister say whether or not Canada is joining with eight other nations to introduce a resolution in the United Nations, to which I have already previously referred in the house and, second, is it a fact that the strongest objection is being raised against communism by two of our major allies, the United States and Japan?
November 15, 1966


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the situation disclosed in the first part of the question addressed to me by the right hon. gentleman is not a fact in those terms, and therefore it follows that the second question does not require an answer.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary. In view of the statement made yesterday by Mr. Chester Ronning that China would not consider a two-Chinas policy, is the Canadian government investigating the policy of having the Formosa group known henceforth as Formosa rather than China, in an effort to make it possible for mainland China, the real China, to be brought into the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting suggestion but is not one that is necessarily included in the ideas we are putting forward to our friends which in the normal course of events we would be doing, as this resolution will be coming up in the next few days. We have given much thought to the solution of this problem and one approach to it is by recognizing the "two-Chinas" policy.


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether before the vote takes place at the end of the debate on the resolution the government will make known to this house its definite stand on the general issue of the admission of continental China to the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Our stand will be determined as a result of the consultations in which we are now engaging, and it will be reflected in the statement that will be made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), at the United Nations assembly. If it is possible to have a discussion of this matter in the house before that meeting, I think it would be quite proper to do so.



AIR CANADA


[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 Labour regarding the present strike of Air Canada, and ask him whether he has now received the report of the three private mediators who were dealing with this matter. If so, is he planning to appoint a
Inquiries of the Ministry government mediator, or what other steps will he be taking in an endeavour to bring together the two parties in the dispute?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my present advice is that there is no actual report from the mediation team. I had understood that there might be such a report, but instead of that I find that a letter was written by the chairman of the mediation group, which I received yesterday afternoon and which I referred for study to officials of my department, also with the instruction to see what other reports or letters may have been circulated. We have not been able to locate any others to date, but it is too early for us to make a statement at this time on what action should or might be taken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether the government is giving any consideration to appointing a mediator in an endeavour to bring the parties together and settle the matter as quickly as possible?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Such a suggestion has come up but I cannot say that the government is considering it until we have assembled the facts on which we should base our decision.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the air strike seems to have caused an emergency similar to the railway strike, is the government anticipating bringing in legislation to end the strike similar to that with which they ended the railway strike?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the two situations are not the same and I do not think it would help to bring this strike to a conclusion for the government or parliament to step in at this time in this way. I hope we will not be required to do so in a strike of this kind.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary. How long does the government and the Prime Minister intend to wait before they find it is an emergency?



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has been advised by the Canadian Labour Congress of its opposition to

November 15, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry the decision of the Air Transport Board to grant licences to other carriers over Air Canada's routes on the ground that this is an interference in a labour dispute? If so, what reply will the Prime Minister make to the Canadian Labour Congress?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, no such letter or request had reached my desk by lunch time. I will make inquiries as soon as I return to my office.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Will the government now consider changes in the law to permit supplementary or competitive alternative service from coast to coast by other air lines?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether consideration of this matter at this particular moment would be apt to further the cause we all have at heart, and that is the earliest possible resumption of service by Air Canada.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
I am sure the minister is aware of the decision of the C.N.T.U. to withdraw its union representation from all federal agencies. Now, in view of the fact that the minister has vast experience in this field, is he in a position to tell the house what part he is now playing so that the C.N.T.U. may be officially recognized to organize employees of the C.B.C., for instance?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the C.N.T.U. can organize any of the groups of workers that can be organized under our Labour Relations Act.


Maurice Allard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Since the hon. minister is a member of the special eommittee which has been studying these questions for eight months, and in view of the fact that C.N.T.U. has withdrawn from all federal organizations as of November 11, would the hon. minister not use his influence to urge the C.N.T.U. leaders to meet with the

special committee, and assure them that justice will be done, and thus ask them to rejoin the federal organizations?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the C.N.T.U.
representatives and those of the Canadian Labour Congress have met with the special cabinet committee which is due to report shortly, and I believe that, at that time, the house will know exactly where the government stands.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. minister give us the reason for which C.N.T.U. nevertheless withdrew from all federal organizations, before the report of the committee was made available?
Let the minister be frank and tell us exactly what happened.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister or possibly to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Considering the significance of the "redundancy plan" announced by Domtar Ltd. to deal with adjustment problems created by technological change, is the government prepared to consider steps to encourage similar projects in other corporations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have already taken steps toward that end. It is encouraging to learn that private industry is following the same lines.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. Is he aware that certain categories of the administrative support group of the public service of Canada have not yet received their back pay which was announced some 20 weeks ago, nor any of the pay increases to which they were entitled as of October 1, and would he look into this particular matter?
November 15, 1966


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into it immediately. I can assure my hon. friend that it would be of great help to have interim supply passed.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In order that this debate may end promptly today will the Prime Minister consider referring the question of the recent financial transactions to the public accounts committee, with instructions to examine the situation immediately in co-operation with the Auditor General and to report to the house at the earliest possible moment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure this debate can end today without giving any commitment in regard to that particular matter.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon.   Th@: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could he tell us on what date Quebec sugar-beet producers may expect their subsidy cheques for the 1965 crop?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by my officials that the cheques will be ready shortly, perhaps within two or three weeks.


Mr. Ricard:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give us some idea of what the amount of the subsidy, per ton, will be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question, I think, is a little too involved to be put at this time.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of National Revenue. It is derived from letters he tabled yesterday concerning the Volkswagen-Studebaker deal. It is stated, that in December, 1964, while arrangements with Ottawa had not been completed, shipments of Volkswagens were arriving and customs clearances had not been arranged. My question is, under what customs clearance were they landed, in view of the fact that they had been in transit for at least six weeks. Also, according to the letters tabled, 15 months later the minister's department was still concerned and had not given an official customs clearance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. gentleman would consider discussing this matter at ten o'clock tonight. Certainly I do not think this type of question should be asked now.


Alfred Dryden Hales: May I direct another question to the Minister of National Revenue. Was he informed by officials of his department as far back as 1964 that the pending deal between Volkswagen and Studebaker was about to take place? If he was advised by officials of his department, did he take steps to block the loophole in the treaty, so that the $2 million in duty might have gone to the treasury, where it belonged?


Edgar John Benson: The answer to the first part of the question is no. I had no knowledge of the transaction until after it was completed. That makes unnecessary an answer to the second part of the question.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Did he ask for and receive a legal opinion with regard to the recent transfer of funds within departments or between departments, in addition to the use of vote 15, the contingency fund.
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there was no transfer from votes, other than the transfers from vote 15.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. So that that answer is quite
9902	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry clear, will the minister state whether any transfer of funds was made between departments, from one department to another?


Edgar John Benson: Not to my knowledge. The only transfer of this kind that could be made would be with the approval of Treasury Board, and to my knowledge no such transfers were made.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the different statements made by the Minister of National Revenue is the Prime Minister prepared to set up a special committee with the Auditor General to look into the matter that has been raised, to see if the government acted legally.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the documents have already been placed before the house. There will be an occasion no doubt in the normal course of events for the Auditor General to appear before a committee to discuss this and other matters.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will that be three years from now.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. I did not send him notice because the incident on which the question is based occurred in the house a few moments ago. My ordinary vocation is that of a rancher who has not had much contact with the legal profession during his life, thank the Lord. My question is this: The Minister of National Revenue obtained a legal opinion from the Department of Justice. Why is it, when members of the opposition ask the Minister of Justice for a legal opinion in the interpretation of any statute, that he rises and says that he is not able to give a legal opinion. What is the reason for this?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a very interesting question, but it is not in order.
[Mr. Churchill 1
DEBATES	November 15, 1966



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey Norlh):: My question is addressed to the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh). Would the Secretary of State use her good offices to influence the C.B.C. and the National Film Board to take part in an intensive highway safety campaign for the duration of 1967, as a centennial project?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question should be placed on the order paper.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Slceena):: My question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. May I ask the minister whether he will reconsider his decision of yesterday, which I understand was that he would not meet a delegation of four persons relating to certain matters concerning Indian people in Alberta. Would he arrange to meet the gentlemen in question, to hear their complaints?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is a bit mysterious, and is couched in general terms making it impossible for the Chair at this time to decide if it is of national importance and great urgency. I suggest to the hon. member, if it is of great urgency, that he discuss it at the adjournment debate this evening.


Frank Howard: The question is so urgent that it cannot wait until ten o'clock this evening. An arrangement was made yesterday for a group of native Indians to meet with the minister at 1:45. For some reason unknown to me the minister was not able to meet these men, or failed or refused to meet them. I ask him now to reconsider his decision, because the lives of a number of native Indians in Alberta hinge on this meeting.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yesterday Messrs. Daniels and Samson made arrangements to meet me at 1:45. I was in my office, and they appeared with two members of the Canadian Indian Youth Council. I told Messrs. Daniels and Samson that I should be
November 15, 19S6

pleased to see them, but I thought that the other two people had nothing to contribute to the discussion about the situation of the Fox Lake reserve. Messrs. Daniels and Samson made the stipulation that they would not see me unless they were accompanied by the other people, and they went away. I assure my hon. friend that I endeavoured to see them. In fact, I followed them into the corridor and invited them in again. I understand they again want to make an appointment with me, and I shall be delighted to see them.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. To clarify what was said, may I ask this: The minister said he would be delighted to see them. By that, do I take it he would be delighted to see Messrs. Daniels and Samson, and the other two individuals they might bring along with them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



VISITS TO RESERVATIONS BY MEMBERS OF STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: May I
ask the minister if his department has entered into arrangements with the standing committee, so that the various subcommittees, as arranged, could travel to this and other reserves to examine conditions existing there during the winter, and report back to the committee about the situation which is found?


Arthur Laing: I would be very happy indeed if this arrangement were made. The matter I think is now in the hands of the chairman of the committee, and I believe arrangements will be made to the effect outlined by my hon. friend.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I see my friends applaud. I must tell them that I am not one of those who rise all the time to put more or less interesting questions or still to make useless speeches.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The Timmins Daily Press, in its issue of November 8, 1966, stated that the compressor
Inquiries of the Ministry located in Kapuskasing, on the gas pipe line would be moved from northern Ontario to the future Great Lakes route.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that he cannot quote a newspaper item.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Here is my question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell us if there is any truth to that news?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question, in its present form, is not in order.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I should like to inquire whether he or the government have been asked to provide a training program for Italian immigrants in order that they may become eligible for employment on jobs other than those requiring unskilled and manual labour only?


Mr. Speaker:: The immediate urgency of the question as asked by the hon. member is doubtful. I suggest it might be placed on the order paper.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Since this is a matter of immediate urgency I will rephrase my question and ask the minister to tell us whether or not the Italian government is seeking from the Secretary of State for External Affairs a better deal for Italian immigrants.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that the question the hon. member has just asked is of a very general nature. Perhaps it might better be placed on the order paper.


Eric Alfred Winkler: The minister is here and we would like to know what is going on.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: wish to address a question to the Secretary of State and ask the hon. lady when it is expected that the white paper on broadcasting will

November 15, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry be referred to the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secreiary of Stale):: That is really a matter for the leader of the house. I understand that for some weeks he has been exploring, with members opposite, the possibility of having it referred to the committee without the necessity of debating the motion, but he cannot get any co-operation from that side.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) further to the question I put to him last week on the temporary removal of tolls on Champlain bridge.
Has the hon. minister had the opportunity to check the assumptions arising out of my question; would he agree to make a favourable recommendation to the National Harbours Board?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very happy to say that the work on the Jacques Cartier bridge was completed this morning, and that it is therefore unnecessary for me to study the question further.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Vaughan Pugh: My
question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. When the house was considering motions, the minister tabled a legal opinion. My question is: Was the request for this legal opinion made by the minister in writing or was it made orally.


Edgar John Benson: As I indicated yesterday in the house, the legal opinion was both requested and obtained orally, first of all. At the same time as it was obtained orally a request was made that it be put into writing. This was done, and I have tabled the reply.


David Vaughan Pugh: The minister has tabled the reply. Would he consider tabling the written request?
[Mr. Fairweather.l


Edgar John Benson: As I have indicated, there was no written request made. My deputy minister, the secretary of the Treasury Board, telephoned and asked for an opinion on Thursday morning. As indicated in the letter, the opinion was given to him orally. Then he asked that it be transcribed into writing, and I have tabled that opinion in writing.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Baffle River-
Camrose): I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I wish to assure him and the Prime Minister that I am not trying to embarrass the government with regard to the price of farm machinery.
An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Oh, quiet, Hubert.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member kindly ask his question?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Yes, if those yahoos would keep quiet, and I could get a chance.
As hon. members may know, the price of farm machinery is being increased by 5 per cent as of November 1. The Prime Minister told us yesterday that he will take this matter up, and I should like to know what action the minister intends to take to protect the farmers of Canada against this increase.


John James Greene: I have no doubt that the hon. member is not seeking to embarrass the government and I am therefore pleased to tell him that I have written to all the machinery companies and have now received replies, I think from all of them, with respect to the increase. I shall be considering those replies and taking any action which I feel it is possible to take under our legislative authority very shortly.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister tell us
whether in those replies it was revealed that the percentage of increase imposed by the various implement companies was the same and, if so, is consideration being given to an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act to see whether the Canadian people, and in particular the farmers, will be mulcted as a result of this increase?
November 15, 19G6


John James Greene: I would be very pleased to consider the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman, if it is appropriate, in respect to the replies I have received.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the Minister of Agriculture be prepared to table the replies he has received from the farm implement companies in order that the house and the country may know just what their views are with respect to these increases and what justification the companies give for imposing them?


John James Greene: I would be pleased to consider that suggestion.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister now prepared to tell us the total amount required for the departments for which estimates have not been finalized for the payment of mid-November salaries, combining the $2,160,000 and the other money he found in the various votes?


Edgar John Benson: I will be pleased to read this information into the record later this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Could he tell the house when we might expect the report of the Carter commission on taxation, and whether the delay in delivering that report is due, as I have heard, to the difficulty of having a translation made into French?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I do not know when the report will be delivered. I met the chairman of the commission at the airport the other day, and he said: "Don't ask me the question." I understand that the delays have not altogether been due to the problem of translation; there have been extensive revisions, I gather, to the original English draft.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of his reference a few moments ago to certain portions of the Carter commission report being revised, will he ascertain whether any of the chapters advance copies of which have been in his department are ones that are being revised?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be very happy to inquire but I do not like to inquire too closely about these matters because I do not want to know what is in the report itself until it is made public.


[Stage Direction]
ECONOMIES IN INTEGRATION OF FORCES On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, due to the absence of the hon. Minister of National Defence I shall put my question to the hon. Associate Minister of National Defence.
Can the hon. minister tell us if it is true that since the armed forces have been integrated, savings of some $143 million have been achieved?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is too general and may not be put at this time.


[Stage Direction]
SEARCH PRIVATE HOMES On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
Can the minister tell us whether it is true that the R.C.M.P. searched the home of a Mr. Denoncourt, in Longueuil, under the pretext ot finding some dynamite, and that they brought back all R.I.N. membership lists to their headquarters, so as to have the list of members of a political party, as well as that of all workers in the Quebec election last June?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the question should be immediately answered considering the way it has been asked. If the hon. member feels that it is an urgent matter for certain

November 15, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry reasons, of which I am unaware at the moment, I could assure him that the question will be discussed on the adjournment motion this evening.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I really believe that it is an urgent matter, since it refers to a violation of the most elementary rights guaranteed by democratic freedom.
Now here is an official member, a leader of a political party from whose home a member's list is taken-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The ruling of the Chair in this matter cannot be debated and the hon. member will surely admit that if there is really a question of emergency, he will have an opportunity to comment when the question is deferred for debate on the adjournment motion tonight.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I reword my question so that I be in order? Could the Solicitor General order an inquest on the facts I mentioned and tell us if they are real and, also, if they were contrary to democratic freedom?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As the first and second questions of the hon. member are not basically different, I suggest that the hon. member consider the possibility to defer the question for debate on the adjournment motion.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent question to ask of the Associate Minister of National Defence. It arises out of a tragic accident last Friday in Kingston when a three year old child fell into a hole full of scalding water. This condition is said to have been created by a leaking underground steam pipe which forms part of the heating system of the building of the Department of National Defence at Barriefield. The question I would like to ask the minister is-surely, Mr. Speaker, I don't hear hon. members laughing over this incident? My question is: Will a full investigation be held so that the reason for this tragedy can be ascertained? This young girl is now fighting for her life in Hotel Dieu Hospital in Kingston, with 75 per cent of her body cruelly scalded as a result of this accident.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: There is an investigation presently going on, Mr. Speaker, and we are indeed very sorry for this painful incident.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: As a supplementary, will the minister have a full investigation in order that these conditions may be remedied to prevent a repetition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the minister has noted the representations made by the hon. member.



HISTORIC SITES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the rising waters of the South Saskatchewan river have surrounded the Cree Indian shrine known as Mistaseni, I would like to ask the minister what arrangements have been made to preserve at least a portion of this historic shrine?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I certainly do not want to be too restrictive on these questions, but if the hon. member is referring to a situation which has already occurred-although perhaps I do not understand the problem-I suggest that he place the question on the order paper or, if there is urgency, that it be debated later today.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of urgency I would point out that so long as the waters were removed from this shrine there was no particular urgency. But now that the waters have surrounded the shrine, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar says, if we are going to wait the normal length of time for an answer to a question on the order paper the shrine will be inundated. In view of the circumstances, surely the minister would be in a position to answer the question now?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, inquiries were made with respect to the removal of this rock and the estimated cost of removal of the whole rock came to something in the neighbourhood of $75,000. I repeat that this was only an estimate, and the actual cost could have been more than that. It was deemed that this removal would not be practicable.
November 15, 1966
In discussing the matter, and in negotiating with the local committee interested in the preservation of this rock, the government agreed to make a substantial contribution under P.F.R.A. toward its removal if the committee could agree on some method whereby that could be done without expending such an exorbitant amount of money. To the best of my knowledge, to date the committee has not agreed on removal of a portion of the rock, something which could be done more economically. So far as I know, at the present time the matter is still at that impasse.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture if he does not find it incongruous that Canada was prepared to contribute a considerable amount of money for the work of salvaging some of the historic ruins behind the Aswan high dam in Egypt, and yet had difficulty in finding money to preserve one of our historic Canadian artifacts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the question asked by the hon. member is clearly argumentative.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the point is well taken, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Has he any reply to the question I asked him recently with respect to the bugging of the meeting of the pulp and paper workers' union at the Ritz Hotel in Vancouver?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Kootenay West I wish to state I am advised that the R.C.M.P. did not authorize or approve the use of listening devices in a room in the Vancouver hotel. I understand that an inquiry into the matter has been authorized by the government of British Columbia, and under the circumstances I suggest, with respect, that I ought not to enlarge upon my answer.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether it is true that the R.C.M.P. bugged
9907
Inquiries of the Ministry the telephone line of Mr. Denoncourt, of Longueuil, a R.I.N. leader?
Could the minister investigate this matter?



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Transport.
The minister indicated the other day his displeasure with the slowness of his department concerning the construction of an air terminal in Val d'Or and Rouyn.
I see that the minister is not paying particular attention to the question now, and so I shall repea t it.
The other day the minister indicated his displeasure with the civil servants in his department with regard to the construction of an air terminal in Val d'Or and Rouyn.
Can the minister tell us today whether there are any new developments concerning the construction of these air terminals in Val d'Or and Rouyn?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say I am still dissatisfied but I am still pushing.



BRANDON, MAN-CONSTRUCTION OF TERMINAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Now that we have an air policy announced, could the minister indicate when a decision might be made on the Brandon airport terminal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would have to inquire before I could give an answer to the hon. gentleman.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is similar to others I have posed recently, and may I direct this one to either the minister in charge of Canada's national parks or to the Prime Minister. Can either of the hon. gentlemen



November 15, 1966
Interim Supply
advise whether there is going to be a winter works program at Cape Breton Highlands National Park and, if so, how soon will it be started, to alleviate the serious economic situation in this area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there was a discussion of this matter this morning between the ministers concerned. We hope to have another meeting tomorrow morning, and I trust they will be in a position to make an announcement before the end of the week.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. The other day I made an inquiry of him with respect to the gold coin which is to be minted next year, to see whether or not we could effect its easy entry into the United States and thus increase the sales. The minister was going to look into that possibility and I wish to ask if he can reply now?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will reply tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)

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



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $371,999,867,43, being the aggregate of-
(a)	one-twelfth of the total of all of the Items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Items for Citizenship and Immigration, Defence Production, Forestry, Industry, Legislation, National Revenue, Post Office, Privy Council and Veterans Affairs, already provided for in Appropriation Act No. 6, 1966, and except Agriculture Item 35, Atomic Energy Item 5. Dominion Bureau of Statistics Item 10, Finance Item 15, Mines and Technical Surveys Items 40 and 70, Transport Item 103, and Loans, Investments and Advances Items L40, L75 and L80, for which no proportion is granted-309,794,765.50:
(b)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Public Works Item 65 (Schedule A) of the said Main Estimates-$4,600,000.00;
(c)	an additional two-twelfths of the total amounts of National Defence Item 35, Northern Affairs and National Resources Item 20 (Schedule B) of the said Main Estimates-3,175,900.00;
(d)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amount of Loans, Investments and Advances Item L30

(Schedule C) of the said Main Estimates-$9,166,-666.67;
(e)	one-twelfth of the total of all of the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (a) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament, except Agriculture Item 35a, Defence Production Item 20a, Finance Item 4a, Mines and Technical Surveys Item 40a and Transport Items 102a and 103a, for which no proportion is granted -$26,276,101.92;
(f)	an additional three-twelfths of the total amounts of External Affairs Item 35a and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L22a (Schedule
D)	of the said Supplementary Estimates-$11,304,-250.00;
(g)	an additional two-twelfths of the total amount of Secretary of State Item 40a (Schedule
E)	of the said Supplementary Estimates-$713,-266.67;
(h)	an additional one-twelfth of the total amounts of Finance Item 15a and Loans, Investments and Advances Item L40a (Schedule F) of the said Supplementary Estimates-$4,716,666,67;
(i)	one-twelfth of the total amount of all the Items set forth in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of Parliament except Loans, Investments and Advances Item L32b, for which no proportion is granted-$2,252,250.00,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967.
The Chairman:: The hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Some hon. Members:: Oh no, not again.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Hon. members opposite have every reason to groan. Anybody who supports the action of the Minister of National Defence has reason to groan.
Mr. Chairman, I hesitated to get to my feet, because last night the hon. member for Verdun was speaking and indicated at ten o'clock that he would be continuing today. He should be here to continue the speech he was making so that we would have a further indication of his ignorance of this whole affair. He is ignorant not only of what has happened here in the last ten or 11 days, but also of the rules as shown by the fact that at ten o'clock he indicated he wished to continue but is not here now to do so. It is very clear that he was trying to take part in this snowball business for the Minister of National Defence. Let us see what he has had to say about what he thought has happened in the last ten or 11 days. The hon. member for Verdun implied that this debate on the question of unification had been carried on continuously. If we look at what has happened we can readily see that the hon. member for Verdun does not know what actually has gone on here in the past few days. I say that for the simple reason that
November 15, 1966

the whole debate on interim supply has not been concentrated on the unification question.
During the debate on interim supply, a considerable amount of time was spent on the northern Ontario pipe line situation. There was a good deal of comment on that particular situation. This further points out the hon. member's ignorance. On this side of the house speeches were made in respect of the winter works program, and in respect of the answer given by the Prime Minister with which I will deal shortly. There was a speech on insecticides and there was a speech on the dairy industry in this country. So, the hon. member who says that for the last ten or 11 days we have been discussing only the matter of unification is completely unaware of what has been going on; but he is not alone in this. Many members on that side of the house do not know what has been going on.
The hon. member endeavoured to leave the impression with us that he had done much in the way of research in respect of the unification program. He went back six years and quoted General Foulkes in this regard. If he was doing any research in respect of General Foulkes' thoughts on this matter, there was no reason to go back six years. He could have gone back to October, 1966. I have here a clipping which states:
Foulkes asks Hellyer what on earth he's doing.
This is the gentleman the hon. member for Verdun was quoting last night. Here is another statement:
The only other record of wholesale changes in the military occurred in the Hitler regime. He dismissed every general who dared to tell him what he should know and not what he liked to hear.
This was October 11, 1966, and the quotation is from the same gentleman the hon. member referred to as an authority. He should bring himself up to date; the Liberal party should bring itself up to date, and the cabinet, especially the Minister of National Defence, should be brought up to date. The minister said that I was trying to blacken his character. This is the minister who has tampered, censored, and interfered with the evidence that was brought before the committee by Admiral Landymore. Why should we believe anything this minister has had to say in respect of other witnesses and what may have happened to their evidence? Was he tampering with their evidence; did he censor their evidence? This is the reason that today we cannot believe anything this Minister of National Defence says concerning the defence committee.
Interim Supply
Yet the Liberals have since decided to back the Minister of National Defence rather than the Prime Minister on this matter. They are, however, very slow in rising to his defence in this house. What about the general attitude of this Liberal government? I say to the hon. members opposite, and especially the hon. member for Verdun, that if they think there is any weakening of the principle, so far as I am concerned they are wrong. I am fully prepared to go along with the blackmail attempt of the Liberal house leader when he said we would sit 24 hours. I promise it will take only myself and a couple of others to continue this debate and maintain a quorum with 19 members on the other side. I, for one, am ready to do it. Since I come from a mining industry, I have had a good deal of experience in working the "back" shift. I can carry on with any 19 members who have the guts to stay up all night with me. Of course, the hon. member for Verdun is not here, but no doubt he will come along later and try to snowball the whole matter again.
I notice that at least the Minister of Agriculture seems to be listening. I should like to bring up a matter which has been dealt with by the Prime Minister. This has to do with a question raised by my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria concerning the coal industry. Every person in that area who is concerned is begging the government to follow through with the program initiated by the government under John Diefenbaker. They want this program to be kept going. We give this government credit for continuing it up until this year. Why delay it this year? What is wrong with the government? The Prime Minister said that there had been a meeting on this matter, and that a decision might be brought down at the end of the week. The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, who is very concerned about the situation in his constituency, does not wish to aggravate the situation; but why does the Prime Minister not bring out the facts in this matter.
Very recently a guarantee was given in this house by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Minister of Labour to the effect that there would be absolutely no change in the winter works program, other than the $500 for winter built homes. If there is no change, why is this government delaying the winter works program? The Prime Minister, in answer to a question in respect of the winter works program in the constituency of

November 15, 1966
Interim Supply
the Minister of National Health and Wei- National Defence during the period from 1945 fare-which minister should be fighting for to 1954.
his people-said he would look into the lay-off The minister was apparently completely ig-situation there and see that it was alleviated, norant of the situation before I asked my This was over a month ago. What is the question. I had contacted Crown Assets Dis-matter with this government? Why are they posal Corporation and was informed there
not keeping this type of promise? It is not difficult to understand why they do not keep the promises they made prior to the election, but why is it that the Prime Minister should rise in the house one day, make a promise, and then not fulfil it.
The situation with regard to the winter works program is not the only fault I find with this government. I see the Associate Minister of National Defence sitting there sanctimoniously, giving the appearance that he is interested in the defence of this country. That minister has no interest in the defence of this country; he knows nothing about it. He has made up his mind, after having an interview with one person. He said he was in a dilemma. One person will not solve that for him. He had better get some other advice. It is not too long ago that I put a question to the minister in respect of government material that was found under the sea. I am speaking of a cable which was installed at the start of the war. Now, it is at least 26 or 27 years old, and was discovered by some scuba divers. Since they believed it was government property, they made some inquiries about its removal. They made further inquiries concerning whether it would be worth while to buy this material.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I put the proposition to the Minister of National Defence, and we discussed the matter. Lo and behold, I was instructed to ask the minister a question about this situation in the house. This was at the time the minister's executive assistant, Mr. Lee, was asking opposition members to give his minister an opportunity to answer questions in the house. I asked him the question but he could not come up with an answer. I was invited to ask this question and I did so, but His Honour, Mr. Speaker, ruled my question out of order. I was permitted to ask the question notwithstanding that ruling because I persuaded the Speaker that I had been asked to pose the question.
Finally, it came to light that the department would have to sell this material to the men who discovered it, in spite of the fact it had been lying under the ocean for 26 years and had been abandoned by the Department of

was no record of this cable. It was not included in their inventory. Obviously, there was no question about the fact that the department had abandoned this material, yet the minister and his associate minister insisted this material had to be sold. This is a case of the government, being advised by the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence, attempting to sell something to the citizens of Canada which they no longer owned, and which was not on their inventory.
I mention this particular incident as an indication of the fact that the minister should acquaint himself with situations before taking a stubborn position such as he is taking in respect of the unification program. In this regard, the minister said he had consulted an authority, and on the basis of the advice he received had made up his mind. He admitted that he was in a dilemma and I submit he is still in the same dilemma.
Let me say something now to the Minister of Public Works who is busy walking around this chamber. I should like to call his attention to the blackmail of which he apparently is the instigator. From the statement he made earlier, I believe I have interpreted rightly the intention of this government. The minister suggested that we begin sitting 24 hours a day, and placed a motion to that effect on the order paper. Let me assure him that I will accommodate him in this regard if he has guts enough to proceed with that motion. The motion to sit for 24 hours, according to the minister, was decided upon before this government found sufficient funds to pay civil servants' salaries.


Mr. Mcllraith:: That is correct; that is what the minister said and that is the fact.


Donald MacInnis: I am
glad the minister made that interjection. According to the Minister of National Revenue, this money was available for the payment of these salaries as the result of a legal opinion received on Thursday morning. Apparently at that time the government got the okay from the legal officers to utilize this money for this purpose. That being so, why does the minister not withdraw this motion which is in effect a form a blackmail? The
November IS, 1966

motion has been left on the order paper for the specific purpose of blackmailing the opposition into pushing this unification bill through.
Hon. members on the opposite side of this house have pointed their fingers at the opposition and said that because we wished to carry on the debate in respect of the principle of this stupid bill, sponsored by this stupid minister, we are trying to blackmail the government. Questions have been asked as to whether the government did the proper thing in releasing this money for the purpose of paying these salaries, but apparently the legal opinion supports that measure. I do not question that fact, and I do not wish to get into an argument about it.
Let me point out that this government has continually deceived the people of this country regarding civil service pay cheques. When the government finally came through with money enough to pay civil servants' salaries they suggested that-


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is it his argument that our attempt to give him and his colleagues in the opposition an opportunity to discuss the spending estimates of the government of Canada is a form of blackmail?


Donald MacInnis: Does the hon. minister really want an answer?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Donald MacInnis: The
motion is a form of blackmail as long as it remains on the order paper. This government has shown a lack of guts for a long period of time. As long as the motion remains on the order paper, it is a threat and nothing less than blackmail.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member permit another question? Did he, when reading the motion, notice the provision that the motion would be dropped as soon as the estimates were passed?


Donald MacInnis: I suggest that the minister re-examine his own position in light of the question he asks. The minister cannot have things both ways. He will receive our answer to his suggestion in the form of debate on this unification program.
I have referred to the willy-nilly approach of this government in respect of many things. Let me remind the house leader now of a
Interim Supply
situation that developed prior to the last election. This is a matter which should have been investigated. I have reference to the announcement made by the minister of northern affairs regarding a mineral find in western Canada. Everybody got excited about this announcement. I do not follow the stock market, but apparently the announcement created a ripple. Before such announcements are made, I suggest the minister should look into the facts.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the house leader has left and I find that I am speaking in this chamber at a time when only one minister is present. The incident to which I have referred is one in respect of which the government should examine its own ethics. I understand that as a result of the minister's announcement regarding this large mineral discovery a ripple was created on the stock exchange. The company involved subsequently denied this large discovery, and the minister's explanation was that he had been too enthusiastic about a report he had received from his own departmental engineers.
When analysing the situation, one must come to the conclusion that the report the minister received from his engineers was prepared by those individuals as a result of their liaison with the company engineers. The company engineers denied any such discovery so the immediate question must be raised; how could the minister base his announcement on such a report or advice from his own engineers?
What is the situation we find as a result of the minister's enthusiastic announcement based on unfounded reports? We find that the stock market fluctuated on the basis of an over-enthusiastic announcement by the minister. I suggest the minister should look into the facts before embarking upon such enthusiastic announcements.
Apparently last week, when the government found itself in difficulty in respect of paying its employees, it put its computers to work and found millions of dollars it could use legally to pay these salaries.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am very glad they found this money; and if it was found legally, all the better. I understand that one of the Liberals referred to the contingency fund as petty cash. This is getting back to the days of C. D. Howe, but they make him look like a piker because they refer to their millions as petty cash. This is the way the Liberals referred to the millions of dollars

November 15, 1966
Interim Supply
they found with which to pay the civil servants. They did this in the short period of a couple of days. On Wednesday, they were making the charge that we were holding up interim supply and denying civil servants their money. It strikes me as rather strange that they found the money Thursday evening, because on Thursday morning they put in a call to the Department of Justice to find out whether it was proper to use this money to pay the civil servants. I can only arrive at one conclusion, namely, that the money was found on Wednesday. The government would not ask on Thursday morning for authority from the Department of Justice to pay out money if it had not become available prior to their asking for such a legal opinion.
I would dearly love to see such quick action by this government to find the $25 million that on October 5, 1965, they promised would be available to the coal industry. How about some speed in fulfilling that promise? What is the government going to do about that situation? I do not criticize the fact that the minister of mines-I will refer to him as such although I understand the government has added natural resources to his responsibilities-did not go to Nova Scotia on November 3 and make clear the government's policy in this respect. I fully agree that his decision not to go was mutually agreed upon with a delegation that arrived in this city to talk to the government about the delay in carrying out the definite commitment it made on October 5, 1965. This promise has yet to be fulfilled. But prior to November 3-I do not recall the date; it was somewhere around the latter part of October of this year-the minister had already announced his intention to go to Sydney and explain the government's coal policy.
I repeat that his decision not to go was mutually agreed upon. But that week the government were examining the situation. I wish they would examine it with the same speed with which they examined a few other things very recently. Why must the miners and those concerned in the coal industry of Nova Scotia still wait for this assistance to be provided to the industry, when the minister of labour of that time referred to it as a definite commitment with no strings attached? I have already invited the Minister of Transport to come to my office and I will play the tape of the minister's statement in respect of this $25 million.
There has been no action in this regard. The delegation from the coal industry of Nova

Scotia met with several members of the cabinet, but there has yet to be any action taken in this respect. How long do we have to wait? Do we have to wait until another election is called so that the Liberals can put out a message at all the polling stations of Cape Breton South to the effect that the Liberal government deserves the vote of the people for what they have done for the Cape Breton miners?
This is what they did in November, 1965; the message was there for all the Liberal poll workers to use. I have said this before, but I say it again, that a poll worker of the Liberal party who made this message available to me said he was more interested in the welfare of the Cape Breton mines and miners than in the welfare of the Liberal party. He is prepared to give me an affidavit that this offer of $25 million to assist the industry was Liberal strategy, although the then minister of labour made this offer as a definite commitment on the part of the government.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, in 1965 the message to the voters of Cape Breton South was to the effect that the Liberal government deserved their vote this one time for what they had done for the Cape Breton miners and the coal industry. A Liberal will give me an affidavit to this effect. What have they done? What are they doing now? Are they perhaps waiting for another election to be called so they can come to my part of the country and say: We are a little late on our previous promise, but we will give you $30 million this time? Or will it turn out to be something like the 1919 promise with respect to medicare? Will we have to wait until the mines are completely phased out and the industry goes down the drain?
I am sorry that the minister involved is not in the chamber. In this connection, I will speak of the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The minister's remarks reveal a very patronizing attitude on his part. He is a very friendly and affable fellow. He said to the Cape Breton miners, in his own peculiar and very patronizing manner: You know, there isn't a man in Canada with more experience than me in closing mines. Then, he went on to tell the delegation that the minerals and ore bodies of this country are the responsibility of the provinces. Of course, he asked the question, what was provincial policy in this respect? He said, again in his patronizing way: We are not going to argue about who should take the initiative here.
I hope the government would not argue about who should take the initiative in attempting to solve this problem. There is no
November 15, 1966

argument left for the Grits. They look the initiative on October 5 when they went into Halifax and said they would make $25 million available to assist the Nova Scotia coal industry. There is no doubt that at the next cabinet meeting this question was discussed with the Prime Minister, who said the government would soon be coming forward with a decision. The other day an hon. member asked what he meant by "soon" and the answer was that it meant "in the very near future". But here we are, more than a year after that definite commitment was made by the government to assist the Nova Scotia coal industry, and nothing has been done. The same thing can be said of this government with regard to many, many other areas of the Canadian economy. They have taken no action whatsoever to solve these problems. No government has ever surpassed this government so far as audacity is concerned.
I understand that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been in the province making further references to the coal situation, but what he has said has apparently not been worth carrying in the press. Members on this side of the house have been pressing, with members of the New Democratic Party and others-and no doubt in the Liberal caucus pressure has been applied in this respect-for action to be taken to improve the situation of our old age pensioners. The other day the Prime Minister told this house emphatically that he was prepared to bring in old age pension legislation as soon as the opposition was ready. Well, Mr. Chairman, the opposition has indicated on many occasions that it is ready to deal with this legislation.
But how can we trust this government? There is no way in which any member on the government side of the house can convince me that there is any reason to believe what they say at any particular time on any particular subject. The emphasis again must be placed, of course, on the Minister of National Defence. When the accusation was made that the minister released classified information he denied it, although he failed to get to his feet to do so. The press gave him credit for rising and denying it, but this was not the case.
Why can we not, believe them in respect of the old age pension legislation which the Prime Minister promised to introduce whenever the opposition was ready? I will give the committee one very good reason. Since the Prime Minister made that statement the Minister of National Health and Welfare has given priority to the medicare bill. I think just yesterday in this house the minister referred 23033-627
Interim Supply
to the fact that he would prefer to get on with the medicare legislation before dealing with the old age security legislation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
He told the house this after the Prime Minister had said what he was prepared to do. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is contradicting the Prime Minister. Is it any wonder we cannot believe him? This government cannot be believed at any time. Parliamentary rules do not permit me to use the appropriate language, but I will refer to a situation which took place in the house not long ago when one of the ministers promised to provide an answer to a member's question. The day on which the answer was to be given he was not available. The Prime Minister said the minister was indisposed, and under his doctor's orders so could not be present. However, the next day this minister appeared and apologized to the hon. member for not providing an answer. He said he was sorry he could not be here, but he was escorting the Shah of Iran on a trip across the country. Who was lying? Whom do we believe, and how long do we have to put up with nonsense from this government which for a year could not find $25 million and yet in a few short minutes turned up with the amount necessary to pay civil servants. It is a good thing they put the machines to work, and it is a good thing they have the machinery available, because they could never calculate anything on their own.
Members of the government have continued to deceive the opposition. I could go back and refer to the situation with respect to medicare. Members of the government have contradicted other hon. members of the government, in spite of the cabinet solidarity which is supposed to exist. They have even taken opposing sides in a vote. Where else could this have happened but among the Grits? They say they stand together. There is a good reason for this crowd to stand together. I will cite an example. The Minister of Transport represents the province of Newfoundland where members of his party do not even have the stomach to go before a convention at which the constituents decide who is to represent them. The Liberal party cannot say to those members "do what we tell you or you will not be around the next time". Liberal members cannot get up in this house and express their views because of the fact they are chosen by the party and not by their own people. One Liberal member told me, prior to the 1958 election, that the election campaign was just a

November 15, 1966
Interim Supply
formality and he would be back in the house. What happened to him?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, may I inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, my sole purpose in taking part in the debate is to express the hope that we can bring a speedy end to this debate on interim supply.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. member a question on this point? Is the hon. member aware that we are just waiting for the Minister of National Revenue to come back and answer a question which was asked on orders of the day and then, within a few minutes, we are prepared to bring this debate to a conclusion? The Minister of National Revenue is holding everything up.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the Minister of National Revenue is going to make a statement and then the debate is to be concluded, I am quite prepared to forgo the privilege of taking part in the debate. However, I wish to say that I think interim supply presents the opposition parties with a very real opportunity to express views which they have not had the chance of presenting. We in the New Democratic Party, when the interim supply matter was raised, took the opportunity to present the whole matter of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines application to build a pipe line through the United States. We had no other opportunity to discuss that matter.
The Prime Minister had agreed from time to time that we would have an opportunity to discuss it but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, without reference to parliament, tabled an agreement approving this application by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. We, therefore, felt that it was only right and proper that this matter should get a thorough airing. There is no doubt that as a result of that debate one thing has become abundantly clear, namely, that there is no national fuel policy in Canada. It is now perfectly clear that three years ago the National Energy Board recognized the need for twinning the lines in northern Ontario, that nothing was done by the government, and that the National Energy Board had no authority to do anything.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle, in speaking with some pride of the fact that this legislation was passed by the Conservative government, referred to the National Energy Board as being an office of records. Events

have proven that this is all it is, an office of records. It had no authority to compel the twinning of that line, with the result that we now have the situation where the government can claim that there will be a shortage of gas in southern Ontario. Since they can build the line through the United States faster, the government can claim this project should be proceeded with rather than the twinning of the northern line.
All of this demonstrates the lack of planning and the lack of any national fuel policy. We therefore feel that we were completely justified in raising this matter as we did. We have expressed our views on it, and we are certain that time will vindicate the position we have taken. As a matter of fact, if the Federal Power Commission in Washington does not approve this agreement, we will be back where we started. We will then have to twin the northern line after having wasted a considerable number of years in planning and discussing this project. However, having made our protest we are not going to hold up the estimates and we have not taken much part in the debate in recent days.
The other matter which has been raised in the house by the Conservative members is in regard to unification. Our view on it was expressed in one speech by the hon. member for Greenwood who pointed out that we need to have facts before we can intelligently cast a vote with respect to unification. We need to know what is the government's concept of Canada's military role in the present day world.
We should have the views of experienced military men who are both for and against the unification program. We need to know whether the proposed unification will give the Canadian people, to use an American expression, a better bang for a buck, and whether we will get a better defence system for the $1,600 million a year which we are spending on national defence. We, in this party, have supported the official opposition in their argument that there is a good deal of merit in sending the subject matter of the national defence bill to a committee so that both those who are for it and those who are against it may give testimony upon which we can make an intelligent judgment. I am sorry the government has not acceded to what I consider to be a very reasonable request.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
If the unification proposal has merit, surely it should be possible to defend it in committee. If it is defended effectively then, certainly, our party will give its approval to it. If it
November IS, 1966

cannot be proven effective, there will be amendments, and a better policy will result. Surely the government, does not want a Liberal, a Conservative or an N.D.P. defence policy. They want a Canadian defence policy. They want a policy that has the support of the majority of the members of the house and the support of most of the Canadian people. That can be obtained more easily by sending the subject matter of the bill to a committee of the House of Commons.
I notice that the Winnipeg Free Press, on Saturday, November 5, gave its wholehearted support to this idea. The Winnipeg Free Press is, as has been known for years, one of the chief apologists of the Liberal party. It is one of its chief proponents.


An hon. Member:: That is why that paper has been so busy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: These words appeared in the editorial:
While Mr. Hellyer on Friday agreed to turn the bill over to the Commons defence committee, where outside witnesses can be heard, he did so only on the condition that it first be given second reading. This, as Mr. Diefenbaker rightly pointed out, puts the Commons in the awkward position of having to vote approval of the bill in principle before it has had an opportunity to hear the views of those who opposed it. The minister is clearly attempting to ram the bill through as swiftly as possible, apparently in the hope of neutralizing in advance the testimony of expert witnesses. Legislation containing so many critical changes to the nation's defence structure should be given detailed study in committee before the House is asked to approve it in principle.
I think that states the position very well. I hoped that the government would have acceded to the request in the editorial, in order to bring the debate to an end. I know that the Minister of National Defence is anxious to prove that he is one of the strongmen in the cabinet. There are times when we confuse stubborness with strength. Sometimes stub-borness in a sign of weakness, a sign of basic insecurity.
While we want this unification bill to be sent to a committee of the house, we do not think that the government's stubborn refusal to do so warrants our continuing this debate any longer. We have made our plea with reference to the Trans-Canada pipe line, and the mismanagement of the project as well as the sellout. The Conservatives have made their protest, a prolonged protest, about the unification bill. There will be plenty of opportunity for discussion when the unification bill comes before the house again. It can then be discussed in further detail.
Interim Supply
I wish to make a special appeal. Let us try to resolve this matter and end the debate. For one thing, we are using up days which ought to be devoted to other estimates. It is true that we can discuss some of these items in interim supply, but most of the ministers are absent, and there can be no consecutive discussion of departments. We are now rambling over a wide field. If we continue this interim supply debate for too long we shall use up time, as we are doing, which will be badly needed if we are to discuss some of the legislation which, in the opinion of this party, must be disposed of before Christmas. I have in mind particularly the legislation for old age pensioners which the government has not yet put on the order paper. The reason, I suspect, is that legislation is not ready. We ought at least to remove any semblance of an excuse that the government has for not putting it on the order paper, because this is vital legislation. It is vital to the welfare of many old people in this country, and we, in this party, want to see that legislation put on the order paper.
We want to see that legislation given top priority. We want it to be dealt with and passed. From the outline of it we have had there is much in it that is unsatisfactory, much that leaves a great deal to be desired. But, if it will ameliorate the conditions of the old people in this country, let us have it before the house and let us pass it.
The same is true with respect to the estimates providing increases of pensions for veterans, and I refer to disability pensions and veterans allowances. Also, there is the measure providing collective bargaining for civil servants, which is very pressing. Of course, the housing legislation ought to be passed at the earliest date because housing conditions in this country are appalling. While the housing legislation will do very little to improve the situation, at least we ought to do what we can. We ought to take what the government is prepared to give.
Medicare legislation ought to be passed, if at all possible, before Christmas. I am aware that the government intends to change the date, to make the legislation effective on July 1, 1968, but the fact remains that this is still important legislation and it ought to be put on the statute books as soon as possible. If the provincial governments are to pass concurrent legislation they need to know what the basic legislation will be. They need to know the terms and conditions which apply, in order that the provincial complementary legislation will be on all fours with that passed by the parliament of Canada. I hope, therefore, that

November 15, 1966
Interim Supply
we can finish this debate today, and that we can go as quickly as possible to some ol the other legislation I have mentioned.
I want to make a special appeal to the government. They have been stubborn about sending the unification bill to a committee. I hope they will not be equally stubborn about insisting that the unification bill should have top priority. I need not tell the government that if unification is dealt with before the other legislation I have mentioned is dealt with we will not get to the old age pension legislation, veterans matters, housing, medicare and collective bargaining for civil servants before Christmas. We could become involved in another flag debate-a protracted, interminable debate which would take a great deal of time and which would prevent parliament from dealing with some of the matters that are vital to many Canadians. After all, if unification does not come into effect until next spring, nobody will be hurt; nobody will be adversely affected. As a matter of fact, it might be advantageous to the government if it had some time to study this matter carefully. If the Minister of National Defence is right when he says that this legislation-and I quote him-"will establish Canada as the unquestionable leader in the field of military organization" then, surely, we ought to take time in making this dramatic step forward that according to the minister will put Canada in the vanguard of military institutions in the world.
Nobody will be hurt if unification has to wait until spring. But many people will be hurt if the old age pension legislation, medicare, veterans legislation, housing legislation and collective bargaining for civil servants are not dealt with between now and Christmas. I appeal to the government to deal with these matters before taking up the unification legislation. While this party will not wage a filibuster on unification, there is a distinct possibility that unification will project parliament into a stalemate, and the people I have mentioned who are dependent on the legislation I have enumerated will suffer in consequence.
Above all, I appeal to the house to consider what is being done to the prestige of parliament. I am sure that hon. members go to their constituencies from time to time, as I do. I need not tell them the prestige of parliament is at a low ebb. It is probably many years since the public has had such a low opinion of parliament and of the performance which we have been giving.

[DOT] (4:30 D.m.)
I think that for us to continue day by day to discuss unification or anything else when the people of Canada know that there are other items demanding our attention would be further to denigrate parliament in the eyes of the Canadian people.
I should therefore like to say that, as far as this party is concerned we urge that the present debate be ended as speedily as possible. We plead with the government that when this interim supply measure is passed some of the important items affecting the lives and the welfare of several millions of Canadians be given top priority, before we deal with unification. If the government will do this, I can assure them of our wholehearted co-operation in getting legislation on the statute books. I do not mean that we will forgo the right to express out opinions on these different pieces of legislation or to try to improve them where we think they need improvement. But there will be no frivolous opposition; there will be no obstruction. We want this leg:slation passed, not because it is government legislation but because it affords some modicum of hope and comfort for people in Canada who have been neglected too long.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Minister of National Revenue.


Edgar John Benson: I understood from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that the debate was to be closed after I had answered a question he had in mind. I would gladly yield the floor to the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: My hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre intended to indicate that he hoped this would be the case, but that I would have a contribution to make. It deals with the matter which the minister probably intends to mention, so with the indulgence of the committee. I would be prepared to make my contribution at this point.


Edgar John Benson: It might be useful, then, if I gave my answer first, so that the hon. member might have this information which I am quite willing to give.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre asked for the mid-November payroll, which is estimated as follows: the total was $77,206,670 of which $17,031,450 was the payroll of the ten departments for which parliament had already granted full supply. This left a total of $60,175,220 to be met for the remaining departments. As already reported
November 15, 1966

to the house, the cash available in the votes was some $2,160,000 short of the figure required. I should like to assure members of the committee that there was no transfer from votes other than vote No. 15.
I have asked that a list be typed of all the votes concerned, the balance needed, the amount required for the mid-November payroll and the amount made up out of the $2,160,000, and with the permission of the house, as soon as this is typed, I propose to table these details which back up the figures I have now supplied.


Gerald William Baldwin: I thank the minister for that information. Obviously, at this stage it would be d.fficult to formulate a rebuttal to the statement he has made. I assume that only in the due course of parliamentary audit, which I hope will be earlier rather than later, will it be really possible to examine within the four corners of each vote the details of how much money was paid, or needed, and how much was available. I say this without in any way controverting the minister's statements, which are the statements of the officials of his department.
Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister a question in the following terms as reported at page 9840:
Regardless of the legal niceties or the merits, all of which can be argued later, in view of this further example of the erosion of parliamentary control over the executive does not the Prime Minister honestly feel that this whole matter of parliament vis-a-vis the executive should be the subject now of an earnest and anxious inquiry either by this house or a committee of the house?
We might relate that question to the facts which have formed the subject matter of the major part of the discussion which has taken place in this committee during the course of the present debate. First of these was the statement by the minister of defence that, in his opinion, the evidence given before committee by serving officers or civil servants must be subjected to a considerable degree of supervision by ministers and by the government. I must take it, from replies given by the Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet, that this view is supported by the government.
Various constitutional arguments were advanced to show that this had been the practice in the past and would always be the practice in the future. This may be the case though I, for my part, would reject much of that argument. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I would draw your attention to the fact that last year this house approved a government proposal
Interim Supply
which said, in effect: here is a new concept of parliamentary government and parliamentary control by the legislature over the executive; we intend for the first time to set up committees of the house and give them full power to examine in detail both the estimates, the spending proposals, and the legislative programs.
This statement by the government was, I suggest, a clear indication that we were to embark on a completely new era of legislative government. This committee system was to be something novel. I hoped the new system would turn out well. Many of us did. But I must say I have been bitterly disappointed by what we have seen thus far.
This question of the evidence has arisen. In the second place, we have witnessed the definite and repeated refusal of the minister and of the government to refer to the committee on defence the proposals contained in the unification bill. I made a suggestion to the Prime Minister which I thought was a reasonable one. It would have permitted the government to retain its contention that reference to the committee on the subject matter of the bill would have killed the bill. My suggestion was that the government should simply refer the first item of the estimates of the department to the committee, thus authorizing the committee to engage in the comprehensive and careful scrutiny which a novel concept of the kind contained in the proposed amendments to the National Defence Act should entail.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
There could have been an acceptance of that view with dignity, and without in any sense compromising the legal position which the government saw fit to adopt. But this was refused out of hand.
I point out to hon. members of the committee that in this day and age I agree, as I am sure do other hon. members, that we must invest any government with very substantial and very considerable powers. In this day and age of fast, rapid moving events, when a government is dealing with great industrial corporations, with great labour unions, in, matters which require rapid and immediate decision, I yield to the necessity of investing it with powers but on the condition that we retain in the House of Commons the opportunity to examine, to scrutinize, to check and to object. When that is taken away, then I think we are on the road to vesting this house with the character of a legislative body whose sole function will be to meet occasionally and

November 15, 1966
Interim Supply
say yes or no to government proposals. This, I suggest, is not what the vast body of experience over the generations has indicated should be the function of the House of Commons. That is the second point.
The third point was the measures adopted by the government in order to meet the civil service payroll. Now, for the purposes of my argument I am not going to enter into the merits of the debate which preceded that decision. It is and has been established, and is written into the foundations of parliamentary government, that we must retain at all times the right to refuse supply if, in our view, there is a legitimate and honest complaint which needs to be ventilated. As to whether or not it is an honest and legitimate complaint, in the final analysis not the government but the electorate will decide, and when a party takes that position it is entitled to maintain it.
What has the government done in this instance? Just a few minutes ago the minister indicated that he had taken a certain procedure with regard to the supply votes. Now with respect to that, as I say, I believe we will require a parliamentary committee and the Auditor General's report, which I hope will be produced quite shortly. But I want to turn my attention to vote 15, and to read to hon. members the wording of vote 15 which, I would point out, has changed over the years.
Vote 15, as it appears in the blue book of estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1967, reads as follows:
Contingencies-To supplement other votes and to provide for miscellaneous minor and unforeseen expenses not otherwise provided for including awards under the Public Servants Inventions Act-
When we turn back to the estimates for 1960, we find a completely different wording. At that time what is now vote 15 appeared as vote 116, and the wording was very different:
Miscellaneous minor or unforeseen expenses, subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, including authority to re-use any sums repaid to this appropriation-
Obviously there has been a change in the wording.
I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that in 1960 the amount involved was slightly over $1 million. For the year 1967 the amount is $15 million in the original estimates, and we have no idea what it may yet come to when the supplementaries are added to it. As a matter of fact, for the preceding year the amount was $29 million.
I suggest that if you take these words in their proper legal sense, although I reserve

the right to argue that, it may well be that the government was justified in its course. But surely, it was never intended that a vote of this kind could be used by the government for the purposes to which the minister has put it.
I suggest this constitutes a violation of the the purposes to which the minister has put it.
I suggest this constitutes a violation of the principle of parliamentary control.
If the government can put $15 million in this vote, why can't it put $150 million in it? True enough, the matter comes back to the house. It is a vote; it is an appropriation, but a government with a majority has the right to do that, and no doubt certain governments will use that right. When I say governments, Mr. Chairman, I use the word "government" generally, although I must say the present government has a remarkable proclivity toward the undue exercise of executive power.
I suggest that such use of a vote of this kind constitutes a grave violation of the principle of parliamentary control, and I have with me some brief citations from some learned people who have considered this very same serious problem.
As a matter of fact, the history of this problem goes back to the year 1340 when the first recorded grant made to Edward III was for "the maintenance and safeguard of our said realm of England, and on wars in Scotland, France and Gascoign". There was a limit placed on the expenditure. Since that time that principle has been maintained, but today it is being whittled away, step by step, stage by stage.
Responsible government cannot be a reality if the control of expenditure is surrendered to the treasury, and this is a surrender to the treasury. The right of parliament to control taxation and appropriation is based on common law, but of course it is now given statutory form. Most contemporary writers on the subject agree that parliamentary control of finance is in danger of becoming non-existant, and that it is high time parliament did something about it.
The decline of parliamentary influence is one of the effects of this development, and the problem of restoring parliamentary effectiveness is a matter of improving the means of informing parliament, a means which I hoped would have been found within the limits of the committee system which the government set up but which, in my humble opinion, has now proved to be almost useless.
I submit that here, in this one instance, the refusal to allow serving officers to give their
November 15, 1966



own untrammelled, unhampered and undoctored evidence; the refusal to reconvene the defence committee to consider the principle that is involved in the defence bill; and finally, what the government has now done within the brief space of the few weeks we have considered this matter, constitute three flagrant violations of the responsibility of the executive to the legislative branch of government. I feel, Mr. Chairman, I could not allow this debate to conclude without setting on the record my views and the alarm I feel at the trend 1 see developing.


Howard Earl Johnston: November 15, 1966
Interim, Supply
somehow the United States will not be able to develop its industry and that we will gain thereby an advantage over it. I think Mr. White spelled this out very clearly in his remarks when he said that the development ot new markets in the United States would be met by increased exploration and development within that country. His great fear seemed to be that the arrangement with Canada would be completed before the American competition became a factor.
1 was pleased to hear the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam express concern about medicare and urge that it be put through very quickly. The reason he gave was that if the provinces are to be in a position to pass enabling legislation, then they must know the details of the bill. I hope this is an indication that his party is going to be in favour of a variety of amendments which need to be made to that legislation before it is enacted and becomes the law of the country. Perhaps we can be hopeful there. I felt that this was welcome news.
We in the Social Credit party are concerned about the priorities in respect of the legislation which is before the house. We have not taken part in this debate on interim supply, with the exception of a brief speech by the hon. member for Medicine Hat and a few remarks by the hon. member for Fraser Valley. We feel the defence issue can be handled through the regular processes of the house. We were happy to hear that the Minister of National Revenue found some money the other day. We always are happy to hear that the Minister of National Revenue can find money. We hope he might be able to find a little more for things like national housing and perhaps the HARP project. Admittedly, he did not find it through some of the sources we might have suggested to him, but none the less he found it.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Edgar John Benson: Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1967, the sura of $371,999,867.43, be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.

[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Benson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-245, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31 March 1967.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Mr. Peters:: At the next sitting of the house, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: the second reading of Bill No. C-241, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when winding up the discussion on this bill during the resolution stage I expressed my deep appreciation to all hon. members who had participated in the debate, and particularly to those who had made constructive suggestions which warranted earnest consideration. In this connection, I should like to refer particularly to the well-reasoned comments on this complex and important subject put forward by the hon. members for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury), Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and others.
I also said on Thursday, October 27, to deal later with certain matters raised during the course of the earlier debate. The various views put forward point out the multitude of factors involved in the spectrum of housing. They also reflected the abiding concern of members from all corners of this house in the development of national housing legislation which will benefit all Canadians regardless of their station in life.
It is understandable, therefore, that some members who participated in the debate at the resolution stage voiced the opinion that even more aggressive steps should be taken at this time to bolster housing generally in Canada. Certainly, it had been the government's wish-perhaps I should say the government's intention-to bring forward more changes to the National Housing Act at this session. These changes would give important new significance to this legislation in preparation for future housing regulations in this rapidly expanding nation.
November 15, 1966

Indeed, as I mentioned during the resolution stage, discussions I had had on behalf of the government with most of the provinces during the past year, did go beyond the measures that we are now proposing in this bill. It is our opinion, however, that in the present economic climate such proposals as can reasonably be deferred in respect of housing should be deferred at this time. As a consequence, the bill before us represents only those improvements that are deemed absolutely essential at the present time.
Through a moderate extension to the present loan provisions of the National Housing Act, Bill C-241 provides assistance for the purchase of existing housing. I think all hon. members will agree that this is a timely step, particularly in meeting the home-ownership needs of lower and middle income families in Canada. Initially the regulations governing such assistance-that is assistance which will be provided if this bill becomes law-will limit the amount of a loan by establishing a ceiling.
The provisions will at the same time require that repairs and improvements be of a minimum value. In other words, we are not going to make national home loans for the purpose of assisting people in buying existing housing for resale. This involves a combination approach and will involve a purchase and require a minimum improvement of perhaps $1,000, or something slightly higher. It is difficult to conceive of anything less than $1,000 in this regard or anything much more than perhaps $2,000 or $3,000. However, if an individual wanted to use eight tenths of the loan for repairs, as long as he complied with the regulations, that would be possible. I might say in respect of the amount of repairs, whether they be valued at $1,000 or a larger amount, they can be met wholly or in part by work by the prospective homeowner. In other words, if he is a good carpenter, brick layer or electrician, the work that he and the members of his family can do will be included as part of his contribution toward the cost of the house.
I am sure that hon. members can appreciate the significance of this new type of loan to the thousands of potential homeowners in Canada, particularly those in the lower and middle income brackets. Many people today cannot afford new housing, but they do want to own their own homes. As has been previously pointed out, you can buy an existing home, some several decades old, which would be very comfortable for perhaps another several decades with the addition of a modern heating
National Housing Act system, a modern lighting system or a modern plumbing system. Up to this time, many families in these income brackets have not been able to purchase homes of their own, that is of the kind that meet with various building by-laws in different towns or cities, for less than $14,000 to $15,000, and in some cases even higher. People in the lower and middle income brackets cannot afford to own that type of house. They may be able to rent them but they cannot afford to buy them. As a result of this amendment, which will offer the benefits of low interest and long-term loans, people who wish to purchase these dwellings will receive exactly the same terms they would receive if they were purchasing new houses.
Some hon. members have asked me more than once whether or not an increase is contemplated in the $4,000 maximum allowable under the home improvement provisions of the act. As hon. members know, under the National Housing Act, a person who owns a house and wants to improve it can go to his bank or to a lending institution and borrow up to $4,000 at a reasonable interest rate, and repayment of the loan will be guaranteed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It is a fact that this takes care of the owners of existing homes. The proposed amendment to which I have referred will take care of those people who want to buy existing houses and a person who wishes to continue living in his own house, who can borrow up to $4,000 in order to make repairs to such house is also provided for. In giving consideration to whether the $4,000 limit should be increased, we made a careful study of the situation and we found that the average loan over a period of several years, including the last two or three years when a substantial number of loans were made, has been about $1,500. So we consider that, for the present at least, the $4,000 level is adequate at the present time; but this level can be changed if the circumstances so dictate.
I must say-I think this is an appropriate time to deal with this matter-that I listened with great surprise to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) during the resolution stage. My interest deepened with his statistical presentation reviewing this year's housing performance against the housing performance of 1965. We all know that statistics are open to many interpretations, depending upon who is doing the explaining or the interpreting, and who is quoting the statistics. But I must say

November 15, 1966
National Housing Act
that the hon. member's comparison of a full year's activity in 1965 with only seven months activity in the current year is hardly a fair comparison and is certainly not the kind of picture that one would expect to have presented by a member of this house.
I believe that if the hon. member will look at the statistical table with which I provided him on October 5, he will be able to readily verify that the current housing situation is not nearly as dire or disappointing as he has suggested. The hon. member also expressed the opinion that the present amendments will be no more significant in solving Canada's housing problems than the changes enacted by this house in 1964. I can only express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that the new proposals contained in this bill will be equally as effective as those passed by parliament in 1964. Hon. members will recall the principal changes to the act two years ago. They involved widened assistance for urban renewal, and the introduction of high-ratio loans, as an alternative to the usual federal-provincial partnership arrangements for public housing. I have no hesitation in stating that the growing wave of urban renewal activity that we now have in Canada is due largely to the amendments that were passed in 1964.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, since those amendments became law in the early summer of 1964 almost every major city in Canada has entered this field or has increased its activity and its interest in this area. Today almost every major city in the country, and many smaller municipalities, have under way or in the planning stages, largely financed by reason of those 1964 amendments, programs to eliminate blight and slum conditions from their communities. This was one of the outstanding achievements made at that time in the field of housing-because that program is closely associated with housing. I should like to stress that we art still only in the initial stages of this developing national venture to improve our total living environment. However, I think it is significant to note that in the first nine months of 1966 almost $16 million have been committed from the federal treasury for urban renewal activities, as against only slightly more than $4 million in the full year 1965.
Included in this year's total for the nine-month period are grants for 25 urban renewal studies, as against 21 similar grants in 1965. Contributions have also been extended in 1966 for the development of proposals for 16 urban renewal schemes, while $15.3 million have been authorized for the actual implementation of major civic improvement programs in Toronto, Calgary, Burnaby, British Columbia,

Windsor, Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and other cities.
Coming back to the question of housing for people of low income, I should like to point out that in the province of Ontario N.H.A. loan assistance for public housing has been adapted and activities in this field have been accelerated greatly in the past four years. Between January and the end of September of this year, more than 40 developments have been undertaken by the Ontario Housing Corporation in municipalities in all parts of the province, with 90 per cent of the many millions of dollars involved being provided by the federal government through the National Housing Act. It is true that this money is advanced by way of loan, but, without these large loans to the Ontario Housing Corporation, this tremendous development in the provision of thousands of houses every year to those people in the province who must live in public housing would not have been possible.
Several questions were asked last month concerning our intentions in regard to loans for student housing, which is dealt with in this bill. Here, I may simply say that it is our opinion that financial aid for the housing of students should be extended wherever the need exists, always provided that the province concerned joins in the request that the funds be made available. There must be the concurrence of the province, because they have the prime responsibility in the field of education.
Before I resume my seat, I might refer briefly to the statistics quoted by several hon. members concerning Canada's housing needs over the next four years. In determining the figure applicable to the current year I believe that the hon. members to whom I have referred rather simplified the calculation by assuming that housing requirements would be equal each year for the next four years. This is certainly not borne out by the report that was quoted by hon. members in this connection. The report forecast an accelerating rate of housebuilding which was to reach its peak in 1970; so to pick out 1966 is not representative of the peak that will not be reached until four years from now.
It is with the knowledge of this growing demand for housing that we are asking in this bill for very substantial increases in the amount of funds that will be available for direct lending. This year, for instance, we are committed and have practically made arrangements to provide direct loans for 31,500 houses at an average cost, I believe, of $15,000 or $16,000 per unit. Therefore, we need money
November 15, 1966

to continue our direct lending in the years ahead. We also need money to take care of the insured, the approved lenders.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
They also are provided for in the bill.
Another aspect of N.H.A. activity provided for in the bill, and referred to in earlier debates, concerns aid for housing in the small communities and rural areas. I certainly appreciate the concern of hon. members who represent rural areas, in fact the concern of all members of this house, and I can only say that the policies governing direct loans by C.M.H.C.-and that is all we can deal with today because the private lenders must take care of other fields-reflect the concern about obtaining mortgage assistance for anyone who wants to make a direct loan from C.M.H.C. whether he lives in a city or a town. It is true that it is more difficult for such a person to approach C.M.H.C. if there is no office conveniently located to where he resides. This is one reason I hope for much more help in the field of housing when the amendments to the Bank Act, which are now before the committee, have been passed. If parliament approves the legislation, our banks will be able to make loans on the same terms as those provided by C.M.H.C. or by the traditional lending institutions.
As regards the smaller communities, the new amendments which permit the purchase and improvement of existing houses should have a tremendous effect for all of them. This is particularly important during the winter months when work can be done on partially completed houses. Improvements can be made on houses during the winter months as well as in the summer. I hope that the additional funds which will be made available for the purchase and improvement of existing houses, will be put to use this winter because people do not wish to move from the smaller communities in which they live and there is some seasonal unemployment in many parts of Canada. Tradesmen with skills in the housing and construction industries can work on improving the existing houses regardless of whether they are plumbers, electricians or other tradesmen.
Mr. Speaker, I think this bill will encourage the building and improvement of low rental housing, and here the loan ratio is important to the smaller communities.
I do not think it is necessary to emphasize that the amendments which we are introducing at this time are all measures which the government believes contain an element of
National Housing Act
urgency, not only in meeting housing needs but in helping winter employment. I therefore urge all hon. members to support the early passage of this bill because every day counts.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party are deeply disappointed with the amendments to the National Housing Act set forth by the minister. We would prefer a complete overhaul of the act dealing with some of the more fundamental problems with which we are faced in housing today. At present we are experiencing the worst shortage in housing that has ever prevailed in Canada. During the debate at the resolution stage of the bill, the minister indicated that this year housing in Canada has declined by 23 per cent over last year, and this in itself is very serious. He had hoped that the decrease would have stayed at 10 to 15 per cent, but figures have thus far shown that the decrease is proceeding at the rate of 23 per cent.
I wish now to refer to an article in the Globe and Mail of November 4 dealing with the housing shortage. It reads as follows:
Housing starts in urban areas dropped to 8,427 in August from 15.522 a year previously, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. In the first eight months of 1966, starts declined to 65,578 from 87,185.
Last year the housing starts in Canada amounted to approximately 166,000. This year we will be very fortunate if we reach 130,000 housing starts. Again this indicates the serious decline in housing which we are now experiencing in Canada. One may ask what is the reason for the serious decline? The quick answer would be that it is the high cost of mortgages. The minister, in his statement on the resolution, indicated quite clearly that the sources of the conventional lenders for the financing of housing in Canada had dried up, beginning in the month of February. This only left the C.M.H.C. to provide the money for new homes, with the obvious result that the gap has not been filled.
In his statement today, the minister also mentioned he hoped that when the amendments to the Bank Act will be approved the banks will be able to participate in first mortgage lending and thereby take up some of the slack in mortgage financing. I wonder whether banks will be willing to make loans at rates lower than those offered by conventional lenders. At the present time, conventional lenders provide loans for a first mortgage at 7.5 to 8 per cent, which has discouraged many people from buying homes.

November 15, 1966
National Housing Act
Here, we find banks which have participated in N.H.A. mortgages at 6.75 per cent being asked to continue with N.H.A. mortgages at the same rate and at the same time being given the opportunity of entering the conventional lending field where rates now obtain at 7.5 to 8 per cent. I have serious doubts as to whether banks will act altruistically and continue in the N.H.A. lending field. I think they will prefer to provide loans for conventional mortgages at 7.5 to 8 per cent which will result in a serious shortgage of housing.
I should like to say a few words about the high rates of interest, and to quote from an article-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is it not a fact that the extra houses, over and above the thirty odd thousand houses which were built last year were built through direct loans by C.M.H.C., were built with funds provided by the traditional lenders at substantially higher than the prevailing C.M.H.C. rate?


John Gilbert: The important legislation applies to many senior citizens across Canada who have homes they would like to repair but, because of limited income, are unable to do so. The government could overcome this situation by bringing in an amendment giving senior citizens loans at 3 per cent to make necessary home repairs. It is frightful that a person in the twilight of life who has bought a home, who is now faced with high municipal taxes, should be faced with problems in connection with home improvements which are created by high interest rates. The way to overcome such problems is by making home improvement loans available to these people at a low interest rate.
I turn to the problem of urban renewal. The minister waxed eloquent on urban renewal. He must be given full credit for the improvement which has taken place in this area. May I point out some of the difficulties which have been experienced with urban renewal. I hope the minister deals with these through amendments. The difficulty facing people in urban areas has to do with relocation. People are asked to give up their homes, homes which are often adequate and sufficient for their needs. They are asked to give them up for urban renewal, and they have to find other homes. Often, there are not other adequate homes in their area, so that you find retired people who have paid for their homes being forced to move into apartments until the urban renewal people have taken care of them and brought them back into an apartment or other accommodation in their own area. Sometimes those people have to buy a home costing 25 per cent more than a similar home in the area from which they were asked to move.
With the high interest rates, what I have just mentioned forms one of the main difficulties in urban renewal. Another difficulty-and in this the minister can play a vital role-has to do with compensation for people asked to move. The minister can say that expropriation is a provincial matter, and that he is bound by expropriation acts. It is up to the minister, the provincial ministers and the municipal officials, to bring about changes in the expropriation acts, so that people who are asked to move because of urban renewal are compensated for the forcible taking. This would enable them to buy a home in an area similar to the one from which they have moved. Often, people affected by urban renewal have to buy homes costing 20 to 30 per cent more than
National Housing Act
their own accommodation. The restrictive interpretation of the law which says that compensation is to be for the value of the home at the time of taking works a hardship on the people affected.
I hope that the minister, in dealing with the urban renewal scheme, will make sure that people affected are properly relocated; that they are properly compensated for the forcible taking, and for any difference they must pay in purchasing a new home. Also, some consideration ought to be given to any mortgage that may have to be assumed on the new home.
Some people say that if they are asked to move the least the government should do is offer interest free loans with which to buy other houses. The minister might say that this does not come within the ambit of the National Housing Act, but it illustrates the necessity for a department of housing and urban affairs.
In the short time I have been here I have developed a great deal of respect for the minister. I can appreciate that he has problems in fields other than housing. Difficulties connected with labour have taken up most of his time in the past, and he has neglected housing.
[DOT] (5:40 D.m.)
We have now reached the stage at which housing has become of such importance that a new ministry should be set up to deal with housing and urban affairs, one which could bring together ministers from the different levels of government to work out solutions to the difficulties we face in the field of urban renewal.
One can only express pleasure that these amendments dealing with loans for students housing are forthcoming. The present restrictions limiting loans to universities only have caused hardship to other, equally deserving institutions. The minister has been told about the experience of the vast polytechnic institute in Toronto, the great expansion which has taken place there and of the corresponding need to provide accommodation for students, most of whom come from outside Toronto. I trust that the minister's definition of the institutions now eligible for assistance is wide enough to cover private institutions.
I believe I have now dealt with the main amendments which the minister is bringing forward. Once again, I express the hope that a separate ministry will be set up to deal with the serious housing shortage and make sure

November 15, 1966
National Housing Act
that we have a housing policy adequate to meet the needs of all Canadians. The minister mentioned the unfairness of some hon. members in quoting figures set forth by Professor Murray to indicate that one million homes are needed by 1970, and a further million for people in the lower income brackets. The record in housing so far indicates that if the present trend continues we shall fall far short of the objectives it is hoped to reach in 1970.
The minister no doubt appreciates that there will be a gap in the provision made for mortgage financing, with the banks entering this field only at high rates of interest. This increases the necessity for making direct loans as a means of helping people to raise the necessary money and take care of this problem. I trust the minister will give his full attention to these matters.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to let the debate on this bill go by without making a few remarks to the minister, especially with regard to the area I represent. I say area rather than district for the Chapleau district is almost considered a province; there is even talk of making an eleventh province out of it. For several years now, there has been quite a housing shortage in that vast area and it seems that the authorities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have been loath to facilitate the granting of loans in that area.
Many applications have reached us from the city of Amos, and we have just learned that the corporation can no longer grant loans.
There are people at present who have to live in houses located eight, ten or twelve miles from the city. The husband must travel morning and night to and from his work. He wishes to occupy with his family, as soon as possible, a house in the city. But the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation refuses loans, on the pretext that it does not have the necessary funds to meet the present demand.
I would like to ask the minister whether the increase of funds he asks for in this bill will enable the corporation to meet the demand coming from our cities, Amos, La-Sarre, Val d'Or, Malartic and Rouyn. I mention these because they are the most important in our area. I ask him whether this amendment to the act will enable the corporation to grant as early as this fall the loans

required. I point out also to the minister that we have, especially in Amos, many young students who attend educational establishments in Amos. They come from outside and they need a place to live. It is customary in that city for young people to rent a room in a private house; this helps the owner to pay for his house, to meet his commitments without burdening his budget and even sometimes shorten the repayment period, thus reducing interest which is sometimes quite considerable.
I therefore urge the minister to use his influence in order that the loans requested by that community may be granted as soon as possible and the building of these houses started as early as this fall, which will meet the present requirement.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I would like to make another remark to the minister concerning the models or plans of houses offered to those who want to build a house. I have noticed many times that most plans, which are prepared in advance, provide for one or two bedrooms-seldom three -and most plans offered are for houses much too small to meet the needs of families and accommodate our large families.
I therefore urge the minister to encourage architects, through competitions of all kinds, to present to the public a greater variety of housing plans likely to meet all the requirements and all the needs of our population.
I revert to my own region, the constituency of Chapleau, to point out to the minister that there is much room for improvement in the inspection of houses built under loans from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or from insurance companies or other approved lending companies. In fact, there is but one inspector to cover this whole vast area, and he lives in Val d'Or. Then, when his services are required to inspect the construction work of a house, we have to wait several days, indeed sometimes a few weeks, before he visits the site. This often involves complications and considerable delays.
Now, I would like to call the minister's attention to a particular case, to illustrate fully what I am now asking of him.
During the 1964-65 season, in the town of Amos-I am now referring to the winter housebuilding incentive program and to the $500 bonus-a house was started in the fall, and the inspection thereof was carried out only on February 2, 1966. Therefore, as can be expected in several cases of this type, the builder lost his patience and went ahead
November IS, 1966

with the construction without waiting for the preliminary inspection which should have been done before November 15, 1965. Now, when the inspector showed up on February 2, he found that the construction had exceeded the stage of the installation of the ground floor joists and refused payment of the $500 bonus, because the house in question did not meet the requirements of the act at the time of inspection.
I will point out to the minister that from November 15 to February 2, is indeed quite a long period and, if we had had an adequate organization in our area, the inspection could have been done at the appropriate time and that individual could have obtained justice, because it has been proven that as of November 15, his construction was not advanced further than required by the act.
Therefore, I wish to bring to the minister's attention that injustice against Mr. Briere, of Amos, who was denied the bonus he had requested and to which he was entitled, since the inspection was not carried out on the specified date, for lack of time on the inspector's part.
The inspector is not the only one to blame, for he must cover a large territory and it is obvious that his burden is too heavy. I therefore point out this fact to the hon. minister, so that the whole file in question may be reconsidered and the $500 bonus granted. It has been admitted this amount was not sufficient, but nevertheless quite appreciable when it comes to building a home. If this individual built his house during winter, it was for the purpose of moving into it and, at the same time, taking advantage of this bonus.
Those are the comments that I wanted to submit to the hon. minister upon consideration of Bill C-241 and I would like the minister to give it very special attention and study them carefully, so that the needs of the people in many constituency may be met and so that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation may better serve our area, by opening a second office, if necessary, or increasing the number of inspectors in that office at the present time.


Mr.  A. B. Pafierson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to make a few comments on the bill now before the house. I did not have the opportunity to participate in the debate at the resolution stage and therefore I am glad to have the opportunity of doing so on second reading.
National Housing Act
It is passing strange to me that this house can be so indignant and vocal over suggested changes in our defence structure, and then appear so indifferent to legislation designed to assist in the development and maintenance of the institutions which form the very basis and bulwark of the nation we want to defend, namely, our homes. Inadequate housing has always been regarded as one of the factors responsible for the breakdown of the family and for delinquency. Therefore, I suggest that this is one issue which certainly requires attention and should occupy a great deal of our thinking.
On many occasions attention has been called to the deplorable condition of some of our housing accommodation. It is true that more and more of our people are getting to the stage where they can live in pleasant circumstances and surroundings. Their homes are such that they make a definite contribution to good living. But coupled with that, we are reminded of the fact that there are thousands of families across the nation living under conditions that are far from satisfactory, and in many cases deplorable in the extreme.
We recognize the progress being made in slum clearance and urban renewal. These are important programs and must be pushed forward as rapidly as possible, but they are concerned more with the main centres of population, our cities, and do little to assist the smaller populated and rural areas. Therefore, I believe that the legislation now before us is of great importance, even though it will not do everything we want as quickly and as rapidly as we might desire, or even as rapidly as the government itself wishes. Yet we know and acknowledge that it is a step in the proper direction.
Reference has been made to the projected housing requirements of our country, and the minister has said that he expects a peak to be reached in 1970. But I do not believe we are moving quickly enough in order to keep up with our housing requirements. There are a number of factors responsible for our lagging behind in meeting the challenge in the housing area.
Mention has been made of the effect of a tight money policy on the housing industry. Some people have said that in order to cause a levelling off in the housing industry and help the economy, it is necessary to slow down the provision of capital. We are told that the employment situation is such that we are

November IS, 1966
Labour Relations
working almost to capacity, and that the pressure on the work force tends to push up costs, especially in the housing industry. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker-
[DOT] (6:00 D.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the hon. member would take note of how fast the clock is moving. I think there has been agreement that we would take two hours off, but I hope that when we are out the clock will not go as fast as it is now moving.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, this may have been an understanding among certain members of the house, but we are not aware of the fact that there has been an agreement to rise for two hours. However, if this is so, I shall be glad to reserve my remaining remarks until after the dinner hour.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-opening of new French radio stations in English provinces; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Administration of Justice- failure of minister to give legal opinions.
Is there unanimous agreement that the house suspend its sitting until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SITTING SUSPENDED


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree to the minister's request?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, the mediator appointed following the passage of the return to work legislation in connection with the railway strike, Dr. Carl Goldenberg, was directed to report before midnight tonight. I have received this report: The railways and the unions have agreed to continue negotiations for a further short period and have asked me to request the minister to direct me to continue mediations and to report to him as soon as possible.
I accepted this request on one condition, that the report must be made not later than November 30. Perhaps I should say that the act provides that if the mediator's report indicates favourable progress, and I am convinced by the report I have now received from the mediator that progress of the nature referred to in section 9 of the act is being made, I should recommend to the Governor in Council an extension such as has been suggested to not later than November 30. I intend to so recommend.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nicholson for the second reading of Bill C-241, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
Mr.   Pailerson@: Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly, at six o'clock I was referring to the fact that in so far as the provision of housing is concerned we are operating at this time almost to full productive capacity. There is a shortage of skilled labour which has tended to push up construction costs. Tight money has been instituted on a number of occasions in an attempt to correct this problem.
If there is a serious shortage of skilled labour which is hampering activities in the house construction field, this is an indictment of the government's policies on immigration and the retraining of our own citizens. The government should have anticipated this situation and made appropriate provisions. In this way we could have avoided interference with the forward movement and development of our economy in relation to the cost of houses in Canada. The average cost of a house in Canada is prohibitive so far as the lower income earners are concerned.
At this time I should like to refer to a memorandum presented by the Canadian Labour Congress to the government of
November 15, 1966

Canada. It is dated February 15 and at page 26 the following is stated:
The National Housing Act has yet to be of significant value to those with low incomes. The provisions of the act and the activities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have succeeded in providing housing for those who, generally speaking, already had sufficient income to obtain it or who needed only some help in doing so. Those with very low incomes, and by this we mean wage earners with low earnings, the elderly on small pensions or social assistance and other needy elements in the community, continue to live in congested quarters, in substandard housing and in blighted areas or slums. They are the unwilling heirs of the cast-off housing left behind by the more fortunate members of the population. To make matters worse, they are often compelled to pay unduly high rents for the unsatisfactory facilities that are available to them.
I am sure that the minister and members of this house are aware of the problem in relation to the constantly increasing cost of homes. It is really a serious problem for which a solution must be found which will enable individuals in these income brackets to own their own homes and thereby establish a certain measure of security.
Interest rates constitute a real deterrent to home ownership. Let me refer to another paragraph in the memorandum to which I referred. At page 27 we find the following:
At the same time, we are aware, as you must be, that more Canadians could own their own homes if the burden of mortgage interest were lower. The rates established by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation take this into account to some extent but insufficiently so. We believe that lower interest rates would be in order and urge you to give this early consideration. We feel also that a larger degree of mortgage indebtedness should be permissible on the purchase of older homes.
We realize that there is continual pressure on available capital for the provision of housing, which has caused a great difficulty in the mortgage field. We in the Social Credit party have for many years advocated a means whereby this pressure could be eased. The government should get out of the borrowing field and let the Bank of Canada take over. This would release a sufficient amount of capital in other areas and sectors of our economy so that private enterprise could provide a sufficient amount of mortgage money. The government should look into the whole matter very carefully because this is a sound and practical means of alleviating the situation. We in this party urge that consideration be given to using the Bank of Canada to finance projects in the social field and thereby leave other available capital for private investment and development.
National Housing Act
We in this party have read the provisions of the bill and agree with them as far as they go, but we urge the government to do more. That is all I have to say at the moment, but when we are considering the various clauses perhaps we will be able to make a further contribution.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Quebec-Monlmo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, I wish for a few minutes to call the attention of the house to the various amendments made to the National Housing Act and point out to the whole country-because I feel this act is extremely important-and has the great number of towns and municipalities turned into large cities thanks to that act since 1954.
I represent a riding which since 1954 and to the extent of at least 75 per cent, has been entirely built up through the use of the National Housing Act. When one sees year after year the results brought about throughout the Canadian economy thanks to the amendments to the National Housing Act, it is worth repeating, I think-this is especially true in my riding-that when everything goes well in general in the construction field, the whole economy of the country is also sound, because not only does home building solve the important problem of housing families, but it also has the immediate result of creating employment, of promoting trade in general and, in short, of stimulating the economy.
A few years ago the Liberal government, through the N.H.A., enabled a great number of municipalities to benefit from a discount up to 25 per cent of the cost of water and sewer system projects carried out under that act.
I am quite pleased to see that one of the proposed amendments tends to extend until 1970 the effects of the legislation on direct assistance to municipalities.
Several million dollars have been spent especially in the Quebec metropolitan area which I know quite well and this has enabled the citizen who wanted to build a house to do so, thus taking advantage of essential services, the construction of which had been promoted by this legislation.
There is also another amendment to this legislation which should be pointed out, namely one concerning an increase from 85 to 90 per cent of the aggregate value of the loan granted to a borrower.
There is also the fact that the powers of the corporation have been increased in order

November 15. 1966
National Housing Act
to enable it to lend tor the construction of students' residences as a result of which universities, school boards or provincial authorities are encouraged to take advantage of this legislation. This also improves the previous legislation.
However, Mr. Speaker, I think that if the National Housing Act is to become really effective, it will have to be improved a lot in many ways.
The 1954 National Housing Act, still in effect today, provides under section 6 that when the corporation authorizes a loan, the lender retains a percentage to cover the insurance.
At that time, this may have been considered as an advantage or a protection for the lender, but not for the borrower because, according to my information, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, this amount of 2 per cent which is retained every time a loan is made has, of course, protected the lender but has nevertheless taken that much away from the borrower, and thus considerable amounts have been accumulated from year to year.
And I wonder if it would not be advisable to remove or lower the rate of that insurance, so as to ease the burden of the individual who wants to buy a house but who still has an average down payment of at least $1,000 to make; now, I submit respectfully that when a house is built according to standards established by engineers and experts of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, under the direction of a responsible contractor, the retention of this 2 per cent for insurance is not really necessary.
In the case of some other acts, for instance the act concerning the C.N.R., should there be a deficit, the federal treasury will cover it; should there be a deficit in the administration of the C.B.C., again it will be covered by the federal treasury. I really think that it would be advisable to consider the possibility of removing this compulsory retention to cover insurance costs every time a loan is made.
Would it not also be advisable, and I am making these suggestions to the minister who presented these amendments to the house, to cancel the down payment in the case of each new family which intends to buy a house?
I think such steps would tend to encourage young couples to own a house; it would also mean a moral guarantee for our youth, or

rather it would show that the government of the country has confidence in all newly married couples anxious to build or buy a house.
Obviously, it must be understood-I point it out with all due respect-that this may involve considerable amounts which it probably behooves the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to supervise and control; but is the purchase of property not a problem of such social importance as to warrant due consideration from the government?
We trust the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs will pass the measure providing amendment to the Bank Act and so, within a few months, banks will likely be able to grant mortgage loans, and conventional loans. We can then judge to what extent banks will deal with that market.
I wish to point out that, nevertheless, the amendments already passed will have a tremendous effect on home owners generally, because there is no doubt that some have repairs to make while others will want to take advantage of the opportunity to borrow $1,000, $2,000 or $5,000 to make such improvements as they consider essential; in that fashion, they will benefit from the act, which they could not do previously. Owners also will have an additional advantage in that they will be able to reimburse their loans over a period of 35 years instead of 25, by smaller monthly payments. They can then, doubtless, discharge other obligations which, in recent years, have piled up due to major increases in municipal and school taxes.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I should like to point out the tremendous amount of work performed by the personnel of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I know the corporation has information of great interest on the possibility of passing a housing act, ideally suited to the whole Canadian people.
The hon. member who has just resumed his seat emphasized the fact that in spite of the benefits resulting from the amendment to this act, we still dp not reach those who earn less than $4,500 br $5,000, and, therefore, the citizen who wishes to own his home is not covered, and we do not improve by this piece of legislation the lot of those who are forced to live in slums. I think that we should study this question seriously, in order to find the necessary funds so that all the Canadian people may benefit from the National Housing Act.
November 15, 1966

[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, now that housing has become one of the important factors in the increasing cost of living and one of the big consumer problems, I want to reiterate at the outset what my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) said this afternoon, namely, that we consider housing to be sufficiently important to warrant a department for housing alone with a minister whose time would be devoted exclusively to it. I know that the minister has far too much work on his shoulders at the present time, having in mind all the labour matters which have come up recently, and that it is exceedingly unfair to expect him to do justice to the housing needs of this country at the same time.
We are glad to see the improvements in our housing legislation set forth in the amendments. We welcome in particular the amendment in clause 1, which reads as follows:
In respect of a loan to a home owner, to a builder who intends to sell the house to a home purchaser, to the person who owns the farm, to a co-operative housing association, or to a person who intends to purchase, improve and occupy an existing house.
We think that the possibility of using and improving existing houses is an excellent idea and we welcome this amendment very much.
We also welcome the amendment with respect to loans for student housing projects. This is another amendment which we consider will meet a real need in the long run. I do not intend to deal with these matters any further because my colleague from Broadview has expressed our views in this regard. Nevertheless we are very far from being satisfied with the National Housing Act as it is at present or even as it is to be amended because we do not think these amendments are sufficient at this time.
At the expense of repetition I should like to quote what has already been quoted by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) from that very enlightened document prepared by the Canadian Labour Congress which was presented earlier this year in the form of a brief to the cabinet. The reason I want to quote from it, apart from its usefulness in describing our views on the housing needs of this country, is that the unions are so frequently considered to be interested in nothing but the wages, hours and working conditions of their members. I think that in this document they have put forward a very
National Housing Act
statesmanlike point of view on housing. Some of what I intend to quote will be repetition but I think it is sufficiently important to bear repetition. It reads as follows:
The National Housing Act has yet to be of significant value to those with low incomes. The provisions of the Act and the activities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have succeeded in providing housing for those who, generally speaking, already had sufficient income to obtain it or who needed only some help in doing so. Those with very low incomes, and by this we mean wage earners with low earnings, the elderly on small pensions or social assistance and other needy elements in the community, continue to live in congested quarters, in substandard housing and in blighted areas or slums. They are the unwilling heirs of the cast-off housing left behind by the more fortunate members of the population. To make matters worse, they are often compelled to pay unduly high rents for the unsatisfactory facilities that are available to them.
The shelter needs of these low income groups cannot be met by the commercial housing market. The National Housing Act has also failed to satisfy these needs, not so much because of deficiencies in the legislation, although it has room for improvement, but because of failure to make effective use of it. For those with low incomes the answer lies in subsidized public housing, with rentals geared to means. There is by now such an abundance of evidence pointing to the accuracy of this statement that we do not consider it necessary to elaborate on it here. But the record of public housing in Canada is a sorry one. It is almost non-existent in terms of all the housing that has been built in the post-war period.
I am stopping at this point to note that in the brief from which I have read three groups are picked out, first, wage earners with low incomes, second, the elderly on small pensions and, third, those on social assistance. I now wish to add a fourth category which was referred to so eloquently by the hon. member sitting opposite me. I have also thought of this for a long time. I am referring to young couples who are starting out on married life and are trying to find housing for themselves. It is true that a great many of these young people can buy housing with assistance but a great many of them are not able to get it and must depend on public low rental housing projects. I agree with my hon. friend opposite that wherever possible incentives should be provided in the form of loans for the purchase of housing or for rental projects for young families starting out because if we are to provide a decent foundation for family life in this country we must begin with the younger couples who are commencing their married life. For all these young people in the low income brackets the cost of buying a home is too great because the price of land has soared and interest rates have gone up.

November 15, 1986
National Housing Act
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation celebrated the new year by announcing that their rates would be going up from 6.25 to 6.75 per cent, which is a very substantial increase for people in the low income groups wishing to buy a house. For example, it is said that no family should consider spending more than two and a half times its annual income on the purchase of a house. This means that a family with an annual income of $5,000 a year should pay no more than $12,500 for a house. Where in our cities can one get a house for $12,500? The cost of housing has soared out of all proportion which means that an increasing number of people must resort to rental. However, the provision of adequate houses for rental has not been sufficient. In this regard I think the amendment respecting the use of existing houses might also be applied to the rental of homes.
Many of us are not aware of the fact that recently the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development made a study of housing rental in 14 western European and North American countries. The survey was made for the year 1963. They discovered that of the 14 countries surveyed Canadians spent the largest percentage of their income dollar for rent. This means that the cost of rental is at the very peak in this country compared with these other countries. I realize that Canadians enjoy better incomes than citizens of many other countries but I believe that the high percentage of income spent on housing in this country is an unenviable record in view of the high cost of living we have experienced in the last few years.
I should now like to speak on the subject of low rental public housing in my own city of Vancouver. A large percentage of the people in the groups I have enumerated needs more low rental housing than is being provided at the present time. I am glad to see that the minister is in agreement with what I have said because I remember that when he came to our city last January he said, I believe, that there were a million Canadians who were not satisfactorily housed. There are not a million of them in Vancouver but as it is a place which is so well publicized we shall be getting many people from other parts of Canada for whom we shall have to provide good housing.
[DOT] (8.30 p.m.)
As I said, not enough has been done to meet housing needs. Let me give you an example involving a group of old age pensioners in my riding in a low rental housing project. This

project, Killarney Gardens, was not built under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It was built last spring and has room for 187 pensioners. There was a waiting list of 500 people. This project materialized in a city where there is already considerable low rental housing for elderly people. But only 187 out of a waiting list of 500 people could be accommodated. The same situation can be found all over Vancouver. At the present time I believe Central Mortgage and Housing is exploring in the English Bay district the possibility of building a high-rise apartment block for old age pensioners. I hope the corporation can do this, but land values have gone up so much because of inflated rates in the West End that I should be surprised if a site could be found suitable for a low rental project. Perhaps the minister could tell me about this.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would she be surprised to know that all lots but one needed for the development of low rental projects in the West End, all but one, have already been acquired?


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am
delighted to hear that, and I am sure the old people will be also. We have waited a long time for this.
I want to talk about the four low rental housing projects in Vancouver and a fifth which I believe is in the final stages of completion. Everybody, including the minister, admits that mistakes have been made. They always will be made when we try new things. In these projects people of low income are accommodated. They are mainly recipients of social assistance, from what I can find out. I know that there are many children in the low rental housing projects in Vancouver. Yet the four projects to which I shall refer were built with few, if any, recreational facilities inside or outside. I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong, but that is the impression I have gained from looking at the projects and from talking to people.
That is not true of the Raymur housing project which is to be finished shortly. It has two-thirds of an acre for a sports field, with benches, and three areas where there is sand in which small children can play. In one of the blocks, the one for old people, there is a lounge, a washroom and a kitchen. In block E, I believe, which is for two-bedroom families, there is one large room and a bathroom as well as kitchen facilities. But in the other four projects built earlier these facilities-
November 15, 1966


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not like to interrupt the hon. member but I am sure she has forgotten MacLean Park, which has shown such great promise.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
was wait.ng today for a telephone call from Central Mortgage and Housing about MacLean Park. It is the one project I had no information about. After I have finished perhaps the minister might tell me the exact status of MacLean Park. The other projects, Old Orchard, Skeena Terrace and Little Mountain, are not provided with recreational facilities. In the older projects-and this is true of Skeena Terrace-people, old and young, are cooped up without recreational facilities. The people at Skeena Terrace need recreational facilities both inside the buildings and outside. Being on low incomes, these people find it hard to pay carfare to take their children to recreational facilities, even if they have the time to do it.
I do not blame anyone for the mistakes that were made because mistakes are made in the construction of any project. The trouble is that projects such as I have mentioned are in danger of becoming isolation wards cut off from the rest of the city by poverty and lack of amenities, and the people feel hopeless and isolated.
Here is the point I wish to make. Since last spring, social workers from the city, members of the Vancouver park board, and more recently members of the city council including the mayor and aldermen-I do not know whether they came down to Ottawa but they were supposed to-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: They did.


Mrs.   Maclnn@: s (Vancouver-Kingsway):
-have been working to get the minister to make a change in the National Housing Act which would allow him to rectify the mistakes made in the earlier projects. The city council proposed-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but if she reads the present act she will find that it is possible for the federal government, under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation legislation to do many of the things that she suggests. But that is not so for existing public housing, because provincial legislation does not permit many things. We can do things if the municipality and provincial government concerned recommend that they be done. We are glad to do things, as
National Housing Act
demonstrated by the MacLean Park project and by other projects.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Do I
understand that if the provincial government and the city agree the federal government will make available one-third of the sum needed to put in recreational facilities that were not put in when the projects I mentioned earlier were completed?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Reasonable recreational
facilities are possible. Yes, we shall be glad to do that.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Will the federal government take the initiative in this regard? Who must take the initiative? Which level of government must do that?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think the hon. member knows that the initiative must come from the municipal level.


Winona Grace MacInnis: the delegation has not heard yet, I am sure it will be glad to hear what the minister has said. The problems in the projects I have mentioned have gone on for a long time. The minister has received much correspondence about this matter, and what he has said will be good news for the social workers and civic people of Vancouver.
My colleague from Broadview asked me to mention something he had overlooked this afternoon. What I say affects the Toronto area but it will affect Vancouver later. The hon. member said that what hinders municipalities from carrying out urban renewal projects is the cost of relocating the people affected. The second point he wished to mention has to do with the capital cost of new schools. He suggested to me, and I mention this to the minister, that something should be done about this by way of an amendment to the National Housing Act. I hope the minister will tell us whether there will be leeway under the amendments to provide new schools when municipalities request them as part of urban renewal projects.
Returning to Vancouver I shall deal with a matter that must also be familiar to the minister. In the housing projects earlier mentioned the tenants tried, quite naturally to improve their conditions. A number of general meetings were held by the tenants of the four completed projects. They resulted in a brief, a copy of which I have here. I wish to bring out some of the points in it because what the

November 15, 1966
National Housing Act
tenants are suggesting is well worth considering. The minister may already be aware of its contents. I should like him to tell us what he thinks about it.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
These tenants representing lour public housing projects in Vancouver said in August last that public housing in Canada, as in most modern countries of the world, is provided by governmental subsidy to assist low income families in obtaining a decent standard of living. They point out that most families on low incomes who enter public housing have experienced a period of economic difficulty and extreme stress. Very often they face additional problems such as poor health, handicaps, single parent responsibilities, a backlog of debt, unemployment, lay-offs due to strikes, personal or family difficulties. Moreover, in today's cities families with several children cannot find alternative rental accommodation at rents within their means.
The tenants point out that present policies with regard to the charging of rents in public housing are often discouraging and defeating to families and result in increasing numbers of families requiring continuing public support through social assistance. A family head, supported by social assistance, who is trying to find work and become independent is often discouraged from doing so because he or she will lose important welfare benefits, for example, coverage in respect of the family's medical, dental, optical and prescription costs. Going to work involves additional expenses -clothes, transportation, child care-and a working person's rent is charged on gross rather than net income whereas recipients of social assistance pay rent on the basis of net income. Welfare cheques are insufficient to cover the family's bare necessities; yet many tenants who are working are much worse off than they would have been had they remained on social assistance. Present rental policies, they say, are not helping to alleviate this situation. A rent scale based on net income for wage earners would provide some incentive.
I know something about the families in several of these housing projects. I realize there are families whose rehabiltation would be difficult. I also know there are other families which could be helped by incentives. These are the people, I believe, who are now banding together to consider ways and means. They say that teenagers or wives who might work part time to improve the family standard of living are discouraged at the present

time particularly if the family is on social welfare. Welfare policies allow only $25 a month as extra income for parents working. Rental policies penalize families whose casual earnings are in excess of $250, because rent is then charged on the full amount. In other words, if they earn $249 no rent is charged but if they earn $251 rent is charged on the full amount.
The brief points out that in recent years compulsory deductions at source from a working person's pay cheque have greatly increased. Working people living in public housing pay rent calculated on income part of which they do not receive.
When a working person's pay is increased to meet the rising cost of living he loses a considerable benefit because deductions at source are also increased and his rent goes up. Persons on low or improving incomes who wish eventually to move out of public housing, and there are many of them who do want to move out because there is a stigma attached to public housing, find it very difficult to do so because a disproportionate amount of their increased earnings goes toward higher rents. This prevents families from saving a small down payment to buy a house, which often is the only alternative accommodation available to families with several children. The tenants say that a rent scale based on take-home pay rather than on gross income would do much to help all families in public housing projects.
I understand that the rental scale is fixed jointly by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the provincial government. These people believe that policies with more liberal incentives would assist more tenants to become permanently employed and help families who wish to move out to become established in the larger community, thus freeing space for other low income families and resulting eventually, in more families working part time or full time as an alternative to social assistance, thereby saving taxpayers' money.
The tenants make two definite proposals:
1.	That wage earners living in public housing projects be allowed a 15 per cent blanket deduction from gross earnings to cover compulsory deductions before assessing the amount of a tenant's rent.
2.	That a basic exemption of $250 of casual earnings per year per family be allowed before calculation of rent and that subsequent increases in rent be calculated on amounts of casual earnings over $250.
November 15, 1966

It may be that the second proposal has already been dealt with. I hope this is the case; I know there has been great pressure on social workers to see it done. This is what these people want and I think it is a good sign when tenants are talking not in terms of staying where they are but of getting out into alternative housing accommodation of their own.
I will bring my remarks to a close by suggesting we have now reached a point when there is no longer any need to place all these people together in big housing projects. I know that in projects in the United States designed for migrant workers and in Sweden, when accommodation is provided for people living on low incomes and on social assistance, the housing is scattered among other housing intended for a wide range of tenants. This gives the people who are being assisted an incentive to play their full part in the community.
I wish we did not have to press for community centres in these public low rental projects. I prefer to see the people mixing with other people in the community when they take their recreation. But I realize this is not possible at present, bearing in mind the location and development of public housing projects. We look forward to the day when these people will not be fenced off. Indeed, I hope we can look forward to a further development as a result of which low rent housing will be scattered throughout housing occupied by the rest of the population so that tenants may become part of the fabric and texture of the community.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few minutes during th:s debate mainly to ra'se particular points concerning the National Housing Act, and I hope that my recommendations may be included eventually in legislation that may come after the one now before us.
To start with, I must, like most members in this house, I believe, congratulate the minister for the good work he performs in his capacity of minister responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I doubt that anybody in this house could charge him of having played politics in the decisions he has made or had the government make concerning the National Housing Act. Our minister, being a serious person, wanted to act as a businessman while studying the
National Housing Act
National Housing Act. He sought solutions that might help the government to develop home building and other types of construction in the country, without however interfering with other means of financing which exists at present, a thing that is perhaps desired, at least on occasion, by a certain group of people sitting in this house.
A while ago, the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) complained that the National Housing Act was not yet of sufficient help to the small wage-earner.
I entirely agree with the hon. lady on this score, as does the minister. Nevertheless, the minister must take into account several factors while attempting to amend the National Housing Act. Besides helping or being charitable, there is another very important consideration, the ability to pay.
It is easy to ask all the Canadian people to pledge themselves, to make commitments, to assume the burden of mortgages and interest charges, but somebody has to pay in the end. Social Credit has a ready solution; the elimination of interest.
But here, in the house, when the government has to introduce amendments to some particular act, it must do so seriously; it must not reach for haphazard solutions, which may lead us, God knows where; it must study the situation-


David Réal Caouette: May I put a question to the hon. member?


Gérald Laniel: I am always pleased to answer questions for the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette).


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, here is my question. The member speaks of a ready solution advocated by Social Credit. Now, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he finds it easier to lend money without interest to foreign countries rather than to Canadian organizations which contribute to the development of Canada.
Which is the easiest way, lending to others or lending to our own people?


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member is raising a point he already raised in the house and I think he did not get a satisfactory answer, for it is not easy to give him an answer to his satisfaction. Moreover, I say to the hon. member that whenever Canada decides to take its own responsibilities in the international field, I am happy to see it do so in the way he has mentioned and not as was done by

November 15, 1966
National Housing Act
some of his old friends, who assumed a certain responsibility during the last world war and yet who stood, in the mind of the hon. member, as idols, people who were leading their country to fascism and eliminating freedom-


David Réal Caouette: Let us hear something about Canada.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, the Beauharnois-Salaberry region derived much profit from the National Housing Act, even though interest has to be paid on the loans. I believe that all hon. members of the house are grateful for the real impetus given by the National Housing Act in the field.


David Réal Caouette: Which put everybody into debt.


Gérald Laniel: -of housing from coast to coast since the last war. This we owe to the present minister as well as to all his predecessors.
Back home we have a large city with a population of 30,000-


David Réal Caouette: Thanks to Rouyn-Noranda.


Gérald Laniel: -Chateauguay, and it is precisely due to the fact that the federal government faced up to its responsibilities in the field of housing construction.


David Réal Caouette: Thanks to Rouyn-Noranda.


Gérald Laniel: There is a problem in one of the main cities in my county, namely Valley-field, which is at present experiencing an economic boom thanks to Noranda Mines, Canadian Electrolitic Zinc Ltd., and other companies. At least one thousand new jobs- if not more-have been created over the past three years, Mr. Speaker, thanks partly to the Noranda Mines people whom the hon. member criticizes occasionally, but we are nevertheless profiting by it and we pay tribute to them.
Today, we must ask the hon. minister and the government to find other additional means to increase this assistance so as to fill the gap in housing which prevails in Valley field.
The greatest problem in our area at the present time is the shortage of skilled labour. In order to get this skilled labour we must cover the province and the whole country, go abroad even, but the great problem is finding shelter for these people, providing them with comfortable and attractive quarters; a place where a man would like to bring his family to live.

[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I think that the policy of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Housing Act should be amended to allow for greater participation in the construction of multiple family dwellings. At the present time, under section 40, the National Housing Act provides for loans made directly by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the construction of multiple family dwellings or apartment buildings. But that is limited by internal administrative regulations; that is limited just the same to municipalities with less than 5,000 inhabitants.
When it comes to a municipality with 30,000 inhabitants like Valleyfield, which is in full expansion, more is needed than the initiative of individuals who decide, after a certain number of years, to build a single house. Public bodies, private corporations and individuals must take the lead precisely to increase considerably the total number of dwellings available for rent.
In that regard, I would ask the minister to consider section 40 of the act and possibly give a little more freedom so that the corporation, in particular cases, may allow loans to be granted to private corporations or individuals interested in building multiple family dwellings or apartment buildings.
In the legislation now before us, Mr. Speaker, loans have been provided for the purchase of existing houses. A little earlier, when the minister spoke, he failed to give clearly the maximum amount which will be put at the disposal of individuals who will be interested in buying such houses. In the halls, and here and there, there has been talk of a maximum amount of $10,000, which I consider reasonable. But there has also been talk of a minimum amount of $1,000 which will have to be supplied by the new buyer in order to make improvements or repairs to that house.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I feel that a minimum of $1,000 should at least be required. But I think that the maximum should be at least $2,000, possibly $3,000 or $4,000. Under the National Housing Act, which provides a loan for improvements to buildings, an owner is now authorized to borrow up to $4,000 for repairs. Therefore, if it was thought that the amount of $4,000 could meet the average needs for repairs to existing buildings, I think that the same standards should be used to allow improvements which might go up to $4,000 in the present bill. But it should not
November 15, 1966

be done by leaving the maximum amount at

I would suggest to the hon. minister that the maximum amount of the loan be limited to $10,000, including $1,000 for repairs, but that, on the other hand, if the new buyer believes he should improve his new home and spend more than $1,000, any additional sum, controlled by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, could be added to the total amount of the loan. This means that a man who has $3,000 to spend on improving his house-it is easy to spend $3,000: you buy a house, you instal a heating system, you improve the electrical system because of security standards; then there is the problem of sanitation, or sewers if you live in the country, and you have already spent your $1,000 and more. What can a poor man do really to improve the house in which he will live with his family? In order only to have his house painted, he will have to spend another $500 or $700-especially if he wants to have it painted both inside and outside.
Well, it will not take long to spend $3,000 or $4,000 and I sincerely believe that such a leeway should be given any individual who wants to take advantage of the act and that he should indeed be allowed to spend this amount of $3,000 or $4,000 without limiting the total amount for all that. So, the fellow who would spend $3,000 instead of $1,000 would obtain a loan of $10,000, plus $2,000 extra-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister would like to be allowed to put a question.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There is nothing to prevent a person who wishes to buy a home spending as much as he wants to on improvements above the suggested minimum of $1,000; it would not be a maximum.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the minister that if the amount is limited to a maximum of either $9,000, $10,000 or $11,000, and clause 3 in the bill says it will be, then if anyone wishes to spend more than the $1,000 minimum what will be mentioned in the regulations he should be authorized to do it but not to use part of the maximum available to him. What I would like to see in this bill, however, is a provision that the total amount would go up automatically at the same time by the difference between the total amount he has 23033-628
National Housing Act
spent on repairs and the $1,000 which is already included in the $10,000.

Mr. Speaker, in short, what I am trying to say is that I would not want an individual to purchase a house and be required or forced to make only the minimum repairs, without getting enough money to improve the house in which he will have to live with his family.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise another point. The National Housing Act provides for loans to municipalities for projects such as sewage disposal plants. The biil under consideration provides for an extension of the act for three more years, thus enabling the municipalities undertaking sewage disposal projects to take advantage, during this period of three years, of a remission of part of the capital, that is 25 per cent, and remission of part of the interest during the period of construction.
I think that in including this provision in the bill, the government took a serious initiative because, precisely, people are talking more and more about pollution; there are discussions on either side. Provincial and interprovincial conferences are called and everyone is concerned with the problem, but I do not think that they have succeeded in adding, during the last months, many new initiatives to solve the problem.
The federal government had one possibility and I think it should have, in the present amendment, increased to 50 per cent the remission of the capital concerning the construction of sewage disposal plants. I agree that the municipalities should give services, and they do. They give services to their taxpayers; they provide sewage and water systems.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
But, in general, often, at the end, all that goes to the river and increases the pollution of our rivers and lakes. If the federal government had provided for a remission of capital for the construction of sewage disposal plants, as high as 50 per cent, it would have taken a concrete step.
I hope that is what it will do next time, especially when one knows that the water pollution problem is of national scope, when one considers my riding which is not far from that of Stormont and which receives all the waters going through Cornwall. Often, when the government takes action to improve the

November 15, 1966
National Housing Act
situation, the provinces follow, the municipalities also, and automatically everyone benefits. The municipalities might thus become more interested in the matter of water pollution.
Mr. Speaker, I have only one remark to make before concluding my observations on urban renewal. The subject is not dealt with too much in these amendments but we, from the province of Quebec, are conscious of this increasing problem and the elimination of slums must precisely be foreseen; housing conditions should be improved in some wards of our great as well as our small municipalities.
And while congratulating the government for having concluded an agreement last year with the provincial government-with the result that some studies were carried out in certain small municipalities throughout the province-I hope the negotiations will go on and that, in the near future, we shall be able to see concrete examples of municipalities, especially in the province of Quebec, going ahead with urban renewal projects, with perhaps increased assistance from the federal government, as regards the clearing up and elimination of slum areas.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my remarks at this stage of this bill will be very brief. I support the various points that have been made by my colleagues, but I should like to direct the minister's attention to one section of the National Housing Act which is not being amended by this bill but which I believe should be amended. I refer to section 16 of the National Housing Act under which provision is made for the construction of homes by limited dividend corporations.
As the minister knows, there have been very few amendments to section 16 since what we now call the original act was produced in 1953 or 1954. There is, as I say, one amendment which I think ought to be considered. Section 16 is working very well, and my information in this regard comes from people and agencies involved in housing for senior citizens.
Most senior citizen housing is constructed under section 16 of the act. However, as the act now reads and as it has read since 1954 the maximum amount of the mortgage that can be obtained is 90 per cent. That amount sounds very high and it may appear that when we are asking for more we are reaching
[Mr. Laniel.l
for the moon, but these are days when everybody is reaching for the moon and we may even get there. Let me make the point that as the legislation now stands, the 90 per cent figure relates, as I understand it, only to the land and buildings and not to such things as stoves, refrigerators, washers and other equipment which must be supplied. This means that the amount the municipalities have to put up to get senior citizens' housing developments started is often higher than 10 per cent. This is very difficult for the municipalities when you consider the strains on their budgets.
The government has already recognized that in helping to provide housing for senior citizens we are providing something that is reasonably permanent. The legislation already permits 50 year mortgages in this field. There is no fear of the loans not being repaid, because this is the kind of investment that in a very real sense pays a dividend. The fact that the municipalities have to put up 10 per cent plus these other costs is a limiting factor which seems to me might be altered. If we could get this percentage increased we could greatly increase the building of this kind of housing.
Let me remind the minister that in the United States under the F.H.A. there is a provision for loans to the extent of 98 per cent. As a matter of fact, the legislation in that country seems to suggest that loans of 100 per cent are available but that the so-called limited dividend corporations must have sufficient working capital to put on deposit an amount equal to 2 per cent. Therefore the figure of 100 per cent for effective purposes is reduced to 98 per cent. I do not suggest that we should copy the United States in all respects. Indeed, I could point to one or two instances where our legislation in this field is actually better than theirs. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity here to go all the way in showing federal support for the building of senior citizens homes and other kinds of housing that can be constructed by limited dividend corporations under section 16 of the act.
It is also true, and this is part of what my colleagues have been saying, that it would assist those municipalities which are interested in senior citizens homes if the interest rates under section 16 which apply to limited dividend corporations could be reduced. After all, this is an area that is now accepted as one in which we should be doing the best and the most possible.
On behalf of those who are giving their time, efforts and services in the field of senior
November 15, 1966

citizen housing I ask the minister to take another look at section 16, and particularly at the amount of the mortgage that is available for this type of housing. Under the bill before us the minister is proposing that we raise to 90 per cent the percentage of money available for mortgages in certain other cases where in previous years it has been lower. So far as section 16 is concerned it was 90 per cent in 1954.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am sure the hon. member would like to know that the recommendation is to remove the inequity that now exists and bring up the level to 90 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The point I am trying to make to the minister is that there is a case for preferential treatment of senior citizen housing. Even when we bring the other levels up to 90 per cent, I believe the minister should go one step further in respect of senior citizen housing or any other kind of housing which falls within section 16 and involves limited dividend corporations.
As I have already indicated, I support the various points of view presented by my colleagues, but for the sake of brevity and for the sake of pinpointing one particular need in this legislation I have confined my remarks on this occasion to the need, in my view, to amend section 16 of the act along the lines I have suggested.
q (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compion-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to talk about the National Housing Act.
This legislation has been and is of great service to the population, but we can say that it is still not perfect; there is much room for improvement. But the minister advocates certain improvements which cannot but do a little good within the population and which will enable different individuals or different families to get adequate shelter, perhaps at low cost.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if families are really to pursue their objective, if they are really to develop naturally as they must, in a country, they need shelters to live in, they need appropriate lodging where they can fulfill themselves, where they can recuperate, resume their family activities and reorganize their lives. That can only be done in a decent home, owned by the family rather than by various organizations within a society.
23033-628J
National Housing Act
The N.H.A. has made great achievements possible up to now. Numerous houses have been built and many cities have benefited by the provisions of that act. But the greatest advantages have been enjoyed by those who finance housing, by those who handle or meddle with financing to start those housing projects. We have not built houses for the sole purpose of housing families, of helping families, of enabling them to live decently, but mainly with a view to enable finance companies to double their capital in the space of 12 or 13 years.
Those are the disadvantages of the act, Mr. Speaker, and that is why it is improper in a country like Canada, where people are poor and need houses, to allow financiers or capitalists to double their capital. On the other hand, it would equally be intolerable for the state to make money or to lend money at prohibitive rates of interest.
Mr. Speaker, there has been some talk for many years of building low cost houses, but low cost at present means $15,000, $18,000, $20,000 or $25,000. That is what is meant by low cost housing.
Under the prevailing interest rates, the capital must be doubled in 13 or 14 years, only in interests, and it is also a known fact that municipal and school taxes are almost as high as interest rates, so that within 15 years, a citizen pays his house twice: once in taxes and once in interests. And the house is still not paid.
Therefore, in order to become the owner of his home, a citizen must be able to keep up with the payments. Such things are inconsistent in a country like Canada.
Mr. Speaker, a shortage of building materials is inconceivable in Canada. Building materials are plentiful, as well as places or land to build houses. None of that is lacking in Canada. Neither is there a shortage of engineers or carpenters to build those houses. We have all that is required to build houses, and the first thing to do in a country abounding in wealth, which has everything that is needed to build houses at reasonable cost is to build suitable family quarters. Nothing in the world can give a family more comfort than decent lodging.
The minister mentioned that we have built thousands of houses, across Canada, but he is well aware that several of those houses are being sold for taxes or because citizens are unable to pay interest fees. Then, those people are forced to turn over their houses to the state and to go and live in slums.

November 15, 1966
National Housing Act
Such is the situation, Mr. Speaker. The minister knows that such a situation exists in Canada.
It the minister wants to do something to assist housing in Canada, he should, in the first place, ask for the removal of the famous 11 per cent tax which increases the price of those houses or dwellings by $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000. This is a field where we could do something to help the community.
If the minister does not deal with the matter, he will not have considerably altered the system or the organization of loans for housing, and will not have done much.
It has been suggested that the citizens should be in a position to purchase existing houses. I am in favour of this. They would perhaps be less costly than new ones and this would enable those families to be properly housed and have enough room. When a family includes seven, eight or ten members and needs seven, eight or ten rooms, such dwellings should be available because the citizens are entitled to have the necessary room to raise their children properly so that they will become good citizens.
Mr. Speaker, there are many other suggestions which 1 could make to the minister, how, for example, to bring pressure to bear on school boards, municipalities, so that they will take special action and do something different, in short, make some concessions, in order to help those who are building houses or who are buying old ones to modernize or restore them.
School boards should be reasonable with respect to the levy of taxes for those who want to become owners. They should be reasonable the first ten or 15 years, in order to enable them to pay their house or at least to become home owners. Municipal and school taxes increase every year and our young people are not able to pay them and to repay the interest on the principal.
Pressures should also be brought to bear [DOT]on the provinces, so that the municipalities may do something in that respect. I think that the minister would be well advised to ask the provinces, the municipalities and the school boards to come and help the citizens who want to become property owners.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred earlier to old people's homes. 1 agree with him 100 per cent in that respect.
We know that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation lends nearly 90 per cent of 
the construction cost for old people's homes. We know that several municipalities need those homes for their old people but that they are unable to build them, even with a loan by the corporation of nearly 90 per cent of the amount because the other 10 per cent has to be supplied by individuals, non-profit organizations, which means that those people are obliged to contribute that 10 per cent in order to build those old people s homes.
It is a rather difficult proposition to go to someone who has not very much money and ask him to make a donation of $1,000, $1,500, or any other amount, to build those old people's homes.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
We have this problem. And the provincial government is ready to do something; it is ready to take over the administration of the home after it has been built. However, the provincial government will do no more. Only 90 per cent of the amount involved can be obtained. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the interest rate is still too high. The minister should apply the necessary pressures. And we should do more, since we want to help these older citizens who have no money to live on. Well, if some sacrifices have to be made, let us ask the financiers to agree to some also. If the government looks after the financing, if the Bank of Canada lends the money, and if the Bank of Canada's interest rate is too high, let it be reduced.
These, sir, are some of the suggestions I wanted ' to make. I think we could help facilitate the construction of those housing projects in several municipalities where they are needed.
I congratulate the hon. minister for doing something, that is for at least thinking about it. However, other improvements could also be made. The minister can certainly bring pressure to bear so that some way is found to finance those low rental housing projects, to help our old people and to provide normal housing for them.
I now have another suggestion to make to the minister.
I think municipalities are wasting money on some winter works programs. The minister should allow, as winter works programs,, low rental housing to accommodate, for instance, the aged. Municipalities could then take advantage of such a provision. I know the federal government allowed it at one time. However, the provincial government did not. Now, the minister could exert pressure on provincial authorities so that they
November 15, 1966

allow municipalities to build homes for the aged under the winter works program.
This could be done, Mr. Speaker, instead of wasting 75 per cent of that money on men doing pick and shovel work in frozen ground or cutting down tree branches along roads, or some other useless work. Then something useful would be done, capital would be created for Canadians and some of our citizens would thus be able to live in decent houses. It would also be an asset for our society. The same thing could be done in many other fields. But since we are talking housing, I am taking the liberty of making some suggestions to the minister because they will be heeded. I know that the minister is a courageous man and a man of action and that he will take into consideration the few suggestions I had the honour to submit to him.
tEnglish]


Mr. Norman Fawcett (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay passage of the bill by a lengthy speech but I would like to deal very briefly with the new section 36G. Perhaps the minister could answer a question later which I will put to him regarding a situation that exists in various parts of my riding. In order to make myself clear I think I should go into some detail. In some parts of my riding numerous small subdivisions have sprung up over a large area and have mostly been financed by N.H.A. loans. Some of these subdivisions have not been able to receive more loans because of the possibility of water pollution or contamination from septic tanks. I would therefore like to ask the minister whether the building of small subdivisions over a large area is under federal control in view of the fact that money for loans is granted under the N.H.A.
As the situation now stands it is practically impossible to provide proper sewage in these localities because of the great area which they cover. To stop the development of these subdivisions at present seems to be like locking the barn after the horse is stolen but at the same time I can quite well understand why they should be stopped. Perhaps before the subdivisions are approved more emphasis should be put on planning. The locality should be examined and an estimate made as to whether sewage disposal can be provided in an economical way at some later date.
Another fault which I find in many of these subdivisions is that a great number of the lots face right on to a busy highway. This has
National Housing Act
resulted in many unnecessary accidents. I admit that in the last few years many parallel access roads have been built and this has eliminated some of the problems.
As far as new section 36G is concerned I should like to tell the minister that formerly I was a member of a municipal council which took advantage of the provisions of the act to assist in providing proper sewage facilities for the municipality in which I live. I certainly appreciate the value of this section and I am happy to see that it will be improved further.
That is all I wish to say on this bill. I will be grateful if the minister can indicate to me whether there is any federal control over the opening of small subdivisions scattered over a large area. I realize that the provincial and municipal authorities should bear the main responsibility in this matter.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I also do not intend to keep the house on this matter for very long but I am impelled to take part in this debate because of some of the evidence which has been given to us in the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. I would recommend that the minister attend some of these hearings so that he may hear less optimistic views about the availability of credit for house building in Canada. I can tell him that the witnesses from the banking community who have appeared before us have displayed very muted enthusiasm for enlarging their operations in this particular field.
I also think that the problem of housing is part of a much larger problem. This fact has also come out at our hearings in the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. The main problem is the misallocation of resources. Of course it is not possible for us to have an adequate housing program so long as we permit, on the basis of our touching faith in the folklore of free enterprise, the building of unnecessary high-rise luxury apartments, redundant shopping centres and, in my part of the country, redundant pulp mills.
During the hearings before that committee I asked the governor of the Bank of Canada whether he felt it was possible to counteract this misallocation of resources by monetary measures. I was told quite plainly by him that in his view this is not possible and that the only way to re-allocate these resources is by fiscal measures, which of course is another way of saying by government taxation policies and public investment. I think we shall eventually have to face the fact that if we hope to spend our available capital in those

November 15, 1966
National Housing Act
areas which we consider to be valuable and useful from a social point of view we cannot rely on the market place to make provision for that. We cannot rely on the traditional method by which available capital is allocated in our society because when it is allocated purely on the basis of profitability such things as public housing tend to be very low on the list. I think we should first of all agree on some social goals, and I would think the minister and perhaps all of us here in this chamber would agree with the social goal of ensuring that every one of our citizens is decently housed. Of course most of us would admit that we are far short of reaching that goal.
The point I wish to make is that if we wish to reach that goal we must adopt other methods than the ones we have applied hitherto. It is perfectly obvious that we will not be able to rely on traditional allocations, and public investment in housing seems to me to be in fact the only means by which we may perhaps improve our present housing situation.
It is interesting to note that in the last two or three days two articles have appeared in the Toronto newspapers concerning a meeting of architects, sociologists, psychologists and educators with regard to housing requirements. At one of these seminars a suggestion was made that our present approach to housing does great violence to human values. There were suggestions regarding new methods of arranging housing units and housing complexes which might overcome this inadequacy. I believe that if we hope to have imaginative projects we should not rely on private enterprise to lead the way because such projects in the first instance would be of doubtful profitability.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Another sacred cow in our society that needs to be prodded is the idea that there is something virtuous per se in home ownership. We tend in North America to classify home ownership with motherhood, patriotism, and things like that, but a moment's reflection will show us that owning a home is an undesirable and uneconomic way of obtaining housing. For one thing, when the young couple that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) referred to, start their married life they have different requirements from what they will have ten or 15 years later. Their requirements at the beginning are about the same as the requirements of those who are at the end of my generation. All the arguments

seem to be in favour of adequate rental housing in Canada.
Another seminar reported in the paper stressed the idea that it was not necessary to have crude or unattractive rental housing, lacking in variety and design, but that it is quite possible to build rental houses that are attractive, individual and satisfying in design.
I hope that the minister has considered the desirability of presenting to his colleagues the necessity of their using fiscal policies in order to provide housing for the Canadian people, without relying on what I must confess seems to me a broken reed. I am sure the minister would have been dismayed had he heard the representatives of the financial institutions of this country giving evidence before our committee. It was obvious that housing the Canadian people was the least among their interests. That is natural enough. They are not in the business of providing housing. They are in business to make money. As things are now housing usually is not a profitable enterprise, and that applies particularly to housing for those sections of the community needing it most. I again stress that our housing crisis, and it is a crisis, is a symptom merely of an overriding crisis in our society. It shows up an inherent fault in our present economy.
The fault in our economy lies in the misal-location of our resources, human and material, a misallocation of resources enabling people such as the Minister of Finance to say boldly that our economy is overheated and that we have reached the limit of productive capacity. When the Minister of Finance says that he does not consider the make-up of our gross national product or the possibility of deploying our work force more efficiently to enable us to produce a wider and more socially valuable range of goods and services in our society.
Finally, I want to comment on the suggestion of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson). I expressed regret that the minister did not attend the hearings of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. I also regret that the hon. member for Fraser Valley could not attend those hearings because he would have realized, I think, that his proposal that the government use the Bank of Canada to turn out the funds needed for investment, and in some magic way make available more credit for operations in the economy such as building houses, would not work. The hon. member would have realized that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar and it does not matter how it is produced. In our economy
November 15, 1966

a dollar is a claim on real wealth. Not only that, a dollar in our economy also represents produced wealth, and if that dollar is produced by the Bank of Canada it takes the place of another dollar in another part of the economy. Therefore we are no farther ahead, unless the hon. member is suggesting that the Bank of Canada should take over all banking functions in our society, which might not be a bad idea. I do not think he is in favour of that, however. Perhaps he might want the available capital and the available credit in our economy to be directed to more desirable ends than they are now being directed to.
I am convinced that we shall not solve our housing problem by persuading the traditional sources of credit to underwrite and clear up the situation in Canada. We shall be faced in one year or ten years with the situation that we now have unless the government realizes that there is a misallocation of resources and therefore fiscal measures must be taken to correct that misallocation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order. I remind all hon. members that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the assurances of co-operation given by hon. members, I will not reply to all the very constructive suggestions which have been made this evening. I will write to individual hon. members who have raised questions of interest to themselves and to their constituents. Three matters, however, ought to be referred to.
I would not want hon. members to leave this house with the impression, which may have arisen from the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that loans for projects for elderly citizens under section 16 of the act are only for land and buildings. Actually those loans cover also the normal equipment that is found in the projects which have been referred to. That equipment includes electric stoves and refrigerators. The limitation that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to does not exist under the present legislation.
Dealing with the point raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett), who talked about septic tanks in certain subdivisions adjoining some municipalities, I wish to make it clear that the approval of subdvisions is a municipal responsibility. Municipalities accept plans of subdivision
Business of the House
which in turn they submit to the province. It is not until the plan has been approved by the province, at the instigation of the municipality, that it reaches the federal government. We can refuse loans if we do not accept recommendations, but we cannot initiate
them.
The other items I shall deal with by letter in order that we may get to the clause by clause discussion of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall be dealing with supply. We propose calling the estimates of the National Research Council and the Medical Research Council, the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce and those of the Department of Transport.
There are two second and third readings outstanding, third reading of the housing bill and the stages of the appropriation bill which I shall be discussing with the house leaders before announcing when we will call it.


Mr. Speaker:: Did the minister call it ten o'clock?


Mr.   Mc@: I understood there would be a request to revert to motions for the making of an announcement. I wonder whether we could wait for a moment. Would it be convenient to suspend the sitting for a few moments?


Michael Starr: Can the leader of the house give us any indication of what this announcement will deal with before we revert to motions? We would appreciate that.


George James McIlraith: I regret I am not in a
position to know very much about it.


Michael Starr: Will it take us by surprise?


George James McIlraith: I hope it is a very agreeable surprise.


Michael Starr: I think we should wait until tomorrow when motions are called. The minister concerned can make his announcement
then.
November 15, 1966
9944	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has he found some more money?


Michael Starr: Ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

[Stage Direction]
speaking Provinces [Translation]
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, November 8 last, I put to the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) the following question:
With regard to the preparations for the centennial celebrations which should prompt cultural duality to promote national unity, does the minister consider recommending to the C.B.C. the opening of new French stations in the nine English provinces of the country, especially in the Windsor and Essex areas?
I am happy tonight to be able to make some remarks and to invite the minister, through her parliamentary secretary, to take quick action in that field.
In fact, the centennial celebrations, next year, will be a unique occasion to bring the Canadian people together and to illustrate true national understanding.
There will be every reason then to display all throughout Canada, to the eyes of all Canadians and foreign visitors alike, the bicultural character of our country.
Understanding and national unity must not remain empty words. In order to attain such objectives, it is imperative to give equal treatment to our Canadian people whether they belong to either one of our two great cultures: English culture and French culture.
If the C.B.C. contends sometimes that its budget is not adequate to meet such objectives, it is the duty of the government and the parliament to make available to that crown corporation, the amounts necessary to our dual cultural development.
The first report of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission on bilingualism and bicultural-ism has shown that there is in Canada a serious crisis which springs from Quebec and French Canada.
That serious crisis exists because until today French Canadians did not get equal treatment as far as recognition of their language and their culture are concerned.


Television and radio become for the government and the C.B.C. a wonderful vehicle to redress those grievances, to stress once for all the enriching and bicultural character of Canada, to inspire to all Canadians a real and common patriotism in justice, equality and realistic understanding.
That is why I am urging the Secretary of State to recommend to the government to put the necessary funds at the disposal of the C.B.C. and to strongly urge the latter to open up as soon as possible new French radio stations in the country's nine English provinces.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
We know that for a long time the French Radio and Television Association of Southern Ontario has been asking that a French radio station be established for 1967 in the Windsor and Essex areas. I hope the government and the C.B.C. will finally take steps to give Canada dynamic and bicultural organizations.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the speech just made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) is most praiseworthy. He must know that I for one, like the hon. minister, the government and the C.B.C., agree with him.
I do not think it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to repeat here the policy of the government with regard to bilingualism and biculturalism. The sustained efforts of the present government and party in power, since the advent of broadcasting, to extend to the French population across the country the benefits of radio, in its own language, are well known. Suffice it to mention the French language radio stations, for instance, at Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan, Moncton, New Brunswick, St. Boniface, Manitoba, and Toronto where, I believe, there is a French language radio station which has aroused a good deal of talk.
Mr. Speaker, much remains to be done in that field. However, complying with the wishes of the hon. member for Sherbrooke, for the centennial year, that is, setting up French language radio stations in every province and where there are important French speaking groups, across Canada, would be, to echo the words of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), physically and financially impossible and unachievable.
Mr. Speaker, recent studies on broadcasting carried out at the request of the government
November 15, 1966	COMMONS
and the issue of a white paper recently tabled by the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) are evidence, in my view, of the intention of the Secretary of State and of the government, to go ahead always in the field of broadcasting, in order to achieve, to the greatest possible extent, the objectives set out by the present act on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and confirmed by the white paper, including, among others provision of complete and balanced information and entertaining and service to both official linguistic groups.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member for Sherbrooke that it is the most eager desire of the government, of the Department of the Secretary of State and of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to see to the establishment throughout Canada, of French language radio and television stations in order to serve and do justice to the French population across the land.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the house I would like to say just a few words with respect to something that is very worrisome to everyone in Canada today, namely, the threat of a postal strike.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed that the minister may make a statement on motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is very unusual that I should rise at this time to say something, but I think the matter is of great interest to all members of the house and to all the people of Canada. I would like to say at this time that we are very optimistic with respect to a settlement of the postal dispute. Negotiations are going on from moment to moment, and I think members of the house should be the first people to know that the government is very optimistic that within a very short period of time this whole matter will be resolved and we will be making a settlement with the people involved. For this I would like to express the government of Canada's great appreciation to Mr. Justice Montpetit.
DEBATES	9945
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, all I wish to say is that we on this side of the house appreciate the information just given to us at this late hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I assume that if the minister has a more definitive statement to make when we meet at 2.30 tomorrow he will make it to the house at that time.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will be most pleased to do so but I felt that members of the house should be the first people to be informed of the very optimistic attitude at present regarding these particular negotiations.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I understand-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I think at this stage the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) should not take the floor as all the parties represented at present in the house have had their turn.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I believe you have not gone around all political groups, since we had not yet reached this corner of the house. I only wished to make a brief comment on that statement.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to compliment the Minister of National Revenue for coming here and giving the house this information rather than giving it through a press release.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I think he should speak on the topic he has put forward for debate at this time, namely, administration of justice-failure of minister to give legal opinions.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I thought I could say that properly, and I was feeling in a good mood at that point. This afternoon the Minister of National Revenue tabled a
9946	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion copy of a letter that he had obtained from the Acting Deputy Attorney General, he having asked for the opinion of the law officers of the crown in the Department of Justice with respect to the propriety of paying certain civil servants' salaries under the conditions that existed during the interim supply debate. I wish to quote from the second last paragraph of the letter:
Your second question concerns the payment of amounts in respect of departments which have received only a certain amount by way of interim supply. As I understand it, these departments have sufficient unencumbered balances as a result of the enactment of the Appropriation Acts No. 3, No. 5 and No. 7, 1966 in appropriate estimates items out of which salaries may be paid to cover payment to the employees therein of their mid-month salaries. I see no legal impediment to payment in this case, subject to any applicable provision of the Financial Administration Act being complied with.
I have shown that letter to members of the house who are also members of the legal profession. One thinks it is a very questionable opinion and another thinks it is a very sound opinion. So you can see where we stand when it comes to getting legal opinions. This afternoon, however, I complained during the question period of the fact that the Minister of Justice on numerous occasions had refused to give a legal opinion with regard to any statute or any clause in any statute when asked to do so by members of the house. I thought this was most unfair to members of the house who are not members of the legal profession.
I might say that this parliament has the highest percentage of lawyers of any parliament in the Commonwealth. It is all right for those gentlemen because they can form their own opinions with regard to the statutes. I am speaking only as one member who, since I am an old pioneer rancher, is interested in production, increasing the gross national product and things of that sort. But I am also very interested in scripture. I read the Bible quite frequently, and in following up my argument I should like to quote from Luke, chapter 11, verse 45:
Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproaehest us also.
Then verse 46:
And he said,-
This is our Lord speaking.
-Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

DEBATES	November 15, 1966
Then verse 52-and it is our Lord again:
Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
That is my complaint. I think that verse is very appropriate because that is what happens to members of this house who are not members of the legal profession. We are hindered in obtaining knowledge. I realize that according to the rules of the house we have to refer back to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. I find there, in respect of examples of inadmissible questions, that you cannot put a question to a minister asking for a legal opinion, seeking an expression of opinion on a question of law, such as in the interpretation of a statute or international document, and so on. Therefore I understand that the minister is quite within his right, but we are left out of this because we have not been trained to give these legal opinions.
I know that the time of the parliamentary counsel is pretty well taken up with the preparation of private members' petitions and in giving advice to members thereon, as well as with other duties. I should like to make this point, however, in fairness to those of us who are not members of the legal profession. We have a library research staff.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I am informed that there is one lawyer on that staff, a lady who deals with academic questions in respect of the law. In fairness to members of this house who are not members of the legal profession a lawyer with practical experience in a somewhat wider field should be appointed to the library research staff to give legal opinions to those members of this house who are not learned in this profession.
I put this suggestion forward because I have discussed this matter on a number of occasions and because I think it would be helpful to hon. members who require legal opinions in respect of statutes and various sections and clauses thereof. These members are not entitled, and properly so, to obtain opinions from the Minister of Justice. I trust that someone on the government side of the house will reply to my proposal in this regard.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member because I am not able to quote from the Bible as I do not know the Bible by heart.
In answer to the hon. gentleman let me say that I am advised that the functions of the
November 15, 1966	COMMONS
Minister of Justice, who is ex officio Attorney-General of Canada, are clearly set out in the Department of Justice Act. In essence the minister is the principal law officer of the crown, and in that capacity his primary function is to advise the executive. Traditionally the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada does not give advice to parliament or its committees. At his discretion he may give advice, but in no circumstances would he express an opinion in a hypothetical case or
DEBATES	9947
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
on matters that are or might come before the courts.
The Minister of Justice, in his capacity as Attorney General of Canada, is expected to advise the heads of the various departments of government upon all matters of law connected with the work of those departments. Opinions given by the law officers of the Crown are privileged and the production or disclosure thereof cannot be compelled.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.15 p.m.
9948

November 15# 1966



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa 4,
November 10, 1966.
Dr. F. G. Davidson,
Secretary,
The Treasury Board,
OTTAWA, Ontario.
Dear Dr. Davidson:
I refer to your discussion with Mr. Driedger today with respect to certain questions which you raised relating to the issue of mid-month salary cheques, and wish to confirm the opinions expressed to you by him.
I understand that your first question concerns the issue of cheques to persons employed in departments to which Parliament has granted full supply. The view expressed to you was that, having regard to the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1966, wherein full supply was granted in respect of certain estimates items including the administration votes of a number of departments, there is no legal impediment to payment out of the votes thereby approved to which salaries may be charged to employees in the departments concerned. This opinion, of course, assumes a sufficient balance in such votes to cover the payments.
Your second question concerns the payment of amounts in respect of departments which have received only a certain amount by way
of interim supply. As I understand it, these departments have sufficient unencumbered balances as a result of the enactment of the Appropriation Acts No. 3, No. 5 and No. 7, 1966 in appropriate estimates items out of which salaries may be paid to cover payment to the employees therein of their mid-month salaries. I see no legal impediment to payment in this case, subject to any applicable provision of the Financial Administration Act being complied with.
Your third question concerns the remaining departments wherein the items, out of which salaries may be paid and for which Parliament has provided interim but not full supply by the Appropriation Acts No. 3, No. 5 and No. 7, 1966, do not now contain sufficient remaining moneys from such interim supply to meet the mid-month salary payments. It would be proper, in my view, to supplement the moneys already voted by Parliament for the purpose of paying salaries to employees of these departments in this fiscal year by the moneys provided by the Appropriation Acts referred to for item 15 of the main estimates of the Department of Finance relating to contingencies and providing authority, subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, to supplement other votes. This item permits the supplementing of votes or items in respect of which funds have been appropriated, in whole or in part.
Yours truly,
D. Maxwell
Acting Deputy Attorney General.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 16, 1966