1967-09-28

Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-153 entitled "An act respecting the use of the Canadian flag on ceremonial occasions."


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, the Union Jack is usually hoisted in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada or her representative on public occasions or ceremonies. Now, Her Majesty the Queen of Canada is also chief of the Canadian state and acts as such in our country; therefore, it seems that in the presence of the chief of the Canadian state, the Canadian flag can be hoisted as well as the flag usually hoisted according to the established custom.
This is the object of the present bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question to address to the Prime Minister. It is in reference to the interesting address made yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the United Nations general assembly in which he urged cessation of the bombing of North Viet Nam and declared also-I quote-that "there is no hope for progress toward a peaceful settlement in appeals or proposals which place the total burden on one side only."
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is planning to follow up this statement by negotiations or discussions with other parties involved designed to
bring about an improvement in this most dangerous situation. In particular I should like to know whether any new overtures are being planned to the authorities at Hanoi or their allies to end the flow of troops and war materials from North Viet Nam to South Viet Nam should the bombing cease.


Righi Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is at the moment on his way back to Ottawa. I had hoped that he would be in his seat to deal with this particular matter, but he will not be here until tomorrow morning now.
I know discussions have been going on with other governments as to what steps can be taken to follow up the various proposals which have been made in connection with this conflict. There are no special steps I know of that are being taken, certainly not by us, with Hanoi at the moment, but perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs can add to my reply tomorrow. He has been in touch with a good many delegations at the United Nations and may be able to add to what I have said.


Hon. Michael Starr (Leader of fhe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Prime Minister. I wish to ask whether the Prime Minister can tell us what is the purpose of the visit to Canada by members of the Vietnamese liberation front, which is a communist organization currently engaged in active hostilities against United States forces in Viet Nam. On what grounds were visas granted by the Canadian government for what appears to be a propaganda tour, and has the government received any representation with regard to this matter from Washington?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, these students, or so-called students, were invited to Canada by a Quebec students' organization. They are travelling on North Vietnamese passports, which are acceptable under certain conditions for admission to Canada. If they had been travelling on documents issued by the so-called liberation front this would not have been acceptable. We do have a relationship with the government of North Viet Nam

September 28, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry because of our membership on the international commission, and we recognize their passports as they recognize ours. I do not know what is the purpose of their visit, Mr. Speaker, but in the circumstances it did not seem possible or desirable to refuse the recognition of North Vietnamese passports regularly held by these applicants for admission to this country.
Subject to further examination, I think we have received a query from the United States government as to any information we may have about the nature and purpose of this visit. I should like to look into that part of the question.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask a supplementary question in view of an expression used by the right hon. gentleman. Did I hear him say that we had received a clearing from Washington as to these students, or was the word used a "query"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is my impression that we have received a query from Washington, but I want to look into the nature of the query, if any.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question about the doubt cast on the status of these people on tour from North Viet Nam. Why is it that the immigration department did not take a closer look, inasmuch as the Prime Minister himself referred to them as so-called students?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the description of a person as a student-whether he is or is not a student-is not in itself reason for refusal of admission. I used the words "so-called students" because I noted that one of them was, I think, 40 years of age, which seemed to me to be a little old to go to university.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister stated that there is mutual recognition of passports as between North Viet Nam and Canada. Does this necessarily imply that these students must appear on the television program "Aujourdhui", when we are not quite sure why they have come to this country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. That is an entirely different question to the matter of their appearance on television. Their passports would have nothing to do with that.
(Mr. Pearson.)


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: I have a further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he would give us the name of the student organization that gave the invitation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: L'union generate des dtudi-ants du Quebec.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask a
further supplementary question. We are given to understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had at least informal discussion with Secretary Rusk of the United States before making his speech at the United Nations. Is the Prime Minister in a position to report to us what was the attitude or reaction of Secretary Rusk and the United States government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I am not. Perhaps my hon. friend could ask that question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am not in a position to say what was the reaction by Secretary Rusk to the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In the light of the Prime Minister's recent policy statement in terms of Viet Nam, is the government now contemplating furthering its activity in the field of civilian rehabilitation in Viet Nam or in particular by bringing Vietnamese children to Canada for rehabilitation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think these questions are necessarily related. I think one should be considered quite apart from the other. The fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday indicated a policy that the bombing should stop does not affect our obligation to bring about peace and help people in that country. Perhaps I should add that while the Secretary of State for External Affairs emphasized that the bombing should stop he also pointed out that the stopping of the bombing, unless followed by other steps taken by the other side, would not in the circumstances bring about peace.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of his announcement last September 13 that he was setting
September 28, 1967

up an advisory committee on executive compensation in the public service in accordance with the recommendation of the joint Senate and House of Commons committee on the public service, can he now inform the house whether this advisory committee has been established and, if so, who are its members?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, at this point I am not able to indicate the names of the members of the committee. We have received recommendations with regard to persons who should be approached and have been approaching some of these persons. When the slate is completed I will be very happy to announce it in the house.


David Lewis: 1 have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I
might bring to the attention of the hon. member that this very question is on the order paper; therefore I do not believe I should allow further questions on the matter at this time.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouelte (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
In view of the principle which states that both official languages must be recognized from coast to coast and in view of the fact that I have been asking for five years that the C.B.C.'s radio and television services be given in British Columbia, is the minister in a position to tell us today if the radio and television services of the C.B.C.'s French network has improved in British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to recognize and allow the question which the hon. member is asking the minister, namely if the service has improved. Of course, the minister is being asked to express an opinion and it would seem that in that respect the question is out of order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I can amend my question by asking if the French radio and television service is provided at this time to the French-speaking people of British Columbia?
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I think my question is perfectly in order and it seems to me the minister should tell us whether or not the French language is respected in British Columbia as we respect it elsewhere in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's supplementary question is becoming out of order because he requests an expression of opinion by a minister.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the very sharp increase announced last night in N.H.A. mortgage interest rates will make it impossible for individuals earning less than $8,000 per year to apply for N.H.A. mortgages, is the government considering some plan which will enable those earning less than this to apply for N.H.A. mortgages?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we will be discussing this in a few minutes. Perhaps my hon. friend will hold his question until after the statement of the Minister of Labour.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister not made up his mind, like everyone else in this house, that statements we wait for from the Minister of Labour are really meaningless, and that it is only reasonable that the Prime Minister should make an explanation?



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: Mr. Speaker, before the house took recess the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development advised that the government intended to hold meetings with the ARDA task force on its report in respect of the nine northern counties of Nova Scotia. I am wondering if he can now advise the house whether the government has reached a decision.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker,

September 28, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry there have been meetings between the government of Nova Scotia and representatives of the federal ARDA administration. The work is progressing normally and satisfactorily.


Howard Russell MacEwan: When does the minister expect a decision to be made and action to be taken on this important report?


Maurice Sauvé: Some action has already taken place, in that a committee has been established and a plan is being prepared by the officials of both governments.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. As a result of some confusion and uncertainty arising out of his clarification yesterday can the minister now advise the house whether, as a result of proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, the employer-employee relationships which are to be broadened will include registered nurses? Will the minister also indicate to the house when he anticipates that this legislation will be brought forward so this whole question can be settled in the minds of the public?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it is our hope that this legislation will be brought forward at an early date. We already have a pretty full legislative timetable, but this matter is of great importance and will be brought forward as soon as possible. At that time the extent of the changes recommended by the government will be disclosed in the bill. If there should be any extension of the trend toward universality this will be based on the employer and employee relationship. I might say that this is a trend which has occurred over a period of years. It is a gradual trend, and there has been no specific decision as yet for any extension.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister of Labour indicate whether his government has abandoned the idea of increasing to $65 the weekly amount now paid under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I welcome that question, Mr. Speaker. The government never had that

idea. Whoever put it forward must have been someone who makes reckless statements, such as the hon. member does at times.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to argue with the Minister of Labour, but it was reported in the Canadian Press that he made such a statement, and it is up to him to have it withdrawn.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Is his department aware of the rather serious criticism made by the fishermen of British Columbia about the division of the sockeye salmon catch in the Canadian area of the Pacific as between Canadian and United States fishermen? The criticism is that this division is unfair to Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that his question as asked is not in order. He is asking whether the minister is aware of certain criticism, and that is certainly not an urgent question.



OPENING OF PURSE SEINING SEASON IN BAY OF FUNDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is it the intention of the minister's department to open the purse seining season in the bay of Fundy on October 1 as promised?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand exactly what the hon. member means by the opening of the purse seining season. If the hon. member refers to that section of the bay of Fundy on the New Brunswick side, there will be no change in the date that was in effect last year, which I believe was October 1 or October 15.



EXPO '67 CONTRIBUTIONS TO COST BY GOVERNMENTS OF QUEBEC AND MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
September 28, 1967	COMMONS
Is the Prime Minister in a position to say whether the governments of the province of Quebec and of the city of Montreal have contributed financially to the development of the site of Expo 67?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be put on the order paper.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO JOINT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE CONTROL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Registrar General concerning the statement he has made in Toronto on the advisability of creating in Canada a federal-provincial board on the control stock exchange operations.
Is the hon. minister in a position to tell the house whether he intends to call an early meeting of the provincial premiers or finance ministers?


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving notice of his question. I think that the calling of such a meeting comes under the jurisdiction of the right hon. Prime Minister.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the government of Ontario announced last week that all motor vehicles sold in Ontario must be equipped with exhaust controls, I ask the minister whether the government will now consider making this a national standard.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement some time ago setting out the view of the department with respect to the efficacy of these controls. We are now examining the new situation to see whether that former view should be modified in any way.
DEBATES	2583
Inquiries of the Ministry



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has he received a letter dated September 16 on behalf of the Serbian national committee protesting against raids by the R.C.M.P. on the offices of members of the board of directors of that organization? If so, has the Prime Minister replied, what is the nature of his reply, and will he investigate the reasons for the harassment experienced by these Canadian citizens and report to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into that matter, Mr. Speaker. At the moment I am not certain whether I received a letter of that kind.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can we expect a statement on increased Canadian aid to the International Development Bank that would back up the remarks made by the Minister of Finance in a recent speech in Rio de Janeiro?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Finance about that when he returns from Rio. I think he is on his way back now.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether the farm policy task force which he initially referred to many months ago is yet operational?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the task force have been named and are commencing their work shortly.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the

September 28, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry minister advise us who will be the chairman of that task force?


John James Greene: If the task force requires a chairman he will be named from among the members.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Rene Tremblay (Maiapedia-Malane):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Could the hon. minister tell the house when he is hoping to sign the agreement with the government of the province of Quebec, with respect to the implementation of the program for the development of the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspe Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, if we can carry on our negotiations smoothly, I hope that in two months and a half to three months we will have the pleasure of signing this agreement.


René Tremblay: I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the hon. minister assure the house that this agreement will take into account the responsibilities and prerogatives of the federal government in this pilot territory?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, just as in any such agreement, the federal authorities will fulfil the duties devolved upon them, and the province will also assume the responsibilities under its jurisdiction.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: I would also like to ask the minister what is the share of the federal government in those agreements for the development of that area of the Gaspe Peninsula. Is it fifty-fifty with the province of Quebec?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, it varies according to areas. Up to now, in the three agreements signed, the federal contribution was 66 per cent and I think that in the case of the Development Bureau of Eastern Quebec for the Lower St. Lawrence area, the Gaspe Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands the federal government contribution will amount to approximately $160 million out of a total amount of $250 million.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour in his capacity as minister in charge of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I hope Your Honour will not rule this question out before you hear it because so many people want to speak on this subject today; but this is a single urgent point, and I probably will not get a chance to raise it later.
Has the minister's attention been drawn to the suddenly aggravated situation in Vancouver caused by the proposal of the city planning director to abandon or indefinitely postpone eight public housing projects which would provide nearly 500 housing units? If so, what plans has the minister for dealing with this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will be satisfied that I did not rule the question out of order before I heard it, but I suggest it might be asked later this afternoon.



PAN-AMERICAN GAMES-THANKS FOR FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO SUCCESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and it is one I should have asked him on Monday when this session resumed. Would the Prime Minister accept the thanks of my constituents for the contribution the federal government made this past summer to the success of the pan-American games.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker, and to confirm what my hon. friend said about the amazing success of those games, even though we were all wet when they started. I should like to ask the hon. member to convey to the municipality and the people of Winnipeg our thanks for the way they handled the games.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
September 28, 1967	COMMONS
Minister of Agriculture. I should like to ask whether the government has any plans to subsidize the corn growers of southwestern Ontario who are suffering from a 25 cent to 30 cent per bushel decrease in price this year. This would be a subsidy similar to the one offered the western wheat growers.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the analogy drawn by the hon. gentleman is correct. Certainly at the present time there are no plans along the lines he has indicated.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonton-Strath-cona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can advise the house if he has any plans to cope with the present crisis in the Department of Transport. The crisis I refer to is brought about by the appointment of the hon. member for Trinity as Minister of Transport.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the crisis is only in my hon. friend's mind.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Bower (Shelburne-Yarmouih-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. It is one of import and urgency to at least six provinces in Canada. I should like to ask the minister whether the government has established as policy the cessation of building subsidies on fishing vessels.


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Oates Bower: I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister why then are subsidies not being granted on the building of fishing vessels in Nova Scotia?


Mr. Robichaud:: As has been the case in the past, subsidies have been granted as soon as the applications are received and processed. If there have been any delays the hon. member may find out they have not been altogether the fault of the federal Department of Fisheries.
DEBATES	2585
Inquiries of the Ministry


Howard Russell MacEwan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether the government intends at this time to allocate to each province certain amounts under this plan?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: This is not in the mind of the government, Mr. Speaker.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO REPRESENTATION OF YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has, as he indicated last Monday he would, looked into the question of an invitation being extended to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to attend the constitutional conference about which he spoke at that time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They will be represented, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question. Will the representation be from the governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in those jurisdictions or is it contemplated that they will be represented by personnel of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall have to look into that particular aspect of the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order of interest to hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the house allow the minister to rise on a point of order although orders of the day have been called?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that in order to give additional time for the debate on housing we might forgo the private members' hour and thus provide an additional hour for this debate today. If that is agreeable to hon. members, the government will agree to it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
2586

September 28, 1367
Supply-Labour SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of Labour for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968. We are on vote No. 35 dealing with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
35. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for expenditures on housing research and community planning, for the amounts of loans for sewage treatment projects forgiven to a province, municipality or municipal sewerage corporation, for contributions made for an urban renewal scheme or pursuant to an urban renewal agreement, for losses resulting from the operation of public housing projects, and for net losses resulting from the sale of mortgages from its portfolio, $25,300,000.
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I take it that we are to move directly to vote 35 of the Department of Labour estimates. This is the only item which deals with estimates of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I welcome heartily the opportunity to discuss these estimates, not simply because of the housing problems which admittedly exist but rather because it affords me an opportunity to present to hon. members a statement concerning some aspects of the housing picture which some statements that were made in the house yesterday and the day before indicate are unknown to them.
I wish to put it on the record at the outset that we do have a serious housing situation in Canada, one which is likely to continue for some years to come. No country can grow as fast as Canada is growing and have a concentration of population in certain urban areas without having housing problems. But I do want to make it perfectly clear that these problems are largely centred in the metropolitan areas in this country, and the record shows that fact quite conclusively. The record speaks for itself. I also want to say that while we do have problems centred in certain specific areas, regardless of what hon. members may say about the housing situation, the situation in these specific areas is not indicative of the housing situation which prevails in the majority of our cities and towns.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I also wish to point out that very little reference has been made to the fact that the housing problems that arise in metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Vancouver and other cities the size of Hamilton and larger arise not so much out of a reduced volume of housing-in fact there has been a very substantial increase in housing-but out of the unprecedented pace of general development and growth in these areas. Much house building has been going on in Canada though not enough to take care of the phenomenal growth that has taken place in Toronto and certain other areas. I also wish to say that notwithstanding the deterrents to house building this year, in 1967 we shall have in excess of 150,000 starts.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is 50,000 too few.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If the hon. member is quoting the report of the Economic Council, he has not read it very carefully. It says that
140,000	starts will take care of the new family formations, the other 50,000 being to replace old houses that should disappear.


George Harris Hees: Are they not necessary?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Of course they are needed, but one must deal with problems like that in accordance with all the circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: They must all be taken into consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Hon. members may laugh; hon. members may well laugh, but the 150,000 starts represent a very substantial increase over starts in 1966. This year's starts represent an increase of about 15 per cent over those of 1966, and this increase, I might point out, has been largely made possible by the vast infusion of federal funds to support housing, an infusion that has been felt in every province of Canada.
There are those who would deplore our not reaching a much quoted figure which has been referred to of 200,000 housing starts. But the 200,000 housing starts are forecast for 1970.


George Harris Hees: Is it not 190,000?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is not 190,000, with all due respect. The figure is 200,000 for 1970.


George Harris Hees: But the Economic Council says that we need 190,000-
September 28, 1967


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The hon. member can make his speech later. He may then quote from the report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: A little closer examination of that report will reveal that this target that I have referred to is four to five years off.
But hon. members must keep in mind that in our society, which is based on freedom of private action, housing, like any other commodity, is subject to economic laws. Temporary setbacks are bound to be endured periodically in the competition which supports private enterprise. But the vital concern is that our long-range objective of 200,000 starts per annum in the early 1970's be attained in the allotted period.


William Heward Grafftey: Did the minister say 1870? His speech sounds like a nineteenth century speech.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: One would think that the figures which have been quoted are those of the Economic Council; in fact, many of these figures are supplied by Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, and their forecasts are available to everyone.
If we fail to reach the target of 750,000 starts, including the 200,000 replacements over the next few years, certainly, we shall be in a difficult position. I can only say that the government has no intention of letting that happen, and our record will prove just that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The government has quite a record.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: At the beginning of this year we were optimistic that there would be some slackening in the financial and other pressures which plagued housing during 1966. Nevertheless, hon. members, I submit, must acknowledge that in the years 1964, 1965 and 1966 we had record housing completions in this country. We had three records. We also had record housing starts in 1964 and 1965.
In the budget presentation of last year the Minister of Finance and other representative spokesmen of the government appealed to municipalities, provincial governments and business generally to level out the program of expansion that was bursting at the seams. This had to be done and it has been done. We are now beginning to catch up, notwithstanding the lag in housing starts last year. To stimulate the swing back to housing, to encourage house building at the level that had gone on during 1964, 1965 and 1966 and 27053-164i
Supply-Labour
which was suspended during the last several months of last year, the government introduced in November last a new formula for the establishment of the maximum interest rate which would be permissible under the National Housing Act. This rate was raised to 7J per cent, with provision that there would be automatic adjustments quarterly in accordance with the yield on long-term Canada bonds.
Shortly after changing the interest rate the government moved to release the chartered banks from their previous restriction of a 6 per cent maximum interest rate under the Bank Act, and authorized their participation both in N.H.A. and conventional forms of mortgage lending.
No one can deny, if one studies the figures objectively and fairly, that these incentives not only seemed to help but in fact helped considerably. Bringing the banks back into the picture augurs well for housing in the long run.
It should be obvious to any independent thinker that some time would have to elapse before the banks could fully participate in the program. They were authorized to participate in May, and progress of late has been encouraging. I am sure that the situation is even more encouraging to banks and other lending institutions as a result of the announcement I made last night.
Realizing that it would take some time for the banks to come into the picture and for the pendulum to swing-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Might I ask the minister a question? Could he outline the extent of bank participation since the changes were made in the Bank Act and since the budget? Is that figure available?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes. During the last three or four months the banks have been coming in at a rate of $10 million or so a month. It is increasing gradually. The new interest rate should stimulate lending, and we are encouraged by what is happening. One can hardly expect the banks to put their money into housing when they can put it somewhere else to better advantage. That is one of the reasons for our step of last night.
I might also say that the government, realizing that it would take some time for the measures that we announced last year to permit the banks to really come into the picture, took further steps in January. For the first time in Canadian history a spring speculative

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour
loan program was introduced. This unprecedented move, together with the normal supply of mortgage money and the introduction of the banks into the picture, resulted in an immediate and substantial surge in housing activity in the spring of this year.
By March of 1967 loans under N.H.A. were being processed at a rate four times that of 1966. These loans included not only home ownership loans but very substantial ones for multiple dwellings for rental purposes, primarily in Toronto and other large cities.
Unfortunately, the re-entry of the chartered banks at first fell somewhat short of our expectations, though in fairness I must say that the response has been more encouraging during the last few months. The reason for the lag is not surprising.
While life insurance companies, trust and loan companies historically have directed most of their investment funds to mortgages, the chartered banks in Canada have concentrated their investment and still are, in the more attractive market of consumer loans. These are facts.
Housing, like other forms of real estate, is a particularly inviting investment when the economic cycle has slowed down to an appreciable extent. One can readily confirm that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is the greatest speech I have ever listened to.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: When the economy is in a buoyant state, as it has been for the last three or four years, other fields of enterprise receive the bulk of private support. That support comes not only from the banks but from other private lending institutions.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman-
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have a limited amount of time at my disposal. I will be glad to answer questions at the end of my remarks.
The report of the Economic Council to which I have already referred suggests that action should be taken to protect housing from the effects of this anti-cyclical force to which I have referred. When the economy is in a buoyant state, there is relatively little money for housing; when otherwise, there is more, more money goes into housing. The Economic Council in its report refers to this fact but makes no suggestions as to what might be done to alter the situation. I think this should be and is one of their responsibilities. They make no suggestion as to what might be done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: They are not running the country. You are.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: They are I believe, there to make constructive suggestions occasionally, at least. They are a council set up to advise. Not only do they fail to offer suggestions to correct this situation, but there is nothing new in the statement to which I have referred. Any student of economics could have made the same statement. Not only Canada but other nations have been trying to resolve this problem for many years.
It would be possible, I think, if we wanted to have a completely controlled economy- and I doubt that any of the hon. members directly opposite would favour that-for the government to intrude into the field of private enterprise and create special economic controls which would ensure housing support at all times. But since we have a private enterprise economy I suggest we must strike a balance between the need of funds for housing and the need of funds for other purposes, including social welfare measures, as well as moves to keep the private sector of the economy pulling its weight, for that is where most of our tax revenues come from.
No one would seriously suggest that a person with an income of more than $10,000 a year needs a subsidy. Subsidies are not needed for that type of housing, nor are they needed for luxury travel, for the operation of expensive automobiles, for the purchase of television sets and so on. Surely there is a place in a free enterprise economy for operations of this new interest formula. I say that for those who do not need a subsidy, housing should and must compete with other forms of consumer purchasing. This philosophy was reflected in my announcement last evening of an increase in the maximum permissible N.H.A. rate.
Admittedly-and I make no apologies for it-the new maximum rate will be the highest ever established for lending under the act. But it is a rate which this parliament, or rather a previous parliament, introduced into the act to be used in circumstances such as the present. Make no mistake. Anyone with any knowledge of business in this country will agree that the new rate is a most realistic one in view of the prevailing economic conditions. I might say we have been under heavy pressure for the past year to free the rate entirely. Such action would certainly have given new appeal to N.H.A. mortgages but it is an essential purpose of the act to contain the rate within reasonable boundaries in line with economic conditions, and these
Seplember 28, 1967


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Supply-Labour


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Actual commitments this year already are well in excess of $750 million and up to the end of August more than $500 million had been allocated in direct loans for home ownership and rental housing. This is double the direct assistance that was made available in 1966 which, incidentally, was a record year.
Unfortunately, the rate of expenditure is one which cannot be continued indefinitely, since the allocation of funds for housing must be considered within the framework of the government's total social obligations, in addition to this $500 milliion for direct housing loans, the government has committed very substantial sums to assist in areas of housing which were neglected when hon. members opposite were responsible for the government of the country-areas which did not exist. We have committed substantial sums to those areas of housing where federal authorities have their greatest responsibilities, namely, housing for low income families, housing for senior citizens and students, and loans and grants for urban renewal.
All these activities, regardless of any economic pressures from outside, require vastly increased government programs. It is in this sector that government housing effort is most justified and it is the government's intention to devote a growing portion of federal aid to these vital social aspects of housing.
The following figures will, I believe, be of interest to all hon. members. Nearly $150 million has already been provided this year for public housing projects throughout the ten provinces. A further $21 million has been made available for the construction of low rental accommodation for senior citizens. Almost $54 million has been allocated for student housing. Municipal programs to eliminate blight and enhance general living conditions have been assisted through urban renewal loans and grants totalling upwards of $55 million, while another $29 million has gone to improving municipal sewage facilities. In this field this year more than $300 million has been allocated to areas of the greatest social need-more than the whole annual program of the party opposite when they were in power, more in nine months of the year than they did in their whole program in a full year, including direct loans, I might say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The amendments to the National Housing Act which were approved by parliament in June, 1964, have encouraged provinces to incorporate their own housing

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour
corporations or agencies. They had not done so previously. They have organized now to co-operate in programs to provide housing for low income families and the elderly. Since the passing of the revisions in 1964, agencies have been or are being formed in eight out of the ten provinces. The same 1964 amendments opened new opportunities for provincial action in the field of public housing as an alternative, at their option, to joint federal-provincial participation. They offer the provinces long-term low interest loans equal to 90 per cent of the cost of the project. Our low rental homes program has enjoyed marked success as witnessed by the fact that in one province at least 90 per cent of the money they invest is being put up by the federal government. In other cases 75 per cent of the funds is put up by the federal government.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
As a result of this 1964 legislation-and I think these figures are interesting-16,000 public housing units have been placed under the federal-provincial arrangements and under the 90 per cent loan-assisted program. That is 16,000 units in a little over 30 months, as against 11,700 units in the previous 15 years. It is encouraging that we are making progress at this time and bringing the provinces and municipalities actively into the picture, but it has taken enabling legislation to do so.
In addition to the substantial support being given to the public housing programs, I am anxious to expand substantially the activities of limited dividend housing corporations which were active for the first year or two but which seem to have been quietly forgotten in recent years.
During my visit earlier this year to the ten provinces I emphasized that limited dividend housing corporations can effectively provide, with federal or provincial funds, housing for low income families as well as for elderly persons. I have encouraged the provinces, municipalities and charitable organizations to move into this field. I have also undertaken-and this will be implemented promptly-to make the adjustments in rent levels which are permitted, and as well and perhaps more importantly, in the maximum income qualification. This is because a person cannot get a house financed by a limited dividend corporation if he has an income in excess of $5,000. The provinces, after getting advice from the municipalities if they wish to do so, may recommend the rent level that they think appropriate in a particular case.

We all know, Mr. Chairman, that there is no easy answer to the complex problem of housing production and to the allied problems that arise from urban renewal and development. This is particularly true in the metropolitan cities of Canada. I refer not just to Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver or Winnipeg but to cities ranging down in size to the city of Hamilton.
Mr. Chairman, the availability of mortgage funds, while it is a very important factor, is only one factor. Even if we had the market for double the quantity of housing next year as well as the ability to build that number -say 300,000-it would require ancillary services far beyond the capacity of our provinces and municipalities to provide, certainly beyond the capacity of the municipalities.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, there are many problems affecting the production of housing that can be resolved only by local or provincial initiative, including the supply of land, zoning, urban planning and building by-laws.
While there is absolutely no question, as I have readily conceded at the outset, that housing is a matter of grave national concern, I must say that in view of our rapidly expanding population the problem is bound to be with us indefinitely in those areas where growth takes place. For example, Toronto; when I first visited Toronto at the end of the first war it had a population of about 600,000 but it is now nearly four times that size and nearly one-third of its population has come from other countries.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must interrupt the minister to advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I thank hon. members for their co-operation. I will not be much longer because I know hon. gentlemen wish to make their contribution and they may have a few questions to ask.
As I way saying, Mr. Chairman, Toronto is perhaps the best example in Canada of situations such as this, partly because of the unusually high percentage of new Canadians who have moved to that city within a relatively short period of time. This situation
September 28, 1967

requires that federal, provincial and municipal governments work together in closest cooperation in order to provide the long-range planning which is necessary to supply the services to meet a greatly enlarged housing program.
We all know perfectly well that in Toronto there are no serviced housing lots available at a price much less than $12,000 per lot. We also know that in some of the municipalities surrounding the city of Toronto the problem is that the town councils would like to see more apartment buildings erected within their boundaries, not individual homes. The reason for this is very simple. More schools are required and the municipalities need money to pay the teachers; yet the major tax base is in the city of Toronto. This is true in every large metropolitan area in the country. There must therefore be joint planning and a joint course of action by the three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. This is necessary in order to provide for the arterial roads that are needed, serviced lands, schools, churches, shopping facilities and all the other pieces that go to make up our urban fabric.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
As I said at the outset, I welcome wholeheartedly this debate because it gives me an opportunity to invite not just criticism-I welcome it and no one should be in public life if he is not prepared to take it; you have to have broad shoulders and take it with a smile-but constructive suggestions from hon. members directed toward a solution of this problem of major national importance. Criticism is relatively easy for partisan politicians, but we want helpful suggestions.
I do not want hon. members to think that this housing problem has not been given a great deal of thought by me and by others. Suggestions have been made by members of the house and representations were made in the first three months of this year while I was visiting the different cities in all parts of Canada that real encouragement would be given to home ownership if the interest portion of mortgage payments, were deductible for income tax purposes. There is nothing new about that. I understand that it was most successful in Germany in the years subsequent to 1948. It has also been suggested to me that speculation in land holdings may be reduced if a capital gains tax or some other technique were used to prevent excessive profits in the disposal of land held for speculation. There are cases where lots were acquired for $1,200 or $1,500 and after sitting
Supply-Labour
there for 10 or 15 years or so are now worth $12,000 or $14,000. Municipalities and provinces are deeply involved in this kind of suggestion, but two of the provinces actually collect income taxes. This type of suggestion deserves very serious consideration but it could not be put into operation without the consent of the provinces.
There are other factors affecting the production and cost of housing which involve the municipalities and provinces in a very real way. It is partly for these reasons that I made a suggestion to the Prime Minister-others may have made it but I know I did some time ago-that some form of federal-provincial discussion take place to enable urban development in Canada to keep pace with requirements in a realistic and practical way. Unfortunately, with three provincial elections going on we are not likely to have this in the next six or eight weeks, I am convinced, however, that such a conference should be held and it should be held this fall if possible. At least it should be held early in the new year if not before the end of this year.
Housing is an area in which all of us regardless of party affiliation share a common concern. Let us have constructive criticism and constructive suggestions during today's debate.


Mr. Chaiferton:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a
question of the minister? In view of the small amount of usage with regard to the loans for existing housing is the minister considering an increase in the amount?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is under constant review. I might say that as yet the applications we have received for loans do not indicate that there should be an increase in the level of the ceiling. They are coming in now at the rate of about 600 or so a month. The average loan is less than $9,000. There are hundreds, literally tens of thousands, of houses in the Atlantic region, Ontario, Quebec and the prairie provinces where home owners can move to advantage at the present level. We are trying to allocate the amount of money available to help the largest number of people rather than limit the number. Until the program has been in force for at least a number of months, I think it would be unwise to change the ceiling. However, this ceiling is constantly under study.


Mr. Scott (Danforth):: I believe the minister said that the average amount of the loans is approximately $9,000.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: For older houses, yes

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour


Reid Scott: Yes. Does the minister understand that there are literally thousands and thousands of people buying homes, for example in Toronto, where the amount of the loan required is far in excess of the maximum loan and that therefore it would be nothing but an exercise in futility to make an application. I would be glad to supply the minister with numerous examples. In view of this, why is the government not now prepared to give consideration to this matter and enact legislation to increase the maximum amount? What is the use of a person applying for a $10,000 loan when he needs $14,000 in order to buy a house?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The answer is simple. We are receiving an increasing number of applications from all parts of Canada. At first when this procedure for loans on existing houses was new people did not know about it, but it is increasing in tempo. That was particularly evident in Winnipeg when I was there discussing housing matters on Monday of this week. I do believe that we should have at least another few months experience before we consider increasing the level.


Reid Scott: If it is working there, good luck to them, but what is the use of making an application in an area like Toronto or Ottawa where the loan requirement is $13,000 or $14,000 and the maximum allowance is $10,000. It is ridiculous. Why are you not prepared to increase the maximum amount to $15,000 or $16,000 and see what happens, thereby giving the people in the cities a chance to get in on this legislation?


An hon. Member:: No answer as usual.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: The other day, in relation to his capacity as Minister of Labour, the minister spoke of task forces and anticipatory forces being set up under his direction to probe developing situations on the labour front and to anticipate problems which might appear on the labour front so that there could be planning to meet these problems. I think that statement was enthusiastically received by people all across Canada. My question to the minister at this point simply is, are a similar approach and attitude being brought to bear on this other area of his capacity so that in the future the recurring chronic crises in housing can perhaps be planned for, anticipated and headed off?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: There is considerable merit in that suggestion. This is not the first time it

has been made, but it certainly is a meritorious one. I have given very serious thought to recommending that either a committee of this house or of the two houses of parliament study this matter so that their views can be placed before the federal-provincial conference when it is held.


Mr. Keays:: Mr. Chairman, for the first time in this house we have seen a minister who is responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation act in a belligerent way-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Russell Keays: -in addressing the house. I did not believe the minister had the capability of doing so. I can only say that it must be a camouflage to draw the attention of the Canadian people away from the real crisis in this country in the domain of housing. The minister has endeavoured to go back over the years and refer to the records of previous governments, fully realizing that Canada is a young and growing nation and that the forecast of the experts was that more family units would be formed in the years 1966 to 1970. He goes back to statistics in order to prove that with a population of 20 million the same principle can be applied that applied to a population of 15 million or 16 million.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This is an exercise in futility, Mr. Chairman, which will not answer or solve the serious problem now facing the Canadian nation. There is a serious crisis in Canada and it will not be solved by merely repeating statistics. We must be more realistic and get down to basic thinking. This government has never done that. It seems to be more interested in political expediency than in anything else, and it refuses to stand up and admit to the Canadian people that the position it adopted and followed over a period of three years is one which is now causing the deep concern that all Canadians have today.
The minister knew of the projected estimates and the estimated housing requirements and he has taken action at a snail's pace. By referring to the government's record of ten years ago he has hoped to camouflage the inefficiency of his administration in so far as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is concerned. We do not have to go back very far to see the true picture. Statistics from the Canadian Housing Review show that housing starts declined
September 28, 1967

from an annual rate of 151,000 units last July to 146,000 in August. The house construction industry is normally very active in the summer months, and when we note that in the middle of the summer there is a decline in housing starts we can be sure we are in for a serious disappointment in the fall of the year.
N.H.A. activity in respect of approved loans remained relatively low in August with loan applications in the amount of 877 units. This was 5.1 per cent below the year before in respect of seasonal adjustments. This represents an annual rate of about 10,500 units. With a situation like this in a young, growing country such as ours with so many new families we can expect a disastrous 1968.
The announcement made by the minister last night about the increase in the interest rate was no great surprise to prospective home owners and potential investors. The home owner has come to know this government as one that operates with patch-up legislation, interim measures, ill-conceived, unsuitable and not very well thought out policies for the Canadian people. It is obvious that this announcement was not surprising to potential home owners in view of the criticism which has been levelled at the government over the past few years by those who have aspired to the ownership of shelters. This criticism has been so intensive the government has been forced finally to throw out the challenge to those who supply the source of funds by allowing this fantastic increase in the interest rates.
It is not surprising that the government had to delve deep into the old practices to find justification for increasing the rate to 1 per cent above that which was suggested by the minister some six months ago. The shortage of homes in Canada is reaching such an alarming proportion we are witnessing in our large centres and rural areas great stress and mental suffering on the part of prospective home owners. This is the result of the turmoil into which these people have been thrown by the actions of the government.
Let me refer to a statement made by the minister on April 10, 1967, as recorded at page 14704 of Hansard. In answer to a question that day the Minister of Labour said:
There is no fixed date. It is in line with the return, the long-term yield on government bonds and. as already forecast, it has dropped to 7 per cent. It is the government's hope that there will be a further drop before long under the formula announced last December.
What a formula that was, Mr. Chairman. It resulted in an increase from 7 per cent to 27053-165
Supply-Labour
8{ per cent in the interest rate charged to those who make loans to purchase shelters in which they may raise their families. The announcement yesterday was not unexpected by the suppliers of funds. They knew that the government's policy was short term and they were convinced that soon they would receive an increased return on their investment far out of proportion to the return they could receive from government bonds or securities.
Recently the Minister of Finance, recognizing the inflationary trend, urged restraint on the part of business, labour and provincial governments while at the same time increasing federal government spending. This is the old squeeze that only has the effect of increasing the cost of production to the consumer at a time of spiralling costs and excessive salary increases. This can have no other effect than additional costs causing strain and suffering for those who only a few years ago thought their reserves were sufficient to meet the costs of the projects which they had planned so well.
There has been government apathy in so far as this problem is concerned. As long ago as December of last year the president of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation stated that we needed 170,000 starts in 1967. He said there would be an acute shortage of housing and that we required a total production of 750,000 units in the next four years. What has the government done about this?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Has the government heeded the warning that was given to them? They have done nothing whatsoever. The only thing they have done is to have the minister go across the country holding seminars and telling the provincial and municipal governments that they too have a responsibility with regard to housing. But the fiscal measures of this government have not allowed the provincial governments sufficient funds with which to fulfil their obligations.
We heard the minister today trying to justify the position his government has taken. He seemed cornered and had to rely upon statistics to prove that there was an increase in house construction. If we cannot look forward from year to year to increases in housing demands, increases in population, etc., it is time we turned the government of this country over to a party that is able to foresee the future.
I agree with the minister when he says that housing is also a provincial and a municipal responsibility. I can only say, however, that

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour
in this field which is concerned with the national welfare of our citizens the national government has a solemn duty to take the initiative and bring together those bodies which are provincial creations and are concerned with this matter. Unfortunately the minister's message has not come through. This problem has not been caused because the provincial governments have been indifferent to it. It has been caused, rather, through the fiscal policies of the government which have made it impossible for the provinces to fulfil their obligations in the field of housing and in many other sectors of the economy.
We may argue the pros and cons of the minister's statement, but it remains crystal clear that the government has refused not only in the last few months but in the last few years to look forward and plan fiscal policies to meet changing conditions. Statements have been made by those on the government benches that the government is going to reconsider its position and make funds available on a priority basis. This is a futile intention on the part of the government because priority in each department of government has a different meaning. For reasons of political expediency every member on the government front benches finds a reason why his program should not be changed.
If the government had really intended to cut back on government expenditures it would have postponed some of those projects which are not intended to be productive. The end result, however, is that the government is short of funds in important sectors of the economy such as housing and the people of Canada have to suffer the consequences.
What is the nature of the housing problem? Is it predominantly of a social character? I say it is, because it touches the very life of the family. The problem in this field is causing undue hardship to many of our wage earners. The problem is constantly with us because we are a growing nation. It has often been said in the house that by the end of the 1960's housing starts and completions would have to be at an annual rate of 200,000 units. Added to this figure, of course, are replacement demands amounting to approximately
50,000	units per year.
We can see, therefore, that we have an important goal to attain. The minister in his statement of last year had every confidence that the measures he was proposing would meet this demand. Unfortunately, the experience of the last few months has proven that the figure of houses completed has dropped

away below expectations and housing starts have dropped by an alarming degree. The prospects of attaining our goal are dim indeed.
When we look at the record of the government in the field of housing we find they have been an accomplice in those factors which have increased the cost of housing and land by approximately 35 per cent within the last four years. Adding to the cost of housing is the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. This tax has been constantly opposed by my party. Adding to the cost of housing is the higher cost of labour because of, as I mentioned earlier, urgent demands for increases in salaries to meet the higher cost of living. Also adding to this problem is the short-term policy of the government which allowed land speculation to be abnormal.
Another factor in this problem is the cost of building materials which has risen beyond any normal increase because of inflationary pressures and the high cost of production. In this respect we have a government that is continually endeavouring to drive a corkscrew deeper and deeper into the festering social fibre of the family.
It is true that the new rate announced by the minister will not affect the interest rates on loans for public housing projects for families of low income, housing for older persons, student housing, urban renewal and sewage treatment projects. However, when we consider the effects the increase in the interest rate will have we immediately see that we have eliminated from the market all those with incomes ranging from $4,000 to $8,000. The people in this wage bracket represent a large majority of the wage earners of Canada.
I have every sympathy with those who have to live in public housing projects. It is the duty of government to help those who have not the necessary resources for the maintenance of their families, to intercede and give comfort to those families. This government is not preoccupied at the moment, and should not be, with those who want a $50,000 house, because funds are available right across the country for those who need such houses.
But I ask the government to think of those families whose income is between $4,000 and $8,000. These families will never again be able to own a house in Canada. The government has eliminated the majority of wage earners in this country from owning a home. Any government that does this has failed in
September 28, 1967

its responsibility to provide good administration. If a worker has an income of $8,000 a year he will not be able now to buy a house costing $15,000 or $18,000. Add to the payments of capital and interest those for school and municipal taxes, add income taxes, both federal and provincial, add the cost of maintenance of the house, and you will find that families with an income of $7,000 or $8,000 a year will become indigent and will have to come to the government of this country asking for help in an effort to subsist.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This is a sad state of affairs. When you deprive wage earners in the $4,000 to $8,000 bracket of the possibility of ever owning a house, you are doing the greatest injustice that has ever been done by any government to any people in any land. I hope the government's policy with regard to low income wage earners will be continued so that we will give to them all those facilities to which they are entitled, but I also ask that the middle income group be given the same facilities to which all Canadians are entitled.
The minister is well aware of the fact that in view of the present costs it is practically impossible even to consider the construction of a home costing less than $15,000. The repayment of principal and interest plus the annual taxes calculated on a monthly basis must not exceed 27 per cent of the gross annual income, so it can be stated that a person earning $6,000 a year cannot qualify for a loan because after his monthly payments are made the balance left puts him into the category of a low income earner. It can therefore be said that no one earning under $8,000 a year can qualify for a loan under the policy laid down by the government. This is a serious state of affairs because, as I have mentioned previously, we have deprived the majority of the Canadian people of the possibility of owning a home and this strikes at the very heart of our social structure in Canada.
It is all very well to criticize the government for policies which do not seem to meet the views of another party, but I believe it is also our responsibility to be able to suggest what must be done to meet the crisis and alleviate the problem. First and foremost we must consider the necessity of conducting research into housing and its problems in so far as the cost and quality of housing are concerned. We note that housing has been an industry where such research has been lacking, and it is the government's responsibility to order intensive research in this domain.
Supply-Labour
Research is mandatory in regard to urban development more than in other areas because our cities are younger, more spread out and flexible than cities in the order parts of Europe and the conglomerations in the United States. It is important that more intensive research be carried out into urban renewal and recreational facilities for those living in these areas. A more drastic drive must be made in order to encourage private enterprise to make funds available to meet the demands on the financial market. It seems strange to me that our Canadian financial institutions cannot meet the challenge extended to them, because the security on housing loans afforded them by the government is greater and more lucrative than on investments that can be made in corporations. I am not stating that they should keep away from corporate investments, but surely they would be encouraged to invest an important part of their portfolio in housing in Canada.


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


James Russell Keays: I will permit one as soon as I am through.
I was rather amused at the minister's statement in which he encouraged investors to lend money at a rate below the ceiling which has just been authorized. I would hate to believe that the refusal by private enterprise to invest money is caused by the feeling of insecurity which these people have with regard to the government. Therefore it is very important that the government give heed to these fears and assure the financial community of our country that it intends to establish strict fiscal policies and put our economy on a stable and projected long-term base. Urban development is not encouraged. Long delays in servicing land, the extravagant standards which are demanded and the complexity of municipal laws and regulations all add to the cost of housing projects and cause a lack of interest among project builders.
Surely we should have thought of devising new ways of raising money for housing. It would seem to me that the issuance of debentures, guaranteed by the government, by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could create interest among people with small savings and encourage them to put their money in these secured investments which would provide a rate of interest comparable with that on government bonds ot good corporate investments. Had this plan been adopted some years ago we would have had enough cash

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour
inflow to meet the financial demands of the day.
I could go on for a long time exposing the housing problems of Canada. However, I do hope above all that the government will reassure the financial community of this country that it is serious in trying to curtail expenditures which are not productive and that it will give to the average taxpayer of this country the incentive to invest his savings in housing for the good of all Canadians.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was good enough to say that he would permit a question. I wish to ask him one in connection with one of the statements he made. He spoke about the fact that the new interest rate would adversely affect people in the low income range. Does he know that from among those who have borrowed in excess of $500 million this year more than half the borrowers have incomes between $4,000 and $7,000 a year?


James Russell Keays: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to dispute that fact in any way but I think every member of the house and every Canadian knows quite well about the per cent interest rate on loans, and if these people are in the $4,000 to $7,000 bracket they will never be able to meet their responsibilities.
Mr. Scot! (Danforth): Mr. Chairman, in speaking on behalf of the New Democratic party perhaps I could start by making a few comments on the minister's speech. Over the years the minister has treated us to some rather interesting statements in trying to defend that which is indefensible. But his speech today certainly took the cake. If you boil it down to one or two sentences, the minister is trying to tell us that there is no shortage of housing. We have too many people in Canada and the housing shortage is really some rumour spread by all the people who cannot buy homes. That appears to be his attitude.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
He has accused us of being partisan on this issue. Everybody knows that we are not partisan in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Mr. Scot! (Danforih): We never take partisan positions in the opposition. We are here only to make solid, sound, constructive proposals and to speak on behalf of the people. As I say, we never take partisan positions.

The government's attitude on housing is reflected by the fact that to get at the housing problem we had to wait for the estimates of the Department of Labour to be discussed. That, I think, epitomizes the attitude of this government. At Ottawa housing has never been accepted as a prime responsibility. It has been kicked from one minister to another over the years. The Minister of Labour has been so busy settling strikes and other things that he has never had a chance to direct his attention to the problems of the housing industry of this country.
I wish to say two things mainly about the increase in the interest rate to 8i per cent. First, I think the public should be made aware of what the increase means to them. The normal purchaser buying an N.H.A. house with a $15,000 mortgage will repay on that $15,000 over 35 years $46,725. If the $15,000 mortgage runs only for 30 years he will repay $40,050. That is a pretty drastic critique of the new Liberal politics we were led to expect.
Equally important, it must be pointed out that no matter how much money is put into mortgages under N.H.A., homes will be built that the vast majority of Canadians cannot afford to buy in any event. We should stop hoodwinking the public that by coming into the house and mouthing statistics about the amount of money going into mortgages the government is in any way beginning to attack the housing shortage. It is not. We are misleading the public, and the sooner we stop doing that and face the facts the sooner we shall get down to serious discussion.
In a way I wish I could dislike the minister. It is always easier to go after somebody you do not like. But the minister is a likeable person. When he first got his portfolio many of us hoped he would make a serious attack on the housing shortage of this country. We gave him several years relatively free from criticism in the hope that progress could be made. But after all is said and done, what has happened is that the new lieutenant governor of British Columbia is shortly to leave us, leaving behind this mess that we have inherited. So for as I am concerned, his greatest contribution to the housing crisis would have been had he remained postmaster general.
A prominent political figure in Ontario discussed the new interest rate on the radio yesterday. He said that it was an absolutely frightening figure-and he happens to be the Liberal leader in the province of Ontario. That was his method of endorsing the new interest rate that is to come into effect.
September 28, 1967

The minister asked us to do two things, to be critical and to try in some small measure to be constructive. Of course, as good members of the opposition we are always interested in being constructive. The real problem in housing today in Canada as I see it is that no level of government will be honest enough with the public to admit that a housing crisis exists, though it is apparent everywhere. You cannot travel throughout this country without seeing the critical situation of housing. In my opinion it is the most urgent social problem we are faced with. The shortage is not confined to places like Toronto; it is present in rural areas and in small towns. It is a problem which exists across this country from one ocean to the other. For the minister, therefore, to get up and suggest to us who represent the various areas of this country that there is no problem is fatuous. His whole speech was an exercise in fatuous frolicking. It did not come to grips with the problem.
I wish that for once the government of this country would say: There is a problem and we are prepared to co-operate to try to solve it. Instead, every time that we raise the matter the minister gets up with a whole batch of statistics to floor us with his rhetoric and say, "There is no problem. It is a kind of isolated thing which, if we close our eyes, may some day go away." That is all he told us today. We simply will not solve the housing crisis in this country unless this government and other governments are prepared to say: We admit there is a problem.
We are not saying that the federal government is wholly to blame. This problem has arisen since the second world war and it is a product of the inattention, lassitude and apathy not just of the federal government but of all the provincial governments and municipal authorities. Everyone must share the blame. But for heaven's sake let us admit that it exists and try to get down to constructive action. Let us try to assess the problem and deal with it. If the government would only do that we should be on our way to some sort of solution. Instead, the minister persists in his fatuous position that there is no problem and that there is only isolated difficulty here and there which can be dealt with by unloading a lot of mortgage money.
The minister talked about private enterprise and said that it could solve the problem. I am not criticizing private enterprise. It goes where the money is. That is its job. But in no country of the world has private enterprise
Supply-Labour
solved the housing problem of the majority of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Reid Scott: September 28, 1967
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Another thing for which we have been asking, though I know our request has fallen on deaf ears, is a ministry of housing and urban affairs staffed by a full-time minister. How in heaven's name can you expect a man to tackle the greatest social problem that we have when he is constantly beset with the problems of labour? Perhaps he does do a good job in that field. I do not know and there are other opinions, but certainly the minister cannot perform both tasks.
What is the use of educating our children and spending billions of dollars to that end if they and other people of Canada are not adequately housed? There is no possible way of solving the problem except by the appointment of a minister of housing and urban affairs. I say this because the greatest problem that we are going to face in the next 20 years is what I call the urbanization of Canada. We are becoming a country of city dwellers. Before very long 80 to 85 per cent of our people will live in cities or in great metropolitan areas. I see the minister nodding his head in agreement.
The housing crisis is an obvious one, Mr. Chairman, because it is the first problem that epitomizes the dilemma of urbanization. But it is only the first problem. Other enormous problems loom ahead such as sewage disposal, water pollution and transportation, as well as cultural problems. The difficulties that lie ahead are fantastic and housing is but the first problem we run into. We have not solved it yet; indeed, we have not even got down to the business of solving it.
Three years ago I made a speech on housing in the course of which I analysed in great detail the housing question and recounted some of the short-term and long-term measures. At that time I pleaded with the minister to appoint a royal commission on urbanization which could travel across the country and find out what our needs are going to be, what type of housing will be required, where it will be built and what type of financing will be necessary. I asked the minister to set up a royal commission so as to provide a blueprint for the next 20 years.
We are fighting in the dark, Mr. Chairman. We do not have the statistical background which is required to analyse the whole broad spectrum of urbanization in this country. Nothing has been done in this regard, of course, because none of us really expected it to take place. If the minister had foreseen this event we would be in a position today to

decide what kind of problem we face and to put forward possible solutions. Instead we are wallowing around with the crisis becoming worse every day and the actions of the federal government becoming less every day, in spite of what the minister says.
My remarks being of a general nature, I also want to remind the minister of this facet. Three years ago I pleaded with the minister to get away from the C.M.H.C. boys, to travel across the country instead of letting them surround him with their phony statistics which they use to buttress their entrenched position. I suggested that if the minister did this he would be in a better position to analyse the problem. At that time I told him I envied him. When he became Minister of Labour and part time minister of housing I said he would have the chance to change the face of this country. That would have been his mark, I suppose, certainly his memorial. However, this did not happen, and we on this side of the house are very disappointed in the minister, likeable though he may be. The minister has not been a successful minister in the field of housing.
There are many other things one could say, Mr. Chairman. For example, the minister quoted from the report of the Economic Council. For years we were told that when we talked about housing we were indulging in a lot of partisan politics, that we were just taking advantage of the situation. I do not know how the government can say that now. The report vindicates the position that all parties in the opposition have taken over the years. The report tears to shreds the housing program of the government. It shows it to be nothing less than inadequate, shortsighted, lacking in planning, lacking in financing-in short, lacking everything that is required for a proper housing program. The report of the Economic Council is not the product of partisan politics. It carries the weight of the most responsible group in Canada which we in this chamber created. It makes clear that there is no housing program at Ottawa at all.
The minister also talked about mortgages. For years we have asked both him and the government to create some sort of regular source of mortgage funds. One of the problems of my builder clients is that they never know whom to approach for funds. In Canada mortgage money has been turned on and off like a tap in order to meet economic needs. The Economic Council points out that housing has been treated as a pump primer and it is severely critical of this fact. When things look bad a billion dollars of mortgage
September 28, 1987

money is thrown into the market; when the economy is good the flow is cut off and the building industry is ruined.
This sort of situation has been perpetuated over the years. Clients of mine have gone bankrupt because, having started projects with the promise that they would get the money, Ottawa has then turned of! the tap and the projects have had to be abandoned. Therefore I suggest that the government has never treated the supply of mortgage money as a permanent need because it has never accepted housing as a proper social requirement. This is another criticism that has been made over the years.
The problem that the minister tried to solve a year or two ago has not been resolved. There is now no adequate machinery for consultation among the provinces, the municipalities and the federal government. Without it there is absolutely no hope of ever solving the housing crisis.
Most of the points which will be developed in detail will be handled by other members of our party as the debate proceeds, but in closing I want to reiterate what I said earlier. Like the minister, all of us are concerned about this problem. All of us are wrestling with it, looking for a solution. But there can be no solution until the government in Ottawa declares, first of all, that there is a crisis, second, that it is prepared to grapple with it and, third, that it is prepared to begin working the problem out by setting up a ministry devoted to housing needs and nothing else.
Even if the government took this step, Mr. Chairman, I do not think there would be any quick solution. There are inadequacies everywhere. The minister talks of 16,000 public housing units; Toronto alone is short of 25,000. Only 3 per cent of our housing production is devoted to public housing needs as against 12 to 25 per cent in most other developing countries. So we are a long way behind even in this regard.
Neither is there a program to meet the needs of the old age pensioners. In my constituency old age pensioners cannot rent homes if they have only their old age pension because they do not have sufficient funds to pay the rent. They would need to supplement their income. I suggest that most young people in the country today who are getting married will never own a home as long as they live. This is a pretty serious situation for our country.


Mr. Ryan:: That is a pretty wild statement.
Supply-Labour


Reid Scott: My hon. friend from Spadina interjects. I hope he will make a speech and give us the benefit of his remarks. The hon. member says that is a wild statement.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I should like to ask the hon. member how he is so positive that the province of Ontario is so eager to co-operate. How does he know that?


Reid Scott: Because, Mr. Chairman, I have done what this government has not done; I have talked to the officials in Ontario.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit another question? Does he know of a single application for a public housing loan which has come to Ottawa in the last few years that has not been dealt with very promptly?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Reid Scott: That is not the point. My criticism is that members of the government sit in their seats and wait for people to come to them. Where is the leadership? Parliament passes a law-and we in this chamber were glad to pass it-and then hon. gentlemen opposite sit on their "fannies" and do nothing to see that it is carried out. That is the big problem. The hon. gentleman and his friends should get out and sell this legislation to the public. This is what they are not doing, and this is why public housing in this country is a joke. It is failing because the government declines to go out and sell its own program. I recognize that the minister does not have the time to do all this. He is a part time minister, and we regret that. There are plenty of teeth in the National Housing Act if it is properly used, but at the present time it is not being promoted properly.
I wish we could all accept the fact of the housing crisis. We are not talking about statistics but about people who are suffering. They are not rows of figures such as the minister reads into the pages of Hansard. They are citizens of this country and they deserve better treatment than they have been getting at the hands of the government.
If we do not begin to make a serious attack on the housing problems of our growing cities, future parliaments will curse us. We have the affluence, we have the facts, if we could assemble them, we have the knowledge, we have the technical skills that are required, we have the manpower. All that is needed is the will. If we had the will we could solve Canada's housing crisis.
Supply-Labour

September 28, 1967


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, while we are dealing with the estimates relating to the National Housing Act, I should like to make a few remarks to the minister responsible for the application of the act and denounce the decision of the government to increase the rate of interest to 8J per cent of which the minister advised the house yesterday. That rate applies to housing construction and, of course, low-price housing will suffer most from it.
The minister knows full well that housing needs are high in Canada and that they are felt almost exclusively by those who have little or no income: the destitute, the poor, the economically weak as some like to call them. It is therefore especially at that level that the housing problem exists today. Almost every day we read in our newspapers of protests made by building contractors or housing organizations, of provinces, in short, the whole country, against the attitude of the government towards housing generally.
Those people complain mostly about the lack of funds made available for housing projects, because of the increased demand for homes due to the greater number of weddings in Canada. We shall return to that subject later on, because statistics have been submitted to us to that effect.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the recent government decision to raise the rate of interest to 81 per cent will further prevent people from owning their own homes. The previous speaker mentioned some calculations that have been made, and I should also like to deal with the effect of that increase and comment on its results.
That increase to 81 per cent for a $15,000 loan over a 15 year period will cost $31,059.30 in interest only, or a total of over $46,000 for a house after 35 years. Mr. Chairman, that means that whoever wants to own a home will have to pay twice to the financier who is profiting from this legislation. We, of the Ralliement creditiste are opposed to this state of affairs and will fight it.
A while ago, towards the end of his speech, the minister asked us for suggestions. Yet he has had some coming from all parts of the country, from representatives of building associations as well as from representatives of homeowners associations. My suggestion to the minister this afternoon is to regulate the situation. It is known, for instance, that a man who marries at 30 or 35 years of age -possibly earlier-waits a few years before

buying a home then he buys a $15,000 home on a 35-year plan and when his house is paid up, he will be aged 65 or 70. By that time, after 35 years, if he has made no repairs on his house, it will be a slum, it will be obsolete and possibly unfit for occupation. The financial trick is apparent. Through the National Housing Act of 1954, financiers lend money to build such houses. They have no repairs or maintenance to handle, they are taking no risk because of the government guarantee on the one hand and, on the other, there is insurance against fire or loss. So, they will pocket $31,059 without any risk on the construction of a home, a $15,000 house, o (4:50 p.m.)
That is a source of inflation and makes it impossible for most Canadian families to own their own home. When one is a homeowner, one pays rent throughout one's life and, in the end, one realizes that the title is on a worthless house.
The real owners of our residential buildings are the financiers. We bear the financiers no grudge as such, but we want our Canadian families to really own their homes. We want it to be possible for them to have a home of their own, without having to pay the financiers for two other houses.
Mr. Chairman, we are asking the government, the minister responsible for the National Housing Act to use the Bank of Canada to make credit available so that loans can be made available and this credit should be put in circulation without cost except administration.
Every time a new house is built, the credit for the amount it has cost should be put into circulation, free from interest and should not be considered as a debt. And every time a house is destroyed, whether because it is falling to pieces with age or otherwise, the same amount could be withdrawn from circulation, thus avoiding inflationary risks. In my opinion, it is the only way for the minister and the government to settle the housing problem in Canada. I cannot see any other way out. Nobody, so far, has ever suggested any plan or offered any valid answer to this problem except that of using the Bank of Canada, an institution which belongs to us, Canadians, and which ought to lend its services to Canadians who need a house and are entitled thereto.
This is my suggestion to the minister. If he can prove it does not make any sense, I am ready to change my mind, provided he gives
September 28, 1967

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour
income and for the aged have almost been a failure.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In Toronto, the Social Planning Metropolitan Council has made it known that we had missed by 56 per cent the goal set for a five-year period ending in 1963. Only 2,500 new housing units for the aged have been built in the Toronto metropolitan area. Still fewer low rental family units have been built. An objective of 5,000 units had been set, but only 352 were built, that is 7 per cent of the objective.
In Montreal, the situation is even worse. Thousands of houses are shared by two families and many other families with four or five children or even more live in two rooms.
The director of the Montreal board of social services, Mr. Pierre Laplante, has accurately described the conditions at the end of May 1966 at a meeting attended by civil and religious authorities. The newspaper Le Devoir of June 1 also referred to them.
I am now quoting Le Devoir of June 1966:
Mr. Laplante complained that hundreds of houses have been demolished in blighted areas with the help a wide publicity campaign, but that nothing had been built afterwards . . . neither the new C.B.C. building nor low rental housing units. He explained that the families thus expelled from their decrepit homes had to seek refuge in other homes just as decrepit. "In the last few years, he stated, a great many homes have been demolished, it is true, but for the purpose of building skyscrapers and apartment buildings for millionaires. Now, the lots cleared of their unsanitary dwellings are becoming residential districts for rich people and, as a result, the poor must find shelter elsewhere."
Mr. Laplante added that downtown Montreal is the most densely populated area in North America (11,000 inhabitants per square mile) or 88,000 families whose average annual income barely exceeds $3,000.
Mr. Chairman, could the head of a family then seriously consider owning a home when he barely earns $3,000 and he would have to meet monthly instalments of $140 or $150, without including the cost of maintenance? It is unthinkable.
And now, back to the article:
Almost 70 per cent of those families live in extremely difficult circumstances, if not in the most abject poverty. "The children, he said, wear hand-me-downs from their grandfathers and green expanses are practically non-existent. Just open the front door and you are on the pavement."
And Mr. Laplante added: "In this narrow strip of land, lives a strata of the population that never sees the sun."
Well then, Mr. Speaker, the situation which prevailed in Montreal in 1966 is very much the same to-day and perhaps even worse
[Mr. Laprise.l
since I believe that because of Expo, housebuilding may have slackened.
Mr. Chairman, in the face of such a situation and in view of the need for new houses, I feel that instead of increasing interest rates, the minister should give some thought to cutting it down so as to allow more Canadian families to have decent houses built, in order to give them a sense of ownership rather than the feeling they are just tenants at the service of financial interests.
The fourth annual report of the Economic Council of Canada states very clearly our housing requirements until 1970; according to that report, there should be at least 200,000 housing starts every year up to 1970. Again, Mr. Chairman, that will not keep up with the increased requirements, because with 200,000 units a year we will not even make up for lost time, since we are already quite late in the field of housing construction.
Those are the few comments I wanted to offer the minister, since we are discussing the housing problem in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, it is not by increasing the cost of housing that we will solve this problem, but rather by reducing it. Let us make the borrowing facilities available to the builders, available to the public. We may offer as many facilities as we want, but if housing costs continue to rise, as is now the case, if rental costs keep going up, as is now the case, families, heads of families will never become home-owners, and I think that the workers have the right to home ownership, in order to feel at home in a house, with a front and a back yard, and a lawn to rest after their working day, a place where they could grow a few things, do a little gardening and plant some flowers, because they will be happy to own a piece of their homeland. It is only then that we shall have real patriots willing to defend their homeland because they will own a part of it.
Mr. Chairman, everybody has a right to live in his own home, in a single house which will be his only, and the duty of the government is to take the necessary steps to help him to reach this aim.
Now, I think that if the minister and his government will try a little and look for solutions, they have only to address themselves to the governor of the Bank of Canada and give him the necessary orders to create credit as quickly as the houses we shall be able to build. When this is done, we can rest assured that it will not take very long before everybody gets his own house in Canada.
September 28, 1967


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, a few months ago parliament increased the bank interest rate. At that time we were told, particularly in the finance committee, that if we took this one step money would become available. The small income earner who wanted to buy land would have to pay less for his money. Some of us were rather suspicious of that reasoning at the time, and I think our suspicions were borne out yesterday with the announcement by the Minister of Labour of the increase in the N.H.A. mortgage interest rate. Obviously the money has not become available for less than it cost before we took that step.
We must seriously consider what will happen when we adopt interest rates like this. I hoped yesterday that someone would do the arithmetic involved and, of course, someone has. In today's Globe and Mail we find that on an $18,000 maximum loan at 8J per cent the total payment over the full term of 25 years is $42,084. In other words, the interest charge is $24,084 or $6,084 more than the original loan.
This additional money is not required for labour or for materials in the house but strictly to pay for the loan. We might ask where that extra money is to be found. It certainly does not come from increased productivity. New money is created annually to a certain extent, and this has something to do with productivity, but this extra can only be derived by borrowing from the future. We are becoming involved in spiralling interest rates which will destroy our economic system unless very serious consideration is given and certain steps taken to stop this at some point.
The minister in his statement yesterday and today during his elaboration referred to urbanization being responsible for the housing crisis. He said, "The government tends to devote a larger portion of resources to trouble spots resulting from the fantastic urban growth which has taken place." There has been a fantastic urban growth, much of which has taken place in our large cities where land costs are high. Far too much of the money that is ostensibly being spent for housing must first be spent to obtain a bit of land on which to build the house.
One thing that bothers me is the number of regulations imposed by the government or its authorities which have the effect of increasing building costs, because this accelerates the move to the city. Extremely stringent rules apply to N.H.A. housing with regard to lending money for houses to be built on lands that are not connected to sewers. This
Supply-Labour
affects the availability of money for housing. Some years ago the government attempted to tackle this problem and funds were made available for research in order to come up with something that would help. I suspect that a great deal of the money was put into market research rather than practical research, because the result of all this effort was something called the "converto" unit.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
A regulation was made which provided that no money would be lent in respect of houses being built on unsewered lots unless a converto unit was put in instead of the conventional sewage disposal unit, the septic tank. There is really nothing wrong with the idea but there is a great deal wrong with the economics of it because this unit costs $600 to $800 more than a conventional unit. This regulation has had the effect of forcing people to move into urban areas. It has also had the effect of increasing the cost of housing in Canada. If you take $600 to $800 and work out the interest at 8J per cent over 25 years you will have the true picture of the cost involved in this unit.
If it were satisfactory and did anything to solve the problems of pollution, I would not for one moment raise my voice against it in this chamber. But I know that health units have serious second thoughts about the ability of these units to do the job they are supposed to do. There are health units in British Columbia that refuse to have anything to do with the converto unit. This means there is land which cannot be built upon with an N.H.A. loan because the health unit will not give permission for a converto unit to be installed and C.M.H.C. will not give permission for the conventional septic tank to be used in that type of building. So there is a bit of a bind there.
I raised this question with the minister and his reply was that C.M.H.C. had placed a freeze on all lending in respect of unsewered lots whether or not they had a converto unit. I doubt very much whether that action had anything to do with the converto unit. I imagine it had a great deal to do with the fact that the fund had dried up and the freeze was already in existence.
I seriously urge the minister and the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to consider this matter very carefully and take steps to alleviate the situation. This is one of the constructive steps the minister asked us to suggest in order to help him. I suggest that the health units be given

September 28. 1967
Supply-Labour
flexibility in deciding whether a converto unit shall be used. If they decide it must be used because of the size of the lot, let this be done. But if they decide there is no greater possibility of pollution from the ordinary septic tank, let the septic tank be installed. In fact, they will probably decide that there is less pollution from the ordinary septic tank because they have serious reservations about the effectiveness of the converto unit.
I suggest that the local health units be allowed to decide this question. They should be allowed to do so because these matters fall within their authority and it is a constitutional authority. It is a serious matter indeed for the federal government to move into this area. If the action of the federal government had the effect of forcing all building to be carried out on properly sewered lots, thereby reducing the menace of pollution, it would be worth while, but it does not do that at all. What it does is make it extremely difficult for anyone who has invested almost $1,000, plus the continual maintenance of the converto unit, ever to vote for a sewage bylaw. Why should he? The policy does not prevent this type of building altogether, because the person who somehow manages to scrape up the money from some source other thn C.M.H.C. can build using the conventional septic tank. This should be a matter for very serious discussion right now, because the minister is blaming urbanization for the crisis in housing. It seems to me that anything that can be done to keep people in the rural areas, even for a while, will help.
It might interest the house to know-some hon. members have probably already noticed this-that when the mid-term census figures were published the only province in Canada where the rural population had not declined was British Columbia. There are specific and special reasons for this. They involve the tax on home owners and grants that have enabled people, elderly people particularly, to stay in their own fully paid-up houses rather than move into the city or into a public housing project. I believe steps can be taken that would provide direct incentives to people who own their homes to stay there. These incentives do not have to involve enormous sums of money. The amount of money involved would be far, far less than the sum involved in N.H.A. loans at 8J per cent over 25 years.
There is much to be done in this area. We have heard this afternoon a call for a ministry of housing. This might not be a bad idea, but I know that if that call from the New
Democratic party were heeded and a ministry of housing were set up its work would be measured by only one criterion, the number of public housing units constructed each year. This would be the only measure that party would use.
The rhetorical question was asked this afternoon: Where on earth has private enterprise ever solved the housing problem? One could, of course, ask the corollary question: Where has public housing solved the housing problem? Has it solved it in the Soviet union? Has it solved it in Czechoslovakia? Has it solved it even in that pearl of public construction, Sweden? It has not. All these countries have housing problems which are acute and are becoming more acute. This is not the road to follow.
During the question period this afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway asked a question about some housing projects in Vancouver that are apparently held up. She did not say why they are held up. They are held up because they are under investigation. This investigation is being carried out because the cost per square foot of public housing in Vancouver is twice as much as that for housing built under private enterprise. Public housing is not the road to inexpensive housing for Canadians. The road lies in turning private enterprise loose, in making sure that conditions are such that the construction companies know from year to year or at least have some idea how much money will be available to them so they can plan ahead. The road lies in taking constructive steps.
Another constructive step that could be taken very quickly by the government is the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on construction materials. This surely-I have said it before and it bears repeating-is one of the most inflationary taxes ever imposed. It has led to nothing but grief since its inception, particularly in the field of housing.
These, Mr. Chairman, are some of the areas in which the government can act and should act. No one will deny the gravity of the crisis. But the most frustrating part of it all to people who uphold the free enterprise system is that it has the tendency to make public housing seem the only solution and ever more attractive. I would urge the government to act in these directions that are open to them in order that this country may benefit, not from the most expensive housing that can possibly be built but from the cheapest and best housing that can possibly be built.
TMr. Johnston.]
Seplember 28, 1967

[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I have not been aware of any activity by the members of the New Democratic party this summer to help to prevent a seriously damaging strike in the lumber industry in British Columbia which might cause the mills to shut down. The resulting damage to the industry could eventually affect the housing problem, causing it to become even more acute.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, when the minister was speaking this afternoon he gave the impression that the housing problem is mainly one which exists in large urban centres. However, I wish to assure him that this is not so. Of course it is a very serious problem in large urban centres, but it is also a serious problem in urban centres of all sizes. Let me give an example.
Last Monday night I spoke in Picton which is a very important town in my riding, having a population of 5,000. Before going down there I asked those arranging the meeting what subject they would consider to be the most important for me to discuss that evening. The unanimous opinion was that housing was the most important matter of concern to the people in that district. As I said, Picton is a town consisting of some 5,000 people and it is a rural area. The inhabitants of this town are very much concerned about the housing crisis which exists in our country.
When the minister was questioned in May by the opposition about what he intended to do to provide the 170,000 houses which the Economic Council of Canada specified to be the minimum number of housing starts per year which should be made in this country in order that our people may be properly housed, he appeared very confident that his program would meet the country's need for 170,000 housing units this year. In looking back it is interesting to note how the minister's program has worked out in practice. When he spoke in May the construction industry of this country was producing houses at the rate of 16,096 starts a month. By June the number of starts increased by 8 per cent, to 17,429. However, by July the number of starts fell off by 14 per cent to 14,965, and by August the number of starts fell off by another 11 per cent to 13,343. So we see that in reality the minister's bold program has turned out to be a program in reverse. It started boldly and increased in the first month by 8 per cent. Then it turned in the other direction and in the next-month fell off by 14 per cent and in the following month by
Supply-Labour
11 per cent. August is the last month for which we have figures. Heaven knows what we are going to find has been the production rate in the month of September.
By the end of August the number of housing starts made in this country this year numbered 84,578. If we are able to maintain in each of the four remaining months of the year an average of the number of housing starts made in the month of August, 13,343, then by the end of this year we will have started 137,474 houses or about the same number as we started last year, which was 135,000. We can only hope that we can maintain that figure because, as I have pointed out very clearly, in the past two months we have seen serious drops in the number of housing starts, and in all probability we will find that in September we will have fallen considerably below the 13,343 starts made in August. If we look back one year farther we find that in 1965 we produced 20 per cent more houses than we did in the following year, 1966, or than we are likely to produce this year.
This is the minister's bold program for catching up with our housing needs in this country. In 1967 we are producing 20 per cent fewer houses than we did in 1965, assuming that we can hold the rate of starts which we made in August of this year, and there is a very real possibility that this will not be done.
So we can see that this program about which the minister spoke in such glowing terms last May has turned out to be a complete failure. In reality it is a policy in reverse. That is about the very best that can be said for it. What it amounts to is that by the end of this year the housing program, about which the minister spoke in such glowing terms a few minutes ago and also in May when he answered questions in the house, will have produced more than 50,000 houses too few, according to the minimum figure of 190,000 which the Economic Council of Canada says we must produce each year from now on until 1970 if we want to avoid an accumulating shortage of houses in this country.
In trying to explain this away, the minister said that of course that figure includes around 50,000 houses which must be replaced. He implied that it really is not too important to replace those houses, that people can go on living in run-down, unsanitary, slum houses so far as the Liberal government is concerned. This does not seem to bother the minister too much. The fact that this kind of housing contributes to juvenile delinquency,

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour
broken families and crime does not seem to bother this government in any way at all.
I want to point out that this is the complete reverse of the policy of the Progressive Conservative party in this matter. We believe that the people of this country deserve to have houses that are modern, sanitary and comfortable because we know that these make possible better family life and ultimately better citizens. That is the philosophy of the Conservative party concerning housing in this country. But it seems that the Liberal government is in favour of seeing people continue to live in run-down, unsanitary, slum houses, with all the detriments that these bring about.
Having examined this dismal failure of the government, let us ask ourselves what has been the cause of it. The answer, of course, is the government's tight money policy, in which it has persisted for the past two years despite the constant urging of the Conservative party to abandon this policy which is doing nothing but harm in our country today. The tight money policy has forced interest rates to such a high level that those who would normally invest in housing mortgages are no longer interested to do so because they can find more lucrative ways of investing their funds. So I say that the government's tight money policy is wholly responsible for the fact that the interest rate on N.H.A. mortgages was raised last night by 1 per cent to 8.25 per cent, the highest rate at which the interest rate on these mortgages has ever been in our history. This, I believe, is a very sad state of affairs when one considers the needs of the people of this country for housing at a rate of interest they can afford to Pay.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I believe that the financial institutions of this country or any other country have a real responsibility for providing the funds that are necessary to build the houses that the people of a country need. President Johnson of the United States did something which I think our Prime Minister must do in the very near future when he approached the large life insurance companies of the United States directly and explained to them that they had a real, national responsibility in providing the necessary funds for the kind of housing which is necessary to be undertaken, that involving the highest risk and therefore the least attractive-slum clearance housing. The United States life insurance companies responded magnificiently to his approach and diverted $1 billion from their regular $16
[Mr. Hees.l
billion stream of investments, telling President Johnson that they would invest what is required for slum clearance housing. This, I believe, is the kind of initiative that should be followed by the Prime Minister of this country. I believe that he should speak to our financial institutions and explain to them that they have a very real national responsibility to meet the housing needs of this country.
In the United States, the financial institutions receive approximately 6| per cent on the money they lend for housing purposes. Our financial institutions obviously have been unwilling to come forward with enough money at the recent rate of interest, 7J per cent, that was available to them. It has been necessary for the government to raise the rate of interest to 8J per cent to attract what the government hopes will be sufficient funds into the housing field.
On Tuesday I asked the Prime Minister if he intended approaching the large financial institutions of this country and putting to them the proposition that President Johnson of the United States had put to similar institutions of the United States. The Prime Minister told me that if I waited until Thursday the minister would advise me of his intentions and actions in this regard. So I ask the minister whether he would not, when I sit down, advise the house as to what the government's intentions are in this regard.
As I say, I believe our financial institutions have the same kind of responsibility toward the housing needs of this country as was recognized by the financial institutions of the United States when they came forward with $1 billion for slum clearance purposes. If our financial institutions would respond in like measure, we should obtain an additional $100 million to what we presently have for housing purposes.
One thing has become very clear. Housing in this country in future cannot be treated as something which can be turned on or off according to the fiscal or monetary situation prevailing at the time. It must be treated as a vital human need. The funds to finance house construction must not be turned on or off according to whether other forms of investment appear more attractive at the time. There must be a sufficient and continuing flow of mortgage funds throughout the year to permit the construction of the housing which our people need. The Economic Council of Canada has made very clear that our people need a minimum of 190,000 new housing units per year to look after their needs in this regard.
September 28, 1967

1 believe that housing is too important to be moved simply from department to department or to become an adjunct of one department or another. I believe a new department must be established, a department of housing and urban affairs, to administer not only the housing affairs of this country, but also the many problems which have arisen through our rapidly growing urban society.
To keep our mortgage rates reasonable, I think the government must do two things. First, it must avoid in future the tight money policy imposed on this country during the past two years, which has sent interest rates up and up. Second, the government must persuade the financial institutions of this country that they have a national responsibility in providing funds, at a reasonable rate of interest for the housing which our people need.
As I say, I am much impressed by the actions of the United States financial institutions in making funds available at 6i per cent. If the United States financial institutions find it possible to make funds available at that kind of interest rate, our financial institutions should also be able to do so, particularly when one considers that these funds which they make available for housing are guaranteed 100 per cent by the federal government.
If sufficient funds from our financial institutions are not forthcoming to meet our housing needs it is obvious, I believe, that the gap must immediately be filled by the federal government. It is important for us to remember that those government funds which are to be used to finance our housing needs will not be a government expense and would not in any way affect taxes. You and I know, Mr. Chairman, that the government raises the funds that it needs for these purposes by going to the capital market and paying the rate of interest which is necessary to attract the needed funds from potential lenders throughout the country or, in some instances, in another country. The government then adds a necessary service charge to cover expenses and the money is made available for housing or other necessary purposes.
I believe that if the government follows what I consider reasonable and sensible suggestions in this regard and follows a course which appears to all of us to be reasonable and sensible, we shall cease moving from housing crisis to housing crisis as we have in the past years and we shall be able to provide the houses which our people need in the quantities they need them and at costs they will be able to pay.
Supply-Labour


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to answer the question which the hon. member for Northumberland put as to the government's intention with regard to possible approaches to our large financial institutions for assistance in housing.
I think I made it clear in statements I made earlier in the year that we have had extended discussions with the leaders of the financial lending institutions in Canada-the trust companies, insurance companies and banks-and one company alone, one company alone is putting into the N.H.A. field, apart from its conventional lending, nearly as much on a per capita basis as the $1 billion being put up by a group of companies in the United States. I think it should be put on record also that while I believe some of them could do more and will do more with the change in the interest rate announced last night, the life insurance companies of Canada are already putting 50 per cent of their total investment portfolio into mortgages and the trust companies are doing still better.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
On a point of order arising out of what was said by the hon. member for Northumberland, may I point out, Mr. Chairman, that the figures he quoted with reference to housing starts relate to towns and cities having populations of 10,000 and over, they do not include communities of 10,000 and less. Together they are altogether different from the figures he quoted.


George Harris Hees: Then, Mr. Chairman,-


Mr. Wahn:: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman asked his question of the minister after the minister had spoken. He has had his opportunity to speak and he should now let others speak.


George Harris Hees: I wish to make it clear that I used comparative figures, prepared on the same basis, for all the years I quoted. My comparisons between one year and another were therefore very fair. I used figures which had been produced for me by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The bureau made them available to me and they had all been worked out on the same basis year after year.
I should like to ask the minister one question based on something he said. Could he explain why there is such a discrepancy between the rate at which the financial institutions of the United States are willing to lend their money and the rate required by the large financial institutions here in Canada?

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Traditionally there has been a spread of 1 per cent or so between Canada and the United States, accounted for partly by differences in the exchange rate.


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the people of Canada will not be deceived or misled for one moment by the sometimes extravagant and irresponsible charges made on this subject yesterday and today by certain opposition members, including the hon. member for Danforth with his careless reference to the report of the Economic Council which, as I read it, does not support the specific charges he made. Canadians will resent any attempt to make political capital out of housing needs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Grant Wahn: Clearly, all three levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, have certain responsibilities in this field. In my own city of Toronto, which has perhaps the most serious housing crisis in Canada, we have an N.D.P. mayor, a Conservative government at the provincial level and a Liberal government at the federal level. All of them are involved. Housing should not be made a matter for partisan politics.
It has been clearly established by the Minister of Labour that the government, ably assisted by C.M.H.C., has executed brilliantly and efficiently the federal housing policy so far approved by the house and set out in the housing legislation of the last few years. The statistics already cited on starts and completions and covering the amount of federal money committed establish this fact decisively and I do not intend to repeat them. However, I do want to stress my personal conviction that to ensure decent housing for all Canadians this house must accept a new federal initiative. It must accept the principle that there is a clear federal responsibility to take a direct and active part in the provision of public housing, at least in the large and rapidly growing urban areas where the crisis is most severe. It is not enough for the federal government merely to act as a friendly banker, the role the federal government has played in the past.
The step announced yesterday in raising the maximum interest rate on N.H.A. direct loans is consistent with this principle. As the minister stated yesterday, "The government intends to devote a larger portion of its resources to the social needs of the lower income groups and to the trouble spots resulting from urban growth, in order to provide

improved living conditions in our urban areas". Apparently some opposition members oppose this principle.
In a recent address at the annual conference of mayors and municipalities by Mr. Michael Wheeler, director of special projects on low income housing of the Canadian Welfare Council, Mr. Wheeler pointed out that in the years 1964 to 1966 84 per cent of the total federal commitment to housing was in the form of N.H.A. insured loans, 10 per cent consisted of non-profit loans for housing elderly persons, for student residences and so on, and only 6 per cent consisted of loans for public housing. In the same address Mr. Wheeler pointed out that the average price of N.H.A. houses was just under $20,000. Under N.H.A. regulations loans for such houses cannot be made to persons having an income below $7,000 or $8,000 a year. It is clear therefore that in the past over 80 per cent of our total federal commitment of funds was used to subsidize those who needed it least, those with incomes of more than $7,000 or $8,000, and only 6 per cent was used for public housing where the need was greatest.
The minister in his remarks earlier today indicated that so far this year the percentage of funds used for public housing has been increased more than threefold, to $150 million or 20 per cent of the total. This has been a tremendous improvement but clearly further action is necessary. The minister's statement yesterday should help ensure a still further improvement in the percentage of the total federal commitment which is used for public housing.
One vital fact must never be forgotten. The relatively poor showing of public housing has not been due to lack of federal money. In recent years far more federal money has been available and still is available for public housing than has ever been asked for by the municipalities and provinces which under our legislation have responsibility for initiating public housing projects. I believe it is a fact that since the present minister assumed responsibility for housing not a single public housing loan recommended by C.M.H.C. and proposed by a province has been refused by the government. This is a record of which the government and, indeed, every member of this house can be proud. But more public housing is urgently required in certain areas.
This adds force to what I have said. A new federal initiative in public housing must be approved by this house. It is not enough that federal money for public housing is available. We must go further and see that it is used
September 28, 1967

effectively. I am certainly prepared to support a new federal initiative and I am sure this applies also to many other members on this side of the house. I ask members of the Conservative opposition, who so recently in national convention approved the two nation doctrine to tell us whether they are prepared to accept federal responsibility in the field of public housing. And what about the members of the N.D.P. who, when in the province of Quebec, preach so fervently the gospel of special status? Are they prepared to accept the principle of federal responsibility?
Up to the present time parliament has taken the view that the provision of sufficient public housing is essentially a welfare matter within the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces and their municipalities. I contend that this view is long outdated. For example, the housing crisis in Toronto results from the fact that people from all parts of the province of Ontario, from other parts of Canada and from countries outside our borders are flocking into the city. The population of Toronto in recent years has been expanding at about the fastest rate of any large city on the continent. It has almost two million people. More immigrants have come to the Toronto area than to any other part of the country. The public housing crisis in Toronto has resulted from this influx of people from all parts of the world. It is the policy, and correct policy, of this government, to encourage immigration. Immigrants must find some place to live. They must find housing.
Surely it is now entirely clear that under existing conditions the provision of public housing in the large rapidly growing urban areas is a question of national urgency involving the peace, order and good government of Canada. Until parliament accepts this responsibility it is idle and mischievous for opposition members to attack the government for not taking action which parliament has not yet authorized. I challenge the Conservative and N.D.P. opposition members to cease their carping criticism and to stand up and tell the house and the Canadian people where they stand on this vital issue of federal government responsibility and authority.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


William Heward Grafftey: Are you being serious?


Reid Scott: That is what we have said for years.


Ian Grant Wahn: I hope that in the remainder of this debate members of all parties in this house will accept the principle that the provision of public housing in our large urban
Supply-Labour
centres is not a welfare measure and therefore of local concern but a matter of national urgency and importance.


Reid Scott: Why do not do something about it then?


Ian Grant Wahn: I feel confident that if parliament will accept the federal responsibility, effective action can be taken without constitutional change. It must be recognized, however, that in addition to federal responsibility there is a provincial and municipal responsibility and that there must be a cooperative effort among the three levels of government.


Reid Scott: Would the hon. member permit a question ?


Ian Grant Wahn: When I am finished. A means can and must be found to cut through the red tape and to put an end to the buck-passing among the three levels of government which has limited action up to the present time. We must try to pinpoint the reasons why federal funds have not been used so far and then decide how we can make action effective in the future.
I suggest to the members of this house that the most fundamental reason why federal public housing funds have not been fully used up to the present time is that additional public housing in the large urban municipalities such as Toronto, which need public housing most, will under existing conditions impose an additional, unwarranted and indeed unbearable burden on the home owner. Independent studies make it entirely clear the urban home owner at the present time is bearing an unfair and regressive tax burden. If Toronto or any other urban municipality wishes to use federal public housing funds, it must be prepared to put up a small percentage of the capital cost itself. It is a small percentage but it does involve some additional burden.
Much more important, however, are the hidden charges upon the municipality resulting from public housing. These include the cost of providing water mains, sewage systems and municipal services of all kinds, and particularly schools for the large numbers of children in the public housing projects. Again federal legislation makes federal money available for certain services such as sewage systems. Nevertheless, public housing does impose an additional and unfair burden upon the municipal taxpayer. Moreover, municipal

September 28. 1967
Supply-Labour
resources are limited, and in these circumstances it is only natural and human that municipal officials will encourage the construction of revenue-producing office buildings and industrial plants rather than public housing projects. Surely it is entirely clear that if the municipalities are to welcome public housing projects these projects must be made financially attractive to the municipalities. This is a financial, not a constitutional, problem and it can be solved.
Out of date municipal building restrictions and expropriation laws also impede public housing. Finally, the additional time and expense involved in dealing with a multitude of authorities at three different governmental levels impose a heavy and often impossible burden of expense, delay and frustration upon all those concerned with public housing.
No doubt these problems can be resolved in a number of ways. However, any solution does involve more direct federal participation in public housing and therefore a new federal initiative in this field. For example, in each large urban municipality where a serious public housing problem exists there could be formed under provincial charter a public housing corporation governed by a small and competent board of directors consisting of persons nominated by the municipality and the provincial and federal governments. I hope these persons would not be civil servants. Our civil service bureaucracy is already too large.
The necessary money would be provided by the federal and provincial governments in the agreed ratios. The corporation would have the power to expropriate on fair terms, power to cut through unreasonable municipal building restrictions, to acquire and service raw land and to buy or build public housing.
Admittedly there is need now for economy in government, but this plan would not involve expenditures above those now contemplated. Some of the money previously used to finance expensive single family homes would be diverted to meet the needs of those people whose needs are greatest and most urgent. The construction industry can be as well employed in building public housing as in building single family dwellings at $20,000 or more, luxury apartments or large office buildings. I believe it is entirely clear that there is no constitutional objection to such a scheme.
I think all of us in the house would agree that public housing is now an urgent necessity. I think we would also agree that it is

not the best ultimate solution. All of us, I am sure, look forward to the day when every healthy Canadian can earn enough money by his own efforts to provide decent housing for himself and his family so that public housing will be required only by the elderly, the sick and the disabled. In the meantime, however, we do have a public housing crisis in some of our large cities. I hope that members of all parties will support additional federal action in this field.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Before calling on the next speaker it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 39A, to announce the adjournment proceedings for ten o'clock.

The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gre-goire): The Estates General of Quebec and French Canada.

The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale-National Parks, possible retention of tourist cabins.
The hon. member for Kootenay West- Power, Columbia river, alleged delay in federal payments to British Columbia.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Chairman, before I make my brief remarks this evening I should like to give my views relating to partisanship. I think partisanship is at its worst when we deal with personalities in the House of Commons in the wrong way. It seems to me there is a new type of partisanship coming from the government this afternoon.
What has been happening, Mr. Chairman? We have been telling the government for three years that there is a housing shortage in Canada and that the government is doing nothing about it. All members who returned to their constituencies this summer discovered there was a housing crisis, not a shortage. We have been putting on Hansard day in and day out for the last three years positive suggestions in the matter of housing. But what has happened? The government and its supporters come to the House of Commons at the resumption of this session in the fall of 1967 and say: "Oh, don't be partisan; don't criticize us."
I suggest that that is exactly the role of an opposition, and we are going to continue to put forward positive suggestions on the floor of this house. We are also going to continue to point out to the people of Canada that this government has no policy and is giving no national leadership in the field of housing. I
September 28, 1967

suppose that the hon. member who has just spoken would accuse me of being partisan in saying that, but I am only saying what every Canadian is saying right now in every part of the country.
Reference has been made to the constitution. Canadians in every corner of the country today are sick and tired of the government hiding behind the constitution. Ten years ago there was absolutely no doubt it was the federal government that was responsible for inflation and the rise in the cost of living, the number one domestic concern today of Canadians. Yet the Minister of Finance rises in this house and says there is doubt about where the constitutional responsibility lies.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
Ten years ago, five years ago, when we were in power, there was no doubt in our minds that the provinces and in turn the municipalities had a real role to play in housing policy. There was also no doubt in our minds that housing was a national consideration and concern. Every time we get up on the floor of the house and invoke the government's responsibility, what happens? Is the parliamentary secretary to the minister really serious when he rises and invokes the constitution and tells us it is really a provincial concern? Not at all. Would he go back to his constituency in the face of a housing crisis and wave the constitution in his constituents' faces? I hope not.
Let us be clear now that while we require the co-operation of the provinces and the municipalities the ultimate responsibility for housing or the lack of it, rests with the federal authority. It is passing strange to me that while the government is always talking about the desirability of the central authority, the federal government, being able to have its hands on the various levels of power, the minute the cost of living spirals, the minute there is a problem such as a housing crisis or in respect of urban development, water pollution, air pollution or soil pollution, the minister concerned gets up and says it is not their responsibility but is the responsibility of the provinces.
The hon. member who just spoke said that he was sick and tired of the buck being passed. It is this minister and this government that are passing the buck. We ask the minister and the government not to give us long speeches about interest rates and not to quote statistics but rather to accept their responsibilities and act.
Supply-Labour
I am very glad the minister made the speech he did today. I do not hold the Minister of Labour solely responsible for the housing crisis. It is part and parcel of the bankrupt economic policy of this government. He is forced into this position by the fact that the government has not co-operated with the provinces in planning economic and social priorities. He is forced into this position by the unplanned spending of the government and by the continuing budget deficits. He is forced into the position of high interest rates because the government has not disciplined itself or planned priorities within the national sphere or with the provinces.
I am glad the minister has made it clear that he is not accepting one of the central recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada, namely, that modern government must regard housing as a social welfare matter and must realize that housing is not one of those areas of social welfare which should be affected by normal economic fiscal planning.
Time and time again this government has not paid heed to the positive suggestions from this side of the house. At every session for three years we have told the government that as long as it regards us as a parliament to be played with in conjunction with fiscal and monetary measures it is not going to have a satisfactory housing policy. The minister today turned his back on this suggestion and pinpointed the fact that the Canadian government is the only government in the modern western world which does not regard housing as a social welfare matter and one which should not be affected by the ups and downs of normal monetary fiscal management.
We believe that proper and decent housing is a priority welfare and social matter. With poor housing many other social and welfare programs cannot be brought into effect. Juvenile delinquency and all the urban problems that we need to attack in a positive and constructive way cannot be attacked as long as we are not providing our people, not only in the low but also now in the middle income group, with decent housing. So we consider housing, along with education, a priority item in terms of social welfare matters.
The Liberal party likes to consider itself the pioneer in do-good legislation, but I think they are missing this primary priority because of the whims of fiscal management. I am glad the minister spoke as he did. He gave us a wonderful lecture about how we do not have much housing when the interest rate goes one way, how we do pretty well when it

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour
goes another way, and so on. We followed the minister with great care, but in sum and substance he was telling us that he is going to turn back on the main and central recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada. So we will continue to have a housing crisis in this country until there is a change of government.


Mr. Mackasey:: You will wait a long time.


William Heward Grafftey: That is one example from the minister's remarks. He belaboured the problem of low-cost land in cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver-all the large metro and urban centres of this country. He spoke of the unavailability of good, low-priced land. We on this side of the house are quite aware of this. Three years ago we told the minister that there was a need to develop co-operation with the municipalities and the provinces whereby low-cost land would be available to the citizens of this country.
The minister points out this problem to us today. I sincerely hope we will not have to have another two years of study before it is pinpointed again. We have been aware of it for three years. I hope the minister does not feel that he has just informed us of it for the first time in the house this afternoon.
One of the reasons which I have already given for the engendering of a high degree of cynicism on the part of the Canadian people toward the federal authority is related to the fact that the federal government far too often when it gets into trouble decides to be partisan and hide behind the constitution. Canadians in every corner of this land are becoming very concerned because no level of government is treating modern problems seriously-some of the problems are not so modern-and no level of government today is seriously confronting the problems of housing, air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, and urban development.
This is just one instance where a minister of the government is being frustrated. This government will not let parliament and the elected representatives play their part in modernizing and updating our constitution. I am not speaking only of French or English cultural rights in all parts of Canada. It is my view that one of the real causes of national disunity today is related to what I call the real economic issue because the government will not let members on both sides of House of Commons get down to work on modernizing and updating our constitution. Because of this we continue to have such things as housing crises and spiralling costs without any

feeling on the part of the people at the grass roots level that any level of government is effectively tackling these problems.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
What happens then? Month after month, year after year, we in the opposition put positive suggestions on the record of the House of Commons to no avail. Government spokesmen, such as the one today, get up and quote statistics. Today we heard from the minister. Tomorrow I am sure we will hear from his parliamentary secretary, and I can almost quote what he will say. He has made the same speech 50 times. He will invoke the constitution in a manner similar to that of his minister who today gave us a little lecture in economics. He told us that he could not put funds into the economy as long as housing is operating at a certain level.
Let me inform the minister that he cannot hide behind that kind of speech any more. He is going to be faced with this type of criticism until he recognizes that housing is a social welfare matter and that the right to a decent house, a decent dwelling and a decent roof over one's head is a fundamental right in a free, democratic country. The minister made a good nineteenth century speech today, but that is just not good enough for 1967. I would be surprised if his speech today gets much caucus support, particularly if some of the members on that side to whom I have spoken are really serious about where they stand in the political spectrum.
Let me ask simply what the government is going to do to solve this problem. The minister has quoted statistics today, but the fact of life is this. We are at least 50,000 housing units short this year and unless the government does something about this situation it will become worse before it becomes better. Marie Antoinette said "Let them eat cake". What is this government going to say to these people who do not have decent roofs over their heads? Is it going to tell them to get tents? Is the government going into the business of distributing tents in the months ahead? I am not being facetious. It is just not good enough for the government to quote statistics.
The housing crisis does not only exist in the urban and metropolitan districts. Many people in rural districts do not have decent homes today because this government has not evolved a good policy. What is the problem? Basically, at this time Canadians in the lower income brackets are faced with a real crisis. I suggest that people in the middle income
September 28, 1967

bracket are now lacing a real crisis. Many Canadians in the middle income bracket can not And homes to live in today, and this has been pointed out many times. These people are flooding into the cities.
Recent figures show a record upsurge in immigration. Young married couples born in the immediate post-war era are now looking lor homes. The minister invoked the argument this afternoon, which simply does not hold up, that il you talk with young married couples or couples in the middle income bracket you will find that they have made all sorts ol provisions lor travelling, lor education and lor many other things. That is true, but in the minister's lecture this afternoon he stated that these people have not really given priority to or made provision lor the purchase ol homes. That is also true because the cost ol a home is so high it is out ol reach ol the average lamily. These people do not even consider buying a home because houses are so expensive.
As a Conservative, deep down in my heart I believe that home ownership is a great thing. I believe in what might be termed an ownership democracy. I believe in a democracy that encourages people to own their own homes, small businessmen to own their own businesses and larmers to own their own farms. I believe that Canadians should invest more in the shares ol Canadian companies. I believe that the reason people are not talking about owning their own homes is that they are priced so far out of the market today they cannot begin to afford them. A home should not be something just lor the rich.
I think I have said at least three times during this debate, but it must be said again and again, that in a country like Canada which has the second highest standard ol living in the history of the world, it is nothing short ol a disgrace that we should have the kind ol housing crisis that is lacing this nation today. All the minister apparently can do is get up in his place and give the sort ol economic lecture he has given this afternoon, without giving any real encouragement to those people who want a decent roof over their heads. I had hoped for better. I hoped he would give some encouragement this year when we are talking about new and modern politics. All he has done is quote statistics to those who are living in want and deprivation.
Last year in Toronto the average price of a new home was $29,000, yet in 1965 approximately 85 per cent of housing loans financed
Supply-Labour
by the federal government were made to individuals with annual average incomes ol over $5,000. Where does this leave the low income worker? The answer is that it often leaves him living in squalor in run-down metropolitan areas. I do not say this in a demagogic way, but such poverty amongst plenty should be stopped. I hope this is the last time in respect of a subject as sensitive as this that a minister ol the Crown will get up and quote a lot of bureaucratic statistics.
In 1967 housing starts, instead ol increasing over the number in 1966, are beginning to slip badly. We do not have to make speeches about this; this is the fact. The winter season last year was half over when the government recognized this problem, even though week after week we pointed it out to the minister. Day after day, along with members of the N.D.P., we asked what action the minister intended to take.
During a period of time when a great deal of cynicism was being directed at this institution, the minister went on a cross-country lecture tour. You may conduct a parliamentary inquiry or whatever you wish, but one of the real reasons people are getting fed up with much of what is being attempted by the government is that the government has built delaying procedures into our activities. We have had a record number of royal commissions, some of which have been very good; yet only a small percentage of their recommendations has been carried out. The Registrar General is now following this procedure. If a problem develops he suggests that we set up a task force. He will not even face the problem; he sets up a task force.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
When President Kennedy set up a task force in the United States this simply meant that the tentacles of the White House would reach out over the United States. Such a task force was required to report back within a few weeks at the most. If an extension of time was required a very good reason had to be supplied. The very phrase "task force" in the United States denoted the urgency of a problem. Today when we face a crisis in Canada the government sets up a task force which may report in one, two or even three years. If we in the opposition ask why it cannot report sooner, we are shouted down.
A great deal has been said about research. I am not one of those anti-eggheads or antiintellectual individuals. I recognize the real need for research in housing, but what frightens me is that the government may have

September 28. 1967
Supply-Labour
been using research and study as an excuse for delay. There is a time for study but there is also a time for action, even though we do not know or cannot be 100 per cent sure we are right all the time. I am a great believer in computerized research. I believe that in modern government we require more and more research. However, when we are faced with a crisis this government institutes more research when it should in fact be acting. I suggest to the minister that the research he is carrying out now should have been done five years ago. Am I to tell a constituent in my riding that he cannot have a house over his head until we-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: You were in power five years ago.


William Heward Grafftey: As the hon. member says, we were in power five years ago. This policy might have been good enough at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Heward Grafftey: The voting digits from my province are upset. They are becoming exercised now because they have also been told by their constituents that homes are needed. Research is a must, but let us not invoke the need for more research for the purpose of delay, delay, delay.
Last year the minister came up with a new kind of meeting, the symposium. He went across the nation calling housing symposia with the municipalities and provinces. Having gone across the nation calling one symposium after another, he tells us in his speech today that we need yet another federal-provincial meeting before we can have any action. All he did was travel across this country calling symposiums. It was a sort of lecture tour.
The minister told the provincial officials to get off their chairs; he told the muncipalities what they should be doing, always becoming a little irritable in the house when we told him what he should be doing. Now we have not a housing shortage but a housing crisis, and we are still telling him what he should be doing. This afternoon the minister suggested another federal provincial conference before anything can be done. Yet some hon. members wonder why Canadians are getting sick and tired of buck-passing, hiding behind the constitution and the fact that no level of government is facing up to its responsibilities in this regard.


Mr. Groos:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member may certainly ask me a question.


David Walter Groos: The hon. member for Brome Missisquoi has said that last year the minister spent his time crossing the country calling symposiums. The hon. member for Danforth said the minister was sitting in his office. Both hon. members cannot be right. Is the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi wrong or is the hon. member for Danforth wrong?


William Heward Grafftey: Perhaps the minister found time to do both.


Mr. Regimbal:: And produce nothing.


William Heward Grafftey: Housing starts in 1967, instead of increasing over 1966, are falling off badly. The fall of the year is here and we have gone from a housing shortage to a housing crisis. Unless I misunderstood the minister's words, those who are looking for homes cannot take much encouragement from the announcement last night or from the minister's speech in the house this afternoon.
I repeat what I have already said. I believe that every Canadian family should have the right and opportunity to own a home or to enjoy adequate rental accommodation. I agree with the government that this should be brought about in co-operation with private industry and the provincial and municipal authorities. But I do not agree that the federal government does not have the primary responsibility in this regard. A housing crisis is surely a national issue, especially a housing crisis that is spread right across this nation. If it is not a national issue, what are we doing here in Ottawa?
In my view the inability to act on important issues such as this is one real cause of separatism. I do not like to use that word but we all complain today about the power of the provincial governments. This complaint is often heard. We say that the provincial governments are too powerful and the federal government is not allowed to do the things it should do. This is an area in which the federal government should be acting, but it is abdicating its responsibility.


Roger E. Régimbal: And joking about it.


William Heward Grafftey: What about home ownership? It should be encouraged. Just in case hon. members opposite think we have no positive suggestions to put forward I should like to list a few. With respect to home ownership we should be encouraging intensive research into new methods of building lower
September 28, 1967



cost housing and furthering research into cooperative building and ownership. I am talking about the kind of research that we need. The kind of research that has been carried out has inhibited us from acting in other areas. Second, we should eliminate the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. Third, we should exempt from taxable income an amount up to $500 for school and municipal taxes. Let us consider this suggestion. Is it practical? Perhaps hon. members opposite think it is not. But let us talk about it; it is an idea.
Fourth, we should extend the original Progressive Conservative legislation to provide low-cost, long-term loans to municipalities for sewage treatment projects and other anti-pollution measures. Fifth, we should establish a municipal capital availability fund for purposes of long-term, low-cost loans. We have been suggesting this for years. Now the minister rises in the house and talks about the problem of the unavailability of funds for low-cost loans. Sixth, we should extend direct Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans to include those who today cannot qualify for reasons of income. Seventh, we should increase direct loans on older housing, especially where a housing shortage exists. A little progress has been made in this regard. Eighth, we should make group mortgage insurance available to all N.H.A. mortgage holders.
What about low-cost rental housing? In this connection I make the following suggestions. First, we should provide low-cost, long-term federal loans and a higher federal share of capital costs and operating losses. Second, we should co-operate with the provinces and municipalities in the setting up of minimum standards or ordinances for rented accommodation and provide incentives for both urban and rural municipalities to fight blight and decay in housing by such ordinances. Third, we should provide long-term loans to municipalities for the acquisition of land for housing and/or recreation purposes. This is another answer to the point raised by the minister this afternoon.
Fourth, we should provide such incentives as are fair to encourage the investment of capital in house financing. What the minister said today was true. There are a great many people who are in the building industry to make a profit. I do not think anybody is against that. The facts of life dictate this. I believe that in a realistic way we should encourage a policy that would be an incentive
Supply-Labour
for people to invest capital in house financing.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but the time allotted to him has expired.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to answer all the questions raised by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. When he got down to his suggestions at the end of his speech, I thought he was really indicating the program that had been carried out by the Liberal government rather than things that should be done in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: I wish to speak briefly in this debate as Acting Minister of Finance in the absence of my colleague, the hon. member for Eglinton, who is attending the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and International Bank in Rio de Janeiro.
All of us in the government recognize the importance of housing in our economic and social policies. It is one of the most essential needs of the people of Canada, a need which will grow and change as our population grows and changes in its composition. The Economic Council of Canada has done us all a service in showing how these needs grow and change in accordance with the growth of the various age groups of the population, as well as noting the influence of increasing incomes on the desire of unattached persons, as distinct from family units, to have accommodation of their own.
The federal government of Canada over the last 35 years have become increasingly and productively involved in the housing situation. Our main activity commenced as a credit measure during the depression, improving notably the source of mortgage funds. When the war was over our operations were considerably extended and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was set up to carry them out vigorously.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
Its activities have led the government of Canada into initiating, advocating and supporting a wide variety of programs, from the insuring of mortgages at the one extreme to the support of town planning and urban development at the other. We in parliament can claim some credit. We in parliament have become very conscious of what can be done and should be done through the financial instruments that are available to us.

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour
It must be recognized, however, that housing, urban development, land use and all the municipal problems that relate to it, are matters within provincial jurisdiction. Our influence has been important and productive but it cannot be conclusive. As my hon. colleague, the Minister of Labour, has pointed out, there are many things which cannot be done by money in this field. It is important that problems, for example, relating to the supply and use of land, which comes within provincial jurisdiction and the normal responsibilities of municipalities, should be dealt with just as vigorously as the supply of funds for the building of houses. Moreover, as my colleague, the Minister of Finance pointed out some months ago, it is quite important that the effects upon housing of the real property taxes of municipalities be taken into account. He noted in April that, along with other influences, these taxes make house and apartment costs too high. Part of the solution of the housing problem must be found in improving the financing of municipalities.
A good deal of the current problems in housing arise from the shortage of funds in the capital market available for lending on mortgages. Our own experience in Canada in the past, as well as experience in the United States, has shown that housing is vulnerable to competition for funds in the capital market. In part, this vulnerability arises from the greater competitive power of the competing borrowers, dowdy businesses on the one hand and governments and municipalities on the other. In part, it arises from a variety of institutional arrangements including the competitive power of those savings institutions that normally invest in mortgages as compared with those that normally invest in other things. Part of the trouble derives from the nature of the mortgage instrument itself. All of these factors must be considered in looking to any long term solution of the housing problem. A discussion of them would be appropriate at some future time in this house. In regard to the immediate current problem that confronts us, I would like to say a little with regard to the relationship of housing to the flow of savings and the funds that the government can put into housing as compared with other areas.
Last year, in 1966, the competition for funds in the capital market was very intense and the flow of funds from conventional lenders into the mortgage market and thus into housing was considerably reduced.

Since late last autumn there has been quite a substantial expansion in the money supply which has alleviated the tightness in credit conditions generally. Notwithstanding this expansion there has, however, been a substantial increase in long term interest rates, both in the United States and Canada, after a brief decline last winter. In both countries long term interest rates have reached very high levels despite the substantial expansion in the money supply.
These high rates of interest on bonds and mortgages are the result of the action of investors and borrowers in the markets. Investors are demanding high rates for their savings, in part because there are potential borrowers willing to pay such rates and competition permits them. In part, the demands of investors for high rates arise from their concern over the increasing prices and wages in our economies, that is, concern over inflation. So long as investors in the United States and Canada continue to have the attitude they now have toward long term investments in bonds and mortgages, and so long as there are many long term borrowers in the market, we cannot expect to escape these high rates of interest.
A considerable part of the heavy demands upon the capital market this year is the demand of the government of Canada. The net cash requirements of the government over and above its revenues and its normal nonbudgetary receipts this year are very much higher than they have been for many years past, apart from those arising from the large exchange transactions of 1962. This requires the government to borrow very large amounts. Our borrowings are inevitably part of the problems confronting the capital markets in Canada this year. They are part of the competition which is making it difficult to get sufficient money for mortgages to build houses and apartments. Our demands on the market this year, however, are moderated by our ability to reduce our cash balances this year, as the Minister of Finance said we would do in this budget speech on June 1.
In looking forward to the housing situation next year one of the important issues that has to be taken into account is the extent of the competition there will be in the capital market for savings to be used for purposes other than housing. One of these demands will, of course, be the demand of the government of Canada. Moreover, at the beginning of the next fiscal year cash balances will not be as high as they were at the beginning of this fiscal year, so we shall not have as much
September 28, 1967

freedom to meet our requirements through the reduction of our balances.
The government-the treasury board and the cabinet-is now trying very hard to contain our expenditure and lending programs for next year in order to keep our demands on the capital market down to an amount which we feel is reasonable in relation to the other demands on that market. In doing that we will be helping in the best way possible to allow savings to be used for financing the construction of apartment houses and other rental accommodation, which we feel to be urgently needed in the present situation, and for loans for the purchase of homes.
In this current year, when housing remains under pressure because of the competition for savings from other borrowers, we are taking a number of major steps to make it possible to increase the amount of housing units being built.
The first of these was taken some time ago in changing the Bank Act to permit banks to engage in conventional mortgage lending on houses as well as N.H.A. lending. So far this has not had an appreciable effect on the flow of funds into the construction of new houses, but I am told it will an increasing effect as the year progresses and in subsequent years. The banks now are strong competitors for savings and I would expect them to play a role in the financing of housing which is consistent with their outstanding strength as a financial intermediary. It takes time for them to build up their organization for making mortgage loans and to get it fully functioning, but they should be able to play their full part within a few months time.
The second step we took this year was to approve a large direct lending program for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The Minister of Labour has given some figures to illustrate the magnitude of the corporation's program this year. Let me give some figures to illustrate the magnitude of the contribution which the treasury is making to the housing program by way of loans to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I will give you the net figures representing the amount of loans over and above the amount of repayments received. For this current fiscal year we expect these to be over $660 million. This sum is far higher than it has been in any previous year. Last year it was $489 million, the year before that it was $315 million. For the convenience of hon. members, I might insert a table in Hansard at this point giving the figures for the ten years prior to this year.
Supply-Labour
Mr. Chairman, may I have the permission of the committee to insert this table in Hansard?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that this table be inserted in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edgar John Benson: The table is as follows:
Total Net Loans by the government to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation by Fiscal Years
($Million)
1957-	58	1081958-	59	3361959-	60	3151960-	61	1921961-	62	1901962-	63	1021963-	64	H31964-	65	2221965-	66	3151966-	67	489
These amounts lent to Central Mortgage are used by it for direct loans for home ownership, for loans and partnership investments in public housing, for loans for special housing for old persons, for student residences at universities, for urban development, and other matters. When the figures have been large the bulk of them have been for direct mortgage loans to individuals or builders for the construction of houses.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
The government is only able to lend as much as $660 million for housing this year because it had large cash balances at the beginning of the year which can be reduced as the year progresses. Because we cannot repeat this and because we cannot put more strain on the bond market we cannot continue this high rate of lending for direct mortgage loans beyond the current year. We will continue, however, a high rate of lending which will be used, as the Minister of Labour has indicated, for public housing and other special requirements which cannot be financed in the normal way through the market, as home ownership can be.
The third thing we have done this year is to permit N.H.A. insured mortgage loans to be made at any rate of interest up to the maximum permitted by the housing act itself. This very considerable degree of freedom should enable a more competitive market to be established in mortgage lending, with rates varying according to circumstances and market conditions below this maximum. This should help borrowers to get the funds they require from investors in competition with other borrowers. It will, of course, increase

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour
the competition experienced by other borrowers in the market, but we feel that this is essential if housing is to receive adequate capital to meet its requirements.
The same amount of competition, though different in form, would occur if by one means or another the federal government increased its own borrowing in order to provide the funds through C.M.H.C. for direct mortgage loans.
I want to emphasize that the government has not set a rate of 8-4 per cent for the interest on N.H.A. mortgages; rather, it has given the market as much freedom as it can, within existing legislation, to determine what rates are appropriate, given the conditions of the market, the situation of each particular case, and the existence of the insurance provided by the housing act. I would hope that in many, if not most, cases the actual rates will be less than the maximum authorized by parliament in the act, but we cannot be sure until we see the way the market reacts over the next few months.
The fourth step, which the government has not yet taken but has indicated as its intention, is to set in motion a serious study of urban development as a whole and of housing as one element of that development. It will be recalled that in the throne speech the Governor General stated the intention of the government to propose to the provinces that a special study of urban development be undertaken in close consultation with all the authorities concerned, and which would be of assistance to federal and provincial governments and municipalities as well as to the public generally.
In August, the Prime Minister indicated that this conference on housing was something on which we would be getting in touch with the provinces and this would be one of the most important subjects on which consultation with the provincial governments would be necessary. That is still our intention, although, as hon. members will be well aware, with elections taking place in other provinces it will be necessary to wait at least some weeks before provincial governments can be expected to participate in such discussions on this or, indeed, other matters.
I have indicated, as my hon. friend the Minister of Labour has indicated, that the housing problem is not simply one of money. Much else is involved, and almost all those other factors involved are ones within the jurisdiction of the provinces and involve very substantially the actions and financing of municipalities.


Mr. Monteith:: Could I ask the minister, if he has a spare copy of the table he placed on Hansard to let me have one.


Edgar John Benson: Yes. I shall be pleased to supply the hon. member with a copy.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman,-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the hon. member asking a question?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: No.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
Sudbury.


Mr. Germa:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I must also thank the government for giving us a choice of crises. We could choose between housing, wheat or the two nations concept. I wonder if that situation will continue throughout the sitting.


An hon. Member:: It will get worse.


Melville Carlyle Germa: I was surprised at the attitude of the Minister of Labour in the house today. When I met him in Sudbury garnering votes he took a more benevolent attitude toward housing. He was most sympathetic at that time. His position seems to have hardened since then-mind you, he was on another mission.
I agree with his statement that housing subsidies should not be granted to those with incomes of over $10,000. If that is his attitude, why does he not make sure that government funds are used only to subsidize those who need subsidization. I agree that anyone earning $10,000 a year is strong enough to go to the open market for his funds.
I object to his assertion that the new maximum interest rate of 8.1 per cent for mortgages is realistic. It is only realistic if one thinks that housing funds should come entirely from the free market. I do not intend to accept that concept, nor do I think that housing should be at the whim of the free market. It is too important a social aspect to be at the whim of the market.
I must refute what some hon. members of the house may think. The hon. member for St. Paul's thinks that I am making these criticisms in order to make political capital. I am not trying to make political capital tonight, and I did not come to this house for that purpose. Tonight, I am here as a victim of the poor administration of this government, so far as housing is concerned.
September 28, 1967

The minister also criticized the high prices of lots in the city of Toronto, saying that serviced lots at $12,000 were too expensive for individuals to build houses on. I am in sympathy with that sentiment, but I remind him that the problem of land speculation is not new; it has been taking place on this continent for hundreds of years. Abraham Lincoln once said that no man should own or control more land than he needs to raise his family, or conduct his legitimate business. That is my attitude on land speculation. What does the minister intend to do if he is critical about land prices? Will he do something to control land speculation?
I am also surprised that hon. members here should be amazed that we have a housing crisis on our hands today. We knew about the post-war baby boom. We have watched that population grow; we have watched them pass through primary school, secondary school and university. Now, when they are in the housing market we are surprised. Surely, all that could have been predicted. Surely we could have taken steps and made preparations for those we knew were coming. This post-war population bulge is not new. It has been with us for 25 years.
When the minister hides behind the barrier of the constitution, his position is transparent. It is pretty difficult for me to go home and hand the people a copy of the constitution saying, "Here, you can hide under this to get out of the rain." So long as the federal government controls monetary policy in Canada, so long must they accept responsibility for housing. It is of social importance and much too big for municipalities or provincial governments alone.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
It is clear from the evidence we have that the turning on and off of the monetary tap has produced a direct effect on housing starts in Canada. In 1965, monetary restraint led to a decline in housing starts which became apparent in 1966. Here we are, in 1967, still suffering from the effects of that policy.
I always had the impression that government funds should be directed to those people who lacked the financial strength to acquire money on the open market, particularly since the institution of guaranteed C.M.H.C. loans. However, in 1965 only 9 per cent of borrowers were in income brackets below $5,000 a year and in 1966 the situation was even worse-only 4.8 per cent of borrowers found themselves in those brackets. Yet these are the very people who most need help by way
Supply-Labour
of government subsidy. It is not the people who are living on $10,000 a year who need it; they have the financial strength to help themselves. The government should be doing something to subsidize high interest rates on behalf of those in the low income brackets.
I take objection to the minister's statement that the problem is one which arises only in the large urban centres such as Toronto, Vancouver and Hamilton. I come from a part of Canada which is off the beaten track. I live in a mining community which does not have a loud voice in parliament. It has become almost a historical fact that people who are miners must endure poor housing conditions. The people of Sudbury are miners, that is a certainty, and I represent them because I am one of them; I have sympathy for them. They are a hard-working people and they deserve more out of life than they have been getting.
In a one-industry community such as Sudbury, financial shocks are not dispersed among a large population as is the case in densely populated metropolitan areas. Whenever something happens to that one industry, everyone gets a severe financial jolt. Living in Sudbury is like riding at the back of a bus, enduring a series of jolts as the economy passes through phases of boom and bust. Right now we are in a boom period economically. Yet though tremendous wealth is generated by the labours of those who often go underground before daylight and do not come up until after dark, we have not discovered a system which will turn this wealth into housing and services for those working people.
I am here tonight to ask the minister to have mercy on these people who labour so hard for so small a reward. The national scene has been covered most adequately by my hon. friend from Danforth. To bring home the true picture to the minister and show him how people are suffering as a result of government policy, I should like to deal with the local situation as I know it to be in the city of Sudbury. I do not know it from the standpoint of academic research; I know it as a long time resident and worker in the city.
Recently, a somewhat famous politician from Toronto, Dr. Morton Shulman, made certain statements about Sudbury. He said it was a slum town and that there was a pall of black smoke hanging over it. I do not necessarily reject entirely Dr. Shulman's assessment of the city of Sudbury. I reject it to an extent; he should have said that only 20 per

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour
cent of the city of Sudbury consists of slums. There are some, the elite, the mine managers, the insurance company executives, who live well. But the average miner does not live well and the house in which he lives is part of the 20 per cent described as slums.
This classification is not a random one; the case has been documented by our city planner, whose staff has visited every home in Sudbury. On the streets of Sudbury there are 400 tarpaper shacks. This is not a "guesti-mate", it is the result of an actual count. These shacks were built about 40 years ago, probably, when the success of mining in the areas was touch and go and no one wanted to invest money permanently in housing. They were built to serve a need; they are still there today, and people are living in them.
To make up for the natural decay in housing stocks we need 600 new houses a year. For one reason or another, mostly financial, we have not reached that figure since 1962. One reason for this failure is that we face the third highest building costs in Canada. Instead of having developers in Sudbury we have peddlers-they make a deal and diddle around with land, then they go to Toronto or Ottawa and peddle their programs.
May I call it seven o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being seven o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Melville Carlyle Germa: Mr. Chairman, before the dinner recess I was attempting to cite how one city suffers from the housing situation, which up to now has been treated on a national or more general basis. As the representative of Sudbury, and realizing that my constituents have had no voice in this parliament for quite some time, I think it is important to bring to this committee the local situation so that hon. members may be apprised of the conditions in the city that I represent.
I was recounting to the committee the housing needs and conditions as they presently exist in the city of Sudbury. I think I stated that we needed 600 houses a year just to offset natural decay caused by age. Then I went on to say that we enjoy-or otherwise-the third highest building costs in Canada, and I believe this is one of the reasons that Sudbury is suffering more acutely than most other cities in Canada.

I should also tell the committee about some of the distress caused by this housing shortage. Quite recently a report delivered by the local children's aid society cited a case where a man and wife and their two children were living in an abandoned automobile on the streets of the city. Other cases cited were of families that had been broken up for no other reason than that the parents could not supply the children with the necessary accommodation. These are not families the heads of which are bums or derelicts, but people who go to work every day and contribute to our society and the wealth of the nickel mines, yet cannot find the wherewithal to supply family needs. As a result, the children in these families have become a charge against the state. I think it is a false economy when we save money by withholding housing on the one hand and handing out welfare on the other.
There is also overcrowding and doubling up of families. The pressure on rents is becoming acute and they are rising to prohibitive levels. In the city of Sudbury it is possible to pay $175 for a four-room frame house. Such a house when built was probably not worth $500, it is being rented today at this price. Others, consisting of only four rooms and a path, rent for $150. I suggest it is a crime in this day and age that the city of Sudbury should be called upon to spend the sum of $14,000 a year and upwards on night soil collection to meet housing needs today, but that is the situation and it is going from bad to worse.
What is projected for the future, Mr. Chairman? I told you about the mining corporations in Sudbury. The two companies have announced-and this is on record-that within the next two and a half years they will require 3,500 additional employees. The International Nickel Company announced two days ago that they could use an additional 1,000 men, and they still need them tonight. Why are they unable to get these employees? It is mainly because housing accommodation is so tight that these people cannot or will not come to the city, plus the fact that the wage rate for these employees is such that they cannot qualify for a mortgage under the restricted plan of the government.
In addition to the 3,500 new employees which are required in the city, we also have to accommodate the service trades. For this purpose we use a multiplying factor of 1.6, which means that for eaoh worker in the city 1.6 men are required by the service trades.
September 28, 1967

This accounts for a further 5,600 new employees in the city. This amounts to a grand total increased population of 8,100, or an increase of 10 per cent in the population over a 30-month period.
There is not one empty bed in the city tonight and yet 8,100 workers and their families are coming to the city. We have been aware of this situation for six or eight months now. The mining companies made this prediction, and the minister was in the city when it was made. Yet the situation has deteriorated in the five months since his visit; nothing has happened to meet the situation.
To give the committee an idea how tight the situation is, Mr. Chairman, hon. members are all familiar with the housing problem in Ottawa.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question? Or perhaps I should rise on a point of order. Surely the hon. member is not suggesting that we knew this five or six months ago. We heard about it in June approximately; the hon. member knows that.


Melville Carlyle Germa: I beg to differ with the minister. This announcement was made during the election campaign. The by-election was in May and the minister was in Sudbury during that month. It was at that time these figures were first projected by the nickel companies.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
We should bear down a little on this subject, since the minister has shown some interest in it. At that time the minister did recognize that we had a problem. Without any urging on our part he announced that he would go to the mining companies to ask them to put up funds to supply us with 150 housing units. He asked the mining companies whether they could put up the funds or consider borrowing the money and making it available to supply 150 rental housing units. That is how serious the minister considered the situation at the time. However, that was during an election period and it is quite easy to get the interest of the minister at a time like that.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. When an hon. member makes statements like that which are not true, I must rise on a point of order. I said after the election, not before, that I had made an approach to the companies. I told them that with their expected help we could be assured of provincial help. There should be no suggestion at all that politics were being
Supply-Labour
played, because this was deliberately done after the election.


Melville Carlyle Germa: Well, Mr. Chairman, this
brings me to the point I should like to raise with the minister. We have waited patiently in the city of Sudbury to see the results of his inquiry of the mining companies. It was not our suggestion that a minister of the crown should go begging to the International Nickel Company for funds. I guarantee that the New Democratic party would deal differently with this company. Of his own volition he did see fit to ask the two mining companies for funds. We have not heard from the minister since that day. I wish he would rise in his place and tell us what the reactions of the mining companies were to his request that they supply the funds to build 150 rental housing units. We need this desperately and we would even accept it from them at this moment.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would be pleased to give the answer at any time. The answer was a highly satisfactory one. The hon. member will recall that, when I sat down with the mayor and those who had invited me to come to Sudbury, I discussed the problem and said that obviously more public housing was involved and they could accept the assurance of the federal government that I was confident we would get the co-operation of the Ontario government. I also said that, in addition to public housing, other houses were needed and that I felt that the companies concerned might make a contribution over and above what would be done by the federal and provincial governments.
I reported after the election-not during the election-and I then announced that I had received an assurance of full co-operation from the government of Ontario, that we were going to put in the number of public housing units that were needed in the year 1967 according to our estimates. In addition, the mining companies concerned were going to do their part. I said that some 800 starts would be made on houses this year. So, I must take exception when I hear a supposedly responsible member make outrageous statements like those made here tonight.


Melville Carlyle Germa: I take exception to the statement that the statements are irresponsible. I ask again how much money the International Nickel Company and the Falconbridge Mines have put up since the minister made his request of these people.

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I simply said that the companies would make the arrangements for the housing starts which were necessary in excess of the public housing units that we had originally suggested.


Melville Carlyle Germa: 1 must differ with the minister because he promised us that he would increase our housing units from 400 to 800. I was a member of the housing committee in the city of Sudbury. I am an alderman there. We held a meeting of the housing committee three days ago. The housing starts this year will not exceed 600. That is the reason I have waited to see what the mining companies propose to do. Are they going to raise the number from 600 to 800? The mayor has not heard from the mining companies. The city planner does not know, the clerk-controller does not know and I do not know. Apparently the minister knows something and will not tell us.
A mining town is populated largely by working people. There is probably no other industry which employs so much low cost manpower. Therefore, we have a large percentage of low income working people. The average wage for 1965, which is the latest figure I could find in our library, is $5,175 a year. If I were to project the wage increase which we have negotiated with the mines, I would arrive at a figure of between $6,000 and $6,200 a year as the average wage in the city of Sudbury as of tonight. This is only my projection. I could not obtain any closer evaluation.
The new interest rate of 8J per cent will mean that a large percentage of the people in the city will not be in a position to apply for a government sponsored loan. This acute increase in interest rates can only aggravate our housing situation in the city. In fact, when the interest rate was increased the last time to the per cent figure our provincial member for Sudbury stated publicly in the press that he was ashamed to be a Liberal. I myself am ashamed that he is a Liberal. That was his statement. I understand that Mr. Nixon, the Liberal leader in Ontario, is quite upset about the new interest rate.
It is difficult for me, as an amateur politician, to try to follow the devious and dubious tactics carried on by this Liberal government. So, Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to go back home. The people there have expected me to do great things down here. After 46 years of Liberal rule, they said, "Go down and tell these people something, have a little chat with them". I hope I have done that tonight.

All I can do is go back and tell my people, "You must bleed a little more and suffer a little more, but you still must get up at five o'clock in the morning, go down and moil in the bowels of the earth and when you come back you will live in your little shack and be satisfied." This seems to be the arrogant attitude of the government tonight.
I think it is unfair and unrealistic that the wealth produced from the natural resources of Canada cannot be converted into houses. It is the job of this government and this minister to find ways and means to supply the wherewithal so that these people-not only the people in the poor districts of northern Ontario who know they have been in the back seat of the bus for a long time-can have decent living. So far as I am concerned I cannot sit still and watch this situation continue. So, I will go back to my people and report to them on the position of the government and the minister.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to participate in this debate and I am pleased the Minister is in his seat. He is a congenial sort of fellow and I feel sorry for him because of the position in which he finds himself as a result of the housing situation in this nation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a question of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say that it is rather nice to hear what the hon. member has to say today, after being accused of belligerency earlier this afternoon.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister. I do not wish to go over all the points raised by other members this afternoon. I shall attempt to put my remarks in the form of a summary.
After listening very closely to the various speeches, I decided to bring out some information on housing which has not as yet been covered. I doubt whether there is any question in the mind of anyone on this side of the house or in the minds of very few on the other side that the policies followed by this government in respect of housing have not been successful. I believe the minister would be the first one to admit that fact.
Perhaps I could have the attention of the minister if whoever it is who is talking to him would get out of the way. I am talking to the minister.


An hon. Member:: Speak to the Chair.
Sepiember 28, 1967


Mr.   Kindi@: I am talking to the minister through the Chair. If the other fellow has not enough courtesy to get back in his own seat, I shall have to tell him to do so.
First of all the bank interest rate was changed. At that time the minister argued that an increased bank interest rate would encourage the banks to get into this housing field. He felt that this, in itself, would help to solve the housing problem. That has not been the case. I remember the argument advanced by the Minister of Labour when he increased the rate of 7J per cent. At that time I did not seriously object, but I felt that what he was doing would not solve the housing problem. Obviously it did not solve that problem.
The minister has now increased the interest rate to 8J per cent. Let me go one step further and suggest that this will not solve the housing problem. The minister is on the wrong track or in a dry hole. He would be far better off to pull up his drill and start on a new hole. In other words, the economic tactics the minister is using to solve the housing problem in Canada will not provide a solution to the situation. I am sure the Minister of Labour and those who sit on the opposite side of the house will join with me in the suggestion that these policies have not worked and will not work. It is time to begin something new.
Everyone knows that if you are going to have adequate housing in this country you must have sufficient finances. Money is still the major problem. The money lenders have this whole situation tied up so tight we are not going to have housing development in Canada if we rely upon our present banks and lending institutions. These institutions provide some of the required funds but they do not provide enough.
We on this side of the house have said on more than one occasion that we must work toward some sort of project development. The minister has referred to urban areas where there is a great deal of new development, including Vancouver and Toronto. One might well mention several others which are rapidly growing centres, like Calgary, Edmonton and so on. In these areas people want housing but are unable to obtain loans. How are they going to get them? The only way one can build a house is by having enough money to pay for it, or by obtaining a mortgage. The government must adopt some type of program to help, but so far government programs have not met the need by increasing the interest rates private lending companies are allowed to charge.
Supply-Labour


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


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I would be glad to answer your question a little later. I do not wish to use up too much of my time in that way now. Perhaps what I intend to say at this time will give the minister some clarification. We must find money for housing development, but how are we going to find it? It must be provided through government borrowing, or by the establishment of an institution such as the Industrial Development Bank. That institution, which is associated with the Bank of Canada, has helped start many industries throughout the country. As an economist, I have given some assistance in the development of these industries by helping these people to obtain loans through the I.D.B. I am sure the money involved in helping these industries start, on a high risk basis, has not added to the inflationary trend in this country. Neither has this lowered, increased or depreciated the value of the dollar. Whenever you put new money into the lending streams in the country through institutions such as the Bank of Canada you have to be very careful to maintain a proper balance. There is no way this minister or anyone else can show me how this problem can be solved unless we provide federal capital.
There is nothing wrong with the government providing capital for this purpose. This has been done in times of war and it can be done for the purposes of meeting the housing crisis through a housing development bank similar to the Industrial Development Bank. I am not concerned with the name, but it could have the authority to start projects in the various areas where there is an acute housing shortage. This institution could then start housing development projects in various areas.
The standards for these housing projects should be high and not 20 houses on a one acre plot with buildings almost touching each other. Surely, there is enough land in this country that we do not have to do that. Let me also say to the minister, in the event that he is mistaken about the possibility of such developments, that I was in the state of Virginia some time ago where a housing project was being developed with toilet facilities and the like. Many splendid houses were being built. Unfortunately Senator Bird came along and suggested that these houses were too expensive, and to lower the expense, outside plumbing was provided. Since then this outdoor plumbing has been called "Bird

September 28. 1967
Supply-Labour
houses". I should not like to see here in Canada a similar development called "Nicholson houses".
It is my suggestion that the government should participate in housing projects of type similar to the Teron development on the outskirts of the city of Ottawa. If any of you have not seen this development I suggest that you do so. The minister, instead of obtaining a group of planners to do a great deal of research, should obtain the services of some practical man like Teron, put him on the payroll and turn him loose to develop some of these projects. Mr. Teron has said that he could build these houses for $12,000 to $15,000 including landscaping, sewage and water, etc. These would be two and three bedroom units. If Mr. Teron can do this, I venture to say that the federal government could also do likewise. Certainly it is possible for this government to start housing projects of this kind under a housing authority, by making funds available at a low rate of interest. After these projects were completed, the government could then sell them to the individual, thereby turning them over for private ownership.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Instead of charging $9,000 for a piece of land on which to build a house, instead of saddling the newly married couple that wants to get a start in the world with a $9,000 lot, would it not be infinitely better for this parliament to give the government approval to buy the land and develop it in all areas where there is a critical housing situation? There need not be many projects, but there would have to be enough in order to take up the slack for the time being. If this were done, private lending money, with the contribution of the banks and the support of the government, would ameliorate the housing situation.
There is no other way in which this problem can be solved. I look the minister straight in the eye and defy him to tell me any other method that will solve the housing problem. The minister thinks he will solve the housing problem by manipulating the interest rate and then relying on the banks to lend more money. I would not rely on banks but instead, would set up a corporation that would do the job that is needed for the people of Canada. I am not a socialist-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Kindi@: -but I believe that if we must have housing development we must also have

the right kind of organization and the financial backing necessary in order to solve this problem. There is no sense wasting a great deal of time talking about other things. I could talk at great length about the business cycle. The business cycle, which is the reason for the attitude of the banks, is what largely prevents them from making long term loans. The minister cannot deny that. The banks are scared to put their money into long term securities. They have long been accustomed to making short term loans of six months or less, or a year at the maximum. They are not interested in putting their money into projects which will take 15, 20 or 25 years to be paid off.
This is the position in which we find ourselves with respect to the business cycle. This, in addition to other economic factors, has scared the banks away from making long term loans. The minister may, by raising the interest rate to 8j per cent, bring a few more dollars into this field but he will not solve the housing problem in this way. Mr. Chairman, I have probably talked more than I should. I want to give everybody else a chance to speak on this subject. Also, I want to give the minister an opportunity to ask me the question he wanted to ask a few minutes ago.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I was going
to ask the hon. member if he knows how the relatively insignificant amount advanced by the Industrial Development Bank to which he referred compares with the $900 million put into housing this year by the government, but I will not ask him.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister whether he has any figures in this respect. What was the figure put into housing this year by the government?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The budget exceeds $900 million for the year.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: That is the government's contribution?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: That is the government's allocation, and well over $700 million has already been committed this year. I ask the hon. member, how does that figure compare with the I.D.B. figure to which he has referred, or has he the I.D.B. figure?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: That is the amount of money lent for the building of houses. If the government can provide this amount of money with which to build houses, what is the difference? The government should see to it that enough
September 28, 1967

money is provided with which to build the houses that are needed. What would this do to the economy of this country? It would not have any ill effects. There would be no inflation as a result of it. Don't kid yourself about that. If the figure the minister has suggested is correct, and this amount is being put into house construction, it is certainly not the sole cause of inflation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I thought the hon. member had finished his remarks. Rather than ask him another question, I would simply suggest that he read the remarks of the Minister of National Revenue which will appear in Hansard tomorrow. The minister contributed much to the debate this afternoon and I think he answered the questions that have been raised by the hon. member. This was a supplementary speech, not a question.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the last remark of the minister.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I said that, in my opinion, his statement was a supplementary speech.


Mr. Nasserden:: Are you the chairman?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I rose on a point of order.


Mr. Lind:: Mr. Chairman, I enter this debate on housing with a great deal of interest. Hon. members have been pointing out the seriousness of this situation. It is a serious situation, but this government and the minister in charge of housing have shown a great deal of concern for the people of Canada.
Abraham Lincoln once said that you cannot establish security on borrowed money. This government has shown responsibility in this area, and at the same time it has shown concern for Mr. Average Canadian Citizen.


An hon. Member:: And the lumberman.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour
Now that the lot is completely serviced, the contractor can commence building a modest home.


Edward Nasserden: The hon. member missed a paragraph.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Which paragraph did I miss?


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? First, where did he get his figures, and second, can he provide an indication as to how the federal government proposes to reduce these costs?


Mr. Byrne:: Let him finish his speech. He may get there yet.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: I calculated these figures from practical experience. I am not interested in indicating how the federal government is going to reduce this cost because I realize this is a municipal affair. This afternoon the hon. member for Danforth said that the federal government was responsible for the high cost of housing. I recognize this is a municipal affair, and I realize the municipalities must deal with the provincial governments.
Now that the lot is completely serviced, the contractor can commence to build a modest home. Suppose the contractor erects a 1,200 square foot home on this $6,000 lot. What has happened to the cost of this home? First, the building materials have increased in value by about 5 per cent since January 1966. In the province of Ontario 2 per cent of this increase was caused by the Ontario government's increase of the sales tax on building materials from 3 per cent to 5 per cent.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What about the 11 per cent sales tax?


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Let us suppose that a 1,200 square foot home were to cost $10 per square foot to build in January 1966. At this stage we would add the extra 5 per cent increase in the cost of materials, so that the home would cost $12,600.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member is leaving out altogether the 11 per cent tax on building materials.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: I will bring in the 11 per cent a little later. I can speak on that also, but I want to leave it until the end.
The second most important cost factor in this home is the increase in the cost of labour, both skilled and unskilled. According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, since January 1966 the cost of labour has increased by 29

per cent, so this would add another $1,200 to the cost of the home. It would now cost the contractor $13,800 plus the cost of the serviced lot.
The third major cost to the contractor is interest costs, administration and overhead. These costs have also increased, so we would add an additional $1,500 to the cost of the home. It would now cost roughly $15,300, plus the cost of the serviced lot.
The fourth cost factor before the family can receive this home is the legal and real estate fees which would amount to about $1,400, so the final cost of this home to the new home owner would be approximately $25,000. No family unit earning less than $8,000 a year would qualify for the purchase of this residential home.


Mr. Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Chairman,-


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: This government, through the C.M.H.C., has increased the funds available for residential housing-


Lawrence E. Watson: Mr. Chairman,-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. Is the hon.
gentleman rising to ask a question?


Lawrence E. Watson: I should like to ask a question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Will the hon. member for Middlesex East permit a question?


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: -by $200 million during the last 18 months. However, but this extra $200 million does not provide any extra dwelling units owing to the increase in the costs of labour and materials in the building of these houses. It would be impossible to increase in any substantial way the number of residents because-


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a point of order? It is obvious from the way this speech is read into the record that the hon. member is not even familiar with it, and one of the rules of the house is that speeches should not be read. We should have some ruling on that.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I recognize the point of order raised by the hon. member for Rosthern and I note also that the hon. member for Middlesex East is reading from copious notes. Will he please continue his speech now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Read on, McDuff.
September 28, 1967


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: It would be impossible to increase in any substantial way the number of residences at the present time because, first, there is not a surplus of serviced lots in our area in Ontario; second, there is not a surplus of skilled tradesmen to build these homes; and third, there are not too many people earning $8,000 able to obtain a modest house at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: How many family units are eligible to qualify for a modest home in Canada? The Dominion Bureau of Statistics states the average family income is $5,939. Let us consider what the government has done for these families which do not qualify for a modest C.M.H.C. home. At the present time special N.H.A. provisions allow 6.25 per cent interest loans. I should like to read from a booklet published by the C.M.H.C. It reads as follows:
Special NHA Provisions-6.25 per cent applies to CMHC direct loans for low-rental housing projects undertaken by non-profit corporations and limited-dividend housing companies; loans for university housing projects; loans for sewage treatment projects; loans for public housing projects and loans to provinces and municipalities to meet their share of the cost of implementing urban renewal schemes.
The Ontario Housing Corporation has taken advantage of this low interest rate. In my riding of Middlesex East 1,603 residences will be constructed for single and married students at the University of Western Ontario for a total cost of some $10 million. The federal government will provide 90 per cent of the financing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: In other words, we will provide $9,032,000, while the Ontario Housing Corporation will provide $1 million. This student housing project will supply much needed living accommodation for the students of the University of Western Ontario. Let me state that it is my understanding the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has made loans this year to the various housing authorities throughout the Dominion of Canada to the tune of many millions of dollars for similar projects.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Let us not forget that this federal government helped to provide funds for Ontario Housing Corporation to build public housing in other areas. Even in Bramalea, we helped them to purchase some 1,600 lots.


An hon. Member:: It was 1,300.
Supply-Labour


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: This Liberal government has always been the friend of the man who carries his lunch pail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: My concern is for the family that earns $6,000 a year or less. There are hundreds of thousands of families that fall into this category. They have every right to demand comfortable, modest homes. If local, municipal authorities will set up non-profit corporations, they can borrow from the federal government, at 6| per cent interest, 90 per cent of the funds necessary for non-profit housing projects in their local areas.
The federal government is interested in these projects in this area. The federal government is providing the means for local municipalities and provincial governments to look after the families of this country earning less than $6,000 a year.
This afternoon we heard the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi say that our minister had been travelling up and down the country in attempts to establish housing authorities. The question was asked, what is happening in the province of Quebec? Since the relevant legislation was brought down I understand that the federal people have been petitioning the province of Quebec to come into public housing, to provide housing for the people of Quebec. The legislation was passed in 1964. I was informed that the department was in contact with the Quebec officials until June 29, 1967.


An hon. Member:: Lesage refused it.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: I point this out because it takes a long time to sell the members of the provincial government of Quebec anything.
I am sure that hon. members realize that this government has a good record in housing. Allow me to place on the record a table of housing starts in Canada over the last seven years. I am looking at page 134 of the fourth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada. In 1960 we built, in Canada, 109,000 units-of which 67,000 were single, detached units, 30,000 apartments, and
12.000	in other categories. In 1961 we built, altogether, 126,000 units; in 1962 we built
130.000	units; in 1963 we built 149,000 units; in 1964 we built 166,000 units; in 1965 we built 167,000 units; in 1966 we built 135,000 units; and in the first six months of 1967 we had 90,926 units under construction.
2628	COMMONS
Supply-Labour


An hon. Member:: Is that not inadequate?


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: This government has an excellent record in housing, yet we are not satisfied. We will continue to search out ways and means-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, by increasing the interest rate.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: -to help the wage earners of Canada obtain suitable, comfortable houses.


James Russell Keays: May I ask a question. Having heard the learned discussion embarked on by the hon. member for Middlesex East-


An hon. Member:: Ask the question.


James Russell Keays: If my colleagues will bear with me I shall try to reach it. The hon. member gave figures showing the increases in housing costs during the last four years. Knowing full well that he knows a great deal about costs of lumber and building material, will he not say that the cost of houses in Canada has increased by 30 per cent in the last four years? That is the figure he has just suggested.


An hon. Member:: He should know.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: I talked about four years ago.


James Russell Keays: The hon. member spoke of the additional cost of labour and building materials. If one adds sales tax and all the other charges against housing one ends with a figure showing a 30 per cent increase in housing costs over the past four years.


An hon. Member:: Let him look at his speech again.


Erik Nielsen: He read it but did not understand it.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, it is fitting that as a member representing the Canadian metropolis, I should express certain thoughts on the problem before us, namely the housing situation throughout Canada and especially in the city of Montreal and in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the member for Middlesex East (Mr. Lind), who just resumed his seat, that I intend to reply to his statement about the non-participation of the government of Quebec in the program of urban development, construction of new houses or slum clearance.
If the hon. member for Middlesex East will kindly remain in his seat, I intend to enlighten him about facts he might not have been

DEBATES	September 28. 1967
aware of and it is obvious that he was not because when reading his text he did not know where to put a full stop. I would have told him that if the province of Quebec did not participate with the federal government on a large scale in urban renewal or housing projects in the province of Quebec it is because from 1960 to 1966 a Liberal government was in office there and in the field of housing it failed completely to meet its obligations toward the population. It was necessary to wait until the coming to power of the Union Nationale government, when, through its minister of municipal affairs, Hon. Paul Dozois, it reached an agreement with the present government and set up the Quebec Housing Corporation.
Were the remarks of the member for Middlesex East as encouraging for his party as the minister believes them to be, he should then have told us, and insisted on the fact, that there is a current housing shortage in Canada of some 300,000 units. That is to say, some 300,000 families will have to wait till the minister realizes the housing situation is serious in Canada.
The minister asked us this afternoon,-and I feel sorry for him-asked us, of the opposition, actually to do his work. He told us: I ask the opposition not to criticize the minister, not to criticize the government; I ask the opposition to make suggestions to us.
In all the years I have been sitting here, I have never heard a minister admit so candidly his incompetence, his inability to manage the affairs of his department.
We are not here to bestow flattery on the minister or to express thanks to the government. Indeed, I do not think there should be even one Canadian who should feel compelled to say "thank you" to any government; for we are not here to get thanks but just to see that problems are solved. That is the reason why we have been elected by the people.
It is not difficult for the government or for the minister to say, as the latter said this afternoon: What can we do? The housing situation is serious.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)

I want to quote the minister at this point. He said, if I remember his words correctly, that any country growing as fast as Canada was bound to have a housing problem and that the government was dealing with this problem as it arises. This means that the
September 28, 1967

minister has a 24-hour policy to deal with these urgent matters. He does not attempt to forecast the amount of increased housing which is required by a growing population; he tells the people of this country that he and the government intend to settle these difficulties as they arise.
I would not like to be labelled as a member of a 24-hour policy government, though I think this is the kind of government we have had during the last six years. This is why we are running, as my hon. friend from Bow River said, from crisis to crisis. I say it shows lack of a sense of responsibility. Moreover, when the minister tells us that this is a situation which has only just arisen, he is not speaking in accordance with the facts.
Two years ago, in 1965, La Presse of Montreal, another well known paper Le Devoir and even the Gazette printed articles in the month of January underlining the urgent need for action in the field of housing by the present government. This was two years ago, so the situation has not arisen overnight as the minister suggested. The excuse made by the minister in this regard cannot be accepted by us.
I recognize the hon. gentleman's difficulty. His colleagues across the way think that power is theirs to own as of right until they grow old and retire. I do not agree that this is the case, but because of complacency on their part they are not putting their full weight into the execution of their duties. As an example, let me remind hon. members that the minister told us this afternoon that the problem was not so much a lack of houses as the presence of too many people in this country. I wonder what the Minister of National Health and Welfare would say about that. I think it would be more appropriate for him to convey to his colleague responsible for housing the idea that what we need is not a housing policy but birth control pills for the Canadian people.
These are the kind of arguments used by the minister this afternoon. I am sure they do not suggest answers of the kind the Canadian people want at the present time. I am not speaking in any partisan way; I am speaking for those many thousands of people who are wondering what is to happen to them tomorrow in the area of housing activity. It is because this matter is so serious that we asked early this week for an immediate debate on the subject. The government was not ready; they had not written out their speeches. The hon. member for Middlesex East has just read us his own. I would not
Supply-Labour
have thought it necessary to force the government to take action with regard to housing. The minister promised us that by 1970 there would be 200,000 units of new housing in this country. If we can judge from past promises and the results of last year when the number of units built declined by 32,000, I do not think we can rely on the promises the minister made today in this regard. The situation is so serious that people from all walks of life and in all sectors of activity have for months, if not for years, been telling the government about its urgency.
I can understand the bewilderment the public must now feel, because, like me, they may have been reading the pamphlet which the Liberals put out across the country during the election campaign. The first article in this pamphlet says the Liberal government is determined to "fight the poverty which unfortunately still exists in some areas despite general prosperity". The writer adds: "The plan is ready".
Is the plan ready, Mr. Chairman? Can the minister tell us whether the fight against poverty involves the lack of housing? Does it mean a constriction of the funds available to working class people for the purchase of homes? Members of this house are asking whether the minister really told the truth during that campaign or whether what was said then was merely part of a political propaganda offensive.

Mr. Chairman, housing gives rise to a problem which is so serious that the reports of the Economic Council of Canada, whether it be the third review of November 1966 or that of September 1967, show the seriousness and the importance of this matter.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I know that this has probably been mentioned by other members, but I still want to stress it and draw it to the attention of a government which, it seems, does not intend to consider and read the considerations published in the report of the Economic Council of Canada.
I would like the hon. minister to heed what the Economic Council of Canada has to say in its fourth report which was distributed to us recently. Chapter 9 is entitled "Policy Implications" and deals with the economic policy and policies to assure an adequate expansion of housing. Under that chapter it is stated that:
Of all the major sectors of the economy, none will have to grow more rapidly than housing- at least to 1970, and perhaps even throughout the

September 28. 1967
Supply-Labour
1970's. This is a matter of major national importance if a growing housing shortage is not to become a serious national problem.
Greatly increased physical resources will therefore be required in this field, including a substantially enlarged working force with appropriate skills and considerably enlarged capital and residential construction capacity. A large and sustained volume of residential mortgage financing will also be required.
Here are the exact words of the report which cost a great deal of money to the Canadian people and which points out to the government and the minister responsible for housing the seriousness of the situation and the ways of correcting it.
Mr. Chairman, the report continues by warning legislators against the tendency to use this industry as a cyclical readjustment factor. As a matter of fact, one can read:
The use of housing as an economic regulator should not be continued to such an extent in the future.
This means, obviously, that housing, housing credit and the administration of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have always been linked to the needs, the economic incentive which was necessary for the government to keep abreast and avoid a widespread depression. We are warned against this practice.
I fully agree with this report because there is a growing awareness of the fact that the housing factor is no longer an economic regulator; it has become a factor in itself, a social factor, and a most urgent one.
If we do not settle this problem, if the government beats around the bush, tries to find excuses and defers its decisions, well, Mr. Chairman, we will not be surprised to note before long perhaps a very unfavourable reaction of the people to the government and the confidence that the people should place in their administrators.
The minister is fully aware that the Economic Council of Canada is not the only one to have cautioned him against the present situation; it also happens that briefs have been submitted to him from all quarters.
As an example, I should like to mention the one published in the press recently by the provincial Association of Quebec Home Builders Incorporated. In a press release that I take the liberty of quoting, the president of that important association cautioned the government against the situation which is facing us today.
IMr. Valade.l
I am reading this release, Mr. Chairman, because I consider it most important:
The president of the Provincial Association of Home Builders, Mr. Fernand Boisse, of Sherbrooke, objects to the do-nothing policy applied to housing by the Ottawa government. Since August 12, mortgage loans are practically suspended which brings almost to a standstill the operations of the home building industry.
Once again, the government, by its haphazard policy of granting occasional loans and interrupting them suddenly, is causing serious prejudice to the population-which cannot find decent lodging at the present time-and to the whole industry.
It is useless-continues Mr. Boisse-for the minister responsible for housing to proclaim the urgency and the seriousness of the housing problem if, at the same time, he eliminates the loans without which builders cannot build for the public.
In the past two years-
And I emphasize what the president of the association noted:
In the past two years, residential housing has slowed down as a result of credit restrictions and the shortage of housing is reaching a critical stage while demand is constantly increasing. The absence of a rational policy in the field of housing will have led to that incredible situation: in a country as advanced economically and technically, the public cannot find decent housing because of government lack of cohesion in the matter of mortgage financing.
Mr. Chairman, I end my quotation here to show the minister that if I quoted those words, it was to point out to him that the problem has been with us for two years and that the government has been helpless or unconcerned in the face of a situation which was growing worse from day to day.
Evidently, arguments have been put forward to the effect that there was also, in the field of housing, a provincial and municipal responsibility. We all recognize the responsibility of the lower levels of government in that field. Indeed, the Ontario government recognized it by creating its own organization; the Newfoundland government also set up its own agency and recently, the Quebec government established the Quebec Housing Corporation, an act which came into force yesterday.
If we admit that the provincial and municipal authorities are responsible in the field of housing, that is no excuse for the inertia, the incompetence and the inability of the minister to see to it that those lower levels of government accept and assume their responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, like some of my colleagues, when I see in my riding families who live in crowded tenements, in dusty cities, in houses which can be destroyed overnight by fire_______I
September 28, 1967

was unfortunate enough to witness such a fire where two children I knew very well died-I cannot but feel sorry about the fate of those people. That is why I think the federal government, whose responsibility it is to co-ordinate action, to incite-if the minister will accept that word-to stimulate, to wake up the lower levels of government if they will not assume their responsibilities in that field, should do something all the same.
It is quite obvious, Mr. Chairman, that the province of Quebec has not yet, as it ought to have done, taken adequate steps to alleviate the appalling housing conditions which prevail. As the representative of a city of almost two million people or over, I just cannot accept the fact that in a section covering hardly two square miles, there should be over
80,000	people who are more or less decently housed and of whom at least 50,000 live in decrepit houses or lodgings. And though there may be, in a certain executive field, related administrative duties and interwoven responsibilities-call them whichever name you like -still, I think it is the duty and the responsibility of the men who have been elected to represent the people in this assembly, to draw the attention of the lower level governments to a problem to which they do not appear so far to have been giving enough consideration.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the province of Quebec could have done much better than it has to date for, of the 12,000 emits-
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Georges-J. Valade: If the hon. member does not mind, I will hear his question when I have used up the time allowed me.
If, of the 12,000 housing units financed in Canada recently Quebec has managed to build only one low rental housing project, namely the Dozois project of 796 units, I feel it proves beyond a doubt that the Liberal government which succeeded the Union Nationale in 1960 in the province of Quebec has generally failed to meet its obligations and responsibilities, because the Dozois project is the only low rental housing project in the city of Montreal to have been planned and built under the former Union Nationale administration.
When Mr. Lesage and his so-called sensational team came to power, nothing was done to rectify and remedy the tragic housing situation which now prevails in Montreal.
Supply-Labour
Many factors are responsible for the present housing shortage across Canada and particularly in the province of Quebec. First-as mentioned in the reports of the Canadian Economic Council-there is of course the scarcity of money; the increase in the lot prices due to speculation; the famous 11 per cent tax on building materials which the government insists on maintaining; and also the failure of the federal authorities to show leadership.
Of course, economic factors are involved. If this government had kept its promise when it came to power two years ago, and if it had ensured that so widely heralded prosperity, I think that today many more workers would have the means to buy a house. Under the circumstances, I think that it is our duty to suggest corrective measures or at least solutions.
Before making suggestions to the minister, inasmuch as he asked for our assistance in this field, I should like him to tell me whether he is really sincere and responsible when he says that he wants to take all the necessary measures to rectify the present tragic housing situation. Can the minister give us his assurance that he will contribute to the settlement of that problem? Is he ready to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials? He would show good will, a really deep feeling for the people who elected this government and he would also recognize a need. I should like the minister to tell us whether he is prepared to go that far.
I should like him also to tell us why the government has left the interests accumulate to the point where the lending rate is almost prohibitive. I do not know of any family head earning an average salary of $6,000 or $7,000 a year who can buy a house, make his monthly payments, pay the interest, pay back the principal, pay the municipal and school taxes, the local improvement taxes and also maintain his property. The minister knows full well that it is not realistic to ask a head of a large family or a man with only a few children to make ends meet with the continued increase in the cost of living, which this government is unable to curb.
Does the minister really believe that the policies which he is now elaborating are of such nature as to improve the situation? I do not think so, because it is humanly and materially unrealistic.
The attitude of the present government is so different from the election promises made by our friends opposite in 1965 that I would

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour
like to refer to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on November 3, 1965 in Lindsay, Ontario, I believe, as reported by the Canadian Press:
A government must anticipate, to make sure that very high prices will not counterbalance the advantages of prosperity.
Imagine the inconsistency of those promises with the rise of the interest rate.
Mr. Chairman, I would have liked to make other contributions and suggestions to this government, since the minister has made us such a request, but when one considers that in the province of Quebec, and particularly in Montreal, we have spent over a billion dollars to realize a magnificent project, a project extremely favourable for Canada, namely Expo '67, it is morally forbidden to let working families rot in poverty when they are expecting government assistance to allow them to have a home of their own.
[English}


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, who has just spoken asked me a question. He asked whether the minister would consent to the abolition of the 11 per cent sales tax. I should like to point out that the minister does not have the authority to consent, even if so disposed. I would also like to point out that during years when funds were available for housing, namely the three years that followed the imposition of the 11 per cent sales tax in 1963, notwithstanding the tax, we had steady increases in housing starts and completions every year. There were record years of completions in 1964, 1965 and 1966.


James Russell Keays: But you need twice as many.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I do not know whether the minister was asking a question or making a statement. I do not know why the minister should have the opportunity to make a statement after a member speaks unless he wishes to pose a question and desires an answer.


Edward Nasserden: I have a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. Just a few minutes ago we heard a minister say that there were record starts in the years 1964, 1965 and 1966. A few minutes earlier his colleague said that they had gone down by-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. There is no point of privilege.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. During his speech the

hon. member for Sainte-Marie cast some reflection upon what he called minor governments. I should like to pose a question to the hon. member for Sainte-Marie because I was a representative of the mayors for several years.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The posing of a question is not a question of privilege. Also the time allotted to the hon. member for Sainte-Marie has expired. The hon. member for Verdun.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I do not know whether I am completely accurate in suggesting that the hon. member for Sudbury made his maiden speech here today. In any event, this was the first opportunity I have had to hear his contribution in the House of Commons. I am sure he will be an excellent and welcome addition to the New Democratic party. I am particularly pleased because he introduced many new socialistic tendencies to that party at a time when I thought the party finally was endorsing private enterprise. I was beginning to feel sorry for the leader of that party who is not here this evening.
I approached this debate with a degree of apprehension

and of interest because the question of housing is indeed a serious one. I would say it is an urgent problem in Canada today; I have no hesitation in making that statement. But, frankly, being serious by nature, I was equally interested in seeing the new look of the Conservative party. I do not know just what was supposed to have been injected into that party, but if the quality of debate we have heard today is any indication of what we are supposed to hear from that party in the future I can only repeat that famous slogan of the House of Commons, they are nothing more than the same old gang.
Since I am not by nature partisan I would much prefer to speak to the question which is before us, the question of housing.


Erik Nielsen: Nobody else over there has.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am glad to see that the hon. member for Yukon has come back. He is the kind of member I enjoy; he likes hard hitting debate and I am looking forward to the winter months when the two of us will match blows. I think he makes a better speech standing than when sitting, and I would appreciate it if he would refrain from interjecting until he is really accepted back into the establishment along the front benches.
September 28, 1967

[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: The way Benson is going I will go back home.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I think it is obvious to all of us that there is, in this country at least, a very irksome problem that is worrying hon. members. Having listened to the debate today I have come to the conclusion, and I mean this in all sincerity, that the urgency of the housing problem in the low and middle income brackets, varies from district to district.
I had hoped, as part of the new political look, that the members of the Conservative party might have commenced this debate by saying they realized that the housing situation in Canada has been aggravated by the unprecedented prosperity that has existed in this country since 1962. It has been aggravated as well by the tremendous influx of immigrants who have realized that the Liberal party is back in power and that this is once again a land of opportunity. Since they have not done so, I presume they know we all realize this and do not want to be redundant.
As is often the case, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi began his remarks by saying he did not want to make a partisan speech and then proceeded to make personal reference to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour. I wish he were here tonight. I was glad to listen to his contribution in the house, particularly since the last time I saw the hon. member, he was prognosticating over the C.B.C. during the time of that well known recent convention, predicting the outcome on the basis that he was going to deliver the balance of power to a certain candidate. Unfortunately, he delivered that balance of power to the wrong candidate, and I hope he will be back in favour very soon.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are out of order.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I guess I am out of order and I will return to the housing situation, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: You would be better to stay away from it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I tried without much success to list several of the main points expressed by that hon. member. I wrote as quickly as possible but was unable to get them all down because of his fiery style of oratory, which is the envy of all of us I am sure. I did manage to write down 12 of his suggestions. I went to the reading room during the adjournment and found that eight of them had been the
Supply-Labour
subject of rules, regulations and statutes of the House of Commons for many years. I might have expected this kind of error on the part of the hon. member for Northumberland, who last year in debate made it obvious he did not realize that at that time banks could not enter the mortgage field. Today, however, the hon. member came up with some very good ideas, particularly one, namely that the government copy the United States government and consult with our institutions of finance in this country, to see if by some moral persuasion the government could persuade these institutions to help in the field of housing. This particular type of encounter between the government and private enterprise did take place last March and April. Thanks to the persuasive powers of the present minister in charge of housing, we did obtain from private lenders more of a direct contribution on a per capita basis than did our counterparts in the United States under the plan of President Johnson.


Erik Nielsen: What is the interest rate in the United States?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: My very good friend, and I am glad to see him in the house obviously the picture of health, the hon. member for Danforth, made the same speech again for the fourth time. I am glad because this makes it easier to anticipate the arguments. One thing did surprise me slightly about the speech of the hon. member for Danforth and the speech of the new and vigorous member for Sudbury was that they felt that because of this kind of emergency in the field of housing, we could completely disregard the constitution of Canada. They both said, in essence, to hell with the B.N.A. Act, it is not really important because we have a housing problem. They suggested the government should be involved in low rental housing without discussing this with the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is precisely what was said. Perhaps I am paraphrasing a little but you can check this out to make sure I am correct.
What was said by that new representative of the party that has finally recognized a special status for the province of Quebec? I do not know how housing fits into this special status for the province of Quebec, but I should like to remind this house that the New Democratic party has now discovered that special status. I say this because about two

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour
weeks ago during the height of the Conservative convention, I read a letter to the editor of Le Devoir which would indicate that this party had discovered the principle of special status. The hon. member for Greenwood wrote a beautiful letter to the editor of Le Devoir in which he stated that he wanted the French Canadian people to realize that the New Democratic party was the first party of any in the federal field to recognize this special status. I still do not understand how housing would fit into their concept of special status. In any event, if one listened to the hon. member for Danforth, he would obviously be aware that we are going to have a housing problem of a completely different nature in la belle province. That may be good for housing, I do not know. As a matter of fact-


David Lewis: You know that is not true.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Those who want to know the real definition of special status as discovered by the N.D.P., and their attitude toward the housing problem, should read the speech made in the House of Commons on May 16 by that same hon. member for Greenwood. In the final analysis you may find their definition of provincial rights to be more restrictive than is presently the case.
There has been a lot said today about housing, particularly with regard to people in the medium income class, including young executives and intellectuals. I will refer to the workers in a minute. I come from that class myself and I feel-


An hon. Member:: And you look it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, I look it and I am not
ashamed of it like some Tories apparently appear to be. I don't give a damn for the $25,000 per year supporter of the Tory party, nor whether he can find a house as long as I can find adequate housing for the lunch pail carriers in my riding. They are my concern.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Don't run away with yourself, Bryce.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should be careful of his public image to which we have been exposed for years. That image is likely to go out the window if an intellectual such as he decides to interrupt and interfere from his seat. You have a public image now, and you have a responsibility.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Don't worry, our boys are not particularly concerned about-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Don't let your image go to your head. Please be calm. Don't get excited. You should co-operate or co-ordinate your housing committee a little better.
Now that we have got over that little bit of interruption, let me refer to last Saturday's edition of the Montreal Star. I sat thinking that if I were a young executive in Montreal and wanted to find a house to live in, would I have any success. As has been mentioned here today, many young couples are starting out in life and want to obtain a little bungalow on a piece of land 50 feet by 100 feet. I was wondering where I could find such a property in that big, bustling metropolis of Montreal.
In looking at the Montreal Star I first found an ad for a five and one half room bungalow at $13,530 in Chateauguay, which is a village 15 minutes from Dorchester street, with payments of $82 a month. Another firm advertised three and four bedroom bungalows for $15,399. The ad suggested that one should hurry because there were only 1,000 left. If one preferred a duplex in St. Laurent at $39,000, which means about $19,000 per unit, a few of those can be found right in the heart of old French Canada.
In the event that some individuals on the other side are contemplating a move to la belle province during this 100th year of confederation, when so many individuals are endorsing federalism, let me refer them to this ad. It refers to a house called the Californian which sells for $18,000 with a 6| per cent interest rate and a cash down payment of $990. Finally, Mr. Chairman, before someone over there has a heart attack because I am not moving along fast enough, there is another house advertised here.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
This next example shows just how important Ross Thatcher is. You can buy a house called "Saskatchewan" for $13,990, with a down payment of $475. Just in case hon. members think that in the question of housing we are forgetting the Quebec nationalists, we find a house called "Quebec" that sells at $16,150 with a tremendous down payment of $800. We have other models ranging from $13,000 to $18,000.


Mr. Enns:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, because I like to hear a good fellow.
September 28, 1967


Siegfried John Enns: My question is simply this. I should like to ask the hon. member how long he thinks he would have to spend in the reading room to find ads for the 250,000 houses that he is describing.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Is the hon. member asking whether there are 250,000 such homes available?


Siegfried John Enns: I believe there is a demand for and a shortage of houses to that extent at least.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I was so impressed by the arguments advanced today by the opposition, which arguments were so well documented, that there were absolutely no homes available in this category in the great metropolitan area of Montreal that I went to find out for myself what the figures were.


Siegfried John Enns: There is no crisis?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member is getting
like the hon. member for Kamloops, who has left the chamber to get a tranquillizer. However, Mr. Chairman, there is a serious note to this debate. Perhaps my happy mood tonight will counterbalance the debate we have heard from the other side of the chamber. Hon. members opposite have been extremely critical of our housing policy, but they should be more factual in their remarks. I suppose the new look over there has unfortunately not had time to develop. One would think that the chairman of their committee would have pointed out the excellent work carried out by C.M.H.C. We should have heard of the advantages of having this great corporation rather than the completely misinformed statements to which we have been subjected today.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi said that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour will again rise and hide behind the constitution. I have not had the experience of the hon. member in being a demagogue. I have not had the chance to go across the country and take my own, unofficial poll on the sex life of the tsetse fly or what the big problem is in Vancouver or Winnipeg. I have not had the advantage of the weekly bulletins that have been issued when the hon. member has discovered that Vancouver is worried about pollution, Saskatchewan is worried about external affairs, and deep in the heart of Montreal somebody is worried about separatism.
Supply-Labour


An hon. Member:: You sound like an auctioneer.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am worried about the constitution, and unlike the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, I respect it. There is a fundamental difference here. All of us who have sat in this House of Commons have heard innumerable speeches by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi in which he has defended the right of the province of Quebec and other provinces, and castigated the government for injecting themselves into the affairs of the provinces and now disregards those rights.


Erik Nielsen: What about housing?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: All right.


An hon. Member:: We haven't seen the
hon. member for Yukon for one year.


Erik Nielsen: But when I speak, I contribute something to the debate, unlike the hon. member who has just interjected.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Chairman, I do not want the attitude of the committee to become belligerent. In all fairness to the hon. member for Yukon, I would point out that he is a perfect example of how we should conduct ourselves in this House of Commons. So I am on his side; other hon. members should leave him alone.


Erik Nielsen: Let us talk about housing.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Somebody said that the province of Quebec is finally establishing a housing corporation. I think the hon. member for Sainte-Marie pointed out that in the years 1960 to 1966 the Lesage government would not do any such thing and now, after the enlightened separatist government came into power in the province of Quebec, they will get every nickel possible out of the federal government by having funds funnelled into the province. In the Tory years you had no housing problem because the people stayed in the country and on the farms. They were not inclined to leave the farms, realizing the degree of depression that existed in the big cities. That is the big difference between those days and today.
The minister told the house this afternoon that eight of the provinces have now established what might be called housing authorities or housing corporations. At least they are provincial government bodies working largely in complete co-operation with the federal government.

September 28, 1967
Supply-Labour
The minister in charge of housing in Quebec, Hon. Paul Dozois, is a capable and excellent man. He realizes the necessity for low rental housing in the province of Quebec. He realized this necessity back in the 1950's, and there is in that province what is known as the Dozois plan, or Dozois development, which provides adequate housing for hundreds and hundreds of families in the low rental categories. He is a strong Canadian and a strong federalist. I point this out because I may have created the impression that all members of that government are Noel Tremblays.
But not one single housing corporation at the provincial level was established prior to 1964. Where was this great degree of co-operation between the years 1958 and 1962? Where was the respect for the rights of the provinces in those years? Why did not the great Tory provinces get around to forming housing corporations in those years? They did not do this until there was in Ottawa an enlightened Liberal government.
The facts are there for all to see. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre likes his facts to be precise. He is looking at me now with both eyes, for a change. The Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation was established in 1966. The Nova Scotia Housing Commission was established on April 6, 1966. The New Brunswick Housing Corporation was established on July 1, 1967. The Quebec Housing Corporation, Societe d'habi-tation du Quebec, was assented to on June 29, 1967, and became operative on September 27, 1967. The Ontario Housing Corporation was established on May 8, 1964. The Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation was established on June 21, 1967. The Alberta Housing and Urban Renewal Corporation was established on April 11, 1967. The Prince Edward Island Housing Authority was established on April 7, 1966.
Despite these facts, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi rises in the house and accuses the minister of running back and forth across the country holding meetings with the provinces, with nothing to show for his efforts. All the minister has to show for his efforts is six or seven new housing corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: These housing corporations and authorities have been established because we have enlightened legislation. Because of the policy of this government we will be able to do something to solve this problem. We

will be able to provide low rental housing and housing renewals. Not one person in the opposition congratulated the minister today for not having increased the interest rate on loans for low-rental houses. Not one member of the opposition has noticed that the money available for low rental housing in this country is still at an interest rate of 6J per cent. Why did not somebody mention that fact?
If we want to respect the British North America Act in this country, if we want a country-this is the point-everybody must make a sacrifice, and this includes the English separatists as well as the French separatists. If we are to respect the B.N.A. Act and provincial jurisdiction in the field of housing, the name of the game is co-operation. Three levels of government merged to produce Expo, and three levels of government will merge to solve the housing problem. The three levels of government are going to merge right across this country to wipe out slums and eradicate mediocre housing. This can be achieved if we take advantage of the legislation, not that we will adopt but which already exists.
There is not a member in this House of Commons who does not feel as I do in this respect. Sometimes you get a call on Friday night or on Saturday, or a phone call from a constituent who wants to find a senior-citizens home and says, "Is there a home somewhere to place my parents? My mother and father want to live with us, but my home is too small and we do not have anywhere to put them." There is no way in which I can answer this question. We do not have a single, solitary housing development for senior citizens in a city of 90,000 people. This is a shame but it is not the fault of the federal government. There has been sufficient money but, as the minister pointed out time and time again and as has been stated by previous speakers, there has not been one single solitary project brought before the federal government-and I presume the same has been true of the opposition when it formed the government-by the provinces that has ever been refused. The moneys available for low rental housing on the federal level have never been exhausted in one calendar year.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
So let us remember and let us be factual. There is a housing problem and I am not proud of it. This government, like all other governments, must do something about it. However, this is a worldwide problem. I have often been accused of a slight leftist tendency which makes me look from time to time to
September 28, 1967

the little group in the corner and wonder why they are so misguided in other areas. So I went to the library and I said to myself: perhaps we can learn from Sweden. This socialistic haven may have been able to solve this problem. It is a small and compact country. Its people are used to regimentation, they are used to socialism. They do not really have to use the thought process. There cannot be a housing problem in Sweden, I thought. However, I found to my surprise that the waiting list for houses is getting shorter; you only have to wait between five and six years for a house. That is an improvement when you compare it with Poland, for instance.
The problem is a worldwide one but it does not mean that we do not have a responsibility to do something about housing. What we have to do is to establish priorities and find out who is important and who needs the housing. Many speakers on the other side of the house have said-and unfortunately their remarks got lost in their partisan attitude- that we must do something for the little man with the lunch pail. It is hard to shed tears for the young executive making $28,000 a year who cannot find a mortgage at 6.25 per cent. I stay away from the executive page in the Montreal Star, the $40,000 and up category. There are many of them. But we need low rental housing.
Let us eliminate the term "public housing". It is degrading, to my way of thinking. Not being an intellectual, an engineer or an architect, I can never understand why public housing has to be so ugly, why it cannot be more functional and why we cannot have a little grass growing around it. Why is it that a man who earns $100 or $120 a week is not entitled to decent housing? The provision of decent housing is the moral obligation of the government and we have no right to shift it to the provinces or the municipalities. We are not trying to do so. We are trying to co-operate, and this is the reason why the minister, particularly in the first three months of the year, travelled from one end of the country to the other setting up housing corporations. So the mechanism and good will are there, but the demand for this type of housing must be generated by the people on the street, the people at the civic level who have a moral responsibility through the church and social groups to look after their neighbour. It is a grave responsibility, and yet when one goes to city council meetings, as I do-and I am sure this is true all across the country-one finds only eight or nine people present there. One can understand then the despair and
Supply-Labour
frustrations of the old people because they cannot find homes since there are not enough convalescent and low rental homes available. These places do not have to be shacks. Let us look at Habitat which we are proud to show the world. We are trying to do things in this country but we will not get anywhere if the attitude of the opposition is completely negative and partisan. We have not heard a single, solitary suggestion from the other side except for the one made by the hon. member for Northumberland who said we should use moral persuasion on insurance companies. That is his great idea for the future. Other proposals came from the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi who filed eight or nine suggestions that are two or three years old and already on the statute books.
I just received a note from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation stating that their pamphlet is out of date. However, that is not too important because the principle is the same, namely that there is money and there always has been money for low rental housing. What we want to do is rid the country of the prejudice that surrounds the name of public housing. We want to cease equating public housing with poverty, degradation and second class status. We want to make our low rental housing projects in this country attractive and a compliment to the working man. It is not the 8.25 per cent interest that is the burden in housing, as the hon. member for Sainte-Marie said in one of his few moments of rationality. It is the taxes on the municipal level for schools that fall on the home owner. The day is rapidly waning for the hope that all of us have of living on a piece of land 50 by 100 feet with a nice little cottage on it and a few tomato plants growing in the backyard. It is impossible. There are no more lots left on Dorchester street or Sherbrooke street in Montreal. If you want that dream, you have to go back to the country and when you get back to the country you are faced with the tremendous cost of building facilities for education. It is a vicious circle. It is not a problem that one level of government can settle. It is a problem which has become a national emergency. I do not know if the minister will agree with that. Nevertheless, in times of national emergency we should not fight, bicker, and pass the buck. The time has come for complete cooperation among the civic, provincial and federal jurisdictions. Fortunately, through the foresight, intelligence, integrity and eloquence of the minister, practically every

September 28, 1967
Business of the House province in Canada today has finally established a provincial housing corporation the medium through which we will eradicate the slums of Canada.


Mr. Irvine:: Mr. Chairman, I see that I do not have much time left and I think I should congratulate the hon. member for Verdun for that non-partisan speech which he promised us and delivered to us. Perhaps he will excuse me for being slightly partisan in the minute or so that is left to us today. However, I have no intention of blasting the minister. I think that, along with many members on this side of the house I can say we have a great deal of regard for him and for his capabilities. However, we must realize that he is an overworked man. It is not his fault that he was saddled with this responsibility for housing. We know that within the terms of reference of his portfolio there is plenty of work for any man even though his capacity may be great to carry out his duties in that respect. Nevertheless, the housing policy has suffered, I think. I do not believe we can blame the minister for that.
I was very interested tonight to hear the hon. member for Middlesex East mention the resolution that was passed by the council of the city of London. It is recognized at the present time in the city of London that there is a shortage there of some 4,000 dwelling units. They are quite concerned, and I am sure everybody in the house is concerned about the fact that throughout Canada there is a shortage of some 25,000 residential units.
This is what we are considering here now. I hope we will have an opportunity to carry on this discussion a little further some time in the not too distant future and to discuss this problem in greater detail. I am concerned about the effect of the increase in the maximum interest rate upon the average person who makes less than $8,000 a year, not the man who is fortunate enough to be in the higher income bracket. What will happen to him, because with the higher interest rate naturally the valuation of all homes will increase the inflationary pressures which exist today? When it does, the man living in the low rental home will have to pay more by way of rent. Naturally, the money coming out of his pocket will remove him from that utopian condition of having his own home.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Is the home, the private dwelling, becoming uneconomic? I do not think so. The minister ought to consider that. Particularly, he ought to consider the fellow in the lower income

bracket. How is he to have a home of his own?
I note some restlessness, Mr. Chairman. May I call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Allan Joseph MacEachen: It might be helpful if I announced the business for tomorrow and next week. Tomorrow we propose to deal with legislation, the resolution on emergency gold mining assistance which is No. 34 on today's order paper. After that is completed, we propose to take the resolution on postage rates, No. 33 on today's order paper. On Monday we propose to move that Mr. Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply. This will allow hon. members to move an amendment. When that debate is concluded we propose to resume the budget debate and that resumed debate is likely to begin on Wednesday of next week and will continue for the remainder of the week. That is the present plan. I foresee no change. If there is any necessary change, I shall advise hon. members.


Mr. Fullon:: May I ask the minister, to avoid any misunderstanding, whether it is not intended to call third reading of the bill on the manpower and citizenship advisory council?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


James Ross Fulton: I asked that to avoid misunderstandings.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We shall not call it tomorrow or next week, no.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, last June I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) about his participation and that of the federal Liberal party, as well as of the federal government to the Estates General of Quebec which will be held late next November.
September 28. 1967	COMMONS
It is a known fact that the Estates General will bring together 2,500 delegates who will study in committee the problems of Quebecers and Quebec.


Mr. Trudeau:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member tells us that last June-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is precisely against standing orders to raise a point of order at this time. I think it has always been acknowledged that no point of order could be raised at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order. It is not the custom to interrupt the member who has the floor and in view of the fact that the time allotted is only seven minutes, I feel that questions could be postponed until the time is up.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the minister will certainly have the opportunity to reply; in fact, he will have three minutes to reply.
So, I consider strange this refusal of the government or of the Liberal party or of the federal Liberal members from Quebec, except the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) who has agreed to attend the meetings of the Estates General, the object of which is precisely to consider the problems of the Quebecers.
It is known that at their meeting in Montmorency House, the federal Liberal members were told by Reverend Father Ares, a Jesuit well known for his concern for national questions, that they have been too aloof from the main events that have occurred in Quebec recently.
And they still do since, generally speaking, the federal members of parliament refuse to take part in as important a meeting as that of the Estates General to be held next November.
It is therefore astonishing to hear the hon. Minister of Justice tell us, as if he no longer knows what is going on in Quebec and how the thinking evolves: If they have suggestions to make and amendments to propose to the constitution, let them do so. But he does not have any to make, precisely because he shies away from the events and the changing mood in Quebec. He stays far from it and does not participate in the life of present day Quebec; that is why he has no suggestions to make. He has no plans to amend the constitution, and merely says: If anyone has suggestions to make, let him make them.
DEBATES	2639
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
But when one makes suggestions-and that is what is going on right now, in the case of all the suggestions made to the hon. Minister of Justice-the hon. minister merely rejects them and does not make any of his own.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. Minister of Justice, whose mission, whose role is precisely to attend to constitutional changes when they are indicated, were to follow more closely what goes on in Quebec at the present time, if he met Quebecers oftener, he would know what amendments are indicated.
Perhaps it is because he was elected in an English-speaking riding in Montreal that he seems to neglect the point of view of the French Canadians. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Minister of Justice, as a man in public life and a Quebecer of French extraction, should take part in the Estates General. He should attend the meetings, participate in the discussions and hear the various points of view which will be expressed. What will be the conclusions thereof? I do not know, since the Estates General have not yet met, but I think it would be profitable for the Minister of Justice to hear and discuss all those suggestions at the Estates General. I also think that it would be more useful for him than to argue that Estates General are a backward step and only those who are elected can speak on behalf of the people.
No, Mr. Speaker, it does not only rest with those who have been elected to speak on behalf of Quebec citizens; it rests with the Quebecers themselves to speak on their own behalf. It rests with the Quebecers to speak for themselves and this is what they are going to do at that meeting of the Estates General which includes delegates of every constituency, of all classes of society and of every association.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In concluding, I invite the minister to change his mind and to allow the Estates General to have access to all documents, statistics and research which might have been made by the federal government in the past. By making all those available to the Estates General, I think that it will give the best opportunity to study the Quebec problem, since this has been organized quite seriously by a group of honest men who really want to study the Quebec problem fully.
The Estates General will elect, as I said earlier, people from all walks of life and every part of Quebec. The organization was
2640	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion set up in earnest and I think that the Minister of Justice would benefit by taking part in it.
That is why I invite him to change his mind in that respect, to recognize the wonderful work accomplished by the Estates General up to date, to take part in it, to voice his opinion and to make available to that organization all the research and statistics facilities of the federal government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My Speaker, my point of order dealt with the allegation of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to the effect that his question of last June concerned the participation of the Liberal party in the Estates General, whereas it referred to something entirely different. As a matter of fact, it was about statistics to be supplied by the federal government to that organization.
I feel, therefore, that he is clearly misusing the standing orders so as to deal with anything and everything when it suits his convenience. That is why I have no advice to take from the hon. member for Lapointe who is lacking in sense of sequence.
He is also anything tout well-read and has a very bad memory. He says that I failed to make any suggestions to amend the constitution. I must tell him that hardly three weeks ago, at the convention of the Canadian Bar Association held in Quebec city, I made very specific suggestions to amend the constitution, to ensure its gradual rather than disorderly evolution and development.
These propositions, Mr. Speaker, are the only definite propositions made by a government in power in this country to amend the constitution.
So, there are people who have been making haphazard and contradictory propositions, for a very long term but, our government excepted, no one has yet suggested a definite formula for the orderly and progressive development of the constitution.
As far as the Estates General are concerned, in Le Devoir, day before yesterday, in a paper read to the delegates who are to sit on the Estates General, I see that the right and the duty of French Canadians to be equal to other people is being proclaimed.
Mr. Speaker, in my speech to the Bar Association, I suggested a way through which French-speaking Canadians could obtain equal rights with English-speaking Canadians. This suggestion has been rejected and even ignored by the hon. member.


Gilles Grégoire: Even by the right hon.
Prime Minister.

DEBATES	September 28, 1967


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What I should like to know- I beg your pardon, the right hon. Prime Minister did not reject it.
What I should like to know, and I hope the Estates General will at long last let us know, is how they will go about achieving that equality of the French Canadians with other peoples. We are still waiting, we are even awaiting a concrete speech from the hon. member for Lapointe, something specific, a constitutional document, an amending formula with certain specifics, which would enable us to sit down and study. But, until now, we have heard almost nothing but words.



NATIONAL PARKS-WASKESIU, SASK.-POSSIBLE RETENTION OF TOURIST CABINS

Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing) is not in the house tonight as I should like to discuss a matter which comes under his jurisdiction. However, I shall take this opportunity to present my case for the Waskesiu townsite national park in Saskatchewan. I would be failing in my duty as a member of parliament, whose constituents are involved in this matter, if I did not do so.
Waskesiu was dedicated by the late prime minister of Canada, W. L. Mackenzie King, as a park for the use of the average Canadian. It was never intended as a rich man's paradise. The original intention of Mr. King with regard to this park has been carried out in that it has largely been used by Canadians of modest means. They have made use of the magnificent setting of Prince Albert national park to erect tents, portable cabins and what are popularly known as shack tents.
Shack tents in reality are collapsible, are readily stored, have wooden walls and a canvas roof. Many of these cabins or shack tents have been passed from father to son and so on. They have been improved and decorated, and in many instances become difficult to recognize in that the improvements have been so vast that the original canvas roofed shack tent is no more. Instead, you might see a gleaming example of what modern technology can do.
The important thing is that Waskesiu provided many thousands of citizens with an opportunity to have an exciting outdoor
September 28, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	2641
holiday at minimum cost. The portable cabin and shack tent dwellers have been the backbone, the mainstay, of Waskesiu, and in view of this you can imagine the shock and disbelief of Waskesiu enthusiasts at the announcement of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In place of the camping area, the shack tents, the portable cabins, even the commercial Waskesiu bungalow cabins, a new recreation area and a new group of so called low cost motels is to rise. As a result of the grandiose plans of the minister the tennis courts, bowling greens and other excellent recreational facilities will disappear. In other words, no longer are the needs of those who have made Waskesiu the holiday home it is today to be considered by the minister.
By some strange survey the minister has decided that the one day visitor, the one day transient, is the one his department should woo. This is the decision, even in the face of the fact that the gates of Prince Albert National Park are between 250 to 300 miles from the trans-Canada highway. So, by his decision, the minister is ignoring completely the rights of the present users of Waskesiu. No longer, with the implementation of this plan, will a shack tent owner be able to pass the ownership on to his son; no longer will it be possible for a portable cabin to be passed on to a beneficiary or sold.
In many cases the owners will be faced with losses amounting to $5,000, $6,000 or $7,000, and all of this is to satisfy the whims of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. What is the purpose behind this scheme? Surely it is clear that the purpose is to banish the shack tent, the portable cabin and, later, larger cottage owners, because it is noted that no provision is made for relocation of the shack tents or cabins. It has been said that there is no place to put them. Yet, only 30 acres are involved out of over 30,000 acres which are available in the park in the Waskesiu town site. Lake Waskesiu alone has many areas where cabins could be relocated or, alternatively, where the day camp proposals of the minister could be put to the test.
Make no mistake; if you remove and banish the people who are the backbone of Waskesiu, you destroy the true purpose for which Prime Minister Mackenzie King inaugurated the Prince Albert National Park. The minister should reconsider the plans which were so hastily conceived. Surely, it could not have been his intention to hurt first of all those shack tent owners who can least
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion afford a change. Without Waskesiu many will be unable to afford any summer holiday. I find it difficult to believe that the minister will press forward with such a policy without the benefit of sober second thought. I bring this to the attention of the minister, and I ask him and his officials to consider this issue which is very serious indeed in the province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to assure the hon. member opposite that his remarks this evening were timely and I will draw them to the attention of the minister on his return to the house. There are, however, a couple of points I should like to make today in view of the hon. member's remarks.
Our national parks have been established for the preservation of Canada's marvellous wilderness as our national heritage. It is the desire of the government of Canada to make the parks freely available for the use of all Canadian citizens. The increase in the number of good highways in the last few years has made a large number of Canadians more aware of the national parks and has given them an increasing desire to visit them. Due to this increase in attendance in the national parks, existing facilities definitely have become overcrowded. Therefore, new facilities must be created for the highly mobile type of park visitor that is the norm in this country today. The position of the shack tent dwellers in Waskesiu is a highly privileged one in that they have been allowed to maintain what is, in effect, a private dwelling for some years.
I should at this time emphasize that no existing shack tent dweller in the park today will be displaced. They will continue to be granted leases on a year to year basis so long as the existing tenant or his or her spouse wish to remain there. What the department has said, however, is that no new people will be allowed to obtain leases of this type in the parks. Shack tent camping is a privilege that will rest with the individual and cannot be considered an interest vested in either the structure or the land. A tenant, therefore, cannot be allowed to assign or transfer his lease to somebody other than his or her spouse.
Mr. Speaker, this is a decision that has been discussed at great length in parliament, in our committee and in the press; it is believed to be the right one. Both the minister
September 28, 1967
2642	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and I firmly believe that a national park is the property of all Canadians and should be available to visitors from all parts of the country. We have gone to great pains to assure those people now holding special shack tent privileges in the park that they will be allowed to remain there as long as they renew their leases annually.
The formation of new private dwellings of this nature, however, would be incompatible with the philosophy of the use of the national park and the increasing need for camp site space for the mobile traveller. It is for this reason that the government believes, in the interests of the public of Canada, that the shack tents must be phased out by natural attrition over the years.
May I say, in conclusion, that the government at all times welcomes the advice of the public and is willing to receive representations from all interested parties including the hon. member.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)



POWER-COLUMBIA RIVER-ALLEGED DELAY IN FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO B.C.

Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on September 26 I asked the following question as reported in Hansard at page 2482:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that Hon. W. A. C. Bennett, premier of British Columbia, is publicly condemning the government of Canada for failing to pay the $12 million owed to British Columbia for completion of the Duncan Lake dam by July 31 of this year according to the agreement between the federal and provincial governments with respect to the Columbia river treaty, can the minister inform the house of the facts with respect to this intriguing question?
I asked that question because the people of British Columbia are somewhat confused as to what are the facts. I wish to quote briefly from the agreement signed by the government of Canada and British Columbia on July 18, 1963 in relation to the Columbia river treaty. I find the following in clause 15:
Canada and British Columbia will consult as required on technical and other matters of mutual interest with a view to facilitating the implementation of the treaty, avoiding disputes and carrying out this agreement.
What confuses the people of British Columbia is that Mr. Bennett apparently is not taking advantage of that clause in the treaty, but is publicly condemning the federal government. The Vancouver Sun of May 11, 1967 suggests that Mr. Benhett, when asked for his opinion of the treaty, said that the thing at


fault was that the treaty was signed too quickly. He blamed the federal authorities for the arrangement made with the aluminum company for a dam on the Arrow lakes which was three times better than the one provided by the treaty.
The premier of British Columbia officiated recently at the opening of the Duncan lake dam which was completed earlier than anticipated. This is what he had to say according to the Vancouver Sun of Friday, August 18 in its report of this ceremony:
Premier W. A. C. Bennett officially unleashed the water behind Duncan dam-
At the same time, he unleashed his wrath against Ottawa for failing to pay him $12 million in exchange for flood control benefits in the U.S.
Ottawa, he charged, has defaulted on a term of the Columbia River Treaty under which the Duncan dam was built.
And he offered to lend the federal government the money he claimed it owes B.C.
"I offer to lend it to them if they're so hard up," he told reporters immediately before the dam dedication ceremony here.
"Without interest," he added.
Then the newspaper went on to say:
Such was the private wrath of the premier Thursday as he issued his angry charges in stage whispers to reporters attending the event.
He said later:
"This is supposed to be a picnic atmosphere," he told a crowd of about 300 from atop the dam.
"So I won't make any speeches."
The article says later:
"I want to make it clear," he told reporters privately before the luncheon, "that it is not the U.S. who defaulted. It is Ottawa."
He said that, although under the treaty the U.S. is required to pay flood control benefits to the Canadian government, it is Ottawa who is supposed to pay B.C.
He went on to say:
"It's always Ottawa that's to blame," he said.
These are the premier's criticisms of the treaty in the first instance. I have a photograph in my office in which the premier of British Columbia is shown clapping his hands vigorously while the treaty is being signed by the President of the United States at the Peace Arch in British Columbia, on the U.S.-Canada border.
This has created a great deal of confusion in the public mind. In the agreement there is a clause that permits for consultation on these technical and legal matters in order to avoid disputes. Yet the premier of British
September 28, 1967	COMMONS
Columbia is going around the country blaming the federal government in the first instance for signing the treaty anyway, and latterly for failing to pay the $12 million that he claims is owing his province in respect of the early completion of the Duncan dam.
I trust that when the parliamentary secretary replies he will inform the house of the facts, because the people are confused and want to know the truth with respect to this agreement and Premier Bennett's statements.


Mr. J. B. Siewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the facts with regard to this situation are as follows. The British Columbia Power and Hydro Authority brought the Duncan dam into operation on July 31, 1967. This dam is the first of three to be completed as part of the Columbia river undertaking.
Article VI (1) C of the Columbia river treaty provides that the United States shall pay to Canada in United States funds the sum of $11,100,000 upon the commencement of operation of the Duncan dam. This payment was not made by the United States to Canada on the date on which it fell due which, as I have indicated, was July 31 of this year. I understand that the authority to
DEBATES	2643
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion make the necessary payment is contained in an appropriations bill which has not been passed by the congress of the United States.
The importance which we attach to receiving this overdue payment at the earliest possible date has been urged on the United States government. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) recently spoke in this sense to Mr. Rusk. He also pressed a claim for interest covering the period since the payment fell due on July 31. While the United States authorities may not view the latter in exactly the same light as we do, we believe they share our anxiety to avoid further delay. Moreover, we are now following up our claim for interest in Washington.
The obligation of the government of Canada in this case consists solely in taking all steps necessary to protect Canadian interests by ensuring that the terms of the Columbia river treaty are carried out. This obligation is being fulfilled by this government. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been in touch with the premier of British Columbia in order to keep the premier abreast of developments on this matter.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

Friday, September 29, 1967