1967-12-21

Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move, seconded by Mr. MacEachen, that this house do now adjourn. I move this motion, in accordance with an agreement among the parties in the house, so it may initiate a discussion of housing and urban development between this hour and, I believe, one o'clock. I have the privilege of introducing this subject, and I hope to set a good example by giving a very brief statement. Before the discussion is concluded, I hope the minister responsible for housing may be able to wind it up and deal with points which may be raised.


An hon. Member:: Why isn't he leading oft?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Because I am leading off, which may not be a very adequate reason but is the best I can think of at the moment.
As the house knows, a federal-provincial housing conference was held in Ottawa a short time ago. I had the honour to preside over it, although I was not able to attend all the sessions. It has been described as having been a failure; because it collapsed prematurely and some of the premiers walked out of the conference before it ended. I should point out that the letters to the premiers invited them to come to Ottawa to discuss this subject and to exchange views on this very important and urgent problem at a meeting beginning on Monday, December 11 and continuing perhaps for another day or two.
In my opening statement I expressed the hope that we might be able to complete the discussions by Tuesday night, but that if not we would go on until Wednesday. We did, in fact finish our work before the third day, and the premiers who were here at the beginning were here at the end. Indeed, I recall very well a dinner which was held on Tuesday night, a very useful and friendly dinner at which all the premiers who were here at the conference were present.
So it was not a question of the conference breaking up. Before it completed its discussion, arrangements had been made and agreed on for the federal and provincial deputy ministers responsible for housing in their particular governments to meet in three , months to follow up some of the subjects that were raised at this conference, and for the ministers responsible for housing in the various governments to meet together in six months.
The purpose of the conference, as indicated in the invitation, was to examine the very important and serious problem of housing and urban development and to see what could be done co-operatively-because that is the only way in which progress can be made -to improve the situation.
As all spokesmen at the conference pointed out at one time or another, the problem is basically one of urbanization in our country. The process of urbanization in Canada has now reached the point where the concentration of population in urban centres is proceeding apace. At the present time 75 per cent of our people live in cities or towns. I am informed that by 1980, at the present rate of progress, two thirds of the people of Canada will live in 29 urban centres and one third will live in three metropolitan centres.
Housing is only one, but certainly the most immediate and urgent, of the problems rising out of urbanization and urban development. As all hon. members know, the problem is to keep pace with this development in terms of the number of houses required for adequate or better than adequate housing, and to improve the quality as well as the quantity of our housing. Progress has been made in this field. I may have a few figures to give, though the minister will have a chance to go into the subject in greater detail. There has been progress in recent years, of course, but that progress is not sufficient. Perhaps the most impressive indication of the problem, what has been done and what is required to be done, which is more than has been done, is contained in the fourth report of the Economic Council of Canada. This report was often quoted during the discussions.

December 21, 1967
Housing
[DOT] (10:10 a.m.)
There are, of course, related problems in urbanization in addition to housing. I will only mention problems such as transportation and pollution. There is also the matter of cost, which has something to do with the whole problem. The fact is that as we all know the cost of housing has gone up 50 per cent in 15 years, in spite of the efficiency of the housing industry. The efficiency of this industry has been increasing, in part at least due to the assistance given and investigations carried out by governments, including the federal government. But while costs have gone up 50 per cent in 15 years it is only right to point out, on the other hand, that incomes have gone up by 100 per cent.
Perhaps the most difficult, the most serious factor in connection with increased costs is the cost of land, both raw land and serviced land. This is a matter of more immediate importance, because it comes under their sole responsibility, to the municipal and provincial governments, although the federal government certainly has a relationship to the problem. One of the difficulties in dealing adequately with the housing problem, a difficulty which was faced at this conference, arises out of the complexity of the government closest to that problem, that is, municipal government. There are 18 cities in Canada now with populations of over 100,000 people, but there are 260 municipal jurisdictions covering those people. This of course makes it much more difficult than it would be otherwise to deal with the problems involved in housing and urban development, urban transportation, pollution and that kind of thing.
Now, Mr. Speaker, of course the immediate question is how best to deal with the problem. More money from Ottawa alone, important though that may be, is not the answer. During the last ten years the federal government has invested in privately initiated housing $3.5 billion. No doubt in future the government will have to invest more as opportunities and resources are available. But that alone is not the answer-that is, federal participation-for the simple reason that the provinces have the primary responsibility in this matter, not the sole but the primary responsibility.
This brings up the question, which is sometimes overlooked, the question of jurisdiction. It was made quite clear to us at the conference, by some provinces particularly,

that this whole matter was primarily a provincial one, and that the federal government should be very careful in intervening beyond its jurisdiction in this field. There was no doubt as to where certain provinces stood in that regard. I know there are those who feel that to the greatest extent possible we should go ahead ignoring constitutional difficulties; full speed ahead and damn the constitutional torpedoes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hear "Hear, hear" from the other side. If we went full speed ahead in this country of ours and said damn the constitutional torpedoes, we would not keep the ship afloat for very long. While this, of course, is of fundamental importance, there is no question, Mr. Speaker, about federal responsibility. This is a national problem as well as a provincial problem. If it were not a national problem the federal government would not have invested those sums I have mentioned in the last 10 or 15 years. But we have attended to our responsibilities in this, and in similar fields, with full regard to the jurisdictional and constitutional rights and responsibilities of the provinces.
We had a discussion on pollution at this conference. If anything could be national in scope and in impact, surely it is pollution. The air does not stop at any provincial border, nor do rivers stop at a provincial border. We were warned, however, in connection with pollution matters that we should be very careful about interfering with provincial action in this field. We do not want to interfere, we want to assist. While the initiation in respect of these matters in many cases must come from the provinces we must help them and work with them within their jurisdiction as is laid down in the constitution.
We have helped. We have taken steps which we expect will improve the mortgage market and get more private money into housing. I am not going to go into those steps because they are well known. There were differences of opinion at the conference about the effectiveness of these measures, whether we had in fact increased the amount of money coming into the market. Perhaps the Minister of Labour will be able to deal with that. However, one thing has been shown. If we had not taken these measures while perhaps they have not increased the amount of money to the extent we would have liked, there would have been very little, if any, mortgage money coming into the market at
December 21, 1967

this time. The results, therefore, while not perhaps as encouraging as we would have hoped, have certainly shown an improvement.
At the very beginning of the conference, and not as a result of provincial pressures as has been sometimes indicated nor in accordance with provincial proposals as has been suggested, the federal government made four concrete proposals which are of great importance and which would enlarge the activities of the federal government in this field. I do not believe sufficient attention has been given to these proposals or the effect they could have on housing in this country if they are taken up by the provinces. I admit that we could probably operate with the provinces to a greater extent in putting them into effect in years to come than we can this year because of financial difficulties; nevertheless even this year there will be more money available for this kind of federal assistance than there was last year.
Now 1 want to put these proposals, which improve and enlarge the lending procedures, on the record because they are important. They were outlined to the conference in my opening statement and subsequently in the background paper which was circulated. The first proposal provides for federal-provincial participation in comprehensive planning of our urban regions in advance; the acquisition of land for transportation corridors and open spaces for recreation and similar community purposes. This is a new initiative on the part of the federal government for federal action, as are the others I am going to mention.
The second is federal-provincial support for land assembly and development of comprehensively planned new suburban communities within urban areas. This is a very important proposal which in some countries has had very important results, and I am thinking now particularly of Great Britain.
The third proposal is for housing subsidy programs to serve as an integral part of other combined federal-provincial anti-poverty measures in special areas characterized by general poverty, lack of employment opportunities and slow economic growth. This would provide for selling as well as renting housing at below cost in those areas.
The fourth proposal is for a more vigorously supported program to assist growing families to locate homes, many of whom require not small apartments but three or four bedroom accommodation and good community
Housing
facilities within reach of their moderate incomes.
These are important proposals. As I say, they will require amendment to our legislation and we will be bringing in those amendments as soon as possible. They will also require full co-operation from the provinces so we can work together in these new fields of federal-provincial action. They will require, in due course, massive amounts of money, provincially, municipally and federally. Suggestions have been made, Mr. Speaker, that we will have no money next year, or less money than last year for this special purpose, but that is not the ease.
[DOT] (10:20 a.m.)
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should say a word about the 1967 housing record, and then say something about the proposal we made for a council to be set up in the field of housing.
The record in 1967 is not good enough to deal with the problems that we face, problems which have been exposed to us by, among others, the economic council. To meet these problems satisfactorily we will require 175,000 or 180,000 starts a year. This year housing starts throughout Canada should reach about 160,000, which is 26,000 units better than last year and approaches the highest figure that has ever been reached.
To the end of November of this year total National Housing Act participation in new housing involved approximately $921 million. Of this amount more than $610 million represented direct government loans for residential construction. It is that kind of assistance, especially in regard to certain kinds of public housing, for poor or underprivileged people, the provision of student residences and things of that kind, that will be available next year, I hope in equal if not larger amounts; and this notwithstanding our financial difficulties. We expect more money from the private sector to go into private housing, and this will leave more government money available for public housing.
We also proposed at the conference the establishment on a federal provincial basis -though we did indicate that we would be willing to pay for the establishment and maintenance of the machinery-of a council on housing and urban development, a proposal which did not get immediate acceptance on the part of the provinces. I was a little surprised at that, because I think this can be a very important development.

December 21, 1967
Housing
The case for such a council has been put very effectively, more effectively than I can put it, by a body that is continually being quoted in this and other fields, namely the Economic Council of Canada, which is now an economic body outside government that is investigating and doing research to advise government. I think no one now claims that this is a useless piece of machinery that is getting in the way of the federal government, though there are times when the federal government does think its advice is perhaps not the most constructive in the world from the point of view of our responsibilities. This is bound to occur with an independent body, but its very independence is its value.
Is there no place, Mr. Speaker, for this kind of research and investigation through a federal-provincial council in this other important field? The fourth report of the Economic Council of Canada has this to say at page 268 on the subject of housing and urban development:
The essential need is for a synthesis, a comprehensive philosophy, a co-ordinated concept of urban development. This applies both to the largest metropolitan areas, where expansion and decentralization need to be framed within the setting of the broad urban region, and to the city complexes of more modest size where rates and problems of growth will nevertheless still be formidable.
The report continues:
-in no area of government affairs are there more glaring gaps and deficiencies of data, information and understanding than in urban problems and government. This is not to deny the many useful efforts to improve the situation. But there is an immense need for more and better co-ordinated study and research in this field.
It was in an effort to meet this need on a federal-provincial and not merely a federal basis that we put forward what I believe to have been a useful and constructive proposal, one which was undoubtedly considered as such by the economic council when they wrote this report. That is the basis behind our proposal for a Canadian council on housing and urban development to be established jointly.
There is no thought in this proposal, Mr. Speaker, of establishing merely another committee of government officials, federal, provincial and municipal, to create some new bureaucracy to produce new but inactive uses for old papers and reports to meet the problems in this field. This was not the purpose, and it was made clear that it need not be the result of the acceptance of a proposal of this kind. A council of this kind would in

a sense have the same relationship to government in the field of housing and urban development as the economic council. It would consist of outside experts in this field. No council of this kind is now doing the job on a national basis.
The purpose, then, was to establish-and I hope this purpose will still be realized-an impartial and influential body that could act as a kind of public conscience, a spur for urban development in Canada, encouraging government at every level to do the necessary things in this field. It could publish reports, it could publish reviews on a regional and a national basis, and it could offer specific suggestions to all governments on priorities and solutions for both the immediate and the long term problems. This kind of reporting and investigation could serve as the basis for the annual meetings which I believe will take place between provincial ministers and a federal minister dealing with housing problems.
This was not an excuse for inaction, Mr. Speaker. This was a proposal to make possible more action, more intelligent, planned action on a national basis so as to help not only the federal government but each provincial government in the field of housing. There is no comparable body in the national field. As I say, I think this was a very useful proposal, and when the provincial governments give it further consideration they may also decide the proposal is a useful one. However, it is up to them; if they do not wish to participate that is their responsibility, and no doubt they will continue to operate through their own provincial bodies in this field.
I have ventured, Mr. Speaker, to indicate some of the problems in the field of housing as well as some of the results from the exchange of views at this conference. In particular there were the four proposals which were put forward and which could lead to very far reaching federal and provincial developments in the field of housing; that indeed could lead, if the provinces so desired and within their own constitutional jurisdiction, to an even greater participation than that which has taken place in earlier years by the federal government in a field of very great and serious importance, one that is likely to become even more so.


Mr. G. L. Chaiierion (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, we have three hours only to debate this very important matter of housing and urban development. I intended to keep
December 21, 1967

my speech to the minimum time and to appeal to all members of the house to cut down their speeches, because on our side alone there are seven members who are very anxious to speak. Of this valuable time the Prime Minister has taken something like 20 or 25 minutes, and I am wondering whether we are any better off now having heard his speech.
One result of his speech, Mr. Speaker, is that I will have to spend a little more time than I had intended in order to correct some of the impressions the right hon. gentleman left. For example, the Prime Minister seemed to be quite happy or proud about the fact that this year there will be 160,000 starts, which he said was some 26 per cent more than last year. But what he does not say, Mr. Speaker, is that the number of starts last year was 134,000, which is less than the number of starts in 1955, 12 years ago. Furthermore, the number of starts this year, 160,000, is 4,000 fewer than in 1965. As a matter of fact it is 4,000 starts fewer than in 1958. But apparently the government and the Prime Minister are quite happy with the fact that there was a big increase over the miserable year of 1966.
[DOT] (10:30 a.m.)
I agree with the Prime Minister that we cannot rely entirely on government money to finance housing. I agree also that government money primarily is required to provide housing for those people in need. But what the Prime Minister has overlooked is that although it is not essential that government money alone finance housing, it is essential that the fiscal business of the country be so arranged that private money at a reasonable interest rate is available to finance housing. That is the crux of the problem that faces us today. I recognize that the government has put over $900 million into housing this year, but that was necessary because of the mismanagement of the fiscal affairs of this country which has meant that private money at a reasonable interest rate has not been available to those who need housing.
The suggestion of the Prime Minister at the conference, that a council be established to deal with this problem, has a great deal of merit; but I submit that because of the attitude of the government in respect of the growth of bureaucracy there is suspicion in the minds of the people and the provincial governments that any suggestion of the federal government in this direction is made just to enlarge the growth of bureaucracy. I
Housing
think this is one reason the provinces immediately rejected the idea of such a council. I hope when a government that does not encourage the growth of bureaucracy comes into office the provinces will recognize that this is not just a growth of bureaucracy but might be of benefit in solving this problem, even though the suggestion be implemented in some modified form.
Many times in the past year we have discussed the matter of housing. On October 2 when we were debating a supply motion I made a motion which read in part as follows:
And this house regrets the failure of the government to recognize the housing shortage as a major crisis requiring immediate and co-ordinated steps for its solution as clearly indicated by the recent report of the Economic Council of Canada.
We had a two day debate on this subject at that time. We also had debates on the matter earlier this year. What has happened since that time? The situation is worse; there has been no improvement. Perhaps I should qualify that and say the only improvement has been a slight increase in housing starts, but the cost of housing has been so high that the average Canadian has been unable to avail himself of the facilities of the money market.
Prices have increased since that time. The Toronto Daily Star of December 13 published an article which quoted the president of the Toronto real estate board as saying that the price of a metro home will go up between 5 per cent and 10 per cent next year "because fumbling governments"-I do not say this government alone is responsible for the mess we are in with regard to housing, but it must bear the major part of the blame-"can't get together on the housing crisis." The president of the Toronto real estate board made many good suggestions in this article. I will not take the time to read them all, but would refer the minister to the article.
The president of the real estate board suggested the elimination of the 11 per cent federal sales tax on building materials used in new homes and in alterations to existing homes. That suggestion has been made over and over again. In spite of the shortage of housing and the increased cost the government persists in contributing materially to the increase in cost by maintaining the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. An article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of December 13 said:
Meanwhile, there is no logical excuse for governments, supposedly striving to stimulate home construction, to deter it by taxation.

December 21, 1967'
Housing
This article then refers to the very interesting suggestion by Premier Johnson of Quebec that if the federal government would drop the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials he would remove the 8 per cent sales tax in that province. It is estimated that if this were done the cost of a $15,000 home in Quebec would be reduced by $1,300. This is an approach that could perhaps be used with the other provinces.
What else has happened since October 2? The cost of living has gone up. The war on poverty, which I assume would include those too poor to provide adequate housing for their families, has been abandoned. Taxation has been increased; the average Canadian will be paying more taxes starting January 1 next year, which will make him less able to buy a home. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour have confirmed that next year there will be even less government money available for housing. Because of the increase in the interest rate there may well be an increase in the private money available, but the cost will be so high the average Canadian will be even less able to finance a home for himself and his family. As a matter of fact the indications are that in spite of the proposed cuts in next year's budget the average Canadian will find that a house will be even more expensive. Hon. members will recall that in the speech from the throne there was reference to a federal-provincial conference on housing and urbanization. We urged the government to call this conference. The government did not heed our urging at that time, but we pinned our hopes on something concrete coming out of such a conference. I say to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour that in my opinion some of the suggestions made at the conference have a great deal of merit. Some of them are forward looking and in time will be of great help in solving this problem. I admit that.
I do not know how these federal-provincial conferences work. I do not know to what extent there is prior consultation. If I were a representative of a province and such proposals were thrown at me, I could not at that moment give any indication of the position I would take. I would want time to study the proposals. I know the Prime Minister has said there will be a conference of deputy ministers three months from now and of ministers six months from now, but I suggest that a conference of this type would be more fruitful if the provinces had advance notice of the proposals it was intended to put forward. I believe this is one reason the

federal-provincial conference did not bring: forth any valuable solutions to this problem.
The Prime Minister said the conference was not a complete flop. I do not know what has come out of it that is of value in the present situation. I should like to quote what other people have said about the conference. The Ottawa Journal of December 13 said:
Not a single additional house will he built in Canada as a dividend from the federal-provincial housing conference which broke up yesterday, a day early.
We find these words in the Hamilton Spectator of December 14:
The best comment on the federal-provincial housing conference is the silent one given by the delegates themselves: They did not wait for the end but departed one day early. The affair was a washout.
I recognize that the Prime Minister said there was a possibility it would last only two days, but this is what editorials in newspapers across the country are saying. The Charlottetown Guardian of December 14 said this:
The federal-provincial housing conference has petered out, leaving the housing crisis pretty much as it was, and the country still looking vainly for leadership from Ottawa.
The London Free Press, an important newspaper to certain parties, said in an editorial in its December 14 issue:
It can hardly be said that the latest federal-provincial conference contributed anything substantial toward the solution or amelioration of Canada's housing crisis.
I said when I began these remarks that I intended to keep my speech short so that other hon. members would have an opportunity to make their contributions. Many suggestions have been made to solve this problem. The fourth annual of the Economic Council of Canada contains a most important suggestion, namely that housing must be given a certain priority and the importance of housing to Canada must be recognized. I suspect that this government has not given due recognition to the importance of housing. It has not sufficiently recognized that this is a social matter of great importance to the Canadian people.
[DOT] (10:40 a.m.)
I will not take up the time of the house to say much more, but in a recent issue of a publication which is put out by the Canadian home builders association a number of suggestions are made which if adopted would assist in easing the housing problem. It
December 21, 1967

appears that such suggestions, and others which are made from time to time, fall on deaf ears. It seems that this government is incapable of solving the problem.
This government has lost the confidence of the people. It does not convey the impression that it is capable of solving the problems of Canada; and housing is merely one of this country's problems.
In case the Prime Minister has any doubt about the purport of my remarks, I say that it is essential for the government to comply with requests to make money available for housing. Certainly there are problems in planning, and the Prime Minister has not emphasized them enough, but money for houses must be made available. It need not necessarily be government money. The business of the country must be conducted in such a way that money at reasonable rates of interest is made available to fulfil the important needs of housing.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, may I say how pleased I am to see the Prime Minister here during this debate. At the conference, about which I shall say a word or two, his concern with the problem of housing was very, very evident. I am not convinced that the conference was a failure. Though not too much came of it, those of us who sat through it began to realize, if we did not realize it before, that in the area of housing we face a problem of nation-wide and staggering proportions. If there was any doubt about that before the conference, there was none afterward.
The conference also showed us how tremendously difficult it is to govern this country. The provinces, I think, came there and in effect told us "Give us money, and that is all we want." But the matter is not that simple. All the briefs that were filed and all the statements that were made emphasized the fantastic proportions of the housing crisis. They also emphasized our tremendous regional problems and the regional solutions that will be required.
It is purposeless in a debate like this to put on the record the dreary statistics showing how we failed in housing. I do not want to become partisan. I think we all realize that in the entire area of housing our people, all our governments have failed. Not only has the federal government failed; the provincial and municipal governments have also failed. So in this country we must somehow find 12 million houses before the end. of the century just to pick up the slack. How we are to get
Housing
those houses and how we are to finance them is the question we must ask ourselves.
It is a platitude to say there is no problem. This is a nation-wide problem; it is the most outstanding social problem that we face and as great as national defence. Our housing problem is about as great as any problem today. It is as great a problem as education, we can speak of.
I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say to the conference that the federal government has a wide area of responsibility in this matter. I realize the constitutional difficulties that he and his government face. My impression of the conference was not that those difficulties really created a barrier; instead, I thought the provinces were so desperate that they would welcome strong federal initiative and leadership in this area. The main impression I got from the conference was that the provinces, through their statements, admitted that they are incapable of solving the problem and that they are all desperately seeking a federal initiative in this entire area. There is no other way out of our difficulties. If the federal government will not assume some wide area of responsibility we shall never solve the housing crisis, and future generations will curse us for it.
Taking that initiative is not torpedoing the constitution-and I regret the phrase which had to be used. The provinces are looking for co-operation. No level of government alone can solve the housing problem; it can only be solved by a gigantic partnership of the federal government, provincial governments and municipalities. If we do not do this there is no hope at all.
At the conference I regretted to hear the minister conduct a whining, two day defence of a non-existent housing policy; because that is what we have in Ottawa and that is what we have had in Ottawa for the past 15 years under all governments. There has been no housing policy.
In this short debate we cannot detail a solution to the problem. That is impossible. The housing crisis has been with us much too long and it is much too deeply rooted for us, in a three hour debate, to begin to solve it. If the debate achieves nothing else it will have been worth while if we are able to establish that a crisis exists and that the federal government should assume a large degree of responsibility and leadership for a housing

December 21, 1967
Housing
program. This has never been done in Ottawa, and that has been my complaint since I arrived in the chamber.
Housing has always been treated as a pump primer. The government's policy has been that when employment goes down, it will throw a lot of mortgage money into the market. That creates tremendous dislocations in the building industry. There has never been any sustained flow of funds with which those who are interested in this field can operate. The government can make a great contribution in this field. What we really need, as we have been asking for a number of years, is for the government to accept its responsibilities. Then we could try to solve the problem. It seems to me the government must demonstrate that acceptance by creating a ministry-I know the constitutional difficulties that that might pose-of housing and urban affairs, headed by a full time minister.


Mr. Nielsen:: Not another department?


Reid Scott: I have been criticized in the house for the things I have said about the Prime Minister, but my remarks were not meant to be personal. The entire problem of housing is so immense, so critical and so national that it can only be solved, if it can be solved, by a minister who devotes his entire attention to it. Even if that were done I do not think we should solve our housing problems for a decade, we have been so neglectful and the problem has become so immense; but that would be a good start. I realize that at the conference the Prime Minister's suggestion that there should be a council was turned down by most of the provinces, but surely this poses a challenge to us here to give the kind of leadership which the people of this country so desperately want. It could be done, it seems to me, without infringing upon the constitution and without creating needless difficulties with the provinces.
[DOT] (10:50 a.m.)
The second thing we have to consider-and I am not sure we are capable of doing it-is this. We must take the position that the provision of adequate housing for the people of this country is as important as national defence. We think nothing of automatically providing in our estimates each year about $1.5 billion for national defence. Nobody minds. Nobody worries. Why not do the same for housing? Why not make the same effort to generate resources for the production of adequate accommodation for our people? I
(Mr. Scott (Danforth).]
propose that for the next five years we so reorganize our financial affairs as to provide $1.5 billion a year for the housing industry.
In order to provide this sum we ought to reorganize our forces. My God, if a war broke out anywhere we would have no trouble financing it; we would find the money somehow. Why not make the same kind of effort to house our people? I know the Prime Minister is going to leave us one of these days. Why not develop this new approach as a great centenary project? The right hon. gentleman would then really exit under full steam. For the first time let us in Ottawa do something properly; let us go all the way in an attempt to provide for our people. I know the minister will get up and announce all kinds of statistics, but this concerns people. We have reached a stage where any young persons marrying today will never own homes as long as they live.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Reid Scott: The minister of
national resources says "Oh". It is true. We have reached a point where both young and old do not have the housing they need. We have reached a point at which the National Housing Act helps only those earning more than $8,000 a year. It is not a national housing act but a national hoaxing act. It was designed to help the little man and it is not doing so.
We have been a complete and abject failure in the field of housing, and one of the best things we could do would be to admit it for a change and try to do something about it. I propose we should begin by providing $1.5 billion a year to help meet the needs of this industry. It would not meet all the need; I realize that, but I believe it is within our competence if we really want to make a national effort. The balance required would presumably come from private sources.
In lending this kind of money we should make sure it is made available for specific purposes. This is the way in which we could influence housing policy without interfering with the constitution. This is what is done at the present time. It is a trite phrase to say the C.M.H.C. are just mortgage brokers. Everyone knows that today by laying down conditions under which money will be lent the National Housing Act tremendously influences the types of houses which are built, their location, their services and everything connected with the housing field.
December 21, 1967

There is no reason for not carrying this further. Consider land prices. There is no hope of bringing down the cost of land except by land assembly on a massive basis. This could be done under our proposal. A strong initiative is needed in the work of rehabilitating our cities, and in urban development. This could come within the terms under which money is lent. Our failure in the public housing sector has been impressive; there are thousands of people in every city in the country waiting for public housing to be provided. This too could be a term under which money was lent. Housing for old people could also be influenced by the lending terms.
There is really no problem, Mr. Speaker. All that is required is a commitment, an acceptance of responsibility. Four years ago when I first spoke here on housing I said I envied the minister because with a little work he had it within his power to change the face of this country. He has been a failure, and unless he can make a pretty good speech today as far as I am concerned there is no hope for a solution of the housing problem with the present minister still in charge. I say this with considerable regret.
I wish to repeat in capsule form what I have said. The housing crisis constitutes the biggest social problem facing this nation. It is far greater than medicare; far greater than any other, even education. It must therefore be accepted as a matter for national concern, national responsibility and federal action. Second, the provinces are desperate for leadership. They do not object to federal initiative in this area. Having listened to the views expressed at the conference I believe there would be no difficulty about working out provincial agreements and regional programs. Third, there must be federal money available, and if the government wishes to make a commitment there is no reason for failure to find the money. It must be made available on a sustained basis. We must get away forever from the pump priming aspect and accept the opinion of the economic council that a wall must be erected around housing to protect it from the vicissitudes of the market. Until we accept this principle there is no hope of solving Canada's housing crisis.
We must take the initiative to demonstrate our sense or responsibility by creating a ministry of housing and urban affairs. Housing shortage is only a symptom. It is only the beginning of the nightmare of the urbanization of this country. We are not equipped for
Housing
it and we have no program to meet it. Yet in the next ten or 15 years all our people will live in the cities, and this will create problems of gigantic proportions. There is no point in rehashing the conference. The only time it really operated was when the Prime Minister was in charge. But these are the initiatives we have to take. If we do these things there is some chance in the field of housing. If we do not do them, it seems to me there is no hope.
How does one reach this government? How does one get through to it? I don't know; I have almost given up. But these are the things we must do. I hope this debate will impress upon the government both the tremendous social need and the tremendous urgency.
[DOT] (11:00 a.m.)


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing this morning with the housing problem, and this debate is limited to three hours. It has been going on for an hour and I am under the impression that we have not yet proposed some means likely to solve this crisis.
If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), responsible for the administration of the National Housing Act before the house, has no other statement or suggestion to make than that which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made a few minutes ago, I think that we will solve very little today, in such a short debate and in view of the Prime Minister's statement.
The Prime Minister said that he wanted to create a federal-provincial council that would deal with housing. Mr. Speaker, there are already quite a number of those boards in various fields. There have been many federal, provincial and federal-provincial inquiries whose sole purpose was to keep the people from getting impatient and to postpone the solution of the problems.
The main reason for that housing crisis is a lack of money to build the houses our people need. I agree with Peter Newman who said in an editorial published in La Presse, on Saturday, May 6, 1967, that the trouble does not come from the fact that the construction industry cannot build enough houses but rather from the fact that credit is hard to get and the necessary funds are still in the hands of big financiers who prefer tc build commercial centres and office buildings. The individual who would like to obtain a

December 21, 1967
Housing
loan to build a house is unable to find assistance in financial quarters. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is exactly the point.
A tew weeks ago, the government raised the rate of interest for loans granted under the National Housing Act from 71 per cent -which was already quite high-to 8J per cent, apparently to encourage capitalists to consider the housing problem and to make funds available to builders for the construction of houses. Well, if that was the government's purpose, it did not materialize because what happened was exactly the opposite. The capitalists may have more funds, but can the borrowers commit themselves for 25 or 30 years at such a high rate of interest?
People are thinking seriously before committing themselves, and the demand in the field of housing construction is growing smaller. The solution, in my opinion, would be for the government, through the Bank of Canada, to make credit available to the provinces which request it-the consensus of opinion at the federal-provincial conference on housing was that the provinces want to deal with their housing problems themselves -at a low rate of interest. Those who want to buy a house would then be able to make their monthly payments and pay a reasonable interest rate. Moreover, they could perhaps repay their debt within 15 to 20 years instead of 30 to 35 years and save a considerable amount of money, which would encourage those who want to own their home. As the situation now stands, obviously, it is almost impossible for an individual to buy a house, whatever his age, and to commit himself to pay for it over a period of 25, 30 and 35 years, for it is quite clear that he will never really own his house.
As a result, Mr. Speaker, I think that if the government really intends to solve the housing problem, the first thing would be to make available to the population, at a low interest rate, the necessary credit to encourage home ownership.
When I mention those who have no home, I am thinking precisely of those who would like to purchase a house and who must pay rent. They have a roof over their head, it is true, but the roof does not belong to them and they may be forced at any time to leave such housing for other accommodation which will not belong to them either.
It is clear Mr. Speaker, and social science admits it today, that each family is entitled

to its house and that the role of the government is precisely to see to it that this purpose is achieved.
There is another point I would like to bring up also. It was emphasized by Michael Wheeler in a speech to the annual conference of mayors and municipalities held in Montreal on July 24, 1967. Mr. Wheeler precisely dealt with a very important point nowadays concerning the municipality wishing to develop housing projects. This is precisely what he says:
Promoters and developers are annoyed by the long delays in land development and the allegedly extravagant standards imposed upon them.
From my own experience, the problems of the small town where I live are the same as those of large cities. New housing projects are needed, but since municipalities cannot afford to undertake them, they must borrow to do so.
All those standards imposed on them result in long delays. For some houses built in our area, we had to fight, so to speak, with the C.M.H.C. I must admit that officials of that corporation have been very understanding and I would not say they have eluded the regulations of the corporation, but almost. Had it not been that those civil servants were most understanding, some forty or fifty houses would not have been built in the municipality of LaSarre. They have now been built thanks to them. Here again, I feel that if the government wanted to be efficient, it would give the municipalities easier access to credit, at low interest rates, so that as soon as requests are made for housing developments, they might give the necessary services to ready them for the new owners.
Here is another important way in which the housing problem might be solved: the cost of houses should go down and the first step towards that would be to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. This would lower construction costs considerably and thus encourage more working people to own their own home.
Sometimes, the government or other agencies call for the construction of low-cost housing units for low-income citizens. Mr. Speaker, I object to the use of the term "low-cost" to describe the units offered to disadvantaged people. In view of our building materials and labour costs today, it is not possible to build low-cost dwellings that are adequate and fit for human beings.
December 21, 1967

There is a considerable number of slum dwellings in our cities, towns and rural communities. To build low-cost houses that are financially acceptable to disadvantaged people, we would have to build slums. However, these slums are already too numerous, and there is no need to build more or new ones. Needy people, those in the lower income brackets deserve and have a right to live in comfortable and decent houses, and we should see to it that they do.
Some also want to encourage more people to own their home. There is another reason only eventual owners hesitate to make long-range commitments: the taxes they have to pay. That is an important point which many think about, in my opinion quite rightly.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
To correct that anomaly, several suggestions were made during this session. In fact, one of my colleagues presented a motion providing that individuals purchasing or owning a house be allowed to deduct the amount of school or municipal taxes which they have to pay from their income tax. So, as supplementary taxes seem to be levied all the time, I think that only one tax at a time should be imposed, so that people can become home-owners more easily.
I think that the federal government should authorize any Canadian citizen who buys a new one-family dwelling for himself to deduct the property taxes in full for income tax purposes. In my opinion, he should get an exemption for the following expenditures, or rather he should deduct from his taxable income the amount paid on the price of the house and land, including the municipal and school taxes, as well as the monthly mortgage payments, including the interest.


Mr. Pepin:: For how long?


Gérard Laprise: Until the house is fully paid for.
In my opinion, such steps would enable Canadians to become quickly the owners of their home without mortgaging part of their income. We know that 100 per cent of the income of most workers, whether they are labourers, miners, lumbermen or workers in the construction field or any other industry and service, goes to discharge the monthly instalments on their house, to purchase furniture or any other item or to pay medical fees. We know that municipal taxes and especially school taxes are liable to go up, I would say, almost every year. Each tax increase means a
Housing
decrease of income for the taxpayer and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) recently raised the income tax by 5 per cent. That new increase creates problems for those people because, with a decrease of income, and mortgaged as they are up to the hilt, they cannot meet their numerous payments.
Therefore, I think that steps should be taken to prevent those too frequent increases and I am of the opinion that exemptions on capital expenses of a house would be welcome by the people. Furthermore, if the present Prime Minister took measures of this kind before he leaves the leadership of his party, I am sure that this would meet the wish expressed earlier by the hon. member of Danforth (Mr. Scott), I think, when he said that the Prime Minister would leave the leadership of his party under very favourable conditions, and it would help his successor in his task if he solved that problem.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong the debate any further and will close my remarks with the few recommendations made to the Minister of Labour on November 20, 1967. I am referring to the recommendations of the National House Builders Association and more specifically to the most interesting points that warrant mention, and should be recalled to the readers of Hansard, and I quote:
1.	Lower the initial amount required to buy a house.
2.	Reduce the monthly charges required from the purchaser of a house.
3.	Reduce N.H.A. mortgage insurance fees and mortgage application costs to a reasonable level.
4.	Eliminate the 11 per cent federal sales tax on building materials or pay back the same amount to the home buyer, with provincial governments taking similar steps where needed.
5.	Facilitate private and public financing for a greater number of rental dwellings.
6.	Ease the terms under which limited dividend homes could be built for low-income families.
7.	Find new ways of eliminating high costs of land development, and reducing education financing and community services.
8.	Remove all impediments that delay, at this time, the approval of land zoning plans, so as to provide an adequate number of serviced building lots.
Recommendation No. 8 agrees with a statement given by Mr. Wheeler during his speech before the municipal authorities in Montreal, last July.
9.	Establish uniform building standards and regulations.
Mr. Speaker, I think those recommendations should be thoroughly considered by the

December 21, 1967
Housing
government, and on the occasion of future federal-provincial conferences, I believe all levels of government would be able to enter into adequate agreements to ensure the welfare of all the Canadian people, in brief, of all future Canadian home-owners, e (11:20 a.m.)


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it has been alleged that the recent housing conference would not bring about the construction of one additional house. I have been wondering whether the debate today will be any more effective in this regard than was the recent conference. In recent times we have had a number of debates in the house on this important question, many questions have been raised on orders of the day, the matter has been constantly brought to the attention of the government and we have been reminding ourselves of its importance, but we still find ourselves in a very difficult situation as far as housing in Canada is concerned.
Food, clothing and shelter are the three basic needs of man, and of course in this debate we are dealing with the third. There has been a growing awareness in the past several years that we would be faced with a serious problem in the area of housing, but as usual the governments concerned waited until the problem reached crisis proportions before making any really earnest attempt to face and try to resolve it.
It is our contention that if positive measures had been taken in the way of monetary and fiscal policies we would not be in the position we are in today. But this was not done, and today we find ourselves in the position of once again discussing this important issue. It has been described as our worst crisis since the depression. This observation was made by Professor A. J. Diamond of the University of Toronto school of architecture. When we view the problem from this angle it should spur us on to the realization that if we are in any way to meet the challenge of the next few years there is no time to be lost; we must move forward with resolution and determination. Even though measures taken may be out of the ordinary, I believe circumstances develop from time to time that make it absolutely necessary to take such measures.
There is no need this morning to discuss the importance of adequate housing to the people of our country. This has been dealt with in various debates in the past. After all,

I think it is one of the basic rights of our people to have access to adequate housing. Housing has a tremendous impact as far as the social problems which face us are concerned. I believe all of us recognize the importance of Canadians having adequate housing. It has also been placed on record on a number of occasions that the housing situation today is very serious. It has been indicated that in order to meet the need in this area, 160,000 or more housing units are required each year. This is necessitated by increased immigration, by the formation of new family units and by the necessity of replacing obsolete and inadequate housing. I believe that substantially more than 160,000 units will be required to adequately meet the problem in the days that lie ahead.
A great many families are living in substandard units today. Many families are living in units that are far too small for the size of the family. In fact, it has been pointed out in recent communications and news articles that some families have no housing unit of any kind. I think this is a deplorable situation in a country that is so blessed with material goods, with everything that is necessary for the construction of adequate housing units. Depite this we find people living in types of accommodation that are far beneath the dignity of any individual in any part of the world.
The United Church of Canada, at page 163 of a book entitled "Canada and its Future", published an article dealing with housing. I should like to read part of it as follows:
Canada's housing program, both public and private, is a failure. Experts have different opinions on what to do about it. But almost all of them- public enterprisers, private enterprisers and middle of the readers-agree that the housing program has failed in the following ways:-
I shall indicate what the various paragraphs contain. They are as follows;
Housing construction is falling behind the population increase.
Housing is not being built fast enough to substantially reduce the backlog of slums and overcrowded dwellings.
Decent housing is too costly for an increasing number of middle income families and poor families.
Public housing exists for only a fraction of the low income families that need it.
At the 1961 census, an estimated 923,000 Canadian households were lodged in broken down, crowded or unsanitary houses or were straining their budgets to the limit and running into debt in order to pay the rent.
December 21, 1967

I think this is a sad commentary on the housing situation in a country that has been so signally blessed by Providence. It has been suggested that this is not the time to lay blame on any government or agency, but a time when we ought to try to face the problem objectively and realistically and come up with some satisfactory answers. I suggest it is rather difficult to do this in the light of the government's record with regard to housing.
I have stated before in debate that the present government has subscribed to the concept that every Canadian should have the right to live in his own home, or have accommodation that is adequate for his needs, but again we find that the government has been working against itself in trying to implement this philosophy. On one occasion, even though it was to serve another purpose altogether, the government introduced the winter incentive program whereby those who had homes built in the winter months received a bonus of $500. This program had a very salutary effect upon our housing picture, a great many people availed themselves of this provision and had homes built during the winter. However, not very long after this program was introduced the government imposed the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, which more than offset the $500 winter bonus program.
Then just recently measures were introduced which permitted the interest rate on N.H.A. loans to rise to a maximum of 8J per cent. It was pointed out that this would have a beneficial effect in making more mortgage money available for housing. It may have had some such effect, but as far as expert advice is concerned it has not resulted in any appreciable difference in the availability of mortgage money.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
In addition the increase in mortgage rates, which we are now told is reaching the maximum, has placed housing beyond the capacity of a great majority of Canadian citizens. So we find that the 11 per cent sales tax, interest rates which are constantly rising, and increased municipal taxes all put together are forcing a great many home owners to sell their houses because they believe it is far more economical to rent accommodation than to build and own homes.
So we find that our policies are working against each other, and instead of achieving the desired result and meeting the need the situation is improving very little, if at all.
Housing
It has been pointed out that the great need in this particular area is for money. I do not think there is any shortage of lumber or other types of building materials. As my hon. friend from Vancouver East indicated, there is a surplus of lumber in British Columbia and we who are from that province know this. So it is a matter of money and I believe, in spite of what has been said in days gone by about the necessity of cutting down on expenditures priorities must be established. I do not think we should economize in an area such as housing, which is so important to the welfare of Canadians.
My colleague the hon. member for Red Deer, speaking in debate on October 2 here in the house, pointed out the necessity of establishing a far larger revolving fund. He was checked by the Minister of Labour, who said this had been done. My colleague went on to state that it had to be vastly expanded if it was to meet the particular need at this time. I believe a fund should be established which would provide the necessary capital to enable Canadians from coast to coast, if they so desire, to build their own homes and enjoy the security which only home ownership can give. Some incentives must be provided. The first would be to make capital available at reasonable rates of interest. This was pointed out by my colleague from Red Deer in the speech to which I referred. I would like to quote his statement because I think it is important. This is what he said:
Even at 7 per cent, Mr. Speaker, a $12,000 mortgage, which we will say is the average mortgage for the average home, will in 20 years cost the home owner more than $10,000 by way of interest, or a total of $22,000. In 30 years the interest charge alone is more than $16,000, or a total of $28,500. But when one takes the present rate of 81 per cent one finds that in 20 years a $12,000 mortgage will cost $13,000 more than the cost of the home itself, or a total in excess of $25,000. In 30 years the cost of the $12,000 mortgage at 81 per cent, will exceed the cost of the home by $18,000 or a total cost of more than $30,000.
There is something drastically wrong when in order to build and own a home a Canadian citizen must pay the value of his home two or three times over because of interest charges. Either there is something drastically wrong with our legislation dealing with rates of interest or there is something drastically wrong with an economy which forces our people to mortgage 30 or 40 years of their future in order to own their own homes, by which time most of them are so old they do not enjoy them for very long.

December 21, 1967
Housing
We have operated on monetary and fiscal policies in Canada which penalize our people to the point of desperation. So, as I said, we must provide as an incentive some way of obtaining money at reasonable rates of interest, and this should be one of the major concerns of the government at this time. Think about lower income families having to buy homes under these circumstances. I suggest that housing should not be considered as ather forms of investment such as commercial investments, and so on, because it vitally effects the welfare and health of our people.
I suggest also that there should be an incentive in the form of grants to those who desire to build their own homes. I have before me the British Columbia Government News of January and February, 1967 in which the budget of British Columbia is discussed. I should like to read from this article one of the highlights of the budget, namely:
Home acquisition grant fund of $25 million set up. The individual grant to be $500 retroactive to April 1, 1966.
So the province is setting up a fund of $25 million called the home acquisition grant fund from which individuals can obtain grants of $500 in order to assist them in home construction and home purchase.
In his statement this morning the Prime Minister referred to the possibility of subsidization in the future by granting some type of assistance to those in lower income brackets for the purchase of homes, particularly in areas of slow economic growth. That is all very well, but I think people should have access to some form of grant no matter where they live, and I suggest that $1,000 or even $2,000 would not be too much for this purpose and would be a good investment so far as the Canadian nation is concerned.


Mr. Barnett:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he not agree that in effect the proposal of the British Columbia government for a home acquisition grant fund might be considered to be a refund of the sales tax which the government has already collected from prospective home owners?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Does the hon. member mean the 11 per cent sales tax?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: No, the British Columbia 5 per cent tax.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I should like to point out that the money to which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni referred is used to cover the

cost of the hospitalization program. We have a hospitalization program there for which the people pay no premiums directly. The sales tax is used for that specific purpose, as well as other revenues, and all the people of British Columbia are very happy to have that program at this time.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
I suggest also, Mr. Speaker, that in order to assist those who are desirous of having their own homes there should be a depreciation allowance applicable to income tax. This provision is made in so far as business and industrial properties are concerned. If the principle is applicable in those particular areas, why could it not apply to home ownership? I think this is desirable and necessary. I believe it is something that is warranted. We urge the Minister of National Revenue therefore to take this particular suggestion into consideration and endeavour to devise a provision that will permit home owners to enjoy the privileges enjoyed by others in the form of depreciation allowances.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are many others who would like to speak today, and although there are many other things we would like to see done we do not want to monopolize the time. We do want to impress upon the government once again the importance of this issue, not that they are not aware of it. However, we hope the government will be able to do something positive by way of a solution to encourage home ownership in Canada and provide more adequately for the housing needs of Canadians. I hope the suggestions that have been made will receive careful consideration.


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, those of us on this side of the house recognize, of course, that we have a housing problem in Canada. We recognize our responsibility to deal effectively with it. In his remarks the Prime Minister outlined certain of the new initiatives which we are taking to meet the housing problem. The fact that the Prime Minister intervened in this debate indicates how seriously we on this side take this particular problem. In view of the fact that the debate was demanded by the opposition parties it strikes me as a bit peculiar that the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic party have not seen fit to attach the same importance to the subject as the Prime Minister has done.


Mr. Brewin:: We have ability all round.
December 21, 1967


Ian Grant Wahn: Of course we have a housing problem in Canada. We have a housing problem because in Canada we are growing rapidly. People are flocking to Canada from every part of the world. Our problems, Mr. Speaker, and our housing problem in particular are problems which arise from rapid growth. This is a problem of success. It is very different from the problem which faced members of the opposition when they formed the government. At that time they had no housing probem. The population was not growing rapidly. They had the problem of mass unemployment. They had the problems of economic slowdown. Their problems were problems of failure, not problems of success.
Naturally we would prefer not to have any problems. However, if we have to have problems we on this side of the house would much prefer to face problems arising from our success rather than from our failure. The housing problem we have today in Canada arises from the fact that we have a successful and expanding economy in Canada. People are flocking to this country from every country in the world. During the year 1967 over 200,000 immigrants will have come to Canada. This is quite a different situation from the one which faced members of the opposition when they formed the government.
We are aware of the problem and we accept our responsibility to deal effectively with it. During recent months those of us in this house who represent ridings in metropolitan. Toronto have become more and more alarmed at the rapid build-up of the housing crisis in our own area. I believe I can speak for most Toronto members when I say we have a serious housing crisis there. I don't apologize for using the word "crisis", because that is exactly the right word. Nor do I apologize for emphasizing the situation in Toronto. It is merely an example of the problem which we face in all our large urban areas. It is a problem of national magnitude resulting from our success and an expanding economy.
I do not want to deal in generalities, Mr. Speaker, but in hard facts. In this perhaps I differ from the hon. member for Danforth, who preferred to avoid statistics and instead, in sanctimonious and dismayed tones, levelled harsh and unfair charges unembarrassed by any consideration of our real accomplishments in this field. I prefer, Mr. Speaker, to deal in hard facts, not in unjust accusations.
The hard fact is that at the present time in Toronto, due to our economic success and
Housing
growth, there is just no housing accommodation available. Our actual vacancy rate in Toronto is at the unbelievably low rate of 1 per cent, the lowest vacancy rate in North America. Our metropolitan Toronto housing registry has 11,000 families on its waiting list, and that number is rising at the rate of 1,500 families per quarter. Yesterday, in this Christmas season, there were ten families including 35 children living in the city's emergency family hostel. At this time last year there was one family. In Toronto city proper

I am not speaking of metro Toronto-out of 185,000 housing units we have only 2,400 housing units geared to income, that is to say, public housing units. A recommended percentage is 8 per cent of the total, or about five times as many as we now have. Since 1962 the city of Toronto proper has built and acquired less than 1,200 housing units geared to income.
In the metro area outside the city proper the record is much better, but far from good enough. In June 1964 there was an accumulated stock of 2,310 geared to income family units. This figure does not include housing for the elderly or student housing. In 1965 we increased this stock by almost 1,100 units. In 1966 the increase was about 1,634 units and in 1967 to date over 1,300 units, for a total increase during the three year period of over 4,000 units. In addition we have under construction over 5,000 units; we have completed loan commitments for 293 and commitments are in process for an additional 635 for a total of 5,955 additional public housing units.
We are doing a great deal, but we have a long way to go to meet our objectives. No one on this side of the house has ever denied that fact. My point is this, Mr. Speaker. Although it is not usually recognized, by far the greater part of this public housing to which I have referred was built under the provision of our National Housing Act under which the federal government pays 90 per cent of the capital cost and undertakes to pay 50 per cent of any operating deficits.


An hon. Member:: Big deal.


Ian Grant Wahn: It is quite clear that the federal government has borne by far the largest financial responsibility in this field. As members of the opposition have said, it is a big deal and it is a good deal. We believe it is right that the federal government should bear this responsibility in this field. Canada is not a group of independent provinces,

December 21, 1967
Housing
loosely federated. It is a modern, dynamic, young but rapidly growing nation which must have a national housing policy. The Toronto housing crisis is not caused by local conditions or by internal growth. As I have said, people are flocking to Toronto from every part of Ontario, from every part of Canada, from every part of the world. During the last six years one quarter of all immigrants to Canada have come to metropolitan Toronto. No wonder we have a housing problem, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
Clearly this problem cannot be solved entirely at the municipal or the provincial level. We recognize our responsibility and are doing something about it. The housing problem in Toronto, I repeat, is not a local problem, nor is it an isolated problem. It is just one aspect of the national, indeed the global problem with which we have to cope resulting from the inevitable growth of great urban areas. Such development gives rise not only to housing problems but to the closely related problems of the disposal of sewage and waste products and the pollution of water and air.
All these, Mr. Speaker, are major problems which result from our rapid growth which in turn stems from the very success of our efforts in Canada. It has been estimated by some that by the end of this century almost half of Canada's population will live within 50 miles of Toronto and Montreal unless effective action is taken to stop the present trend.


George Louis Chatterton: Would the hon. member permit a question. If the housing crisis cannot be solved in good times, when will it be solved?


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, that question really does not make much sense. We are making rapid progress and we will continue to make rapid progress. The facts I have mentioned make it entirely clear that there is a certain federal responsibility for housing and that we must have a national housing policy. But we cannot overlook the fact that the provinces and the municipalities have their responsibilities as well.


Reid Scott: Would the hon. member permit a question. Are we to take it from his remarks that what he is really saying is that we are all so prosperous that we cannot afford housing?


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Danforth recognizes that that is not the proper interpretation to put upon my remarks. There is a clear federal responsibility in the field but, as I say, we cannot overlook the fact that the provinces and the municipalities have their responsibilities as well, and we cannot completely disregard them.
In the last housing debate in this house in September the hon. member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi and the hon. member for Danforth, who participated again today, urged us to proceed full speed ahead. There would be no difficulty in getting co-operation from the provinces, they said. As reported at page 2611 of Hansard, when referring to the policy of his own party, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi had this to say:
There was also no doubt in our minds that housing was a national consideration and concern-
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.
What did the hon. member for Danforth say, Mr. Speaker? In prophesying what would be the attitude of the provinces he had this to say, as reported at page 2597 of Hansard:
Housing is of national concern-
I agree with that.
-no matter under whose jurisdiction it lies. The people in the provincial governments are eager to co-operate with the federal government. They are looking for help, leadership and co-operation. They are not worried about the B.N.A. Act; they are worried about their people.
Since that time, Mr. Speaker, we have had federal-provincial co-operation, and what false prophets hon. members opposite have proved to be. The provincial leaders were anxious to co-operate all right; they were anxious to co-operate in receiving federal funds but not prepared to tolerate any further federal initiatives in the field of housing.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, I will be prepared to answer any questions-


Reid Scott: I am rising on a point of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) on a point of privilege.
December 21, 1967


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I cannot permit that type of distortion to remain on Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is no point of privilege about a disagreement of fact. The hon. member for St. Paul's.


Reid Scott: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of fact. The hon. member has quoted a previous speech of mine and has placed a completed distorted construction upon it. Surely that is a matter of privilege. He quoted a previous remark of mine to the effect that the provincial governments came to the conference in an uncooperative manner. That I have never said. We all know, even if the government will not admit it, that the conference died because there was no leadership from the government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for St. Paul's.


Ian Grant Wahn: Mr. Speaker, I should merely like to point out that I did not say the provincial leaders came to the conference in an unco-operative mood. On the contrary, I said they came to the conference prepared to co-operate and to accept federal funds, but not to tolerate any further federal initiatives in the field of housing. I think that is a statement of fact. I sat through the conference.
In the result, Mr. Speaker, it is entirely clear that the federal government was right in its decision to concentrate available federal housing money in areas of greatest need. In 1968, as announced at the conference, there will be no federal money for speculative building but federal money will be increased by $150 million over 1967 in the areas of greatest need, that is to say in the areas of housing for students and senior citizens, limited dividend housing under a new limited dividend housing policy, urban renewal and, most important of all at the present time, public housing.
The hon. member for Danforth urged what might be called a five or six point program of which the main proposal seemed to be the establishment of a new department of housing affairs. There may be some merit, Mr. Speaker, in setting up a new department of housing, but at the present time I do not think a new department of housing would add a single housing unit to our housing stock. We have a crisis, and more effective 27053-360
Housing
action is needed than the creation of an additional department at additional public expense.
Federal money will be available for public housing. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, no legitimate application for public housing funds has ever been refused by C.M.H.C. More money will be available for that purpose this coming year than in 1967. But that is not enough. The federal government must continue in the future, as it has in the past, to develop new initiatives and programs. The Prime Minister outlined certain of these which are now proposed. We must induce the provinces and municipalities to use effectively the money, which certainly is available, to provide the housing which we in Canada undoubtedly need at the present time.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take up a very short time because there are a number of members of the house who desire to speak and to make useful contributions. I will speak for but a few moments.
The Prime Minister told us that by the end of this year we can expect to have made no more than 160,000 housing starts. According to Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures, during the second quarter of this year the number of housing starts was at a seasonally adjusted rate of 192,000 for the year. In the third quarter of this year the number of housing starts was down to 178,000 for the year, seasonally adjusted. We have now dropped to 160,000 on the admission of the Prime Minister this morning. In other words, in the past six months housing starts have been reduced by 17 per cent. The number will be 4,000 less than two years ago. The hon. member for St. Paul's has just told us that the government was making progress. It seems that the Liberal government's idea of progress, Mr. Speaker, is to construct less and less and less and less housing.
[DOT] (12 noon)
These figures represent a shameful admission of failure on the part of the government. This is no more than a housing policy in reverse. We are going steadily backward. We shall produce at least 30,000 fewer houses than the minimum number the Economic Council of Canada has said should be produced in order to provide for the housing needs of Canada in one year. We shall, because we are going in reverse so far as house production is concerned at the present

December 21, 1967
Housing
time, produce less than 160,000 houses next year.


Mr. Lind:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


George Harris Hees: At the end of my remarks I shall.


Mr. Rapp:: At the end of the speech.


George Harris Hees: At the end of my speech I shall permit questions. When the Prime Minister spoke this morning he tried to minimize the catastrophe which the housing conference two weeks ago was. It is well known that the cabinet was divided on whether a conference on housing should be called. Many in the cabinet believed that the conference should be held at the officials' level and that there was not sufficient information to pass along to the provincial premiers for a full-fledged conference involving the Prime Minister, the provincial premiers and federal government ministers to be called.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) persuaded the cabinet that the conference should be held. Typical of the descriptions of this conference, which appeared in nearly all the newspapers of this country, was the one written by Mr. John Dafoe in the December 15 issue of the Globe and Mail. The column is headed, "The Housing Talks Fizzled While Homeowners Burned". I shall read only the first paragraph because it describes the situation adequately:
This week's federal-provincial conference on housing probably came closest to producing unanimous agreement of any conference in recent memory. Almost everybody agreed that it was a flop.
Then he describes in detail what kind of flop it was and why it was a serious mistake to have called the conference in the first place. In my opinion, the speech which the Prime Minister delivered at that conference must have been prepared by someone who works in the Department of Labour. The Prime Minister must have delivered it without having read it first; otherwise I do not think he would have made the speech. It was not a speech that an intelligent man would have made.
At the end the main suggestion for solving the housing crisis was that another committee should be formed, another consultative council which from time to time would report to the provincial premiers and provincial governments and advise them of the housing situation. The provincial premiers who came here, Mr. Speaker, are fully conversant with

the housing problems of their provinces. They wanted leadership from the federal government. They wanted to hear the government's housing policy. These busy men took time out from their other duties to come to the conference, and when they got to it they heard the Prime Minister say that the problem would be solved by appointing yet another committee. This is a government of committees, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: And task forces.


George Harris Hees: This government does not know how to make decisions. It has had a committee deliberating a matter that has been discussed by many other Canadians for the past five or six years. I refer to the question of foreign investment. That committee cannot make up its mind. At some time in the future we will hear the result of the deliberations of yet another committee.
When the provincial premiers heard the Prime Minister make his speech that day- and I talked to a number of them-they did not know whether to laugh or cry. It was the most pathetic performance, they said, that they had seen in many a long year at Ottawa. This is the kind of performance we are getting from this government. It is inexcusable having this kind of flop with respect to housing; in fact, it is very serious indeed. But it would have been a catastrophe if such a fiasco had been perpetrated on the busy premiers who spent three or four days at that most important conference which took place in Toronto, a conference conducted under the auspices of the premier of Ontario, a conference that will produce something concrete. These busy premiers came here hoping for an answer to the housing crisis and they got absolutely nothing.
When the conference ended on the second of its proposed three days, only two of the ten premiers were still in attendance. The second day of the conference was like the second night of a bad play when there are very few people in attendance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: The housing conference was a fiasco. What we in the opposition are afraid of is that if the housing conference could be such a flop, what will happen to that conference which is to be held at the beginning of February to deal with the most important matter that this country has probably ever dealt with, the constitutional crisis. If at the coming conference we see evidence of the
December 21, 1967

same lack of preparation as was evident in the housing conference and if fatuous speeches are made by ministers of the government, the constitutional conference will prove to be a calamity from which this country may never recover. I say to the government, for heaven's sake, pull up your socks. Act like a government. Stop perpetrating fiasco after fiasco on this country. Let us see some leadership or, for heaven's sake, move over and let others who can give leadership take office.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: May I ask a question?


George Harris Hees: I shall be glad to answer all questions a little later, Mr. Speaker. I should like to continue my remarks, if you do not mind, sir.
I want to say a word about our two northern territories. When the Prime Minister spoke this morning he said, quite rightly, that a great deal of the responsibility for housing rests on the shoulders of the provinces. They carry out the actual policies. Our two northern territories face a grave housing crisis, as grave as that in any province. The territories were not even invited to the housing conference. They wanted to be invited but because of problems of jurisdiction they were left out. That was one of the results of calling a conference without being better prepared to deal with the subject. The government did not have the courtesy and good sense to invite to the housing conference representatives from our two northern territories in order that they might inform the government of the problems of the territories and in order that the government might become conversant with the housing problems there. I say that those territories ought to have been represented at such a conference in order to have been able to bring forward their problems.
One of the principal difficulties facing house construction is the high cost of money as represented by high interest rates. This government must get its financial house in order, control its expenditures and restore public confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: What is the record of the government in this regard? Since taking office just four and a half years ago the government has increased government expenditures by no less than $3 billion, or 47 per cent. That is a fantastic performance in overspending the public's money. The government has had to go to the bond market many 27053-3601
Housing
times, far more often than any government in the past. The Canadian people have seen the government returning time and again to the bond market and have held back from buying the bonds that the government has issued from time to time. Members of the public have known full well that if they wait for the next issue or the one after that they will be able to demand a higher rate of interest on the money they lend. This has driven interest rates up. It has made mortgage money in short supply. It has driven building costs up and made it almost impossible for many Canadians to obtain the housing they need.
What has the government done to put its financial house in order and to cope with this situation? It has done absolutely nothing. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) the other day told us several times that he intended to bring about drastic cuts in the present budget. I am speaking of the 1967-68 budget. He told me that when the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) spoke he would announce what cuts were to be made. You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of National Revenue did not mention once in his speech any cut that the government intended to make in its 1967-68 budget. What was said by the Minister of Finance was a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Nothing in that regard has been done up to the present time. Nothing is being done to cut expenditures between now and when the next budget is presented in April.
We have the ludicrous assurance by the government that they intend to take the extraordinary step of cutting $1.2 billion from government expenditures. Every member in this house who has served as a minister knows that when a budget is prepared every department brings forward everything that it wishes to do for the public. They are all good and desirable measures. They place them before Treasury Board and then it is determined whether the government can afford to carry out all these measures at that time. Invariably the government cuts off about $1 billion in proposed expenditures because there is not enough money to do everything. This is nothing new. The government has done nothing new.


Erik Nielsen: It is a fraud.
* (12:10 p.m.)


George Harris Hees: It is simply fraud. The government has done nothing to cut real expenditures or to restore public confidence in its financial responsibility. As an example, in

December 21. 1967
Housing
the first seven months of this year-and these are the only available figures-the government has increased expenditures by no less than 15 per cent. I say in conclusion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Yes, I realize that hon. members on the other side are glad to hear that I am about to finish my speech because they do not like what I am saying. As the old saying goes, it's music to the gambler's ears to hear the suckers roar. That is what they are doing, and it is music to my ears. They do not like what I am saying because I am telling them a few hard truths. I say, let the government get its house in order, cut expenditures, revive confidence, bring interest rates down as a result, and enable the Canadian people to acquire the houses they need to put over their heads.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I heartily welcomed this debate in the hope, perhaps unwarranted, that not only constructive criticism but some constructive suggestions would be forthcoming. As I have said more than once, I think criticism is necessary on occasion and that where warranted it should be forthcoming without any punches being pulled; it should come not only from the opposition but from the news media and any other sources which can make worth-while contributions.
In the light of the actual facts, however, I must say I have been perturbed not only by the nature of some of the debate which has taken place this morning but by some of the press comments which followed the housing conference. Some of the criticism may well have been justified. The conference probably would not have been a success if some criticism had not emerged. On the other hand, after hearing views loudly voiced by people who were not at the conference and by others who did not take the time to inform themselves adequately of the facts, I think it might be prudent at the outset of my remarks to refer briefly to the reasons the recent conference was held and the nature and extent of what actually took place there, so that these matters can be kept in proper perspective and adequately set down in the records of this house.


George Harris Hees: Was Premier Robarts not at that conference?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Yes, he was, and I shall have something to say about that in a

moment. Last March, speaking about the importance of inter-governmental co-operation in all branches of governmental activity, the Prime Minister had occasion to refer to housing. He said at that time:
This is an area where the primary constitutional responsibility for action lies with the provincial and municipal governments, but in which all governments must work together.
He then went on to say:
Certainly the federal government cannot ignore the rising dissatisfaction among Canadians with our urban environment not only as to the availability of adequate housing for everyone but as to the human equality of our community development.
Hon. members will also recall that in the speech from the throne read in May it was announced that the federal government proposed to consult with the provinces on problems and prospects in connection with housing and urban development. The conference was called against this background. The Prime Minister has referred to the letter which went out to the provincial premiers inviting them to meet to discuss problems of mutual interest. These invitations were extended to provide for the first time in Canada's history an opportunity for an exchange of views on this critical and, perhaps I should say, very sensitive subject. This was the objective of the conference and it was so set out clearly in the letters of invitation which went to the provincial premiers.


Erik Nielsen: Not all governments received them.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: All provinces received
them. The conference was designed to stress the need to pool our thinking in planning for the future and this was made clear in the advance publicity. It was pointed out that money was not the only consideration but that other major problems were involved and other challenges had to be met if we were to make urban Canada the attractive environment we would wish to see.
This becomes all the more urgent when we realize, as has been stated in this house more than once, that within a relatively few years, 12 or 13 I believe, 80 per cent of the people of this country will be living in fewer than 30 city or metropolitan areas and that one-third of the people will be living in three metropolitan areas. In these circumstances we thought it was about time that a conference on housing and related matters should take place.
December 21, 1967

Unfortunately, since that conference there has been a great deal of loose talk and loose writing about the premature termination of those meetings and a certain provincial premier walking out. Remarks of this sort were made this morning by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees), who does not know what he is talking about because he was not there. The conference did not collapse. On the morning the conference opened, the Prime Minister was advised by at least two of the heads of provincial delegations that they hoped it would be possible for them to get away on the evening of the second day rather than have the conference extend to a third day. With this in mind we extended the length of the sessions on both days. On Monday we not only sat until 5.30 in the afternoon but we also had a very important evening meeting which was not on the original agenda. At that meeting we discussed housing in rural areas, one of the items which would normally have been discussed on the second day. The hours were also extended on the second day. By agreement the conference opened at 9.30 a.m. and we sat until about 7.20 p.m. in line with the expressed wish of heads of delegations.
[DOT] (12:20 pjn.)
The suggestion that all premiers walked out is absolutely absurd. One provincial premier did walk out but I understand he walked out to revise notes he had prepared. They were quite different from the ones he tabled at the beginning of the conference. I say the conference did not end prematurely. It ended having sat roughly the same number of hours that were originally contemplated would be spent and it ended with a very useful discussion in which the leaders of some of the provincial delegations who had a special interest in rural housing took part. The conference sat until approximately 7.20 p.m. on the second day. The premier of Nova Scotia had to leave about 6.30 because he had an appointment with the Prime Minister, but he took an active and helpful part in the discussion until he left. The representatives of Newfoundland and British Columbia, the premier of Prince Edward Island-they were all there as well as others taking part in the discussions.
It is more important, in my opinion, to talk about what was actually accomplished than it is to talk about failure or collapse. There were two concrete, positive achievements at the conference. First, as mentioned by the
Housing
Prime Minister this morning, there was general agreement among all ten provinces with the four broad and very significant proposals put forward by the government of Canada in its wish to assist in meeting the long-range challenges that confront us. These four items will appear in Hansard, since they were referred to by the Prime Minister in his remarks this morning. The second one, however, federal financial support for land assembly and development of comprehensively planned new suburban communities within urban regions, warrants a supplementary word because we are making progress in this very important field.
In answer to a question put to me in the house on Monday I referred to the very effective work being carried on by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Ontario Housing Corporation in the development of a federal-provincial land tract at Malvern. This is a very strategically located and valuable tract of land, and the project shows what can be done if federal-provincial partnerships are to be effective. It has a potential of a highly desirable community of 30,000 or perhaps 32,000 people, with schools, churches, supermarkets, houses, and industries. It will be a suburban community or, if you like, a satellite community similar to several such successful communities that I have seen in England. Progress had been made on this project before the conference opened. We want to see more of the provinces undertaking this type of thing, and we want to see more of this activity in Ontario.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the minister permit a question?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: At the end of my remarks. In the editorial aftermath of the conference it came through loud and clear that although the federal government had put forward these four progressive, important proposals, all of which were accepted by the provincial delegations, the federal government, according to editorial comment, did not seem to have the funds with which to implement them. What failed to emerge in even a single newspaper that I have read or in any news comment that I have heard was the fact that the government of Canada had already indicated that it was and is prepared to commit to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for investment in 1968, funds substantially in excess of those budgeted for 1967 in these areas of greatest need, including those to which 1 have referred.

December 21, 1967
Housing


Reid Scott: How much more?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will deal with that in a minute or so. The second encouraging development arising out of the discussions last week was the agreement reached on a form of continuing study and assessment of the problems, to which reference was made this morning by the Prime Minister and other hon. members.
Criticism, Mr. Speaker, is always welcome if it is criticism of the right kind, and I will gladly accept some criticism here. Possibly it is deserved, probably it is deserved in some respects, but when people with a relatively superficial knowledge of all the factors that come into play in the current housing situation pose as experts, just like people who make a one week visit to Europe or Japan and return as experts on those countries-


Erik Nielsen: Or the north.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: -or the north, then I think we who have the responsibility should take issue with their superficial criticism. Many writers suggest in a superficial vein that the government has not provided effective leadership, or the leadership demanded by the circumstances. I would like to dispell that myth once and for all.


Reid Scott: That will be a good effort.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: And you will get it. This year housing starts throughout Canada will reach about 160,000, some 26,000 units above last year's total, the fourth largest number of unit starts in any year in Canada's history. The largest was in 1965, the second largest in 1964 and the third largest in 1958.
But that figure of 160,000 for 1967 starts does not include new housing accommodation that takes a form other than self-contained dwelling units. For example, much has been done to provide needed housing in the form of hostel accommodation in our large cities. Approval has been given in this year, 1967, to the provision of hostel accommodation for approximately 10,000 elderly people and students. Taking these into consideration, 1967 has been a record year for starts in housing accommodation, and this in spite of the fact that we had relatively few starts in the first quarter of the year. It has been achieved virtually in a period of nine months.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would be less than candid if I failed to express disappointment about some of the things that happened, or rather failed to happen at the

recent housing conference. There was provision on the agenda for the discussion of a large number of urban problems that fall mainly within provincial jurisdiction. Some of these problems-pollution, urban traffic congestion, suburban resistance to low cost residential development, urban land costs, and the fragmentation of urban government planning-were on the agenda for discussion. One or two of them were discussed, but not in great depth.
I myself drew attention to these problems, as did several of my cabinet colleagues. I did so on at least two occasions, but to say the least it seemed to some of us that at least some of the heads of provincial delegations were not too anxious to discuss these sensitive matters. They seemed to feel that the federal government should not take anything but an academic interest in these questions.
One might conclude from some provincial comment made at the conference that these problems are well in hand, but I can assure hon. members, having lived with these problems for a number of years, that they are far from being well in hand. To give one instance, in the province of Ontario in certain circumstances you have to go through 42 different agencies in order to get permits to proceed with building of housing. It may well have seemed silly to one provincial premier to have a conference about questions where so much of the responsibility lies heavily on the provincial governments, but in my opinion certainly not nearly as silly as refusing to take advantage of the opportunity to discuss what could be done to bring down land costs, which is the largest single factor in housing in this country, particularly in our metropolitan areas. They did not try to come to grips with that problem, e (12:30 p.m.)
Housing is not just the problem of land assembly, because some encouraging progress is being made in some of the provinces in this field. More important than that is the problem in respect of the taxation structure and procedures. Surely the provinces should come to grips with the type of problem which was developed by reason of the fact that at the end of the war, or five or ten years following the war, entrepreneurs or land developers picked up lots for $1,000 to $1,200 and are now selling them for $10,000, $12,000 or $15,000 without any tax being involved. The representatives of the provinces should not
December 21, 1967

have been afraid to state their position openly in this regard before the television cameras here in Ottawa.
Believe me, there are many difficult, complex and massive problems which confront us with regard to the growth of our cities. If there is a reluctance on the part of some of the provinces to go beyond the exercise of their primary constitutional jurisdiction and reluctance to discuss the plans they have for exercising their prerogatives, then something is wrong and this is where the conference failed. If it failed it was because it was a federal-provincial conference and at such a conference one must expect contributions at both the federal and provincial level.


Reid Scott: They did not get any
from you.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: They may not have, in your opinion, but I must say, however, that we did put forward a few good views which they accepted. To put it in its simplest terms, while 1967 may not have been as big a year as all of us who have given serious thought to this problem would have liked to see it still was a big year in respect of housing in Canada. The significance of the government's leadership or, if I may put it another way, government action is manifest not only in the total volume of housing production for the year but in the fact that the proportion of accommodation for low income families and elderly citizens is considerably higher than ever before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Indeed, housing for those whose needs are the most urgent has become such an important part of our total housing program that there is now available to these families a record number of dwellings. This has become more and more important. In my opinion there is nothing more important than the provision of homes for those who face difficulty in building their own homes and those who cannot relate a home of their own to their limited incomes.
Undoubtedly the most acute problems associated with rapid urbanization in Canada are being experienced in the province of Ontario. In that province, dwelling starts in Toronto in 1967 will set a new record over any other year. Perhaps we should do more, but do not say that we are not making any progress when we have moved from the low level of 1966 to a record level in 1967. About 50 per cent of these starts in Toronto were
Housing
financed under the National Housing Act. Close to 10 per cent represent accommodation for low income families, elderly citizens and students. In metropolitan Toronto alone more housing units will be started this year than the 32,000 produced in the record year of 1965 to which reference has been made.
While filling the leading position as the source of N.H.A. mortgage financing for accommodation produced on the market, the federal government has also been called upon throughout 1967 to increase sums for more specialized forms of housing such as public housing, housing for the elderly and housing for students. I should like to make clear that not only has there been no curtailment but also there has been no refusal of applications for funds for use in this way. We have every confidence that there will be an increase in 1968 of approximately 50 per cent in allocations of this nature. Listen to these figures. Ten years ago parliament voted some $35 million a year for public housing. When it became my responsibility to answer for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in this house its total annual budget was $350 million. Only a niggardly portion of this was used for public housing, because the initiative in these fields rests at the municipal and provincial levels. There has been, however, a remarkable change as a result of the legislation passed by parliament in 1964, which I had the honour to introduce.
In the area of public housing alone in the year 1967 approximately 9,000 units will have been authorized. This is more than double the number in the year 1966. I would have liked to see twice that number, but we are making encouraging progress in that direction. What has been done in the year
1967	represents in one year one third of the total number of public housing starts provided in the whole of Canada in the last 20 years. I believe that is a record for which I do not have to apologize.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Public housing for low income families, for the elderly and for students is now a very significant part of Canada's annual building program and, as has been said by the Prime Minister, can be expected to have an even greater impact in
1968	and in the years ahead.
I should now like to review the prospects for the coming year in terms of anticipated federal financial commitments for housing programs which will continue under current

December 21, 1967
Housing
provisions of the National Housing Act. As I have already said more than once, we expect that the freeing of the interest rate on insured home-owner and rental loans will provide necessary flexibility and result in greatly increased participation by approved lenders. Having in mind the comment made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) this morning, I should like to put this on the record. He said hopes had been expressed that there would be improvement in the number of loans under the N.H.A. I am glad to assure the house that in- a period of just under 90 days there has not just been a hope of this happening but rather in October and November by means of N.H.A. loans four times as many dwellings have been started than in the corresponding period of last year-four times as many.
At the conference last week the Prime Minister stated that we were following this situation and that if we did not obtain satisfactory results we might have to take other action. There is not the slightest doubt that we are now getting these results. Anyone who believes in free or private enterprise will realize that if they can obtain a certain interest rate from a company which wants to build a factory, a pipe line, an office building or a warehouse, they are not likely to put this money into housing if the interest rate in respect of housing is one per cent or half a per cent lower. I think we did what was the realistic thing to do. We did not fix the interest rate at 8-J per cent. We did what parliament authorized and said that approved lending institutions-and they have to be approved before they can obtain the benefits of the act-could make loans at an interest rate up to that ceiling. 1 am happy to say that some of the lending institutions, including insurance companies and at least one of the larger banks, are lending money at an interest rate substantially below the ceiling, one half of one per cent below.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
This flexibility is bringing more money into the field of housing and accounts in part at least for the fact that the last nine months of 1967 we have had a record period for housing starts in Canada. In addition, the government is making more money available in the areas of greatest need, for public housing and projects of that kind. Not only the proportion but the level of commitments in these areas of greatest public need will increase. At the same time-I want to make this clear for the record at this time-that

not only will there be more funds available for the areas of greatest social need but a substantial sum has been earmarked for 1968 for those who wish to build their own homes and may not be able to arrange financing through direct loans.
We have cut back on speculative builders' loans, those who build for profit. Let them go to the private lending institutions to borrow money and make their profit in the usual way. There is nothing wrong with that in a country like Canada. There has been and will be in the rural parts of Canada greater difficulty in getting loans from the traditional lending institutions because they do not have offices and inspectors there, so C.M.H.C. will have funds available for direct loans to people who want to build their own homes.
Reference was made this morning, and I referred to this matter during the conference, to the revival of the limited dividend program to provide rental housing for moderate income families. Provision is being made for a renewed, a wider, program of this type. This program, as I am sure most hon. members know though others may not, was very successful in the first few years of its operation. Today, however, if you have an income of more than $5,400 in some areas-I think it is $5,500 in one-you are not eligible to acquire a house under the limited dividend program. The program is tied in with one's income. The private speculator puts up a portion of the money and C.M.H.C. is prepared to finance the balance, but the return to the private speculator is limited to 5 per cent. This is not very realistic when you realize that in Ontario the rate on government loans is about 7J per cent, in Quebec it is about 7J per cent and in my own native province of New Brunswick it is 7J per cent. The federal government is paying about 6 per cent. Therefore a 5 per cent interest rate is realistic in respect of limited dividend housing.
We propose to make changes by way of regulation or legislation, if necessary, to put the limited dividend program back into effect. C.M.H.C. is now ready to receive applications from entrepreneurs, land developers, builders or anyone else. This money will be available on attractive terms that are being widely announced throughout the country, which I believe will put this program back on its feet. It may take time to get limited dividend projects under way on the scale we would like, because it must be
December 21, 1967

remembered that the program has been inactive for years and it will take a little time to revive it.
One of the major areas of investment of federal funds in 1968 will be loans to provinces and municipalities for public housing projects, land assembly for housing, sewage treatment plants, and this type of project. There was a slight disagreement at the housing conference between the prime minister of Quebec and myself with regard to amending the legislation, but when I explained to him that the federal government was quite prepared to recommend to parliament that funds be made available for the acquisition of land for housing, provided it would not be held by the province for 50 years and would not become the property of the province, with the taxpayers of Canada paying the shot and the asset being turned over to the province, the disagreement was resolved. We will make loans for these projects on a short term basis of 10 or 15 years at low rates. This money will be available to provinces who wish to acquire land for housing. There would be no profit in it. The prime minister of Quebec said that was fine, that was what they were asking for, and I got the nicest note anybody could get from the prime minister of Quebec when he left the conference. And he did not leave before the conference was over. Admittedly he did not stay for the discussion on rural housing but he stayed right through until that item came up. He left his minister or officials behind to participate in that phase of the discussion.
We are prepared to listen to any reasonable requests. In fact, we have discussed with several of the provinces, including Ontario and Quebec, what funds we will make available out of the C.M.H.C. budget for 1968. We discussed with them what they might reasonably expect to need during 1968. The representatives of those provinces both went away satisfied with the assurances we had given.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to say anything more about the intended program for speculative building?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I can only say that it is not the government's intention at this time to introduce any speculative lending program for 1968. The requirements for money for public housing were $35 million a few years ago. They are now nearly $350 million for the year 1966-67 and they will probably exceed $500 million for the year 1968. This is
Housing
the reason; it is as simple as that. If we are to make provision for the money needed for public housing, student housing, land assembly and urban renewal in areas where urban renewal is vital, we cannot put money into speculative building, much as I might like to.
Reference was made, again by the hon. member for Fraser Valley for whom I have very high regard, to the winter building bonus of $500 but there is one thing that the hon. member overlooked. He referred to the $500 winter house building bonus that was instituted in 1963. This bonus was paid on each unit built during the winter months and was carried on through the winters from 1963, 1964, and 1965, dropped last year.
I would like to make this clear so there can be no dispute about it. The $500 bonus would have been largely meaningless had it not been for the almost unlimited funds that were made available to speculative builders who were building for profit. They were building on speculation and the federal government was providing the funds for that purpose. If it is a choice between providing funds for that purpose or for areas of greater need, we certainly will go to the areas of greater need.
Our policy in this respect seems to be working. There is a reasonable level of interest rates. If with our concentration of effort on public housing and allied problems we do not obtain the results we expect, I am not prepared to say that we will not take another look at the speculative lending program, but our present program does not contemplate any speculative lending for 1968.


Mr. Gilbert:: 
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am nearly through, Mr. Speaker. I should like to complete my remarks.


John Gilbert: Can the minister say whether the government is prepared-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I should also inform hon. members and the Canadian public that provision is being made for greater activity in the important urban renewal program. If one is to proceed with intelligent planning in the use of public funds for such purposes in cities such as Halifax, Saint John, and even some of the smaller cities in the Atlantic region, and certainly the cities of Quebec,

December 21, 1967
Housing
Toronto, Hamilton, Vancouver and elsewhere, one cannot ignore the problems which arise out of the regeneration that takes place when some of the slum or near slum areas have been or have to be improved.
Last week I picked up a beastly cold, a form of pleurisy, when I was in Winnipeg attending a public housing ceremony, but it was worth it. At one time the area in which the ceremony was held was one of the worst slums in the prairie region, and the hon. members for Winnipeg will agree with me on that I am sure. They will remember the deplorable Jarvis Street slum in Winnipeg. Five years ago one was not safe going along that street. After it was torn down a housing project was built into which the people living in the former slum were moved and for which 75 per cent of federal funds were used and 25 per cent of provincial and municipal funds. Last week we opened up on this former deplorable slum area one of the finest public housing projects in Canada which will provide accommodation for 1,100 people. That is the type of work to which we should allocate more and more funds rather than for certain other purposes.
To the extent that provincial governments are willing to respond to our offers of financial assistance, the capital budget for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in 1968 will provide approximately $500 million for these special purposes to which I have referred, compared with $250 million allotted for 1967. I was able to persuade my colleagues in the cabinet later to stretch this sum to $335 million in 1967. Next year will be more than double this past year's figure. In view of these facts how can anyone seriously suggest that we have pulled out the props?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister but the time allotted to him has expired. Has the minister leave of the house to continue beyond his time?


Mr. Knowles:: Yes, provided he will answer a question or two.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will be glad to do so. However, let me ask: How can people who have done any research in this field, and primarily those in the news media who were not in attendance at the meeting, seriously suggest that the props were pulled out in the light of the facts that I have just mentioned?
In summary, I can assure hon. members of substantially increased federal response to provincial and municipal needs in meeting

all of the problems of urban development for which the current national housing legislation is designed to provide assistance. The new kinds of federal assistance, as I have said, require some amendments to the National Housing Act. As the Prime Minister has stated, they will be introduced at an early date in the new year.
In closing I should like to express my sincere appreciation not only to those who have made useful contributions in the house today but on earlier occasions and to the many other individuals and organizations who have come forward with studies during the past year and a half when this crisis developed-and the problem certainly has reached crisis proportions in cities like Toronto, Windsor, Montreal, Vancouver and other places. Some very worth-while and instructive suggestions have been put forward. They are all appreciated and we will continue to welcome them and to act upon them.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member for Greenwood has a question to ask?
Mr. B re win: Mr. Speaker, the minister referred in his remarks to the land assembly at Malvern in the neighbourhood of Toronto, and I think he said about 30,000 persons will be housed there. I should like to ask the minister whether he agrees that the major obstacle to proceeding with that project seems to be the servicing of the land which has already been assembled. Will the federal government make a contribution so that services can be made available? There is another question which I should like to put to the minister at the same time. Can he give us the assurance that when the land is serviced it will be made available for low cost or public housing and not just turned over to speculators to sell to the well-to-do?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: These are two very good questions. On the first one I can say that the C.M.H.C. and the Ontario Housing Corporation have been working on this matter together with the municipalities in that area, including the chairman of the metro Toronto council. Arrangements have already been made to bring water and certain other facilities to the area in question, that is, the land owned by the federal-provincial partnership. The federal-provincial partnership has agreed to the appointment of top-notch engineers to co-ordinate the work for which it will provide the funds.
December 21, 1967

On the second question I can say that in the new development, some of which will be used for apartment blocks or multiple dwellings, some for private dwellings, supermarkets and churches, some space certainly will be reserved for public housing. There was agreement on that.


Mr. Valade:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I should like to draw your attention to citation 119 in the fourth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, especially to subclauses 1 and 2 which read:
119. (1) One of the main functions of the house consists in debating public issues-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the point raised by the hon. member for Saint-Marie certainly should be dealt with this afternoon. The time this morning was reserved for a debate on housing.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a question of privilege before the house. Perhaps we should hear what it is.


Georges-J. Valade: Do I understand the minister correctly? Will this debate continue this afternoon?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: That is why I raise a question of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, I am coming back to the citation:
119. (1) One of the main functions of the House consists in debating public issues, a function which can only be filled by complete freedom of speech.
I come now to subsection 2:
(2) The mere object of shortening sessions may lead to an undue curtailment of the freedom of speech. The duties of a representative Parliament are too important to be performed in a hurry. No question should be decided until it has been fully discussed. Although some effort ought to be made to economize time,


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order.


Georges-J. Valade: I am quoting, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member come to his question of privilege?
Royal Assent


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I simply had to
quote citations from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms to substantiate the question of privilege I intend to invoke.
Because of the way in which this urgent debate was organized, many members have been unable to express their views freely on matters which interest them personally, and as a member from an urban area-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have no explanations to give the Liberal members who try to gag parliament and tamper with the freedom of speech of the members on this side of the house. I would have had remarks to make.
Here is my question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Because of the procedure, the house has been gagged on a matter as important as housing. I should have liked us not to have been subjected to last minute pressures.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that it will not now be possible to call on the hon. member for Yukon.
It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, December 21, 1967
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerald Fauteux, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, December 21, at 3.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal issent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
December 21, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry DRUGS



PROHIBITION AGAINST PUBLICATION OF NAMES OF PERSONS CHARGED

Mr. M. L. Klein (Cartier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-194, respecting disclosure of names of drug addicts.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Milton L. Klein: Mr. Speaker, the publication in the newspapers or in any other news media of the names and addresses of persons charged with possession of narcotics, including marijuana, tends to destroy the character of the accused, often in his late teens or early twenties, as well as his career as a student, to the anguish of parents and family and makes rehabilitation almost impossible. The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the publication of the names and addresses of the persons so charged without special leave of the court so that, among other things, a distinction may be made between a user and a pusher.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE

Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act (inter alia to increase the maximum number of members of the National Parole Board from five to eight), the Penitentiary Act, the Prison and Reformatories Act, and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act and the Customs Tariff.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Slarr:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this bill is of great importance and in order to give us an opportunity during the Christmas recess to study its contents, may I suggest to the government that we pass the resolution as the first order of business and give the bill first reading? This will give us the opportunity of reviewing the bill during the Christmas recess.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, that is quite agreeable to us on this side.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was what I was going to suggest, Mr. Speaker. So we are all in agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that this be done now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Trudeau moved: that the house go into committee on the resolution.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dube in the chair.
Resolution considered in committee, reported and concurred in.
Mr. Trudeau thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-195, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act and the Customs Tariff.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, if it is not against the rules, may I be permitted to ask whether the bill is now ready for distribution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is ready for distribution in both languages.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since this is the last question period before the recess I wonder whether the Prime Minister can give us any further information about possible assistance from the government to the government of Nova Scotia in connection with the Dosco problem, in addition to what he has already said regarding the period up to April 30 next.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I received from the premier of Nova Scotia the communication which we had discussed and which he said he would forward the day before yesterday, I think. I have discussed this communication with my colleagues. I have written to the premier this morning. We want to clear up one or two points. We also wish to secure from him the text of the legislation. We shall be discussing this matter probably at this evening's cabinet meeting or early next week. We are anxious to proceed with a decision on this matter as quickly as possible.
December 21, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	5723
Inquiries of the Ministry
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE	better take that question as notice and disbritish Columbia-request FOR parole of cus9 it the Minister of Agriculture.



FISHERMEN'S UNION OFFICIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Justice or to the Solicitor General. I am not sure to whom I should address it but perhaps I might direct it to the appropriate member of the government. Inasmuch as Christmas parole has been denied to two officers of the fishermen's union because their case is before the court of appeal, could this matter be looked into?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether I could take up that matter with the minister immediately.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I make a personal request of the Prime Minister and ask him to review this case himself? The minister who is involved will find himself in difficulties because of the legal aspects of the case. In view of the season of the year, could the Prime Minister see to it that these two men are given Christmas parole, not on grounds of humanity alone but on the wider grounds that a number of men of good will on the west coast are trying to open up new aspects of labour relations? This would do a great deal to show that there is good will in Ottawa toward efforts in that regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into the matter personally, with the minister. I shall take my hon. friend's observations into consideration when we are doing that.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Could the minister tell us whether the butter supplies in Canada are sufficient to meet the demand during the winter or whether we will have to import butter or other dairy products during 1967-68?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think I had



PROPOSED FREE TRADE AREA WITH WEST INDIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. Now that the centennial issue of the Canada Year Book, a publication of the minister's department, has come out in favour of free trade, will the department be studying the report of the Canadian trade committee of the Private Planning Association of Canada, which advocates a free trade area with the West Indies?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I think there may be some misunderstanding here. The misunderstanding may stem from two press stories this morning which referred to an article in the 1967 Canada Year Book. In fact, the article in question was in the centennial publication entitled, "Canada One Hundred, 1867-1967." The article was contributed and did not necessarily reflect government policy.


Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister comment on the possible study of the report of the Canadian trade committee of the planning association?


Robert Henry Winters: Which aspect of it, Mr. Speaker?



POSSIBLE RESTRICTION OF MINERAL IMPORTS BY U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I
wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement made in Toronto yesterday by the general manager of the Mining Association of Canada to the effect that a possible limitation by the United States with respect to imports of Canadian minerals, which is causing great concern in the mining industry of this country, may I ask the minister whether he is aware of this possible action and, if he is not, will he look into the situation and make sure that the United States government is advised that we would not take such action lightly?
December 21, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are looking into this matter currently.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In the light of answers given to me by the Minister of Industry yesterday concerning the space research institute, the HARP project, could the hon. gentleman tell me whether he himself or his officials have done anything to see that this complex is kept in Canada?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I personally had some discussion with the representatives of the board, I think, and I directed these people to the chairman of the Defence Research Board. I believe a tentative arrangement was arrived at whereby we could ask on a competitive basis for contracts from these people for particular types of research. These contracts would, of course, have to be approved by us. For instance, they would have to be concerned with high priority defence projects and so on.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I wonder whether the Minister of National Defence could get together with the Minister of Industry and review the positions they have taken on this question in order that we might retain this space research institute in Canada and not let it go by default to the United States.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Priftie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the military regime in Greece. It is related to one which was addressed to the Prime Minister last week in the hon. gentleman's absence. The Prime Minister said then that the matter was under consideration. My question is: does the government of Canada consider the junta to be a government legally constituted and worthy of continued support by Canada?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a
[Mr. Hees.l
position to give a definite answer to that question because our policy in this regard is not yet at a point at which it can be definitely stated. We are holding consultations with certain other governments. There is a constitutional problem in Greece which has to be examined as well.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question based on an announcement contained in a news broadcast this morning to the effect that Canada had indicated its readiness to extend the activities of the International Control Commission along the borders of Cambodia. Did Canada make such a offer and, if so, was it discussed with our colleagues on the commission, the Poles, who are reported to have opposed the suggestion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions about the utilization of the commission in connection with the border question. The government of Cambodia has made a formal request to the commission. The Canadian government through its representative there has indicated its willingness as a member of the commission to use its offices for the purpose requested.
A decision by the commission would, of course, involve not only agreement by Canada but by the two other members of the commission. There can be no doubt about the desire of the Canadian government and its representative on the commission to comply with an obligation which they accepted when the commission was set up.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister has misapprehended my question. I am sure there would be no disagreement as to the desirability of the International Control Commission acting in this manner. But my question was: has the government discussed this question with its fellow members of the commission before making an offer which we are told has been turned down by the Poles?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say
Canada had made an offer but that Canada had indicated its willingness to pursue this application. Nor did I state which country or countries on the commission had refused to accede to the Canadian view.
December 21, 1987


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has Canada discussed this matter with its partners on the commission and, if so, what has been the attitude of those partners?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Having in mind the interest which the hon. gentleman and I share in this question, I do not believe I should go any further than I have done.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could add to my reply to a question put by the hon. member for Kamloops a few moments ago. I do so because of the importance of this matter. I should like to say, in addition, that the Canadian delegate on the commission has been trying, without success, to have what in effect is a proposal made by the government of Cambodia as early as 1966 considered by the commission. Our efforts in this regard have not thus far met with success.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it, then, that the matter is still open for discussion. In other words, it is still open for decision and no final decision has been made; is this correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Canadian government continues to endeavour to have this matter considered by the commission. We feel strongly that if it were and if the commission were able to deal with the question involved, we would be able to take steps to more effectively guarantee the neutrality of Cambodia.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: A related question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member later.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   Roger-E. Regimbal@Argenleuil-Deux-Moniagnes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, and I hope his voice will last long enough to answer it. In view of the fact that Montreal port manager Guy Beaudet reported today that 32 shipping lines have indicated they will not return to Montreal until the current dispute is resolved, and in view of the fact that at this point the amount of cargo handled has decreased by more than 4 million tons this year, is the minister now ready to propose

Inquiries of the Ministry some new initiative to bring the parties together to find a solution?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Regimbal:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether by taking my previous question as notice he meant he will not indicate any kind of action or initiative on this urgent matter before January 22?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put question to the Minister of Transport. I apologize for not having given him notice.
In view of the news we have learned from the newspapers and radio that Montreal authorities would ask to take over the administration of national harbours in Montreal, has the minister received official correspondence from the city authorities on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I point out to the minister that in its present form this is not an urgent question, but if the minister wishes to answer, in view of special circumstances and the fact that we are adjourning today, the question may possibly be allowed.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, there has been no communication, although there may have been some earlier which gave rise to this entirely new idea. I cannot remember seeing anything in this regard within the last few days but to be certain I should like to check my files. This idea of local autonomy is not new. It is part of a greater and very difficult policy question. I realize this is not the only place in the country where local people are interested in taking part in the affairs of the port authority, and I will check my files before saying definitely whether there has been any recent correspondence from people in Montreal.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinfe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
December 21, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry
Could the Minister of Transport inform us whether his department has any objection to turning over to the Montreal city authorities jurisdiction over Montreal harbour, and has an investigation been made on this?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this is part of the very great and complex policy question about which I was talking. I do not think my hon. friend would want me to give an oil the cuff answer to anything as significant and with as far reaching consequences in an answer to a question on orders of the day.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday I asked the right hon. Prime Minister a question relating to the disbanding of the special planning secretariat and he stated that the work of the special secretariat had been given to other departments. I then asked the right hon. gentleman for information as to which departments had been asked to do what part of the work of the secretariat and he was good enough to say:
Yes, I shall be very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.
Since this is the last day before the Christmas recess will the Prime Minister give us that information?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I have not received the report for which I asked and I apologize to my hon. friend for not having this information. I will get it to him as soon as I receive it later this week-tomorrow, I hope.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister is answering the question posed by the hon. member for York South perhaps he would also indicate to the house which group will be doing the co-ordinating and planning in respect of any action on the poverty program which the secretariat was doing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That will be done in the privy council office which has the general co-ordinating responsibility in this field.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on December 19 the hon. mem-

her for Edmonton West asked me whether Canada had been asked to render any other assistance in support of the United States dollar on the international exchange or whether we are to stand idly by as an apprehensive watcher. In reply I said:
I believe the United States government, which is the primary supporter of gold, is very happy with Canada's role at the present time.
I should like to supplement that answer today by advising the house that as a measure of international monetary co-operation Canada has today sold the United States $100 million worth of gold. The proceeds from this sale will be invested by the exchange fund account in short term interest bearing securities.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is this sort of participation in the gold pool on an open end basis or is it an exclusive transaction?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are not a member of the gold pool. This is action by Canada very similar to the action we have taken in the past when we have sold gold to the United States, but this is a rather larger transaction than usual.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
When the Minister of Finance says that the revenue or proceeds from the sale of this gold to the United States will be invested in bonds, can he tell us whether the interest on these bonds will be at least equal to the interest which the government pays in respect of its own bonds?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should advise the hon. gentleman that when we hold gold we are earning nothing and that therefore this is a net addition to our earnings as a government.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, that was not my question. I asked whether the interest on the bonds bought by the government will be equal at least to the interest which the government pays in respect of its own bonds.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that whenever the government invests money it invests it at the market rates of interest which presumably apply to all borrowers as well as lenders.
December 21, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of
the fact that Canadian gold mines are subsidized, can the minister indicate just how much this sale of gold will cost the Canadian taxpayers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, all sales of gold, as long as the United States is supporting the dollar, are at $35 an ounce. That is the prevailing international price. There is no other price in international markets.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Would the minister be good enough to give us a progress report, if one is available, on the analyses which are being made of the tenders for the four D.D.H.'s and particularly whether Halifax is in the running for one or more of them?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisier of Industry):: As I pointed out the other day, Mr. Speaker, the tenders were officially opened on December 12, a relatively few days ago. Although the work is progressing as rapidly as possible it is not expected that the analyses will be completed until early in the new year.


George Louis Chatterton: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister advise the house whether in considering these tenders the difficult position of the west coast shipyards will be taken into consideration?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the Restigouche shipyard I am not sure whether that shipyard is on the list of tenderers.


An hon. Member:: The west coast
shipyards.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There is a bid in from the west coast which will be examined.


George Louis Chatterton: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the minister understood my previous question. In deciding which tender should be accepted, will the minister consider the difficult position of the west coast shipyards?
2705S-361
Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the difficult position of the west coast shipyards. I should like to remind the hon. gentleman that in order to take care of this a program has been arranged of what I might call transitional assistance to enable the west coast shipyards to make an adjustment.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Prime Minister but in his absence perhaps I might direct it to the minister as a supplementary question following the answer he just gave. Can the minister advise the house whether immediate assistance will be given to the Vancouver drydock in view of the fact that 500 out of 800 men have been laid off already?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the analyses of the bids received for the D.D.H.'s will take some time to complete. It will not be possible to allocate these contracts until some time next year.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Sp eaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the size and complexity of the bill we have just received dealing with the Criminal Code and other statutes, is it the intention of the hon. gentleman to have it sent to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons? Perhaps someone on that side of the house would take this question as notice, since I see that the minister has just left.


Robert William Prittie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. A brief perusal of the bill which he has introduced does not reveal any reference to section 150 of the Criminal Code relating to birth control. Is this matter dealt with in the bill or will it be treated separately?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this question is out of order, but since other out of order questions were accepted this afternoon perhaps the minister can answer this one too.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Since you allow me to speak out of order,
5728	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker, I will say that this matter is not in the bill for the simple reason that it is in another bill dealing with contraception. I believe it is in the drugs and food bill which is now being considered in the other place. That is the only reason it is not in this bill.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, notice of which I sent him this morning. Will the additional benefits offered by the C.N.R. to its employees taking early retirement continue until the death of the employee or will they terminate at age 65? Also, why did the company not offer to continue the health and welfare benefits of the employees being urged to retire early until they reach the age of 65?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think this question should be placed on the order joaper.
]Mr. Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, if I may say a word on the question of urgency, I understand that the employees who have been offered this proposition have been given a date by which they must opt in or out of the program. I think it is important that they have the information so they may arrive at a proper judgment in this respect. If the minister has the information I do not think it would take long to give it.



INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENTS FOR 1966-67 CROPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, what I said, and I repeat it now, is that relations between Canada and the government of France are normal. I had an opportunity a few days ago of the fullest discussion with the French foreign minister. We are engaged in a number of negotiations with France. I detect no difference whatsoever in the relations between those representing the government of Canada and those representing the government of France. That is the statement I made the other day in Brussels.']
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, especially because this is the last day before the Christmas recess. Could the minister advise the house whether the Canadian Wheat Board has advised him when they will have the calculations made and be able to issue the final payment cheques to farmers in western Canada for the 1966-67 crop year?


Robert Henry Winters: No, I am sorry that I am unable to be precise in my answer to this question, Mr. Speaker.

DEBATES	December 21, 1967



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of new evidence indicating a drastic and soul saddening increase in the number of Vietnamese children war wounded and war burned, can the minister say whether the government has any immediate plans to make its medical assistance more substantial in that part of the world?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I
announced a few days ago that we are planning substantial additional medical assistance based on the recommendations of the Canadian team that was sent to South Viet Nam about two months ago.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of his statement in Brussels last week to the effect that our relations with France have never been better, is he planning to initiate similar approaches to other heads of state with a view to generally improving our international relations throughout the world?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, what I said, and I repeat it now, is that relations between Canada and the government of France are normal. I had an opportunity a few days ago of the fullest discussion with the French foreign minister. We are engaged in a number of negotiations with France. I detect no difference whatsoever in the relations between those representing the government of Canada and those representing the government of France. That is the statement I made the other day in Brussels.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
December 21, 1967

Minister of National Defence. I have given him 24 hours' notice so he will be well prepared. It is based on an article published in a recent issue of the week end supplement called The Canadian Magazine. The editorial comment reads as follows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows that he cannot quote directly when asking a question. The question should be asked directly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if you would listen to the quotation you would make a different decision. However, I will ask the minister whether the magazine is correctly stating the case when it says that this reporter was admitted into the army secretly and given a regimental number and a uniform. Was that done without formal attestation?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that my hon. friend gave me this article yesterday, which I read and enjoyed very much. I think he is gratified to find out that recruit training is just as rugged today as it was in his day. I am told that the unit into which Mr. Aider-man was recruited is very happy about the article. I would like to coin a proverb, if I may: "Thrice armed is he who can laugh at himself."


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not objecting to the article, Mr. Speaker. The minister has not answered my question, which I regret very much. I thought he was different from his predecessor.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes an army unit will take on strength a mascot such as a goat and give him a number and a rank. Do reporters now qualify for this distinction?


Mr. Benson:: Most reporters are goats.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: That was not my remark, Mr. Speaker. All I can say is that the recruiting of Mr. Alderman was carried out with our knowledge and in the proper way.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Secretary of State. It arises out of the plans of the C.B.C. to televise nationally this Christmas afternoon a program called "Peace On Earth", a one hour special report on Pacem in Terris II, a convocation held in Geneva last spring on the problem of achieving peace in the world. My question is, can the minister tell the house why the decision was made to televise this program at this time, seven months after the event?
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of
State): No, Mr. Speaker. The people in management get paid to manage.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that most of those appearing on the program are well known for views that are opposed to United States foreign policy, would the minister, in the interests of good Canadian-United States relations and objective broadcasting, undertake to watch this program so as to satisfy herself that objectivity is being achieved?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind hon. members that we are soon going to run out of time, so I shall have to watch the questions a little more closely.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister not like to take this opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas to all the old age pensioners of Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and would he do this by finding a way to increase the cost of living supplement to be added to the pension in January by an amount in line with the increase in the cost of living which has taken place since the pension was fixed at $75 a month?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to respond to the suggestion made by my hon. friend and wish the old age pensioners of Canada a Merry Christmas. Just about a year ago the House of Commons passed an important piece of legislation, the guaranteed income supplement,.
5730	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry which in the past year has resulted in payment of additional support to the old age pensioners of Canada of an amount in excess of $200 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This money has been put in the pockets of the neediest pensioners. I am sure that my hon. friend, who used the expression "Scrooge" a year ago with reference to myself, would like an opportunity now to withdraw it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has commented on the guaranteed income supplement. My question related to the cost of living supplement of only $1.50 a month which is to be paid starting in January. Will he find a way to increase that amount in view of the fact that the cost of living has gone up by 13 per cent since the old age pension was set at $75 a month?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have fully complied with the law passed by parliament in granting this cost of living adjustment. As 1 recollect it, all members of the house thought it was a very important step when we adjusted the old age pensions and the guaranteed income supplement to the cost of living. This cannot be altered in any way except by an amendment to the act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, We have just a few minutes left and questions have been asked on this subject by five or six other hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Veterans Affairs found a way to do it yesterday, by a supplementary estimate.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Louis Chatterton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs but in his absence perhaps the Acting Prime Minister could answer it. Pursuant to the announcement made yesterday by the Minister of Veterans Affairs with regard to the increase in

DEBATES	December 21, 1967
veterans disability pensions, is the government giving consideration to an increase in the war veterans' allowance payments?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will bring this question to the attention of the minister at once.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport in view of the fact that we may not be here for a few days. Has the minister been able to use his well known initiative to arrange a meeting with the railway officials to deal with the l.c.l. problem? If not, will he undertake to make sure that such a meeting is arranged even though it may be held while the house is in recess?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the railways are ready yet to discuss with me their position relating to the several questions raised by the Atlantic provinces premiers. I can assure my hon. friend that if they can do so during the recess the meeting will certainly be called expeditiously. We will not wait for parliament to reconvene just for that purpose but will endeavour to obtain the answers as quickly as we reasonably can.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister use his initiative at some stage to set a date for the meeting, or is he going to wait for the railway officials to express their readiness for it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works. I have given him notice of it. In the light of the fact that motions for the production of papers cannot be dealt with before the Christmas recess, may I ask the
December 21, 1967

parliamentary secretary whether any significant documents have been exchanged between Colonel Churchill and the government of Prince Edward Island relative to the Northumberland crossing since Colonel Churchill became an employee of the Department of Public Works?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this question could be dealt with more fully when the notice of motion is called. However, the brief answer is that at present it appears that the papers which would be required by the motion could not be produced because they are interdepartmental.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of National Defence.
Can he tell us if a decision has been reached with regard to the Canadian troops stationed in Cyprus?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, that decision is
incumbent on the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Personally, I have nothing new to say about the matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I may add that the security council of the United Nations is to consider the matter this afternoon,
I believe, and the position of the Canadian government will depend entirely on the decision reached at that time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader a question related to the business of the house tonight. Would the house leader not consider it appropriate to abandon the adjournment debate tonight so that members of the staff may get away a little earlier than would otherwise be the case?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps we could have it at six o'clock.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a good idea to abandon the adjournment debate tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT DESCENDANTS OF FATHERS OF CONFEDERATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As this is the last scheduled day on which this parliament will be sitting in the one hundredth year of confederation, I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that there are two men sitting in the House of Commons who are direct descendants of the fathers of confederation. I believe that December 21 is observed as the anniversary of the death of one of these gentlemen, namely Hon. Edward Whelan, of whom Eugene Whelan, the hon. member for Essex South, is a direct descendant. May I also say that the hon. member for Lotbiniere, Mr. Auguste Choquette, is a direct descendant of Sir Pascal Tache who at one time was the prime minister of Canada and who was the hon. member's great-great-grandfather. The French have a knack for keeping track of their family connections and can trace back their forbears for many generations. There is no question that the hon. member for Lotbiniere is a direct descendant of Sir Pascal Tache.
The Irish were more of a wandering type, but it can be proved that the hon. member for Essex South is a direct descendant of Hon. Edward Whelan who represented Prince Edward Island at the second Quebec conference and who also attended the Charlottetown conference. Sir Pascal Tache presided over the first Quebec conference but unfortunately passed away before the other two meetings were held. Hon. Edward Whelan was a printer, a man after my own heart, and to prove that there is a direct connection between him and the hon. member for Essex South may I quote a few words from an editorial in the Saint John, New Brunswick Globe of December 21, 1867. Speaking of the Hon. Edward Whelan, this is what it said:
Mr. Whelan enlisted with ardour on the side of the people, and soon drew down upon himself the stern opposition of the old and powerful family compact which ruled the island.

December 21, 1967
Royal Assent
May I say that this is in keeping with the cool breezes now blowing in this direction from the other place. It continues:
His long public career has been characterized by a firm and eloquent advocacy of measures calculated to improve and elevate the people. He was a man of large sympathies, of quick and generous nature, of ready wit, and with an eye always to the humorous side of a question. An extensive and varied reader, a man of excellent literary and of considerable natural eloquence, he was a flowing and imaginative speaker.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber, e (3:30 P.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting Co-operative Trust Company Limited.
An act respecting Principal Life Insurance Company of Canada.
An act to establish a corporation for the administration of the National Museums of Canada. An act to amend the Judges Act.
An act to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
An act to amend the Criminal Code.
An act to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act.
An act to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.
An act to establish a Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
An act to establish a Canada Manpower and Immigration Council.
An act respecting the boundary between the Province of British Columbia and the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
An act respecting interprovincial and international teleferries.
An act respecting the armed forces of countries visiting Canada.
An act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System for the period from the 1st day of January, 1967 to the 30th day of June, 1968, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-163, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions-Miss LaMarsh-Mr. Tardif in the chair.
On clause 2-Broadcasting policy for Canada.
Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, when the house adjourned yesterday I had just started to make a few remarks about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and this proposed legislation, Bill No. C-163. The bill is divided readily into three parts. We are now discussing clause 2 of part I which in essence sets out the objects of a broadcasting policy that the government hopes to project across Canada.
I came to Ottawa ten years ago, Mr. Chairman. If I were asked to look back and to single out a subject that has continually caused more concern to members of parliament and to this and the previous government I would have to say it was the C.B.C. and its administration and management. During those ten years the broadcasting committee has held meetings and studied broadcasting legislation from time to time. We have had the C.B.C. management on the mat, so to speak, time and time again. The point I am trying to make is that there seems to be no way in which the government and members of parliament can control this communications system and at the same time keep out of the field. And one really has to have control over this mammoth giant which continues to spend the taxpayers' money at an amazing rate. The taxpayers are not completely happy with the way the corporation is run in that no one seems to be able to control it, and no one in the corporation seems to take responsibility for some of the things it does.
The bill before the committee, seeks to set up a Canadian radio-television council, which will be a completely independent body. In other words, the management and operations of this mammoth giant will be removed that much farther from the people who pay for its operations and from their representatives. Members of parliament and the people generally will have little or no influence over the
December 21, 1967

controlling of the C.B.C. or over the projection of a Canadian content and a Canadian culture in its programs.
According to the objects outlined in the clause, it appears that the council will have to go further and contribute to the unity of Canada and assist Canadians in developing a national identity. In other words, it seems that the council is going to be a very powerful board which, if it takes its work seriously, will have the ability to brainwash Canadians all across Canada in such a way as to shape our unity and identity. I question whether this is right, Mr. Chairman. One hon. member speaking in the debate yesterday likened the C.B.C. as a means of communication to something not very different from a newspaper. Certainly the corporation is not too different from a newspaper. A government should not become involved in the publication of a daily or weekly newspaper, so why should it become involved in a now established television network or even, for that matter, a radio network?
In 1932 when the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was first set up it was the duty of the government to foster the development of a broadcasting network for Canada. We now have one network established with perhaps more on the way, and I suggest that at this point government should attempt to phase itself out of the operations of the C.B.C. Certainly, parliament should phase itself out of controlling the C.B.C. or we should put the corporation up for sale and let someone else run it. Some body similar to the Board of Broadcast Governors must impose regulations to control broadcasting.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The Minister of Finance has said that we are in a difficult financial position and that certain cuts must be made here and there. Not long ago the Prime Minister said that all the money which might have been available for housing had been completely absorbed by other expenditures. The Minister of National Revenue has cut agricultural payments to farmers because there is a shortage of money. Yet under this bill another large governing council is to be set up. In her opening remarks when introducing the bill the minister said that this council would need to employ more civil servants than any similar body has ever employed before. Instead of cutting down on the number of new employees the minister, through this bill, is seeking to increase their number.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Canadians are asking that government be simplified and that costs of government be reduced. Statistics show that one of every eight Canadians works for government at some level. In effect, our society has become so complicated that out of every eight people one controls the other seven. We should attempt to simplify our society and cut government expenditures instead of increasing them. The Minister of National Revenue said that the government will make a concerted effort to limit the growth of the civil service. Yet the Secretary of State under this bill is seeking to employ an ever-increasing number of civil servants.
Parliament must control this giant, the C.B.C. The minister quite obviously has found it almost impossible to control the giant. The bill says that the C.B.C. is to have a five year capital budget and that the minister will review the budget from time to time. That budget will only come before the house, for members of parliament to scrutinize, every five years.
Clause 2 of part I of the bill suggests that the council shall be called on to determine what programs are in good or bad taste. I sat on the broadcasting committees some years ago and we studied the question of broadcasting. What tests is one to apply to taste? Who can judge what is in good taste and what is not? If this is a free society, as I hope it is, then economics must be the judge. As the hon. member for Kindersley said yesterday, surely no one would buy a film like "Waiting For Caroline", broadcast it across Canada and expect to make money on it. The corporation spent $319,000 making that film, and the Minister of Finance has increased taxes by 5 per cent. How can one reconcile the 5 per cent tax increase with the expenditure of $319,000 to produce one film? I have not seen it but I have heard that it was completely and utterly in poor taste.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Indecent.


An hon. Member:: I liked it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone says he liked it. Bully for him. I can tell him that many Canadians did not. For another program, "The Ernie Game", the corporation spent $320,000. Yet the government says that it has no money for housing or for agricultural payments to farmers. No voting taxpayer will believe the Minister of National Revenue when he says that the government is going to limit the growth of the civil service in face of the fact that this bill will increase
5734	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting its size. Certainly any voting taxpayer who hears, on the one hand, that he must pay 5 per cent extra in taxes and, on the other, that the corporation spent $319,000 in making "Waiting For Caroline", will tear his hair out.
Though certain films that are produced for "Festival" may be very good, I do not think the government should be involved with them. I do not think we should compete with Hollywood. The government has tried to promote a private film industry in Canada-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It has not been set up yet.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know that, but I do not think that we should compete with Hollywood. We should not use taxpayers' dollars for a risky enterprise like the film business. Nor should we compete with Hollywood. Certainly the government must enact broadcasting legislation, but I think that the government should get out of broadcasting. If the C.B.C. is a going concern we should put it up for sale. Let someone buy this Canadian corporation about which everyone is talking. I do not care who buys it. I do care about the taxpayers and the way their money is spent. The government should not be involved in a risky, gambling type of enterprise such as the film business. As I said, we should not compete with Hollywood and the government should not attempt to brainwash the public.
The purpose of this legislation, we are told, is to safeguard, enrich and strengthen Canada. How can you safeguard, enrich and strengthen Canada without brainwashing people? It cannot be done otherwise. We are also told that those with conflicting views will be allowed to express those views on C.B.C. networks. Sometimes, I have the impression that only one side of a picture has been presented on certain programs. The other side has been ignored. Both sides of an argument ought to be fairly presented.
The bill is to contribute to the development of national unity. How can any piece of legislation or any council that is set up contribute to the development of national unity? How is that possible without somebody trying to brainwash the people? That just does not make sense. Since we live in a free society, and I think we do, when a private entrepreneur is given the right to use the airwaves his right ought to be regulated by the government. That is only fair since in some instances he is being allowed a monopoly use of certain airwaves. As I say,

DEBATES	December 21, 1967
we should not be in the broadcasting business because it is risky and requires a great deal of capital.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The setting up of a council will remove the corporation even farther from parliamentary control. The cry in parliament for many years has been that nobody has any control over the corporation. Yet this bill will remove it still farther from control by the people's representatives. The provision for capital expenditure to be on a five-year basis is another feature which will lead to the further weakening of control. All we can hope for is that those appointed to the council will be fair-minded men who will remain so forever and a day, because this is our only hope that any solution will come out of this legislation at all.
The bill provides every escape route feasible for C.B.C. management as a way out should any complaints reach them. The minister told us that the corporation would be answerable to the council and that complaints directed to the council will be brought to the attention of the C.B.C. in accordance with the objectives set out for the corporation in the bill. In that regard the corporation is required to promote, somehow or other, a sense of Canadian identity. In doing so, of course, it has to project conflicting views. So we are giving the corporation in effect a blank cheque covering anything they may wish to disseminate.
This giant has grown so big that instead of trying to limit its size we are washing our hands of it and handing it over to someone else to run. In my opinion we are going about handling this mammoth giant, which each year is gobbling up more money and creating disharmony rather than unity in Canada, in the wrong way. It will continue to do so after this legislation is passed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before the vote on my amendment could I ask the minister who brought in the measure if she could tell us, still in accordance with my amendment, who are the owners or the shareholders of the Quebec private television stations belonging to that same company? Could the minister provide an answer in this connection?


Miss LaMarsh:: On May 4, 1966, there was tabled in the house pursuant to an order
December 21, 1967

details of the ownership of private broadcasting stations including CFCM-TV, Quebec city.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, could we know when it was tabled in the house and could the minister send me a copy?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As I say, it was tabled on May 4, 1966.


Gilles Grégoire: Could we have a copy, Mr. Chairman?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I will be happy to send my copy to the hon. member.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: In rising this afternoon to speak on this proposed broadcasting bill I can tell you, Mr. Chairman and members of the House of Commons, that I do so with a heavy heart. I consider myself a Liberal. Some people call me a Liberal of the Liberals. I have been working on behalf of Liberal policies and Liberal positions for over 40 years and I did not play an inactive part in the editorial stand taken by the Toronto Star on many matters.
I am one of the privileged men of this country in that I was able to enjoy a close association with the late Joseph E. Dickinson, publisher and editor of the Toronto Star to the date of his death in 1948, and if there is anyone in this house who wishes to question the Liberal antecedents of the Toronto Star I am here to answer him.
It is true that the Toronto Star took a stand with regard to Liberal policy in 1917 and that the Star proved to be right, even if it did support a unionist government. It was Liberal in its viewpoint, Liberal in its stand. The Toronto Star broke with declared Liberal policy provincially in 1937 during the provincial election and it was never more right than it was in its stand at that time. I happened to be in Oshawa when the late Mr. Hepburn, so-called Liberal prime minister of Ontario, declared he intended to devote the rest of his life to keeping the Congress of Industrial Organizations out of Canada. The Toronto Star broke with Mr. Hepburn over that question and I could not have agreed with that stand more.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I have taken part in every election campaign provincially since 1919 when I scruti-neered for the late George A. Gillespie, Liberal candidate for re-election in Peterborough that year. I cast my first Liberal vote in Toronto in the early twenties upon reaching the age of 21. I voted C.C.F. in the days when Hepburn was premier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I was under the impression that he was leading up to a speech on the broadcasting bill, clause 2 of which is presently before the committee.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I am anxious to find out whether this is Liberal doctrine. In my opinion it is not. There are two features of this bill which I cannot and will not support and I intend to elucidate them, I assure you, before I finish.
I have in my hand Bill C-163. I could not disagree with anything more than I disagree with certain of these clauses. We have clause 2 before us now but I know that at this time we are allowed considerable freedom to discuss the bill generally before we go into it clause by clause and phrase by phrase. I cannot subscribe to clause 47, and I will say so long before we even get to it. I was hoping the country as a whole would make its views known on this aspect of the bill.
Clause 47(2) reads:
(2) Upon the coming into force of the Act and every fifth year thereafter, the Corporation shall submit to the Minister an operating budget for the next ensuing five financial years of the Corporation for approval by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister and the Treasury Board, and the Minister shall lay before Parliament each such operating budget of the Corporation as approved by the Governor in Council within fifteen days after the approval thereof or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting.
The Assistani Deputy Chairman: Order. I would point out that we are not discussing clause 47. The clause under study is clause 2 of the broadcasting bill.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are discussing a bill designed to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada and I presume that clause 47 is part of that broadcasting policy for Canada as set out in this bill. If you wish me to drop discussion of clause 47 at this time I will gladly do so and move on to the second feature of this bill which I
December 21, 1367

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting can never support, namely, the provision for community antennae television regulation by whatever board is set up to govern broadcasting. I disagree 100 per cent with that provision. The bill suggests that broadcasting undertakings in Canada make use of radio frequencies that are public property. Community television systems do not make use of radio frequencies; they involve nothing but receiving sets. Yet they are included in this biU.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Let me return to clause 2 (c) which reads as follows:
(c) all persons licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for...the programs they broadcast-
Note these words:
-but the right to freedom of expression... is unquestioned.
Did you ever hear of a more mouth-filling phrase that meant nothing than "the right to freedom of expression is unquestioned"? I ask you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, what is the use of having the right of freedom of expression if the public has not got the right to listen?
I have here in my hand a XEROX copy of a judgment handed down by the supreme court of British Columbia in a celebrated case regarding the Public Utilities Commission of British Columbia and Victoria Cable-vision et al. There were some other cablevision companies involved in this case but Victoria Cablevision Company Limited was the defendant. This particularly interesting case bears on cable television in the province of British Columbia and involves an endeavour to place the cablevision people under the control of the province. The cablevision people took the case to the supreme court of British Columbia where it was ruled that cablevision was within the federal domain rather than provincial jurisdiction. This decision was rendered by the supreme court of British Columbia. The decision rendered there and the opinions of the various justices are worthy of study. There is one part I should like to refer to in particular. It appears at page 722 of Dominion Law Reports. I suppose the lawyers will know what 51 D.L.R. means.
They quoted Viscount Dunedin at pages 85-86 and again quoted His Lordship at pages 87-88 as follows:
Now, a message to be transmitted must have a recipient as well as a transmitter. The message may fall on deaf ears, but at least it falls on ears.

5738	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting provision of alternative television service in that general region. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, this is quite interesting. Three applications by John Albulet of Ottawa for C.A.T.V. systems in Prescott, Ganaboque and Napanee were turned down on the ground that they would inhibit the provision of alternative television service in that general region. I made inquiries and found that the people in Gananoque and Napanee pick up the Kingston station which is privately owned.
I do not know how familiar hon. members are with the operation of C.A.T.V. installations, but the point one must bear in mind is that if you are the owner of a television station and have a licence from the government you possess a very valuable franchise. The more viewers you have, the higher the advertising rates you can charge the people who may wish to make use of your television station. But if any influence comes into play which reduces the size of your audience, the advertisers will not willingly pay any rate which you as the owner of the station wish to charge. They will argue with you; they will show you that your audience of viewers is not as big as you claim it is, particularly if there are C.A.T.V. installations in the neighbourhood. I say to you quite frankly, honestly and without fear of contradiction that the television station owners do not want the people in their immediate territory looking at the programs of other stations because when they look at other stations' programs they reduce the size of the audience the local T.V. station operator is seeking to sell to advertisers.
I have mentioned in the house before today the interesting set-up at the lakehead at Port Arthur and Fort William where they have a T.V. station. I believe there are about 24,000 or 25,000 homes at the lakehead and there is one television station. The people at the lakehead are so pleased at the fact that they can look only at the one station that more than half of them, over 13,000 subscribers in Port Arthur, pay $5 a month so they will not have to look only at the Port Arthur station and can have their choice of Duluth-Superior or Marquette in Michigan. When over 13,000 families are willing to pay approximately $5 a month for C.A.T.V. service because there is only one station in the area, what better commentary do you need in respect of whether or not the Canadian station is meeting the desires and wishes of the people of Canada?

DEBATES	December 21, 1967
The C.A.T.V. applicant was denied licences for Gananoque and Napanee. One can realize that if there were C.A.T.V. franchises in those places the people would be picking up stations such as Watertown, New York. No doubt you have heard over the years that the Americans have a tremendously deteriorating influence on anybody with whom they come in contact and that we must protect ourselves against the terrific influence which the Americans exert on such naive and innocent people as we pristine, pure Canadians. If it is possible to keep Canadian citizens in Gananoque and Napanee from looking at American stations-only incidentally would they look at the Kingston station, you understand-it should be done because one never knows what ideas they might get. So these applications for C.A.T.V. franchises were denied and, of course, the television station owner in Kingston is quite happy because possibly his audience will be bigger if they have to look at his station without having the choice of stations which the C.A.T.V. system could bring in.
To return to the matter of Prescott, we are told that this application has been denied on the ground that it would inhibit the provision of alternative television service in this general region. That is a good mouth-filling phrase; it almost equals the right of freedom of expression-period. It was turned down on the ground that it would inhibit the provision of alternative television service in this general region-Prescott, Gananoque and Napanee. I telephoned Prescott and spoke to a very knowledgeable man there. He informed me that in Prescott the people are able to bring in on their sets the independent station here in Ottawa and are also able to receive Kingston. He said that because Cornwall is a relay set-up from the privately owned station in Ottawa they do not bring in Cornwall but bring in the French station out of Ottawa, the privately owned station out of Ottawa and the Kingston privately owned station. They do not get the C.B.C. very clearly in Prescott. But he says they spend all their time watching Watertown.
The C.A.T.V. applicant wanted to bring in all the Canadian stations I have mentioned with a clearer picture and of course pick up some United States stations as well. However, it was pointed out that this would inhibit the provision of alternative television service in that general region. You probably know that the television licensee in Cornwall fell on
December 21, 1987

hard times and instead of continuing to operate an independent station sold out to Ottawa interests and the Cornwall station is now a relay station out of Ottawa. If Cornwall, a great big bustling community on the seaway, cannot support an independently owned station, imagine how Prescott could support an alternative television service in that general region encompassing Gananoque and Napanee.
The report of the Commons broadcasting committee is interesting. I shall pay my respects to that tremendous organization in the course of the debate on the broadcasting bill if I am advised under which clause I shall be able to discuss the broadcasting committee. The report of the broadcasting committee states that it is their opinion that wherever there is a C.B.C. station the second station to be erected should be an independently owned station or that if there is an independently owned station the second station must be a C.B.C. station. In Kingston, Ontario, there is a privately owned station. I wish to quote from the minutes of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts for the meeting of November 16. Before the committee appeared the Secretary of State on page 55 of the minutes we find the hon. member for Buma-by-Richmond saying the following:
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wahn is bringing up two points. One has to do with programming and he is concerned that the same type of programs are on both networks at the same time. Then the other point is the extension of the network and the white paper and the broadcasting committee both clearly stated that:
"The committee concurs with the statement on structure appearing in the white paper, particularly with reference to extending coverage to all Canadians and to full network services in both official languages. We recommend further that, wherever practical, in areas now receiving only one Canadian service, if the service is through a private outlet, the alternative should be provided by C.B.C. If C.B.C. is now the sole service, the second service should be private. Where there are serious obstacles to such parallel development, however, these should not prohibit the extension of alternate service by other means, at least on a temporary basis. We urge that the introduction of dual service proceed as rapidly as C.B.C. finances and local market conditions permit."
If I remember correctly, the C.A.B. also agreed with that, too, so it did envisage that in every area in Canada where there are to be two stations, one would be C.B.C. and one would be private.
This means that because there is a privately owned station in Kingston at the present time, any second station that is granted a franchise there will be C.B.C. Why do we
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting worry about protecting the provision of alternate television service in the Kingston area? Since when did the C.B.C. ever start to worry about money? They simply say: Send us some more over, we are short today, and over it comes. What are we protecting in the Kingston area? The television station will be a C.B.C. one, according to the white paper and the report of the committee of the house if it is adopted.
So in the Kingston area applications for C.A.T.V. service in Prescott, Gananoque and Napanee are being turned down in order to protect a C.B.C. station that may be erected there in the future and which does not need financial protection, because the way money is spent by the C.B.C. they would not know what to do with the limited funds available to them from private sources if they were privately owned.
I move on to another refusal. This is in the same letter:
The board turned down an application by Mr Claude Lemieux, of Baie St-Paul, Quebec, for a system at Clermont, on grounds it would adversely affect the existing T.V. station there.
Once again we have the cabinet stepping into the breach. Here is a privately owned station. They say the television audience is not to look at any station other than the one they have. It took a considerable number of phone calls to find out what existing T.V. station was being protected. I thought for a while that they were the privately owned stations in Quebec city, but I have in my hand a map of Clermont and found after some research that the station that was objecting to the C.A.T.V. in Clermont is at Riviere-du-Loup and is privately owned. Clermont is 85 miles from Quebec city and only about 40 miles across the St. Lawrence river from Riviere-du-Loup.
When the application came forward from Mr. Claude Lemieux of Baie St-Paul in the year ended March 31, 1967, the owners of the T.V. station in Riviere-du-Loup, having learned that all owners of T.V. stations oppose all applications for C.A.T.V. licences-
Ths Assistant Deputy Chairman: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman again but this time I must advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon.
member for Lapointe.
5740	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I had this information from the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) about those two private television stations in Quebec city, namely, CFCM-TV on channel 4 and CKMI-TV on channel 5, both of which are owned by Television de Quebec (Canada) Limitee, and my remarks are in connection with clause 2(b), which states that:
(b) the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians so as to preserve, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada;
The previous law similarly provided that majority ownership of radio and television stations in Canada be held by Canadians. Now, majority ownership of the two Quebec city stations I have referred to is not held by Canadian residents; this is why they operate under an order in council dating from 1965; in fact, although majority ownership of those stations is held by foreign interests, they operate in Canada nevertheless, under an order in council which protects their majority shareholders and empowers them to do so.
The minister sent me the list of the directors, where interesting things are to be found concerning what is happening in the field of television in Quebec.
The president of the Quebec city TV station, Television-Quebec-Canada Ltee, which controls and owns both Quebec stations, is Mr. Gaston Pratte, president and director, who holds one common share on the 10,000 existing shares. Those are voting shares and the president holds only one. The vice-president is Mr. J. J. Fitzgibbons, also a director and holder of one single share out of 10,000. The treasurer is a Mr. R. W. Boldstad. I do not know where he comes from, no address is mentioned, but he is also holder of one single share, as treasurer and director. The secretary, Mr. Henri Lepage, from Quebec city, is also a director and holder of one single share of the 10,000. So it all means that the president, the vice-president, the treasurer and the secretary each own one single share out of 10,000. The controller, Mr. Lapointe, is not a director and has no shares. There are three other directors, and I will return to the general manager later. The three other directors also only hold one share each; they are Mr. Angus McCunn, Mr. Herve Baribeau, also from the Quebec region, and Mr. E. E. Fitzgibbons-who, I believe, is the son of the vice-president and also comes
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]
DEBATES	December 21, 1967
from Toronto. The general manager, however, Mr. Jean A. Pouliot, holds 500 shares. This means that there are seven who only have one share each and one who has 500 of the 10,000 shares.
The other shareholders are: CHRC Ltd, 1999 shares; CKCV-Quebec Ltd, 1998 shares; A. C. Picard, deceased, 10 shares; the Mont Saint-Jean Investments Inc., 490 shares. I do not know where this corporation is nor where it comes from. Finally, there is the Famous Players Canadian Corporation Ltd, which holds 4996 shares, or 50 per cent of all the shares. What is this Famous Players Canadian Corporation Ltd?
The capital stock of the Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited consists of 1,737,072 shares, of which 900,390, that is 51.834 per cent are controlled by United States and owned by American residents.
And, Mr. Chairman, even if these 51 per cent of the shares-it is more than that, it is 51.8 per cent-are controlled by American citizens, we call that the Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited.
And there, it is well said: Television de Quebec (Canada) Limitee, that is Canadian; it is Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited. But, we forget to say that 51.8 per cent of the shares of Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited are owned by American residents. There are also 803 shares owned by Britishers, 4,175 shares held by citizens of others countries and 831,704 held in Canada. This means that Canadians control 47.8 per cent of the shares of the Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited, the remaining 52.2 per cent being controlled by foreigners. And this is called Canadian ownership.
The wording of the act is as follows:
It is hereby declared-
I am referring to clause 2 (b),
-that the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled-[DOT]
It does not say indirectly or in any other manner, but effectively. It is a very specific terms: "should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians."
But this is not the case of our two television stations in Quebec city. The previous act stipulated the same thing: "that the Canadian broadcasting system should be controlled by Canadians." But such was not the chase. This is what is irregular. The cabinet comes in later on, and the ministers pass an order in council. The one I referred to earlier
December 21, 1967

was passed in 1965, and allowed a television station to be owned by foreign residents.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I know the minister has good intentions but in the past good intentions were not respected. We, in Quebec, would like to see and end to Americans ingrafting their ideas into our heads. We would like our two t.v. stations in Quebec city, the only two-if others are requested, the reply is "There are enough t.v. stations -to become the property of Quebec citizens. The minister must agree with me that the request is legitimate since paragraph (a) of clause 2 reads as follows:
It Is hereby declared that
(a) broadcasting undertakings in Canada make use of radio frequencies that are public property and such undertakings constitute a single system, herein referred to as the Canadian broadcasting system, comprising public and private elements;
Mr. Chairman, it is said that the Canadian broadcasting system uses frequencies that are in the public domain, in short that a licence is required to operate a television station.
Three or four years ago, Mr. Jacques Laroche, of Quebec, owner of radio station CJLR, applied for a license for a television station in Quebec. He was refused, because he already had three. It seems that they are limited, and if no more can be given in Quebec, I would ask the minister at least to enable Quebecers to regain control of the two Quebec television stations instead of leaving them in the hands of American citizens.
I see that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) is now in the house. He is a resident of the province of Quebec, a citizen of Quebec who should also be concerned with the problems I am bringing up. I see him speaking with a neighbour, yet this is a Quebec problem with which the minister should be concerned. He should see to it that changes are made and that Quebecers become owners of their television stations.
I ask the minister to believe that there are many people in the province of Quebec who ask nothing better than to buy shares in one of the Quebec television stations, since they are probably among the stations which make the most money in Canada. Both the French and the English stations belong to the same company. They make a great deal of money. In fact, since they have no competition, the administrators raise the rates as they wish, and the people
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting of Quebec would like to invest money in this concern.
Therefore, the amendment I introduced did not ask for very much. I simply asked instead of the words:
-the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians-
I should like the word "should" to be replaced by the word "shall", so that the clause would read rather this way:
-the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians.
I should like the minister to answer my question and to tell me whether or not she intends to do anything in that respect? Is it her intention to accept the amendment which would include the word "shall" be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians rather than the word "should". I am not asking for much. I simply ask her to change one word which would reflect in the text the good intentions she has shown and which do not appear in it at the present time.
I should like to ask the minister if she intends to accept the amendment and to see to it that the present situation changes so that the ownership of the two private Quebec city television stations be controlled by Quebec and by Canadian citizens. I am convinced that many Quebecers would ask nothing better than to have an interest in their own television stations. Is the minister ready to accept that amendment and to change the words in the text?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I doubt that this is the appropriate time to make any comments on this matter. I know that a number of general suggestions have been made. The other day my hon. friend suggested an amendment. We have not been debating that amendment, but general speeches have been made with respect to clause 2.
I should say to my hon. friend that I feel I will not be able to support his amendment when the appropriate time comes by virtue of the fact that this is a declaratory clause and we have tried to use appropriate language throughout. The matter has been discussed at some length during the meetings of the broadcasting committee, and I should like to refer my hon. friend to those discussions.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, during the committee discussion, I raised the matter, and the minister told me then that she did
December 21, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting not object to T.V. stations being controlled by Canadians, as it is in fact printed here. But the big problem is that this is not the present situation, and she should change it.
Now, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), could perhaps, as a fellow Quebecker, support my suggestion to that effect. The minister could perhaps second my proposal that the Quebec city television stations become truly owned by Quebeckers. He does not appear very interested, perhaps because he is too engrossed in his conversation, but I am asking him if he would perhaps second my proposal to give effective control of T.V. stations in Quebec city to Canadian citizens, perhaps even Quebeckers.
A minute ago, I named the actual owners of those two private stations; indeed, they are Americans, and they have majority control of the voting shares. I fail to understand why such control is left in the hands of American citizens, especially when clause 2(b) states that;
-the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians-
Now, the amendment I suggest is as follows: the term "should" would be removed and replaced by the term "shall". At this time, there are two private stations in Quebec city, and they are the ones I am concerned with-and they should also be the concern of the minister of manpower, since he is a Quebecker-because their majority ownership is held by two American residents who make the decisions about station policy.
I do not think it is decent when it comes to the point where Famous Players Canadian Corporation Limited, of which 51.8 per cent of the shares belong to American residents, decides of the programmation for us. e (4:40 p.m.)
Then I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he would support my amendment to replace the word "should" by the word "must" so that the Canadian broadcasting system is effectively owned and controlled by Canadians. Would the minister of manpower be ready to support my request for that?
I put the question to the minister of manpower: Would he be ready to second the amendment I now move?


Mr. Marchand:: Mr. Chairman, I am among those who favour Canadian control of all undertakings and I would surely like to have television stations as well as any other
[Mr. GrSgoire.l
undertaking under the control of Canadian citizens. But I do not believe the way to achieve this is by an amendment to the clause, as the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) has suggested. There are much more effective and democratic ways of proceeding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: If the minister of manpower permits, I should like to point out to him that it would not be creating a precedent and I should like to remind him of a case which occurred here in this house less than a year ago during consideration of the Bank Act.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) moved an amendment to the Bank Act providing that any chartered bank wishing to operate in Canada shall be owned-there was then no question of "should", the word he used was "shall"-be owned to the extent of 75 per cent of the voting shares, by Canadian residents and citizens. This is a precedent that was adopted here and for which the minister himself voted. I also voted for this amendment which was agreed to and which set the precedent.
At the present time, in the field of television in Quebec city-perhaps the minister is not aware of it-there are quite a number of people who ask nothing better than to buy shares in those television stations because they are probably the most profitable in Canada. There are two private stations in Quebec city and they both belong to the same company, namely the Television de Quebec (Canada) Limitee, which is controlled by Americans. They are probably the most profitable television stations because they have no competitors.
Two or three years ago-I repeat it because the minister was busy earlier-a Mr. Jacques Laroche applied for a license to operate a television station in Quebec city. His application was turned down and he was told: There are two already, that is enough.


Jean Marchand: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It was not refused on those grounds but rather because C.B.C. had also made an application and, at the time the hon. member for Lapointe was not there, but with a great many Quebec citizens I fought so that the license be granted to C.B.C. and not to private enterprise.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I was there. I also fought so that the license would be granted to C.B.C. but I carried on another
December 21, 1967	COMMONS
fight. I went further and I said: you already have two stations, let C.B.C. take over one and let the other in the hands of private enterprise.
At the time, I also pleaded the cause of C.B.C. but I added that both private stations which were owned by Americans should belong to Quebec residents and this is my suggestion: Since both private stations do not operate according to the legislation, let them be taken over by C.B.C. and if there is a license left over, let private enterprise have it. Under such circumstances, C.B.C. would have taken over both, a French station and an English station.
This is what I suggested at that time when I testified before the B.B.G. I wonder if the minister was a member of the house at that time?


Jean Marchand: No.


Gilles Grégoire: No? Well, I testified before the B.B.G. and suggested that the two private stations which were not at that time operating according to the provisions of the law should be nationalized by the C.B.C., precisely because they were not operating according to the law, so that the C.B.C. would have had both the French and the English networks. And if that left an opening, let it be filled at least by Quebec citizens, and Mr. Jacques Laroche was one of those who had made an application. This means, Mr. Chairman-and this is what I wanted to point out to the minister-that some Quebec citizens are interested in television at present. I am not referring to Mr. Laroche specifically, because this could be an open competition. Let the station sell its shares on the open market, but to Quebec residents, so that no foreigner could control anything as vital to the life of the people. For instance, a television or radio station is not like a paper. A paper can be started by anybody, unlike a television station. If the minister of manpower, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) or I, for instance, applied for a license to operate a television station in Quebec city, and we were told that there were already enough, we must not prejudice the interests of existing stations, licenses must not be granted to just anyone, I would understand that. Since there is a limit, since there is control, since licenses are not granted to just anybody, there is all the more reason not to grant them to foreigners. On the other hand they must be granted to Canadians when they are willing to buy them, and that is the case now. There are
DEBATES	5743
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Quebeckers who are willing to buy shares in the Quebec city television station so that it might become a Quebec or Canadian station. These two arguments should change the mind of the minister of manpower.
First, the Minister of Finance set a precedent over a year ago by proceeding in similar fashion with regard to the Bank Act.
Secondly, I can tell him that there are Quebeckers who would be most willing to buy shares in those t.v. stations. I feel my argument about frequencies is important. If they are to be hard to get, they should at least be given to those Canadians who want them, and if they do not want them, we can always give them to foreigners. But there are Quebeckers who do want them.
So, I wonder if those three arguments do not induce the minister to change his mind, and if he would not be ready to support my amendment or to change one word in that clause.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, if I may, a few months ago, the cabinet formed a task force which should submit shortly a comprehensive report on the impact of the United States economy on the Canadian economy, and on the effect and impact of American investments in Canada.
At the time this report will be studied, I think we might perhaps be able to develop a comprehensive philosophy or policy in respect to American ownership or investments here in Canada, and to my mind, an accidental side approach to the problem, through some legislation, as was suggested by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is not actually sound and could lead to extremely serious prejudicial effects.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the minister that the question here is not an economic one-


Maurice Rinfret: I recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Gilles Grégoire: Do I have leave from the Chair to reply to the minister? I only want to point out that the question here is not, by any means, to determine what impact the American economy may have on our Canadian economy.
It is rather a law to check, as the bill says, the influence of the American way of thinking, of the American mentality, in the field of the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada. That is especially what was
December 21, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting used, namely the cultural and social fabric, because forcing, for instance, the Americans to sell say fifteen or twenty per cent of their shares in the Quebec city station, that does not constitute an invasion in the economic field, but that provides, for instance, protection in the cultural and social field. This aspect is much more important than the oth-,er, for us, because even if we ask the Americans to sell fifteen or twenty-five per cent of their shares to Quebeckers, that does not represent a fortune. That is not what costs a fortune and that is not the field of investment I am considering here.
I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to see things from my angle and not to think only of investments. There is something more important, more vital in that and it is the cultural and social field. The legislation says-I am not saying it-effectively controlled by Canadians. I do not want to replace the word "Canadian" by the word "Quebecker"; I leave the word "Canadian" as opposed to "American", for instance. I say that it is much more important to consider the cultural and social point of view rather than the economic point of view as far as a television station is concerned. I think the minister will admit that I am right on that point.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, if I may answer the hon. member immediately, I will say to him that the legislation governing private stations contains means of control. If there are abuses, the Board of Broadcast Governors can suspend the licence of a station, and I do not think there is any danger of an invasion by American culture through channel 4 in Quebec city. If that channel, which the hon. member looks at and which is as Canadian as any other station is guilty of abuses, the Board of Broadcast Governors has the means to take action to remedy the situation.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
However, I know that some Quebeckers would be interested in making profits, in having that station under their control, but I do not think that it is the responsibility of the government to decide which member of the company is going to make profits.


Gilles Grégoire: Is it about the same thing?


Mr. Choquelte:: I could perhaps point out to the hon. member that I am not convinced that when channel 4 was opened in Quebec


city, the Quebec interests were entirely willing to invest in a television station. I am not convinced that Quebec city would have had its television station especially without the financial support which did not essentially originate from Quebec. I think that we would then have been deprived of the benefits of a television station which has rendered great services to the Quebec population. I am fully endorsing what the hon. minister of Manpower and Immigration has just been saying, that from a social and cultural point of view, Quebec channel 4 is a station extremely representative of Quebec, especially as it rebroadcasts the major part of the programs of channel 10, a station controlled by Mr. De Seve, in Montreal. As the hon. member is from the area of Jonquiere, Arvida and Chicoutimi, he does not have, of course, so many opportunities of watching all the programs on channel 4, otherwise he would have noticed that the programs broadcast are typically programs of interest to Quebeckers. Consequently, I do not believe that from a social and cultural point of view, the threat is as great as the hon. minister would lead us to believe.
As for the editorials, I tend to agree with him. They are certainly written from a capitalist point of view. However, private enterprise is essentially capitalist. Whether they concern investments in Quebec or elsewhere, you can be sure that editorials written by a station with Quebec interests would probably, if not certainly, be essentially the same as those heard on channels 4 and 5.
Mr. Chairman, the comments I wanted to make are not exactly related to the objections raised earlier by the hon. member for Lapointe. I wanted to call the attention of the hon. minister (Miss LaMarsh) or her distinguished parliamentary secretary (Mr. Beehard), to paragraph (e) of clause 2, which says:
-all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English and French as public funds become available;
I think the wording is so vague that we do not know exactly where it leaves us.
Mr. Chairman, I have had occasion before to make representations and, even if I repeat myself, let me insist to the minister that relay stations of the French network be set up throughout Canada, until we can have stations which will originate local programs, in the urban centers where it would be possible to establish them.
December 21, 1967

The great problem of Canadian solidarity is based precisely on the existence of a sound barrier. In some regions of Canada, French consonances seem as strange as Hebrew or Arab consonances and this gives rise to frustrations and often to deplorable acts of extremism. It would be quite interesting, especially for the younger generation of English speaking Canadians who are unusually open-minded, to recognize more and more that the French fact is valuable for Canada and helps us precisely to distinguish ourseves from Americans and to check growing Americanism.
In school, youngsters are given some notions and rudiments of French and after leaving school, they have no opportunity to improve their knowledge. That is the reason why I should like, with the same emphasis, ask the hon. minister to act promptly, in order to establish everywhere, in Canada, relay stations of the French network, which would cost very little.
The clause becomes a matter for concern where it says: "as public funds become available".
Mr. Chairman, public funds are available. Just a little inquiry would suffice to reveal the extravagances of the C.B.C. For instance, and without indulging in personalities, when a Quebec interviewer is sent to Paris, on an expense account, to interview a French personality, while the C.B.C. representative in Paris is asked to cross the ocean to come to Canada and interview a Canadian personality, I say that is the type of abuse you find in the C.B.C. and which explains that funds are not available.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question? Could he tell us the name of the person sent to Europe to interview a famous Frenchman when we already had one interviewer in Europe?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I have already mentioned his name once. Mr. Levesque was asked to go to Paris to interview Mr. Pompidou, although one of our most brilliant radio and television interviewers was already there at that time. The hon. member for Lapointe was in Paris recently, where he met Pierre Nadeau, one of our most brilliant announcers and most dynamic commentators. He is the Paris correspondent. However, the C.B.C. paid Rene Levesque to go to Paris in order to interview Mr. Pompidou. That was a considerable and unjustified expenditure.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
That is why there is no money to build relay stations in order to promote the French language in Canada. The only way to solve the problem of Canadian solidarity is to make the French fact a part of the Canadian heritage. If the French fact is not a Canadian heritage, it is because in certain areas of the country, due to the weaknesses I pointed out, due to the absence of relay station which would enable the diffusion and the propagation of the French language in the country, there are areas of the country where French is just as foreign as Hebrew, Arab or Japanese. That is the major obstacle to Canadian solidarity. So, I appeal most urgently to the minister, so that relay stations may be built. It would cost less than the Laurendeau-Dun-ton commission and would also allow French to spread throughout the country without extravagant expenditure such as were noted at the C.B.C.
That is the suggestion I humbly make to the minister.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I have been occupied with other matters and not able to listen to much of the debate this afternoon. However, regardless of the differences of opinion I think it is quite correct to say that the C.B.C. is an institution which, generally speaking, Canadians are proud of, even though it has made its mistakes and blunders.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that some hon. members brought to the attention of the minister certain matters that should be given consideration when everything is running smoothly again. I wish to bring to the minister's attention the fact that there have been numerous complaints from the Rossland and Trail area about timing of programs. Programs are received from Calgary instead of from Vancouver, and this causes certain inconvenience. Some interesting programs are not even received at all.
There have been numerous complaints from organizations and individuals in this regard, Mr. Chairman. I know Dr. Caple from Vancouver has visited the district, but apparently there is a technical problem which has not yet been solved. I urge that the C.B.C. do everything possible in the future to make certain that in the Kootenays, particularly in west Kootenay, programs are received from Vancouver for the same length of time as they are being transmitted over the station in Vancouver.
December 21, 1967


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I think there were several hundred in support of the C.B.C.


Mr. Stafford:: Mr. Chairman, television and radio can only be measured by what comes out of the receiver and into our homes. It is the program which influences, gives us ideas and educates us one way or another. It is the program, also, which provides us with facts and material to help us to make up our minds on public issues and on the role the government must play. I am referring of
December 21, 1S67

course to news broadcasts, and especially to public affairs programs.
I am concerned about this bill, as we must ensure that this powerful medium of broadcasting is placed in the hands of sound men. They must be provided with sound policy guide lines.
I note that clause 2(c) of Bill C-163 reads:
(c) all persons licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for the public effects of the programs they broadcast but the right to freedom of expression, subject only to generally applicable statutes and regulations, is unquestioned;
I also note that clause 39(1), which we shall be discussing later, reads:
The corporation is established for the purpose of providing the national broadcasting service contemplated by section 2 of this act,-
And so on. Here the bill stipulates clearly that clause 2 applies not only to all licensed broadcasters but to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as well.
Here we are dealing with a matter of accountability: Who shall be held accountable for the programs which come out of the television tube or the radio receiver? The bill is quite clear-as it needs to be, and it is vital that no one misunderstands its meaning-that persons who are licensed, and the management of the C.B.C., are to be held accountable. I raise this point because of my experiences during the past two years on the broadcasting committee as well as a result of my own researches.
Those of us on the broadcasting committee last year saw a bitter war raging within the C.B.C. between the producers of "This Hour has Seven Days" and some of their immediate superiors, and the management of the corporation. A small but determined group of producers made a bare faced attempt to destroy the corporation's top management, because top management had had the temerity to suggest that, in the face of public demand and demands made in this house to end serious breaches of good taste and the flagrant slanting of programs, a slanting which was against the best interests of the country, the program be toned down.
Not content with trying to unseat those in authority, these people at public expense instituted a telephone campaign from a hotel room opposite the C.B.C. offices in Toronto, to try to stir up protests on their behalf. One may read the details in the committee's reports. Mr. LaPierre, Mr. Watson and Mr. Canadian Policy on Broadcasting Leiterman also engaged in speaking engagements and in radio and television performances to build up their campaign against their so-called tormentors in C.B.C. management. Last year, following this extraordinary performance, I wrote in Canada Month:
Only forty people worked on the staff of '7 Days' -8,500 are employed at C.B.C. Yet the producers and performers of this relatively small group were able to resist and test the strength of the entire C.B.C. management while attempting to force the Canadian government and parliament to act on its behalf. Their strength was multiplied dangerously through the astonishing power of T.V. and by a carefully manipulated campaign in the press and on Parliament Hill. Seldom have Canadians seen such an occurrence that so occupied the country's attention and so scarred the image of the massive C.B.C. operation.
Unfortunately, press, radio and television supported the producers at first, but management of C.B.C. was given its right to manage and Mr. Leiterman, Mr. Watson and Mr. LaPierre left for politics and other fields. I note that Maclean's magazine pictured Laurier LaPierre on a recent cover as Canada's first socialist prime minister. May I ask this question: Did Mr. LaPierre's left wing politics start immediately after he left the C.B.C. or were Canadians who watched his program treated to a barrage of his thinking and ideas and the special ideas that his friends had? That program was supposed to be an objective but startling look at the world today. I think you know the answer, and I shall provide some specific evidence when we deal with the clauses of the bill.
A meeting of the broadcasting committee was held on June 27, 1966. Only twice had there been a larger attendance. We passed the following paragraph 21, amended to read as follows:
The committee deplores the manner in which public opinion was injected and drawn into the Seven Days crises by the producers. To prevent such incidents from becoming public issues in the future and to contain them within the C.B.C., it is imperative that a grievance procedure be set up in all centres of production. Grievances could thus be dealt with promptly and equitably, thereby preventing the dispute from becoming a matter of public controversy.
[DOT] (5:10	p.m.)
On only two occasions in 32 previous meetings of the standing committee had there been a better attendance, and this amendment was carried. The vote indicated majority criticism of the producers.
I was most concerned that at the last and much smaller meeting of the committee prior to the presentation of the report, this paragraph was ruled out by this minority, who refused to believe there was anything wrong
December 21, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting in the producers' set up. I note that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River got the impression from reading the committee's report that we had exonerated the producers, and that he took exception to our whitewash of the situation. May I assure him that the majority of the committee began to realize that all was not well in the C.B.C., and that the final report did not properly reflect the thinking of the majority.
We must make certain that this bill gives the new management of the C.B.C. a clear mandate to enforce a policy which is also clearly stated in the bill, and that the C.B.C. management, not the producers, are accountable and responsible for what comes out of the T.V. tube or over the air waves. This does not mean, nor should it mean, a continuing war between both sides of broadcasting, but what it does mean is that when management says "do" or "don't", producers "do" or "don't"-or leave the corporation. Of course producers and artists are sensitive people and must be worked with carefully so that their talents are brought to bear on suitable subject matter. But let me remind the producers that the listening audiences of Canada are also sensitive people, and they elect members to parliament to see that in certain respects their wishes are carried out.
Section 2 of the Broadcasting Act states in paragraph (i) that the national broadcasting service should be among other things, a balanced service of information. It is essential that members of this house and the country at large should understand how badly unbalanced a performance we have been given in certain areas of broadcasting. Let me say right away, however, that there has been a noticeable improvement since this fuss was made in parliament. But not enough. The nature of the problems Canada faces in its broadcasting system and the serious nature of these issues can only be evaluated when we understand the power of broadcasting itself.
This power of broadcasting was thus ably described by the British broadcasting committee of 1949 in a report to the British parliament:
Broadcasting is the most persuasive, and therefore one of the most powerful agents for influencing men's thoughts and action, for giving them a picture, true or false, of their fellows of the world in which they live, for appealing to their intellect, their emotions and their appetites, for filling their minds with beauty or ugliness, ideas or idleness, laughter or care, love or hate.

Some of these problems are glaringly evident. Some time ago when Tom Gould resigned from the C.B.C. over the breach of good faith in using a story taken from a closed meeting at which the former leader of the opposition spoke, Dennis Braithwaite wrote in the Globe and Mail:
Ton Gould's resignation in protest may seem a drastic step in the circumstances, but Gould has been dissatisfied with the C.B.C.'s Ottawa news set-up for some months and simply flipped over what he considered to be a final lapse of professionalism. What ails Gould anyhow? What, for that matter, ails Stan Burke and most of the other top commentators in C.B.C. television news?
I have been doing a little study on this matter and I think the writer has put his finger on the point-lack of professionalism in the journalistic area. And where does most of the trouble lie? It lies with our old friends in the public affairs field who try to usurp the news field and give Canadians twisted versions of the facts, or, as the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister stated earlier in this debate, try to influence us through the process of distortion by omission. The news editors, too, share in this criticism. For instance, some recent examples of the antiAmerican bias of a number of broadcasters is strongly and tragically apparent.
On November 17, 1967, probably as a result of pressure from very top management in C.B.C. and the influence of statements made in this house, television carried the entire news conference of President Johnson of the United States. Let me quote some of the press comment on the president's performance. The Montreal Gazette of November 18 describes him as being "self assured and unusually forceful in his first formal White House meeting with newsmen since August 18." The Ottawa Citizen of the same date commented: "It was like the L.B.J. of old- the master performer, cool, suave, in command." The Ottawa Journal, also of November 18, had this to say:
The President was exuberant as he told the television press conference over-all progress is being made in the anti-communist war. Many observers regard his dynamic performance as a preview of his 1968 presidential election campaign.
The Globe and Mail of November 18 prints a headline across seven columns on page 1 reading: "The Real Johnson Stands up on T.V. and Draws Raves." The comment was:
It appeared that Mr. Johnson had at last discovered how to be as effectively persuasive with a mass audience as with a private gathering.
By contrast here are the key words used in describing the president's performance by
December 21, 1967
5749"

our	C.B.C.	Washington correspondents
immediately alter the broadcast: "At last the attacks are getting to President Johnson", and "he is running scared."
I	would	call this deliberate anti-
Americanism. Anti-Americanism is not a new phenomenon in C.B.C. and on Canadian television. I quote the following from an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on March 3, 1966:
The impression left by some reports-notably by some C.B.C. commentators-of the "great" U.S. debate over Viet Nam has been that President Johnson was a man beleaguered on all sides by dissenters from his policies...
What we have not always had is a proper perspective on these dissenting views. The implication was often left that these men represented widespread attitudes in the U.S. Congress (Senators Morse and Fulbright).
This week's votes-932 to 6 in the Senate and 392 to 4 in the House of Representatives-approving another $4.8 billion to finance more forces in southeast Asia should adjust the perspective.
It is significant that 41 per cent of those interviewed in a nation-wide poll approved the way in which Mr. Johnson is handling his job, a rise from 38 per cent recorded in the Gallup polls of September and October. I say this to hon. members: None of you saw this on C.B.C. from our Washington correspondent, but every time public opinion polls dropped against the president, James Minifie or his friends quickly made Canadians aware of the fact.
Even worse, the strong bias of some of the C.B.C. public affairs crew against the United States position in Viet Nam shows up time and time again. Tom Gould, who recently spent two years in Viet Nam, expressed his views at a faculty dinner speech reported in the Carleton University newspaper of November 17 as follows:
Today's prevalent anti-American feeling Is caused by television, Gould said. Cameramen in Viet Nam are only photographing the sensational, even if it is irrelevant to the war effort. He told of one instance where a group of laughing marines were filmed setting fire to so-called South Vietnamese peasants' huts. People sitting back in the States nice and comfortable in their $35,000 homes, naturally think these fellows are savages. "Sure they are laughing" says Gould, "they were alive." A couple of hours later these same marines were almost wiped out-that was a Viet Cong village that they had destroyed. The television commentator neglected to mention this point, he said. With television, film coverage is a necessity; if there is no film clip to go with a story the story just doesn't get told. Gould urged the audience not to rely solely on television for their information on Viet Nam, but to also read newspapers, magazines and books on the subject.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Further on the article reads:
"The number of innocent people being killed by the Viet-Cong is far greater than the number being killed by the Americans", he said.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Later it states:
He also had criticism for the Chester Ronnings and other "self-appointed" Viet Nam experts. He explained, "I used to be intimidated by these people but when I returned from Viet Nam I realized how little they know.


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he associating himself with these remarks about Chester Ronning, a very distinguished Canadian diplomat?


Harold Edwin Stafford: I am simply reading certain excerpts, and there are thousands, to show the bias and imbalance of these programs. I think this will be self-evident if the hon. member will listen for a moment or two.
I have here another serious area of concern-an area of blatant propaganda. I will read the key parts of the statement made by one Gerry Sperling over C.B.C. "Viewpoint" on November 27, 1967. Let me begin with a quote:
"Our every action is a battle ary against imperialism, and a battle hymn for the people's unity against the great enemy of mankind: the United States of America. Wherever death may surprise us, let it be welcome, provided that other men intone the funeral dirge with the staccato singing of the machine guns and new battle cries of war and victory."
This is the concluding paragraph of Ernesto Che Guevara's last published work, his message to the tri-continental congress. It is clear that Che's attitude towards revolution in Latin America has also been the attitude of the Cuban government... Cuba says-and I must say I agree-that the only way to change this situation is through violent revolution. The entire rotten social structure must be overturned and in its place states must be set up on the Cuban models.
Further on he says:
The Cubans believe, as I have said that these changes can only be brought about by violent revolution. Dedicated guerillas such as Guevarra will be the trailblazers.
And again:
The United States' puny efforts on behalf of social reform through the Alliance for Progress and its hysterical reaction to the possibility of a mildly reformist regime in Santo Domingo has convinced Cuban and other Latin American revolutionaries that no meaningful change can be brought about in Latin America through peaceful democratic means.
Cuba will support revolutionary movements in Latin America morally, materially, and by example.
5750	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Then further down it says:
Fidel Castro has made this abundantly clear in his eulogy to Che: "They are mistaken", said Fidel "when they think that his death is the end of his theses. Che's political and revolutionary thinking will be of permanent value in the Cuban revolutionary process and in the Latin American revolutionary process".
So says Fidel Castro, and I believe policy will not change because there is no alternative. Once you become committed to radical social change in Latin America, the only course of action open to you is violent revolution.
I note that a question has been raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve addressed to the hon. member for Essex East about the French Canadian students who have been secretly going to Cuba for alleged revolutionary training. We need to know if Cuba considers Quebec to be Latin-American in the same way as this C.B.C. program describes, and is a target for Cuban-style revolution- and we need to be very certain that no help for such an effort comes from the C.B.C. The C.B.C. public affairs programs also rushes to expose Canadians to all those teach-ins which end up giving strong support to anti-Americanism, but you do not see them searching out men to give the other side for balance.
Two years ago we were saturated by C.B.C. public affairs programs, with a vast documentary done by Patrick Watson and his allies on the wondrous advances being made by Red China. I have not noticed the rush of these same producers to give us another vast documentary on the tragic terrorism of the Red Guard which has engulfed China. Why have they not been interviewing the thousands of refugees who have fled the terror of that upside down world into Hong Kong, Formosa and elsewhere? Why have they not sent a camera crew up to the Northern borders of India where almost every week the Chinese army conducts raids into India? And, even more important, why have we not had from Patrick Watson and his friends a full documentary on the rape of Tibet- which still goes on-and which they conveniently left out of their China documentary? Tens of thousands of Tibetans have escaped, and do so daily-and now live next door to starvation in northern India.
Canadians need to know the full truth from the C.B.C. To add further fuel to the fire, let us examine how accurate a picture we are getting on the serious racial problem in the United States. We have been deluged with one-sided views of the American racial

DEBATES	December 21, 1967
issue on the C.B.C. The much advertised one-hour presentation a few weeks ago on American police preparation for riot control was a clear endeavour to create an anti-U.S. atmosphere. Then again, a veritable orgy of hate came over our T.V. screens when on September 24th this year the program "The Way It Is" interviewed extremist negroes.
Why do we never see the other side of the story-the very extensive improvements which have been made in a number of areas in race relations across the border? This year for example, on American television on November 15 came an excellent presentation of a successful desegregation experiment at the elementary school level in Evanston, Illinois. The vast majority of schools in the United States have been integrated. But this great success story is never told to Canadians. Why have we not been told that in western Europe only 8 per cent of all its youth enter university, but 15 per cent of all United States negro youths enter university. And there are many more statistics of this kind. You have heard Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael and other extremist negro leaders interviewed over C.B.C. Why have we not heard the moderate majority leaders over C.B.C.?
And last but not least, I have a statement by Rev. Garth Hunt, dated Ottawa, December 17, 1967. Rev. Garth Hunt is a Canadian missionary, who has been in South Viet Nam for ten years and was back in Canada for five months prior to his return to South Viet Nam. He knows the country intimately, facilitated by his excellent working knowledge of the Vietnamese language. This devoted Canadian missionary has been travelling across the continent on a speaking engagement since his return, and was interviewed numerous times by commentators on T.V. and radio in different Canadian cities regarding his experience in Viet Nam. I met him in Viet Nam last summer. He has given me this statement:
The great bulk of the news and Information about Viet Nam which I have heard and seen particularly on Canadian radio and T.V. programs since returning to this country, closely approximates the propaganda emanating from North Viet Nam. It is not only misleading, but a great deal of the time is in direct contradiction with the realities I saw and experienced myself during my ten years in South Viet Nam and especially during the past year when I covered more than 10,000 miles of that country examining the situation at close hand.
Furthermore, many of the news commentators with whom I have appeared on my Canadian trip have, following the broadcast when I have
December 21, 1967

presented the facts from Viet Nam, asked this question-"Why are we not getting this other side of the story from C.B.C. news commentators and commentators"?-I can only come to this conclusion that Canadians are being misled by the news gathering and communications media in only getting one side of the story.
This act must be so clear in its mandate to the management of C.B.C. and the private stations that never again will Canadians be plagued with barefaced distortions and serious omissions over the air waves. If we are to play our part in shaping a workable world, we can only do so if we are given factual, balanced and fair presentations of news, information and viewpoints. Unbalanced presentations also lead to pressures on government that can be dangerous to the democratic system. Freedom is a precious jewel and it is our job to preserve it. This act is an important weapon in the continuing battle.


Alexander Bell Patterson: May I ask the hon. member a question? To his knowledge has this Mr. Garth Hunt been asked to appear on the C.B.C. to present the other side of the story?


Harold Edwin Stafford: I can find that out.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the contribution which has been made in this debate thus far. I might say that although my hon. friend from Elgin and I sit at almost diametrically opposite ends of the political spectrum there is no contribution to this debate which has been made to date in which I concur more heartily or with which I agree more fully. From time to time I have had the opportunity to discuss the question of C.B.C. news and public affairs coverage with the hon. member from Elgin. This has arisen as a consequence of our mutual interest in the subject and through our good fortune in having had an opportunity to travel to the Far East last spring together.
I wish to say at this point that I do not intend to subject members of this committee to repetition or tedium with regard to many of the points he raised. I think it might suffice if I were to say at this point, and let it go at that, sir, that he has stated what I believe is a very compelling and cogent case and one which should be of extreme concern to all thinking Canadians. It is one which certainly is of great concern to me and I know to many other members of this house on both sides of the Chair.
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
I have a good many suggestions and interpolations which I intend to inject into the examination of this legislation, as the examination exercise proceeds. When we reach the clause by clause study there are a number of suggestions I should like to make, and one or two amendments which I should like to propose. I appreciate, however, that at the moment we are deliberating in respect of clause 2 and I shall confine my remarks to the general coverage of that umbrella at this stage of the debate. In that regard may I say that I believe my colleague the hon. member for Acadia earlier today made an excellent case for control of C.B.C. programming decisions and decision making. He pointed out serious and in fact critical weaknesses in the proposed legislation. One portion which concerns me to a great extent is paragraph (d) of clause 2 which states that-
-the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive and should provide reasonable opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy-
I think that this provision, sir, although philosophically one with which I can agree, is neither clinically nor mathematically strong enough, nor is it clinically or mathematically deserving of the endorsement of this committee in its present form. It pays mere lipservice to an idea. It does not go half far enough in laying down firm guide lines for control in the area of programming decision making, guide lines which I think are demonstrably necessary in C.B.C. broadcasting today as a consequence of the many controversies which have arisen in the past two years where public affairs programming, in particular of the C.B.C., is concerned. I believe the wording of that clause is simply the wording of a hollow pledge.
I should like to see a much more compelling safeguard against the one-sided coverage of controversial issues than that which is provided by the words in that paragraph. Later on in the deliberations I intend to move an amendment which contains wording which will meet my case and my point. The amendment will provide not only that programming by the Canadian broadcasting system be varied and comprehensive, and provide of course an opportunity for the expression of conflicting views on matters of public controversy, but also that responsible and balanced treatment of matters of public controversy should be guaranteed. It is not sufficient to say that we should provide only an opportunity for the expression of conflicting
December 21, 1967

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting views on matters of public controversy. That opportunity has been provided since the C.B.C. was created, but this has not made any difference in the programming of public affairs by the C.B.C. The fact that a C.B.C. station exists in a given area is sufficient proof of the provision of reasonable opportunity. All one need do is open a C.B.C. station and then it can be argued that a reasonable opportunity for the expression of these conflicting views has been provided. That is not good enough, sir. I think we have had ample demonstration of that, particularly during the last two years.
What we should like to see is a guarantee that conflicting views will be articulated so that issues and problems of public interest will be aired and examined in a balanced, fair, objective and impartial way so that we do not have just one side of a story, such as has been the case in respect of C.B.C. public affairs programming. This is one area therefore where I intend to move an amendment.
Another area which distinctly disturbs me is that covered by paragraph (h) of clause 2 which reads as follows:
Where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and the interests of the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system, the objectives of the national broadcasting service must prevail:
I know that my good friend and colleague from the broadcasting industry, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, who has made in this house a number of eloquent contributions to the cause of broadcasting since he entered the house, agrees with me in this regard. Perhaps I should put it the other way and say that I agree with him, because I believe he has carried the torch in the area I am discussing, and in respect of the argument 1 intend to put in the next few moments. He has already carried the torch, and I endorse his position and argument in support of it. In any event, we are agreed that that specific wording contains great danger and peril where private broadcasters are concerned for the future, sir. We know what the drafters of this legislation intended by that wording. We know that philosophically they are giving expression to a principle which, on one certain superficial level, I believe would find support from the majority of Canadians.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
What the drafters of this legislation are trying to say, in the event of a national emergency or in the event that the public


good or interest is at stake, is that the conflict shall be resolved in such a way that the objectives of the national broadcasting system shall take precedence over the interests of the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system. But, that is not what the paragraph says, although it may be what it means. It may be what the drafters of the legislation meant, but it is not what they say. Two days from now, two weeks from now and certainly two years from now all this debate will be forgotten, all the argument, all the exchange of views will be buried and forgotten; they will be part of ancient parliamentary history with regard to broadcasting. What will remain, like the laws of the Medes and the Persians, will be a codified, rigid, authoritative statement of policy in the sphere of broadcasting to which all parties to a conflict, including the arbiters of the conflict, will turn for the purposes of reaching a decision and coming to a conclusion.
What they will base their decision and conclusion on will be the words of the statute, not the arguments that had taken place in committee of the whole house or the broadcasting committee, not the free, moderate, temperate exchange of views between those of us on all sides of the chambers who are interested in this question. Their decision and conclusion will be based on the codified, rigid words that will be down in black and white, and will say for all time that-
-where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and the interests of the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system, the objectives of the national broadcasting service must prevail.
I submit that that is unCanadian, it is undemocratic and it is definitely not in the interests of the private enterprise tradition which has played an integral part in building this country and this continent. The objectives of the national broadcasting service can be very broad indeed when it comes to interpretation. What are the objectives of the national broadcasting service? It may be that should a dispute arise in my city or in the constituency of anybody in this chamber between a private company and the national system, with regard to an available television channel or an available radio frequency, the C.B.C. will be competing for that channel, that frequency, that location and that privilege of serving the public and contributing to the broadcasting industry, and in truth also making a profit if it is possible to make one.
December 21, 1967

In the context of a situation such as that, which is certainly common in twentieth century life, the objective of the national broadcasting service is to obtain that frequency or that channel, and the broad, philosophical, visionary concept that is embodied in this wording that was placed there by the drafters of the legislation, which by itself is intrinsically of great value and merit, would no longer exist.
The litigants in a case like that would not be talking about service to the Canadian nation, the idea of Canadianism, the concept of national unity and all the other philosophical arguments which the drafters of this legislation attempt to anticipate, but would be talking about the facts of life in the marketplace, dollars and cents, the right to operate, the right to serve a certain area, the right to obtain a certain frequency, channel or station where they are denied that right. The objective of the national broadcasting service in that context and that situation would be to obtain that frequency.
On the basis of the wording of this proposed legislation the private broadcaster has no opportunity for his case to be heard, no hope whatever of a fair adjudication and dispensation of the case, and no hope whatever of obtaining that available frequency or channel because it says right here in the codified legislation, among other things, that where any conflict arises, the objectives of the national broadcasting service must prevail.
So the decision is made for all time that you must not come, as a private broadcaster, into an area of competition with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for anything that could be interpreted or construed in any way as an objective, whether it be the obtaining of an available channel or frequency or a certain kind of esoteric service to the people of Canada as part of the exercise of nation building. Just don't bother if you are a private broadcaster, because it is stated definitively and conclusively for all time that it is the C.B.C. objective that shall take precedence, and the desire of the C.B.C. for that channel or frequency shall be the one that prevails.
So I am not happy with this clause and, as I suggested a few moments ago, neither is the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo who in my opinion knows more, and has demonstrated that he knows more, about broadcasting than anybody in this chamber at the present time. He raised the issue at the time we were
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting examining these clauses in the broadcasting committee, and with my support. We got nowhere with our objection at that time; but I can assure the house that one of us will raise it again and he will have my support, and I hope the support of a great many members of this chamber. There is a serious oversight in the wording of this paragraph. The drafters of the legislation have not considered what will happen two years from now when conflict arises in the area of specific market ambitions.
So I intend, and I am joined by my colleagues in this party, to move an amendment to this paragraph when we come to it. The amendment will say, not that when such and such a conflict arises the objectives of the national broadcasting service must prevail, but that when such and such a conflict arises the general good of the viewing and listening public shall take precedence over all other considerations. I see no legitimate grounds on which anybody in this chamber could take exception to that kind of amendment.
I hesitate to anticipate the fate of the proposed amendment-I have been here long enough to know better-but I say at this juncture that if it is defeated it will disappoint me greatly. I think what the drafters were trying to do, the interests they were trying to protect, will be protected by an amendment which provides that the general good of the viewing and listening public shall take precedence. The right of the private entrepreneur will similarly be protected by eliminating the offensive wording in the legislation as it now stands, and to which I have already referred.
In the few minutes remaining to me may I also, since it is the Christmas season and many of us have paused to pay tribute to various members of the house this afternoon regardless of their political persuasion, say that I was distinctly impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for York-Humber who spoke in this debate a short time ago. I think he made a succinct and extremely vital contribution to the debate. I always listen with great interest to the hon. member and at no time was I more interested than during his contribution to this debate, because it is a subject that is close to my heart and close to my background.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I would say at this juncture that I think the position which the hon. member for
5754	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting York-Humber has taken with regard to cable television is absolutely and emphatically the right one, the only honest one and the only legitimate one. This is a subject on which I have expressed myself in the past. I see no legitimacy, no democracy and no morality in discriminating against Canadians because of the particular area in which they live. I say that Canadians, no matter where they live in Canada, can read American newspapers and magazines, can go to American movies and can drive American cars, but if they live out of range of the United States connected microwave, a little too far north of the border, they cannot watch American television because it will corrupt them, and it is not Canadian to do that sort of thing. I say this is hypocrisy and poppycock. We have a great northern half of the continent to populate, to cultivate and to develop, and one of the little luxuries and comforts of life nowadays is television.
Television brings us many forms of entertainment, excitement and information, and if we want to encourage people to go to the northern part of our country, to dig for the riches of our northland and to develop the vast expanse of territory which lies fallow and ignored at the present time and on which our very future in this world depends -if we want people to go into these areas and to live under conditions of relative hardship, why should we deny them the one or two simple pleasures and luxuries which can be made available to them so easily through the system of communication which exists, or could exist, in this country linking us with the communications media in the United States?
I know the hon. member for York-Humber was talking about a slightly different matter when he spoke about people living in areas served at the present time by C.A.T.V., who made their choice as to what they want to watch by paying a fee. I am going a little further than that and saying that in the northland-and one does not need to go to the far north; he can go as far as the cities of Calgary or Edmonton, or indeed any city which is out of range of the United States connected microwave-the people cannot watch and be entertained by, and have the range of choice of, the same king of television entertainment as is available to those Canadians who live in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and even my own city of Winnipeg, which is served by one United States outlet.

DEBATES	December 21, 1967
This is discrimination and hypocrisy of a dangerous form. Why is it that when it is technically feasible, and when our Canadian brethren in all the major centres along the border are free to tune in to American television with great frequency and regularity, as is borne out by the ratings, a person in Calgary, Edmonton, McMurray, Churchill, Aklavik or anywhere in the north is denied the same opportunity?
So in sharing the position that the hon. member for York-Humber has taken, I go further geographically in my appeal for some kind of reasonable, fair and equitable approach by the Secretary of State and by the authorities in the C.B.C and the Canadian broadcasting system to all the other Canadians who are penalized by virtue of their place of habitation.
It has often been argued that if two Canadian channels are available in a given area, Canadians have the necessary choice and are given the necessary opportunity to express their preference. This kind of argument is semantical nonsense when examined in the light of the situation in areas served by C.A.T.V., such as have been mentioned by the hon. member for York-Humber this afternoon; because as he stated, the decision is made in very clear, articulate and unarguable fashion by the viewers in that area when they sign up for a C.A.T.V. subscription and pay their fee. That is the casting of the ballot. If the C.B.C. needed a clearer expression of choice or preference, I am sure the exercise would be purely academic because it is clearly stated, by viewers who subscribe to that service, that their preference is for variety and freedom of choice, not that they are going to watch United States entertainment all the time, but that they want to have the option and the choice in the swing of the dial.
There are a number of other areas on which I should like to comment at this stage of the debate, but I will not have the opportunity. I can see by the clock that I am down to the last minute and a half of my time in this sitting of the house, and under the orders that have been adopted for the Christmas recess I realize that I will not have an opportunity, nor will other hon. members, to speak on this subject until some time in January. At that time I will make some other suggestions and interpolations, and I intend to press for the two amendments to clause 2 that I have mentioned are being prepared by us.
December 21, 1967

Private Bills
At that time I intend also to take up the cudgels on the points which were raised earlier by the hon. member for Elgin concerning anti-American public affairs programming. I believe this is an extremely serious and critical problem which affects Canadian-Ameri-can relations, which militates against Canadi-an-American progress, and social, economic and military progress in all forms. It is one that is demeaning to us as a nation and one that has reached a crisis point and must be controlled or eliminated before Canadian-American relations are damaged beyond repair.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. It being six o'clock and in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members business, shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper. As there are no "notices of motions (papers)" on today's order paper, the house will proceed to the consideration of private bills and public bills.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Before this takes place, Mr. Speaker, may I interrupt to ask the house leader to resolve some of the rumours which have been going around the lobbies. Are we to continue until ten o'clock tonight or do we cease operations at 7 p.m.?
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Auguste Choquette: We are here to work, so let
us work.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am agreeable.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The proposal was to sit until seven o'clock and then move the adjournment until January 22. If the house deals quickly with the bill that will be called, we will move the adjournment immediately after dealing with that bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. S-26, respecting Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited-Mr. Olson-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Capital stock.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: First, I should like to thank the house as well as the standing committee on transport and communications for the manner in which they have dealt with this bill. Inasmuch as the bill passed second reading without debate, I should like very briefly to outline its purpose. The main purpose is to increase the capital stock of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited from 10 million shares to 25 million shares of common stock and from 1 million to 5 million shares of preferred stock. This will enable the company to do the financing necessary to meet its commitments to the government, as well as the gas users in eastern Canada, by building the loop of the pipe line, particularly through northern Ontario.
There are some other clauses, Mr. Chairman, that I would be happy to explain as we get to them. This is the main purpose of clause 1. In addition I have given an undertaking that I will move an amendment to clause 3, when we get to that clause. The purpose of the amendment will be to confine the powers and authority given to the company in clause 3 to the purposes of the company's undertaking. The reference here is to telecommunications and other things. There was a request that the amendment be added so the power could be limited to the purposes of the company's undertaking. I will move that amendment when we reach that clause.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, if the hour of adjournment were not so close, I would have something to say about Trans-Canada Pine Lines in general. However, I will forgo that privilege and merely say something about the capitalization. My knowledge of how this takes place is not too good, but it would appear that the capitalization will take place by the sale of shares. This is a worthwhile method of asking Canadians to again support a pipe line which has, over the years, been mainly sponsored by Canadians and is controlled by Canadians.
I would, however, be remiss if I did not point out that if this company had not made commitments in the United States through partnership in the Great Lakes Gas and

December 21, 1967
Private Bills
Transmission Line, which is going through the United States and back into southern Ontario, it would have had sufficient money from company operations to provide at least a portion of the money needed to construct this loop. There would have been no necessity to raise this capital. In looking over the statute setting up this company, I was interested to find that the company has some of the powers that were granted prior to the implementation of the National Energy Board Act. I note that clause 5 of the original act, which has not been changed, states:
The company shall have all the powers, privileges and immunities conferred by, and be subject to all the limitations, liabilities and provisions of any general legislation which is enacted by parliament relating to pipe lines for the transmission and transportation of gas or oil or any liquid or gaseous products or by-products thereof.
I believe a clause of this type would be advantageous in some other pipe line bills that we have. In so far as the provision in the bill which would enable Trans-Canada to establish its communications system is concerned, we note that the sponsor of the bill is prepared to make the amendment which will impose a limitation on this company's operations. This part of the company's operations will therefore come under the National Energy Board and be controlled by that board.
I think there is a great deal more that could be said about the company and its operations in the past, most of which would not be complimentary. However, I believe all Canadians are of the opinion that the looping of the pipe line should take place so that developments at the head of the lakes and in the Sault Ste. Marie area could take place as soon as possible. These facilities are needed in the area at the present time. I am sure all who are concerned with the twinning of this line, as it is commonly called, understand that a large amount of gas will be provided majority of the committee began to realize for southern Ontario.
With these comments, I am reluctantly of the opinion that, in the interests of the development of this company, the recapitalization should be undertaken as soon as possible. I express the hope the company will be successful in its endeavour to maintain Canadian ownership and Canadian control in this process of recapitalization.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.

On clause 3-1951 chapter 92, repeal.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have an amendment to move in connection with clause 3. It would be amended as follows:
Clause 3 of Bill S-26, is amended by inserting the words:
"for the purpose of its underaking" in line 39 on page 3 immediately following the words "communications systems" and by inserting the same words in line 44 on page 3 immediately following the words "communication facilities".
a (6:10 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps I should suggest to the committee that some member other than the member for Medicine Hat would have to move this amendment.


Mr. Reid:: I will move it, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 3 as amended carry?


Mr. Germa:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the sponsor of the bill what is the intent of the slight change in wording in line 29, which reads:
-provided that the main pipe line or lines, either for the transmission and transportation of gas or oil-
And so on. The wording differs from that in the original act, which reads:
-provided that the main transportation of gas or oil shall be located entirely within Canada;-
Could the hon. member explain the reason for this change in wording in clause 3?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I did not quite follow the hon. member. Which word or words have been changed? I have not found the previous wording at this moment.


Melville Carlyle Germa: Starting at line 29 with the word "provided", the wording in the original act was:
-provided that the main transportation of gas or oil shall be located entirely within Canada-
The clause now reads:
-provided that the main pipe line or lines, either for the transmission and transportation of gas or oil shall be located entirely within Canada-
The words "pipe line or lines" are not in the original wording of the act.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The only explanation I can give for that, Mr. Chairman, is that there is an undertaking by the company that the main pipe line or lines shall be in Canada. When this bill is passed and the company completes construction, this will be the case.
December 21, 1967


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, perhaps on a point of order I might be able to help the hon. member for Medicine Hat. From memory I thought it was so and I have just looked at the statute. 1 think some words have been left out in the quotation from the statute in the explanatory notes. The statute does refer to "pipe line or lines", when it says:
-provided that the main line or lines, either for the transmission and transportation of gas or oil shall be located entirely within Canada;-
I do not think there has been any change in wording.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I was a little surprised, Mr. Chairman, because I was not aware of any change.


David Lewis: There was no change. Words were left out.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.
Business of the House


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the house I should like to take this opportunity to extend to Your Honour and to members of the house the very best wishes for the holiday and Christmas season. As house leader I should like to thank hon. members for the help and co-operation that has been extended in the management of the business of the house. I believe the house has worked efficiently and productively and that members are entitled to return to their constituencies with the feeling that they have really done an excellent job since we began the session.


David Lewis: Shall we applaud ourselves?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout):
That pursuant to the special order made Wednesday, December 20, 1967 the house do now adjourn until Monday, January 22, 1968.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 6.21 p.m.