1969-06-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been certain discussions about the business that was before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications with respect to the Great Slave Lake branch of the Canadian National Railways. I believe there might be found to be general consent to an order in the following terms: That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications hear representations from Mr. Peter Rohl, the Ben Ginter Construction Co. Ltd., Lucas Construction Ltd., Hatch Construction Ltd. and Krywa Bros. Construction Ltd. with respect to claims in relation to the construction of the Great Slave Lake line of railway for the C.N.R.
If there is unanimous consent, perhaps that can be made an order of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the undertaking I previously gave to the house, I would like at this time to report to honourable members on the meeting in Brussels last Wednesday of the NATO Defence Planning Committee. At the same time, I would like to table copies of the communique in English and French and suggest that they be attached as an annex to today's proceedings.
The first step of the NATO planning cycle is agreement by the Defence Ministers on the guidance to be given to the military authorities, who subsequently expand these guidelines into detailed force plans. This first step is what we were engaged in last Wednesday.
The meeting was of special interest to Canada because it was at this time that we had undertaken to begin discussions on Canadian proposals for changes in the Canadian Forces in Europe.
The communique refers to this in paragraph 5 which reads:
Mr. Cadieux, Canadian Minister of National Defence, explained to the Defence Planning Committee the policy and general intention of his government concerning the Canadian Forces in Europe. The Defence Planning Committee discussed procedures for consultation. The first step will be a discussion of the Canadian proposals between the Canadian and NATO military authorities in the immediate future.

In explaining to the defence planning committee the policy and general intention of the Canadian government concerning the Canadian Forces in Europe, I said that as a consequence of the defence review, the Canadian government had reaffirmed its belief in collective security, and reaffirmed Canada's membership in NATO and the importance of NATO to Canada's security. I said, also, that while Canada planned a phased reduction in the size of its forces in Europe, it would be maintaining a significant military presence there.
I pointed out that the North Atlantic Alliance is not just an alliance for the defence of Europe, but that the North Atlantic area includes North America as well, and defence efforts in North America do contribute to the security of Europe.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
With respect to restructuring of the Canadian Forces, I said our forces in Europe now require different equipment and training from the forces we maintain in Canada for North American defence. We plan to restructure the Canadian Forces over a period of time so that the equipment and training for their roles at home and abroad will be compatible. With the completion of this process, in addition to
June 2, 1969

Canadian Forces in Europe a separate air element Canada will have a modern, mobile but smaller land force stationed in Europe. This represents a precise response to the need for land force elements in NATO with a high degree of readiness, flexibility and mobility.
There has been a good deal of speculation about the forces which we will have in Europe. Since the consultations have just started, and will take some time to complete, it is not possible for me to say what our final posture in Europe will be. The proposals which we have put forward would involve the conversion of the mechanized brigade group to an air-transportable combat group with helicopter support. In addition we proposed that the air element be equipped initially with C.F.-104's.
I took the opportunity while in Brussels to discuss the Canadian proposals informally with defence ministers of Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States, whose countries have forces stationed in central Europe. I also explained these proposals to the defence ministers of Denmark and Norway. All of the ministers with whom I spoke were very frank in expressing their concern as to the extent of the changes and reductions involved. They sought full consultation in accordance with the agreed NATO procedures.
Canada has always met her obligations fully and will continue to do so. In the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance every member has the right to change its commitments but at the same time has an obligation to follow the procedures of consultation which have been established. These arrangements have been designed in the best interests of NATO and we want to make certain that we have the full benefit of these consultations concerning the changes we are proposing. Therefore I might not be able to report fully on these matters before these consultations have been completed.
These procedures for consultation on changes in national contributions require that discussions take place in the first instance with the NATO military authorities and with the defence planning committee, both in permanent and ministerial sessions. In the normal course of events, as I mentioned in the house on April 24, these consultations are carried out during the annual defence planning review with final undertakings being made on each nation's force contributions for the next year at the regular ministerial meeting of the defence planning committee in December.

It has been, of course, my intention to have adequate consultation with our allies on any changes we make. I assured my NATO colleagues that while we did not propose to reconsider the policy decisions announced on April 3 we would follow the consultation procedure fully both in letter and in spirit. Our proposals have already been placed before the NATO military authorities. I am confident that when the consultations are completed we will come to conclusions that are satisfactory both to Canada and to our allies.
The planning of the future posture of our forces both in Europe and in Canada will be proceeding in parallel with consultations with our NATO allies. Our intention is to achieve the new posture over the next three years. The new posture will avoid very substantial increases in the defence budget which otherwise would have occurred. We believe we can achieve the transition, barring unexpected international developments, within a defence budget which will be maintained for the next three years at its current dollar level.
Hon. members are understandably anxious to obtain detailed information on changes in our armed forces, a matter of vital concern to all Canadians. Mr. Speaker, this anxiety is shared by members of the Canadian Armed Forces themselves and is indeed magnified by their personal involvement. We are determined that changes we make will be in the best interests of Canada, and at the same time we must and do recognize that we have an obligation and a commitment to the members of the forces.
In this regard we intend to be absolutely sure that all decisions are made with consideration being given to how they will affect these loyal and dedicated Canadians to whom we owe so much. I intend to make periodical progress reports as decisions are reached.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) has said, "It is not possible for me to say what our final posture in Europe will be". It seems clear that the Minister of National Defence is still trying to borrow time to convince some of his colleagues to be more reasonable in their approach to Canada's responsibilities to our NATO allies.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a statement on April 3, a so-called declaration of principle, setting out so-called priorities and announcing a "planned and phased reduction" in our military contribution to NATO in Europe. Since that time the Prime
June 2, 1969

Minister made a somewhat notorious speech in Calgary. He has attempted to answer questions about the policy in the House of Commons; the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of National Defence have tried to explain the policy to our allies; the civil servants have tried to understand it, and now the military must try to implement it. The harder they try to explain what the policy is all about, the more they try to justify it, the harder they try to draft a plan to implement it, the clearer it becomes that the original statement of principle was harebrained and irresponsible, and subsequent statements have only made it worse. The Prime Minister made speeches insisting that defence policy must flow from foreign policy. Foreign policy is still under review. But he has already decided to reduce our role in the European alliance and increase it in the North American alliance. On what basis? For what reason? We will not know presumably until the review of foreign policy catches up with what he wants to do in defence policy.
On previous occasions the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has stated the position of our party. First of all we regard this decision as a retreat to isolationism and con-tinentalism. The government intends virtually to withdraw from a wider alliance in Europe to concentrate on the narrower partnership with the United States. This we believe is reactionary and ill-advised.
Second, it is clear that the decision of the government of Canada will hurt the chances to detente in Europe. It seems to be the view of all our NATO partners that any reduction in forces should be made jointly between NATO and the Warsaw pact countries. Cana-ada's unilateral reduction undermines the NATO position and effectively postpones any meaningful negotiations toward detente. It will be difficult or perhaps impossible for NATO to enter negotiations with its hand weakened. Third, the decision of the government, by weakening the conventional strength of NATO, lowers the-so-called-nuclear threshold and increases the likelihood of any conflict escalating into a nuclear exchange very quickly.
Canada is being made to look ridiculous; and Canada's defence policy looks as if it is in the hands of erratic and confused amateurs. Even worse is the fact that there is a fundamental hypocrisy to the position of the Canadian government. The minister returned on April 14 from the spring meeting of NATO 29180-589J

Canadian Forces in Europe ministers in Washington and tabled in this house a copy of the communique issued by the NATO meeting, a communique which the minister agreed to on behalf of the government of Canada and which the government of Canada pretends to support.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
That communique said in part:
The allies participating in the NATO integrated defence program agreed that it was extremely important that during an era of negotiation the defence posture of the alliance should not be relaxed and that premature expectations of solutions to outstanding questions should not be generated. The maintenance of effective defence is a stabilizing factor and a necessary condition for effective detente policies.
The communique then continued:
Accordingly these members of the alliance reaffirmed their continuing determination to make appropriate contributions to joint efforts for defence and deterrents at all levels both nuclear and conventional. They accepted the continuing need for the current NATO strategy based on a forward defence and appropriate response to any aggression, and for a credible conventional and nuclear deterrent including adequate over-all and local force levels. The necessary military posture of the alliance consists of the strategic nuclear deterrent forces, the presence of sufficient substantial and effective North American and European conventional forces as well as supporting tactical nuclear forces in the European area and adequate ready reinforcements.
On May 2, speaking in this house, the minister once again stated his own position on the question of NATO, a position which is so clearly at variance with the position of the Prime Minister. The minister on May 2 stated his agreement with General Lemnitzer's comment to the effect that there should be no over-all military reduction of the NATO capability overseas.
Now we have the minister returning from Brussels, where he attended the meeting of the NATO defence planning committee. While there, the minister supported, on behalf of the government of Canada, a communique which said in part that NATO military capability "should not be reduced, except as part of a pattern of mutual force reductions balanced in scope and timing" with the Warsaw pact countries.
It is perfectly obvious that the Minister of National Defence cannot continue to endorse statements such as those I have read, and continue on the other hand to try to support the policy dictated by the Prime Minister. By pretending to support the purposes and the strategy agreed upon by NATO, the minister does not help improve the credibility of
June 2, 1969

Canadian Forces in Europe Canada, and he is quickly destroying his own credibility with those who serve under him in the armed forces, and with his counterparts and colleagues in the other NATO countries.
As far as defence policy is concerned, if the Prime Minister wants to live a lie he should be left to do so, but I should hope that the Minister of National Defence would not lend himself to what is becoming a two-faced policy which would make Canada an international hypocrite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: Some of our allies have estimated that the plans of the Canadian government would amount to a 66 per cent reduction in the number of Canadian troops in Europe and an 80 per cent reduction in efficiency. I hope sincerely, as I am sure the majority of Canadian people hope, that this estimate is incorrect.
I want to conclude by saying that we are still hopeful, as are the Canadian people, that this country is being led by a man who understands this nation's obligations to our allies, both contractual and moral, and that those hopes will not be dashed by further policy announcements. The government's policy is wrong in concept; it is inconsistent with the support of NATO obligations and strategy, and it gives Canada a reputation that few Canadians want-that of a country unwilling to pull its weight or do its fair share in collective defence of western civilization.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party welcome the statement of the Minister of National Defence that the Canadian government intends to carry out a phased reduction of our military commitments in Europe and a change in Canada's military role. This party has for the past five years advocated that there ought to be a phased reduction of our military commitments in Europe and an eventual withdrawal of our military commitments there.
I think it is unfortunate that the minister has not been able to give us more information as to what goal he has in mind and the degree of flexibility both with respect to the size of the forces and the length of time over which this reduction will take place. There have been stories emanating from Brussels that the Canadian force will be reduced by some two-thirds between now and 1972. I do not know whether this was information deliberately leaked to the press as a trial balloon,

or whether the minister has some other figure in mind.
It seems to me that our allies know what the government has in mind, and members of the press seem to be able to get information, but parliament seems always to be the last to know what the government has in mind. We would like to know from the minister, and I hope he will tell us in the course of the next few days, just what the government's goal is with respect to this phased reduction, over what length of time it will take place, and whether the minister himself has altered his objectives during the last few days as a result of his discussion in Brussels.
It is quite apparent that there is a good deal of pressure on the minister and the government to change the policy which they have enunciated. The statements of Defence Secretary Melvin Laird of the United States, Defence Minister Dennis Healey of Great Britain, and others, indicate that there has been criticism and complaint in this respect. I hope the government will make it perfectly clear that this is a matter for Canada to decide and the decision must be made in the light of Canada's best interests, having in mind our interests as a nation and our responsibility to the United Nations and the security of the world.
Something has been said about contractual obligations. I do not need to remind the house that when NATO was formed in 1949 there was no commitment on Canada's part to supply military forces in Europe. That arose on a temporary basis to meet the situation occasioned by the Korean war. We in this party maintain that the situation in Europe has changed, and consequently our policy and temporary commitments are no longer binding upon Canada. I hope therefore that the minister will be firm. We understand of course that there have to be negotiations and consultations with our allies. But I hope there will be no compromise and no weakening of the government's position that Canada proposes to play a different military role and that it proposes to reduce substantially its forces in Europe.
As a matter of fact, we in this party believe that the situation in Europe has altered to the point where we should withdraw our military commitment in Europe. Those who are fearful of the military situation in Europe forget that there is a resurgent Germany, that -the NATO forces now have the advantage of tactical nuclear weapons in the order of 7 to 1 over their opponents, and
June 2, 1969

that the dangers which required the sending of Canadian troops to Europe in 1951, 1952 and 1953 are no longer present.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
I am disappointed that the only statements which have been made by the government with reference to NATO have had to do solely with our military commitments. We have always been told by the government that NATO is more than a military alliance, that it has a political role to play, and that the political role is not only ensuring collective security but extending democracy and working out a system by which the nations of Europe can live together in peace. I submit that we are not very credible when we have a NATO agreement under which the signatories pledge themselves to defend and expand their democratic institutions, while at the same time we have an ally like Greece trampling democracy underfoot in a shameful manner, and Portugal carrying on a colonial war in Angola. We heard nothing from the government in protest about this state of affairs.
We believe that NATO is more than a military alliance. It is also a political vehicle to establish security and peace in Europe. Only a few weeks ago the government of Finland extended an invitation to a European security conference to be held in Helsinki, and to be attended by the NATO nations and the Warsaw pact nations. To date, both our government and the governments of our allies have been callously indifferent to this invitation or have smothered it in moth-eaten excuses. We believe that the government of Canada should be using its membership in NATO in an attempt to break the present Maginot Line complex of two groups of powers glaring at each other over a border. We should be using our influence to follow up every peace feeler that is advanced, in the hope of ending the cold war and establishing a European security pact in Europe. I hope that the government will give as much attention to the question of our political role in NATO as they have been giving to the military role which we perform in that organization.
^Translation^


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we listened with great interest to the statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux), and we notice that we are still at the study and assessment stage with regard to Canadian forces in Europe and the Canadian defence policy as a whole.
Canadian Forces in Europe
One point strikes me especially, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to commend the minister for that; it is that national defence has always been in a way a white elephant for Canada from the budgetary as well as the political standpoints, and has always been criticized by the opposition parties as well as by government members, as is evidenced by the dissension within the government.
But it is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that every country will have to revise constantly its position with regard to important organizations like NATO, NORAD, etc., so as to always remain in control of a constantly changing situation, especially since the advent of nuclear arms.
Mr. Speaker, considering the Canadian position and the portion of the Canadian budget which goes every year to national defence, I notice that in 1967-68, we spent $1,693,309,501 and in 1968-69, $1,714,954,800.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the huge amounts allocated to the defence of Europe, to the maintenance of Canadian forces in Europe, to the maintenance of the Canadian presence in NATO contribute to the security of Canada. We see there all the paradox of the world we live in: that we must be armed to the teeth in order to live in peace. To be secure, we must threaten. We must be present, in order not to be attacked. We must spend fabulous sums of money while two thirds of the world population are starving and the other third lives in almost scandalous prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, we are hoping for a revision of the Canadian policy with regard to our participation and our armed forces in NATO; however, we would urge the minister to take measures more peaceful than those aimed simply at defence, because they promote the nuclear arms race and increase the danger hanging over the world. Today, the governments rely mainly on the balance of terror which seems to endanger the whole world. For this reason, our policy is to be reviewed.
The minister stated that we had Canadian forces in Europe. We have to think that situation over and, consequently, it would be advisable to have a more limited and mobile land force which could move very quickly and would be posted in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, following the tour of the various NATO bases in Europe, my colleague from Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) has told me several things. He said that his studies and the trip had shown only one thing; that the world is living in a climate of fear and that Canada is

June 2, 1969
Business of the House
led like a sheep instead of carrying out a participation policy. He pointed out to me that the Canadian policy was that of a puppet, since we are following the policy of other countries without having a truly Canadian one.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take more time, so I conclude by saying that we hope the minister will do his utmost to work towards greater peace instead of terror. He will also have to do his best to reduce the Caandian forces and the national defence budget, so that the real problem, that of poverty in the world and specially in Canada, may be tackled. This is a problem of peace, understanding and close co-operation, and not of menace and escalation of forces and arms.
Mr. Speaker, we wish the minister to give serious consideration to the matter and resort to every possible influence to prompt other countries to reduce their military commitments, to review their policy in order that we can really live in a peaceful world, and that this peace will not carry a price tag of billions of dollars, as is now the case, but that it be rather brought about through sound cooperation and understanding between human beings. Canada can reach that goal inasmuch as it cares to, which it never did in the past


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether I understood the minister correctly at the opening of his statement. Does he want his statement appended to today's Votes and Proceedings? Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it may be helpful to the house to survey briefly the work remaining to be done before the summer adjournment. There are some items on the order paper that should take relatively little house time because they are either not highly controversial or they have already reached an advanced stage. In this category I have listed the following items:
Item No. 62 with regard to the Maritimes Freight Rates Act amendment;
Item No. 63 with respect to the Export Development Corporation bill;
Item No. 64 with respect to the "Telesat Canada" bill;

Item No. 65 with regard to the Canada Shipping Act amendment bill;
Item No. 66 with respect to the oil and gas production and conservation bill;
Item No. 77 with respect to the Patent Act amendment bill;
Item No. 78 with respect to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act amendment bill; and
Item No. 79 with respect to the Criminal Code off-track betting amendment bill.
In addition there are other items on which the house has already invested considerable time or for which we feel there is urgency. This list includes the following items:
Item No. 4 regarding the official languages bill;
Item No. 73 with respect to the income tax amendment bill; and
Item Nos. 75 and 82 regarding the two bills amending the National Housing Act, which are at the moment before the house.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
If the Minister of Finance gives notice of any tax changes tomorrow, those changes will have to be dealt with during this session.
In addition, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has introduced his bill relating to incentives for regional development. Understandably, he wants it to be dealt with just as soon as possible.
Then I believe we should assume that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization will be making a report, pursuant to the order of the house made on December 20 last, relating to the allocation of time to legislative business.
Against this small mountain of work we must set the number of days available. As hon. members know, Friday, June 27 is regarded as the best target date for the adjournment. Quite aside from the convenience of members-a consideration which we all share-there are practical reasons relating to the preparation of the legislative work for the next session which make it highly desirable that the house should not continue into July or meet again too early at the end of the summer, if this is at all possible.
Members will understand that the ministry wants to have July relatively free for concentrated work on policy questions relating to the bills for the next session, and that we should like to have most of September for the detailed examination of draft bills. This does not mean that some of the standing committees should not meet in September; indeed,
June 2, 1969

there is much to recommend such a course of action where a committee has been given a suitable reference by the house.
The immediate problem is that including today and Friday, June 27, in the calculation, an adjournment on the 27th would allow only 19 more sitting days. Of these a total of 14 are preempted under the Standing Orders: eight are supply days on which opposition motions will be debated and six are for the debate on the budget statement. This means that unless some extra days can be found, after today there will be only four days for government legislative business, if the target date for the adjournment is not to be overrun.
In consultations which already have taken place I have put forward for consideration various ways in which the house could reconcile the work to be done with the time available. These consultations will be continuing; however, I thought all members should know just how things stand.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the house very wisely did not attempt to assign any blame for the position in which the government and the house now find themselves, and with great self restraint I shall follow his example.
I might say that he and I have some difference of opinion as to what is, and what is not, highly controversial, but this is not the occasion on which to go into that matter. I believe it is highly desirable-and in this I agree with the thinking of the government-to try to get away from the type of droll mummery and hypocritical farce we have experienced in the past, when target dates were set in an attempt to complete the business of the house and when, in those remaining days, legislative proposals were introduced which no legislative body could be expected to complete in the time allotted.
I think it is an excellent idea to fix a date, and let it be a reasonably firm date, advancing proposals for that period which the house could reasonably be expected to deal with. I also think it highly desirable that there should be a suitable interval between the parts of the session; the government should take at least one month and probably more than two months in which to consider its legislative program so that we may make better progress in the next portion than we have in the present one.
We shall co-operate with the government, provided of course that it is accepted we must discharge our responsibility and duty as
Business of the House
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. We shall attempt to collaborate and see that the proper measures, as the government has indicated, are passed before the date mentioned. We are also prepared to continue the discussions we are holding with the hon. gentleman and other house leaders to work out ways and means by which some extra time may perhaps be arranged in order to achieve this objective.
As the hon. gentleman has pointed out, there now remain eight opposition days which will probably be piled up back to back. I do not think this is a desirable position in which to find ourselves. These are days, of course, which the opposition uses in order to pinpoint what it considers to be proper criticism of the government in its approach to the legislative program and to its. administration of the nation's affairs. I sincerely hope that next session we shall ensure that such a situation is not repeated.
The government will probably be obliged to make a choice as to the measures which will finally be approved. We shall co-operate, as I say, and I hope that given good will on the part of the house between now and the date assigned, the measures which appear reasonably necessary to hon. members will be passed.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council indicated correctly that this is an interim report on discussions which have taken place among the house leaders. I agree with him that even though we have not reached a firm conclusion about whether we can find some extra time, it was a good idea for him to make a statement on the subject in the house today.
With regard to the attempt to set June 27 as a target date for adjournment, I hope I may be permitted to point out that this year the government is in a position to set a target and ask the house to stick to it. This is because of certain changes we have made in the rules. In the past, no government could do this. It used to be that the voting of supply had no cut-off,, and if the house was in an angry mood and declined to grant supply no attempt to adjourn by a fixed date could be successful. But that has been changed, and the new situation places the responsibility on the government, since, as I say, it can set a target date, to decide which pieces of legislation are to be dealt with, and which should be left over for a subsequent session.

June 2, 1969
Business oj the House
There are a number of important items, including several which have been cited to us more than once during the session, which are not now included in the list read to us. For example, there was to have been an Indian claims bill, or legislation generally respecting the position of Indians in Canada. We understand there is to be a policy statement by the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but no legislation regarding Indians is now included in the list presented to us. Neither is there anything on the list regarding veterans, neither in connection with the implementation of the Woods report nor by way of amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. On the various lists we have been given this session an item has appeared headed "Old Age Security Act amendment". I have never been able to find out either publicly or privately what is involved in this amendment, but whatever it is it seems to be down the drain. References were made to the Canada water bill, which is not now on the list, and there have also been references to a federal co-operatives bill, something which has been kicked around for 50 or 60 years. It is still not there.
Then there is the usual talk about the Canada Development Corporation, an idea which has been around for only five or six years; it will probably be around for a lot longer, still. Nothing appears on the list with regard to labour legislation, either implementing proposals contained in the Woods report or the Freedman report, or dealing in any way with unemployment insurance. In other words, there is a long list of legislation which was proposed for this session but which has been put off until next session- and things which are put off until next session have a way of being put off for a long time after that.
Nevertheless, if it is the government's decision that the house must adjourn on a specific date we think it is our duty to co-operate in the time which is available. But if extra time is to be found I would urge that some of it be used to deal with some of the important items which I have listed but which have not been mentioned today by the government house leader.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I am pleased also that within the context of his remarks the minister referred to the possibility of certain standing committees of the house meeting in September. I urge strongly that this be done, for two reasons. First, certain committees ought to meet to deal with

matters which have been referred to them. If the Woods report is not ready for reference to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs by the end of June, perhaps that report could be ready for such reference by September. Likewise, there are other committees which ought to me,et in September to deal with business referred to them. But I urge this course of action for a second reason. We all know that we have improved our procedures in the House of Commons, but in so doing have put an extra heavy load on our standing committees. Some of us think that we must move ahead to a time when the committees have the opportunity to meet when the house is not in session. For that reason in particular I urge strongly that plans be made, if it is not decided to bring the house back in September, for a number of committees to meet in September. Let us get this practice started.
I am interested in the statement the minister made, which was more or less in these words: "If the Minister of Finance gives notice of tax changes tomorrow, these changes will have to be dealt with during this session." Since we will begin dealing tomorrow with a tax bill which was left over from last year's budget, I wonder what is the government's hurry during the present session in dealing with matters that will be placed before the house tomorrow night. Mind you, if those changes are tax cuts the government will be amazed at how ready the opposition will be to co-operate.
Again, we welcome this interim statement about what is ahead for us. The minister is quite right in saying that consultation is going on. We are looking into ways and means to find additional time. We will take part in these discussions; but we hope the government will pay attention to those priorities which some of us think are important and which vary somewhat from the priorities set by the government.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) has given to us a statement concerning certain agreements arrived at by the parties, relating to the business of the house.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out at the outset of my brief remarks that the announcement of the president of the Privy Council was made in English only and that
June 2, 1969

we would have greatly appreciated having it in French so that we might be able to understand it better.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), namely that the government is complaining about the fact that only 19 sitting days remain, which is a relatively short period, and that we should not sit in July and come back in September.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that under the new Standing Orders, it is not the responsibility of the opposition to set that target date of June 27. The government is setting it; however, we would be prepared to sit past June 27 in order to study legislation relating to eastern agriculture, which is not found at the present time in the current legislative program.
I would point out that a committee on agriculture will meet in Quebec City at the Chateau Frontenac. But this is not the place where the farmers are found; they are in the fields and therefore the report of that committee will not be dealt with by the house.
At the present time the dairy industry in Quebec goes through a stagnation period, the dairy policy is unacceptable and there has been no review of that dairy policy during this session.
Therefore, this committee will go through studies as a face-saving device, but the recommendations it could make will not be submitted to the house. That is the reason why we would like some more or less important measures to be put aside and replaced by a review of the dairy policy.
I would like to make another remark as to item No. 66, respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas.

I believe we could be spared the discussion of that item from now until June 27, for the simple reason that we will have this week the pleasure of greeting more than 24 United States senators and congressmen, who come to meet the Canadian parliamentarians in order to discuss this question and the possibility of coming to agreements.
I cannot see the house making decisions, passing a bill and holding discussions at the same time. We are paying for the trip of parliamentarians-which will be very expensive-in order to discuss those same questions with the United States representatives. I think there is duplication here, that we could
Questions
be spared the discussion of that question in the house and wait for the committee's report, so that this committee may at least be under the impression that the house will be informed of its work.
Mr. Speaker, if we read over the program that is proposed, we can see that it does not contain many new or important elements and that it solves almost none of the Canadian problems, especially those concerning eastern agriculture, unemployment and many other fields.
Consequently, we are quite ready to cooperate and that is moreover what we have done since the beginning of the present session in order to speed up the work.
Of course, we shall co-operate as we always did but we want to induce the President of the Privy Council to review some of his positions in relation to this program in order to solve the problems which are presently facing Canadians, for example, the problems of eastern agriculture.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER


Mr. Caouette: 1.	How many government wharves are there in each province at the present time?
2.	What scale of fees is authorized for users of these wharves?
3.	Are these fees identical in each province and, if not, what are the differences?
4.	How much money was collected in each province from users of these government wharves in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Transport as follows:
1.	Province	No. of wharves
Newfoundland	647
Prince Edward Island	91
Nova Scotia	334
New Brunswick	185
Quebec	563
Ontario	542
Manitoba	45
Saskatchewan	18
Alberta	14
British Columbia	324
2.	The government Wharves Regulations issued pursuant to the Government Harbours and Piers Act provide a uniform Schedule of rates for the use of all government wharves

June 2, 1969
Questions
administered by the Department of Transport, in each province, in the interests of commercial shipping, the fishing industry, and the public generally, other than wharves leased under the authority of the Act or in respect of which there is a separate tariff. Separate tariffs have been made by Order in Council for the use of the government wharves at Sorel, Quebec; Port Credit, Ontario; and Powell River, Port Hardy, and Port McNeill, British Columbia. Wharfage rates charged by
a lessee of any government wharf for which there is no separate tariff must not exceed the rates established by the Government Wharves Regulations, as required by the Government Harbours and Piers Act.
3.	Included in answer to Question 2.
4.	Gross collections by province for the past four years from Government wharves administered by the Department were as follows:
1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68$	$	$	$Newfoundland	177,578	117,115	110,396	129,425Prince Edward Island	84,795	87,485	113,078	110,719Nova Scotia	209,513	182,617	212,464	311,045New Brunswick	106,940	136,893	134,900	120,739Quebec	635,965	601,834	592,244	530,009Ontario	543,149	549,642	601,719	571,944Manitoba	1,800	3,080	1,636	1,118Saskatchewan	1,522	50	4,012	1,340Alberta	1,000	2,501	3,552	Not yet availableBritish Columbia	101,919	111,493	125,308	123,373


PILOT STUDENT GRANTS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Have private pilot student grants been discontinued and, if so, when and for what reason was this action taken?
2.	Will all agreements entered into before the discontinuation date be honoured and, if so, how many are involved?
3.	(a) Will flying schools and clubs continue to receive a subsidy for pilot training (b) is it planned to terminate this program (c) if so, on what date and for what reasons?
4. Is there a surplus of pilots in Canada and, if so, what is the employment figure for this group?
5.	(a) Will student pilots be brought under the student loan plan as an alternative to the subsidy program (b) what other plan is contemplated to ensure an adequate supply of pilots in the expanding air age?
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport: 1. Yes. December 16, 1968, pursuant to governmental review of spending priorities, it was concluded that the programme of grants for flying training should be discontinued.
2.	All agreements entered into before December 20, 1968, or any agreement submitted by a student who enrolled in an approved

course of private training and commenced flying training prior to that date, will be honoured provided all requirements under the scheme of assistance are met on or before March 31, 1969, and provided funds are available. Approximately 700 agreements should be honoured prior to April 1, 1969.
3.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) March 31, 1970. See answer to (1.)
4.	There is no available data on the number of surplus pilots in Canada but as far as can be determined, there is now no significant surplus of qualified airline pilots.
5.	(a) No; (b) No particular plan at the present time.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS HOTELS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many hotels are owned by the Canadian National Railways Company and are all the hotels operated by the Railway Company?
2.	H not, which hotels are operated by others and under what arrangements?
3.	Does each individual hotel operation show an annual profit?
4.	What is the total profit or loss figure for 1968 in regard to all CNR hotels?
June 2. 1969


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. Nine, no.
2.	Queen Elizabeth, Montreal; Hotel Vancouver, Vancouver.
These two hotels are operated by Hilton of Canada Limited pursuant to management agreements.
3.	No.
4.	As recorded on Page 37 of the Company's Annual Report for the year 1968, which was tabled in the House of Commons on April 24, 1969, the net income from hotel operations was $1,635,652.


ASSISTANCE TO CANADIAN JOHNS-MANVILLE
Mr. Beaudoin: Has the federal government, during the past ten years, given any financial assistance to the Canadian Johns-Manville Company Limited for the development of its mining operations at Asbestos, Quebec and, if so, what amount?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by several departments as follows:
No.


MR. G. FRANK LAFFERTY
Mr. Matte: Was Mr. G. Frank Lafferty recently appointed a member of the Canadian Transport Commission and, if so, what is his mother tongue?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes. His mother tongue is English and he is completely bilingual.


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER ICE-BREAKING
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Is it government policy to have year-round navigation on the St. Lawrence River and, if so, what is the expected cost of the ice-breaking involved (a) east of Quebec City and (b) west of Quebec City?
2.	Would the Department of Transport have to acquire extra navigational devices to maintain year-round navigation on the St. Lawrence River and, if so, at what estimated cost?
3.	Has the Department of Transport made any studies itself or caused studies to be made by the Canadian Transport Commission as to passing along the costs to the users?
4.	Is it government policy to pass along the costs of present ice-breaking operations on the St. Lawrence River to the vessels taking advantage of same and, if so. on what formula?
29180-590J
Questions


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. It has been the policy for successive Canadian Governments to have year-round navigation on the St. Lawrence River to the extent that it was practical. Winter navigation was negligible until about ten years ago when changing trading conditions, a better understanding of the problems of operating ships in ice, the entry into the area of European ship owners with ice strengthened ships and the development by the Department of improved measures to support shipping in ice encouraged owners and operators to attempt winter sailings. Since then winter navigation into the Gulf and the St. Lawrence to Quebec has increased rapidly and considerably. Above Quebec winter traffic has developed more recently and slowly because the ice conditions make ship movement more difficult and icebreakers must give priority to flood prevention work and their help is less readily available.
Expected cost in 1969-70 of winter operations is: (a) East of Quebec City, $750,500; (b) West of Quebec City, $877,100.
Figures in (a) are only approximate because of the difficulty of separating the costs of Gulf and Lower River ice operations. Some growth in winter traffic can be absorbed without incurring additional costs of icebreakers and other resources.
2.	No. The present system of aids to navigation is adequate for ships navigating under winter conditions in the St. Lawrence River.
3 and 4. Some study of charges to users for the cost of supporting winter navigation has been done by the Department but no satisfactory formula has yet been found and it is not at present Government policy to charge users for ice-breaking or any other government furnished aids to navigation. If charges for icebreaking are instituted, it would be equitable to apply them to the Gulf and all other ice congested areas and not only to the St. Lawrence.


AIR CANADA WINE CONTRACTS
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What method does Air Canada use in awarding contracts for beverage wines?
2.	Who are the present suppliers?
3.	How long does each contract remain in effect?
4.	What are the amounts of each of these contracts?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The Management of Air Canada

June 2, 1969
Questions
advises as follows: 1. Air Canada does not award contracts for wines in the sense of making long-term commitments, but makes individual purchases when supplies are needed.
2.	Wines boarded on domestic flights are purchased from the Provincial Liquor Control Boards. On international flights, they are purchased direct from wine producers.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable in so far as amounts of contracts are concerned, but Air Canada purchased $112,000 worth of wine from Provincial Liquor Boards and $126,000 from wine producers over the last year.


CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. A. G. HEAKES
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	Has the Prime Minister received any correspondence with enclosures of recent date from Mr. A. G. Heakes and, if so (a) on what date was such correspondence received (b) what were the enclosures in each, and (c) did the correspondence refer to communications between Mr. Heakes and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	What was the nature and purpose of such correspondence and the enclosures?
3.	Has the Prime Minister referred the correspondence to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and has such correspondence been acknowledged and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Has any action been taken on the purport of this correspondence from Mr. Heakes and, if so, by whom and to what effect?
5.	Has the RCMP conducted an investigation of Mr. Heakes as a result of this correspondence or otherwise and, if so, with what result?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: 1. Yes. (a) in the
period January 1 to April 30, 1969: January 30, February 3, February 8, February 14, March 10, April 10, April 19. (b) with the letter of January 30: copy of letter to Mr. Heakes from the Hon. John Turner, dated February 9, 1967; copy of letter to Mr. Heakes from the Hon. Ronald Basford dated November 25, 1968. With the February 3, 1969 letter: copy of letter from Mr. Heakes to His Excellency Roland Michener dated February 3, 1969. With the February 8, 1969 letter: copy of letter to Mr. Heakes from Correspondence Secretary to the Prime Minister dated February 4, 1969. With the February 14, 1969 letter: copy of telegram from Mr. Heakes to the Prime Minister dated February 5, 1969. With the March 10, 1969 letter: copy of letters dated March 3, 1969 from the Correspondence Secretary to Mr. Heakes and to the

Legal Aid Bureau of Montreal and a copy of a letter from Mr. Heakes to the Hon. Alan J. MacEachen dated March 10, 1969. With the April 10, 1969 letter: copy of letter from Mr. Heakes to the Hon. Eric Kierans dated April 9, 1969. With the April 19, 1969 letter: copy of letter to Mr. Heakes from the Correspondence Secretary to the Prime Minister dated April 16, 1969; (c) Yes, occasionally.
2.	The correspondence refers mainly to problems experienced by Mr. Heakes as a result of a bankruptcy in which he was involved but contains as well allegations by him of conspiracy and libel, of mail tampering, and of police harassment.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes. An appointment was arranged with the Superintendent of Bankruptcy to permit Mr. Heakes to discuss his difficulties but Mr. Heakes has declined to meet this Official.
5.	Mr. Heakes has directed a number of letters to the Solicitor General and to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and has periodically come to Ottawa and visited various government offices. He has requested in this correspondence and in these visits that aspects of the bankruptcy referred to in Part 2 be investigated but pending his decision to discuss these problems direct with the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, these investigations have not been pursued.


C.B.C. COVERAGE OF PERTH, SCOTLAND, CURLING
Mr. Gleave: 1.	What was the cost to the C.B.C. for the coverage of the curling finals in Perth, Scotland?
2.	Was the C.B.C. the only Canadian network which broadcast the games?
3.	Did the C.B.C. sell broadcasting rights to any other network?
4.	What was the cost to Air Canada in its promotion aid to the curling finals?
5.	What was the cost to Air Canada to fly sportscasters and reporters from Canada to Perth, and how many individuals were actually given free transportation?
6.	What was the total cost to Air Canada?
7.	How many C.B.C. men are covering the Canadian hockey team in Europe?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Department of Transport as follows: 1. Full coverage, including satellite feeds, cost approximately $43,000 for both English and French C.B.C. networks.
June 2. 1969



2.	Yes. C.B.C. had exclusive rights.
3.	No.
4.	5 and 6. It has not been the practice nor is it considered in the best interests of the Company to disclose information of a nature which would be of value to its competitors.
7. Three C.B.C. people for the English network and three for French network.


PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES
Mr. Robinson: What was the percentage increase in salaries given to federal Civil Servants generally for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: The following shows the weighted average percentage of the increases in rates of pay awarded to Public Service employees in the years 1960 to 1968 inclusive. The averages given for the years 1967 and 1968 include only those salary increases negotiated to date and do not reflect increases still to be negotiated for certain occupational groups which will be retroactive to these years. 1960, 9.6; 1961, 3.4; 1962, 7.0; 1963, 3.3; 1964, 7.6; 1965, 7.7; 1966, 5.7; 1967, 7.5; 1968, 6.8.


CANADIAN OIL AND GAS REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Harding: 1.	Has the National Energy Board made projections for future Canadian requirements for crude oil and natural gas and. if so, when was the latest projection made?
2.	What are estimated Canadian requirements for (a) crude oil (b) oil products for the next 30-year period?
3.	What is the present level of crude oil reserves in Canada and how many years' supply of domestic requirements does this represent?
4 Has the government undertaken any study of the effects upon the price of crude oil and motor gasoline in Canada due to the maintaining of different levels of reserve capacity and, if so (a) when was the latest study made, and (b) What were the results of this study?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: National Energy Board reports as follows: 1. A long term energy forecast for oil and gas demand is currently under study by the National Energy Board. It is expected that this study will be published about the mid-year. The most recent projection of future requirements for natural gas is available in the Parliamentary Library in the report to the Governor in Council, in the matter of the application by Westcoast
Questions
Transmission Company Limited, dated March, 1967.
2.	The estimated Canadian requirements for crude oil and products to 1990 will be available about mid-year when the long term energy forecast has been completed.
3.	The estimated remaining proved reserves of crude oil as of December 1968, were some 8,381,613,000 barrels. Based on the domestic demand for crude oil and equivalents in the year 1968, the remaining proved reserves of crude oil are equivalent to some 17 years' supply of domestic requirements.
4.	The National Energy Board has not undertaken any study of the effects upon the price of crude oil and motor gasoline in Canada, due to the maintaining of different levels of reserve capacity.


DIGBY NECK COAST GUARD FACILITIES
Mr. Comeau: 1.	Does the Department of Transport intend to provide coast guard facilities for the Digby Neck and the Islands area and, if so, when?
2.	Has the Department requested the construction of two boats for this purpose and to whom were the contracts awarded and for what amount?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. The Department already
provides some rescue facilities in the general area with the Bayview Lifeboat stationed at Digby Gut. Another lifeboat, the CCGC 101 performs similar duties and operates from Clarkes Harbour on the southern tip of Nova Scotia. In addition to these vessels the CCGS Thomas Carleton and CCG Walter E. Foster, having Search and Rescue capabilities and operating from Saint John, serve to strengthen rescue facilities in the area.
2.	Two lifeboats are at present under construction at the yard of Les Chantiers Mari-times de Paspebiac Inc., Paspebiac, P.Q. at a total cost of $369,777. The location at which these vessels will be based has not yet been decided.


SECOND CLASS MAIL CLASSIFICATIONS
Mr. Dionne: What newspapers, magazines, pamphlets and other publications does the Post Office Department consider as second class mail?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: In so far
as the Post Office Department is concerned: Those newspapers, magazines, pamphlets and

June 2, 1969
Questions
other publications which meet the conditions of the postal law and regulations as outlined in Sections 11 and 12 of the Post Office Act as amended by Chapter 5 of the Statutes of Canada 1968 and in the regulations respecting second class mail made pursuant thereto.


ADVANCES ON FARM STORED GRAIN
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many cash advances on farm stored grain have been issued during the present crop year, 1968-69?
2.	What was the total amount of money involved?
3.	How many advances were issued (a) under
$1,000 (b) $1,001	to $2,000	(c)	$2,001 to $3,000 (d)$3,001 to $4,000	(e) $4,001 to	$5,000 (f) $5,001	to
$6,000?
4.	How many cash advances have been issued under the emergency Advance Payments Act for drying tough or damp grain?
5.	What was the total amount of money involved?
6.	How many advances were issued (a) under
$100 (b) $101 to	$200 (c)	$201	to $300 (d) $301	to$400 (e) $401 to	$500 (f)	$501	to $600?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. 84,166 producers have as at May 12th, 1969 received cash advances on farm stored grain for the 1968-69 crop year.
2.	$147,646,348.
3.	(a) 33,765; (b) 24,301; (c) 13,018; (d) 5,688; (e) 3,092; (f) 4,302.
4.	6,324.
5.	$1,748,592.
6.	(a) 699; (b) 1,803; (c) 1,593; (d) 971; (e) 521; (f) 737.


EDMONTON-CHICAGO AIR SERVICE
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	When was international air service between Edmonton, Minneapolis/ St. Paul, Chicago discontinued?
2.	What was the reason for the discontinuance of this service?
3.	Have representations been made to the Department of Transport and other governmental bodies governing air services by the City of Edmonton and, if so, what were the results of such consultations?
4.	What airlines have expressed interest in supplying this service?
5.	Is the Department of Transport, the CTC and other governmental bodies seriously considering the granting of an air agreement to re-instate airline services between Chicago, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Edmonton and Anchorage?
6.	If so, when might such an agreement become effective?

7.	If not, what is the prime stumbling block in granting such permission?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. September 4, 1962.
2.	Paucity of traffic and good connections at Winnipeg with Air Canada.
3.	Yes. The Delegation from the City of Edmonton was given assurance that their representations would be given full consideration by the Canadian authorities.
4.	Pacific Western Airlines Limited, Western Airlines Inc., and Ozark Airlines Inc.
5.	The Air Agreement between Canada and the United States of America will be reviewed later this year. Service between Edmonton and points in the United States is one of the items that will be considered.
6.	The new Agreement will become effective upon signature by both Contracting Parties.
7.	Not applicable-see answer to part 5.



SECOND CLASS MAILING PRIVILEGES

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	As of April 27, 1969, how many publications were registered for second class mailing privileges in each of the following classes: general news, religion, sciences, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, literature and the arts, public health, business and trade, trade unions, co-operatives, church congregations, political parties, others?
2.	How many publications were refused second class mailing privileges in the first four months of 1969?


Eric William Kierans: In so far
as the Post Office Department is concerned:
1.	General news, 1,170; Religion, 306; Sciences, 16; Agriculture, 71; Forestry, 6; Fisheries, 4; Literature & the arts, 88; Public health, 57; Business & trade, 261; Trade unions, 0; Co-operatives, 0; Church congregations, 0; Political parties, 0; Others, 0.
2.	1,257.



ST. VALERIEN, QUE., POST OFFICE

Mr. Rondeau: 1.	Have requests been made by the citizens of St. Valerien, Shefford constituency, for the establishment of a post office?
2.	If so (a) when (b) by how many persons (c) by whom (d) how did the Department dispose of such requests?


Eric William Kierans: In so far
June 2, 1969

as the Post Office Department is concerned:
1.	Yes, for provision of a Post Office building.
2.	(a) 21 December 1967; (b) Two; (c) Maurice Cabana and Hector Vincent; (d) Those concerned were informed that the St. Valerien Post Office did not qualify under the regular building program, nor under the Winter Works Program then in effect.



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE SALARIES

Mr. Coates: What are the names and salaries of the Director General and the Comptroller and Director of the National Arts Centre?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: G. H. Southam, Director General, National Arts Centre, (Appointed by Order in Council, April 21, 1967), $24,840; R. Montpetit, Comptroller and Director of Finance.
I am informed by the National Arts Centre that it is not the policy of the Centre to
Questions
disclose salaries of staff members appointed by the Board of Trustees.



SHEFFORD, QUE., DAIRY PRODUCTS WAREHOUSES

Mr. Rondeau: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the operators of warehouses for dairy products and by-products in the federal constituency of Shefford?
2.	(a) What amount did the federal government pay to each of these warehouses during each of the last ten years (b) what amount per pound did the federal government pay to each of these warehouses during the last ten years (c) what was the total number of pounds stored by each of these warehouses during the last ten years?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. (i) Granby Locker Co. Ltd., Granby, Quebec; (ii) Lawrenceville Cold Storage, Lawrenceville, Quebec; (iii) Shefford Dairy, Lawrenceville, Quebec; (iv) Granby Co-op., Granby, Quebec.
2. (a) Records are available only for each of the last four years as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

39,509.41
115,696.86

33,284.93
62,495.98

611.09
24,597.96
36,464.71
128,169.46

10,498.19
3,989.65
59,055.83
61,872.70
(b)	Storage payments were not arranged on a poundage basis, but rather by box or bag, with an additional handling charge for each. A crude conversion is obtained by dividing poundage from 2 (c) below into totals in 2 (a) above, over the four years concerned, and is as follows: (i) 2.17 cents; (ii) 1.33 cents; (iii) 1.59 cents; (iv) 1.19 cents.
(c)	Records are available only for the last four years as follows: (i) 509,992 pounds; (ii) 2,155,496 pounds; (iii) 10,573,080 pounds; (iv) 30,970,844 pounds.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT TASK FORCE

Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Has a special Task Force been established within the Department of Transport on the functions and responsibilities of the Department and other agencies and bodies involved in the transportation industry?
2.	If so, who are the members of this Task Force and what are their specific terms of reference?
3.	When is it anticipated that the report of this Task Force will be completed, and will this report be Tabled in the House of Commons?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. Yes.
2.	Co-Chairmen of the Task Force are John Gratwick of Canadian National Railways, Montreal, and Arthur Bailey of Treasury Board, Ottawa. Dr. James Douglas Fleck, Associate Dean of the Faculty of Administrative Studies, York University, Toronto, is also a member. Departmental representatives are F. L. Worrall, D. G. Black, J. I. Carmichael, and T. C. Porter. The Task Force is conducting an analysis of government involvement in the transportation field for the purposes of clarifying the Department's objectives and establishing the Department's roles vis-a-vis those of other departments and agencies engaged in various aspects of the transportation function.
3.	It is expected that their work will be completed by this fall, and it is intended

June 2, 1969
Questions
that a report will be submitted to the Government at that time. No decision has been taken yet as to the disposition of the Report.



APPLICATIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL INCENTIVES AREAS

Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	How many applications have been received relating to the Industrial Incentives Designated Areas of Halifax, Dartmouth, Saint John and Fredericton, since September 25, 1968?
2.	What amount is it expected will be expended in this regard?
3.	How many persons is it expected will be further employed as a result of this assistance?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. 20.
2. $12,000,000.
3. 810.



BEAUCE, QUE., MILK PRODUCTS WAREHOUSE

Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the milk products warehouse operators in the constituency of Beauce?
2.	What were (a) the amounts paid by the federal government for each of these warehouses, for each of the past ten years (b) the amounts per pound paid by the federal government for each of those warehouses, for each of the past ten years (c) the total number of pounds stored in each of these warehouses, for each of the past ten years?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. Irenee Champagne, St. Georges de Beauce, Quebec.
2. (a) Records are available only for each of the last four years as follows: 1968-69, 0; 1967-68, 0; 1966-67, $611.09; 1965-66, $10,198.19. (b) Storage payments were not arranged on a poundage basis, but rather by boxes with an additional handling charge per box. A crude conversion is obtainable by dividing poundage from 2 (c) below into totals of the two years in 2 (a) above, and is as follows: $2.99. (c) Records are available only for the last four years: 370,888 pounds.



CANADA COUNCIL AWARDS

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Are Canada Council Awards for study and research paid in a lump sum and, if not, what is the method of payment?
2.	Has the Canada Council the power to withdraw an award to a person who misuses his award

funds by withdrawing from an approved program of study or research to engage in political activities?
3.	Does the Canada Council maintain contact with all award winners to assure against misuse and, if so, how is that surveillance maintained?
4.	Does the Canada Council maintain contact with some recipients of awards to assure against misuse and, if so, who has the power to determine which award winners will be kept under surveillance?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. Doctoral, post-doctoral and leave fellowships are normally paid in three instalments, respectively of 40, 30 and 30 per cent of the total amount. Unless other arrangements are made, the first instalment is paid approximately one month prior to the date of beginning of tenure; in the case of doctoral fellowships it is made only after the Council has received proof of the award holder's acceptance in the university or other institution where he plans to carry out his program. The second and third instalments are normally paid on request after an interval of at least four months in each case, upon submission of an interim report by the recipient. Partial fellowships (usually for four to eight months) are normally paid in two equal instalments; awards of less than $1,000 are paid in one lump sum.
2. The Canada Council has the power to withdraw any award which, for any reason, is not being used for the purposes stated by the recipient in his application and approved by the Council at the time of the award.
3 and 4. Before paying the second and third instalments, the Council requires the award-holder to submit a request together with an interim report on his work. Under the conditions of award, the award holder is also required to seek Council approval for any major change in his work program or in the place of tenure. In the case of a doctoral fellowship holder, any proposed change must be supported in writing by the director of his department. Within six months after the end of the period of tenure, all award holders are required to submit a final report on their work. These requirements enable the Council to maintain contact with award holders. Surveillance is exercised not in relation to the award holders' personal or extra-curricular activities, but in relation to the carrying out of his approved program of work. If the Council has any reason to believe that an award holder's activities interfere with his approved program and could bring into question the effective use of his award, the matter
June 2, 1969

is investigated and the Council may withdraw the award if this is warranted.
UNIVERSITIES RESEARCH SUPPORT Question No. 2,208


Mr. Orlikow:: 1 Which government department or agency is analysing the results of the Macdonald Report on federal research support in Canadian universities?
2. When is it anticipated that the review of the above study will be completed?


James Edgar Walker: I am informed by the Science Council and the Canada Council as follows: 1. Special Study No. 7 entitled "The Role of the Federal Government in Support Research in Canadian Universities" was prepared by a study group headed by Dr. J. B. Macdonald. The study was initiated by the Science Council and co-sponsored by the Canada Council. It is not a report to the government itself. Since the study identified over 40 departments and agencies of the federal government which, in various ways, provide support to university research, it is likely that most, if not all of these departments and agencies will be analysing the results of the study.
2. The Canada Council has indicated that they would be completing a review of the Macdonald study by mid-summer, and would likely publish a report on its findings shortly thereafter. The Canada Council has already reviewed the study and is presently in the process of distributing its comments to interested parties.



APPEARANCE OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS BEFORE COMMITTEE

Mr. Yewchuk: Does the Minister of Transport intend to allow air traffic controllers to appear before a Parliamentary Committee investigating air safety?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: There is no Parliamentary Committee investigating air safety.



MANUFACTURE OF FORD MAVERICK

Mr. Mather: 1.	Is the new automobile, Ford Maverick, being manufactured in Ontario for retail sale in the United States at approximately $1,995?
2.	Is the same vehicle to be retailed in Canada at approximately $2,375?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 and 2: According to
Questions
verbal information supplied by the Ford Motor Company, the Ford Maverick will have a suggested retail price of $1,995 ($U.S.) in the United States and a suggested retail price of $2,375 ($Cdn.) in Canada. These prices are within 5% of each other when exchange and sales tax are taken into account.



DIGBY MANPOWER OFFICE

Mr. Comeau: 1.	Where will the new accommodations of the Digby Manpower offices be located?
2.	What is the name of the Real Estate Company or the owner of the new premises?
3.	How were new locations sought, was this opened to public tender and, if so, how many bids were submitted and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	Was the present Real Estate Company (Saunders Real Estate) asked to provide new or additional space and, if so, what type of response was given?
5.	Was a new lease renegotiated with Saunders Real Estate?
6.	What will be the rental fee for new offices?
7.	When does the present contract end and the new one begin?
8.	How many steps (stairs) are involved to accommodate persons on the present second floor level?
9.	How many steps are involved to accommodate persons in the new ground level facilities?
10.	How many handicapped persons were served by the Digby office last year and how many were refused because of second floor accommodations?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Departments of Public Works and Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. Birch Street.
2.	P. R. Woolaver, owner.
3.	New locations sought by investigation, no public tenders called.
4.	Yes, response was co-operative.
5.	No.
6.	$2.95 per square foot per annum.
7.	Present contract ends June 30, 1969 and new one begins July 1, 1969.
8.	Seventeen.
9.	Four, or use can be made of paraplegic ramp.
10.	A total of 41 handicapped persons were served by the Digby Manpower Office last year. Of these, seven were unable to get up steps to main office area. As a result, these seven persons were visited in their homes by Manpower Counsellors. No handicapped persons have been refused service. There is no

June 2, 1969
Questions
way of determining the number of persons deterred from visiting this Manpower office due to stairs or the physical layout of the building. It is government policy to provide easy access to federal buildings and commercial establishments where space is leased for the accommodation of government departments thereby creating as few obstacles as possible to handicapped persons.



ADULT TRAINING OF INDIANS

Mr. Yewchuk: How many Indian workers were accepted under adult training programmes for the 1967-68 and 1968-69 sessions in the constituency of Athabasca and (a) of these how many completed the programme (b) of these how many are now gainfully employed on a fulltime basis?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Adults placed in training under the Adult Occupational Training Act are not identified by racial origin. The question cannot, therefore, be answered.



LINGUISTIC REQUIREMENTS IN CAPITAL AREA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	Has the Public Service Commission recently made a ruling stipulating bilingualism (knowledge of French and English) as a condition of employment for every position in the National Capital Area?
2.	What is the text of this or any similar ruling on this question made within the last six months governing public service employment in the Capital Area?
3.	What is the purpose of such a ruling?


Gérard Pelletier: 1 am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. No. However, Section 4 of the Public Service Employment Regulations, published in Volume 101 Extra of the Canada Gazette, dated March 17, 1967, provides that proficiency in both oflicial languages is a desirable qualification for all positions in the National Capital Region for which such proficiency is not an essential qualification.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.



TEXAS GULF SULPHUR COMPANY-GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Nystrom: 1. Has the government given any financial assistance to Texas Gulf Sulphur Company within the last two years?

2.	Under what programs, on what date and to what extent was financial assistance given?
3.	Has this company filed application for any further assistance from the government and, if so, on what date and under what program was the application filed and what stage has this application reached?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the
answer to this question is divided into three parts.
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.

The answer to the third part is, yes. Ecstall Mining Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary, filed two preliminary applications on May 12, 1969, under the Area Development Incentives Act. The applications are under review.



DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH MAINLAND CHINA

Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what basis will the government proceed to establish diplomatic relations with Communist China?
2.	What will be the nature of the relations or
exchanges?
3.	Has the Government of Nationalist China made it known to the Government of Canada that it would abolish or change its diplomatic representation here if Canada establishes diplomatic relations with Communist China?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Discussions are now going on between representatives of Canada and the People's Republic of China for the very purpose of determining whether a mutually acceptable basis can be worked out for the establishment of diplomatic relations between Canada and the People's Republic of China, and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on this matter at this time.
2.	The nature of the relations or exchanges is of course amongst the questions now being discussed.
3.	No.



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS SUPPORT PROGRAMS

Mr. Robinson: 1. Does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs provide subsidies and/or support
June 2, 1969

programs for any segment of the economy, groups or individuals inside Canada and, if so, to what extent, in what amounts, and to whom are the amounts paid?
2. What amounts have been paid for subsidies and/or support programs during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Yes.
2.	1968-69, $30,000, grant to Consumer
Association of Canada. 1969-70,	$50,000,
grant to Consumer Association of Canada.



WITHHOLDING TAX ON FOREIGN INVESTMENTS

Mr. Robinson: 1.	What was the total amount of withholding tax received by the federal government as a result of foreign investments in Canada in each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	What was the first year in which a withholding tax was levied, what was the amount of tax and how much was received in that year?
3.	Is it the federal government's intention to increase the percentage of withholding tax beyond the present 15% ?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1. The revenue from the non-resident withholding taxes imposed by Section 106 of the Income Tax Act for fiscal years: 1959-60, $73.4 million; 1960-61, $88.2 million; 1961-62, $112.3 million; 1962-63, $129.2 million; 1963-64, $124.5 million;	1964-65, $143.7 million; 1965-66,
$170.0 miHion; 1966-67 $203.6 million; 196768, $220.5 million.
2.	In 1933 on interest and dividends only. Revenue received from this tax in fiscal year 1933-34 was $4.8 million.
3.	This is a matter of government policy. If the Government proposes any amendment to this section of the Income Tax Act it will be announced at the appropriate time.



NATIONAL PRESS COUNCIL

Mr. Yewchuk: Has the government any immediate intentions of forming a national press council?


James Edgar Walker: No.



ARDA LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE

Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	When was the ARDA Leadership Advisory Committee established?
2.	What are its terms of reference and responsibilities?
Orders for Returns
3.	To whom and when does it report?
4.	Who are the present members and by whom were they appointed?
5.	How often does it meet and when did it last meet?
6.	What expenses has it incurred?


Russell Clayton Honey: The Committee mentioned in this question is not a federal committee and any inquiries should be directed to provincial authorities.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Korchinski: 1 In each province, where were post offices constructed in 1968?
2.	What was the total revenue of each of these post offices?
3.	What other government departments are using facilities in these post offices, if any?
4.	(a) What salaries were paid to the postmasters in each of these locations (b) what grants, if any, does the federal government pay to the municipalities that are affected (c) what is the cost of maintenance at each of these post offices (d) any other costs?
5.	(a) What was the revenue of the post office at Creighton, Saskatchewan, during 1968 (b) what were the expenditures involved in maintaining the post office at Creighton?
6.	During 1969, at what localities does the department intend to construct post offices?
7.	What are the revenues of each post office?
8.	What is the total cost to the department in each location in (a) salaries (b) grants (c) maintenance (d) any other costs?
Return tabled.


FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS-ANNUAL AND HOME LEAVE
Mr. Anderson: 1.	How many foreign service officers in each grade of the service (a) have less than 1 year annual leave entitlement (b) have from one to two years annual leave entitlement (c) have more than two years annual leave entitlement?
2.	How many officers in Ottawa, who have served abroad, have not yet taken any of their home leave entitlement?
3.	How many officers in Ottawa who have served abroad have taken their entire home leave entitlement?
4.	How many officers in Ottawa who have served abroad have taken less than one-half of their home leave entitlement?

June 2, 1969
Orders for Returns
5. What are the names and posts ol the officers with the maximum home and annual leave in each grade of the service, and how many days' leave is each entitled to?
Return tabled.


JOHN B. PARKIN ASSOCIATES-CONTRACTS WITH GOVERNMENT
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	How many contracts has the Government of Canada assigned to the Architectural Firm of John B. Parkin Associates for the fiscal years 1963-64 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, and for
what purpose?
2.	For the above years (a) how many contracts were assigned on the basis of competitive tendering (b) how many were assigned without competitive tendering and for what reasons?
3.	Who is the Chairman of the Design Council of Canada and what criteria was used in the selection of this individual?
Return tabled.


TONNAGE OF GOODS HANDLED AT CERTAIN DOCKS
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): What was the tonnage of goods handled during the years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 in each of the following docks or harbours: Riviere-du-Loup (main dock), Riviere-du-Loup (river dock), Gros Cacouna, Rimouski-Est, Pointe-au-Pere, Matane, Trois-Pistoles, Cap-Chat, Sainte-Flavie, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, Mont-Louis, Marsoui, Gaspe, Sandy Beach, Chandler, Forest-ville, Baie-Comeau, Sept-Jles, Havre-Saint-Pierre, Bathurst and Dalhousie?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL REGULATIONS RESPECTING ADVERTISING
Mr. McGraih: What federal regulations now exist to (a) require approval in advance of proposed advertisements for Canadian (i) radio (ii) television (iii) newspapers (iv) other media (b) regulate in any other way the content of advertising in Canadian (i) radio (ii) television (iii) newspapers (iv) other media?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, on March 4 I put question No. 1618 on the order paper. That question has not been answered yet. Could the Minister of 
Fisheries and Forestry advise the house when we may expect an answer to the question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to investigate that. As the hon. member knows, the question requires an answer from more than one department. I will see if I can get one for him shortly.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 WATER RESOURCES NEWFOUNDLAND-POLLUTION OF PLACENTIA BAY-NATIONAL PARK-BELL ISLAND EMPLOYMENT-AIRPORT FACILITIES-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ORDER 26

Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I request leave under Standing Order 26 to move that this house do now adjourn to discuss a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the critical economic plight of the people of Newfoundland due to the failure of the responsible ministers to plan and implement remedies for the grievances caused by the phosphorous pollution of Placentia Bay and St. Mary's Bay, with the consequent loss of livelihood of the fishermen of that area as a result of the failure of the federal government to ensure that necessary precautions were taken before the plant commenced operations.
I move this motion in view of the failure of the government to enter into an agreement with Newfoundland for the establishment and development of a national park on Newfoundland's west coast which would substantially reduce the economic disparity of the region, the failure of the government to come to grips with the serious unemployment and social problems on Bell Island since the closing of the mine in 1966, the failure of the federal government to develop essential international airport facilities at Gander, thereby depriving the people of the east coast of Newfoundland from sharing in the advantages accruing from a modern international airport.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West has proposed that the business of the house be set aside for the purpose of discussing a number of problems in the province of Newfoundland. Actually my interpretation of this motion is that it is in the form of a series of grievances.
June 2, 1969

As hon. members know, the provisions of Standing Order 26 are not intended to provide additional opportunities for the purpose of discussing grievances. It seems that no useful purpose could be served by moving the adjournment of the house to consider what are essentially problems of a continuing nature, one of which, according to the hon. member, goes back to 1966.
The Standing Order applies to a sudden emergency where an immediate debate, given priority over the announced business of the house, might influence the course of immediately impending government action of a specific nature. And, according to the rules and precedents, even if there is urgency of debate, adjournment under Standing Order 26 cannot be granted if there are other opportunities for debate within a reasonable time.
On this particular point, hon. members have heard the discussion which took place earlier today on motions. They might come to the conclusion I have reached, that there will be a number of opportunities open to hon. members who may wish to debate the several grievances raised in the hon. member's proposed motion. In particular, as has been mentioned by hon. members during the short debate on the ministerial statement of the President of the Privy Council, the six-day budget debate will begin tomorrow night and should be continued within a reasonable time thereafter.
As we approach the end of the current semester provided by Standing Order 58, the actual number of remaining allotted days becomes increasingly relevant. There are still eight allotted days in the period which will lapse automatically at the end of this month by reason of the operation of Standing Order 58. We therefore have a total of 14 sitting days that can be used for such purposes between now and the end of the month.
In the circumstances, the hon. member's proposed motion cannot be considered at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Arising from the minister's statement that the
Inquiries of the Ministry proposal he made to our NATO allies was a precise response to the NATO problems, will the minister now, briefly but precisely, tell the house the proposal he made to our NATO allies, the precise reductions of forces he proposed, thereby doing what I am sure he wants to do, to treat this house with the respect he feels toward it and to which it is entitled?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to analyse the question posed by the Leader of the Opposition. First of all, he is talking of the precise response to the ministerial guidance I indicated we would be following. If he would care to read the communique I tabled he will find this particular phrase: "In particular the conventional capability, flexibility and mobility".
We are talking here of the forces that should be committed for use in NATO. The proposal I made in the name of the Canadian government was according to this ministerial guidance. Incidentally, this flows from a study made by Canadian officers which in my estimation is a prefiguration of what the forces will be in the future. I cannot be precise on numbers. I think I indicated in a press conference you can either overestimate or underestimate a force of that nature. The proposal that was made could be described as a self-contained force which would be stripped as much as possible of a ponderous administrative organization. I think we can say that what we propose would not reduce the number of bayonets, if we could call it that. It would be a force that would be flexible and would have back of it the howitzers and gun ships. This would be a brand new thing. We believe it would be very worth while and helpful to the situation in Europe.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Might I take it from the minister's answer that he did not make a definite proposal in Brussels to the NATO ministers but rather just a general statement as to the objectives? Did the minister make a definite proposal in Brussels as to the contribution Canada was prepared to make?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I made both, Mr. Speaker. I did explain the rationale of the force we proposed. I also indicated in my statement today that the proposals which we put forward would involve the conversion of the present mechanized brigade group to an air transportable combat group with helicopter support. This is very precisely in military

June 2, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry terms. Now it has to be discussed with the military committee and this is what we have started to do. I cannot be precise with respect to numbers. There has been a lot of speculation. No doubt my hon. friend is also speculating. Some speculations may be accurate. I do not know. We will find out when the discussions have been terminated.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister be definite and tell the house whether the size of the reduction proposed by Canada is yet to be determined and that this matter is still under reconsideration by the government of Canada?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: My hon. friend uses the word "reconsideration". I have used more prudent words.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You certainly have.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: What is being done now is that the general proposal made by Canada is being studied by the military committee. Of course it involves a few options. We are open to suggestions. I am not trying to conceal the facts. I am trying to be as truthful as I can. It is very difficult at this stage to indicate the numbers precisely. We should get away from the notion we must always count heads in military forces. Some changing concepts have intervened since the war in Viet Nam. We are trying to incorporate these new concepts into the kind of force we want to provide.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether the statement that the air element will be initially equipped with CF-104's implies that the Canadian proposals envisage the phase-out of the CF-104's, and the withdrawal of the air division and its replacement by reorganized air support for our mobile force?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am talking here of a three-year plan, and obviously the CF-104's will phase out by themselves after that. This is why I say the initial plan is to use the available planes, but in what configuration I cannot anticipate. It may be conventional, it may be a strike role, it may be reconnaissance, but here again this has to be determined. This is not assured yet. It is the current phase, and until consultation has determined this, we cannot indicate exactly what it will be.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Did the government proposals to the NATO allies as to the change of role

state that this mobile air transportable combat group will be conventionally rather than nuclear armed?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Of course the combat group itself would be conventionally armed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of National Defence tell us whether the federal task force which was supposed to make a study of the future of our relations with Europe and of our defence policy has considered the financial aspect of the changes contemplated by Canada?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: As far as the armed forces are concerned, certainly yes, Mr. Speaker.
The first of these considerations was to assess the budget that would be available and we proceeded from there. Naturally, every financial implication has to be considered when it comes to such a reappraisal.


André-Gilles Fortin: I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Mr. Speaker, since the financial implications have already been studied, I wonder whether the Minister of National Defence would be willing to tell the members of this house what they are so we may be in a position to appreciate the financial cost of the changes contemplated by Canada?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the changes we are contempling provide for cuts. According to our estimation, and assuming that the inflation rate is kept down to about 5 per cent, and that the strength of our forces remains unchanged, the national defence budget will have increased by about $300 million within the next three years. Thanks to the reappraisal, we may, hopefully keep to the present level, i.e., $1,814 million for all three years.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, can the minister say whether any proposals have been made by Canada as to how NATO should fill the deficit created by Canada's withdrawal or reduction of forces?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: We have not talked in terms of deficits, Mr. Speaker. I think it should be pointed out that here we are talk-
June 2, 1969



ing, for instance, of the Canadian brigade, which happens to be 6,000 strong. I know of some German brigades which are 2,100 strong. This is a question of definition and of role, and obviously in an integrated function all these factors will have to be considered.
I should also bring out the fact, since my hon. friend has underlined the two statements, the one in Washington and the one in Brussels, to which we subscribe, that it was mentioned that we favoured no over-all reduction in NATO strength. The important word here is "over-all", and I think that Canada by subscribing to a new formula is not necessarily reducing its commitment or the over-all strength of the alliance.


John Angus MacLean: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the minister explain to the house the nature of the objections, which we understand were quite strenuous, from his counterparts in the allied countries?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, Mr. Speaker I can be quite frank on that. They are mostly on questions of procedure. They want to be consulted throughout the whole series and levels of prescribed consultations, and we agreed to this. The policy itself, which flowed from the statement of the Prime Minister on April 3, is not questioned. We have a right to decide what we are going to contribute to the forces, but we have to go through the normal process of consultation.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he put before the defence ministers of our NATO allies a timed or phased program for the reduction of our forces in Europe and tell them when these reductions are supposed to start?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I did put before them what I would call a tentative plan in order to inform them of the magnitude, the scope of the reduction, and how we wanted to go about it. Of course, in the whole operation there was a phase-out and a phase-in, a phase-out of the old operation and a phase-in of the new operation. Naturally these things were submitted for the purpose of discussion, because we never showed ourselves inflexible so far as timing and so far as roles were concerned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the minister answer the second part of the question as to when these reductions in strength are supposed to
Inquiries of the Ministry start according to the plans of the government?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The original suggestion was that they would start in 1970, but we did not indicate in what precise month. They are to take place in stages, but they would start in 1970 and be completed by 1972.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasi-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the minister. At one of his several press conferences he refused to deny the American assertion that Canada intends to reduce its NATO strength by between two-thirds and four-fifths. Obviously the minister gave some figures to the NATO conference to discuss, and the NATO authorities are discussing them now. Would he be equally frank with the House of Commons and give us the figures that he gave the conference of NATO ministers?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I refused to deny that assertion. I said that so far as the reduction in numbers was concerned this could not be determined right away because, of course, that would be decided in consultation with the military authorities of NATO itself. It would be very hard to discuss the striking power or effectiveness of our contribution before we know what the force is going to be, and therefore again this is a speculative assumption and I cannot subscribe to it. I think I did indicate that anybody saying that now would know more than we know ourselves.


George Harris Hees: Was not the principal reason for the pretty universal anger among our NATO allies-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest to the hon. member that his supplementary as phrased will be or is argumentative, and perhaps he might rephrase it.


George Harris Hees: I would be very glad to do so, Mr. Speaker. Was it not that the government of Canada made it very clear to our NATO allies that in future Canada intended to defend the peace to the last American, Englishman or any other NATO ally into whose lap it could dump its responsibilities in the future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

June 2, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
With regard to the federal task force entrusted with a review of Canadian policy as a whole, would the Prime Minister tell us whether the government intends to publish a White Paper on the results of such a review to be made available to all members of this house or whether he will make a summary statement?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I realize that I directed my question to the wrong person. I shall ask the same question of the minister who wishes to answer it, that is the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention to publish a White Paper or to make a statement in the house with regard to the findings of the federal task force that made a review of the whole NATO question?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the question should be directed to the Prime Minister.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
I am refused an answer to my question, and yet it is a very simple one.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister, to whom, according to the Minister of National Defence, my question should be directed, if the government intends to make a statement or to publish a White Paper in connection with the findings of the federal task force-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking the same question for the third time, after raising the question of privilege. I must remind him that the rules are very clear in this connection and that the minister's refusal to reply to an inquiry cannot become a question of privilege.


Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have two brief questions for the minister. In his discussions in Europe was the question of the maritime role in connection with NATO discussed and, if so, what was the conclusion? Second, will the minister undertake to give some indication to the house before we recess for the summer of what the effect of the defence review will be on maritime command?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this matter was raised. I was asked the question whether we would co-operate with SA-CLANT, to which I answered yes, of course. In respect of the second part of the question, I am a little embarrassed because I did indicate today that I have found that the procedures are more involved that I anticipated. I will take every opportunity to make a progress report but it is very hard for me to indicate exactly when I can. I understand the concern of my hon. friend and of the members of the forces themselves. As soon as we can we will spell out and unfold the plan that has been agreed to.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps before I permit the hon. member to ask a supplementary question I should bring to the attention of hon. members that we have spent a good portion of the question period on this very important matter. It may be the wish of hon. members that the Chair allow hon. members to ask questions on other subjects and that additional supplementaries be continued later if there is time, or tomorrow. For the moment the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he advised his ministerial colleagues in Brussels that when the defection of Canada inevitably precipitates other reductions by other countries the Canadian government will regard with equanimity the very substantial increase in the West German military establishment and increased reliance on nuclear power which will result from these facts?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I must say that the question of my hon. friend is based on a complete misconception of what I proposed to my colleagues in NATO.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of press announcements that the premier of Quebec is proposing to introduce legislation which will permit him to take a referendum of the people of Quebec with regard to staying in confederation, is the government looking into this matter to see whether or not such legislation would be intra vires and whether any
June 2, 1969

province has the power to pass legislation by which, by referendum, it could opt out of confederation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are looking into the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime
Minister be prepared to acquaint the house with the decision reached by the government when it has looked into the constitutionality of this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, it would depend on the circumstances. At this stage I do not know whether Mr. Bertrand's statement is more than a hypothesis. If it becomes real, of course we may have to act on whatever conclusions we have reached.



WHEAT-ACREAGE PAYMENT IN COMPENSATION FOR LIMITATION OF EXPORTS

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he received a telegram from the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities concerning the fact that a declaration has been made that a five bushel quota will be the total amount any farmer can expect to sell and that 315 million bushels will be the limit on exports this year? Would he say, in answer to their request, whether the government, in order to meet what is described as a discouraging outlook, will support the request of this association that the western grain farmers receive an acreage payment of $2 per acre?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture, who was in the house until a few moments ago, is at present meeting with the ministers of agriculture from, I believe, six provinces who are in Ottawa today. It is possible he has received these representations; I have not.


John George Diefenbaker: Then, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the President of the Privy Council this question. In view of the fact that in the outline he gave concerning what the government considers should be done between now and June 27 no reference was made to any assistance or legislation on behalf of western farmers to meet the situation described by the Saskatchewan Association of Rural
Inquiries of the Ministry Municipalities as dangerous, does this mean that the government has forgotten the western farmer and the terrible situation on the prairies today?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister indicated, the Minister of Agriculture is meeting with provincial representatives. Of course, if on his advice the government should decide that legislation could be brought forward at a later date which would assist the situation, the statement I made earlier would be amended accordingly.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Can he tell us whether he was invited by the JOC-Jeunesse ouvriere catholique (Young Catholic Workers)-to participate in "Car-refour '69" (Crossroads 69) last week-end?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt that the question is in order. The hon. member is alluding to an invitation to a meeting which has already been held. I doubt that the question is in order, but if I do not interpret it correctly, the hon. member might perhaps put it again.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I myself participated in this important event which brought together representatives of several groups of young people; they all wondered whether the invitation had reached its destination.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see I interpreted the question correctly. It should be put on the order paper.



IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
ADMISSION TO CANADA OF U.S. DESERTERS Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has there been any reaction from representatives of the United States government to the decision of the Canadian government to allow deserters from the United States armed forces to enter Canada on the same basis as all other immigrants? These deserters are reportedly receiving special consideration with regard to processing of applications.
[Stage Direction]
June 2, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Milchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate fox External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, if any such representations have been made they have not been made to me.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of National Defence a supplementary question. Are Canadian servicemen who are deserters or who are A.W.O.L. still subject to the same disciplinary action?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: There is no change in our regulations, Mr. Speaker.


Donald MacInnis: Has the defence secretary of the United States discussed with the minister the red carpet treatment being given to these criminal deserters from the United States?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker.


Donald MacInnis: Then I would ask the new high priest of peace whether he realizes that his own Canadian government retains the death penalty for Canadian deserters?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Fundy-Royal.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a similarly straightforward question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Canada extended diplomatic recognition to the new government of Sudan and, if not, what are the government's plans in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker; the matter is still under consideration.


ACCEPTANCE BY CANADA OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the result of the NATO conference just completed, is it the view of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that in future Canada's opinions will be accorded any weight at international meetings in view of 
the fact we made it very clear that we are not willing to undertake or live up to our international obligations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone in this house should suggest that Canada has at any time not lived up to her international obligations. I think we have lived up to them, perhaps even more faithfully than any other member of the NATO community.


George Harris Hees: That may have been true up until now, but in view of what the minister has said, will he advise the house if passing the buck and welshing on obligations has now become acceptable in international circles?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF SITUATION ON PRAIRIES
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and in view of the representations by the Federation of Agriculture and the Association of Rural Municipalities, is the government giving urgent consideration to the situation that exists in western Canada and may we hope for some report before the house rises?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we answered a question on that subject a moment ago.


EXPROPRIATION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in reference to the recent announcement of expropriation by the dominion government of 1,800 acres of land in Prince Edward Island, indeed in my own constituency, a process described as highly unusual and high-handed by the Attorney General of our province. Will the minister give assurance that this matter will be fully investigated in the compassionate spirit of the press release which accompanied the introduction of the new expropriation bill?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: certainly will, Mr. Speaker.
June 2, 1969


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Labour in relation to a matter I directed to his attention a few days ago. In order to refresh his memory may I say that my question has to do with the takeover of the International Brotherhood of Railways and Steamship Clerks, or the merger of that union with the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers. I have been looking forward to the minister's answer, particularly because of our concern for democracy and the maintenance of Canadian unions. Has the minister anything to say in respect of this situation?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have received certain letters from members of the C.B. of R.T. complaining that they have had little or no opportunity to express an opinion on this matter at the local level, or no opportunity to instruct delegates to the convention. I can only suggest to the unions involved in respect of the position they take regarding the rights of their members, that they should look at page 151 of the Woods task force report, with reference to the recommendations that a Bill of Rights, be established for the average union member, in order that he may participate fully in union affairs.


FISHERIES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry whether he is aware that last Saturday night in Saint John, New Brunswick, a new organization was formed entitled "The International Organization for Animal Welfare", whose aims and objectives are the abolition of the sealing industry in Canada and which will be financed from abroad even though the organization will be based in Canada. If so, will the minister take steps to prevent the further propagation and dissemination of false and misleading advertising which will hurt further Canada's reputation abroad, and the sealing industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order, in that it should not have been followed by a speech.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to take the question as notice and will answer later.
Inquiries of the Ministry RESTRICTIONS IN SAINT JOHN HARBOUR AND BAY OF FUNDY


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he received a report on the meeting held in Saint John between his officials and fishermen in respect of the severe salmon fishing restrictions in that harbour, and is the minister prepared now or will he undertake later to give an indication of some relief following this very helpful and optimistic meeting?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there have been meetings, as the hon. member has mentioned.
I have not been satisfied with the relations between some of our people and the fishermen. But the situation is serious and drastic action has been called for.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister give an undertaking to make a report this week on the result of these meetings before the season reaches a stage where relief would not be possible even if it were desirable?


John (Jack) Davis: I would be glad to consider it, Mr. Speaker.


WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilion-Wentworih):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Will he investigate the dangerous pollution crisis which is causing the death of fish and the destruction of beach lands as a result of the operations of the Scott Paper Company at New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, which ought to be inspected by the Nova Scotia government, which has failed to do so?


NEWFOUNDLAND-POLLUTION AT LONG HARBOUR-APPROVAL FOR ELECTRIC REDUCTION COMPANY PLANT
Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry whether the Newfoundland government requested any approval from his department or the federal government in respect of the establishment of the Electric Reduction Company plant at Long Harbour?


John (Jack) Davis: The correspondence to which the hon. member refers occurred about two years ago, Mr. Speaker.

June 2, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Carter:	Mr. Speaker, perhaps the
minister could refresh his memory. Can he tell the house whether the federal government received a report from the Bedford Institution of Oceanography wherein he was informed that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is referring to correspondence which took place some time ago. If he wants to refer to correspondence, I believe the way to do it is by a motion for the production of papers.


Walter C. Carter: Let me refresh the minister's memory. Is he aware of a statement made in Newfoundland last Wednesday by the premier of that province in which he said that the federal government was responsible for the pollution? I am wondering whether the Department of Fisheries and the federal government have now accepted responsibility, and what steps they are taking to compensate the fishermen who have been affected by this pollution problem?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, it has been established that the company producing phosphorous is responsible for the pollution. The federal government is compensating the fishermen in the area at the present time for their loss of income.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in relation to my supplementary question I should like to ask the minister whether he is aware of the answer given in the house last Friday by his parliamentary secretary? In view of this pollution and the fact that the compensation to the fishermen is inadequate in the opinion of the fishermen, and in view of the fact that the minister's parliamentary secretary accepted full responsibility regarding this matter, will the minister say whether the government is now prepared to compensate justly the fishermen of Newfoundland?


POLLUTION BY D.D.T. OF INLAND FISHERY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is perhaps a related one. About a week and a half ago I directed a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the possibility of government tests in respect of inland waters and the effect of d.d.t. poisoning on fish. The minister said that this matter was perhaps the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries. I should like now to direct this 
question to the Minister of Fisheries. Is he in a position to make a statement now in this regard?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, an investigation is going on at this time. Perhaps I will be able to make a statement later.


CANADIAN CONFEDERATION
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon the Prime Minister was asked a question regarding a referendum in the province of Quebec on the subject of separation. His answer was somewhat uncertain. I do not say that critically, but I should like to ask him whether it is not a fact that there is no right on the part of the federal government to say to any province that it may not proceed to conduct a referendum, as long as it does not go beyond that in endeavouring to carry the results of the referendum into effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a good question, Mr. Speaker. As I answered the previous question, it is this type of problem we are now studying. This involves a constitutional matter and is one in respect of which I cannot come up with an offhand answer.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker,. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether Canada has made representations to the governments of other NATO countries asking them to follow Canada's intention and begin to reduce their own forces in NATO?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the government to make such representations to the governments of the NATO countries?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker, except through the disarmament conference.
June 2, 1969


POSSIBILITY OF REDUCED FUNDS CAUSING
Mr. Roberl McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether the formula of the current dollar level for the defence budget means that manpower will be laid off because of inflation and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that the question as asked is-


Robert Jardine McCleave: It was not asked in that way.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think it was not asked in an acceptable form in that it gives the impression of being argumentative.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am simply asking whether as a result of the current dollar level the axe will fall on weaponry programs or on the men and women employed by the Department of National Defence. This question is of serious concern to my area and I think it should be answered.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, if I may try to answer that question, which I would call hypothetical, I might say it is obvious that the effect of a fixed budget for three years in a period of escalation might possibly result in some erosion. Of course, it is our hope that if this happens it well happen through normal attrition and not through forced attrition.


NATO-POSSIBLE CHANGE IN CANADIAN PROPOSAL AT BRUSSELS RESPECTING PHASED REDUCTION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. I understood from his statement that certain proposals of Canada with respect to a phased reduction of its military forces in Europe are now under discussion by the military section of NATO. Are these the proposals which the minister first placed before his colleagues at Brussels, or has there been some change in the proposals as a result of the meeting last week?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: There was no change, Mr. Speaker. These are the proposals and the concept that I advanced at the NATO meeting.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Roughly, what is the timetable that
Inquiries of the Ministry we may expect? How soon will the minister be able to tell the house what definite decision has been reached with respect to a reduction of our European forces and when this will come into effect?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I think I did indicate a moment ago that unfortunately I am not in a position-and I am trying to be as honest as possible, like always-to indicate when it would be possible for me really to unravel the plan that we have submitted or the one that would be suggested or accepted. This depends on the nature of the negotiations that are going on. As I indicated, these have to go on at different levels and it may take some time before they reach the ministerial level. I have always pinned my hope on the fact that I could before the recess do something about it, but I am afraid I will have to disappoint my hon. friend. This is, unfortunately, the situation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of National Defence accept my condolences for serving as Minister of National Defence and attempting to carry out the instructions which the government is trying to work out for this country?


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
INDUSTRIAL INCENTIVES BILI___REQUEST FOR

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. Will the minister give the house the assurance that Bill C-202, the industrial incentives bill, will be called before the house recesses for the summer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will understand, this very much depends upon the progress made generally in respect of the business of the house. It is, as indicated, the wish of the government that it should receive early treatment.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether he will make a statement on motions tomorrow in response to suggestions made by hon. members for an interim, short term, crash program for the province of Newfoundland in lieu of a long term program, and whether this short term program would fit logically into his long term program which has not yet been announced?

June 2, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend making a statement on motions on this matter.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister say whether he is prepared to leave off the Tom Sawyer philosophy and take one of the coats of paint off all the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Postmaster General. Can the minister say when the new postal regulations went into effect which prevent postal patrons from purchasing six-cent postal cards in less than 100-lot quantities?


Eric William Kierans: There are no such regulations, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel the question should be placed on the order paper.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think this question is of some urgency. I have evidence of certain patrons visiting post offices and being asked to buy postal cards in lots of not less than 100. Perhaps I may have Your Honour's indulgence to ask the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the fact that the question period has terminated, perhaps the Postmaster General might want to reply to the question on government time.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will send me his evidence I will certainly look into it.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau 
that Bill C-192, to amend the National Housing Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, when you called it four o'clock last Friday, I was saying that the government was not serious in the least and had no intention whatever of truly helping Canadians in the low income bracket to become home owners or even to acquire one day adequate housing which they can afford.
In my opinion, Bill C-192 is not designed to help the Canadian people. The only trust it is meant to help is, I believe, the profiteering trust which, for the last three years, has increased the interest rate on mortgage loans.
The cost of building materials has never been as high as it is today, lots have never been so dear, the interest rate has never been so prohibitive, the direct and indirect tax on building materials has never been so heavy. School and civic taxes on lots and houses have never been so high.
And how does Bill C-192 propose to correct the situation? To extend the reimbursement period for the loans, in some cases up to 40 years! Mr. Speaker, that is to care not at all about the Canadian people, especially about those in need of houses or dwellings. If the government does not try to reduce the interest rate and the price of land so that housing construction might be possible, if it does not reduce the price of building materials, if it does not assist municipalities with their residential development, if it does not abolish the tax on building materials, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-192 is nothing but a monstrous "fake" and mere window-dressing to fool those who are not at all conversant with finance. In fact, for those who know something about finance, it is a monumental farce.
If the Canadian people were aware of these facts and of the double play indulged in by politicians who spout high sounding words like "the just society" but who are, in fact the slaves of high finance, I say that in no time at all they would send home those politicians who are unable to give them the results they want.
We members of the Ralliement creditiste intend to continue to expose the injustices of our present society and the submission of people to the whims of high finance.


Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity
June 2, 1969

to congratulate the minister on his appointment as minister in charge of reporting for the crown corporation, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. At this time I would like to thank the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) for his hard work over the years and his deep concern for the working people of this great nation regarding their housing problems.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The riding of London East is comprised of part of the old city of London and the new part which was annexed a few years ago. The people in the offices and factories of our great city are hard workers, and they take great pride in the development of their city. Many have bought homes in the new subdivisions and many others are patiently waiting for their turn. This bill, I hope, will fulfil all of their dreams.
I consider Bill C-192 to be one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come before this new parliament. This bill reaches the very heart of many problems facing the people of this nation. Every Canadian family should be entitled to a home, if they desire one, as a basic, human right. We have been told that the average wage earners in the $5,000 to $7,500 range, who in most cases do not qualify for public housing assistance, should not have to seek such assistance in any case. With the present general level of living costs and with single family dwelling prices what they are, the home ownership dream of many of our Canadian families is just that-a dream.
I ask all hon. members to look at these figures of $5,000 to $7,500. They work out to an average weekly wage of a little over $96 up to over $144. How many working Canadians make these wages? Approximately 1,663,120 people do. What happened to the old concept of some years ago according to which we were told that the guideline should be one week's wage for one month's rent or one month's mortgage payment? That was all the home seeker could afford without going into debt. The only time this theory works is when one applies for a mortgage and is told, "But you do not make enough money." Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with our system when the average Canadian cannot afford to buy a home that eventually he can call his own. Somebody is making a lot of money, and it is certainly not the average Canadian.
National Housing Act
In view of the desire of most people to own their own homes, and also in view of the high cost of housing, it is clear that there is no one solution to the housing problem. Since the cost of housing is affected by many factors such as the cost of land, the cost of material, the cost of labour, and the cost of financing, it would require a substantial reduction in the cost of these factors before a significant solution could be found to our housing problem. Unfortunately, a close analysis of these facts soon reveals that little can be done to reduce costs. A reduction of approximately $5,000 would be required before the average wage earner could begin to consider buying a home.
It is obvious that some measures can be taken to account for a small portion of this sum. For example, an end to land speculation might account for perhaps $1,000, depending on the area and the availability of land. Reducing the interest rate might result in a large long term saving, but the monthly payment would be reduced only slightly. However, a lower interest rate would affect very little the selling price of the house or the down payment on it. On the other hand, a lower interest rate might reduce moneys available for housing. The cost of materials could also be reduced by the reduction or removal of the taxes imposed upon materials, but the government must then find other means of raising revenue lost by such action. In analysing the last factor in the high cost of housing, the cost of labour, one need only look at the trend in the construction industry to see that a reduction in the cost of labour is impossible. If the steps I have outlined are taken, the reduction in the cost of housing would still not approach the $5,000 figure required. Therefore some other method is required to reduce the costs further.
One method would be low cost housing, the use of new techniques to reduce the amount of outside labour required, as well as the reduction, where possible, of the amount of material required, and the replacement of some costly materials with less expensive but otherwise adequate types. This method, however, is not permitted in some areas because of building codes which are outdated and pertain to antiquated construction methods.
A complete revision of the national building code with an eye to the future would help to reduce the cost of housing, especially in respect of floor area requirements. The national building code of Canada, in my opinion, is the only existing code which has any

June 2, 1969
National Housing Act
chance of universal acceptance. It should be constantly updated and applied from east to west across this great land of ours, with no exceptions. The manufacturers of building materials could then achieve the lowest possible cost, because their production runs could be put on a year-round basis and common articles could be mass produced. Designers of buildings waste many man hours redesigning structures to suit the requirements of the individual communities in which they are built. The designer must spend hours studying in detail the building regulations of each community in order to be sure that his building will conform to local requirements. A standard national building code would eliminate these wasted man hours.
The processing of raw acreage lands into registered building lots, with paved roads and sidewalks, is an important part of house construction. This phase of construction is one of the most troublesome problems for house builders. Speculation, delay due to red tape, and excessive demands for subdivision services have all added to the increase in the cost of building lots and have slowed the development of houses in many areas. Municipalities should extend services quickly enough to put into use a number of serviced lots in excess of demand. They should speed up new zoning laws, and enter into agreements with honest land developers in order to hasten the drawing up of new plans for subdivisions. The availability of plenty of serviced land would bring about a reduction in basic land costs of between $500 to $2,000 per lot, depending on the area.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I think we should take off our hats to the residential construction industry as it exists in Canada today because construction costs have risen less than the cost of most other commodities. Only an efficient industry could have done that. Most builders now make extensive use of many articles that are precut, prepainted and finished in a factory before they are delivered to the job.
In the ridings of London East, London West and Middlesex, there are hundreds of acres of raw land. If the three levels of government moved together and eliminated the red tape and excessive land profiteering, and if private enterprise were permitted to construct housing through programs unhindered by lack of serviced land, we could soon put all our people into homes they could afford.
People should be allowed to choose whether they wish to live in high-rise apartments or

homes with small lots at rentals or mortgage payments equal to the wage they earn. We should have new subdivisions with new homes for people to move into before we allow older homes to be torn down in any building renewal scheme. If it is feasible to renovate the older homes, then the provinces or cities should take it upon themselves to do this.
The new housing legislation introduced by this government will go a long way toward helping to cure our housing problems if all levels of government, together with the building industry and labour, co-operate in the interests of all Canadians.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, other members of the official opposition have dealt with various aspects of the proposed amendments to the National Housing Act and of the speech made by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) in charge of housing. Today I just want to emphasize two or three points, and I hope I will not be too long.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
First of all, I would like to say to the minister that by removing the freeze on public housing projects and by redirecting a greater part of the C.M.H.C. budget toward low income housing, I think he is demonstrating a sincere concern for the housing needs of Canadians with low incomes. I think he has also demonstrated his view that the freeze was probably a mistake in the first place. I compliment him on taking this step. We in our party support him in this action and we encourage him to do much more in this regard. Three-quarters of the wage-earners of this country have incomes of less than $5,000 a year. I understand that as many Canadian workers earn less than $4,000 as make more than that amount. Canadians with small incomes have two separate types of housing problems. The first, of course, is bad housing, often made worse by overcrowding. This accommodation ranges from places where the roof is falling in to places where there is no plumbing. Housing of this type is still a serious and widespread concern.
The second problem is, of course, that of high rents and prices. Housing experts agree that a family should not spend more than 20 per cent of its income on shelter. For a family which earns $3,000 a year this means $50 a month. Even if it is held that a family may spend 25 per cent of its income on shelter it amounts to something like $60 a month. But
June 2, 1969

very few Canadians can find any housing or, at least, good housing, at this price. The result is, of course, that many thousands of Canadians living on low incomes pay a much higher proportion of those incomes for housing than is proper.
Each of these problems is bad enough in itself, but the two are often combined-bad housing and high prices. In human terms, the price is one which Canada cannot afford. This is why the modest effort presented to the house by the minister will receive our support and why we insist that much more must be done.
The proposed amendment to section 35C will be useful in connection with the land assembly program as well as for public housing and residential development. It is all to the good. I notice that the minister, in order to get the loans for this land assembly program going, is consulting with the provinces-at least, that is my understanding. I say this is right. It should have been done at the outset when the task force began its operations. I emphasize the need for speedy action. Programs involving land assembly take time before becoming effective and this one should have been under way long since. It should have been in high gear by this time.
As the operation of supply and demand continues, land prices continue to spiral. The results are all too clear for us to see. While over-all housing costs rose by 80 per cent between 1961 and 1968, the price of serviced land increased by 240 per cent. This is why we in our party have for some time placed emphasis on the need for the federal government to involve itself in a land bank program even though many supporters of the party opposite described this during the election campaign as socialism. I must stress how far short the minister's program falls of what is required in connection with housing in Canada today. I want, for the good of the country, indeed for the sake of the very unity of the country, to force this government to understand that the need for housing is in many cases critical and desperate and to come to terms with the long range underlying economic factors which have produced this crisis in housing affecting Canadians with low incomes.
Housing cannot be considered in isolation. It must be considered in relation to broader economic programs. Obviously, inflation has a great bearing on the difficulties which many experience in connection with housing. Continued inflation imposes a particularly serious 29180-591
National Housing Act
burden on Canadians receiving lower incomes. I must once again describe the efforts of this government to combat inflation as halfhearted and ineffective. There is no need for me to elaborate. It is sufficient to say that the only program so far adopted by the government to fight inflation has been the establishment of a prices and incomes commission recommended, after many months of delay, in December. The chairman of this commission was appointed only this month and as far as we know the balance of the commission has yet to be appointed.
An adequate housing program must be integrated with an effective anti-poverty program. The Economic Council has documented the incidence of poverty in Canada. Yet the government abandoned the war against poverty even before it was begun; any machinery which had been set up to co-ordinate an effective approach was dismantled despite the fact the Economic Council had called on the government of Canada to accept the challenge of poverty in the nation and to meet with the provinces for the purpose of mapping out an integrated attack. As far as we can see, nothing has been done in this regard.
Then, of course, in addition to general economic programs, the control of inflation and an effective integrated anti-poverty program, policies related to environment are obviously essential in carrying out a housing program on any scale. The minister talks about pollution but little action is taken, and I am sure there is no effective organization within the government to develop, let alone carry out, effective, co-ordinated programs or to provide leadership in this country in the battle against pollution. Indeed, if one looks at the over-all housing policy, if one considers the attitude of the government toward inflation, if one considers the lack of any organized attack upon poverty, one is impressed only by the chaos which exists in government planning. In fact, I would say that the chaos in this field is almost as bad as the chaos which has developed in the area of national defence.
The proposals of the government as put forward by the minister are halfhearted. Why was it necessary for the people of Canada to wait a whole year for this little program which is now being proposed? Why should the people looking for housing, the people experiencing housing difficulties, have to wait a whole year for the government to come forward with these inadequate proposals? I suggest part of the reason is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has a constitutional hang-up. And part of the reason is that he

June 2, 1969
National Housing Act
does not believe that housing represents much of a problem for Canadians.
I have a good deal of sympathy for the position taken by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) when he said last week: "I cannot understand for the life of me how we got into a constitutional question with regard to housing." The hon. member's real difficulty lies in understanding the Prime Minister, and I do not blame him for that. One day the Prime Minister says that under the constitution as it stands we are unable to attack problems of housing and pollution on any level of government. Speaking in the House of Commons on February 14 last the Prime Minister, in referring to the challenge of pollution and difficulties in the area of housing said, as reported at page 5524 of Hansard:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This challenge of pollution of our rivers and lakes, of our farmlands and forests and of the very air we breathe, cannot be met effectively in our federal state without some constitutional reform or clarification. It is important that we know which level of government is responsible and, if both, In what way they are ready to co-operate through the use of the spending power and other devices to permit these problems to be tackled properly.
I believe this is true of many other problems which are sometimes brought to the attention of this house, problems such as urban renewal of housing and urban transport. These problems cannot be dealt with properly because the present constitution is either silent or vague about the level of government which has the legal competence to tackle them. Until the constitution is brought into the 20th century in some of these respects, governments are to a large degree powerless to solve the problems either by acting alone or in co-operation with other levels of government.
On February 14, therefore, the Prime Minister expressed a viewpoint about certain constitutional difficulties. The former minister of transport believed that the Prime Minister held those views. On the one hand, the Prime Minister said that under our present constitution no level of government, alone or in cooperation with other levels, can do an adequate job with housing and urban problems. On the other hand, on the day the former minister of transport resigned his portfolio the Prime Minister said:
But the history of these facts will demonstrate that we took this position from the start, that most of the fundamental issues in this country could be settled under the present constitution through co-operation between the federal government and the provinces.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it possible to take seriously a Prime Minister who says in February that certain problems cannot be resolved until there is a constitutional change

and who says immediately after a minister resigns that, after all, these problems can be solved under the present constitution through co-operation? I ask the real Prime Minister of this country to stand up. It is difficult for us to know which of these views he holds.
The Prime Minister may have important views affecting our ability to solve certain problems under the existing constitution. Nevertheless I must say emphatically that we cannot wait for constitutional reforms before making a serious attack on housing and other problems. Having read his remarks I have concluded that fundamentally the Prime Minister does not believe the solution of this problem is important. Neither does he believe that the problem of housing is urgent in Canada. As a result the government has dragged its feet for the past year and used constitutional difficulties as an excuse.
When the former deputy prime minister of this country who was in charge of housing resigned, what happened? There was a little flurry of activity which led to no effective organization of planning procedures. There has been no effective move to co-ordinate and develop housing programs and relate those programs to other valid programs dealing with poverty in Canada. Therefore the program the minister has introduced appears to be simply a reaction to his predecessor's resignation.
I say emphatically to my colleagues in the house that it is our duty to keep the heat on the minister and the government. The government not only must move forward with the type of housing program we need but it must also establish machinery that will deal with other programs related to the areas of pollution, poverty or what have you. It must establish effective programs that will deal with housing needs and with other related needs of the people. Unless heat is applied to the minister and the government the fear brought on by the resignation of the former deputy prime minister will quickly evaporate.
Our problems must be attacked effectively. We have suggested that planning ought to be brought under the authority of a department of housing and urban affairs which would coordinate research and planning and give leadership in developing policy in this field. Someone may have a better idea than this. The government may have something better in mind. If so, it ought to bring it forward. Certainly, sir, giving limited responsibility to a Minister without Portfolio, earnest though he may be, just will not do. Certainly any
June 2, 1969



authority C.M.H.C. may have will not prove adequate for the job that is to be done.
As I say, we are at present considering the government's reaction to a fright resulting from the resignation of a minister. We are not dealing seriously with a co-ordinated attack on housing problems and other related problems in this country. When one considers how little is being done in this measure to help low income Canadians obtain decent homes, one can come to no other conclusion. Certainly something is being done about public housing, but what do the minister's proposals mean for the hundreds of thousands of Canadian families not eligible for low income housing? Those families have incomes of not more than $8000 or $9000 a year. They must earn more if they are to afford a home financed under the provisions of the National Housing Act. I ask, in what way do the minister's proposals assist those hundreds of thousands of Canadians? For those people this measure surely is a mockery.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is a mockery, sir.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The difficulties of those families have been increased by rampaging inflation. We urged the government, as an interim measure to curb inflation, to consider setting up guidelines in co-operation with industry and labour. But the government has done nothing, sir-nothing. It has not even completed appointing the commission that was recommended in the white paper months and months and months ago.
The report of the Task Force on Housing recommended that the government give relief to our people by abolishing the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials which Liberal predecessors of hon. gentlemen opposite imposed four years ago. The money raised through this tax could be raised in other, fairer ways, which would impose a lesser burden on our Canadian families.
When one considers present interest rates which are making it very difficult for many Canadian families to acquire a home, high interest payments making houses expensive to carry and apartments expensive to rent, one must conclude that neither the minister nor the government are doing anything to bring those rates down. I say, sir, if you cannot help our people, at least you should 29180-5911
National Housing Act
not increase the burden on the ordinary Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What government having at heart the best interests of the Canadian householder would seriously consider at this time removing the interest ceiling on C.M.H.C. mortgages and abolishing the maximum differential permitted between long term government of Canada interest rates and the maximum that may be received with respect to mortgages? I am referring to government guaranteed loans in connection with housing. What government thinking of the ordinary Canadian would consider doing this when we see increasing indications that money is to be in short supply and that there is to be competition for available dollars? There is every indication that interest rates will rise further. Indeed, rates have been rising so steadily that one can take increased rates almost for granted. Cur expectations in this regard are fortified by predictions.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I know that orthodox finance is in favour of taking off the ceiling. I say that orthodox finance is not always right. If the government takes the position it is necessary to remove the ceiling in order to get more money into housing, that at least is an honest position, although it would probably result in people paying higher interest rates. But for the government of Canada to put forward this proposal and seriously suggest at this time, in view of the current and anticipated conditions in the money markets, that removing the interest ceiling will lower interest rates on C.M.H.C. loans is pure folly. If the government cannot do something to help poor Canadians, for goodness sake do not make things worse.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) and at the same time commiserate with him. I congratulate him because I think he has assumed extremely important functions. I believe this government will be judged by its performance in the field of housing. I want to commiserate with him because I have a feeling that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) are not prepared to consider housing with that high degree of priority that is essential to success in coping with the problem.

June 2, 1969
National Housing Act
I was encouraged, however, by the frequent references in the minister's speech to his particular concern for low income groups. It was, he said, the poor, the aged and the handicapped in search of decent shelter that he sought to assist. He is absolutely right These are the people who need his assistance. I hope the minister realizes what a revolutionary change this whole concept is that he announced. The whole thrust of Canadian government policy in the housing field has been in the direction of encouraging building for the upper income levels in the vain expectation that the benefits would eventually trickle down to those in desparate need of shelter. This philosophy needs to be reversed. I hope the minister will reverse it. I find comparatively little in the present legislation to support this theory despite the decision the minister has made, but nevertheless I look forward to helping and encouraging him in any way possible to see that those who are in desperate need are the ones who are assisted by the government.
Housing, as the minister and anyone who has looked into it knows, has a great many facets. I propose to deal with one aspect only. It is an aspect that is frequently ignored and neglected in government intervention in the housing field. I refer to the importance of federal assistance and encouragement in maintaining the existing stock of housing. What sense does it make to achieve targets of new construction and to proceed to urban renewal demolition and redevelopment if blight and decay are to reduce the usable stock of older housing through the lack of incentive and lack of effort to maintain that stock? For every person concerned with the problem of acquiring new housing, there are ten faced with the problem of repairing and renewing the housing they already live in.
Before I get down to the discussion of this problem and what I suggest should be done about it, I would like to state a general philosophy on the subject of housing. Housing is not simply a commodity to be provided like goods and services. It is also more than a necessity to be made available through charity. Housing is a basic element in our social existence. Its provision and quality are a major concern of public policy. Several members on the government side of the house have raised doubts as to the constitutional responsibility of the federal government for housing. I was happy to note that the minister himself made no such reference in his speech.

Administration of housing is a local and municipal matter. It is true it comes under provincial jurisdiction in our constitutional scheme. I suggest that the federal government has by virtue of its taxing and spending powers under the constitution a constitutional power and therefore a constitutional authority and duty to aid in the financing and provision of housing and to give leadership in this field.
I believe housing is a vital ingredient in the development of the quality of life of the Canadian people. It is central to the nation's economic and social evolution. Canadians will insist that the federal government tackle vigorously what has been justly called the housing crisis. This crisis is the product of many years of neglect. It will not be cured overnight. It will require many years of cooperative effort to find solutions.
However, as I have said, I want to deal with one particular aspect of housing, namely, government action to relieve the burden of home owners and enable them without undue difficulty to maintain and indeed improve the standard of housing they now have. My constituency is a typical middle and low income residential area. There are thousands of older homes which were built at the end of the last century or the beginning of this century. Many of them are 50 to 70 years old. I wish to state emphatically they do not constitute a slum. Generally speaking they are not substandard or decayed. They do not qualify for nor do they need urban redevelopment schemes. They are in attractive surroundings, well serviced with schools and other facilities. The people who live there are small home owners, many of them living on pensions or small wages. Their homes are a cherished possession. They do not wish to move, and they certainly do not wish to be the subject of an urban renewal scheme.
As the tax rate constantly increases, the prices of services such as heating rise. When they are faced with the necessity of repairs or the desire to make improvements to their homes, they do not have the financial ability to borrow from financial institutions nor the capital to proceed on their own. As I will explain later, the existing legislation is of no help to them. The municipalities have the responsibility of trying to enforce housing standards so as to prevent deterioration. They find it difficult to do so when no adequate financial aid to rehabilitation is available.
In a recent review of the task force report published by a committee of the Social Planning Council of Toronto, it was said that the
June 2, 1969

enforcement of minimum standards bylaws must be backed by adequate grants and loans to home owners as an incentive to maintain and restore older properties. The report goes on to say that the implication of the report of the task force, that there is no basis for state intervention in the maintenance and modernization of buildings, is not acceptable to the Social Planning Council. They say:
There is little doubt about the difficulty of establishing a policy which safeguards the right of the state and the responsibility of the individual in the preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. We are convinced that public funds must be used to assist low income people to maintain or bring their properties up to a standard established by the state.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In fact, as we have already stated, without such aid the housing of low income people, many of whom live in substandard dwellings, will be worsened.
I commend that statement of the Social Planning Council to the minister, and I commend the policy that is contained in it.
The point I am trying to make is that in older and established urban areas, such as my own constituency of Greenwood, there is an urgent need for government aid by way of loan, grant,, or tax exemption to encourage and enable the maintenance and improvement of the existing housing stock. Without such action future decades will see the spread of blight and decay requiring urgent and infinitely more expensive action by way of urban renewal, and great social costs in the interim. I do not deny that the construction of new housing, particularly of public housing, is urgent, but I plead that the preservation and conservation of existing residential areas which are threatened should receive a much higher priority than they now have.
But it may be said that the present legislation does indeed provide that in urban renewal areas federal contributions are to be available for the acquisition and rehabilitation of useful housing in urban renewal areas. I believe that clause 10 of the bill provides for an amendment to section 23B of the act, which the minister has told us will make it possible to restore housing rather than to demolish it, and to upgrade that part of the housing stock which can be salvaged.
I say to the minister that this is a good idea and I support it, but the fact is that it does not begin to meet the problem I have raised. It applies only within urban renewal areas which, by definition, are blighted or substandard areas. What I am thinking of is not
National Housing Act
rehabilitation in areas already blighted or substandard, important as that may be, but of rehabilitation with government assistance of areas threatened with blight but which by no means are blighted or decayed now.
The city council of Toronto, in a brief reviewing the task force report, adopted on February 26, 1969, has this to say:
The city suggests rather (than renewal of designated areas) an entire new orientation to renewal which would place the accent on a program of action-physical, economic and social-rather than a geographic area. Such a community improvement program could embrace large sections of the community, removing the stigma of designation-
That is designation as a blighted or substandard area.
-quite effectively. This would involve a program for much larger areas, ideally citywide at some future point, which if supported by soundly conceived legislation would permit the cities to carry out renewal with no more disruption to the community than occurs every year with the execution of a routine program of public works.
I believe that the city council of Toronto is on the right track and that the minister should discuss with the provinces, and through them with the municipalities, the development of community improvement programs, offering generous financial participation on the part of the federal government. I believe such an approach would do far more with far less expense to aid in the solution of our housing problems than many of the more expensive and elaborate schemes that we now have.
But it may be said that I am overlooking what has already been done and is being done by way of loans for home improvement under the Home Improvement Loans Act. Someone might ask me, "Have you not observed that the legislation now before the house raises the ceiling on home improvement loans from $550 million to $600 million?" Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this sounds very generous, and these figures sound very large, but on analysis the significance of these high-sounding figures is quickly dissipated.
The annual report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation makes it clear that the figure of $550 million represents the accumulated loan total of the banks since 1955 when the scheme was initiated. The actual accumulated total spent never reached the ceiling permitted by the legislation. At the end of 1968 the actual 13-year total was $479 million, $71 million less than the authorized total. The amount actually advanced

June 2, 1969
National Housing Act
annually was diminishing. In 1968 the banks advanced $23.9 million compared with the 1967 figure of $35.2 million. At this rate it would be roughly three years before there was any need to raise the ceiling. I wonder whether the minister has noticed that this looks very like window-dressing, when you raise the ceiling long before you have reached the ceiling.
But even these figures are misleading. The federal government commitment on home improvement loans is limited to 5 per cent of the total loans by each of the banks. In other words, the maximum involvement of the federal government in the 13 years since 1955 was $21 million, or $1.6 million a year. This was the government commitment, but of course the actual commitment was not called upon.
According to C.M.H.C. figures the total 13 years' claims and legal expenses paid by the federal government under the home improvement loans scheme amounted to $2.9 million, of which $600,000 or so was recovered. The total expenditure, therefore, in 13 years for the whole of Canada on home improvement loans by the federal government amounted to $2.3 million, or $177,000 a year, so that the big talk of raising the ceiling from $550 million to $600 million means very little when you look at the real government contribution of only $170,000 a year across Canada. I say that this is not a serious contribution to the solution of the problem.
The home improvement loans scheme has failed to achieve any worth-while purpose. Who got the benefit of these loans which were partially subsidized or at least supported by the government? It is fairly obvious it was those who needed them least, people whose incomes and credit were good enough to have borrowed the money from the banks in any event. The small home owner, the pensioner, the widow with a house as her only security, would not have got a loan under this scheme, and perhaps with interest rates a paltry 9| per cent, or whatever the figure is now, they would not have been anxious to obtain home improvement loans at such rates. In other words, the home improvement loans scheme has been of no help whatever to the group of people who I say are the ones in greatest need of assistance for the maintenance of their homes.
The whole approach of the home improvement loans scheme needs to be rethought. To those in real need of funds for rehabilitation, those on small incomes, government loans

could be made at small or nominal interest rates, with generous terms of repayment either on transfer or sale of the property, or on succession. The income tax structure should be studied to see whether tax exemptions for properly qualified home improvement payments should be allowed.
The minister made it very clear that he would welcome suggestions from members. I would urgently request him to have a serious study made of what can be done by way of loans and tax exemptions to encourage home owners to modernize and maintain their housing. Such policies would lift an immense burden from the backs of those who are today struggling to maintain their homes against the ever-growing burden of taxation and the cost of repairs. It would make a real contribution to the solution of the housing crisis for hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It could be done without immense expense and with the co-operation of provinces, municipalities and the people themselves. I hope that the minister will give this aspect of his duties very serious consideration.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Philip G. Givens (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this house to speak for the first time and I hope hon. members will be forbearing and charitable in receiving my remarks. I should like my first remarks to be ones of congratulation to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) in charge of housing who I thought did a fine and creditable job last week in presenting this bill to the house. Much has been said about whether he is a minister in his own right and the fact that he is a Minister without Portfolio. I understand some of his Indian friends used to say he was a minister without suitcase. In any event housing has now become his bag, whether it is a portfolio or a suitcase. There are those on this side of the house who would like to see him carry this bag well and for a long time. I suppose there are hon. gentlemen opposite who would like to see him left holding the bag.
I have wanted to speak on the subject of housing for a long time, Mr. Speaker, ever since last September when I first came here, but for reasons which are a matter of record you know this has been impossible. So I have had to content myself and be grateful for the wonderful and illuminating instruction I have received on the subjects of wet wheat, corn, fish, baby seals and the Newfie Bullet. I know these things are very important. They must be very important to have taken all the time
June 2, 1969

this house has given them. I am concerned, however, with the fact that close to 80 per cent of our population lives in the urban areas of this country. This parliament, if it is to be relevant, must manifest its concern with the perplexing and pressing problems of the urban crisis. If we do not do this now and over the period of the next ten years we will live to rue the day, just as is the case now in the United States of America.
This country has changed; it is changing. There have been changes which could never have been contemplated by the Fathers of Confederation over 100 years ago. We are not addressing ourselves to the problems. Canada has become a highly industrialized state instead of predominantly an efficient agricultural economy. The human pressures we are experiencing are tremendous. We must study and carry on dialogue in respect of these problems as we have done in respect of other things in this house. We talk about the subject of regional disparity which is so important to this nation. But I suggest with great respect that unless we address ourselves to the consideration of the problems of the urban areas there will never be the wherewithal to solve the problems of regional disparity in this country because the wherewithal will come not like manna from heaven but will be generated in the urban areas of this country.
At last the time has come to give consideration, however brief-if we do not make it brief we will never get this bill through before the house recesses on June 27-to the gut issue of housing which affects many people in the area I represent and a 300 square mile highly populated megalopolis of over two million people contiguous to it. I find it difficult to explain to my colleagues on both sides of the house the paradox that exists today in metropolitan Toronto. There is a great deal of wealth on the one hand and the abject and grinding poverty of the rat-infested slums on the other, these pockmarks and pimples of poverty which exist in that city.
There are approximately 16,000 families now in metropolitan Toronto who have their names on the list for public housing and about another 5,000 elderly people waiting for public housing. This situation has been brought about because approximately 60,000 people have been added to the population of metro Toronto each and every year for the past 20 years. We have seen our population grow from 650,000 in the old city of Toronto to
National Housing Act
over two million in 20 years. We have tried to adjust to the explosive change. To the extent that we have it has been our accomplishment; to the extent that we have not it has been our agony and anguish.
Much has been said about whether there is or is not a housing crisis. I think this is an exercise in futility. Is there or is there not a crisis? One cynic said that for those who are housed at prices they can afford there is no crisis but for those who are not housed there is. There is no housing crisis right across the board throughout this country like there was during the war years when people were scrounging around for rooms, but there most definitely is a crisis in the sense that the lower economic echelon of our population, of our society, desperately needs decent housing in a decent environment which they can buy or rent at decent prices or prices they can afford. Certainly there is no crisis for middle class people who live like royalty. The task force report indicated that we are one of the best housed nations in the world. So we are for the middle class and upper echelon people. We have gimmicks' and gadgets which cannot be exceeded by kings and princes throughout the world. But for the lower income earners no such millennium has been reached.
I suggest, with great respect, that we must help the lower income group, those earning $8,000 or less. The man who wants to retain his dignity, self-respect and pride wants what we all want out of life, to be a somebody. He wants to have a piece of the action in our society. Maybe we should gear interest rates to income instead of gearing rents to income. We want to make people productive members of our society, people who will pay off the mortgages on their homes and mow their lawns. Do not force such people to be disinherited members of our society, hopeless and helpless so that they feel there is nothing to look forward to. A man should not be placed in a position where society has him licked. He is the backbone of this nation. He has the responsibility of trying to educate his children. He is not a welfare case. We should not make him into a welfare case. For those who are below this income level we need low rental housing.
I do not think that the task force report should be relegated to the scrap heap. There are a lot of things contained in it that should be studied, discussed, read and reread. We read in it about the loss of dignity and selfrespect on the part of the people who live in

June 2, 1969
National Housing Act
public housing. We still do not have the magic answer for that. We want to make people productive. The vandalism and juvenile delinquency in these places because the people are unhappy is appalling. They are stigmatized when they live in places like Regent's Park. It is costing us hundreds of millions of dollars anyway. It is not that we are not spending the money; we are spending the money. If we do not spend it in the proper way it will cost us more in the form of added welfare programs and police and fire protection.
I agree with the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should be able to get together with the builders, developers, designers, creators, and architects to establish once and for all the proper criteria for public housing and establish once and for all the proper criteria for environmental factors because a house with a roof and four rooms is not enough. We should make ownership possible with incentives.
I like the part of this legislation which has to do with the rehabilitation of older properties. This is not so spectacular. The politicians cannot go out and turn the sod and put up big signs, but there is much to be said for the rehabilitation of old properties in the older section of Toronto to which my friend the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) referred. They are not so spectacular but these properties do not have to be serviced and would give us decent housing even though the stock of housing would not be increased immediately.
I should like to congratulate the minister for having been chosen as the minister, even without portfolio, in charge of housing. This is his exclusive problem now. Up until now we have spent millions of dollars on housing but it has been considered to be a secondary function or a kind of illegitimate responsibility which was assumed under the rubric of another portfolio or another responsibility. It is high time this ended and I am glad the Prime Minister has ended it. Housing is not solely a federal responsibility. Whether we like it or not this is so. These are the facts of life.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I think the minister will have to build a little fire under the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I do not concur in everything that the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) said, but I believe we

should do more research and experimentation than we have done in the past. We are still laying bricks like we laid them 100 years ago; we are still laying sewer pipe like we did 100 years ago. We would still be driving horses and buggies if the motor car industry had not been more progressive in its methods than has been the case with the construction of housing.
I know that C.M.H.C. has scholarships and I know that the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) is spending $550 million this year for assistance to universities, even though it is unconstitutional. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we have not produced in this country one urbanologist. We do not have one Pat Monahan, nor do we have one James Jacobs in this country. Why, I ask you?
Another thing that the task force talked about was the model city. Let us not throw that in the scrap can. I do not care if we do not build a model city in this country for the next 15 or 20 years. This bothers me very little, but I think it is high time we turned loose the brains of this country to design a model city with transportation corridors and ideal environmental factors so that we can use it as a sort of prototype. As we are developing our cities and adding to our urban areas we can pick up good ideas from this prototype and make practical, pragmatic use of them. This is what we should be spending money on today instead of the helter-skelter, hybrid type of development that we see around the fringe of every urban area in this country.
I think we need the co-operation of the provinces because housing is their responsibility. They should change their assessment laws. Why should it be cheaper to tear down buildings for the construction of universities or apartment buildings than to keep these buildings properly maintained so people can live in them? Why should it be necessary, when improvements are made to a house such as will now be possible under this legislation, for the assessment and the taxes to be increased?
We should get the provinces to co-operate in servicing vacant land. They should help to establish transportation corridors. I do not know why this subject has not been talked about yet. If it is constitutionally proper for the federal government to spend billions of dollars for the assembly of land, why should it be constitutionally impossible to assemble land for the purpose of creating a transportation corridor? This is the only thing that will
June 2, 1989



make planning sensible, instead of colouring various areas red or green or blue. Developers and builders do not locate on that basis. But if we determine that this is the transportation corridor, this is where the rapid transit will go, this is where the monorail will go, and this is where the services will go, we will be rendering a service to the planning of our urban areas.
We need the co-operation of our municipalities to revise the anachronistic and archaic building and material bylaws and codes in order to be ready for the 21st century, and to revise the costly and time-consuming rezoning procedures. We also need to revise our own tax laws up here on the hill. I believe we need a capital gains tax, and I do not see how we can postpone it indefinitely any longer. I think we should revise our tax laws with respect to depreciation and maintenance, which favour large apartment landlords rather than the builders and owners of housing. I believe we have to get the co-operation of our private lending institutions.
I was very much taken with what the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) said the other day about the mortgage companies, and their investing in equities. This does not bother me too much. What they are doing today is penalizing house building because they are taking their money and are buying pieces of this, that and the other apartment, they buy the land and they give a lease back. If this is permitted to continue they are going to own every worth-while piece of real estate in this country.
I do not want to start pushing companies around. I do not think its the right thing to do. This is still a free economy. But I do think these companies have to live up to their responsibilities. Certainly their shareholders want them to make a lot of money for them, but they have to live up to their responsibilities as far as the people of this nation generally are concerned. They will have to do so voluntarily but if they do not, then, sooner or later, either this government or some other government is going to resort to compulsion in this regard.
The hon. member for Broadview said that this bill is a poor answer to Canada's housing needs, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said somewhat the same thing. Mr. Speaker, I say to you with great sincerity that I support Bill C-192 because this legislation and its amendments make a serious effort to achieve the goal I have been talking about,
National Housing Act
to help those at the lower income level who need help.
In the final analysis, the acid test will be whether these legislative changes will be successful in bringing about the desired results and solutions. If they do not, I give you my word that I will be one of the first to criticize and to criticize publicly. This government must have as a categorical imperative that we must not add to the inventory of poverty of this nation; we have enough now. Participatory democracy must mean social and economic participation, as well as political and legal. That is the only way we can have a just society and a great nation.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
[Stage Direction]
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Air Canada- Winnipeg-transfer of base to Northwest Industries Limited; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand)-Social Security-discussion with Quebec government respecting measure; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-National Parks, Bonne Bay, Newfoundland-leasing arrangement.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau that Bill C-192, to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) in view of his most constructive and enthusiastic speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I understood it was the wish of the hon.

June 2, 1969
National Housing Act
member for Broadview to ask a question of the hon. member for York West.


John Gilbert: I was just prefacing my question Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
question is, when is the hon. member for York West coming over here?


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the hon. member for York West will take the same action as the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) if the effort in regard to housing this year is not successful?


Philip Gerald Givens: Mr. Speaker, I have been around here long enough to know that is a hypothetical question. Besides, I have nothing to resign from.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: June 2, 1969
National Housing Act
is to own their own home. If people are prepared to sacrifice other luxuries or unnecessary commodities and are prepared to work hard for that ownership, why can we not provide them with the opportunity to do so? The sad fact is that in many cases families who are ineligible to qualify for C.M.H.C. loans are paying as much or more in rent as they would be in payments toward the purchase of their own homes.
I submit that if the government is really serious about broadening the base of home ownership it must take positive steps in bringing about a reduction in the actual cost of a home to the consumer. There are ways in which this can be done, as I and other hon. members have pointed out. One is the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax which would reduce the cost of a home by approximately $700.
With regard to those in the low income group, I suggest that serious consideration be given to some form of subsidization of the present high interest rate not only of C.M.H.C. mortgages but private, bank and other institutional mortgages. We have had ample evidence of subsidies being granted by provinces in respect of health services, and I place health and shelter on about the same priority level. Why can we not utilize a similar scheme with respect to interest rates? For example, those families with an income of $300-$350 per month might pay 4 per cent on a mortgage, those making $350-$400 might pay 4| per cent, and those making $400-$450 might pay 5-| per cent. Surely if the federal government were prepared to pay 75 per cent of the capital cost of subsidizing housing and then share in the operating costs, such a program with regard to interest rates could conceivably be implemented, thus improving the opportunity of home ownership for Canadians who wish to have a real stake in the future of this country.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
We have heard much about the ever-increasing property taxes across this country, the ever-increasing economic burden, the ever-increasing cost of living and the increased hardships in raising a family, with exemptions for income tax purposes being as outdated as the model T Ford. In view of the government's failure to realistically upgrade personal exemptions, why can some consideration not be given to an encouraging alternative measure to home ownership, that is, to allow property taxes up to say, a maximum 
of $500 to be eligible for income tax exemption?
With the continual spiral of property taxes in this country, some measure to curtail such increases will soon become a necessity. Here again those in the smaller communities are more affected in that the tax base is not as broad as it is in the larger cities. Hence, services such as sidewalks, water and sewage and pavement, not to mention education, become a heavier burden to those in smaller communities. This is clearly evident when one compares the property taxes in most cities and towns.
In the eyes of many builders in Canada, C.M.H.C. does not work as harmoniously and co-operatively with contractors as it could or should. As one contractor put it, "There is not a builder in the country who has been nit-picked by certain unjustified interpretations of the national building code." There are many standards and requirements that are ambiguous and in many cases should be completely reviewed and redrafted in plain language so that at all times the builders know where they stand. Much animosity is created between the builder and C.M.H.C. with respect to progress payments and appraisal values at various stages of construction.
Another cause for delay and additional costs to the consumer is the legal charges and the delays in releasing money to builders. There are many cases of exorbitant legal costs, and I object most firmly to the C.M.H.C. practice of choosing lawyers from a limited, selected list. I submit that the builder and the customer should be free to select the lawyer of their choice to transact their legal work. This choice should be given to them, and their bargaining rights upheld.
I submit that the housing crisis as it now exists is solely the product of this government which through its mismanagement, its lack of foresight and its lack of positive, sound and economic policies has placed this country in an economic climate of frustration and anxiety, and has given cause for some doubts about our economic stability and future.
The unfortunate taxpayer is at present being grossly overburdened with taxes; yet we see each level of government scrambling for more tax dollars to the point where there is competition for tax revenues among all levels of government. Tax sharing and tax collection by all levels of government working in co-operation must be co-ordinated in order to avert this competition.
June 2, 1969

The housing crisis is the result of an economic crisis, and unless positive steps are taken to control inflation, high interest, high living costs, high taxation and the vicious circle of continual increase in the cost of goods and services, there is no doubt in my mind that the future will hold little promise for many Canadians to enjoy one of the basic necessities of a good Canadian life-a place to call home.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the consideration of Bill C-192, my comments will be brief, not because I do not understand the urgency and the importance of the situation presently created by the lack of housing in Canada, but rather because not one provision of Bill C-192 is capable of solving the housing problems in our country.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-192 is a disappointment to those who need houses, live in slums, or share a dwelling with others, and also to those who have always tried to get a housing policy that would guarantee a decent dwelling to all Canadian families.
In view of the lack of leadership on housing, we are not surprised at the stand the former minister responsible for housing had to take. I must now address him, since his successor has left the house, very briefly I hope.
Mr. Speaker, we have to grapple with an acute housing problem. We know that there are needs and all those who have thoroughly or superficially studied the housing problem estimate that we need a minimum of 200,000 new houses per year to meet the present needs, without taking into account the lag in that field. We must have in the first place some 140,000 new dwellings to meet the needs of new households and 50,000 new dwellings to replace those which must be demolished, which are obsolete, destroyed by fires or otherwise. Then, it will be necessary to build 10,000 other housing units to provide a minimum number of available houses, in view of the mobility of people, and so that the law of supply and demand will work. We need right now a minimum of housing units to meet the most pressing needs.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I am seriously concerned about another matter, and I should like to tell the minister about it. I am getting more and more concerned. I realize that, as a result of the proposed legislation, home ownership is
National Housing Act
directed toward organizations rather than toward wage earners. Those organizations are either cooperatives, companies or big firms so that the family no longer has any access to home ownership, which leaves me quite worried. What is more self-satisfying for the head of a family than to be able to tell his wife and children: This house is ours or will become ours some day.
This objective does not exist any more because of the amendments now moved. Amendments to the housing act could have enabled Canadian workers to hope for a house of their own but there are no provisions to that effect in Bill C-192. It provides only for loans up to $25,000 for the purchase of a house. The Canadian worker will therefore be unable to hope for a house of his own one day, because according to official government statistics, about 68 per cent of Canadian workers earn less than $4,000 a year. Needless to say then, in view of the present circumstances, the interest rate charged the borrower, the 11 per cent tax on building materials, the 8 per cent provincial tax in Quebec-a supplementary tax on building materials-that the Canadian worker cannot hope to become a home owner one day.
Mr. Speaker, it is also proposed to extend the reimbursement period up to 40 years. That measure, again, will not help at all the Canadian worker who would like to become the owner of his house.
Moreover, it is proposed in the bill that the interest rate be renewed or reviewed every five years. Such a measure is designed to assist the lender or the mortgagee instead of the borrower or mortgager.
Of all the provisions, in Bill C-192, none is designed to encourage the purchase of a house by the Canadian worker.
Here is what we, of the Ralliement credi-tiste, propose to help the Canadian worker become a homeowner. First, we consider that the present interest rate is too high and that nothing leads us to believe that it could be reduced this year or during the next few years.
In fact, the provincial governments and the municipalities must accept to reimburse their administrative or development borrowings at interest rates of 7, 7J and even 8 per cent. Now, in such circumstances, it cannot be hoped that the loans provided in the housing field or any other private sector will carry reduced interest rates. On the contrary, they will rather have a tendency to increase.

June 2, 1969
National Housing Act
On the contrary, if we want Canadians to own one day their own house, interest rates will have to decrease considerably.
Therefore, we ask that loans be granted for the construction of family housing and not to profit making businesses.
When one applies for a loan to become owner of a house, it is not to get a benefit from it, or for business purposes. It is merely a necessity which yields no benefit at all.
For those reasons, we claim that the money invested in the country's social capital should not come from the private sector and bear interest, which forces the borrower to repay more than double the amount borrowed over a period of twenty years.
Mr. Speaker, last week, one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Sheflord (Mr. Hondeau) showed, with proofs to support his case, with tables, that today, with the new amendments contained in Bill C-192, as much as four times the price of a $25,000 house is paid back if one agrees to repay within forty years.
Therefore, we, members of the Ralliement creditiste, ask that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation become a branch of the Bank of Canada, as far as loans are concerned, and that that branch be empowered to grant loans without interest to every landlord of a family dwelling.
Mr. Speaker, those are the remarks that I wish to put in the official report of the House of Commons' Debates.
How can we build per annum those 200,000 homes that are urgently needed each year? Let us call on the machinery used by the bankers themselves, for themselves. What does a bank do when it wants to put up a building? Will it borrow from another bank? Certainly not.
It will open for itself a current credit account on which of course it will pay no interest.
It buys the land, pays the contractors with cheques guaranteed by the building itself. Then it collects rents, and by the end of some thirty years, the money collected balances the credit account. The operation is cancelled, but the bank keeps the building it owns without ever having paid one cent, except perhaps for the cost of writing on a page of the ledger the sums received and paid in the debit and credit columns.
Thus the bank, through modern credit alone, and by using script money, in other words the belief in its solvency, has been able IMr. Laprise.]
to create phantom money and turn it into a tangible building, the cheque issued returning to nothingness at the end of 30 years, once the magical operation is over.
Now Social Credit claims that there is nothing magical about that. Create to destroy the credit which, during its existence, plays the role of real money, such is the extraordinary privilege given the chartered banks, as shown by the British government's parliamentary investigation.
Then, Mr. Speaker, if the banking system or if the chartered banks can thus erect buildings in which to locate their finance trade, I think that the Canadian government could establish the same procedures as regards family housing. That is, the Bank of Canada would supply the necessary credits to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to enable it to lend without interest to any new home owner, the necessary monies or credits for the construction of a suitable, adequate house, built according to the needs of his own family.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
After 15 or 20 years, when the individual has reimbursed the cost of the house he built thanks to the loan secured through the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, he will have become the owner of his home. He would have paid for it once, and so the small-and medium-wage earners could hope to own their own home some day.
That is what everyone wishes at the present time, not only the individuals but even the organizations which are concerned with promoting the well-being of the family in Canada.
That is the solution I propose to the minister and to the government if they really want to solve the housing problem in Canada.
That is why I feel Bill C-192 does not meet present needs; there is nothing in it to provide for the construction of new houses.
The only thing that may come from it, as pointed out in the May 1969 issue of Le Tra-vailleur Canadien, a magazine published by the Canadian Labour, is that a greater number of Canadians may be able to hope to become home-owners some day because there will be a larger number of houses put up for sale.
What the magazine means, Mr. Speaker, is that in view of the terms under which the government is willing to finance the construction of new homes, very few new owners can
June 2, 1969

hope to keep their homes or meet their obligations in full. Some day or other, they will be forced to sacrifice their homes, their initial outlay and the following payments. Many houses will then be put up for sale.
That, Mr. Speaker, is not, I think, what Canadians want. What we want is for every Canadian family to be able to own its own home. We sincerely believe that it is possible, in Canada, for every Canadian family, to have a decent home.

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-Sl. Barbel: Mr. Speaker, my contribution to the debate on Bill C-192 will be short since most hon. members who have spoken from this side of the house have brought forcibly to the attention of the minister responsible for housing the shortcomings of this measure. At the same time, they have expressed their approval of those portions of the bill they support.
It is my intention first to point out a serious handicap from which the war veteran suffers and to make a plea at this time on behalf of veterans and their housing needs. Under the War Veterans Allowance Act, veterans are allowed to own a house to the value of $10,000 without any reduction in the allowance. Those veterans having houses with a value in excess of $10,000 have 5 per cent of the difference between $10,000 and the value of the house deducted from the allowance each year. Until 1965 this figure was set at $6,000 only, and then it was upgraded to $10,000. I take this opportunity to impress on the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) and the minister responsible for housing that a review of the situation must be made immediately because of the rapid escalation of housing costs. Actually, veterans are immobilized because values are set at the time of purchase and are not reviewed after purchase. Appreciation in value is not taken into consideration.
May I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the consumer price index for housing from the years 1961 to 1968. The index shows an increase in costs of more than 18 per cent at the end of 1968. Even more significant is the fact that the increase in costs has been more marked in those years following 1965. The thousands of war veterans in the country also need housing, and this fact should be recognized at this time.
The other point I wish to make has to do with the procrastination of government in dealing with all housing problems in this
National Housing Act
country. I was impressed with the performance of the minister now in charge of housing when he was active in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. At that time I said to one of my colleagues, "Now, here's a man to watch." I said that when he went against the establishment in dealing with Indian problems. I sincerely hope that he will use some of his initiative in dealing with the nuts and bolts issues of this matter of which his predecessor spoke.
The nuts and bolts issues, Mr. Speaker, are not those the minister described during his presentation of the bill in the house last week. I am getting sick and tired of hearing that Canada is an urban society and that almost three-quarters of Canadians live in our larger towns, cities and metropolitan areas. Also, I am sick and tired of hearing that by 1980 more than 80 per cent of our population will own or rent accommodation in our urban centres, or will be hunting for accommodation there, and that one-third of our population will be living in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
I am afraid of this thinking. This is the kind of thinking we are getting from computers and I am seriously concerned that assistance will be concentrated in those areas. So I ask the minister, what will happen to the other 20 per cent of the population living in rural communities? I am speaking of some 5 million people, Mr. Speaker. Are they not Canadians who have listened to the repeated pledge of the government that every Canadian, regardless of the part of the country he lives in, will have equal opportunity?
Allow me to give you a few facts about some of the living conditions some of the 5 million people living in Newfoundland face. My colleague for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) gave figures about the levels of incomes in Newfoundland when he spoke the other day; he did not compare these figures with other figures relating to the country as a whole. Figures compiled in 1961 show that 38 per cent of all dwellings in Newfoundland urban centres had no water supply, while the Canadian average for dwellings having no water supply was 11 per cent. Fifty-three per cent of our dwellings had no flush toilets and 61 per cent had no bath facilities. In rural Newfoundland, 80 per cent of all dwellings had no inside flush toilets and 85 per cent had no bath facilities. These are not computer figures, Mr. Speaker; they are factual.
The royal commission on the economic state and prospects of Newfoundland points out

June 2, 1989
National Housing Act
that notwithstanding the forecast of growth in real incomes in the province, the prospect of the province attaining desirable housing target by 1975 or 1980 appears gloomy when one considers the province's economy, forecasts of financial conditions, the size and calibre of the Newfoundland house construction industry and existing programs of private and public agencies.
The housing corporation of Corner Brook, Newfoundland, did a survey of housing conditions in the area. They did not do that by computer but by actually visiting houses. They list special cases of overcrowding where 8, 9, 10 and even 11 people live in two rooms. These are random cases. Case reports say that apartments crawl with cock roaches; children are always sick because of overcrowding; there is no water or toilet in many of the dwellings and many are a real fire hazard. In fact, these reports say that some bedrooms and bathrooms are without windows and that one house is not fit for humans. The people living in these homes are Canadians, too. They are Newfoundlanders; but they are Canadians also. What are we waiting for? What happened to the government's pledge of equal opportunity for our people no matter where they live?
Newfoundland urban housing starts for the first four months of 1969 are 17.8 per cent below those for 1968. There were only 48 residential housing starts in the province during April, compared with 118 last April. These figures take into account all urban areas with populations of more than 10,000. House building activity in Newfoundland is down from the 1968 level and is below building levels of the other three Atlantic provinces.
A royal commission of inquiry into housing conditions and costs in Newfoundland pointed out that our provice has the highest building costs in the country, the lowest labour output and the lowest level of incomes; a Newfoundlander has a smaller chance than anyone else in Canada has of becoming a homeowner. Actually, a person earning less than $8,090 per year has little chance of ever owning a home. We have fewer homes for our population than have other provinces of Canada. Also, we have more overcrowded homes. As a result 7,500 homes are needed to close the gap. With our high construction costs and low wage levels we will have a hard time obtaining these homes. In fact, it is hard to see where they will come from.

To overcome our shortcomings we must reduce service costs, simplify registration procedures and bring down production costs as well as the costs of developing land. So let us develop land, Mr. Speaker. Let's stop reviewing everything again. Let us get some urban development under way. Let us lift the Newfoundland urban renewal program from the bottom of the wastebasket. Here I should like to refer specifically to an urban renewal project in my district. I am talking about the city of Corner Brook. The mayor calls it operation frustration. After 10 years there has been no implementation of the project and there is no sign that it will be implemented. I say that we should get off our big, fat, bureaucratic fundamentals and get some action. Let us forget about culture for a while and hand the keys of urban development programs to those human beings who continue to be utterly neglected. Let us show some of this common, human decency we are bragging about.
What about the old people, Mr. Speaker, who cannot fend for themselves and who will not be moving to Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver because they are left stranded with no means of assistance. Are they not Canadians also? Did the experts think of these people when evaluating housing needs? A crisis has existed of which the government has not been aware. There exists a critical need for homes for the aged and emergency measures should be taken to correct this need. So I ask again, what about those people forming 20 per cent of our population? These are the nuts and bolts issues, of which the government is evidently unaware. These are the nuts and bolts issues mentioned by the former minister responsible for housing. In his frustration he had to bolt from the nuts.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Housing plays an important role in economic development. It is clear that adequate housing beneficially influences human happiness, health, educational attainment, mobility and work productivity. To ignore the importance of housing when considering development is to ignore an important ingredient behind economic growth. Housing programs and policies should fit within the framework of general social and economic policy. I say again, Mr. Speaker, if we are to overcome regional disparity as proclaimed by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) let us not forget the part that housing will play in the development of
June 2, 1969



the areas of rural Canada that will be designated for special attention. Although I have not met the new minister, I feel, after watching him on television, that he is a man of action and shows promise. I hope he will get cracking and direct action to implement housing development for all of Canada. I sincerely hope that I have no cause for alarm at the trend of his speech which indicates he is listening to the advice of the intellectuals rather than being guided by the common sense of those who live with these problems.
As I have said in previous speeches in the house, beware of the book writers and the professors who have never been out of their laboratories and do not know what a piece of plywood looks like. I am concerned with some of the minister's phrases such as, "To modify and transcend market forces" or his remarks about filtering processes, constraints on the commitment of our productive resources, distributive justice, minimizing the stigma or make an analysis to effectiveness and adequacy. The object of the exercise is to build homes for Canadians with wood and bricks, using scientific methods to reduce costs. Common sense indicates we should have action now. Let us plan for the future, Mr. Speaker, but let us look after the problems that exist today.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention in speaking on the issue now before the house to be critical of the past, to speak of the failures of this government or previous governments because those days are gone and cannot be reclaimed. It is my intention to speak of policies relating to the situation at the present time and as required in the future. It is not my intention to be hypercritical of the minister who has only had the responsibility of housing for a few short weeks. Nor is it my intention to actually deal with the specific issues in the bill now before us, except for two matters.
What I hope to do is to be able, from what knowledge I have, to stress the complexity of the problem of housing and the need for more than just the general action as we see it today. If we analyse what has happened over the years and visualize the needs of today, we will see the necessity for drastic action and far-reaching policy, and not be satisfied with what we have at the present time.
Under the redistribution before the last election the constituency of Vancouver East, which I have the honour to represent, was extended two-thirds of the way across Vancouver from Boundary Road to Oak Street.
National Housing Act
The result is that within the boundaries of redistributed Vancouver East, there is a population which comprises those with the lowest incomes and the poorest housing, up through the average working class incomes and homes, right up to what I will term middle class structures. In at least one-third of my constituency there is a great need for rehousing. These people are not in an income group where they can afford to buy secondhand homes or build new homes under the present policies of the government. The absolute urgent need and minimum necessity is action now, not weeks, months or years ahead through urban renewal and public housing.
It is because of that need that I was so disappointed and distressed by the answers given by the minister replying to questions last Friday. In reply to a question I asked the minister said:
With regard to the urban renewal matter, I am reviewing this as quickly as possible. I am not in a position to make any definitive statement at this time but hope to give a clear statement within a matter of weeks.
I also wish to quote an answer the minister gave to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
Mr. Speaker, I thought I was reasonably clear in my statement on second reading. When we have had consultation with the provinces and determined what guidelines and new criteria will apply to each province, and the terms of their particular needs, and have made that kind of a decision then I hope to make these specific guidelines and terms public.
Those answers are not good enough, Mr. Speaker. Nor is it satisfactory to imply there is no knowledge of the proposals made by the municipalities, the provinces and in particular the city of Vancouver.
I wish to direct the minister's attention to a presentation from the city of Vancouver to the previous minister in charge of housing who is sitting in the front of the minister at the present time, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). This presentation was made on March 11 of this year. The city of Vancouver with the full knowledge of the need for public housing and urban renewal, made plans and submitted specific proposals to senior governments. I quote from this brief:
The City of Vancouver is increasingly concerned with the continuing federal government moratorium on urban renewal; specifically on requests for approval and financial aid made in 1968 to carry out two urban renewal programs scheduled to start at the beginning of 1969. These requests, relating to preparation of Urban Renewal Scheme 4A (downtown area) -

June 2, 1969
National Housing Act
This is in my constituency, Mr. Speaker.
-and the implementation of the scheme for the Strathcona subarea of Urban Renewal Scheme 3-
This is also in the constituency of Vancouver East.
-"were described in some detail in the city's briefs of November 28 and November 29, 1968."
"Council, on March 11, 1969, received a report on the situation and a copy of this report dated February 26, 1969 is attached. The Council directed that a further urgent approach be made to you emphasizing the problems created by the delay and uncertainty."
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This was the representation by the city of Vancouver to the former minister responsible for housing concerning what was happening because of the delay and uncertainty at the present time. On Friday last, the minister told us that the delay and uncertainty were going to continue. He cannot tell us for how long, but it will be for weeks. Again, there is going to be consultation with the provinces and the municipalities in the hope that the minister will be able to lay down specific guidelines and criteria for urban renewal and development projects.
I plead with the minister to speed up these deliberations and to get this urban renewal, which has been hanging fire so long, out of the deep freeze. I plead with him to authorize the plans that have been submitted by the cities, in particular by the city of Vancouver, because the greatest need is in this area which I have outlined and which under redistribution now comes within the riding of Vancouver East.
Under present policies and plans people are not going to be able to buy homes in Vancouver. I think I am safe in saying that there are not too many people in Vancouver East with incomes over $12,000 a year. If you have not got $12,000 a year as a basic minimum you certainly cannot buy a house that is going to cost over $28,000. Moreover, you are not going to be in a position to buy a secondhand home because, according to the latest information I have, the cost of secondhand homes in the city of Vancouver has gone up 20 per cent in the last 12 months. According to the multiple listing service in the city of Vancouver, the average cost of a secondhand home in that city today is over $23,000.
Not only can people not buy secondhand homes, let alone new homes, but today there are many thousands who cannot even afford to rent homes. The only salvation is a government policy, if necessary introduced through

federal, provincial and municipal co-operation, aimed at a rapid extension of public housing and urban redevelopment so that these people can be assured of living under decent conditions, in decent apartments and decent houses. Can we not have action now, and not promises for the future, promises of pie in the sky? These people will have a home when they die, sir. We want them to have one before they die.
I am disturbed about the provision in this bill which will make it permissible to change the interest rate on a mortgage in five year's time. People now cannot afford the interest they have to pay, but at least those who have bought homes now know what the interest rate is. But look at the position of people who do not know what their interest rate charges will be five years from now. Those charges can go up and up. Another hon. member quoted "Canadian Labour" a few moments ago, and I wish to quote it again but from a different paragraph.
Freeing the N.H.A. mortgage rate for renegotiation after five years helps the big financial institutions; increasing the mortgage ceiling helps the buyers who earn $12,000 a year and can afford $28,000 homes. But neither move helps the vast majority of Canadian workers with moderate incomes already hard hit by increased costs for food, transportation, medical care, clothing and other necessities.
We ask the government to recognize the truthfulness of that statement.
I am also disturbed about the idea of extending mortgages over a period of 40 years. As was pointed out by a previous speaker on the government side, the average young married man cannot save enough money for a down payment on a house until he is about 30 years old. He will be 70 before the mortgage is paid up. But why am I worried? I think I know something about the construction industry. Each time I am back in Vancouver I make it a practice to look over some of the homes that some of the contractors are building today, and I say to you, sir, that some of the homes that some of the contractors are building today won't stand up for 40 years. They won't stand up for 25 years.
I have been in homes built under the National Housing Act where, one year after the occupant went in, the walls were cracked, the so-called hardwood floors had come apart, and the molding was breaking down. I now want to deal with the question of inspection under C.M.H.C., but before doing so, sir, may I call it six o'clock?
June 2, 1969


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is general willingness that the bill might receive second reading this afternoon. I wonder if we could have unanimous consent to sit for a few minutes more so that the hon. member could finish his speech and then we could have second reading?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is this
agreed?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, we have one more speaker on this side. It is agreeable but I think it should be noted that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) has a short speech to make.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
we understand, Mr. Speaker, there is another speaker from the government side, a very-important one.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, there isn't.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps if we wait until eight o'clock he will speak.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in order to make progress, and in view of the very crowded timetable, surely we could agree to have second reading at this point?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are willing to sit at least long enough for my colleague from Vancouver East to finish his speech. That will be ten or 15 minutes anyway.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Would the hon. member be agreeable also to hearing the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) so that then we could have second reading?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is up to him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Harold Edward Winch: A few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, I was saying that from personal inspection and knowledge of the construction industry, because it was my trade, many houses won't last for 40 years. One of the things that disturb me very much is the fact that C.M.H.C., to a great extent, does not
National Housing Act
enforce its own rules for construction. It is most interesting to make a study of the construction code put out by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, with all its amendments. It is a book in itself. The regulations are very clear with regard to the types of construction and the quality that must be achieved in respect of workmanship and material. There are inspectors who go around several times during the course of construction. Yet, to my personal knowledge, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not back up its own inspectors. All one need do is speak to inspectors to find out that time after time they report that something does not meet specifications but they are overruled. This applies not only to homes but also to apartment buildings. I say that homes would last for 40 years if the contractor had to build according to the quality specifications of C.M.H.C. and if C.M.H.C. would back up its inspectors instead of overriding them, and making a farce of the inspections as they do. Unless quality workmanship and quality materials are insisted upon, the 40-year mortgage clause will be a farce because many homes will not stand up that long.
I said this is a very complex matter, Mr. Speaker. It certainly is. It is also impossible, under present plans, policies and legislation to meet the needs because of what is taking place. I should like to give an example of what has occurred over the years. I shall not speak in generalities. I shall state facts, but facts which I know are typical. I shall take my own constituency of Vancouver East where I am very familiar with the type of housing which exists. I have lived in this riding for many years and am familiar with the cost of lots and housing. In order to give an example which will demonstrate factually what I have in mind I intend to use an example which I know cannot be challenged. I wish to talk about my own home in Vancouver. Note the following. This two storey wood frame structure in which I live was built approximately 65 years ago. I purchased it 34 years ago. This past week I received the municipal tax bill for this property.
Naturally, the house in which I live is 34 years older than when I bought it. According to my tax bill, this year's assessment is 900 per cent greater than the amount I paid for the house and lot 34 years ago. The taxes this year amount to 34 per cent of what I paid for the house and lot. I made inquiries and found that to build the same kind of house today which I bought 34 years ago, the cost would be 1,500 per cent higher. The cost of the lot

June 2, 1969
National Housing Act
would be 1,800 per cent higher than it was 34 years ago. When I mention the figure of 1,800 per cent in respect of the lot, believe me when I say I am being reasonable because the last small lots which were sold in this area were sold for $13,000. These were lots with 50 foot frontage and my frontage is 125 feet. So when I refer to an 1,800 per cent increase I am being very very reasonable.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Conservative.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, with a small "c". I know it is a reasonable question to ask, "Oh, yes, Mr. Winch, but have you taken into consideration the increase in the incomes of your constituents over the 34-year period?" I have. If we take the skilled constituents in Vancouver East, the electricians, carpenters, bricklayers, lathers and loggers, what do we find? We find that the increase in the hourly rate of the skilled artisan in Vancouver East in 34 years is between 500 and 600 per cent. So, the income has increased 500 per cent to 600 per cent, but the cost of lots or homes has increased three to four times more than the income of these people in Vancouver and Vancouver East. How can these people buy an old home at an average price of $23,000 or a new home at an average price of $28,000 when the ceiling will be off the interest rate in five years and the morgage term is 40 years?
For reasons which I have tried to point out, drastic action is required if the people of this country are to be housed. You will not get houses and apartments for the people if the average citizen has to pay the cost because the average citizen cannot afford it. For God's sake, get that through your thick heads. They cannot buy the homes but they must get out of the slums. They must be able to pay the rent. Rents today in Vancouver are up as high as 50 per cent of the total income of the working man. Therefore, there must be immediate action by the government to expand and extend low rental housing, urban renewal and redevelopment. This is the only way. Do not bring in the suggestion that we must have the co-operation of the provinces. Yes, this would help; but do not forget that some provinces are trying to help now. The government of British Columbia is not one which I favour, but that government at least is endeavouring to help by instituting grants in aid for the payment of taxes up to an amount of $150. They also give a grant of $500 to help a person buy a home. This is not the answer, but on a provincial basis it is a move in the right direction. The municipality

cannot do it alone, nor can the province. I suggest that the leadership and initiative have to come from the federal parliament but because this involves policy and financing, the initiative must come from the cabinet. No private member can introduce a bill which will meet the needs in respect of housing today.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Without saying anything more, I sincerely hope that the seriousness of the situation will finally seep into the minds of government members and they will realize that palliatives and generalities are no longer satisfactory. I hope the minister will speedily go much further than he has to date, and much further than the legislation he has introduced has gone so far.
It is easy to be critical and to damn the other person. I should like to conclude by saying that this matter is of such significance and so in need of immediate solution that it would be a wonderful demonstration if the minister, the Liberal party and the leader of the Conservative party, as well as all other members, were to forget political expediency on this issue. We should all forget the idea that the other fellow is all wrong and we are all right. Let us see if we can possibly sit down together to recognize the difficulties of governing and financing in relation to this problem, as parliamentarians instead of as politicians, and arrive at satisfactory answers.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have been given the dubious honour of being the last speaker during this debate this evening, as a result of an unanticipated situation which has arisen. I wanted to take part in the debate but I expected that the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) would speak before the debate ended. At this stage I would very happily step aside in order to hear his remarks on this matter. I suppose there is no one in this house more knowledgeable about this very important subject of housing than the hon. member for Trinity who, over a period of several months, devoted almost his entire attention to this subject. However, it would seem he does not intend to speak at this stage of the debate.
Notwithstanding that fact and the fact that it is now after six o'clock, I wish to say a few words. On behalf of another group of Canadians who have not been represented in this debate in the house. So far as I can gather, and I have been reading Hansard and listening to the debate, this problem has not been
June 2, 1963

mentioned. In his opening remarks the minister responsible for housing talked all around the point I want to bring to the attention of the house at this time.
The minister indicated that the real crisis in housing in Canada revolves around difficulties in respect of the low income group in Canada. This conclusion was reached in the special report on housing prepared by Mr. Howard Grafftey, a former member of this house, who followed closely the work of the hon. member for Trinity as he travelled across the country to get first hand knowledge of the critical housing situation.
The point that Mr. Grafftey's report makes is that the real area of crisis which has now spilled over into the middle class income groups is the result of a tragic neglect of the low income groups. Let me speak very briefly about another category of Canadian which has been ignored almost completely in all discussions and thought. I refer to the nonincome group of Canadians.
The minister for housing has been a spokesman for this group in the past. As a matter of fact, he re-echoed the voice of the opposition in respect of the government's neglect in many areas of activity related to the problems of the Indians and the Metis in Canada, so much so that he was publicly criticized by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I would have thought that when the minister stressed the problem of the low income group he would have gone one step further and referred to this really critical area of housing in Canada in relation to this large group of Canadians, those of Indian ancestry.
Many of the Indian and Metis people have no income whatsoever. As a result they endure a standard of housing in many parts of Canada which can only be described as sub-human. When the Prime Minister indicated a few weeks ago that he felt there was no housing crisis, he certainly was not speaking for this non-income group of Canadian citizenry. It is not as though the government has neglected or ignored completely this major social problem. As far back as the latter part of the 1950's, emergency housing programs for Indians, Eskimos and Metis were launched in the northern parts of Canada. Last year, the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development upgraded this housing program to bring it into line
National Housing Act
with the changing needs resulting from inflation and increasing costs in Canada. The program already exists, and it is operated exclusively by the federal government.
Dealing with Indian housing problems largely in non-urban areas, we can see as we move across Canada that this program is getting underway in an encouraging manner, particularly on Indian reservations across the nation. However, there has been added to the housing problems of this special non-income group a new dimension. The result of the rapid process of urbanization. A recent study has revealed that 10,000 Indian and Metis have moved into the city of Winnipeg in the period from 1960 to 1966. The problem can be readily observed in a concentrated form in the Point Douglas, C.P.R. and Notre Dame areas. These areas now constitute a slum that can only be described as one of the worst in Canada.
We talk about the general problems of pollution, congestion, inadequate recreation, social alienation and inertia which exist in urban communities. This hardly describes the situation one finds in these growing slum districts in the city of Winnipeg as a result of this large scale immigration of Indian and Metis to the urban centres. There is not only social alienation and inertia, there is bug infestation. These slums are disease ridden and the condemned buildings are probably as bad as any you might find anywhere in Canada. This is largely because these people have been forced to move into the lowest level of housing accommodation, buildings that are condemned or should have been condemned, many of them built before the turn of the century.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I speak briefly at this time, because no one has discussed this problem. The minister did not make any specific reference to it in his introductory statement. It seems to me it is the most urgent problem of housing that we face at the moment. Its solution requires the removal of red tape-this has been referred to by many speakers in the debate-because up to 52 transactions have to be proceeded with before you can get housing programs under way. The solution will have to get around the problem of buck-passing between two levels of government, provincial and federal. Extraordinary procedures will have to be adopted, such as have been adopted in

June 2, 1969
National Homing Act
northern Canada, in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, where the federal government has accepted almost complete responsibility for dealing with the housing crisis of the native people in that part of the country.
I hope that the minister, because of his background in this field, because of his knowledge and criticism of government activities or lack of activities in respect of our native people when he had special responsibility for these matters, will continue to reecho the voice of the opposition in dealing with this special problem. It will be necessary to involve the people themselves, as has been the case with the program in the north. None of the problems of unemployment-and they are chronic among our native people-job training, education and other major social problems can be resolved until the fundamental and basic social problem of adequate or decent housing is solved.
The minister himself has raised the level of social expectations of our native people to new and desirable heights. I urge him not to disappoint them, now that he has the responsibility for dealing with what most hon. members I am sure agree is the basic social issue of them all.


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


John Gilbert: On division, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio) moved: that Bill C-201, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Six
o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.

Edgar John Benson: that Bill C-191, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the bill we are to debate today contains the remaining proposals from the budget of last October 22. The tariff changes were approved by the House of Commons late last year and the reform of estate and gift tax legislation in February.
Most hon. members are aware that the most important of the proposals in this measure are those dealing with the taxation of life insurance companies, and the establishment of a 2 per cent social development tax to help finance our health welfare, post-secondary education costs, and our social development payments to the provinces. Those relating to life insurance companies can probably be dealt with best during clause by clause debate.
Briefly, I should say that while major in extent, the taxes on the life insurance industry are intended only to bring the taxation of this industry into line with that of other business activity and the taxation of personal savings. In my budget speech I outlined proposals for taxing, first, the profit which emerges from the operations of a life insurance company; second, the investment income which is destined paid or accumulated by them for policy holders. The detailed workings of these taxes have not been simple to resolve. I also said in my budget that the insurance industry would be consulted on the development of the detailed provisions required to take account of the special features of the business and to plan suitable compliance procedures.
During the interval seven months, we have had intensive and very helpful discussions with representatives of this industry. These discussions have resulted in some modifications of the provisions and have made a major contribution to the development of a fair and workable system of taxation for the life insurance industry. The effect of the
June 2. 1969

changes will be to place the insurance industry in closer competition with other investment institutions for the savings dollar of the individual.
The new social development tax reflects the tremendous growth during this decade of programs to relieve poverty through income maintenance programs, and to provide better health and social services and economic opportunity programs and aid to education. The federal government now is spending more than $5 billion annually on social development programs. The extent of this undertaking and growth in recent years is shown by comparing this figure of $5 billion to that of only a decade ago when federal expenditures on such programs totalled only about $1.5 billion and accounted for only about one quarter of the budget. We are now in the midst of a thorough review of all these programs so that we can ensure that these vast sums are spent in the most efficient way possible.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Although we think savings can be brought about, the programs themselves were necessary as a response to a society that is experiencing a rapid growth in population, the fastest rate of family formation in the western world, the impact of a new technology, and quick expansion of its cities. Last year it was noted that one index listed 159 different programs to relieve poverty and promote good social development. The costs of most of these have increased year to year, but the most startling growth has been in four areas-health insurance services, welfare, post-secondary education and unconditional payments to the less wealthy provinces. All are shared-cost programs, some undertaken at the request of the provinces and others in consultation with the provinces.
The budget papers tabled on Tuesday show that of the $911 million increase in budgetary expenditures in 1968-69 over 1967-68, $451 million-or almost half-was accounted for by increases in these four fields. This represents an increase in one fiscal year of 27 per cent.
The government last year decidde that not only was a review of all these programs required, but chose to institute a special tax to help pay for them. I emphasize the word help, because the $440 million we hope to raise this fiscal year through this tax would not quite take care of the increase for the last fiscal year in the four programs I have been talking about. The progressive tax on persons
Income Tax Act
and corporations, the sales tax and the excise tax still pay for the bulk of our social development costs.
After lengthy discussion, it became apparent that the fairest way to pay for part of these broadly-based social development programs was to impose a special tax designed like a premium. We have precedents for such a system.
It was used to finance the old age security system. It made sense in this case because some of the fastest growing programs are for hospital and health insurance-services which would involve large costs for families if there were no government programs. A premium system was also used for the Canada Pension Plan. The social development premium, like the others I have mentioned, are graded according to one's ability to pay. Anyone whose gross income is about $8,000 or more pays the full premium, while for those earning less money the premiums are scaled down. For instance, a married taxpayer with two dependent children and earning $7,000 annually pays a premium of about $86. If he earns $6,000, the premium is about $66; if he earns $5,000, it is $46 and so on. Those earning below the basic exemption level pay no premium and all of their costs for these redistributive programs are carried by the treasury. If it is remembered that those persons who pay less than the full premium generally are those who benefit most from these programs, and that this tax pays only for a small part of these programs, this measure can, I believe, be considered progressive.
The provinces, not unnaturally, were displeased with this tax. By placing it in a special part of the Income Tax Act it has no effect on provincial taxes or revenues. If the additional revenues had been raised simply by increasing the graduated rates of tax applicable to income the provincial governments would share in the additional revenues. This would have required us to impose a tax to yield substantially greater revenues than $440 million. And it would have meant that the federal government would be held responsible not only for its own tax increase but also for the effective tax increases by the provinces. This would be contrary to one of the principles adopted by the federal government in 1966-the principle that future fiscal arrangements should provide that each government be accountable to its own electors for its taxing and spending decisions.

June 2. 1969
Income Tax Act
During the past six years the federal government has recognized many provincial priorities by taking large and expensive steps with shared-cost programs and increased abatements to reduce the gap between provincial revenues and expenditures. Large funds are now being lent to the provinces by the Canada Pension Plan and this will help ease the outside borrowing problems of provincial governments. The current reorganization of regional development programs is also expected to provide considerable aid to the poorer provinces over the next few years by increasing the economic growth in these provinces and raising their revenue base.
When more than one-third of our gross national product is being collected in taxation by three levels of government, surely the principle adopted by the government in 1966 is the only way to ensure that over-all taxation increases at a minimum. When possible the government that is spending should be responsible for collecting. And the voter should know as far as is possible what is happening with his tax dollar.
This principle coupled with any new arrangements we may work out to improve federal-provincial consultation and methods for joint action should go a long way towards making confederation more viable for the 1970's.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, here we find ourselves 253 days from the date on which the minister delivered his budget message and advised the nation of the tax measures he proposed in order that revenues might catch up with expenditures. We got a great homily that night on the virtues of moderation and the need to control expenditures because, suddenly, the government has discovered that big, bad wolf called inflation. You know, there is a great temptation on this eve of the 1969 budget to gradually slip over into some sort of budget discussion. I watched the minister very carefully for the last ten minutes of his speech and mentioned to my friend for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that at least we will be spared tomorrow night hearing the homily we are getting tonight.
Actually, this is not a budget debate. We could go into a great deal of interesting speculation about the effects of inflation and whether the tax proposals of the minister included in this bill have worked out. But that is for tomorrow and the subsequent debate. What we are dealing with tonight in Bill C-191, and the regulations passed by the

minister some weeks ago in dealing with insurance companies, are proposals, outside of the estate tax and the gift tax, included in the minister's budget.
On the night of the budget I said that it is a savage budget, and I still think it is. It is savage because of its impact in raising some $800 million of additional money one way or another. There was $440 million in 1969-70 for the social development tax, some $275 million in windfall advances for the corporation tax, something like $95 million with regard to certain classes of companies, etc., etc. We will deal with all this as we go along. But why do we have to have all this? I called the budget savage because the incidence of taxation had to be savage, really savage, if it was to catch up with expenditures. And if I might make my budgetary observation now, I think it high time this government abandoned the philosophy that it must tax up the level of expenditures over which it has little apparent control.
The minister tried to justify the social development tax, saying that it was in a separate category and was not made available to the provinces. In February of this year the minister was assailed from all sides by provincial premiers and ministers of finance for this particular move on this part. There we saw a bit of the Artful Dodger. Of course, the provincial premiers were themselves facing the same sort of problem as the federal government; they too have been on a honeymoon of expenditure for many years and they are having to tax up to their expenditures. They are desperate to find money. But the minister tried to justify his action on the basis of, "Well, if we had imposed an ordinary increase in the income tax in order to raise moneys for provinces for some of their programs, the federal government would have been levying higher taxs merely on behalf of the provinces." I would agree with the minister that he is, to that extent.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
But he would be raising moneys for the provinces in respect of programs foisted upon the provinces by the federal government. Medicare is an example. With the exception of Saskatchewan, it has been foisted on all the provinces; they have been blackjacked into compliance. They are to receive about 50 per cent of the national cost and in these circumstances they cannot possibly afford not to join. I suppose that ultimately Ontario will come into the the plan, and Quebec, too. It is like waving a blackjack and telling a man he
June 2, 1969

must come along quietly, that it is for his own good. The same applies to the postsecondary education program. This was foisted on the provinces after one of the federal-provincial conferences, I believe. They were not happy about it, of course but the terms were such as to prevent their backing away from the plan. Nevertheless, their priorities were all upset.
I have said enough, I think, about general budgetary considerations in reply to some of the statements made by the minister. Now, let us look at the purport and contents of Bill C-191. I must say that the provisions dealing with life insurance companies are extremely complex. Indeed, I am sure that only the minister's officials and those who are intimately connected with the insurance business-I do not mean with the retail selling of insurance, but with the actuarial side and the financial side-will be able to understand the complexity of the proposed amendments and of the regulations. I have looked at them. They are of great length. They deal with the lesser, or the greater, of alternatives, and so on. I must confess one has to start from square one and block out the pattern step by step in order to arrive at a coherent picture and, unfortunately, we just do not have the time in the house to do so.
In the final stages, we heard a great deal of protest from the insurance industry. I am sure the minister has heard a great deal of it, since delegations from the industry have met with him at his invitation to work out something which would be practical. I do not suppose the life insurance industry likes these provisions at all. I will say this: when the policyholders find out what this is likely to cost them, they will be greatly and gravely surprised. Remember, it is not the insurance industry who will be paying; it is not the shareholders, in this case, who will pay because after all most of these life insurance companies in Canada are mutuals. The policyholders are the shareholders, Mr. Speaker. Every cent which is extracted from these companies will come, ultimately, from the policyholders themselves. Let us not be sanctimonious about this and believe that the minister discovered the life insurance companies operating in some sort of tax haven from which he is now unearthing them. These companies did pay taxes. It is true that they did not pay taxes on some investment income which went directly to the policyholders. As a result of these proposals we are going to see increased rate books. There are no two ways about it.
Income Tax Act
Many members of this house, and perhaps people who are in the galleries tonight, whether they hold participating policies or whether dividends go to reduce the premiums and for the benefit of the policyholders, particularly in the case of mutual insurance companies, will find that this is so. Well, the minister has told us he intends to extract a lot more money which he believes he should get out of the insurance industry. It comes down to this: it is little John Q. Citizen who will pay. It is the individual Canadian policyholder, whether your son or mine who holds a small, junior policy or whether it is a businessman who holds a much larger investment in insurance, or whether it is the holder of policies put into effect to protect wives and children, who will have to bear the extra cost.
In addition I suggest, as was done shortly after the publication of the budget, that the insurance tax may well cost up to 10,000 homes, perhaps not over a year but over a period of time. In terms of Canada's housing crisis, this means an awful lot. Let me point out that all this money would have been available for investment in mortgages. It will no longer be available because the minister will take it. What will he do with it?


Edgar John Benson: Invest it in homes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister does not use it for homes. He does not use it at all for that purposes.


Edgar John Benson: Through the National Housing Act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister lends to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but he cannot bamboozle anyone by saying the money raised from taxes goes into homes. Not one iota does. The money lent to C.M.H.C. is raised by bond issue or otherwise, usually be bond issue. And when it comes back to Central Mortgage it goes into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


Edgar John Benson: We lent it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is right. But the effect of taking away this money from the insurance companies and their policyholders will be to increase the cost of insurance to the ordinary policyholder. In the second place, it will remove money which would normally be available for investment in homes.
As the minister knows, Canada's insurance companies are among the biggest lenders in

June 2, 1969
Income Tax Act
respect of home and apartment construction in this country. Just as the Canada pension plan syphoned off a lot of money which would have been assigned to the residential mortgage field, so this proposal of the minister's will further restrict the flow of capital available for home construction. On one hand we are trying to tempt money into the housing field and on the other we are preventing it from reaching that area. I just cannot understand what is the name of the game to use today's language, in which money is taken away from institutions which primarily lend money for residential construction. I cannot see it.
Let us consider the act generally. Frankly, it contains a lot of tidying up features. One of the early clauses relates to the treatment of unpaid remuneration to third parties-how this is to be handled on the books of an employer. Another deals with the procedure for the recapture of capital cost allowances on the disposal of a vessel. Well, there is a great deal of social importance attached to that proposal. Third, there is a provision dealing with the deduction of taxable income in respect of children receiving family allowances and youth allowances-precision as to age. This is a tidying up measure. We are also advised, though this did not appear in the budget speech, that expenses in connection with artificial kidney machines, the use of oxygen tents and other equipment to administer oxygen will be considered as allowable expenses within the medical expenses bracket. Fifth, there is something to do with the rate of computation of the reserve deductible in computing the income of a taxpayer whose business includes the lending of money on the security of a mortgage, etc. of real property.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Then there is another item, Mr. Speaker. I think it was indicated in the budget speech that there will be a denial to the ordinary taxpayer of any medical expenses which he would include in that category of permitted medical expenses if these have been paid by any public medicare plan. Those people who come into the provincial schemes as the province enters into a scheme, say anything that is paid after July 1 in the case of a province such as Alberta, where it is coming into force after that date, will be naturally non-acceptable under the medical expense item on the income tax sheet.
I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that the taxation of life insurance companies was one

of the principal facets of the tax proposals of the minister.
The second point has to do with what I call the hurry-up or speed-up of the payment of income tax by corporations, regardless of their size. Any concern with "Ltd." behind its name must now pay income tax as it goes along. From here on such concerns must estimate their annual income tax and pay this in one-twelfth instalments. If they are late in so doing, they must pay an interest penalty. I know this may be all right with professional businessmen such as doctors, lawyers, architects, accountants and so forth, but they are in an entirely different category. True enough, they do have accounts receivable and there is a time lag. For instance, lawyers have a great inventory of accounts that have not been paid and which have been accumulated with regard to files, but that is the price of doing business. Naturally, all they do is increase their fees in order to compensate for this additional expense.
The minister's colleague, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), three or four years ago was the first to introduce the speed-up whereby the time period during which a corporation could pay its income tax was cut back to a matter of a few months to the point where it is now month by month. I can think of some things that tend to create inflation, drive up prices and the cost of doing business, and here is a classic one. The minister on this occasion has stated this will bring in increased revenue of $275 million. The minister needs this $275 million because last year he faced the biggest peacetime deficit in our history. This is so according to the tables of The National Finances of the Canadian Tax Foundation. The previous Minister of Finance managed to raise approximately $240 million.
What does this mean to the ordinary small businessmen whose profits are tied up either in inventory or accounts receivable? What does the imposition of the speed-up mean? There is a greater strain on the working capital of all concerns from the small contractor who is incorporated right up to the very large giants. They must go to the bank to borrow money to pay their prepaid taxes to the government. Naturally, this is going to cost them money. They are going to cover themselves by increasing their prices. Who pays? Again it is John Q. Citizen. It is another drive-up for inflation, another spur to inflation. Yet, we are told this coming budget is to be antiinflationary. I will be very interested in seeing how the minister is going to deal with it
June 2, 1969

because it seems in so many instances the imposition of certain taxes have a complete reverse effect. Instead of being anti-inflationary, they are inflationary. I say that the speed-up of corporation income tax is definitely in the nature of an inflationary tax.
Of course the effect has now gone. The windfall effect is now exhausted. The treasury has benefited by close to $750 million over the past few years. This is the amount they have siphoned off. As I stated earlier they have used that amount to catch up with the rate of expenditures. There have been no surpluses and there have always been healthy deficits.
We have spoken about the resident insurance companies and this also applies in part to non-resident insurance companies, such as those in the general insurance field. The detail there is very complex. There are some provisions dealing with the sale of oil and gas rights deemed to be income in the year of sale rather than as payments are received. I trust when we come to the clause in question the minister will explain the rationale. For some reason or other individuals selling oil and gas rights are to have the proceeds charged as income in the year of the sale, although the proceeds may be spread out over a number of years. They will be taxed on the basis of the total amount to be received as though it had been received in one year, subject to setting up some sort of reserve. We will see how adequate this reserve is to be. Again, why was this done? After all, the individual who sells on a term basis has not received income. It seems to me that the true rationale of income tax is that you pay on the basis of income that you receive and not on this so-called accrual basis. Instead of deducting as an expense the cost of borrowed money used to acquire appreciated property or used for the purpose of exploration, prospecting or development, there are options to capitalize. These are complicated tidying-up things. We will also see what these may mean.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I wonder why on earth in clause 29-that is the only reference I will make to a number- there is to be a tax on payments for knowhow. There is a 15 per cent withholding tax involved upon, shall we say, the management fees paid for know-how by a subsidiary in Canada to a parent company in the United States or elsewhere as though this were a dividend. I would want to get a full explanation about this. Maybe I missed something
Income Tax Act
along the way. I am quite sure I may have. They are in the same category or same classification as patents, trade marks, models, plans, secret formulae, etc. I suppose it may be that the minister has discovered that some parent firms are using this as a secret method of withdrawing revenue from Canadian subsidiaries. If that is the case, we will certainly want to know, and I suppose there is a way of doing it.
Now I come to the social development tax which this year is to yield about $440 million. Mr. Speaker, I called that tax savage the night of the budget, and particularly the limit of $120 of tax. Frankly, it means that persons with an income of somewhere just below $10,000 are the ones who bear the whole burden of this 2 per cent tax. Those whose taxable income is somewhere over $9,000 to $10,000 pay actually less than 2 per cent, and all those well above that are not carrying their load under what is alleged to be a progressive income tax system, progressive to the extent that as your income goes up it is deemed you are better able to bear the load, and so your tax returns are higher.
I know that a rationale was given by the Prime Minister on some occasion to the effect that, "Well, this is the sort of thing that drives people away from Canada to the United States, people who are in the middle and upper income brackets, if they continue to be taxed to the limit." There is no doubt that our taxes on income at the upper levels are higher than taxes in the United States, and therefore we tend to drive people away. Mr. Speaker, that has been going on for a long time. I have personally felt that the system of taxation used by Canada on incomes is a penalty on ability, a penalty on energy, a penalty on responsibility, and a full penalty on initiative. But that is the way the tax system is devised, and it is a wonder that more people have not left because they get penalized that way.
It does not matter whether you are going to work 16 or 18 hours a day, as many men do seven days a week, often gathering up ulcers, in order to develop a business. The net result is you get hit with hard taxes, and much of what you earn is taken away from you.
One of the points not touched upon by the minister concerns interpretations that the Department of National Revenue has placed upon registered pension plans for employees of corporations. I want to know why the minister did not deal with this subject. Last year quite a change seems to have been introduced because under section 11 of the Income

June 2, 1969
Income Tax Act
Tax Act an employer could contribute up to $1,500 yearly per employee toward a registered pension plan, and the employee could contribute up to $1,500 per year on his own behalf. In addition, an employee could contribute up to $1,500 for each year of past service with his employer while he was not a contributor to a registered pension plan. In other words, he could pay up arrears. These scales were on the basis of the federal civil service plan. The maximum pension which could be provided for an employee was one equal to 2 per cent per year of service of an employee who worked for 35 years, and therefore at the end he could receive a pension of 70 per cent of the average of his best six years' salary.
Well, if the federal civil service pension scheme is deemed to be a fair one, and I think it is, what's wrong with it being the same way in industry? If a man works 35 years for a company-pretty well a normal working life-there is no reason why he should not be able to contribute, and his employer contribute to a registered pension plan which would give him 70 per cent of his best six years' salary. But the department has introduced a new rule which discriminates against small, closely held corporations. This rule states that pension plans established primarily for shareholders and their families will no longer be accepted for registration. But these people are still employees, and apparently this rule will be invoked regardless of their employment status with their corporations. And what is worse the department has even gone further, to indicate that previously approved plans may have to be brought into conformity with the new rules when they are amended, that is to say when the plans are amended. Even the slightest amendment to a plan will bring it under the rule, and will eliminate those plans for smaller corporations where shareholders are actually employees of the companies.
Finally, the department has stated that hundreds of plans in process now and not yet approved, but submitted to the department for registration prior to October 1, 1968, must conform with the new rule. This will affect plans for which contributions have been made in good faith for as long as two years. I would like to know why the Minister of Finance and his colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote) have seen fit to make this change.
It is absolutely unfair that proper pension plans which were quite acceptable under the 
former rules, were submitted for approval, and because there was humming and hawing for up to two years during which times the rules have been changed, they should now be said to be unacceptable for registration, despite the fact that employers and employees were making contributions to these plans all that time. Is there not a breach of faith in regard to this? Why should there be a retroactive aspect to the department's plan to deny registration of those plans submitted prior to October 1, 1968?
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, why is there the discrimination against small closely held corporations? Surely, the Minister of National Revenue, from the examination by his auditors, is quite able to say whether there has been any attempt or plan to deprive the treasury of funds to which it was legitimately entitled. Surely, those self same employees of small corporations are entitled to the same privileges as those held by the employees of large corporations and by employees in the public service? Are these citizens to be set apart just because they happen to hold shares? They might hold two shares in a private corporation and occupy a very responsible position, perhaps having started out as an office boy and worked up to become treasurer of the company. I know that the Minister of Finance is involved with his colleague the Minister of National Revenue, and since registered pension plans are subject to exemption from the payment of income tax I think this is a matter than should be dealt with at this particular time.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
During the discussion of this very voluminous bill a great deal of time may be spent in getting at some of the detail. I am not suggesting this debate should last any great length of time. It is absolutely anti-climatic. As I said earlier in opening my remarks, 253 days after the delivery of the budget of October 22, 1968 we are considering a tax measure announced by the minister on that night. About a couple of months after the event we dealt with the estate tax provisions, but I do not understand why we could not have dealt with the income tax provisions at that time.


Edgar John Benson: There was the omnibus bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes; the minister says we had the omnibus bill. That was one of great social moment. We relieved against gross indecency between consenting adults. That had to come in before determining the validitiy of the imposition of a 2 per
June 2. 1969

cent social development tax. You know, there is no law which says that that tax should be collected. Oh, I know it comes in under the Financial Administration Act, but the point is that if the tax bill is defeated-and recent history shows that this has happened-then the bill goes out the window. Then, the minister would have to refund all the cash he has collected, not under the provisions of this particular bill dealing with income tax and so on, but through some obscure provision in the Financial Administration Act which is there as sort of a full dispensation to an erring Minister of Finance. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance has any tax changes to bring in tomorrow night, and I do not know whether the government will insist on closing this house on June 27 for the summer adjournment, but if they are going to insist on the priorities for the legislation suggested today, then the schedule is just not possible. I believe the minister is realistic enough to realize this. So, I suppose what will happen will be that we will not have any tax changes tomorrow night. We can be thankful for this small mercy that we will not get any tax increases.
Frankly, the minister in his budget presentation of last October predicted that by the end of March, 1970, the end of this fiscal year, there would be a surplus to the tune of $5 million. I rather think, as an educated guess, that he might be $200 million short. He will be short on his revenue. He is already over on the expenditures. Wait until the bills for medicare come in. Then, the minister will find he has underestimated the expenditures and I suppose next year taxes will go up to catch up with our expenditures.


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen lots of ministers of finance reach out to prove how progressive they are, but I think this one must be the prize of them all. He has reached out so far that he is in danger of throwing all his limbs out of joint in an effort to prove the progressiveness of the so-called 2 per cent social development tax. It was very revealing tonight when the minister started changing the emphasis, and instead of calling it a tax he called it a premium. I think this is one of the first times I have heard the minister refer to it by that term. The fact is that a tax in a country like this should be progressive. Instead of that, he is indicating that everybody virtually will pay the same amount regardless of their ability to pay. I was rather surprised by the language he used when he talked about the purposes of this tax
Income Tax Act
and said that those who benefit the most pay the least. In other words, the poor are well off. It may be in this particular tax provision there is some benefit to those who have no income because this is a surtax on income; but how any minister of finance can say that the poor in this country are better off than the rest is beyond me.
The beneficiaries of our society are not the poor. It is not the poor who send their children to college. It is not the poor who need roads for industry. It is the better off who benefit from most of the taxes paid, in return for which they always seem to be willing to throw a few crumbs to the unfortunate in our society to keep them quiet. This is sort of an insurance policy which undercuts revolution in the country. As has been pointed out by the Carter royal commission, we have one of the most unfair tax systems in the western world. This 2 per cent social development tax goes a long distance toward making it even more unfair than it was before.
Recently, we had an example in respect of the estate tax legislation. There were some complaints that this legislation was hurting people with large estates. The minister responded to the democracy of his backbenchers and changed that legislation. On the other hand, we have the 2 per cent social development tax, unfair as it is. Almost every intelligent voice in this country has been raised against this tax and the minister has done nothing at all about it. The minister has the nerve to come back many months later and present the tax in basically the same form in which he introduced it in the budget. Perhaps he thinks that by changing the language he solves something or that by the use of sophistical semantics people will forget the injustice and unfairness of this tax. The people are not that foolish. Only this morning it was brought to my attention that the Hamilton and District Labour Council has been trying to get an interview with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) for a long time to explain their opposition to this tax. I should like to quote from their letter to the Minister of Finance:


Hon.   Sir@: Inasmuch as I have not had even the courtesy of a reply to my requests for an appointment to meet with you and present a petition and our submission to you with respect to tax policy, you leave me little choice but to forward our ideas in writing (copies of which, you will note, will be sent to those noted on this correspondence).
I trust you will at least give this submission and our petition your serious consideration.
The letter is signed by F. Stewart Cooke, president. It is a disgrace that the minister has not met with the representatives of the

June 2, 1969
Income Tax Act
Hamilton and District Labour Council. I am rather surprised that the Liberal members from Hamilton have not raised their voices to protest the action of the minister on this occasion. I think the submission is interesting in itself and probably explains how the steel workers feel about this particular tax. I should like to quote their submission in full:
The Hamilton and District Labour Council represents over 40,000 affiliated members. We have had extensive dialogue with our members over the question of taxes. Our members are concerned with the present tax policies of our country. They do not think we have fair and equitable taxation. This feeling is based, as we have pointed out, on considerable discussion of the problem giving them some knowledge of the current situation. Even more important, it is based on an increasing and personal awareness of how they themselves are affected by taxes.
Our labour Council took part in the Canadian Labour Congress Citizenship Month campaign to publicize our support for the principle of fair and equitable taxation and general support for the recommendations for reform contained in the Carter Report. The response that this campaign met with is certainly indicative of the widespread public support for such reforms. The card signing campaign resulted in hundreds of cards being sent into your office and the offices of both Federal and Provincial Members of Parliament.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
We received another 8,000 cards from the Hamilton area alone. However, most significant in this part of the campaign was the result from two newspaper ads we placed in the Hamilton Spectator. We printed a sample of the card and asked readers to clip and mail to the Labour Council office. We do not know if any were mailed directly to you, but we received over 1,300 in our office. These were mailed at the people's own expense. Almost 100 of them contained a personal letter, appeal for action, or pledge of support. Copies of these letters are enclosed, and some of them are from the very heart and cannot help but make any interested party realize that there is a need for more justice in tax policies.
Because of this concerned reaction to our campaign, and because of the labour movement's-and this labour council's-honest belief that justice is not being done for the working people; because of our feeling that fixed income, low and middle income citizens are bearing an unfair portion of the tax load, we ask you to act now in implementing major tax reforms in Canada.
You, Mr. Minister, more than anyone else, because you hold the responsibility in a majority government, have the power to act. We are asking you to be partisan; be partisan on behalf of the vast majority of Canadians who work for wages or live on pensions, and who are not very affluent in today's society. The lobby on behalf of the corporate world and the entrepreneur and speculator is big and powerful, and well organized. The media of this nation is private enterprise and, therefore, at the command of those with money. They present their case well and constantly, and

it is a case for the 'status quo' or, at best, as little change as necessary-and only when necessary.
We can only rely on the efforts of individual citizens and the efforts of those unions with a social awareness to plead our case.
This makes it imperative, if people are to continue to have faith in people as politicians, that you, as a minister of the people, put their interests firmly ahead of the vested interests of the few.
We say that recent tax increases have hurt the average citizen more than the wealthy, and much more than some of our corporate empires. We find it impossible to justify, for instance, your 2 per cent social development tax increase with a ceiling, so that it hurts those above $6,000 taxable less than those below.
We cannot understand the reluctance to institute a meaningful capital gains tax, especially as a curb to speculators.
We question the tax loopholes and exemptions and depletion allowances enjoyed by mining, forestry and financial institutions.
The vast power of giant conglomerates indicates the increasing concentration and power of wealth. We fear that this power gives them almost the right to tax through their control of prices.
To us it is an injustice that an old age pensioner with a supplement pays taxes. It is an injustice to increase taxes on working people with a tax ceiling. It is an injustice to allow speculators to make thousands on a smart land or stock deal and pay no taxes, while a worker putting in overtime or receiving a small dividend from his credit union finds a good portion of this extra hard-earned incentive gone in taxes.
We know where the wealth is in this country- it is in the corporate structure. We feel that this is where you must go for your tax dollars.
Our people value their society and are willing to pay for it. We know taxes are here to stay. We expect they will increase. We are willing to accept all of this.
In return, we ask that taxes be more fair and equitable than they now are. We think the principle of 'a buck is a buck' makes sense!
This intelligent letter indicates a recognition which most of us have that taxes are here to stay, that they are worthwhile and buy us things we could not buy in other ways. How many of us could send our children to school without the tax system we have? Would we have roads without taxation? Would we have the facilities we now have without taxation, or ultimately medicare without taxation? Taxes purchase many of the things we need, but there is an anger against taxes in this country which is caused by the injustices of the tax system. It is not that we do not recognize the value of taxes. The facts are quite simple; the wrong people are often being asked to pay an unfair share. We feel this aspect needs to be corrected, and we feel that this 2 per cent social development tax in particular is an infamous kind of
June 2. 1969

levy. Our tax system generally needs to be improved because it is most unjust.
I remember having a conversation with a businessman at a time when a local trucking firm was in the midst of a strike. This businessman simply could not understand why these workers wanted more money. He argued that, after all, truckers were making just as much money as he. Perhaps if we were to take a look at the dollars they were both receiving in the form of salary, it might look that way. But to do so would be to ignore the vast difference in non-taxable benefits which accrue to one group of citizens as against another. A person on wages or salary pays taxes on everything he earns. The other group of people receive very many benefits which are not available to the wage earner.
Let us consider, for instance, a simple thing like the automobile. Although there is an assessment of what is personal and what is business use, there is no doubt that those in business are able to deduct large portions of their transportation costs. If they travel, much of their travel expense becomes a deductible benefit. Entertainment, of course, is another matter. It is very difficult to prove whether you are entertaining a customer or someone else, and this tends very much to be a benefit. Retirement savings are more easily available to people in business than to the average wage earner. Obviously, if a businessman makes a capital gain, this is an opportunity available to him that is not available to a person on a wage or salary. Sometimes a part of the cost of housing is paid for, and of course a businessman has the opportunity to decide when he wants to bring certain income into a tax position. If he belongs to a business association he is permitted to deduct this cost. If he needs books he can deduct that cost. If he goes to a conference, that cost can be deducted. Even special clothes he might use in his occupation are often deductible. He also gets a depreciation allowance which is very helpful, and this is not available to the wage earner.
Interest rates for the businessman are deductible. Any increase in the cost of money is not as significant to him as it is to a man on wages or salary. On top of that, the businessman often gets special benefits as a result of stock options. Although some businessmen may feel they are no better off than a truck driver, I have not heard of many of them opting to drive a truck after getting out of business. There may be good reasons for
Income Tax Act
continuing these deductions. I do not think there is a good reason, but perhaps an argument can be made for them. If that argument is acceptable why should not the wage earner and the salary earner also be permitted to deduct these items from their taxable income?
Recently, I received a letter from a professor at Waterloo university in which he forwarded a submission by the Canadian Association of University Teachers. I should like to quote from this letter:
I have felt for a number of years that university professors have been discriminated against because we are not able to deduct from our taxable income legitimate expenses that other professionals, businessmen . .. may deduct. For example, I cannot deduct the cost of books and journals that are as necessary to my career as is farm machinery to a farmer. Nor can I deduct the cost of travel related to a research project, even though research publication is a prime requirement of my job.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Even worse off is the young professor who is still working on his doctoral dissertation but cannot deduct any of his expenses. When I was finishing my dissertation while lecturing in Detroit, I was able to deduct all my research expenses from my taxable income. A professor in the United States is financially much better off than his counterpart with an equal salary in Canada.
I hope that you will bring these matters to the attention of the Minister of Finance.
It is terribly unfair that one group of citizens should enjoy very real benefits which are just as real as if a money payment was paid, while another group which I believe is just as valuable to our society is not permitted this kind of deduction. Let us forget about the businessman and the professor for a moment. What about the fellow who works in the shop? How well does he do under our tax system? What is his position? He must pay all the expenses incurred in connection with his automobile. He needs his automobile just as much as the businessman does. Anyone who considers the industrial developments in this country knows that a great many people work in one city and live in another. They may travel 15 or 20 miles a day to get to work. Even in a city that has some sort of public transportation system, the automobile has become almost indispensable to the worker in order for him to hold down a job. We all know that running an automobile costs about $700 or $800 a year; it frequently amounts to 15 per cent of a workman's income, which is a very big hunk. None of the expenses incurred in running his automobile are deductible.

June 2, 1969
Income Tax Act
When you consider travel, you find that the working man cannot deduct the cost of that travel. I suggest that as great an argument could be made in respect of people in shops going to seminars, union meetings and practising industrial democracy as could be made in respect of businessmen going to conventions. If a businessman is permitted to make these deductions for travel and business purposes, why is not the workingman allowed to do so? Why is the workingman not entitled to the same privilege? I suggest that what is good for one should be good for the other.
Let us deal with some other matters. What about entertainment? If a businessman entertains for the purpose of making a sale, doing business or pursuing his normal line of activity, that is all right and those expenses are deductible for income tax purposes. But if Joe takes out Harry, who works in the same shop, because he wants him to join the credit union or they want to discuss a matter affecting their livelihood in the shop, perhaps union business, and Joe buys Harry a beer, that expense is not deductible. The booze the businessman buys is deductible for income tax purposes. There is something wrong in our kind of society when this is the situation. Perhaps neither expense should be deductible; but if one is, the other should be.
We could save ourselves a great deal of money in this respect, because beer does not cost as much as the businessman's high expense account living which takes place at the moment. I know a great many people who work in shops. Many of them have attended retraining schools or studied at night in order to upgrade themselves in the job; they have taken part in apprenticeship programs or have been learning about new machines. They have enhanced their talent and the contribution they are able to make to the shop in which they work and society generally. In effect, they have upgraded themselves, or if we want to put it another way, a capital gain has taken place.
If we were to apply the same rules that apply to capital gains on property, the extra money the workingman earns as a result of having improved himself should not be taxed; he should receive the full increment and there should be no tax applied. After all, the land speculator achieves this result by upgrading the value of property in which he deals. Is the human being less important than a piece of property? However, our tax system does not work that way.

Let us consider depreciation, for example. The workingman's house is to some extent his factory. He is told that if he buys a washing machine he will effect certain savings; if he buys a good stove he will effect certain savings. Why cannot he depreciate this kind of machinery in the same way that a businessman depreciates machinery used in his undertaking? If we are to have this kind of business depreciation in respect of tax, it should also apply to machinery used in the home. Most of us feel that the home is a man's means of raising a fine Canadian family. Why should he not be able to deduct interest in the home? The businessman can deduct his interest in the profession or undertaking he follows.
The workingman can claim only a very small allowance for his working clothes or his tools, which are essential to his work. These things which he needs for his work are not deductible for income tax purposes, just as the university professor's books are not deductible. This is quite ridiculous. Can you conceive a professor who does not read books? Yet, they are not deductible for income tax purposes. On the other hand, any business entertainment extravagance is deductible for income tax purposes.
It may not be possible to allow deductions for all these things; it may mean an incalculable amount of bookkeeping in order to bring justice into our tax system. So perhaps we should be talking about making nothing deductible. This would not affect the workingman, because at the moment very little is deductible for him. It would certainly bring everyone into line, however. I suspect that the government would save an enormous amount of money on this deal and would very substantially increase revenue derived from taxes.
The Carter Commission tried to deal with this problem. They considered the situation. They saw that living high off the hog was pretty prevalent in this country. They saw that a great deal of it was wrong and should be corrected. They tried to effect a change by suggesting limits on what a businessman might spend; they suggested he might spend so much a day on hotels, on so many trips a year, and this sort of thing. I believe this will not work. It is one of those situations for which it is almost impossible to legislate, because the kind of regulation that would be needed would be impossible to enforce.
In the long run we will simply have to say that none of these things are deductible for
June 2, 1969

income tax purposes and they should be tacked on to the price of the goods involved. I believe that only in this way can we ever be certain that very important sources of noncash benefits are coming into the tax fold. Apart from the unfairness involved in our present tax system, it kills a great deal of the potential efficiency in this country. Many of the tax privileges conferred on industries enable those industries to be less efficient than is necessary. The Carter Commission pointed out that one of the evil effects of the special allowances we have been granting to the oil and mining industries has been the promotion of a relatively inefficient structure. Far more capital has been invested in that industry than was actually necessary. Many of the investment decisions were being made for reasons of tax benefit, to avoid paying taxes, rather than because the industry required that amount of money.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I find it difficult to understand why in this period of our history, when we are supposed to be moving toward a somewhat more egalitarian society than we have had, a minister of finance would bring in such a regressive tax measure, a social development tax with a ceiling of $120 on it. It has been suggested that the reason for this is that the minister does not wish to share his revenues with the provinces. This tax, then, is one way of ensuring that he does not share revenues with the provinces. If this is the case, then it strikes me as one of the poorest excuses for this kind of tax that could possibly be devised. One would think that the federal government was at war with the provinces of Canada. One wonders whether or not the federal government thinks the provinces are part of Canada. It is not that the provinces do not want to share the tax revenue with the minister. The minister knows full well that they are most eager to share this tax revenue, but the minister does not wish to do it.
Part of the philosophy that pervades the other side of the house relates to the fact they are not going to participate in raising taxes for provincial purposes as they have done in the past. It is going to be very nice for them. The Liberal party can go into the next election looking like a bunch of heroes. They have not raised the taxes too high, and they can throw the responsibility on the provincial legislatures by saying, "You be the bad guys. Raise the taxes, and incur the wrath of the public. It won't be us". I suggest this is a rather dishonest position for a government to 29180-593
Income Tax Act
take, particularly when it is quite obvious that in a country like ours it is easier for the federal government to raise taxes than it is for provincial governments. We know that there is a vast disparity of means and ability to raise taxes between one province and another. If the federal government takes the position that it is not going to assist the provinces in collecting their revenue requirements, the terrible disparity that already exists in this country will be increased. It is not worthy of the government to take this position for political reasons.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that the minister's assurance and sophistry will not convince one single Canadian that this tax is fair or just.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, since I came to this house in 1962, I have learned to fear bills amending the Income Tax Act as much as budget speeches. I fear them because the amendments to the Income Tax Act have always been to the disadvantage of the Canadian taxpayer and have always contributed to get more and more money from the workers, the farmers, in short from those who need their income the most. Whatever the level at which taxes are levied, it is always the consumer who pays.
The amendment to the Act, namely Bill C-191, will contribute to cut once more the purchasing power of the Canadian consumer.
Every time the government introduced legislation to amend our tax system, specially in these last years, it claimed that it was to fight inflation. But as a result taxes increased and the cost of living increased accordingly. It seems that this inflation, this alarming increase in prices, suits the government because each time prices go up that means a new tax increase without the need to introduce a new bill or to announce it to the Canadian taxpayer.
Many taxpayers are unaware that each increase in prices means an increase in taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to give a rather striking example of these tax increases. I will take as an example the field of housing construction. In my area, Abitibi, in the fall of 1968, the price of frame-lumber, was $96 per 1000 feet, plus the 11 per cent federal tax- $10.56-and the Quebec provincial tax, over and above the federal tax of 8 per cent- $8.52-for a total cost of $115.08.
In the spring of 1969, the same product registered an increase of $24 per 1,000 feet

June 2, 1969
Income Tax Act
and sold at $133.20, the 11 per cent federal tax included. It was then necessary to add the Quebec provincial tax of 8 per cent, which gave a total of $143.86 per 1,000 feet of wood.
Thus we can see that for the same quantity of wood, the federal and provincial taxes represent an increase of $28.78.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to lay that example before the house to show that every increase in the cost of living amounts to a tax increase at both levels of government.
The same situation holds true in the shoe, the clothing, the furniture industries, in short in the manufacturing industry as a whole in Canada.
When I hear the government say that it wants to fight inflation, I say that it is not serious at all and that the steps it takes to fight inflation bring about no other result than that of increasing it because that serves its purpose.
This bill refers in part to social development. But the government levies a new tax that may reach $120.
Perhaps it is not very necessary to stress that point because it has often been raised in the house. Protests have been heard from all sides against this so-called social development tax that removes purchasing power where there is not enough already.
When one considers the way a government must finance the administration of the public welfare, one cannot do otherwise than censure it. I suggest that a taxation system should never have as its objective to finance the administration of a sovereign government but to tend, rather, to regulate the flow of money within the country, to take money where there is a surplus.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
When money is scarce some sector of the economy, whether it be agriculture, industry or labour, unease, such as that which is now felt in Canada, is generated. There is critical unemployment and poverty in agriculture and industry, yet the government persists in seeking money there, where it is already scarce.
Should there be too much money at some level of a country's economy, that can generate as much unease as too little money at other levels.
In my view, the tax system must be a safety valve, that is to say that, when there is a surplus of money at some level of the country's economy, the tax system must allow the taking of this surplus money. Here, Mr. 
Speaker, I am thinking of the creation of a monopoly, and that is when the tax system must intervene.
That is why I say, and my colleagues in the Ralliement creditiste will support me, I think, that the only acceptable tax system is that which provides for taxation at the source. However, the tax exemption must be high enough to leave to the individual a reasonable purchasing power and income to meet his obligations, because the basic exemption is clearly insufficient to meet the needs of workers and consumers. In fact, the basic $1,000 exemption is the same, I believe, as it was 10 or 12 years ago. It has not been altered in spite of the heavy burdens from all sources resting on Canadian families.
Now, I believe that instead of establishing a direct tax, at the source, called a social development tax, which deprives families, individuals and needy persons of purchasing power, the government would have been wiser to increase the basic exemption of single persons from $1,000 to $2,500, and that of taxpayers with dependents to a minimum of $5,000.
If the government had adopted the measures we have been recommending for many years, it would have greatly helped Canadian families and workers, those who need it most.
A colleague of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), stated in a speech he gave at a federal-provincial meeting on December 19, 1968, that the principal means on which the federal government depended to regulate the level of economic activity and the increase rate of prices were the monetary and fiscal programs.
It seems that the federal government simply cannot find means other than monetary or fiscal programs to regulate the level of economic activity and the rate of increase of prices. Considering all that goes on in Canada, I believe that the government has misused such monetary and fiscal programs, for they have produced results contrary to expectations.
The bill now before us, on the eve of another budget speech, issues from the financial statement made in October 1968.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder a little why the government, if it wished to have that legislation adopted at all costs, waited so long to introduce the bill. If that legislation is designed to improve the economic situation, the employment level and government administration, why is it coming so late?
June 2, 1969

We are awaiting tomorrow's financial statement with apprehension, because judging by the way the government proceeds generally, it will contain measures detrimental to the Canadian people, as is to be expected by the statements the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made recently when announcing cuts in government expenditures. There is cause for concern and we are anxiously waiting for the budget speech.
This bill does not give any assurance that brighter days are in store for Canadian consumers. Unemployment is at a very high level. Canadian taxpayers are short of purchasing power and are to be deprived of even more as a result of this bill.
I think many are concerned, and rightly so, about the present tax system, because it is no longer possible to save money and even the smallest savings are taxed. This year, we even require the small saver to pay tax on the interest on any saving from $10 up, which means that it is no longer possible to save a few bucks for lean days.
Once again, it is the poor people, the ordinary workers, the ones with a small bank account, who are the victims of the present government's shameful unfairness. We cannot be proud of this government or of the provisions before us tonight. I, for one, do not intend to approve this bill.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, income tax affects every home in Canada. Today, when taxes are rising steadily, the people of Canada are alarmed. Not only are federal taxes reaching an all time high, but the provinces are also on a spending spree. After coming to the federal bargaining table and getting "no" for an answer, the provinces go back to their own areas and consider ways of raising additional money for themselves. Everyone is getting in the act. My words of warning are directed to provincial authorities every bit as much as to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). I suggest that the lawmakers of Canada at municipal, provincial and federal levels should meet and discuss ways of cutting out waste and extravagance at all three levels. Priorities should be built into the tax structure because no economy in the world and no ideology can stand a taxation system that takes more than 50 per cent of a taxpayer's earnings.
Look across the wrater and see what has happened to England. I notice that my friends 29180-593J
Income Tax Act
on my left say, "Once you get rid of the Liberal government and bring in a Socialist government, everything will be fine." I suggest they read the newspapers. The Socialist experiment in England is a dismal farce, the reason being, as our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) well knows, that communism and socialism-and they are one and the same-or extreme applications of such social theories just will not work.
In case anyone says, "listen to that red baiter," let me say that in his own writings the Prime Minister points out clearly that in his opinion communism or socialism will not go down in human history. He thinks there must be some modification of these theories. No doubt he is thinking of his own political theories. Knowing that socialism would not work, he joined the Liberal party in order to gain political power to further his own version of socialism. It will not work. No part of any socialist theory will work in practice. On February 8,	1933 Mr. Woodsworth, the
spiritual father of socialism in Canada, said that there is no difference between communism and socialism in the end. The difference lies in methods the adherents of these ideologies use in attaining their ends. But the ends of communism and socialism are the same.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who said that?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Woodsworth said it in this house on February 8, 1933 when answering a question of a Liberal member. The Liberal member asked him what the difference is between communism and socialism and Mr. Woodsworth said that their ends are the same. Then, the question was asked, what if-


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. member permit a question? On what page of Hansard is this reported and what is the date?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I will give it to the hon. member in good time.


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. member mind telling us now, while he is on the subject.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I will give the hon. member the date. He can look at the record for himself. Please do not spoil a good speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The ends of communism and socialism are the same, being a complete take-over of the economy by the state. The

June 2. 1969
Income Tax Act
socialists think ordinary people cannot look after their own affairs. I think they can. I happen to think that ordinary individuals are the ones who can look after their own affairs best. I think any taxation system that takes over 50 per cent of the incomes of citizens is inequitable. I think our three levels of government should get together and work out their priorities so that we may have a little more democracy in our tax structure. I think any citizen is entitled to spend at least 51 per cent of his income on himself.
I hasten to say that I understand the difference between social justice and socialism. I believe in medical attention being available for everybody, security for everybody, as well as many of those programs which socialists and even communists say they want for everybody. I want everybody to get a square deal. But you can only have that where individuals are free to attend to their own business. You will never have it in a police state. Police states are far too expensive to maintain. The type of police state we already have is proving far too expensive. We have too many civil servants at all levels of government. Some of them are unnecessary and many are overpaid. In many cases we see them building empires. I often wonder how many of these unnecessary and overpaid people we could get along without. You cannot blame defence expenditures for high levels of taxation. Apparently we will not need any form of defence for Canada if we are to believe members of the front bench opposite. Henceforth, we will be a peaceful people involved in peacekeeping operations. That sort of thinking will gain the support of the socialists. It seems that no one asks exactly what peacekeeping means.
You should not spend money building up a bureaucracy and at the same time marshalling forces against the individual worker. We should be taking the burden off the shoulders of the Canadian workman; he should be free. What is the good of fighting Russia or Red China if you have lost the fight at home. We should all think about this. I support the concept of individualism. We must make certain that we are the masters in our own house and that we shall remain our own masters forever more. What kind of government will permit this? As I say, if one looks at socialist England one can see that Socialism has been a dismal failure. It is not their fault that they do not know where they are going. Their halls of learning are filled with Fabian socialists and fellow travellers. These people

advise the government and try to run the country. Our own Prime Minister was trained in one of these Fabian institutions of learning. He knows all about Fabian socialism; he has written three books on the subject.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The Leader of the Opposition also knows something about Fabian socialism having studied at Harvard, one of the hotbeds of Fabianism. Perhaps that is why he has stuck his finger into the hole in the dike. He is trying to hold back the flood. That is what he is trying to do. The Socialists remind me of the story of the group of people arriving on a train. In the engine there is a madman who is throwing overboard all the old rules. This is similar to what the young people are doing today. Father is always wrong. Everything they learn is wrong; the new freedom, the new permissive society. Everything is wrong! They are having a great time. As the train moved along, it went through a village. The people who wanted to get off in that particular village were unable to do so. The train roared through the village. Everyone laughed. Everyone had a great time. They soon lost the smiles on their faces. The train roared through all the villages. Sooner or later everyone became frustrated as the train did not stop at any of the villages. When the train got to the end of the line the people knew they had been had. There had been no stops made because the man in the cab did not know where he was going.
That is not a funny story. It is so true to life it makes me shudder. It really worries me. I know where I am going. I am going to fight this thing as long as I have life in my body. I believe in the right of an individuals to earn a living. I believe in the responsibility of government to encourage men to train themselves. I believe in the training program brought in by our administration in order to take the young fellows off the relief roles. Such a program also gives the drop-outs a chance for a technical education so that they may have an opportunity to dig the coal out of the mines or drill for oil. Because we provide technical training and free education the young people are able to have love-ins, sit-ins, sleep-ins, cash-ins, wine-ins, bed-ins and all the other "ins" that are not possible without coal, oil, uranium, nickel and hard work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
forgot speak-ins.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I have sympathy for the workingmen of this country because I had been a
June 2, 1969

working man all my life until I came here. This is the hardest work I have ever done, and the government is still taking over 50 per cent of my income. This may seem a large or small amount, depending whether you look at the gross or net. I am not too happy over the fact they are taking over 50 per cent of my income. I am sure those within the sound of my voice or those who will take time to read Hansard or the local papers to learn of the sad words I am using tonight are also not happy about this fact. I wish it were not true, but it is sadly true. I do not like being negative. The book of Jeremiah in the Bible is not my favourite book.
I want to make a few positive suggestions tonight. The first one is, do not run around after every strange god that lifts his head, whether it be the late Mr. Carter or anyone else. No one in this country has all the knowledge. Mr. Carter, in his wonderful report on taxation, made some very glaring mistakes. He seemed to forget that all capital gains are not made by absentee landlords, gamblers and speculators. Some capital gains are made by people who are building an estate through hard work and a lifetime of savings. They work hard pulling up stumps for a homesite or piling up rocks for a fence in order to have arable land. They have a right to pass on the results of their work to their sons and widows.
As long as we have government sales teams such as the Wheat Board and the marketing boards to sell products that have been grown on small farms, students will be able to get their Ph.D's in a largely free education system. They have a right to their theories. I have read many of their theories in the last ten years and have been bored to death with most of them because they seem to give quick answers to agricultural problems. Some of these Ph.D.'s have never even milked a cow. They have almost brought agriculture in Canada to a halt. They do not realize there is more to agriculture than the so-called efficiency of a bigger and better tractor or using a bigger and better plow to rip up more land to make bigger and better farms. These people do not realize there are still people who love the land and will stay there as long as they can, regardless of what any government in Canada does to make it as tough as possible for them to stay there. All governments in the past have been guilty of mistakes along this line. I do not say it is possible to smarten up a government. Every Minister of Agriculture is a little bit wiser when he leaves the portfolio than when he entered it. I say to the

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), do not sit around listening to your 40 Ph.D.'s. Once in a while get out to the farms where they are still milking cows and raising chickens. The minister should realize this is a very important way of life in Canada. God help us, if we do not have a place to go when we cannot stand the rat-race any longer. It is sometimes necessary to get back to that kind of life. Therefore, we should not close down all the family farms in Canada by following this so-called well-meaning socialism-call it communism or whatever you like-where the state has a right to tell you what to do. You can keep the state out of the bedrooms, but can you keep government officials out of your henhouses and chicken pens? I say it is time for the government to wake up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It
being ten o'clock it is my duty to put the questions to be debated at this time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it was my hope the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) would be here to-night to answer my question. I am hoping that by saying that I will get a nod as to who is going to answer it. I am not getting any nods at all. Perhaps if I wait half a minute someone might come in.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I will take it for him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
genial Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), and other affairs, has offered to deal with the matter.
On Wednesday, April 23, as recorded at page 7864 of Hansard, I put a question to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), who was then Minister of Transport. My question had to do with the conditions facing employees of Air Canada following the transfer of the Air Canada base at Winnipeg to Northwest Industries Limited. In particular, I asked what steps the government was taking to make sure the employees affected
June 2, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion by this move would not be either unemployed or forced to take work at lower wages than they had received under Air Canada? If I may interrupt myself, Mr. Speaker, I see that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has now arrived. I am sure he knows what I am talking about, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can now relax. The then minister of transport, in reply to my question, said that he had tried to get information about this matter out of Air Canada, but he reminded me that at that date a strike was in progress and therefore Air Canada was busy. I put this supplementary question to him:
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Is the minister not aware that I asked what steps the government was taking? Will he not answer that question now?
The member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) replied that:
The government indicated that it wanted fair treatment at the time the direction was given to Air Canada in the first place.
I tried another supplementary question:
Is the minister not aware that the government not only said that it wanted fair treatment, but that it assured fair treatment in this matter? I ask what has been done to keep this commitment?
At that point Mr. Speaker said it was becoming a debate, and I said, "Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker" I think somebody said, "Sock it to him", but that did not get on to Hansard.
I am glad to see the new Minister of Transport here tonight. I recognize he has come into this part of his job late in the game, but even though he has come late into the picture he knows the long story about the Air Canada base at Winnipeg and the unhappiness that has developed over it. Even on the minister's side of the house there are members like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) who still are not satisfied with the fact that the base has been moved from Winnipeg to Montreal. However, this is a fait accompli that we have to deal with, but it does seem to me that the employees have a right to expect that the commitments made by the government will be kept.
Those commitments, as I understood them, were that there would not be any loss of wages and the employees would not lose pension rights or suffer in any way because of the transfer. But there is a great deal of uncertainty at Winnipteg over this matter. There has been no assurance from Northwest Industries that the same rates of pay will be given

to these men as Air Canada has been paying them. There is also the fact that under Air Canada they came under federal labour jurisdiction, but under Northwest Industries they will come under provincial jurisdiction, and there are questions about their collective agreements, their pension plans and all the rest of it.
I have pretty well used up my seven minutes getting the picture before the minister, but I am sure he is aware of it. I am really more concerned in hearing from him than speaking about the matter in any detail tonight. What is he, as the new Minister of Transport, doing to make sure that the commitments made to these employees in relation to this transfer, commitments made by the government, not just by Air Canada, are being kept?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that I am fully aware of the concern he has for the workers involved in this transfer of responsibilities at Winnipeg, and secondly that I do share and sympathize with his concern in this matter. I am informed that negotiations will begin on June 10 between Air Canada and the organization concerned, which I believe is the International Association of Machinists, with regard to this whole question and the uncertainty which prevails in that area.
There is no question in my mind, nor do I believe there is in the mind of the government, that these workers who have been displaced or changed in their form of employment or in their employer, through no fault of their own, are entitled to fair and reasonable treatment, and that includes the things to which the hon. member has referred. The question now arises at to whether or not we can wait until we see the outcome of the discussions and the negotiations which will take place between Air Canada and the machinists, to determine whether or not this will result in an amicable and satisfactory settlement for all concerned.
The information that I have is that first of all there is no lack of alternative employment; that there are sufficient jobs, and that indeed the rate of growth in the area in this field is sufficient to take care of any who may wish to remain in Winnipeg, as I gather a good many of them do, to take the alternative employment that is offered. Secondly, there is a commitment, as I understand it, on the part
June 2, 1969

of Air Canada to provide employment elsewhere for those employees who may have to move. Thirdly, I have been assured by the chairman of the board of Air Canada that they are prepared to go to the maximum extent to ensure there is fair treatment for these employees. Now, I cannot give my hon. friend a dogmatic or emphatic answer at the moment as to what the outcome of the negotiations will be, but I suggest perhaps the wisest course to follow at the moment is not to anticipate there will be dissatisfaction but hope the Air Canada negotiations with the machinists will be satisfactory.
I do make this commitment. If it should develop that there is a disagreement of major proportion in this regard I, as the responsible minister in this matter, will undertake to remind Air Canada of the commitments that were made to these workers. I will ensure, to the maximum extent it is humanly possible, that in the transfer of employees from one type of work to another there is a minimum of dislocation and that their basic rights, if that is the appropriate term, are protected. In summary, I think I should say it is my inclination at the moment-perhaps my hon. friend feels I ought to go further-to let the negotiations proceed to see how they come out. If they come out satisfactorily then of course there is no further problem. On the other hand, if it does develop there are difficulties, I assure my hon. friend I am prepared to intercede in the manner I have outlined.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very good.



SOCIAL SECURITY-DISCUSSION WITH QUEBEC GOVERNMENT RESPECTING MEASURE

Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, on May 26 I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) whether the new welfare program introduced recently in the Quebec legislature as Bill C-26 would qualify for federal financial assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan. I asked this question because, as a Quebecker, I am anxious to see the Canada Assistance Plan implemented in Quebec.
When this house passed the Canada Assistance Plan on July 15, 1966 I was extremely enthusiastic for it. It had been a principal plank in the Liberal party platform in the federal election of 1965 and contained many progressive measures to reform our welfare legislation. As a matter of fact, it contained
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion many recommendations that had been put forward over a number of years by the Canadian Welfare Council.
As hon. members of this house will recall, among other things, the Canada Assistance Plan provided that the many welfare programs we had in Canada would be replaced by one comprehensive program. It also provided we would do away with the means test and replace it by a needs test. In addition, it provided there would be certain appeal provisions for those people turned down in their application for welfare assistance. On the whole it was to bring about a much broader, more comprehensive and co-ordinated welfare program in Canada.
I stated that this program, the Canada Assistance Plan, was adopted by this house in 1966. That was approximately three years ago. To my knowledge only two provinces to this date have opted into the program. These two provinces are Saskatchewan and Alberta. When I read that the province of Quebec had brought forward a new program in the form of Bill C-26 I was quite delighted; but of course I regret the habit of many provinces which participate in federal programs of tending to take full credit for the programs once they put them into effect by giving the people of the province the impression that these programs are fully provincial.
I should like to know from the minister whether Bill C-26 will comply with the provisions and standards of the Canada Assistance Plan and whether the federal government would be contributing money to the implementation of this plan. Many of us who are members of parliament know the urgent need for the provinces to opt into the Canada Assistance Plan. We have many examples of persons who are presently unjustly treated by welfare agencies in different provinces, and the quicker this program is introduced the better off they will be.
I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary who is appearing for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) would tell me, and the people of Quebec, whether Bill C-26 does come under the Canada Assistance Plan and, if so, what parts are involved and to what extent?
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) for his generous concern towards
9376	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion this group of people who need most the government's attention to solve their problems.
In reply to his questions, I will say that welfare Bill C-26 is in accordance with the Canada Assistance Act of 1966. I will add that it is in conformity not only with this act but also with the philosophy and ideology of the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro).
We pay 50 per cent of the cost of those social measures. As it may be recalled, it is one of the suggestions we put forward when this legislation was under consideration. The Boucher Commission made the same proposal in 1963. We believe that we have here a most progressive legislation which some provinces have already adopted, as mentioned by the hon. member, and we invite all other hon. members to join in.



NATIONAL PARKS-BONNE BAY, NEWFOUNDLAND, LEASING ARRANGEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbel: Mr. Speaker, I should like to apologize to the minister for keeping him so late because I know how busy he is.
For the past four or five years, the federal government in co-operation with the province of Newfoundland has spent thousands of dollars in research to design a program to expand the development of the Newfoundland economy. Now, we find that we are no further ahead because the program presented to the federal government by the province was considered to be totally inadequate. After years of research and study, and a waste of immense sums of money, we are back where we started because of a lack of planning. This is particularly true in the case of the west coast of Newfoundland where, in spite of the existence of an area with development potential unequalled anywhere in Canada, both levels of government have failed to see the forest for the trees.
This brings me to the point of my grievance, the question of the Bonne Bay park in west Newfoundland. Since coming to this house last year I have done everything in my power to convince the government of the impact on the economy of western Newfoundland, of the creation of a national park in that area. Let me point out a few of the evident advantages the Bonne Bay area has for a national park. I am sure the minister is well aware of them. The Bonne Bay area has possibly the greatest scenery in Canada. It could become the Banff of the east. The existence of

DEBATES	June 2, 1969
Newfoundland caribou, the Arctic hare and the Newfoundland race of marten are rare species that can be found in no other national park, certainly in North America. This area also includes raised beaches and sea terraces presenting some of the most interesting geographical aspects in the whole province.
Bonne Bay is sitting on the edge of half North America's population and our resources and assets are clean air, water, trees, and scenery. This area has been seized upon by the far seeing people in North America as a site for a national park. The royal commission on the economic state and prospects of Newfoundland calculates an out of province market of some 62 million people, who are looking for tourist and recreational opportunities which are readily available in Newfoundland, are present each year within a 1,200 mile radius of Port-Aux-Basques.
Further statistics show that every visitor to a national park spends between $25 and $45. One does not have to be too optimistic or too laden with brains to realize that if we attracted even 2 per cent of these potential tourists it would mean over $25 million to the economy of the west coast of Newfoundland alone per year. The creation of a national park in Bonne Bay is tailor made to kick off a development program for Newfoundland. The ancillary projects that would tie in with such a plan would return the investment 100 fold. Anyone can see that the creation of a national park would have the effect of creating a tourist centre outside the immediate area and would necessitate the development of tourist hotels and motels, service stations, gift shops, restaurants as well as golf courses, boating marinas, sports shops, and would lead to the employment of many hundreds of the citizens in the area who today cannot find jobs.
The royal commission further asserts and recommends that the proposed park in western Newfoundland should be pushed ahead with all speed. But for some reason or other there exists some masterminds who have deterred progress by introducing camouflaged reasoning that the establishment of a silica mine would be of better value to the economy of the area than the park itself. Yet, the government's policy on establishing national parks clearly states that the main activities that are detrimental to natural history values and should not-I repeat, should not-be permitted in a national park are; (1) the mining or harvesting of the resources of the land or water for the primary purpose of commercial gain, and (2) anything that causes pollution of
June 2. 1969	COMMONS
the air, soil or water. I hope we have now overcome this unproductive thinking which has been an impediment to the establishment of the park.
On March 11, as reported at page 6458 of Hansard, I was told by the minister in this house that the federal government had reached an agreement with the Premier of Newfoundland and that they would go ahead with the establishment of a park at Bonne Bay. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, three months later and there is no agreement. With the new Department of Regional Expansion working in co-operation with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development we have the machinery to transform an underdeveloped area, a high unemployment area, a have-not area into one of the most prosperous areas of Newfoundland, if not the country; one that would have far reaching effects to further the economic expansion of the economy of western Newfoundland.
The Deputy Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has said this:
What we have to do is to find the key points of strength which, in that particular region, can he used to get a different process started, to stimulate the kinds of growth that will in turn set other growth factors to work. We have to get an interaction of forces for movement instead of stagnation.
I ask the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, what are we waiting for? Who is the culprit that is stultifying progress? The citizens of western Newfoundland have formed themselves into responsible bodies who want to get involved for the good of the province. Every last citizen in western Newfoundland realizes the value of creating a national park in Bonne Bay. I know the federal government and the minister want to go ahead with the development. Can the minister disclose, sincerely and objectively, how we can finally muster enough gumption to remove the obstacles which are so obvious, and get on with the job for the good of Newfoundland and Canada. I implore him to do so.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. DEBATES	9377
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for his presentation. I must tell him that in the summer of 1965 the federal government and the government of the province of Newfoundland started a study in co-operation in order to establish a second national park in Newfoundland. Since that time we have proceeded with the study of the land.
I admit that it is going to be a great national park. I have not yet visited the area, although I hope to visit it soon but I have seen a great many pictures of Bonne Bay and agree with the hon. member that it is some of the nicest scenery that we have in Canada. It is probably one of the best scenic locations that we have in eastern Canada. It is going to be a good match for the national park at Forillon.
As far as the problem of the possibility of mining in the park is concerned, this is one of the objections we had to cope with in December, 1968, when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources advised us that there was a potential mine there. After that, I was in touch with the Premier of Newfoundland and we reached an agreement that will permit my department to keep on with the work they started last year. This summer the people of my department will carry on the work on the ground in order to make more progress in respect of this project of a second national park in Newfoundland.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I am quite optimistic that within a few years we will have a second national park in Newfoundland. Every Canadian who will have the occasion to visit Newfoundland will find that the federal government has always been at the forefront in the development of tourism and has put the best features of Newfoundland in evidence by establishing some good national parks in that province.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
9379

Tuesday, June 3, 1969