1969-03-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on December 2 I announced in the house certain steps being taken by the government and certain proposals being made to the provinces with respect to offshore mineral rights. At the same time I issued maps showing the location of mineral resource administration lines off the east and west coasts, and stated that similar lines would also be drawn in the regions of Hudson Strait, Hudson Bay and James Bay, together with a line defining the boundary between submerged lands adjacent to the provinces and those adjacent to the Northwest Territories and Arctic islands.
I am pleased to announce today that these lines have now been drawn, and I am issuing at this time a map showing their location.

As stated in my earlier announcement, the federal government will continue to administer and manage the mineral resources on the seaward side of the mineral resource administration lines. The coastal provinces are being offered the opportunity to administer all the offshore mineral rights on the landward side of these lines, and the federal government is prepared to concede to them the revenues -derived therefrom. Furthermore, should this proposal prove acceptable to the provinces, we would in addition be disposed to place half the revenues accruing from the mineral resources seaward from these lines in a single national pool to be shared among the provinces on some basis acceptable to them.

I have sent to the Premiers a copy of today's statement as well as the new mineral resource administration lines map for the 29180-391
Hudson Bay-Hudson Strait region. I have been pleased with the general response thus far to my announcement of December 2. In particular, a number of oil companies are now proceeding with major programmes of exploration offshore and they seem to have obtained the necessary confidence to do this from the positive statement of federal policy. I hope and believe that we should now be able to work out with the provinces the details of financial and other arrangements to implement these proposals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this matter, of course, has a considerable background in terms of federal-provincial relations. The government of Canada sought a legal opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada on the legal rights to minerals off the west coast of the country. The government of Canada having announced it was proceeding with this reference, there were discussions of the matter at federal-provincial conferences at that time. The then Prime Minister of Canada gave the provinces the assurance, upon the legal opinion being obtained, that the question of offshore mineral rights would thereafter be discussed with the provinces.
Therefore, there are two questions that immediately occur to anyone. The first question is whether the legal decision with regard to rights off the west coast is equally appropriate to the offshore rights off the east coast. There are a number of provinces that have argued very vigorously that this is not the case. The legal position regarding mineral rights under Hudson Bay is, of course, recognizably in a quite different category. I do not think the provinces have ever claimed any legal right to the minerals under Hudson Bay.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
In my view, regardless of the merits of the government's position or of the outcome of any eventual negotiations or discussions, the government's method of proceeding constitutes a breach of the assurance given by the former prime minister to the provinces. I am convinced that the result of that breach will
March 4, 1969

Dominion-Provincial Relations
be a further cteterioriation in the relations between the federal government and some provinces. The unnecessarily inflammatory statement was made at a time when every effort ought to be directed towards making federal-provincial relations as cordial and even as possible. I therefore again deplore the manner of the government's proceeding, which is bound to result in a further deterioration in federal-provincial relations.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's proposal seems a reasonable basis for negotiations. However I cannot help wondering if that statement was made without any prior consultations with the provinces; or is it the result of consultation with the provinces, and is this proposal their general consensus of the matter?
It seems to me that matters of this sort that have been the subject of controversy for a considerable period really cannot be settled by pronouncements from the throne. They ought to be settled by negotiations and discussions, in order that some consensus may be reached that is acceptable to the federal and provincial governments. If the provinces have not been consulted, then I hope the Prime Minister's statement is merely the basis for discussion rather than a final decision. I also hope the Prime Minister will be prepared to go one step further and tell us how this matter may be dealt with in a practical way. Unfortunately pools of oil and mineral deposits know nothing about lines drawn on maps. Often the only way to develop these resources is to unitize an entire oil field or mineral deposit. Joint action by the federal and provincial governments may be necessary to unitize an area in order that it can be developed to the maximum extent. I therefore hope the government will be prepared to sit down with the provinces and discuss the unitization of mineral and oil resources. I also hope that as the result of today's statement the Prime Minister and his ministers will follow up this matter so that some agreement may be reached. The matter has been long outstanding and the sooner a settlement acceptable to all parties concerned is reached, the sooner the areas in question will be developed.


Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, the proposal made by the Prime Minister may have happy results if it is the basis for open and fruitful discussions.
[Mr. StanfisldJ
However if it is a final decision, that is if the federal government position is not negotiable, I want everyone to know that we will stand up for Quebec's interests. Quebec values the integrity of its territory like the apple of its eye. For some years, the provincial government has been taking more and more responsibilities in that respect. At a time when Quebec does not have enough financial resources, it is most important that it keeps the whole of its revenues accruing from its natural resources.
Understanding and generosity will have to be displayed towards Quebec if there is to be no more useless squabble between both government levels.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had a question for the Postmaster General who was absent on official business. I have no doubt he is aware of the announcement issued on Friday by the council of the Postal Union denying his earlier statement regarding the morale in the Post Office and describing the situation as explosive. Will the minister say whether he intends to take any action either to provide for third party adjudication of the problems, or for some other action that will stop the steady deterioration in this department?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition insist on speaking of a steady deterioration in the morale of the Post Office. I know of no such deterioration. I see these statements from time to time, Mr. Speaker, and they do become expanded. There is no explosive situation either in Montreal or Toronto relating to the letter carriers or to the postal workers themselves.
A part of the statement made by the council mentions among other things that I was losing part of the gains by employing 500 supervisors. I may say there have been no additional supervisors employed since I took over this department. Over a year ago some 200 were budgeted for other purposes by my
March 4, 1969	COMMONS
predecessor. It is in this way that many of the changes taking place come to be expanded, particularly by members of the opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister did not answer my question and I have no right to persist in asking for an answer. I simply point out he did not answer my question. I would like to ask him whether his attention has been drawn to the instructions given by the unions to their members, which are described as the unions' interpretation of the collective agreement. If so, does the minister propose to take any action in this connection?


Eric William Kierans: Yes, my attention has been drawn to those instructions and in due course the attention of the leaders of the union will be drawn to the instructions which they have issued.
In direct reply to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to say there is no necessity for third party adjudication when explosive situations do not exist.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yesterday I tried to get the Minister of Labour to offer his advice to the Postmaster General, but he was more modest. I would like to ask the Postmaster General a question arising out of the statement of the council of the Postal Union, that mail service is deteriorating and inefficiency is fast becoming a new guide of operation. I would think these men would be in a position to know. Will the minister today or on motions at a very early opportunity tell the house what action he actually proposes to take with regard to this deterioration?


Eric William Kierans: I have been very frank, Mr. Speaker, in admitting that in the triangle of Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto the physical facilities are what they were 20 years ago when this department was handling roughly one-half of the mail presently being handled. I said in the cities of Montreal and Toronto in particular that facilities have to be modernized, and the people working there would have to be given acceptable working conditions and the latest in automatic equipment. We are aware of this and are conducting many studies, Mr. Speaker, seeking to eliminate as much as we can the delays which are occurring.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have a specific question for the Postmaster General. Can 29130-3911
DEBATES	6173
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister explain why within the last month delivery of mail to Toronto has slowed down and that as much as four to five days is now required for the delivery of a first class letter?


Eric William Kierans: The majority of mail is delivered, Mr. Speaker, as it was formerly. Last week, for example, a person was kind enough to tell me that a letter posted in Hamburg on a Monday morning was delivered on Tuesday morning in Montreal.


An hon. Member:: That is humbug.


Eric William Kierans: I will give you the postmark.


An hon. Member:: I will give some too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eric William Kierans: The majority of the mail is delivered on time but a great deal of it is not, which I frankly admit. What I would like to point out, however, is that in the last six months a great deal of attention has been drawn to the Post Office, and people who now pay more for the services that they previously received are quite apt to question those services, and quite rightly so. Therefore-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West on a supplementary.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: there is no unrest among the postal workers, how about the minister's restoring some rest and confidence in the public paying for the service; and in particular would he advise businessmen, whose deliveries have been cut back not only to five days a week but to one delivery per day in many sectors, not only in Toronto and Montreal but in many cities of Canada, what he intends to do?


Eric William Kierans: The business delivery is normally twice a day, Mr. Speaker; and where it is only once a day, if the businessmen of that community want it twice a day they have only to advise me.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Come, now; come off your high and mighty!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the Chair should now recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, and if there is time later I will return to other hon. members who would like to pursue this matter.
March 4, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry
FINANCE	INDIAN AFFAIRS



STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER RESPECTING FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN CANADA

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question regarding the speech made in Washington yesterday by the Minister of Finance, which I assume the Prime Minister saw prior to its delivery. Since the Minister of Finance invited continued capital investment from the United States, without stating any conditions as to the exercise of extraterritorial rights by parent companies and the effects of American guidelines requiring subsidiaries in Canada to return a percentage of their undistributed profits to the United States, may I ask if this statement represents the government's policy with respect to foreign investment in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I confess I had not seen the speech. The mails were a bit slow in bringing it to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps it might be unfair to comment on it too fully, but I think it is obvious that the minister stated part of the government's policy. However, he cannot put everything in one speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has discarded the recommendations of the Watkins report regarding a state trading corporation and a government agency to supervise the operations of wholly owned foreign subsidiaries doing business in- this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have not discarded those recommendations, Mr. Speaker. We are still in the process of seeing what aspects of that report can be implemented.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a further supplementary question may I ask whether the Prime Minister would avail himself of an early opportunity, on motions, to state what action the government proposes to take regarding the recommendations in the Watkins report?



THE PAS, MAN.-ADMINISTRATION OF HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. However, in his absence I should like to direct it to the parliamentary secretary, with a request that possibly the minister could answer it upon his next appearance in the house. Has the minister received a letter or other representation from Chief Gordon Lathlin of The Pas Indian band making two specific requests concerning the administration of health services to members of his band? If so, I should like to ask the minister when he will be in a position to answer these requests.


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice, in order to submit it to the minister who will probably answier it tomorrow or on a day when his presence is required in the house.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the hope that his department might be able to bring about a fair settlement of the dispute, is the minister's department investigating the picketing of the Indian health clinic at The Pas, and the charge by the Chief there that the supervisor has discriminated against Indians.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that matter; but I will inquire immediately and I hope to be in a position to answer at the next sitting of the house.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. In the light of the representation made to his department from the province of Newfoundland over the week end-
March 4, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a supplementary question. However, I will allow the hon. member to put his question, due to the circumstances.


Jack Marshall: In the light of the representation made to his department from the province of Newfoundland over the weekend, will the minister advise if he will accede to the request of the province to restart survey work on the proposed National Park at Bonne Bay immediately.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have been told about that request and we are now considering it. We hope to be in a position to settle that conflict satisfactorily.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and is in relation to the statement he made in the house today on motions. Has the government of Canada concluded negotiations with the government of France regarding offshore mineral rights, and fishing rights off the south shore of Newfoundland?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, we have not concluded such negotiations.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Following the rumors circulating in legal circles in Montreal, and after the publication over the week-end of certain newspaper articles revealing that some members of the Diplomatic Corps might be involved in some kind of narcotics traffic, can the Prime Minister tell us if he is aware of those incidents and whether the Minister of Justice or the officials of that department have briefed him on that matter?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recall that his question has already been asked.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My question is for the Prime Minister. Within the limitations of security, what initiative is Canada, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, taking in connection with the potential confrontation in West Berlin, to endeavour to bring a halt to the slide downhill? What representations have been made and has there been any discussion between the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the ambassador of the U.S.S.R. in this connection?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there have been no discussions involving myself, but I cannot speak for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps it might be best to ask him when he is in the house tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the zero day so far as Berlin is concerned. Has the Prime Minister no knowledge regarding initiatives having been taken?-for after all this is one field in which the Prime Minister has an overriding prerogative.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, if tomorrow is zero day I would have thought the right hon. gentleman would have thought of asking the question yesterday, when the minister was here.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you grow up.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the facetiousness of the Prime Minister with regard to a question as serious as this is not in keeping with his position. In view of the fact that there appears to be a selective judgment in respect of information supplied to the parliament of Canada regarding the future of people all over the world, does the Prime Minister not think it necessary to supply some information, even though he has been away from international affairs for the past two days?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the right hon. gentleman and parliament that I am not denying them any information. I do not have any information whether there has been any contact with officials in Berlin.
March 4. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: The minister refuses to give the information. Is there an acting secretary of state for external affairs, or will the President of the Privy Council, who is making silent grimaces at the moment, make an explanation?


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very serious developments that have taken place in the last 24 hours, as reported in the press this morning, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether any members of the NATO organization were consulted about the decision to have an election of the West German president in West Berlin or was the decision made by West Germany alone, or was it made in conjunction only with one of the occupying powers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to refer the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister, with the same earnestness with which I assume he is dealing with this important situation, that he bring this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, urging upon him to make representations to the powers directly concerned with the situation, that they should not be ready to escalate it to a more dangerous point than it has now reached?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to convey the urgency of the matter, as expressed by the hon. member of the N.D.P. to the attention of the minister.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister to confirm that the government has now received a report from the federal task force studying our future relations with Europe and our defence policy, and that the report recommends that Canada continue its partnership with NATO.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the task force report is an internal document, and until such time as we decide to publish a white paper or make the report public, it is a secret document.


An hon. Member:: The press has it.
[Mr. Trudeau.)



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, if a few questions on Canada are allowed, I would like to ask one of the Prime Minister. The western region of Quebec, and more particularly that of Hull, has just been stabbed in the back by the government of Quebec and once again forgotten, this time when the faculty members of the University of Quebec were chosen. Does the government of Canada consider amending clause 16 of the Constitution in order to add the name of Hull to that of Ottawa, so that this part of Quebec threatened by economic suicide could become part of the federal capital of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether the hon. member wishes the Prime Minister to make a statement in reply to his own.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The matter was discussed at the federal-provincial conference, and I shall take into account the hon. member's important representations at the next negotiations.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which relates to the recall of a large number of motor vehicles in the United States and in Canada for checking of faulty carburettors. In the United States this recall is being supervised by the federal government. Is the Minister of Transport or anyone in his department supervising the recall procedure in Canada?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. We have no authority at the present time to do this. As I indicated to the house the other day, under certain conditions a satisfactory arrangement was made with General Motors to see that all faulty cars are repaired to satisfactory requirements. I hope that in the not too distant future it will be possible to present legislation which will govern automobile standards at the point of manufacture, or importation into Canada. If that legislation provides for direct supervision, this will be exercised by the government at that time.
March 4, 1969	COMMONS


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether his department has made any investigation into the complaints of last fall, that automobile manufacturers were over-pricing on the cost of manufacturing and installing automobile safety devices.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, pricing would not be our primary concern. We are concerned primarily with safety. If my hon. friend is interested in the price of automobiles or components, it would be better to direct his question to the appropriate department.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Transport is bringing in this new proposed legislation, will he make sure that legislation for safety is the same on both sides of the border?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: To the extent it is possible, I think it is desirable from the standpoint of the manufacturers to have the same regulations in respect of safety on each side of the border. I do not think, however, that the parliament of Canada would want to limit itself to those safety features which have been approved in the United States. If we pass legislation I should think we would require authority to regulate standards different than those in the United States, if we felt those imposed by the government of the United States were not satisfactory for application in Canada.
DEBATES	6177
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



TESTING OF SAMPLES FROM FARM DRYERS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact there have been reports that the Board of Grain Commissioners in Winnipeg have been unable to deal promptly with grain samples received from farm dryers and return reports promptly to those operating these dryers, will the Minister of Agriculture investigate and, if necessary, take what steps are needed to correct this situation?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there has been a very significant increase in the number of samples coming in to the Board of Grain Commissioners for testing. Because the drying operators need to know as rapidly as possible whether the grain is of milling and baking quality, we are trying to meet the demand as quickly as possible.
I should also like to say because of the increased number of samples coming in with the use of more dryers, and the improvement in weather conditions, we can assume a much larger volume of grain is being dried on farms.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Can the Minister assure the house that these terminals will report promptly the results of grain sampling?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Every effort is being made to get the information back to the farmer or operator as rapidly as possible.



URANIUM CITY-ELECTRICAL SERVICE SUPPLIED BY UTILITY COMPANY

Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction with the high cost and poor quality of the service offered residents of Uranium City by the private utility company presently supplying electricity to the area, can the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources say whether Eldorado Nuclear Limited, the Crown corporation primarily concerned with the development of the community, has considered taking over this service directly, itself, or alternatively, using its considerable local influence to get the service improved?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that this question should be discussed at the time of adjournment.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Rene  Malle@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
It was reported yesterday that some paintings stolen from the late Maurice Duplessis' collection had been offered to the Postmaster General's wife. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will make an inquiry to find out if the same offer was made to other members of his cabinet?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: Mr, Speaker, I have a question for the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of National Defence. Has the government completed its examination of the study made by the Department of National Defence into the consolidation of Canadian Armed Forces bases? If so, is the minister in a position to advise us as to the regions which could be seriously affected by the change of status of any of those bases?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated previously, the study has been terminated for some time now, and the department is preparing submissions for the cabinet concerning the eventual dispensation of some of the bases of Canada.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister presents his recommendations to the cabinet, would he please keep in mind the serious effect that any re-slating of responsibility would have on the camp at Picton?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker. When the minister presents his Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. My question emanates from the announcement made today by the Prime Minister. Are any restrictions planned with respect to undersea oil drilling similar to those in the United States, in order to prevent possible oil spillage damage to our fisheries and wildlife?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to assure hon. members that regulations already exist which assure safety in drilling. The requirements in respect of the depth of casings of approved wells in Canada are very extensive. Therefore there has been significant safety in respect of all drilling that has taken place. These safety precautions exist already in the regulations.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have these regulations been discussed and worked out with the provinces so that there will be some general arrangements, some universality, about the regulations, even under the measures proposed by the Prime Minister?
March 4, 1969


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to these discussions and have no doubt that in this matter, as in matters of unitization referred to earlier, discussions and negotiations with the provinces will be very easy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have there been no discussions to date?


Otto Emil Lang: There have been no discussions about concrete issues of co-ordination, beyond and behind the resource administration lines, since those lines were announced.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Inasmuch as the British Foreign Secretary, Michael Stewart, summoned the Nigerian High Commissioner in London yesterday to express the British government's anxiety about reports of Nigerian bombing attacks on civilian targets in Biafra, in order to supplement this British initiative will the Canadian government inquire into the matter and reinforce the British government's representations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this matter with the minister, and I am sure he will be in a position to say by tomorrow whether any action has been taken.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Because of the widespread demands by members of parliament in Britain, and the press and public, to re-examine British foreign policy regarding the shipment of arms to Nigeria, will the Canadian government now consider asking the British government not to ship arms into Nigeria?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have stated before that we made this representation to the British government. I have stated it publicly, and I have stated it privately. Now that the hon. member says the public in Britain is pressing the government in that sense, it would seem to me there is no need for those of us on our side to intervene.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that the Prime Minister is now saying his government has


March 4, 1969	COMMONS
made representations to the British government urging the government of Britain not to ship arms to Nigeria-Biafra, whereas I understood previously that the Prime Minister had simply indicated that it was the view of the government of Canada that it would not ship such arms, and generally that other countries should not? Am I to understand from the Prime Minister now that specific representations were in fact made to the British government urging it specifically not to ship arms to Nigeria?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I stood up in this house and said that we disapprove the shipment of arms by any country-


An hon. Member:: You say "any country". That is not the same.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not the same, eh?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not see any great difference. If I say "by any country", it certainly includes the United Kingdom, because that is a country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Since it is quite clear that the Prime Minister has said the government communicated with the United Kingdom government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask the question.


Donald MacInnis: Again, on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have made the remark before and I make it again: If the bums and idiots want to keep it up, I will outwait them. I was saying that the Prime Minister has indicated that the Canadian government has communicated with the government of the United Kingdom. Would the Prime Minister table that communication?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It would be a little difficult to table, Mr. Speaker, because I made the representations verbally when I met the Prime Minister of Great Britain-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
DEBATES	6179
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Trudeau: Now, where are the bums this time?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Nielsen:: You told them in London where the bums were.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Hon. Marlial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General.
Would the Postmaster General tell the house why he has cancelled the contract of Rod Service Limited in Montreal, and also if that company will receive compensation for this breach of contract?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting with the owner and the management of Rod Service Limited yesterday. We have signed a contract and we shall acquire a number of vehicles. Moreover, as of March 15, we shall assume mail delivery in the Montreal metropolitan area.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question. Could the minister tell the house whether the whole staff of Rod Service Limited will be able to get jobs in the Post Office Department, since they are losing their present jobs and are now unemployed?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I have already issued a press release in which I made some details clear. We are going to hire most of the drivers who wish to work for the federal government. As to the others, we shall offer them part-time jobs and in the meantime we shall meet the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, with a view to offering those people a retraining course should they wish to take advantage of it.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise to welcome the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. I am glad to hear that he preaches the same doctrine as his colleague the hon. member for York East.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development advise
6180	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry whether the government has reached any decision with regard to curtailing the dumping of raw sewage into the Bow River at Banff?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the officials of my department have been advised to start elaborating immediately a program respecting the establishment of a sewage treatment plant on the urban site of Banff. We hope its construction will be terminated toward the end of 1970.
We also know that there are similar needs in Jasper national park and we hope that a sewage disposal plant will be built in the town of Japser as early as 1971.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a supplementary question arising out of his use of the word "immediately" in connection with the pollution problem. Will he act with the same dispatch with respect to such items as the Indian Claims Commission?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is relative to the one asked earlier of the Postmaster General, by the Leader of the Opposition, regarding postal services. In light of the minister's recent statement that some 3,500 small, rural post offices would be closed as an economic measure, what compensatory action does the Postmaster General intend to take to alleviate the consequent serious problem to the thousands of postmasters on being relieved of their jobs?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the problem he is bringing to the attention of the house is very general in nature. Perhaps he should ask the minister whether a statement on motions will be made on the subject.


Richard Russell Southam: This is a matter of great urgency, Mr. Speaker, not only to the postmen taken out of service but to the customers themselves in western Canada.

DEBATES	March 4. 1969



EXHIBITIONS


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is the government developing a program of grants or aid to exhibitions and fairs which would be available to all parts of Canada on an equal basis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is under consideration, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I see the Prime Minister is conferring with the Minister of Agriculture. Will the right hon. gentleman instruct the Minister of Agriculture to remove the freeze on loans to exhibitions and fairs which was imposed some five years ago by a former minister of agriculture?



FISHERIES


John George Diefenbaker: This question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, and it has to do with the approach of the seal kill. First, I should like to compliment the minister on what he has already announced.
In view of the descriptions of seal killing which appear in many newspapers in the United Kingdom, France, West Germany and other countries, indicating that the conscience of humanity is being aroused, is the hon. gentleman giving consideration to ending this hunt and substituting something in the nature of assistance to those who have in recent years made at least a portion of their living through the killing of seals?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minisler of Fisheries):: My
answer to the right hon. gentleman has to be this: I have not as yet personally seen the seal fishery. I am going down at the end of this week to see it at first hand. Representatives of humane societies in various parts of the world will be there also. We shall review the situation and after this season is over and in consultation with other members of the government we shall decide what to do about the hunt in 1970.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Is it a fact, as reported by the C.B.C. at noon today, that 2,500 seals were brutally slaughtered last night and this morning before the season was even started?
March 4. 1969


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot properly ask a question in those terms, but perhaps to save time the minister might be allowed to reply.


John (Jack) Davis: I have not been advised to that effect but I shall certainly look into the allegation.


James Aloysius McGrath: Before any decision is taken in this regard, will the minister take into account the importance of this industry to the fishermen of Newfoundland?


John (Jack) Davis: That is a very important consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Will the minister give the house an assurance that he will approach his investigation, and I am sure he will, with an open mind to avoid conclusions drawn by a lot of people who don't know the hell of what they are talking about?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to clarify my position, which has been grossly misrepresented.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Howard Lundrigan: There has been an indication from the Minister of Fisheries that there is a possibility of the seal fishing being ended. All I am saying is that the investigation should be conducted without any prejudice, one way or another, likely to affect the decision in advance.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Has he received from the Central Conference of Priests copy of a resolution to the effect that that organization, which comprises 3,250 English-speaking Catholic priests from Ontario and Quebec, is against the adoption of Bill C-150 in its present form?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that his question relates to legislation before the house at present, and in my view it should be raised during the debate on the said legislation.

Inquiries of the Ministry


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask him whether he will be kind enough to answer questions put to the Acting Prime Minister on Friday and again yesterday.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Does the hon. member wish to ask them, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Fairweather:: I asked the Acting Prime Minister on Friday, and again yesterday, about an independent judicial inquiry into the Sicotte case, and I received an assurance that the question would be passed on to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Greenwood.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will realize that I am trying to be helpful, in the sense that we have already by a few minutes gone beyond the time allotted to questions. I was trying to ensure that a few additional members might ask questions, while this one was being considered on the government side.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I do not often rise on points of order, Mr. Speaker, but I do now. I have sought with a good deal of care during the past week to raise a matter which I consider to be of fundamental importance to the integrity of one of the finest public services in the world, and I would expect by this time to have an answer from the right hon. gentleman.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did discuss this matter with the minister under whose jurisdiction the problem might fall, Mr. Speaker. There have been answers given in the house and the Solicitor General has told the house what aspects of the case he has considered. He has referred to the fact that one person, who is not a public servant, is now before the courts, I think in two respects. I know of no way in which the public interest is damaged by the present situation. There are certain aspects of the case about which I have sought information and with regard to which I have not yet received an answer, but I see no reason for the government to make a statement. I note

March 4, 1969
Business of Supply
that the aspects of the case which might interest the house have already been dealt with by the Solicitor General.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
Would the minister give us an answer today to a question that I put to him a few days ago about the location of an antiballistic missile centre in the vicinity of Detroit?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I believe that, at that time, the hon. gentleman asked me whether I had any comments to make about an American official's statement with regard to the eventual location of an anti-ballistic missile centre in the Detroit area. I said that the Canadian government policy had been clearly stated at the time of the renewal of the NORAD agreement, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that Canada was not participating in the installation of an A.B.M. centre. So, I do not see how I can usefully answer a question concerning a city located outside Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to hon. members that the rules have already been fractured to some extent by the Chair, inasmuch as we have gone more than five minutes beyond the question period. Perhaps hon. members could wait patiently until tomorrow, when I will make another effort to see that as many questions as possible are submitted to the house.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 3, consideration in committee of Bill C-177, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial 
year ending the 31st March, 1969-Mr. Drury-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. When the committee rose on Monday, March 3, clause 2 of the bill was under discussion.
On clause 2-$222,254,283 granted for 1968-69.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, last evening the Minister of Transport outlined to the committee some views regarding housing and the report of the task force on housing. One very pertinent question we must ask ourselves when we consider the views expressed by the minister is: In what capacity was the minister speaking to us last night? Was he speaking to us as a spokesman for the government announcing government policy? I think the clear answer to that question is that he was not. He was merely explaining to the committee his views as chairman of the task force on housing.
Let me say immediately that I agree with a good many of the recommendations of the task force. I have to, because a good many of them seem to have been taken from the election program of the Progressive Conservative party in the last election. I want to be very frank this afternoon, without in any way being abusive, and tell the minister that his explanation to the committee was really of very little use. We have no way of knowing how many of the views expressed by the minister may become government policy. We have no way of knowing which of these views will be adopted by the government. We have no way of knowing which views will actually be recommended by the minister to the government.
I must say quite frankly through you, Mr. Chairman, that the position of the minister at this juncture is simply not credible. First of all, the Prime Minister has placed the minister in an absurd position. For some time prior to the publication of this report the minister was boasting about his revolutionary program. He boasted about how he was going to cut red tape and get ahead with the housing program. But the Prime Minister, as has become his practice in some instances, proceeded to cut the feet from under the minister.
I should like to quote one or two remarks made by the Prime Minister in this connection. In the house on February 14, as reported at page 5525 of Hansard, the Prime Minister made the following statement:
Until the constitution is brought into the 20th century in some of these respects-
March 4, 1969

He was referring to housing policy and urban renewal programs.
governments are to a large degree powerless to solve the problems either by acting alone or in co-operation with other levels of government.
There we have a very clear statement by the Prime Minister that it is to a large degree impracticable for the governments of this country, either alone or in co-operation with each other, to deal with the housing problem in Canada. Thus a curious state of affairs has been created. On the one hand we have the Minister of Transport boasting of how he is going to get the program moving under the present constitution, boasting of how he is going to cut red tape. On the other hand the Prime Minister rises in the house and says that to a large degree the governments of the country, presumably including this government, are powerless to act until the constitution has been revised.
Then we had the spectacle of the Prime Minister returning to his own constituency and discussing this question with his constituents, but apparently in a different capacity. It must have been in a different capacity because the Prime Minister took a very different line. He is reported as having said this: practically all federal Liberals then said-
This is two years ago.
they did not want to start becoming involved in constitutional questions. There were more urgent problems housing, integration, poverty,-"and the constitution was pretty low in order of priorities."
"I was saying it, and the Liberal party in Ottawa was saying it"-
Said the Prime Minister. So you have the situation where in his own constituency the Prime Minister says that housing, integration and poverty are far higher in the scale of priority than reform of the constitution. Yet in this house the Prime Minister says that nothing effective can be done with regard to housing until the constitution is reformed. Just how cynical can a government get?
lYe have also had a phoney NATO review. In this regard the government has been facing in both directions. We now see the Prime Minister trying to look in both directions at once on the question of the constitution When we place the poor Minister of Transport in the context of the remarks made by the Prime Minister, there is certainly very little ground for the Minister of Transport to stand on.
Clearly the Prime Minister is a reluctant reformer of the constitution. He indicates in his speech that his hand has been forced by
Business of Supply
members of the opposition. Yet the other day in this house he said that, without substantial constitutional change, both his government and other governments in this country were virtually powerless to act in regard to housing.
Put the two positions side by side and the conclusion is inescapable. The Prime Minister believes that the government is powerless to act because of the constitution. Yet he did not seek constitutional change. Any government which, through its Prime Minister, simultaneously tries to adopt two positions is patently insincere when it tries to persuade the country that it is genuinely concerned about the urgency of the housing problem in this country. For that reason alone the minister's image as a reformer lacks credibility. The Prime Minister himself considers the Minister of Transport powerless under the existing constitution to carry out certain reforms. From what the Prime Minister said it is clear that there is no real will within the government to bring about constitutional change.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I do not accept the position that governments in this country are powerless to deal effectively with problems of housing, pollution, and so on. There are ways in which the provincial and federal governments may cooperate, but the Minister of Transport did not chose to follow the path of co-operation. He did not, as he ought to have, involve the provinces in the establishment and work of the task force. From the beginning he did not follow the road of co-operation. In short, once again this government is up to its old tricks, like the one performed with medicare where the government produced a program and asked the provinces to take it over.
Clearly, the Minister of Transport was operating in an area of divided jurisdiction. Nevertheless, he acted from the beginning in this matter without taking cognizance of the proper role of the provinces in solving the housing problem. It would have been much wiser to involve the provinces. They could have enlightened the task force considerably about certain aspects of the problem, and there would have been a better measure of real co-operation in the solution of our housing problem. The minister concerned turned his back on the provinces, and I will not be surprised if he achieves nothing substantial in the solution of the housing problem.
The Prime Minister thinks that little can be done under the present constitution; he persists in making inflammatory statements

March 4, 1969
Business of Supply
which do little to enhance federal-provincial co-operation. Because of the Prime Minister's views, the position of the Minister of Transport lacks credibility.
As I have said, the Minister of Transport was not prepared to co-operate with the provinces. But I have another reason for saying that his position lacks credibility. Under his direction the task force, among other things, recommended that in certain instances the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials ought to be abolished.. Clearly, that recommendation emanated from the minister; equally clearly, the Minister of Finance, who also has responsibility in this field, has no intention of going along with this recommendation. It was bad enough when the Postmaster General poked his nose into the affairs of the Departments of External Affairs and National Defence and expressed views in public contrary to those known to be held by the government. Whether he did so to hide the chaos in his own department or because someone had asked him to undermine the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is beside the point. But in the housing field two ministers who are jointly responsible, in a manner of speaking, are in open conflict and are apparently recommending different policies.
I ask, Mr. Chairman, what goes on in this government? How often will the government look both ways at once? How often will it wear two faces at the same time? We have seen it doing that on the NATO question, on constitutional questions, and we are now seeing it with regard to the 11 per cent sales tax. The minister's present position is patently phony. If the government does not act on the recommendation of his task force that the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials be abolished, will he resign as a minister of this government? Is he prepared to resign? If he is not prepared to resign, his position is patently phony and insincere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: Get tough with him.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You just want to get rid of me.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We want the minister to behave as he ought to behave, to have the courage of his convictions and to stand behind the public positions he takes. It is time integrity was restored in matters of public behaviour and it is time ministers stuck to their principles.

Last night the minister advanced an argument regarding removal of the ceiling on N.H.A. loans and strengthened our conviction that he cannot be believed. Since coming to Ottawa I have never heard anything more absurd than the position the minister advanced last evening. He argued that removing the ceiling would ensure a steady flow of mortgage funds, and the inference I drew was that interest rates would climb above the present ceiling. Then in the same breath he argued that this action would reduce mortgage interest rates. Well, he cannot have it both ways. I only hope that no one in the government will pay the slightest attention to that recommendation which can only send up interest rates on mortgages when funds are already in short supply. Although the minister explained his report last night, his position lacks credibility. We hope that at least one of his recommendations will not be adopted by the government. Of course, we d;d not really need to hear the minister explain what his task force was recommending. Through carefully contrived leaks or releases many of the recommendations of the task force had already been made public even before the report was tabled in the house.
We were told that the report constituted a revolutionary approach to the housing problems of Canada. I ask, what was revolutionary about it?


Mr. Gibson:: The films we saw.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What is revolutionary in its recommendations? The majority of its valuable ideas, such as the abolition of the 11 per cent sales tax, the development of land banks, use of existing housing for public housing purposes and subsidization of rentals, were originally brought forward by hon. members of other parties. Many of them I advocated, but when I advocated them my hon. friends opposite said they were socialistic. They scorned those ideas.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They are respectable now.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am glad to hear that. I hope the minister mends his ways and cooperates with the provinces, because by so doing we shall see brought into being a system governing land banks. Regretfully, it appears that the minister will not co-operate with the provinces in the solution of these problems.
And what about other proposals in the report, such as lengthening the period for repayment of mortgages and reducing down
March 4, 1969

payments? It is said that this will help some Canadians, but I say it will not help to any perceptible extent the hundreds of thousands of our countrymen who already have great difficulty in carrying heavy interest rates. They will not be able to carry the amortized payments over longer periods. The minister adm.tted that lowering down payments would help only some Canadians. What in this report gives any hope or encouragement to those Canadians who cannot carry mortgages at existing rates? There is nothing, Mr. Chairman. The report and the minister himself are complete washouts.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
When it comes to dealing with the problem which the minister said was probably the most basic difficulty facing housing in Canada, the cost of money, what did the minister say? All he did was to state his faith that ultimately it could be met. I had to remind him that ultimately we will all be dead.
The minister talked about the importance of the flow of mortgage money into the housing field. This, of course, is important. He spoke about it being turned on and off in recent years and gave the impression that this is anybody's fault but the government of Canada of which he is a member. Who is responsible for the supply of mortgage money being turned on and off in recent years? Nobody but my hon. friend and his colleagues. They are the ones responsible. This kind of difficulty will continue. As long as this government has such a weak and inflationary program, more and more Canadians will be unwilling to invest in fixed rate term obligations such as mortgages. Yet we have no effective action in the field of fighting inflation.
We got the most enormous misrepresentation in Canadian history in connection with the budget. The government finally reported an actual deficit which was hundreds of millions of dollars higher than they forecast it would be. After many months of studying the question of inflation, a white paper was presented to the house which could have been written by a group of people in two or three hours. That white paper recommended the importance of a study committee to study fighting inflation in this country. A popgun! The problem with regard to the supply of mortgage money will continue as long as this inflationary psychology continues.
The minister spoke about the size and difficulties of building companies. He suggested this is really due to the turning off from time to time of the supply of mortgage
Business of Supply
money. I agree that this no doubt is the case, but he is not producing anything to ensure a steady supply of mortgage money so these companies can continue to build houses on a steady basis.
Nothing has been done in connection with the cost of interest to a person borrowing money. Nothing has been done to restore confidence, and we have higher taxes imposed by the government. I have great sympathy for those Canadians who need to acquire a home and have been forced because of the inflationary policies of this government to pay fantastic interest rates. I feel a very good case could be made for the state providing these people with some relief because they have to pay these high taxes to some extent as a result of the mistakes, bad judgment and lack of restraint by the government of Canada. It was because of my conviction that the government owed these people some consideration that I made a modest proposal of some form of tax relief which would provide a modest degree of relief to these people and at the same time preserve their incentive to borrow money. I put forward an equitable proposal which was scorned by my hon. friends opposite, apparently on the ground that it was upsetting to Bay Street. This proposal would have cost approximately $25 million a year. My proposal apparently was too modest in its sweep, particularly in view of what has happened to interest rates since then. It was a reasonable proposal.
I point out that in the case of the tenant who lives in an apartment built by an entrepreneur who borrowed money, the interest paid on that money can be deducted from the income tax of the establishment. Therefore, under the existing income tax arrangements the tenant does get some relief indirectly by reason of the ability of the landlord to deduct interest payments in computing his net income. A very good case could be made on this ground in addition to the grounds of equity and responsibility. The government has the moral responsibility for putting these hundreds of thousands of unfortunate Canadians in the terrible position where they have to undertake to pay 9 per cent or 10 per cent interest for many years. If the government wants to do something to offer some relief on the very matter that the minister said was the most important problem, this is a very simple thing to do. It is not possible to put the home owner in a completely satisfactory position, but the government can act at modest cost to the taxpayers of this country.

March 4, 1969
Business of Supply
The minister made some extraordinary-statements last evening which I never would have believed had he not made them.


John George Diefenbaker: Did you believe him then?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have to believe these statements, Mr. Chairman, because I would think any minister would be too ashamed to admit to them unless they were true. The minister stated that the federal government has obviously been involved in housing for many years in this country. He said that there had been no research done to determine the effect of supply in relation to rents. There had been no research done to see what the effects were of a 3 per cent or 5 per cent vacancy rate in a city. I find this almost impossible to believe even for this government, Mr. Chairman. I would not have believed it if anybody else had said it, but when the minister responsible said it I had to accept it. It really makes me wonder whether the government is capable of properly managing anything in connection with housing.
The minister made an amazing statement regarding public housing. He said it was the first time he had been exposed to the views of tenants. I daresay that is true although some of the rest of us have been. Is it credible? It must be, but it is hard to believe that a Crown agency involved in assisting in the construction of public housing and encouraging municipalities to engage in public housing would not follow up on its projects to determine the attitude of the tenants in such public housing. Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, any competent government putting a good deal of money into public housing and then not taking the trouble to determine whether these were good healthy surroundings for the tenants?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I cannot believe that the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are not fully informed on this matter. Here I must believe it was the minister who was ignorant. I cannot believe that the officials who are putting all this money into these public housing plans had not taken the trouble to inform themselves as to what satisfaction these projects were giving to the people living in them. I cannot take the minister seriously on that one.
Where do we stand with regard to these projects in the future? The minister purported to be very specific and definite. He suggested it was only where urban renewal

schemes involving business development were concerned that there would be postponements, but I defy anyone to go over what he said and determine what is the actual position now with regard to public housing projects. We are not a bit wiser today than we were before he spoke and, of course, before he spoke we were not a bit wiser than we were when he refused to answer questions in the house a few day ago. The minister's position is very obscure. When the minister stands up in the house and says there was only one year in which there was any real short-fall in the construction of housing, then that is about the end of it. I do not see how he could expect any of us to take him seriously after that statement.
We all agree that there is no simple solution to the housing problem. Presumably the government is going to continue to exercise the authority granted it by the people of Canada, and presumably it will hold office for the normal term.. I presume this will be the case and that the minister or somebody else will have the responsibility of moving forward with housing programs. Therefore it is important that the minister and the government restore their credibility in this field.
It is important that we have some clarification with regard to the constitution and the effect of the constitution on the minister's programs. Is it virtually impossible, as the Prime Minister suggested, for us to proceed with a housing program under the present constitution? If this is so, how does the Prime Minister explain that constitutional reform is low on the scale of priorities? I would like to hear the Prime Minister explain that to the house some time. I would like the government to take a credible position with regard to this matter. I would like the minister and the government to move to restore their relationships with the provinces.
Today we had another sign of the government going off half-cocked in connection with offshore mineral rights, violating undertakings given by previous prime ministers to engage in consultation with the provinces. This is exactly the way that the Minister of Transport is going about solving the housing problem which the Prime Minister says cannot be solved under the existing constitution.
I say, stop the farce with regard to the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. Stop exposing us to the spectacle of one minister urging its abolition and then the Minister of Finance pouring scorn on the idea. Let them
March 4, 1969

stop the pretence that they are doing anything to lower the cost of money to the homeowner. Stop the pretence that they are busy doing something by way of an anti-inflationary program. Let them provide some relief along the lines I have suggested, or along other lines, to those homeowners troubled with the fantastically high interest rates for which the government is primarily responsible.
At the moment the minister's position is completely incredible. I have gone over the reasons for this and through you, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the committee that we are very concerned about the condition of housing in this country. We believe that the problem can be attacked. We do not share the view of the Prime Minister that the present state of the constitution makes an effective attack virtually impossible. If the government will improve its relations with the provinces, obviously an effective attack can be made.
There are some good ideas in the task force report. There have to be other ideas added to them. These ideas are being discussed. We in the Official Opposition will support and assist the minister in launching and carrying out an effective and comprehensive housing program but we want it to be credible, we want it to be sincere, we want it to be straightforward. We have had enough of these positions of duplicity.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. One thing that should be added to them is that in effect for the first time the federal government has focused its attention on the question of housing, which has provincial and municipal implications, and has produced a report on the problem which is perhaps the most comprehensive ever made on it in our history. In doing so the government has provided all those interested in searching for a solution with the opportunity to choose priorities and to decide on the kind of orientation we wish for a federal housing policy. In the past few years a large number of conferences on housing have been held and many speeches have been made. But never before has there been a study that has condensed in so comprehensive a manner all of the various aspects related to the issue, perhaps the most formidable and difficult issue facing any government in the western world, an issue that must be resolved.
Business of Supply
It might be very easy to resolve the housing problem under different economic conditions in other parts of the world, but in the western world with its free economy, with an explosion in population, in a country with such vast distances as Canada, with such diverse climatic conditions, with population increases continually taking place in some major urban centres and not in others, it is extremely difficult to produce a policy which will make everybody happy and will meet the needs in every corner of the country. On that score alone the Minister of Transport ought to be commended for having undertaken such an enormous task and for having produced in such a short time a document for us to debate and improve upon. I believe it is the beginning of a new trend wherein the federal government by virtue of other circumstances has found it necessary to focus its attention on municipal matters and on powers given to other levels of government, including the municipal level.
From examining the report everyone interested in the subject could perhaps arrive at different conclusions and different priorities with respect to the final policy which ought to emerge, and there are a few points I would like to submit in contributing to this debate as best I can.
The report in its declaration of principles says that the housing needs of most Canadians can and should be met through the private market. This is quite true so far as the production of housing is concerned in the form of new apartment buildings and new houses of a certain size. But the pattern in large urban centres, and I can only speak from experience of large urban centres, indicates that the private sector has not been in a position to produce public housing. Therefore the government, in its priorities and orientation, should include public housing. In doing so it could draw on and benefit from the studies which have already been completed and carried on over a number of years. It could draw on the experience of others.
9 (3:40 p.m.)
When we speak of public housing we hear criticisms in respect of the shortage of certain social facilities such as day nurseries, recreational centres and the like. This is the very kind of thing that could improve the quality of future public housing projects. In some situations, for instance, in the city of Toronto, the term "social housing" has been coined recently in order to indicate that much more is really needed than the provision of shelter

March 4, 1969
Business of Supply
when it comes to public housing, that society derives from public housing social benefits in many different related and perhaps unrelated areas. Therefore this is a field of human endeavour which deserves a continuity of effort.
While dispersed acquisition of houses in any given community in respect of public housing might be very desirable from a social viewpoint, this policy will not add to the housing stock available. It will actually diminish the housing stock available from the private sector and therefore would have the effect of increasing the cost of the units available on the market. There is the suggestion, for instance, that perhaps loans should be made available as subsidies for the payment of rent. I would rather see a different objective. If loans are to be made available as subsidies I believe they should be made available not for rental purposes, because they would eventually end up in the pockets of the landlord in one form or another, but as loans toward the purchase of a housing unit.
It must also be emphasized that when we speak of housing programs and projects for the Indian, Eskimo and Metis people in many parts of Canada our attention should also be focused on the situation in the major urban areas of Canada where there is a large influx of immigrants. This situation will certainly require our attention because immigrants who will arrive in years to come will find difficulty in obtaining accommodation upon arrival.
Much has been said on the subject of urban renewal. In this regard I think the views expressed in the report are very useful for the purpose of focusing attention on what has been done so far and on the shortcomings in the techniques which have been adopted so far. I do not know that great benefit will be derived by the suspension of urban renewal schemes. I would rather that we continued our efforts and eliminated the feeling of uncertainty which has been created in some of our centres because of the suspension. Some of the projects which are awaiting approval are of a highly sophisticated nature and would meet the thinking, expectations and hopes of the task force even beyond their dreams. These projects have been produced by local groups with the co-operation of the local government and through a process of dialogue over a period of months and years of co-operation.
Therefore the question of urban renewal perhaps should be approached in the light of
[Mr. Caccia.I
experience. Perhaps it could be expanded in a way so that rather than doing it on a limited area basis of a few blocks or a square mile it could be done by approaching it as a renewal project for any given municipality. Thus it could be incorporated in the same way a municipality would incorporate a public works program. This concept should be the broadest possible within the confines of the municipality and should eliminate the atmosphere of uncertainty and discomfort that some urban renewal schemes have created in the past.
The question of loans and grants for the rehabilitation of existing housing is a very crucial one. It is a question of great importance in the older portions of our cities. I submit it is not possible to expect an elderly couple who live on a fixed income to receive a loan for the renewal of their house. It would perhaps be desirable to develop a system whereby rather than a loan a grant would be made available for the improvement of the property and this grant would then become an encumbrance on the title of the house. The repayment of the grant to the lending authority could be worked out on that basis. At present I believe it would be unrealistic to expect people to renew their homes on the basis of loans, particularly when they have a limited income.
There are several more points which I could discuss such as the question of individual rehabilitation which has taken place in some areas and the theory of the filtering down of housing. What is happening right now in large centres is that houses are no longer filtering down from one social stratum to another but are actually filtering up. Many people find it desirable to buy a home at a reasonable price on the market, improve it and then sell it on the market at a much higher price. So we are actually experiencing a reverse process which could be called filtering up.
In closing my remarks I should like to submit a few thoughts for consideration. When one considers the long list of names of people waiting for accommodation in the large metropolitan areas-Toronto alone has something like 12,000 or 14,000 names on the waiting list-it seems to me that public housing projects should be continued in the light of the experience so far rather than have to await additional studies. I believe it would also be desirable that a program of income supplements be initiated to permit low income families to purchase property. It
March 4, 1969

Business of Supply
would also be desirable that legislation be new dwellings. There is in all this a glaring introduced to provide financial assistance inconsistency.
through grants for the rehabilitation of low income property owners in urban renewal areas.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
As I said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, we must appreciate that in our society it is desirable that we arrive at policies which reflect our concern for those who need housing. In this regard it is time to do some thinking in conjunction with municipalities and metropolitan centres such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg. When considering the relationship between the federal government and these metropolitan areas we must ask about the desirability of dealing directly with urban centres. We have large urban centres with populations and resources greater than those of several provinces. We must become concerned with the life of the millions of Canadians living in these centres.
At this point in history, we might ask ourselves whether there is a possibility of redrafting our constitutional relationship, when it comes to the redevelopment of Canadian urban centres. Can we correct inadequacies of this kind, the source of so many difficult situations? Can we resolve these difficulties by establishing direct bridges between urban centres and the federal government? These are relevant matters. With the help of the task force report we have the opportunity of constructively improving upon this situation.


Mr. Caoueite:: Mr. Chairman, I listened very attentively a while ago to the remarks of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on the housing legislation and supplementary estimates we are asked to approve, in order to give better assistance in the housing field in Canada.
This housing legislation is of outstanding importance since it is of utmost concern and interest to thousands of Canadians calling for better dwelling and a housing program adapted to the average Canadian, not programs like those that are submitted to us, involving very high rates of interest supposedly to fight inflation.
The cost of money is going up all the time and the reason given for that is that we must fight inflation. On the other hand, the minister introduces a piece of legislation to increase housing credits, on the pretence that we need
Under the present housing act, Mr. Chairman, a Canadian worker who decides to buy a $15,000 home must now pay interest at a rate of 10 per cent. If it takes him 35 years to pay for his house, it will have cost him more than $60,000, including the interest, and excluding municipal and school taxes. This is, to me, an inflationary scheme in itself, for that $15,000 home will never be worth $60,000. Yet, that is the bill we are asked to pass.
Where are the Canadians who will be able to pay $175 or $200 a month for 35 years to own their home? Indeed-and the minister is aware of it

many small home owners who bought a house 5, 6 or 8 years ago now have to give them up, losing by doing so the savings they had accumulated over 10 or 15 years, because of the increase in school and municipal taxes, and the cost of rental or monthly payments.
For instance, is there an E. B. Eddy employee in Hull who can pay $200 a month for a $15,000 home? There is not and the minister knows it. Built-up areas are multiplying in the suburbs of Montreal, Toronto, and other large centres.
Yet, in Montreal, hundreds of houses are empty, because workers cannot hope to live in that type of housing. Even if $600,000,000 or even $1 billion were spent to build new housing units, if the terms and conditions are not within the reach of the Canadian buyer, people will certainly not be helped towards better housing.
Thousands of families are still living in Montreal slums; they cannot hope to move to a more comfortable and decent home, and pay $175 or $200 a month.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The minister and the government know this is impossible, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) goes on repeating across Canada that money does not grow on trees and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) also agrees with this. There is a lack of money and it costs too much.
A while ago, the Leader of the Opposition was saying that the cost of money should be reduced. How would he go about it? We do not know because he is not telling. What would he do if he were the present minister or heading the present government? We do not know. We know ourselves that interest rates are too high and that is why we have been fighting in this house since 1962. I was doing so way

March 4. 1969
Business of Supply
back in 1946-23 years ago-and I used to tell the government: Why not finance those projects of national importance through interest-free loans by the Bank of Canada as this is being done for India, Africa, South America, China and other countries throughout the world? Why not assist Canadians in the same way through the services of this financial institution which belongs to all Canadians, that is the Bank of Canada? On the contrary, this control is left in the hands of Canadian bankers who tell the Bank of Canada what to do. This institution does not exert any authority over the chartered banks of which it is the servant instead of exercising its own sovereign powers as a servant of the people and abiding by the decisions of the Parliament of Canada. It is merely the toy of outside financial interests which are dictating their own terms to the government.
The government is now willing to guarantee loans. To whom? To the companies which, in turn, will lend at an interest rate of 10 or 12 per cent, if not 15 or 20 per cent. That is what is being done by the insurance companies 'and by the banks. Insurance companies, incidentally, do not give any credit. Money does not grow in their case but, on the other hand, it grows in banks. This is where it is born through the law which allows bankers to multiply by 14 every central government bond. Would it be more difficult for the central government to make the multiplication by 14 itself instead of entrusting with this task some individuals who, in turn, lend to the government at outrageous interest rates? It is in order to protect those financial bloodsuckers that the government brings in such laws. One has not even the right to rise in order to protest against these rights granted to financiers.
Mr. Chairman, the Creditistes are the only ones who have the courage to object to this shameful exploitation of the Canadian nation and of the Canadian government. Money does not grow on trees. No. It grows in banks. The insurance companies borrow from banks and, in most cases, it is they that grant loans to people who need a home or want to develop resources and so on.
The banks are the masters because they are the greatest power in Canada. Without their permission, nobody has the right to breathe. It is as clear as that. The trust companies, the finance companies and the insurance companies constitute, as it were, the offspring of the banks. One hears people criticize the insurance companies, the trust companies and [Mr. Caouette.l
others by saying: let us get rid of these companies. Let us kill the children and let the mother live. I think it is the best way to insure that she will have other children in a few years. The only way to prevent the exploitation of the Canadian people is to take away from the banks the power to encourage the creation of trust companies.
Mr. Chairman, the housing problem does not concern Ottawa only. Besides, the minister, the Prime Minister and the government admit it. It concerns also the provinces, the municipalities and the citizens. A while ago I heard a Liberal member say that, in the future, the central government would have to reach a compromise directly with the authorities of the great cities. Solving the problems of the provinces would be easier, in my opinion, for the provincial authorities than for the federal government because those problems are closer to the former than to the latter, and when the provinces insist on having more say in the field of housing, I believe they are right.
I do not think there is any need to amend the constitution for the sake of giving the provinces a larger measure of responsibility in the field of housing. I bet the Premier of Quebec has seen the slums of that province more often than the Minister of Transport under whose jurisdiction comes the question of housing. I am pretty sure that the provincial authorities are more aware of the situation in Montreal than the federal minister, the Prime Minister or the central government. It is agreed that, under the constitution, it is a field directly pertaining to the federal authority. It is in fact, its very own field: I am referring to the matter of financing. The question of money and credit is Ottawa's business and not that of the provinces. That is why the representatives of the provinces come to Ottawa and ask the minister or the government: Give us the financial means, for, at the moment, all we have is the responsibility.
Such is the problem facing the government in every field, specially in housing.
So the provinces come to Ottawa, saying: Give us the funds. Ottawa answers: We do not have any.. Money does not grow on trees. Such is the kind of answer given by the Prime Minister. Then where does money come from? The Prime Minister does not know. He knows, but he does not have the right to tell. As for me, I know it and I have the right to tell. And I do. Whether you like it or not, the truth is there and I say it bluntly.
March 4. 1963

Mr. Chairman, financial means should be made available to the provinces thus enabling them to enact a law on housing to provide every Canadian with the means of buying a decent home but not at the present rates of interest. The present situation should not be allowed to last or to deteriorate for it is worse than it was five years ago, as far as housing is concerned. In fact, to live in a small family home costs a lot more today than it did five or six years ago.
Assistance has just been granted to Montreal-and that has nothing to do with housing. The Minister of Transport is 'aware of it. It has to do with the granting of rather important sums of money, interest free, to make up Expo's deficit. We begin to understand that to pay off deficits, we will have to resort to a procedure advocated by the Creditistes for the past 30 years. I am referring to interest free financing. In order to help out Expo in Montreal, the central government undertakes now to back it up with $8 million under an agreement with the province and the municipality, and without interest. It is a form of assistance and not a gift. It is a loan that the City of Montreal will have to pay back but without interest.
Why? Because it is a deficit incurred by Expo. I do not blame the government for granting an interest-free loan to the City of Montreal, on the contrary I congratulate it for that. It should do the same for the municipalities which are short of money.
There are not only municipal deficits; there are 'also provincial deficits, school deficits, personal deficits. People have gone into debt for 5, 10, 15 and even 35 years to buy a house. I said earlier that very few people will become homeowners if purchasing plans of 25, 30 and 35 years are established. If a Canadian gets a house when he is 35 or 40, and pays for it little by little that is by instalments spread over a long period, he will be 70 or 75 before he is through paying for it. Who will live until 75 with an old age pension of $107 a month? Who will still own his house at that time?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, we will probably leave that to our children, thus mortgaging the future of our children and that of their own children. The present Minister of Transport or myself will not be around then, but the inheritors of our debts will. We are the ones who will have voted those debts in this house.
Business of Supply
Mr. Chairman, housing is a national matter of which both Ottawa and the provinces are responsible. I repeat that the provinces have all they need at their disposal to proceed with housing projects for the materials and the workers are available. Moreover, there are
200,000	unemployed in the province of Quebec alone, which is amazing in 1969, when there is so much to do. There are 80,000 unemployed in the city of Montreal alone. What a marvelous situation!
Why are there unemployed in the province of Quebec and elsewhere in Canada? Would it be because there are no more resources to develop, no more houses and no more highways to build, nothing more to undertake. Certainly not, Mr. Chairman. It is because money does not grow on trees because trees are not productive at the present time. There are no developments, because of procrastination, introduction of legislations, but all that does nothing to improve the economic situation in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, the central government ought to provide banks with financial means by allowing them to make use of the Bank of Canada; then you will see houses being built up for families, rather than families being planned according to houses as proposed by the C.M.H.C. For families with eight or ten children, they build small four room houses. Can you imagine 12 people crowded into four rooms. This does not make any sense. However, that is what the national housing act provides.
But one never hears about houses being built for large families, because they would be much too expensive. It is not on account of a shortage of building materials, manpower or land, but because the cost of money is too high; the money problem is the only problem they refuse to correct, to deal with. Money does not grow on trees. We take it in the pockets of Canadians. But where does it come from? Where does it grow? The government knows it, but it does not have the right to tell us.
Mr. Chairman, we maintain that a responsible and sovereign government should see to it to make financially possible what is physically feasible and desirable. On the other hand, the governments, whether Progressive Conservative or Liberal, have not taken their responsibilities, I think, in a number of fields, specially in the economic field. They have been satisfied with statements of principles, with talk about their love for the Canadian people, our natural inexhaustible resources,

March 4, 1969
Business of Supply
the vastness of our country so dear to everyone. Even in 1935, the then Prime Minister, Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie King, made a statement that I always keep in my pocket, because I always fall back on it and find it of much value. Besides, in the good old days of 1935, I agreed with Mackenzie King. I quote:

Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation.

But let us consider the situation in which we find ourselves at this time. Here is what the Rt. Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King had to say, and I quote:

Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation.

What action is being taken in the housing field? I see my colleague from Chambly (Mr. Pilon) and he knows that I am telling the truth because he believed in Mr. Mackenzie King.
Mr. Chairman, I shall quote what the Right Hon. Mackenzie King used to say:

Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and democracy is idle and futile.

This is what Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie King used to say and he was right. But, who ever put those ideas into practice since that time. Even Mackenzie King had forgotten about them himself during the last years he was a member of the house. I was here from 1946 to 1949.
Mr. Chairman, the same problem is still with us in 1969. In 1931, 38 years ago, Pope Pius XI said: "Those in control of money and credit are the masters of us all and nobody is allowed to breathe without their permission". This is just as true nowadays as it was then.
The government has to deal with this kind of system. In times of war, are the governments, whichever they may be, worried about financial problems? No. All of a sudden, it is decided that whatever is physically possible for war must be made financially possible. Guns are manufactured, soldiers are dressed and sent to Europe on the battle-fields as 
quickly as it is physically possible and feasible; finance is adjusted to reality.
One has never heard that there was a shortage of 25 cent coins to manufacture a gun. That is impossible because of the rate of interest-[DOT]


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired unless, of course, the committee wishes to give him unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


David Réal Caouette: Just for a minute, Mr. Chairman.

My sincere thanks to my colleagues for allowing me to carry on with my comments; they may rest assured that I shall not take undue advantage of their courtesy.
In two minutes, I shall demonstrate to what extent Canadians have to deal with a crazy system. We can never say it often enough: we live among crazy people and we are governed by the craziest among them, and here is the proof.
In 1963, I purchased a small house at 33 Meunier Street in Hull, with a loan from the Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada. What is more interesting is that this was a $15,500 house on which I have been making payments ever since. But, when I bought this house, my monthly payment was $104. Today, it is $134, that is $30 more in about six years. That was the situation as of December 31, 1968.
It will be said that I mention my case as an example, in black and white. That will appear in Hansard and everybody will know that I am still paying for the house where I live in Hull. I had a mortgage of about $12,000, and I still owe $11,874,84. Last year, I paid $771.64 in interest to the Mutual Life. I paid $598.80 in municipal and school taxes, and the principal, that is what I paid back on my house, amounts to $285.56. Such is the purchasing plan of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I repaid the mortgage at the rate of approximately $22 per month, but I paid $771 in interest and $598 in taxes, and that at a rate of interest of 7 per cent. With the new rate of 10 per cent, the monthly instalments will only pay for the interest and the taxes, and the homeowner will never repay the price of this house, so that he will
March A. 1969



never be one of the home owners in his country, Canada.
We are against that policy which we have been fighting for a long time, and we urge the government to take its responsibilities and to put the financial system at the service of the citizens of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, several members have stressed the importance of the matter before us, that is the housing problem. We know the problem is fundamental and and nation-wide. We also know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) seems much concerned about it, since he said recently, in Vancouver I believe, that he would be willing to leave his present position to head a department of housing if it were established by the government.
Considering the importance of the Department of Transport, I wonder if it would be in the best interests of the Canadian people to entrust the minister with new responsibilities and ask him to deal with the housing problem. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should relieve the Minister of Transport and entrust someone else, a Minister without Portfolio for example, with a matter as important as housing. Of course if the Minister of Transport would rather look after housing, he could leave the Department of Transport and become solely responsible for that important and essential matter which we call the housing policy.
I do not question the good intentions nor the good will of the minister. Indeed, he has established the so-called task force, a study group to consider the various aspects of the housing problem in Canada. I have studied that report like all other hon. members but I find in it very few practical solutions. It is obvious that excellent suggestions are made, but they are long-term suggestions which could not immediately solve the very important housing problem.
The main improvement has been an extension of the refund period of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. And, as many hon. members have repeated it in this house, Mr. Chairman, that measure does not in any way settle the matter.
Yesterday, replying to an opposition member who was criticizing the organization of the task force which has drafted the report we are studying, the minister said that he
Business of Supply
had chosen the finest authorities in the field to advise him.
I take the minister to task because if the federal government wants to take the responsibility of housing it should consult the provinces before proceeding with the detailed study of that very important problem since, as has been said by many hon. members, housing falls in the legal category of property and civil rights and hence under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. So, I wonder-perhaps the minister will give me an answer later on-if he intends to raise another constitutional conflict with the provinces. I think he should have included in this task force some provincial representatives who could, in the light of their government's information, provide the minister with most valuable data on housing.
A member said earlier that the provinces and the municipalities are much closer to the people than the federal government, which is true. It is also the responsibility of the provinces to discuss with the municipalities the problems of housing, property rights, and civil rights. So I do not see how the minister can, constitutionally speaking, discuss directly with the municipalities of the country without doing so through the provinces. Besides, the minister knows that in constitutional matters, he has no authority over municipalities. By insisting on going forward with a housing policy without consulting the provinces, I wonder if the minister is not about to create another constitutional crisis between the provinces and the federal government? The minister is well aware of that since, at the recent conference of representatives of municipalities and provinces held in Toronto, which he attended, he was severely warned, especially by the province of Quebec, not to elaborate detailed policies without consulting the provinces, and especially Quebec, because that is a field that falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
Mr. Chairman, I say that the minister's behaviour is strange. I do not blame him for attempting to help Canadians, for bringing forward policies likely to solve the housing problem in some sectors. The minister may want to point out that under the constitution, the federal government must look after the welfare of all Canadians and the minister would be right. But until the Canadian constitution is amended, neither he nor the federal government have the right to interfere directly in a jurisdiction that belongs exclusively to the provinces.

March 4. 1969
Business of Supply
In fact, the first step the minister should take would be to invite the provinces to a conference on the housing problem. Conferences have already been held in 1965 and 1966, and the minister will remember-even if he was not the minister responsible for housing then-that the provinces had raised objections with regard to the constitutionality of the exclusive control of housing by the federal government, wondering whether that problem did not lie exclusively within the provincial jurisdiction. We remember that at that time, the conference had dealt with one definite point.
I am surprised today that the government and the minister are now asking us to vote supplementary estimates in an effort to solve the housing problem. I am wondering whether in view of the differences of opinion expressed by some provinces in this constitutional field, the minister should not rather begin by calling together the provinces in order to discuss the problem with them and to work out plans which might solve housing problems in Canada.
The minister knows that several provinces, including Quebec, already have a housing corporation. Everything must be done to avoid duplication, in which case the same service to be available both at the federal and at the provincial levels of government. This is why provinces are complaining; they need fiscal resources in order to establish their own housing corporation.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Presently, the Quebec housing corporation is borrowing from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at an interest rate unknown to me, but which is below the rate approved by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). Then, the Quebec housing corporation lends money to Quebecers so they can build houses. So, Mr. Chairman, we have, sharing the same field, the Quebec housing corporation and Ottawa's Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which are competing on the same market. In my view, we should settle this once for all. However, I submit that even if the minister established committees made up of experts the main problem would still remain, we still would have to call together the provinces with a view to define responsibilities at each level of government and to draw up a comprehensive program which could help all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to congratulate the minister on his good will, when he expressed

his intention to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials.
It is known that since 1965 when this tax was imposed, and even before that, we, of the Progressive Conservative party and of the official opposition, have made representations to the Minister of Finance suggesting that this tax would only slow up the development of this important sector, housing. If the minister considers not only the urban centres-which we hear so much about in the house-but also rural areas like the one I represent, he will realize that there are also in the latter housing problems.
In my home town, for instance with a population of 6,000 inhabitants, some people are unable to find an apartment to rent. There are also people who live in dilapidated houses, when they might have enough capital to build their own house. But how can they do it, when they must pay first of all an 11 per cent tax on building materials, which is an inflationary measure?
When the minister made a statement suggesting that he was in favour of removing the 11 per cent tax, he was right. And I think he should try to convince the Minister of Finance as well as his colleagues, to do so because it is a matter requiring first priority.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Martial Asselin: Yes.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might suggest how we could replace the $300 million that is derived from this 11 per cent
tax?


Martial Asselin: To the hon. member who has just interrupted me, first of all I shall reply that we are not the government. It is the government's responsibility to administer the nation and find the necessary funds to try and balance its budget-if it wants to balance it. However, I suggest that the 11 per cent sales tax that the government persists in maintaining is an inflationary tax. And even if the minister was full of good intentions, if, with his cabinet colleagues, he persists in maintaining that tax, he will never succeed in solving the housing problem in Canada.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The minister said that he was ready to remove it.


Martial Asselin: The government member who has just interrupted me might perhaps ask
March 4. 1969

the minister how he could obtain the equivalent of the 11 per cent tax, since, at last, the minister is in favour of its removal. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member who interrupted me-I do not recall the name of his constituency-


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Cochrane.


Martial Asselin: -the hon. member for Cochrane to use his good offices to persuade the Minister of Transport and his colleagues that the repeal of the 11 per cent tax must at all costs be the highest priority with respect to housing, if Canadians are to be interested in building their own house and owning it.
To start with, let us deal with the first priority. Even if the Minister, should, under the terms of the bill, make millions of dollars available to the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, he must bring the cabinet to agree to the first measure needed to help those who wish to build a home, that is, the removal of the 11 per cent tax on building materials. Should the minister decide to ask for the help of the opposition to force the cabinet to adopt this measure, he can count on our full co-operation.
Mr. Chairman, several hon. members wish to speak on this bill, but I reaffirm what I said at the beginning of my remarks. Due to the negative attitude of some provinces on the constitutional aspects governing housing, I say that if the minister wants at any price to avoid this constitutional crisis and those frequent arguments between the provinces and the federal government on matters of constitutional jurisdiction, he should first of all call a federal-provincial conference for the purpose of determining responsibilities and jurisdictional powers and to establish overall programmes with the provinces in order to avoid the duplication of public expenditures as well as to bring about some planning to arrive at the best possible solutions of this urgent problem.
As it was said a while ago, housing is the most important problem Canada is facing now. In fact, hardly a week goes without this problem cropping up in our constituencies. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gen-dron) who is sitting in front of me listens to representations made by the people on this problem whenever he goes to his office at Riviere-du-Loup. This is an urgent problem to be looked after by all hon. members and not only by the government members.
Therefore, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was saying a short time ago,
Business of Supply
we are prepared to help the government solve this very urgent problem. However, the government must, in the first place, elucidate its constitutional position in order to first obtain co-operation from alii the provinces when the time comes to establish programs which will contribute to solving the housing problem.


Mr. Comeau:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to participate in this debate because I feel we have not paid enough attention to low-income Canadians in rural areas and in the cities. The task force did not pay enough attention to them, and for that reason I wish to make a few comments.
There is nothing new about our present housing crisis. There has always been a housing crisis for Canadians with low incomes or no incomes. As we know, the housing shortage has grown and now affects the middle-income groups. The government set up the task force because the shortage has become a political issue. Many votes are to be gained among middle-income Canadians. Our middle-income groups became concerned about the crisis and finally they wanted answers. They realized they could no longer have adequate and decent housing, and for that reason we are engaged in the present debate. I do not say the task force ought to have visited every little village in Canada, but it did not pay too much attention to our rural population mainly, I suspect, because about 75 per cent of our people live in urban centres.
What does this government propose to do for our low-income families? To qualify for a mortgage loan one's income must be in excess of $8,000. I understand. I do not know how many of the recommendations of the task force will be adopted, but I wish to ask this question. Does the minister intend to make housing available to families with incomes of $5,000 a year? It would be good if we could achieve that. But what of families with incomes of less than $5,000 a year? Many such families exist in our cities and rural areas. Many of our simple, hard-working citizens earn between $50 and $75 a week. They are honest and deserve homes. But, from my reading of the task force report, no provision is made for them.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
A news release of the Canadian Conference on Housing quotes Dr. Albert Rose, Proffessor

March 4, 1969
Business of Supply
at the University of Toronto School of Social Work, as follows:
The most important change that could be made in our national housing policy would be a formal declaration that the federal and provincial governments intended, during the balance of this century, to discriminate in favour of families and individuals at the bottom half of the income distribution.
The news release continues:
This group he says includes Canadian Indians and members of other minority groups; the elderly and the not so elderly who are single, widowed, or otherwise alone in society; families headed by women with dependent children; families of chronically ill male heads, and so on.
This is quite true. In a town in my own constituency, out of a total of 2,695 wage earners 965 heads of families earn $2,000 or less per annum. This is typical in rural Canada and in many instances in urban Canada. Many Canadians fall into this category. Leaving aside for a moment wage earners in the low salary bracket and dealing with the $3,000 to $5,000 a year group, 60 per cent or two-thirds of our wage earners are in this group. The government is attempting to provide housing only for those earning in excess of $5,000 a year.
There are many in Nova Scotia earning $250, $300 and $400 a month, and I believe the same holds true all across Canada. They are perfectly honest hard-working citizens, but they cannot afford a home. The only way these people in my area are able to have a home is if their father owns a small farm and provides them with the land, lumber and help. These people usually know how to ham die a hammer and saw and can help in this way. Many tradesmen are not able to borrow in order to build a home. In urban areas it is almost impossible for someone earning $250 or $300 a month to purchase a home with the cost of living as high as it is. The government is offering nothing to families where the head of the family earns less than $5,000.
I have nothing against raising the mortgage ceiling from $18,000 to $35,000, but what does it do? It provides those who can already obtain a loan or a home with better housing. There is nothing wrong with that, but it does not provide adequate housing for those in the lower income bracket. These people cannot afford high interest rates of 9 per cent on the first mortgage and possibly 15 per cent on a second mortgage. This government is not interested in solving the housing crisis but simply in creating the impression that they are gods in this field. They really do not intend to do much to solve the problem. It

has become a political issue. The government is trying to satisfy the middle-class people and provide better housing for those who can already afford a home.
Many good suggestions have been made by the task force. The leader of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia last night stated that Nova Scotia has the greatest housing crisis in the country. I hope he will make representations to the federal government. If the government is not interested in the low-income groups or cannot solve the housing crisis in those groups, then at least the task force should have recommended ways and means for people with low incomes to raise their standard of living. Possibly they should have recommended steps to be taken by the new Department of Regional Economic Development in order to raise the standard of living for these families so they would qualify for loans under the act.
The members of the Progressive Conservative party, and I am sure all hon. members, are interested in seeing that all Canadian families are provided with adequate and decent housing.


Mr. Harries:: Before making a comment or two about housing, Mr. Chairman, I should recognize the most generous gesture made earlier in the day by my friend from Edmonton Centre who welcomed me back to the house after I had spent a week end in my constituency. I knew the hon. member had moved his family to Ottawa, but I did not realize that his trips to his constituency were becoming so infrequent that he was getting homesick. From personal observation I can assure the hon. member that his constituency seems to have improved since he left. I will undertake to keep him advised of the progress taking place there.


An hon. Member:: How can you? You are here only two days a week.


Hu Harries: If I may deal with a rather narrow aspect of the housing subject, it seems quite clear that price increases over the past five years have been a major factor in making the housing problem in Canada more critical. I would like to deal with the problem of price and more particularly to refer to the "gold" paper on policies for price stability issued by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in December of last year.
March 4, 1969

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In the foreword to that document the minister suggested that the paper might serve as a basis for further consultation with interested economic groups. But surely any policy to maintain price stability must look to having an important impact on housing. I think that there may be the lingering thought in the minds of some people, certainly in my constituency, that the idea of establishing a prices and incomes board on a voluntary basis might be construed as simply another blatant pitch for more empire building and that indeed it would not go very far toward meeting the kind of problems that the report discusses.
The paper issued by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs describes the Prices and Incomes Commission and what it might do in these terms:
It will be charged with the responsibility for conducting studies of incomes and price developments in Canada, and for producing regular reports on its findings. The purpose of the commission will be to discover the facts, analyse the causes, processes and consequences of inflation, and to inform both the public and the government on how price stability may be achieved. It will not play the role of policeman. It will not intervene in the particular price and income decisions of individual persons, business firms, or trade unions. It will be empowered, however, to undertake research and inquiries and issue periodic public reports on current trends and prospects for prices, costs, incomes and productivity for the economy as a whole; to make similar studies and reports on various broad sectors and industries; and to engage in related investigations of other broad issues which may have a bearing on cost and price movements . .. To carry out this broad and difficult role, the commission will be given adequate powers of inquiry. It will be provided with the necessary budget and an expert staff. It will also be authorized to engage consultants, and to arrange for the conduct of research by the universities and other bodies as it finds appropriate.
In its preamble the document explains the problems of price stability in its efforts to justify the creation of the commission, and it says:
The conclusion drawn by the government of Canada from our recent experience is that the present policy tools are not sufficient to resolve the very real conflict that exists at the present time between the objectives of maintaining high level employment and restoring the price stability that is necessary for sustained economic growth.
It may be that by applying the conventional monetary and fiscal levers with sufficient force, the inflation of the past three years could have been brought to a halt. But the immediate cost in terms of the level of unemployment and output foregone would certainly have been high.
Business of Supply
I would like to remind the committee, if it be necessary, that the last federal surplus was in 1956. Evidently the fiscal levers that have been discussed here have been largely untried. According to received economic theory, a budget which is neither stimulating nor restraining is a surplus budget since the expenditure multiplier is higher than the tax multiplier. In the last several years, moreover, the money supply has been expanded at an abnormally high rate.
In order to receive exemptions from certain United States measures to halt the gold drain, Canada was committed not to hold more than a maximum number of U.S. dollars. In order to stay below this ceiling, and to keep the exchange rate between Canadian and American dollars fixed, it was necessary to expand the domestic money supply. If Canada were to revert to a floating exchange rate, monetary policy would again become available as a tool for fighting inflation, and I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that this is one of the points which has a very direct bearing on housing and the money that is available for housing purposes. In so far as conventional monetary and fiscal levers are concerned, it might be suggested that if we have not tried them we should not spend too much time knocking them.
As a justification for some sort of incomes policy the O.E.C.D. Economic Survey of Canada was cited. In this survey, published in 1968, the O.E.C.D. concluded its analysis of Canada's recent cost and price problems with the following words:
Canada's price-wage performance in full employment conditions suggests that there is need for some sort of an income policy. A number of other O.E.C.D. countries have been active in this field in the last few years. No country can point to any spectacular success in controlling the rise in incomes this way. This perhaps is not surprising, given the nature of the problems involved progress could hardly be expected to be very rapid. There are indications, however, that income policy in some countries is beginning to play a useful role . . . The decentralized character of the Canadian economy may render the evolution of an incomes policy more difficult than in many European countries, but this may not be a reason for dispensing altogether with efforts in this direction.
It is interesting that two pages later a table showing rises in the consumer price indices of various O.E.C.D. countries reveals that inflation has been less severe in Canada than in any other country except the United States of America, and substantially lower than any O.E.C.D. country which has an incomes policy. Indeed, one can only reiterate, "No country can point to spectacular success in controlling the rise in incomes this way."

March 4, 1969
Business of Supply
The causes of rising prices are again discussed in this report and the question is posed:
What are the underlying reasons for our recent unsatisfactory price behavior? .. . We lack adequate statistical data and sufficient empirical research in the area of price and income determination in Canada. Thus we are confronted today with explanations that are contradictory and differ with the approach in the particular economic interests of those undertaking the analysis or offering their wage prescriptions-
The document expounds on reasons for changes in relative price, unused resources and so forth, and then talks about time lags in implementing monetary and fiscal policy. No mention is made of the time lag inherent in investigations by a prices and incomes commission into specific price and income changes and the introduction of remedies. Indeed, no indication is given in the whole document about what sorts of remedies might be appropriate to deal with any problems investigated by the commission.
The uncertainties as to how close to capacity the economy can operate without creating serious demand and inflationary pressures are mentioned. Bottleneck problems are also described, but again it is not made clear why these obstacles to the success of fiscal and monetary policy should be less formidable as obstacles to an incomes policy.
One question the document does not answer is: If resources are not to be allocated by a price mechanism, what other mechanism is to take its place? This question is relevant regardless of whether prices are kept down by regulation or through voluntary restraint.
The position of labour is an interesting one in this matter, and I quote from a comment contained in a document, "Labour Costs in Canada", issued by the Canadian Labour Congress:
Organized labour would resist any incomes policy which, either by design or interpretation, placed heavy responsibilities on labour for exercising wage restraints while allowing other forms of income to find their own level. On the other hand, labour would certainly give consideration to, and be prepared to discuss with other groups, an incomes policy or set of guidelines which took the returns of all factors of production into consideration.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
As I read this statement it seems that it simply says that if we are prepared to accept price and income control along with profit control and, indeed, a general control of business, we may expect to carry organized labour along with the concept of an income and prices control board. It seems to me this

is hardly the road we ought to follow in meeting the problem of price increases, particularly when we examine the contribution a financial policy might make toward an alleviation of the housing problem.
In the housing report many commendable suggestions respecting methods and organization are made, but I have the uncomfortable feeling that in the face of a 9 per cent to 10 per cent effective interest rate on mortgage funds a lot of these suggestions must assume a relatively unimportant place. The idea of extending the effective term of a mortgage loan to 40 years does not seem to be one that really gets at the basic issue, although it is of some immediate practical assistance. If we cannot get the cost of money down, then it seems that a housing crisis will persist unless there is a substantial increase in incomes or, alternatively, unless we are prepared to create a special financial market for housing.
I do not see that it is possible to contemplate the kind of increase in incomes that is necessary, nor do I see the possibility of creating an effective money market for housing funds that is insulated from the general trend of interest and prices. Certainly I think it is quite clear that the creation of types of voluntary activity such as envisaged by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the prices and income board is not likely to provide a solution. On the other hand, an effective reduction in interest rates can in my submission only come about as a result of a monetary and fiscal policy that explicitly recognizes the effect that massive increases in the supply of money, under what has been generally called an easy money policy, have had on interest rates.
If we are to avoid a continuing crisis not only in housing finance but in the financing of any small enterprise, I think it is absolutely essential that our efforts be directed and devoted to bringing the effective rate of interest down through a controlled fiscal and monetary policy. I do not believe this in any sense represents a solution to the housing problem but I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that typically the rate of housing development has moved inversely with the rate of interest and that the supply of money has not been particularly large during times when the interest rate has been high. In other words, I think there is some historic evidence to support the proposition that you can get adequate flows of capital into the housing market in the face of relatively modest interest rates. I therefore commend that section of the housing task force report that deals with finances
March 4, 1969

as being an important section. I would also suggest that a general review of our fiscal policy, having in mind the particular problems of housing, would be most appropriate and I would hope it would be done at an early date.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Chairman, if I might rise on a question of privilege I should like to say to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona that I am sorry I was not in the house at the beginning of his dissertation. I should also like to say that I would not want to deprive him of an odd week end in Edmonton and that if he would be so kind as to send me a few copies of his speech I will say to the people of Edmonton-Strathcona, "Yes, Virginia, there is a member for Edmonton-Strathcona".


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could rise on a point of order before the debate continues. I think it has been generally agreed that the hon. member for Winnipeg North will speak next on the question of housing and thereafter, notwithstanding the previous agreement, that the hon. member for Abitibi will be given the opportunity to speak on the question of regional development. Then after any response my colleague the minister responsible may have on the question of regional development we would once again return to the subject of housing for the purpose of completing the debate on that.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to be certain that there will be a cut-off time with regard to the discussion of regional development. I know the minister has said so, but I should like to be sure that only one member will speak on that subject, plus the reply of the minister. We do not want to become involved in a debate on regional development when we have the subject of housing before us. As long as that is understood we are quite agreeable.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: One member would speak and then there would be the reply, if any.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by the government house leader I should like to say that last night I asked the Minister of Transport to give answers concerning the four $1 items with which we are engaged at this time. The minister did not extend to me the courtesy of an answer and did not give the Standing Committee on
Business of Supply
Miscellaneous Estimates the courtesy of an answer either. If this debate is to have any pertinence, the minister must be accountable to this committee and let us know how close we are to each of the four ceilings set out in these items. I hope the government house leader will take his colleague aside and persuade him, when he does come back tonight, to give us this information; otherwise there will be a prolonged debate on housing.


James Hugh Faulkner: Before I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North I might advise the committee of the subjects to be dealt with at the time of adjournment.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-Old Age Security-payment of income tax on guaranteed income supplement; the hon. member for Waterloo-drugs-Mace- tests to reveal possible dangers; the hon. member for	Churchill

Sports-National
Hockey team-invitation to Canadian Hockey Association.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, hundreds of thousands of people in this country are living in totally inadequate housing accommodation. I am being very conservative when I say there are hundreds of thousands of people in every city in Canada, in the rural areas and in the mining communities, as well as Indians and Metis, who are living in inadequate housing accommodation. Probably a million or more people who are either purchasing homes or renting accommodation are paying substantially more than they can afford to spend on housing. They do so simply because no other accommodation is available at prices they can afford. So it did not take a task force to tell the people of Canada or the members of parliament that we face a housing crisis.
We have had studies at the national level by government departments. We have had studies at the national level carried on by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We have had studies at the provincial level by provincial governments, and we have had studies at the municipal level which have been carried on by the municipalities or by corporations established by the municipalities. If we had $1 for every study which has been carried out I am sure we would have sufficient funds to build a substantial number of the houses which are needed to meet the needs of the Canadian people. Therefore it made no sense to me when it was announced that a task force would be established to study housing needs in this country. Now that we have the report of the task force I am

March 4, 1969
Business of Supply
more than ever convinced that nothing useful can or will be obtained as a result of this study.
e (5:10 p.m.)
Before I go into what I think were the major faults of the task force I want to deal with some statements made yesterday by the minister. I am sure those statements satisfied no one but the minister and possibly the reporter for the C.B.C. who obviously has his housing problem solved. He did not see anything of value in what was said by members of the opposition.
The minister said there will be enough houses built in the coming year. He is confident as a result of discussions that there will be sufficient money available to provide the necessary financing. He went on to suggest that the freeing of interest rates on mortgages under government authorization, which took place some time ago, will sufficiently improve the housing situation to satisfy the needs of the low-income groups. The minister also suggested that we would meet the required 200,000 housing units this year. I suggest that this target is much too low, and that the interest rate of 9 per cent or higher will have the effect of freezing out more than 90 per cent of those people who wish to purchase homes.
The minister is not in his seat at this time but I hope he will pay attention to what I have to say as well as to the speeches by the hon. member for Greenwood and the Liberal member for Davenport. He pointed out the tremendous problems which exist in Toronto in respect of those people in the $5,000 to $6,000 income bracket who wish to obtain housing. Nothing the government has done up to now has had any effect on this situation, and nothing that the task force has recommended will have any effect.
Let me make a few remarks about the task force and its report. The minister said last night that its recommendations were unanimous. He took that as an indication of approval of the policies he recommended. Of course the recommendations of the task force were unanimous; the minister picked the members of that task force. He got a kangaroo court to act as jury and hangman. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Campeau. He is an extremely successful builder, but he builds offices and buildings which he rents to the federal government and its departments at very high rents. He also builds houses and apartment buildings. I had the fortune or misfortune to live in one of Mr. Campeau's
[Mr. Orlikow.l
buildings for four years. It was a very good apartment building and I have no complaints about it. The bulk of the people in Ottawa and other cities who rent space in this kind of project find living simply impossible because they cannot afford the rents.
We have heard from that esteemed lady from Nova Scotia whose practical suggestion to the people living in public housing projects in the city of Toronto was that even those without children found it impossible to save money. I suppose they represent the people in the $5,000 to $6,000 income bracket. She suggested that they do without telephones as a means of saving money. In 100 years by saving $5 or $6 per month they might accumulate enough money to put a down payment on their own homes. That is the kind of people the minister put on the task force. Yet he now wonders why he received the kind of report he did.
There was not one single representative of labour or of co-operatives on that force. Dr. Laidlaw, the former secretary of the Co-operative Union of Canada, has had long experience in the field of housing in Canada, particularly housing for low income groups. He was not called upon for his advice or experience. There was not a single representative on the task force of the people who live in public housing projects already built. The minister wonders why we are dissatisfied with the report of the task force and its recommendations in respect of public housing.
The minister says it is his hope and intention that everybody in Canada will in the near future have the ability to obtain the kind of housing they want. What kind of a choice do the tens of thousands of people have who are receiving incomes of $3,000 or less? What kind of a choice do those people have who are living on welfare? What kind of choice do those thousands of people have who are separated from a husband or wife? Let me remind the minister that these people are trying to raise children. What choice do they have in respect of housing?
I suggest we have ignored those in the low income brackets who live in public housing projects. We have ignored also those people who would like to live in housing projects. The hon. member for Davenport mentioned that between 14,000 and 16,000 people in the city of Toronto have applied for public housing. What are we doing for them? We are ignoring them.
March 4, 1969

Michael Wheeler, an expert in the field of housing, in a speech he made to the annual conference of mayors and municipalities in 1967, pointed out that in the period from 1964 to 1966 some 84 per cent of the money the federal government spent on homes went to people in the middle and upper income brackets.
An expert in the field of public housing in Toronto once referred to this government practice as socialism for the rich. Only 6 per cent of federal government money is directed to housing for those people in the low income brackets. This is socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor. That is the type of housing program we have. We have ignored the needs of the people in the lower income brackets.
Now for the first time we have received a government document issued under the auspices of a minister of the Crown which in fact pours ridicule and scorn on the efforts we have made in the field of public housing. This document recommends that we stop even the miserably small effort that we have been making in this regard. Let me refer the Minister without Portfolio who comes from my own city to page 55 of the report of the task force. It states in part, as a recommendation of the task force:
The task force therefore recommends:
The federal government initiate a thorough research program into the economic, social and psychological issues of public housing. Until such a study is completed and assessed, no new large projects should be undertaken.
What has happened is that all federal housing projects have been suspended as of now until some time in the future. The minister has talked about the fact that the task force went out to interview people living in public housing projects and heard nothing but complaints. In case the minister does not know, let me tell him that if he talks to anybody living in public housing he will hear nothing but complaints. I can tell Mr. Campeau that I heard a great many complaints when I was living in his project, and it was a high-rise apartment, not a public housing project.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
One question which the minister and the task force should have asked the people living in public housing projects they obviously did not ask. It is a very simple question. They should have asked the people living in public housing projects: How do these accommodations compare with those in which you lived before? We have in my constituency a large
Business of Supply
housing project, the Burrows Keewatin project. I have criticisms of that project, but I tell the Minister of Transport, and I think the Minister without Portfolio knows this, that the accommodations there are 1,000 per cent better than the slums from which those people came.
A new housing project has just been opened in a corner of the constituency represented by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. There is a good deal wrong with it. It has walls around it six feet high. I do not know why. This makes it look like a prison. I do not like that. But I tell the Minister of Transport that this accommodation is infinitely superior to that in which these people lived previously. Yet the minister does not say: We are going to do better in the future and learn from the mistakes we made. He says: We will suspend these projects. We are not going to go ahead with them in the near future. Nothing more disastrous for the ordinary people of this country has been said by a minister of the Crown since world war II. The task force goes on to say at page 57 of its report:
As a further alternative to public housing, serious consideration should be given to a program of income supplements to permit low income families to rent or even purchase housing according to their own needs in the private market.
As long as we have the tremendous shortage of housing that we have at the present time, what will a supplement for low income people mean in the field of housing? I suggest that what it will mean is very obvious. It will mean a bonanza, a gift to landlords, particularly slum landlords. If this is what the minister is proposing, without a very substantial increase in total housing starts, particularly total housing starts for low income people, it will not mean very much to the ordinary Canadian citizen. The minister and the task force are proposing, in effect, a gift to people who are already making a substantial profit on their investment. Let me quote from a Financial Times news service item which was reprinted in the Winnipeg Tribune of May 1, 1968:
Despite the widespread increases in wages last year, landlords and bond investors, not wage earners, made the biggest gains in income.
Kent, interest and miscellaneous investment income rose nearly 13 per cent in 1967, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports. Wages and salaries averaged only a 9 per cent increase.
The minister is not addressing himself to the problem of providing more public housing, more housing for rent at prices which the

March 4, 1969
Business of Supply
ordinary person in the low income group can afford. Instead the minister proposes to stop this program temporarily-and we know how long "temporary" can be with this government. The report of the task force, which was of such high priority that the minister was absent from the house literally for weeks on end, has now been before us for almost six weeks and there is no indication at all that the government intends to bring forward legislation in the near future implementing the supposedly good recommendations contained in the report. The minister proposes that rent supplements be paid to tenants. I suggest this will immediately lead to increases in rents because landlords know that there is a shortage of housing accommodation.
The minister said a number of things last night which it is almost impossible to believe were said in a serious way. He said the government had commissioned a study by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to ascertain what the effect of a shortage of housing accommodation would be on the cost of purchase or rent of living accommodation. One does not have to be very wise to understand what will happen. The Liberal government believes in a laissez-faire economy and the law of supply and demand. Therefore it knows that if there is a shortage, as there is, of housing accommodation, the price of housing will stay at its increased level. The government knows that if houses are built for sale or rent in large quantities and there is a surplus, which we have not had for 30 years and probably will not have for another 20, the price of housing will go down.
The minister thought that what the government had done was great. He talked about the advantages of imposing on land developers a capital gains tax on unearned increment. My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre heard this and said that although the minister may not have accepted socialism yet he may come to that point 50 years from now because he has accepted Henry George's single tax idea. What good is it if the Minister of Transport, who is in charge of housing, thinks it is a good idea? We would like to know what the Minister of Finance thinks of this idea. We would like to know when we will have the kind of capital gains tax which was proposed several years ago by the Carter commission.
The minister and the task force have been great in making recommendations about

things over which the minister and the government have no control. The task force made a whole host of recommendations about matters which are clearly the responsibility of the provincial governments. About these, of course, the minister waxed eloquent, as did the task force. We have to take into account what I consider to be the harsh, completely uncalled for, negative approach of the minister and the task force to the problems of public housing. The hon. member for Davenport mentioned that there are in Toronto a very large number of people who need housing. The same is true of Montreal, Winnipeg and Hamilton.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could have one more minute to roundoff my thoughts in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


David Orlikow: The task force has ignored, in fact, has done more than ignore and has heaped scorn on all the public housing projects which have been built up to now. It has called a halt to public housing projects. It has called a halt to urban renewal. It has done this precisely in those areas in which government action is needed most. It has completely ignored the needs of the people who are really in the worst shape so far as housing is concerned.
e (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I am indebted to the house for this opportunity to discuss Bill C-173 for a few minutes. I shall not deal with the clause concerning housing but with that one regarding the estimates for the Department of Forestry and Rural Development which will soon become the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I also thank the minister for being in the house at the present time and I would like to give him the assurance that my remarks will be as brief as possible.
If I asked to have the floor, Mr. Chairman, it is because I must be in my constituency tomorrow in order to attend a debate on the unemployment insurance arbitration board, and when Bill C-173 is examined again next week, I shall have to go away once more for the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, of which I am a member, will be meeting in several NATO countries.
March 4, 1969

So, Mr. Chairman, the question I want to raise this evening concerns a vast portion of the Northern Territories, not the Northwest Territories as such, but the territories north of Quebec, comprising Abitibi and what is usually called Northwestern Quebec.
Recently, I attended in Rouyn a symposium organized by social workers to make the government aware of the needs of the people of that area and try to find a solution to the problems faced by too many people of that vast area. There, I found out from data supplied at the meeting that over 40,000 people live on hand-outs from the Department of National Health and Welfare. As the total population is about 165,000, it means that 25 per cent of the population must depend on the Department of National Health and Welfare payments to live. Moreover, this does not include the many people living off unemployment insurance benefits, and many more whose income is inadequate to meet their obligations and also maintain a decent standard of living. So that is the situation prevailing in Northwestern Quebec now.
Some businessmen have suggested to start new industries to provide employment for the people of that area and to stabilize the industrial economy of Abitibi. But these men must face all the problems of competition against other areas getting better aid from the federal government. In fact, I see on the list of designated areas that Abitibi is surrounded by a sort of horse shoe. All around areas may benefit from the lesiglation on designated areas act, while my own area of Abitibi is not eligible.
Why? Because the unemployment rate, according to the criteria used up to now, and the employment rate in our area would seem adequate to prevent it from being declared a designated area.
I wished to open the debate tonight because I believed that the new department to be entrusted to the present Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand) will have more leeway to decide which areas should get grants to improve labour conditions.
Since we shall no more speak of designated areas but rather of special areas, I wish to call the minister's attention to the urgency of considering northwestern Quebec as an area whose population is in great need of assistance to attract industries that will provide work for the unemployed. Those people have to content themselves with public assistance, and theirs is the fate that awaits the young people soon to leave school.
Business of Supply
Our region is now endowed with fine secondary schools which qualify our young people for the CEGEP or -the university. They will want to go on with their studies and get degrees so that they may be able afterwards to put their knowledge at the service of their fellow-citizens. But if we fail to develop our resources these young people will go somewhere else, to other areas, to other provinces and maybe to other countries to find employment.
So, Mr. Chairman, it is urgent that the Canadian government should do everything possible to recognize this region as a designated area which will permit it to avail itself of its share of taxes so that its people may progress and find there the employment and economic welfare to which they are entitled.
A few months ago, a conference was held in Val-d'Or and the main speaker was Mr. Richard Rohmer, a Toronto lawyer and board chairman of the Foundation of the Middle North of Canada. I feel that this rather recent foundation is called upon to obtain great achievements in the near future. This is Mr. Rohmer's statement on that occasion and I quote:
The inheritance of Canada is made up of its lands of the North and the Middle North. It is in those areas that is found our great wealth in national resources at ground level or underground. It is from the North and the Middle North that flows most of our economic power, the blood which will enable Canada to develop and prosper.
Mr. Chairman, I found that those words apply perfectly well to the northwestern area of Quebec which abounds in natural wealth of all kinds, forest, mines as well as people. The development of those natural resources would enable the entire country to profit therefrom.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to read from the statements made by Mr. Rohmer on that occasion, because I feel that they are quite important. I quote:
There will be about 100 million people in Canada in the year 2067. The figures come from a study of the present increase in population, that is by immigration and births, and are based on data from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Considering the data, there must be a collective effort all over the country to establish and organize a long-term economic development plan for the utilization of the lands and resources of the inhabitable regions of the Middle North. Otherwise, our population will be concentrated along the border with the United States, particularly in the Great Lakes region.
Mr. Chairman, government support is often requested for the development of some areas and, from time to time, we hear ministers or

March 4, 1969
Business of Supply
heads of government say that the population must not rely on government assistance only,
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, this remark by no means applies to the people of Abitibi, since it is the third winter that works are undertaken and financed exclusively by these people in order to build, as far as James Bay, a road which will be the first to join the south to the sea. It is the people of Abitibi themselves with their own resources, who cleared the land in order to build a road to the sea. No help has been granted so far by the government. This proves, Mr. Chairman, that the people in north-west Quebec are not lazy and do not rely on the help of the government, even if it is said and rightly so perhaps, that at the moment, the principal industry in Abitibi is social welfare. The people demonstrated with the help of businessmen and the general support, that they wish to develop their resources and their territory in order to place it at the disposal of all people.
At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say why we want to develop our region. We do not ask the government to finance these developments alone, but rather to help those people who have already started to clear new territories so that our young people may settle there before others do so. I would now like to quote an article that was published in the paper La Frontiere, on the 6th of December 1967:
It is useless to open lands if trade and industry are not promoted to the same extent in order to absorb the products and the surplus of manpower.
One must go where natural resources are to be found. It is impossible to maintain artificially the economy of a region by vague promises and low subsidies.
The benefits to the people of the Northwest of this road-
-which is already under construction-
*-can be summarized under three main headings:
A-Mines
B-Forests
C-Trade and tourism
A. Where mining is concerned, this road will open to the people of the Northwest and of the province of Quebec in general, a new area of prospection and development, available to all, whether by land or by sea. Cape Smith is surrounded with mountains of asbestos and nickel. The Trinity or Belcher islands have countless fields of magnetic iron and copper. Close to the Big Whale River, there are beds of lead and zinc. There are fantastic oil fields under the Phelypeaux islands. There is plenty of natural gas along James Bay. The limestone of the Phelypeaux islands is just as wonderful as the limestone you find in the Paris area.

Prospectors hired by the Selco Exploration Ltd. and by two other Canadian companies, the Canadian Rock Co. and Hard Metal (Canada) Ltd., are now digging for diamonds in the vicinity of James Bay and Hudson Bay. I guess this is enough-
Mr. Chairman, this is likely to arouse the interest of businessmen and governments in this area so 'as to make it available to the people who want to develop it. He goes on:
As for lumbering this road will open to our lumber contractors the invaluable wealth of forests located along the rivers flowing into James Bay. Trees there are now fullgrown and it is high time they should be felled.
I gather from a recent study conducted by Michel Cice, an engineering expert, that it would be possible to set up three more pulp and paper mills in this vast area, and about 100 saw mills to process lumber.
You may well imagine Mr. Chairman, the inexhaustible opportunities for lumbering in this territory.
I go on quoting:
C-If we now consider trade and tourism, this road, while giving access to the Arctic and Atlantic oceans will enable our people to expand into an area hitherto out of reach because of prohibitive costs.
Huge commercial fisheries can then develop into a profitable enterprise the best fish in the world, that of the Arctic ocean. By considerably speeding up deliveries and exchanges in the James and Hudson Bays, this road will gradually promote trade.
The North Sea has now been spoken of for over 300 years. Needless to say once the road is completed, it will become an irresistible tourist attraction.
Mr. Chairman, I have pointed out these facts to the new Minister of Regional Economic Expansion this evening to give him all the reasons needed to recognize the northwestern area of Quebec as a special area so that it might obtain the required subsidies for the businessmen, the industrialists who wish to set up new industries, or process on the spot the resources found there, such as forests and mines.
As I pointed out to the minister last year, we cannot be expected, because of the distance that separates us from the large centres, to import raw materials to process them and then export them. We must therefore endeavour to develop and process our natural resources where we find them and then offer them to the Canadian or foreign consumers.
Mr. Chairman, I feel therefore that the Canadian government, through its minister, should study carefully the proposals submitted tonight and fully support the development of northwestern Quebec and, in particular, the construction of the access road from
March 4, 196J	COMMONS
Abitibi towards James Bay so that the natural resources located there can be developed.
Being a member of the committee on Indian affairs and northern development, I know that the government spends rather large amounts of money for the development of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I agree with the efforts the government makes to help them develop. I know that 40 per cent of the exploration costs in those two areas are paid for by the federal government.
I therefore feel that the government could put relatively large amounts of money at the disposal of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion for the development of the Abitibi region, that this area might also participate in the economic development we are witnessing in Canada today, so that its inhabitants, who want to live there and develop the area, can enjoy the same standard of living as other Canadians as well as the same advantages.
Mr. Chairman, I make those remarks for the information of the minister trusting that he will turn a ready ear to them and give effect to them.


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: Mr. Chairman, I have not much to say about the comments made by the hon. member for Abitibi.
I agree with him on the problems facing that area. I think we shall have to find solutions; either through the legislation which enables us to designate areas or otherwise. I do not know. I think that the hon. member has no prejudice as regards instruments which can be used. He only wants the federal government, like other governments, to be able to help the area develop its natural resources.
Therefore, we are in complete agreement on the objective to be achieved.
I will probably have much to say on the bill establishing the department. I am convinced that during the debate I will have the opportunity to answer many of the hon. member's questions. I can assure him that I listened to his remarks this afternoon with an open mind.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be some agreement to call it six o'clock. If I may, I should like to call it six o'clock.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hugh Faulkner: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
DEBATES	6205
Business of Supply AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Chairman, on July 17, 1968, the cabinet of the newly formed Government of Canada met and decided to establish a task force to look into the problem of housing in Canada. The transport minister was appointed to act as leader of that task force, the terms of reference of which were to examine housing and urban development in Canada and report on any way in which the federal government, in company with other levels of government and the private sector, could help meet the housing needs of all Canadians and contribute to the development of modern, vital cities. In theory, all this sounded beautiful. With a great burst of publicity the task force kicked off some time in August or September. For a short time it was impossible to turn on a television set or pick up a newspaper without seeing either the smiling face of the Minister of Transport or his sideburns, depending on the angle of the camera. I confess that the face was not an unpleasant one.
When the task force was set up the Canadian people were led to believe that finally, after many years, something would be done to solve our housing crisis. The task force took on the appearance of a travelling entertainment show or highly publicized circus, one might say. Unfortunately, the report it brought down did not live up to our expectations. The only tangible product of all the trips the task force made was an evening film show presented in a partially darkened room with a spotlight on the minister's face. We saw various slides of the housing situation across the country and heard a solemn voice describing the adverse conditions that were found.
Some recommendations of the report sounded reasonable enough, and I wish to talk about two or three of them. I wish to begin with the problem of interest rates. Speaking to the national conference of the Canadian Home Manufacturers Association, the minister said in Toronto on January 13, in part:
As an indication of the achievement of the housing program between 1951 and 1961, the number of dwellings without a piped water supply declined from 26 per cent to 5.5 per cent-and more importantly between 1949 and 1964 the average cost for an NHA bungalow increased 36.8 per cent while disposable income per capita went up 87.2 per cent. Because the rise in incomes exceeded

March 4, 1969
Business of Supply
that of housing prices, the working man in Canada had the opportunity of buying and owning his own home.
I point out that the period when housing was in adequate supply ended in 1964, one year after the Liberal government returned to power. The minister went on to say:
Then a series of converging forces altered that favourable position. Housing starts in 1966 fell off drastically. In 1964 and 1965 there was an average of 165,000 housing starts. In 1966, this fell to 134,474. The culprit was largely rising interest rates that drew money out of the mortgage field and generally forced up costs.
I am glad the minister recognizes that the major culprit in our housing problem is high interest rates. It is, therefore, a paradox to find the minister recommending as item No. 5 in the report of the task force that:
The interest rate for insured loans under the National Housing Act be freed to find its own level in the financial marketplace.
That recommendation is not in keeping with the speech he made on January 13. If interest rates are to find their own level they will go up.
Next, I wish to speak about the recommendation regarding the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. The Canadian people were pleased when the minister announced he thought the 11 per cent sales tax ought to be removed. It must be remembered that similar announcements had been made during the election campaign in June. It does not seem that that recommendation will be carried out, however. Only a day or two after the task force report was tabled or released the Minister of Finance was asked whether he would agree to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. He stood up and said simply, no. He offered no explanation for his refusal. Here we have a senior cabinet minister recommending something one day and the very next day another senior cabinet minister saying no to this recommendation. To me that does not represent cabinet solidarity. If there is disagreement in the cabinet, the country suffers.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The third aspect I would deal with is the problem of housing, particularly with reference to people living in conditions of poverty. I would place in this group Metis, Indians and many white people with low incomes. Under the present legislation, N.H.A. mortgages are not available to people who earn
[Mr. Yewchuk.l
less than $8,200 a year. I venture to say this covers more than half the working population of Canada. It includes Indians and the vast majority of Metis people as well as farmers who live on small mixed farms on the prairies. It also includes the vast majority of the labour force in the towns and cities.
The report does not offer a solution to the problem of housing faced by these people. With regard to the Indian people, the situation is not as difficult. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development realized there was a problem and set up a program which I would suggest the Minister of Transport examine. The department assists the Indian people to build houses, not expensive houses but more or less up to date houses with most of the modern conveniences which people expect. On a reservation an Indian must provide $500 worth of work or cash and the balance is financed by the department. In this way the Indian becomes the proud owner of a new home.
In Alberta there are several colonies of Metis people which are administered by the Metis rehabilitation branch. There is a housing problem for these people who live in the colonies which allows them to receive a new house under similar circumstances. These people must also pay a certain amount of money, approximately $500, either in the form of cash, labour or materials and the balance is financed by the provincial government.
The program for Indian people is carried on in areas other than on reserves. If an Indian person is working away from the reservation he is still entitled to the benefits of this housing program. Most people do not realize the difference between Indians and Metis. Most of the colonies are not economically sound areas. They are presumably set up as agriculture areas and are not self-supporting. The Metis are forced to live in colonies to qualify for new houses. If they work in urban areas some distance away they are forced to live in a colony in order to get a new house. I am familiar with some Metis people who must commute 30 to 50 miles to their place of employment. I suggest that Metis people should qualify for houses away from colonies in the same way they qualify in colonies. The regulations should be similar to those for the Indian people who qualify for housing although they do not live on reservations. This would solve the problem for many Metis people. There is no reason why such a program should be restricted to Metis people. It
March 4, 1969



should also be available to those who have only temporary employment or for one reason or another do not have high incomes. These programs are financed by federal and provincial government funds.
I was a little upset with one of the recommendations of the task force that, to some extent, public housing should be discontinued for the present. The suggestion is that until a study is made of the various psychological and sociological factors affecting people who live in public housing, no major starts in public housing should be made. I wonder if this is a good suggestion. I am inclined to think it is dangerous as it may remove the possibility of certain people in low income groups having adequate housing when there is no reasonable alternative plan. I hope public housing is not discontinued in the same way as the winter works program. The country was led to believe the winter works program would be replaced by a better program, but as yet nothing has been done.
I conclude my remarks by saying that the task force did produce a lot of useful information. Canadian people were led to believe that the problems of housing would certainly be solved, not necessarily quickly but positive suggestions would evolve. I am sorry to say that I have not seen any such results. This task force was another big hoax perpetrated on the public of Canada in the same way as the one on June 25. I hope the minister responsible for housing takes into consideration some of the suggestions put forward today and makes an honest and earnest effort to solve this major problem faced by Canadians.


Mr. Perrault:: Mr. Chairman, we have heard unkind words about the housing policy of this government and the minister responsible for housing during the past weeks, days, hours and minutes. Wild charges have been flung with abandon around the chamber. We have heard the words "hoax", "folly" and "fraud". These are very serious terms to be employed by responsible public servants. We have heard people such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North suggest that the housing task force report contains a recommendation that public housing in this country be abandoned. This afternoon we heard the suggestion that government is reneging on its responsibility to those in the unfortunate position of attempting to support a family on a marginal income.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
This is totally irresponsible talk. The serious aspect about it is that it is causing serious
Business of Supply
concerns in the minds and hearts of low income families across the country. These are unjustifiable concerns. When an elected member of parliament stands up in his place and makes a statement that fraud is being perpetrated then he should be able to justify his remarks, but so far in this debate we have not heard any evidence advanced.
Yesterday, referring to the housing task force report, the hon. member for Greenwood assured all of us that "the document is a colossal flop," and the hon. member for Broadview told us the report is "a fraud". To be charitable, and it is difficult to be charitable after listening to this line of debate, and one can only suggest that members in the opposition, at least a number because some of them are ordinarily responsible, have failed to read the report and study its contents. We know them. We have heard them attempt to stir up the fires of division in this country. In this debate, their contribution has hardly added to the sum total of human knowledge and understanding of the task force report, the most important document produced on housing since Confederation.
The cabinet made its decision on July 17 last. There had been a great deal of criticism prior to that date. Members in the opposition had said, "This is a do nothing government. They are doing nothing about the housing problem." Some of them said, "What we want is a study of the problem." Then, the study was commenced on July 17, authorizing the Minister of Transport to establish a task force on housing, "which would report to him within six months starting in September."
The minister then proceeded to carry out this authorization, and he did so with dispatch. He established the terms of reference for the task force. Then of course criticism began to come from the opposition. Opposition members asked, "Why is the government studying the problem when it should be acting the way we would if we were charged with responsibility?" The opposition line changed. The concensus was that we did not need a task force, that instead we needed action.
As I say, the terms of reference were established:
-"to examine housing and urban development in Canada and to report on ways in which the federal government, in company with other levels of government and the private sector, can help meet the housing needs of all Canadians and contribute to the development of modern, vital cities."

March 4, 1969
Business of Supply
Predictably, the attack began and one really began to wonder whether or not some members of parliament were more interested in trafficking in human misery than they were in trying to find valid solutions to the housing crisis which afflicted the Canadian people. They have not acted to achieve a greater understanding of the issues involved in housing. Had the government failed to establish the housing task force on July 17, the line would have been, "The government won't even study the problem." We know this.
I am not going to attempt a complete review of the report but after observing the task force in action in certain parts of the country I can only say that it conducted its deliberations with care, with attention, and with an eminently responsible attitude and a conscientious approach to the problems of the Canadian people. I think it is unfortunate-


Mr. Valade:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Raymond J. Perrault: If it is a short one.


Georges-J. Valade: It is a short one. When the task force was in Montreal, which has a population of 3 million people, to study the housing problem, it spent a day and a half there. Does the member imply that this is a serious study of the question?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Chairman, I will answer only by saying that for months the opposition said, "The problem is so urgent that we must act quickly." The task force itself said it did not have sufficient time to do the kind of study it would have wished. If you read the document you will find those words in the report.. They did not spend enough time in Vancouver, in Regina, in Moncton, New Brunswick and many of the other centres, but the time they did invest was well spent. This is the point I am trying to make.
But I say it is unfortunate that after we ask a group of Canadians, knowledgeable Canadians, to form a task force on housing, these people are accused of fraud without any right of defence on the floor of this house. When we say that this report is a fraud, when we say it is a hoax, we are making a serious charge against knowledgeable and responsible Canadians who invested time, energy, intelligence and judgment in the preparation of the report.
Those who allege that the low income groups have been forgotten simply have not read the report. Either they have not read it or they refuse to believe its contents, or they

choose to place upon the report a special construction for their own narrow, political ends.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Raymond J. Perrault: Despite the television broadcasts over the week end, and despite the statements made by certain members in the opposition, the report does say that the present program of low cost housing can be improved. It does not say to scrap it. The report does not ask for an end to decent, low cost shelter for low income groups and people with limited means. The report says that in a modern society surely we can evolve new and different criteria to guide our program, so that new and better housing can be provided for low income groups.
This nation, which is supposed to be a haven for this government which is perpetrating fraud, built 200,000 housing units in 1968. On a per capita basis, this represents more construction than was undertaken in the richest nation in the world to the south of us. And the 1969 outlook is even more encouraging, with the figures for January and February probably up.
Let me suggest to some of the critics in this house that many of them were noticeable by their absence from the meetings held across this country by the housing task force. There is a list in existence of those who attended, and I repeat that many were conspicuous by their absence. Had some of these vocal critics tramped around 25 public housing projects from coast to coast with the task force, in all kinds of weather, talking to people in all economic strata, under every conceivable condition, they would have tempered their judgment with a degree of reason.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Raymond J. Perrault: I attended some of the task force meetings and I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that some of these vocal critics were not there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I ask hon. members of the committee to be patient enough to listen to the speech being made. I have no doubt hon. members know very well the elementary rules of the house.


Raymond J. Perrault: I attended an excellent meeting at the Skeena Terrace project in the lower mainland of British Columbia. A group of government members were present, and it
March 4, 1969

is too bad that the schedules of apposition members did not permit them to attend, to watch the task force in action and see the Minister of Transport who undertook a difficult job. I came away with the same conclusion as did the task force, that low income families need more help, but surely society can do more than condemn them to a housing ghetto.
Some of the statements which we heard at the Skeena Terrace project-and it is a good project of its type-were statements that I would not want to repeat on the floor of this house because they were framed in such bitterness and such disillusionment that they would shock many people. Severe and damaging results have ensued to many families in housing projects. The report simply says that we can provide better, more humane, more acceptable housing, and that we can produce more effective methods of assisting low income families.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Then, we might turn to page 55 of the report. I am afraid perhaps the pages in the copies which some of the opposition members have are stuck together because their copies have never been opened. Reference is made to a research program into the economic, social and psychological issues of public housing. I have a copy of the New Democratic party platform before me. I find 'at page 43 of the housing task force report, which is condemned in such bitter terms in this debate, that there are measures advanced to provide generous financial assistance to meet the housing crisis. What is the number one point in the New Democratic party platform on housing? It is to provide generous financial assistance to meet the housing crisis. Then, the second recommendation is to bring down the cost of mortgage money. When I turn to the task force report I find four proposals to bring down the cost of mortgage money. That is point number two in the New Democratic party platform. Then, their platform reads:
Support the principle of integrated community development so that transportation, schools, recreation and shopping facilities are developed together with new and renewed housing.
Lo and behold, when we turn to page 55 of the housing task force report we find this:
There are obvious limits as to what can be done by way of physical restructuring. But the members would suggest that every effort be made to utilize vacant or redevelopment space within the immediate area to relieve some of the present shortcomings for recreational facilities and open space.
Business of Supply
Point number four in the N.D.P. platform is, "Encourage the development of new towns in areas of urban congestion." Then, I turn to page 75 of the housing task force report-


Mr. Peters:: If you could get it from the N.D.P. platform, why did you have to turn to the task force?


Raymond J. Perrault: -where I find the following:
The Federal Government, in co-operation with a provincial government, should seriously consider the construction of a "new city'' as a pilot project-
Yet, as we know, this is a report condemned out of hand by the socialist members of this house. Despite that, it contains all the four main points in the N.D.P. platform for the last election campaign. We might ask what are the real motives of some of the critics and do they have a greater interest in amassing votes for a national election than in a real concern about serving the housing needs of the Canadian people? They have referred to the housing task force report as a hoax and a fraud. Does that mean that the New Democratic party platform is a hoax and a fraud?
We, on the government side, do not believe that the status quo needs to be defended. We say there is nothing sacred about the existing housing program. The only thing wrong with it is it could be made better. The task force has said, the minister has said, and government members 'agree that the present public housing program is not good enough. This does not mean a total withdrawal of the government from public housing projects, a partial withdrawal or any withdrawal. In fact, it means an expansion of the existent program with changes in style, design and layout- changes which would make shelter for low income families more compatible with family living.
Does a de-emphasis on public housing as we know it now mean a callous retrenchment as has been suggested? It means, among other things, that there will be more emphasis on limited dividend and co-operative housing and more help for these plans. Does the task force's concern about the social implications of the present style of public housing mean that this government is turning its back on the problems of the elderly, the students or Canadians of Indian and Metis origin? On the contrary, the special programs will go ahead with increased emphasis, support and determination by this government.
The sum total of the task force recommendations will make it easier for the working

March 4. 1969
Business of Supply
man and his family to buy decent shelter. This will be the result despite the contrived efforts of some members of the opposition to brand the report as a fraud before its recommendations have been weighed, tested or, I suspect, even read by most of them. This report says there are alternatives to the bleak multi-family high rise accommodation in Canada. It points out that Canadian technology, design, planning, engineering and finance can find better solutions to the shelter needs of the low income groups in our midst. It states that we need not be bound by concepts of the past.
We have been told the task force report constitutes fraud and folly. Was it fraud for the task force to say, as it did:
Urgency. That certainly is among the strongest of the Task Force impressions. The need to act while reasonable action is still possible. Many Canadians, whose needs are of yesterdays, want adequate housing today and not tomorrow. Theirs is the voice of frustration that no longer will accept the explanation that it is "that other" government's responsibility to act. Theirs is the growing anger of people who, amid the material plenty around them, refuse to wait that "little bit longer" for their minimal share.
This is what has been branded as fraud and folly. I agree with what the task force said. Any reasonable member in this house will agree with it. Was it fraud for this allegedly cold-hearted task force to say:
The Task Force is convinced that Canada has the resources, material, technological and intellectual, to meet these needs and problems. To believe otherwise is to despair and surrender to the inevitable.
Yet, there are members in this house who want to enshrine the status quo and who believe that public housing must be beyond criticism. Thank goodness we have some responsible groups in this country, like the urban renewal administrators of Canada, who endorsed the report in Winnipeg over the week end. That is one source that has never been quoted by the opposition.
Is it fraud and folly to suggest that the government encourage private lending institutions and growing pension funds to become more involved in making money available for housing? Is it fraud and folly to suggest that the federal government consider the establishment of savings and mortgage institutions to serve the residential mortgage market on a regional basis? Is it fraud and folly to propose a central mortgage bank to provide additional liquidity for existing lending institutions? Is it fraud and folly to free the
[Mr. Perrault.l
interest rate? Is it irresponsible to propose alternate forms of insured loans under the National Housing Act to provide greater flexibility for lenders and borrowers?
Is it wrong to suggest that the maximum loan ceiling under the National Housing Act should be substantially increased? Is this fraud, when at the outset some 20,000 new Canadian families would qualify for loans because of this measure? In addition, there is the lengthening of the amortization period of the loans. Let these housing critics tell us of the fraud involved in the task force recommendation that down payments should be progressively reduced so that middle and lower income groups can obtain modest housing under a lease-purchase system without initial equity participation. We have been told that this is a hoax and an attempt to mislead the low income families. What about the proposal that purchasers of existing homes should be entitled to comparable mortgage conditions under the National Housing Act to those which apply to new homes. Is this a fraud? Is it fraudulent to suggest that insurance fees, legal charges, real estate commissions and other administrative costs be reduced and that the school tax should be removed from the family home?
Where is the fraud and the folly when the task force concerns itself with the low income groups once again by suggesting that greater encouragement be given to the use of limited dividend, non-profit and co-operative projects as a means of providing adequate accommodation for lower income groups? Does this report deserve to be condemned out of hand when it proposes that the federal government should make direct loans to municipalities or regional governments to assist them in assembling and servicing land for urban growth?
I should like to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that the task force report is a document well worth study and consideration. Those who assembled it are good, conscientious Canadians who deserve something better than to be accused of fraud by certain members in this house. Opposition has a duty to oppose that which is wrong or contrary to the public interest. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, it has another duty, a duty to be fair and a duty to be responsible. Some of the criticism heard during the past weeks, months and days is not fair. It is an attempt not to be fair. Surely, we are sent to this place to make a more constructive contribution to public life.
March 4, 1969

[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Albert Béchard: Order, please. I understand the hon. member tor Yorkton-Melville wants to ask a question of the hon. member for Bumaby-Seymour. The hon. member's time has expired and this would be out of order unless there is unanimous consent of the committee. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I was wondering whether the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour, in order to update activities in respect of housing, is in favour of the establishment of a department of housing and urban affairs?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Chairman, this recommendation is already contained in the task force report and I support it.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, in following the remarks of the hon. member for Bumaby-Seymour, and at the risk of being accused of stirring up differences of opinion and dissension across the country, I should like to put a few things of interest on record during this debate on the task force on housing and certain recommendations contained in their report.
The hon. member, in his usual way, asked members of the house to refer to page 55 of the report. He suggested that perhaps these pages in the reports of hon. members in the opposition had stuck together since we had not read them. I would ask that hon. member to refer to page 48. I suggest that the Minister of Transport responsible for housing and the members of the cabinet probably had the pages of their copies at this point stuck or glued together. At page 48, the task force recommended that the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials be abolished. I suggest that this recommendation has been a source of embarrassment to the minister and the government.
The Minister of Finance has already stated that despite the recommendation of the task force and the Minister of Transport responsible for housing, the government will not remove this sales tax. I am sure we all appreciate the fact that the Minister of Transport had the foresight and the courage to suggest to his colleagues in cabinet that the 11 per cent sales tax be removed. We regret that his colleagues have not had the same charitable feeling toward the people of Canada, and have not agreed with the minister in respect of the removal of this sales tax. In my
Business of Supply
opinion, the minister has been repudiated by his colleagues and his recommendations have been pushed aside.
This is a very worthwhile recommendation, and I am sure when this report was tabled some time ago all Canadians, especially those in the middle and low income groups, were delighted to know that this 11 per cent sales tax would probably be abolished. The joy was short lived. I am sorry to note that this has not been done. Members on this side of the house are very disappointed that the government has refused to accept this recommendation. Obviously, this government intends to maintain this sales tax.
This sales tax is a very important factor to married couples or people in the low or middle income range, particularly when it comes to building or buying homes. The 11 per cent sales tax adds about $500 or $600 to the cost of a home. This can make the difference between a person being able to afford to build a house and a person being unable to do so. I suggest that the government should reconsider the removal of this 11 per cent sales tax.
Another recommendation made in this report deals with the mortgage insurance fund. Most members know that this fund was set up in respect of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Originally, it was established so that people who obtained mortgages through the National Housing Act would be assessed 2 per cent of the amount of the mortgage, which amount was in turn set aside in a special fund. The task force report suggests that this amount be reduced by half. The recommendation is that it should be 1 per cent instead of 2 per cent.
Since the establishment of this fund in 1954, $224 million have been accumulated. One wonders why this fund is necessary. Since the inception of the National Housing Act 800,000 loans have been made. I understand there have been 6,700 claims against this insurance fund. Most of these claims have resulted from the situation which developed in the Elliott Lake area. I understand also that most of the houses which were repossessed there, or had foreclosure action taken against them, have since been sold or are in the process of being sold.
I would certainly recommend to the minister and the government that we should try to make housing available to the middle and low income groups. If we want to help people in those income brackets, there is one tangible way in which it can be done. We can do away

March 4, 1969
Business of Supply
with the 2 per cent charge that is now being assessed for the mortgage insurance fund.
I have mixed feelings in respect of public housing because we all know certain sociological problems are involved. We all know what has happened in some large cities. I know particularly what has happened in the city of St. John's. We have some excellent public housing complexes, but there are others which have become nothing more than ghettoes. This is one of the dangers in respect of public housing under the present concept.
One of the problems facing these people who occupy these subsidized rental units is related to the fact that rent is assessed on the basis of their gross income. This is very unfair in my opinion. I can cite hundreds of cases which occurred in 1968, particularly during the wintertime, when many individuals earned a certain amount of money as a result of working overtime. I understand their rent will be based on the amount of money they earned in 1968. This is very unfair because in 1968 these people earned this amount of money because they worked a considerable amount of overtime. This additional income is being added to the income they earn in 1969 for the purposes of assessing their 1969 rents. As a result, a hardship is being imposed on these people.
These people are being charged rent based on 27 per cent of their regular incomes in 1968. But because of the additional earnings throughout overtime worked in that year, the assessed rents in the following year could well amount to 30 per cent or more of their gross income. I contend this destroys the initiative of these people and discourages them from getting out to work a few hours overtime or to develop some part time employment. They are discouraged when they realize that of every dollar they earn as a result of overtime or a part time job 27 per cent is deducted and applied to their rent.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I would ask the Minister of Transport and his colleagues to give serious thought to changing the method by which rents are assessed in respect of people who live in subsidized rental accommodation. I think the present method is unfair and does not give the people concerned any opportunity to save a down payment and eventually buy a house.
The report makes several recommendations with regard to urban renewal schemes, studies, and so on. Having served for a number

of years on the city council of St. John's, I am well aware of the red tape involved in trying to get an urban renewal or land development scheme off the ground. I know that a certain procedure must be followed. It is only reasonable to assume that this should be so. But I know from experience that a great deal of unnecessary hardship has been caused by typical civil service bureaucracy, typical civil service red tape. This should be eliminated if cities are to avail themselves of the urban renewal benefits of the National Housing Act.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour is very upset over some remarks made on this side of the house. He was almost crying for a few minutes. I found it almost impossible to avoid filling up, but thank goodness I recovered and could stand up and say a few words. I am the first to agree that in this report there are several worth-while recommendations. However, I do not think it is enough for a task force on housing, that has travelled the length and breadth of Canada at great public expense, to make many recommendations and not as yet have one implemented.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Except cutting down public housing.


Walter C. Carter: Interest rates have increased. The suggestion that the sales tax be removed has been thrown out. I suggest to the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour that it is not enough for the government to commission a task force on housing to travel the country and study the problems which the average and low income people are facing with regard to housing, and then to do nothing about those problems. This report, which has been compiled at great expense to the Canadian taxpayer, is only as good as the attitude which the government in power adopts towards the recommendations made. If the government treats the other recommendations as it has the one that the sales tax be eliminated, I suggest we might as well throw the report out, because then it will be useless.
Flowery phrases and recommendations will not alleviate the problems facing the people in my riding, many of whom are living in homes that are not fit for human habitation. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that unless the government takes this report seriously and finds some way to implement the recommendations contained therein, the minister's trip across the country will have been unecessary and a waste of public money. I suggest to the Minister and his colleagues that the co-operative housing concept should be studied. This
March 4, 1969

is a program that enables a person who is not afraid to take off his coat and roll up his shirt sleeves, to go to work for himself and build his own home with government assistance. I can cite cases in my province and city where from 1951 to 1955 hundreds of new homes were built through the co-operative housing movement. This is a scheme whereby 9, 10 or 12 people get together, study building methods and ideas, financing methods, and so on, and then apply to Central Mortgage and Housing, through the province, and receive a commitment for a mortgage. They then go to it and build their own homes in the co-operative fashion, by buying co-operatively, in bulk, and thereby effecting considerable savings. This is one idea I would like the government to study. It should see if the co-operative housing concept in home building cannot be encouraged and taken advantage of by more middle income, middle class Canadians.
Those of us who live in the less fortunate provinces of Canada are well aware of the suffering and misery faced by people living in substandard homes. We agree that much has been done in this respect. Public housing projects have been built. But in many respects I think we have only scratched the surface, and a great deal more remains to be done. I believe it is obvious that the government must take the leadership and adopt policies that will help the average Canadian obtain a decent home for himself and his family.
I was very interested in the words of Dr. Albert Rose, professor at the University of Toronto, who said that the most important change that could be made in our national housing policy would be a formal declaration that the federal and provincial governments intended, during the balance of this century, to discriminate in favour of families and individuals at the bottom half of the income distribution. This is a very thought-provoking observation, because it is obvious that it is the sort of thing this government must do. The government must, in the balance of this century, discriminate in favour of the people who have been suffering for too long because they have lived in substandard housing. I hope that the Prime Minister's promise of a just society will embrace the proposition of providing reasonable and cheaper homes for people who are deserving of them.
These are the things I would like to see done in the next few weeks, Mr Chairman. I would like to see the government take the Minister of Transport off the hook, give him back his pride and allow him to again stand
Business of Supply
tall and walk straight. When he makes a recommendation to the cabinet, I hope they will accept his recommendation. With respect to this report, which was compiled at great personal sacrifice to the minister and at great expense to the Canadian taxpayer, I hope it will not be shelved, thrown aside, and its recommendations ignored. Let the government tell the people of Canada that it takes the Minister of Transport seriously, will reconsider its decision, and in fact abolish the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. Let the government show the people of Canada that it means business. It can do this by abolishing the 2 per cent insurance fee in respect of mortgages.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
These are some of the things which could be done, and I hope for the sake of the less fortunate Canadians that steps are taken to make money available to people in lower-middle income groups to help them get housing. Under the National Housing Act at the present time, Mr. Chairman, a person who wishes to get an $18,000 mortgage must be earning in excess of $8,000 a year. When one considers that in many cities in Canada-I could name one-less than 5 per cent, perhaps, and certainly less than 10 per cent are in this category, we begin to realize what this means. What hope is there for the other 90 per cent? More than 90 per cent of our people cannot qualify for a National Housing mortgage. The recommendations contained in the report that the maximum should be increased and the amortization period extended are excellent suggestions and I hope the minister and the government will implement them.


Mr. Rose:: Before I begin the main part of my speech this evening, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour on his fine defence of New Democratic party housing policy. I hope it will be my privilege to do as good a job, though I promise I shall not be half as loud.
We heard a fine speech in defence of the various proposals in the report of the task force but we are living in a fool's paradise because as yet we have not seen any legislation arising from the report. When such legislation has been brought forward we may be more confident that what is contained in the report will become a reality for most Canadians.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour told us the report had been defended by at least one authority. I have quotations here from several authorities who have been

are below these levels, little or nothing is provided. Mr. Chairman, we shall be forced into a change of attitude in this regard. People who are earning less than $8,000 a year will not tolerate for ever living in grim, jerry-built suites in cities or driving back and forth a hundred miles a day to work. I have people in my constituency who drive this distance to work and who are forced to live in unsatisfactory accommodation in trailer camps without adequate facilities, simply because we have not done enough soon enough.
The housing problem is really an income problem. There is no evidence that people with unlimited incomes have any problem at all with regard to housing. They do not suffer from the housing shortage and by and large neither do those who already own a house. But young families today, growing families, desperately need more accommodation. As the task force report says, all Canadians should be entitled to clean, warm shelter as a matter of basic human right. I hope that this is not just another empty gesture but is a principle that the government will follow when it brings down its legislation. If it does not do so, I am certain there will be many disillusioned people in Canada in addition to the ones we have at the moment.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
In the province from which I come, British Columbia, the people who need public housing or financial assistance the most are not receiving it in their fair proportion under the N.H.A. legislation. If I might just put some statistics on the record, of the lower one third of the population income group in 1967 only 5.7 per cent received any C.M.H.C. funds at all. Here again is the application of socialism for the affluent.
The problem is also very serious in the community in which I live, Coquitlam. The local social welfare administration reports to me that 85 per cent of people on social welfare receive rent subsidies in addition to welfare payments because accommodation is not available to them without such assistance. If they are spending extra money on rent, obviously they are unable to spend it on things they need like dental care, clothing, food, insurance and other items.
At the moment, housing is taking up far too large a proportion of most people's income. In the same community, in 1967, 1,200 new homes were constructed. Thus 1,200 new families moved into the community. In the same area the average purchase price of
Business of Supply
these 1,200 new homes was $25,000. Since the average income in British Columbia is $5,600 per year per family, I should like to ask what kind of families moved into these new homes. Again, this supports what I said earlier: National Housing Act money is available to people whose incomes are high enough to qualify for loans, but not available to those people who are desperately in need of housing.
I am an ex-municipal alderman and can see the desirability of attracting quality construction to the community. The assessments are higher for tax purposes and treasuries that are short of money benefit. In addition, such developments are visually attractive to the community. There are fewer schools required because there is not the high density that exists in other areas. There is also probably much less drain on the various social services; usually these income groups have fewer problems. There are fewer broken homes, and so on.
Some very fine people have moved into Coquitlam and they were attracted to this area for the same reason I was. I had to make a decision. I had to decide whether I wanted to spend my money close to my job and pay high taxes on real estate, or whether I should move out to Coquitlam and spend my money on gasoline and tires and drive to work in Vancouver. I decided on the latter course.
However, you cannot build a wall around a municipality and keep people out. It does not matter whether you build a zoning wall, a financial wall, or whether there is a gentleman's agreement to keep certain people out of certain subdivisions. Every urban area must make certain that it provides for a reasonable blend of single family dwellings and other types of accommodation. This is where we fall down. There are examples of all kinds of fine suburban dwellings, but there is only one price bracket. There is no new housing that is attractive and within the range of smaller families with lower incomes.
I do not think we can depend forever upon the concept of the filtering process. This is the process whereby those people who buy a new home move out of another home which becomes available for people in the lower income groups. I do not think that these houses will be available in sufficient quantities, and in addition this is not the way we should attack the problem. Although this process does take place, it is illogical to put it forward as a long-term proposition.
As I have said, one cannot blame the municipalities for wanting to attract high

Naturally, most Canadians with families prefer to live in single family dwellings. But, under present economic conditions they cannot do so.i If the government plans to house the unfortunate part of our population, let it bring in legislation permitting it to do so. Members of our party probably will support that legislation. If the government has no such plans I see no alternative to public housing for the increasing number of Canadians who will need it.
I should like to see a housing authority and department of urban affairs set up. Nobody likes the stigma attached to public housing projects. Surely, it will be wise for the government to decentralize its housing program, to plan, to buy older homes and to rent apartments in private apartments blocks. If it does these things, it will have the support of our party. But, if the minister does nothing he will be made very uncomfortable by our snapping, carnivorous fangs puncturing him in the region of his posterior.


Mr. Whicher:: Mr. Chairman, I had not
intended speaking in this debate, since I represent a riding in rural Ontario which is fortunate in having no housing shortage. Having listened to some speeches, I thought it appropriate that I should make known my thoughts and give the committee some of my views on the subject. While it is true that the Minister of Transport headed the housing task force, we ought to remember that its report is not his report alone. Of course, it is a government report; nevertheless, some reputable citizens helped in its drafting. They are fine businessmen, successful in their professions, and not all of them are of the Liberal persuasion. These businessmen, along with the minister, went across Canada, studied the problem and drew up a report which, although it may not meet with the approval of all, nevertheless is a report of experts in this field. Therefore, when opposition members apply the terms, "hoax," and "fraud" to the minister and the report they are also applying those unparliamentary terms to some reputable Canadian citizens. It is a pity to have members of the most exclusive club in Canada indulging in the unparliamentary practice of calling the Minister of Transport names.
Hon. members who may have read the biographies of members of the task force will see just how good a job the members of that force have been doing in Canada. I repeat, it was unparliamentary of hon. members to
Business of Supply
apply the terms "hoax" and "fraud" to the minister and to these people.
As a supporter of the government I will be the first to admit that everything is not 100 per cent with housing in Canada, and that many improvements could be introduced. The report suggested many improvements that could be effected. In my opinion, that report shows evidence of considerable thought and work and should be examined carefully so that our housing situation in future will be better than it is at the present or has been in the past.
If we accept the fact that not everything is 100 per cent with our housing, how does that give the opposition the right to say that housing in Canada is in terrible shape? Let me ask, where in the world is it in better shape?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Is it not true that Canadians have the best housing in the world? Is it not also true that if the government is to be blamed for any of our shortcomings in housing it should be given credit for its positive achievements in the field of housing? On average, Canadians are better housed than are our neighbours to the south. I know many hon. members have been to the United States. Let them examine the slums of New York City and they will see how bad slums really can be.


An hon. Member:: Does that excuse our slums?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I will talk about our slums in a minute. If hon. members go south of our border they will see millions of people who breathe no fresh air, whose only glimpse of a piece of ground is the ground in a park. Or, if they do not visit New York let them visit Los Angeles, a considerable portion of which the negro population burned down two or three years ago, largely because much of their housing was in deplorable state.
We, on this side of the house, admit that many of our housing difficulties need to be remedied; yet our citizens have not begun burning down our cities. Let hon. members of the opposition go to Cincinnati or New York if they want to see deplorable housing conditions. Some members are to go to Europe. If they find time to drag themselves away from the night clubs of Piccadilly let them walk down to where the people live and they will see that the houses in London are not in the best of shape. Or, perhaps they will prefer Paris, a city I have visited many times. They

will see housing conditions there are deplorable. II they do not like Paris they can visit the great city of Vienna, and find the same thing. The fact remains that this terrible, this monstrous government that the opposition has been crucifying for the last couple of days has provided its citizens not only with the best housing in North America but in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: One criticism that may be levied against our housing program is that the 11 per cent sales tax should not be imposed on building materials. It would be wonderful if the government could say that from now on there would be no 11 per cent sales tax. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Transport agreed with that suggestion. The unfortunate thing is the government is spending approximately $12 billion on social and other types of services. Until the government finds some other source of revenue, this $300 million is required for old age pensions, family allowances, pensions for the blind and disabled, to provide new docks in Newfoundland, new ports, etc. I agree it would be good if the 11 per cent sales on building materials could be removed. I wonder if hon. members realize what is happening in this city so far as building materials are concerned? It is not all one sided. All the devils do not belong to the Liberal Party.
If a man purchased building materials valued at $1,000 in Ottawa tomorrow morning, he would have to pay 11 per cent federal sales tax amounting to $110. Unfortunately, that is not the only tax which must be paid. There is another government which had its headquarters in Toronto. This afternoon I listened to the treasurer of the province of Ontario present his budget. He did not say anything about sales tax on housing, and for a very legitimate reason. There is a provincial sales tax of 5 per cent which is payable not only on the actual cost of the building material but on the federal sales tax as well.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: That is the way the Tories act in the provincial legislature.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, the federal government must give back the provinces approximately 25 per cent of moneys collected. The problem of high interest rates has also been criticized. The minister suggested we should have a floating interest rate. I say

March 4, 1969
Business of Supply to the minister this would do no good at the present time because high interest rates are a world problem. There was an announcement in the newspapers last Friday or Saturday that the bank rate in England had been raised again. Interest rates are being raised all over the world, and this is a most unfortunate situation. The reason interest rates are rising is not because of a scarcity of housing in Canada, a scarcity of food in China or Biafra, but because there is a scarcity of money in the world. One reason for this is that the United States is spending $30 billion a year on the war in Viet Nam.
As I said on another occasion, they might just as well take that $30 billion and throw it into Lake Superior as it is not helping the financial stability of the United States or the world. This is the reason there is a shortage of money not only in Canada but everywhere in the world. I am sure all hon. members sincerely hope this war will soon end. A year or so after that happens, I feel sure interest rates will start on a downward trend.
There are several items in the report with which I agree. I do not understand how anyone in the opposition can disagree with the suggestion that there should be land banks. It is impossible for me to comprehend any criticism of the government in this regard. The minister would be the first to acknowledge that land banks should have been set up long ago. We cannot turn back the clock, so we must borrow tomorrow in order to have cheaper land a year from now. People are constantly moving from rural to urban areas and much more housing will be needed in our cities.
Four or five years ago I had the privilege of recommending to the legislature in Toronto that mortgages on old buildings should be included in the National Housing Act. I certainly agree with the suggestion made by the minister and the task force in this connection. A building which is only three or four years of age is classified as old. There should be government loans available which would allow this building to be sold as easily as a new one.
I listened to part of the budget presented by the treasurer of the Province of Ontario who I know very well. All things being equal, it was a reasonably good budget. Unfortunately, the minister stated that in two years there would be a provincial income tax and provincial capital gains tax. If the Minister of Finance were in the house I would suggest to him that he better get into that field soon or the province will beat him to it. Whether or
March 4, 1969

not we agree with provincial income tax or capital gains tax, the fact is the treasurer of Ontario stated this would be a reality within the next two years. He was planning for the future.
I suggest to the Minister of Transport that when he is talking to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, he should suggest that the possibility of interest on loans for housing being a deduction from income tax should be investigated. When our friends to the south allow interest payments on mortgages to be deductible for income tax purposes there is no reason why we should not allow that in Canada. I hope the Minister of Transport, in his private conversations with the Minister of Finance, will urge that this be done. A new plan of financing must come.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Every government in Canada is floating around not knowing where to go in the financial field. We need new plans, and 1 am happy to be the first in this chamber tonight to give credit to the Ontario Provincial Treasurer who, in his budget speech today, suggested what will happen two years hence. Again, I urge that interest on housing loans be deductible for income tax purposes, and that municipal taxation on housing also be deductible to for income tax purposes. These are things we can control.
I respectfully point out to the Minister of Transport that we cannot control interest rates unless we wish to subsidize them. Surely, in a free enterprise economy, the type of economy in which I am proud to serve, we are not going to subsidize interest rates on housing loans. The one thing we can subsidize, or at least provide some relief against, is income tax by making the interest on housing loans tax deductible.
I am now going to say something that perhaps will not be popular in this chamber. For all I know it will not be popular with the Minister of Transport who has made a detailed study of this matter, and who is much more competent on this subject than I am. But I am going to suggest through you, Mr. Chairman, that as Canadians we must realize that while everybody deserves clean, warm shelter, as the report suggests, that does not mean that everybody should have the opportunity or indeed the right to own a house. There are some people, not only in Canada but throughout the world, who will never be able to afford houses.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, it is far cheaper for you and I to rent than to buy a
Business of Supply
house. Let us take the case of an average house in the city of Toronto costing $30,000. Let us take the cost of money today, whether you are borrowing it or lending it. For illustrative purposes let us say you are lending it, and it is worth 8 per cent. Eight per cent on $30,000 is $2,400 any way you add it up, and when you put taxes on top of that, repairs, depreciation of the house and all the other costs that go with ownership, you can see that it is cheaper to rent a house than to buy it. Some people just are not in the fortunate position of being able to put up the necessary amount of capital. We should realize that a certain percentage of the people will never be able to afford a house.
I have heard the moaning and groaning of the Opposition that people do not have enough money for the down payment on a house. If they have not enough money for a down payment, then they should not buy a house.


Albert Béchard: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Albert Béchard: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I am sorry I have taken so much time, Mr. Chairman, because no doubt my hon. friend from Pembina, who is to speak next, has a much better speech to give on this subject than I. However, I wish to conclude by saying that this is not a heaven and everybody cannot have the opportunity to own a house. When a person has not got the down payment-I have been just as poor as anybody in this house and I know the situation-the best advice you can give that person is, go and rent a place somewhere. Then, if he has not got the money to rent it is up to the government, it is up to you and I as citizens of this country, to put our hands in our pockets and pull out money in the form of taxes to provide public housing.


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


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Certainly.


Albert Béchard: The hon. member's time has expired. Does the committee give unanimous consent for a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I was very interested in the hon. member's remarks about mortgages

March 4, 1969
Business of Supply
on older homes. Has he any specific comments in connection with that?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Chairman, what I suggested was just what the report suggested, that this is something that should be done. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should provide money so that older homes can be transferred with a substantial mortgage, on the same basis as a new house can be sold.


Mr. McCuicheon:: Is the hon. member not aware that legislation was passed by the house a couple of years ago to permit this, and that mortgages are granted now on older homes?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but the amount one can borrow under these mortgages is not really as high as it should be.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, we have been treated to some schoolmarming tonight. It appears some hon. members are a great deal better at criticizing what other people say than they are at presenting positive thoughts of their own. I hope I do not fall into that trap. I think the task force on housing was long overdue. I am not going to criticize their efforts, nor the report itself, except to say it was too late, perhaps 20 years too late, and the task force members were forced into an almost panic situation.
I agree with the idea that there should be a land bank. This is something that should have been undertaken a long time ago. It may be too late to do it effectively now because the price of land around cities has sky-rocketed almost out of reach.
We do not live in Utopia, and I do not suppose we ever will, but that does not say that Canada cannot and should not be much better than it is. It gives me no pleasure whatever to look to tired, battle scarred Europe and say we are better with regard to housing than it, or to say we are better off in housing than South America. The truth is that we do not have housing that is either adequate or a credit to a vibrant young nation such as ours, with all our resources, energy, leadership, ambition and everything else at our disposal.
Housing in Canada, whether it is publicly owned or privately owned, is a disgrace. In so far as our native peoples are concerned, nine out of ten of them live in hovels. In the district that I represented before the last election there were 28 Indian reservations. If you think things could not be better in Canada all I suggest is that you go and visit any of

those reservations. If you can find any more than 10 per cent of those senior citizens of Canada living in decent habitation, I will apologize to this committee. This is not because I did not try to correct the situation, and I did not leave because I was chased out. I am still welcome on all of those 28 Indian reservations because I sincerely feel for those people, and I strongly urge that we do something to help them.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I suggest that the task force, whether or not they did it in the form of a specific recommendation, at least might have suggested to the government that it should leave some money in the hands of the people of Canada so they would be in a position to build their own houses. I have a mortgage on my house. My house is one of the greatest pleasures of my life, even though it will cost me a great deal of money. I will try to keep making the payments until I own every lock, stock and barrel of it. I should like to see every family in Canada own a home at least like mine. It would cost a lot of money, but it should be possible. The governments at all three levels, federal, provincial and municipal, must co-operate. I suggest they could do this by consulting each other in an effort to find out how they might eliminate some of the double and triple taxation. By all means, an effort should be made to eliminate the triple taxation. Why should there be taxes on taxes on taxes? We are paying taxes on our mortgage payments, we are paying taxes on our provincial taxes and we are paying taxes on our municipal taxes.
Taxation can be an ahnost unbearable burden. As a conservative estimate, if you will forgive that word, I believe these three levels of government are taking now in the form of taxes at least 50 per cent of the average person's pay cheque. Once the figure is over the 50 per cent level it is crucial. The other day I read an article which indicated that consumer trade alone in 1968 went up an extra $1 billion, so this means $1 billion less is available. In many cases we are exposed to exorbitant interest rates which results in diminishing returns in business for Canadians. Governments apparently at all levels-and this is nonpartisan because we have Conservative governments in some provinces and Liberal governments in others-are all doing the same thing; they are trying to get a bigger and better share of the taxpayer's dollar in order to do bigger and better works.
March 4. 1969	COMMONS
I believe we are reaching a very dangerous level if we have not 'already gone over the hump. It begins to look like 1928 and 1929. I can tell by the grey hairs that there are a good many members in this house who went through that period. We probably would not survive a second bout of that disease. Let us try to put on the brakes now in respect of government spending at all levels and leave a little money in the hands of the people so they will be able to purchase their own homes. I still think a home is the finest anchor in a free society because one can be proud of it, work for it and be willing to defend it. Then, there is the matter of the exploited land value. Even before thinking of the expense of building a home, many people find they are unable to pay the price for a miserable 50-foot stretch of land. So, we have strike after strike and increase after increase in unemployment.
I should like to see a task force which would give a little more thought to equality of opportunity. Let us not close our eyes to the rising level of unemployment. We blame it on automation. Automation is here to stay and we must make sure it is worked into our society in such a way that the work force will be spread around. This might mean a reduction in hours of labour. The money must be evenly distributed to people and we must make sure that all do their share. Equality of opportunity means the right to share in effort, as well as in the distribution of wealth once the effort is made by other people.
I know, as I am sure the minister knows, that it is not just a simple matter of distributing publicly owned or publicly rented housing all around. The question of housing is infinitely tied up with the matter of transportation. It might well be that we should look into the question of whether or not automobiles should be allowed in the hearts of our major cities. Perhaps we should also look into the matter of rapid transportation systems. It might be considered advisable to keep the gasoline powered motor vehicles out of the hearts of the cities.
As I said, I am inclined to think that the task force did a good job in the limited time they had, but I wonder whether they have gone far enough. I certainly think more consultations could have been held. I am not laying the blame on anyone, but I believe there still are groups of people who might have been consulted. I do not believe we will get anywhere unless we have much greater
DEBATES	6221
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion co-operation between the municipal, provincial and federal levels of government.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
The Depuiy Chairman: It being ten o'clock it is my duty to report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, February 21, as recorded at page 5797 of Hansard I put this question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson):
In view of the fact that the President of the Privy Council yesterday left a few days in the spring schedule for a budget presentation, will the Minister of Finance take advantage of that opportunity, whether or not he does anything else, to correct the situation under which old age pensioners, when they get the guaranteed income supplement, have to pay income tax?
I was very pleased to receive this answer from the Minister of Finance:
Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider the very serious representations of my hon. friend.
I earnestly hope that the consideration the Minister of Finance was prepared to give to my representations will result in his taking action this spring to correct this serious and very unfortunate anomaly in our income tax situation. I am sure it was never intended that people who have only the old age pension to live on should have to pay income tax on any portion of that pension. I am equally sure it was never intended, when the government came through with the idea of a minimum level of income that old age pensioners should have, that having given that minimum with one hand part of it would be taken away with the other; but for pensioners between 65 and 70 that is the result under the legislation as it now stands.
March 4, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I should like to use a few figures, and I shall use those which apply to 1968 because pensioners who are now faced with this situation have to pay income tax in April, 1969, on the basis of what they received in 1968.
If a single pensioner in 1968 received the full amount of the pension plus the full amount of the guaranteed income supplement his total income for the year was $1,285.20. If he was between the ages of 65 and 70 this means that his total exemption allowed would be $1,100; $1,000 plus the standard $100 for charitable donations. That would mean that he had to pay income tax on $185.20, which would mean that on last year's income he would have to pay $23.70 income tax. In other words, he would pay a tax of almost $2 a month which would wipe out the $2 a month he received because of the cost of living increase.
A married couple between 65 and 70 years of age, at least if the taxpayer was in that age bracket, who desired to report their income as a married couple, if both of them were getting the guaranteed income supplement, would receive $2,570.40 in 1968, but because the wife was in receipt of an income in excess of $250 the husband's total exemption would be only $1,100.00 and he would have to pay taxes on $1,470.40. His tax would be over $215. That couple could report their incomes as two single persons and cut off a certain amount, but they would still have to pay $23.70 each.
I am sure that even though the former Minister of Finance defended this when I complained about it some time ago, this was not the intent. Let me cite also the kind of case that is coming to my attention these days in relation to persons on pensions from private sources of say $1,200 a year. Such a person receives in old age pension $900 a year which brings him up to $2,100. That individual's income tax exemption is $1,000 plus $100 charitable donation, plus $1,000 for his wife, so he paid no income tax. If his wife happened to be a year or two younger, when she moved into the pension age bracket, she would receive $900, or $918 as it was last year.
This would bring the total income for such a couple to a little over $3,000. Because the wife had an income of $918 last year the exemption her husband would be allowed for her would only be $332, so his total exemption is $1,000 plus $100 for charitable donations, plus $332. He would have only $1,432

exemption which would mean he would have to pay income tax on the rest, and this would amount to $238.
The fact that this man's wife received a pension of $918 last year would mean that he has to pay a tax of $238. Surely, rates like this are unconscionable if deliberate. I suggest they were accidental. I draw the minister's attention to the fact that the present exemption rates of $1,000 for single people and $2,000 for married couples were set in 1949, 20 years ago. At the beginning of that year the old age pension was $30 per month. Later that year it was raised to $40 per month. In the years when those income tax exemptions were set those people had no problem. As time has passed and pensions have gone up from $30 to $40 to $75, to $105 and to $109 these exemptions have not been raised.
Because nothing has been done about these exemption levels, I submit that an 'anomalous situation now exists in respect of people from 65 to 70. I feel very strongly about this. Time will not permit me to say anything more about the situation tonight, but I hope the minister will deal with this anomaly this spring, without fail.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that other members have also drawn this matter to the attention of the minister. If I am not mistaken the hon. member for Notre Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) on an occasion prior to this question being asked put a notice of motion on the order paper as a means of raising this matter before the public. Under the system which is presently in use, and which has been in use for some time, changes in tax laws generally speaking are disclosed to the house only in the course of a budget presentation. Before this is done, no indication can be given of any changes that can be contemplated.
I am sure the hon. member knows this, since he has been here for many years, and I presume that he knew it at the time he asked his very interesting and useful question. Therefore, the only thing further I can say on this important topic is reiterate what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) himself said when he answered the question as originally put. At that time he stated he would be glad to consider the very serious representations of the hon. member.
March 4, 1969	COMMONS


Mr. Max Salisman (Walerloo):: Mr. Speaker, on March 3, I directed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) in connection with tests carried out on the chemical Mace. I asked the minister whether he would consider making a statement regarding any experiments his department might have conducted on the use of the chemical. The minister replied that he had had an opportunity of looking into this matter. He said that as far as he was aware it was not being used by any of the law enforcement units in Canada.
While the minister's reply gave me some information, it did not really answer the basic question that I put to him. The question was whether the department was conducting experiments and, if so, whether a report had been issued or information was available on the use of this chemical. The minister's reply, that as far as he knew there were not any law enforcement units in Canada using the chemical may have been somewhat misleading. It might have left the impression that police units were not considering the use of the chemical Mace or did not have the chemical at their disposal. According to reports of suppliers of the chemical, at least 35 Canadian police forces have the chemical. If they have gone to the trouble of obtaining the chemical, one must assume they are prepared to use it.
Representations have been made on the use of the chemical, and criticism has come from many quarters. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association said that Mace is an offence against civil liberties. The B.C. Association of Social Workers said that more research is needed on its effect. The Vancouver Labour Council passed a resolution condemning the chemical Mace. Public agencies throughout the country have pointed out the dangers of the use of the chemical.
I am not in a position to really know what are the effects of the use of the chemical, but a sufficient number of questions has been raised to indicate that the Department of National Health and Welfare is under an obligation to make a statement indicating whether or not it has tested the chemical. It should let the public know to what extent the chemical is, or is not, dangerous. This was my purpose in asking for an adjournment debate tonight on this subject. I hope the parliamentary secretary, who is here to speak on behalf of the minister, can at this time indicate what
DEBATES	6223
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion tests have been conducted by his department and what were the results of those tests.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Rosaire Gendron: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare has conducted a thorough study of the world's scientific literature on the observed and potential effects of Mace.
The department is not actively conducting experiments on the chemical Mace but is keeping in touch with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on this whole subject. Several confidential reports on potential effects of chemical Mace and answers to specific questions have been made to the R.C.M.P. and, by agreement, the R.C.M.P. control their release.
To the best of my knowledge, the R.C.M.P. has decided not to use the chemical Mace and I understand the province of Ontario is considering requesting police departments in that province not to use this chemical.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) asking him about a meeting which was held early this month or late in February with hockey executives on the subject of the future of the Canadian national hockey team. I asked him whether an invitation had been extended to officials of the Canadian Hockey Association and, if not, I wondered whether the minister could tell us why these officials had not been invited.
I am not here, Mr. Speaker, to criticize the minister for not inviting these representatives but I should like to make clear one or two of my reasons for feeling that these people should have been invited. The meeting was called, as I said, to discuss the future of Canada's national hockey team, and ways in which it could be improved. I can understand that the minister is liable to say that representatives of the Canadian Hockey Association were not invited because it was the feeling of the government that the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association is the governing body as far as amateur hockey in Canada is concerned.
This may be correct to some extent, and it is something we have to accept. However, if
March 4, 1963
6224	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the national hockey team had called a meeting of hockey executives and only invited representatives of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association it would be understandable, because they have an agreement with the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association. But why were officials of the Canadian Hockey Association not invited? I am not here to criticize in any way the past performance of our national hockey team. I, for one, believe that those responsible have indeed done the best they could with the material available. Regard must be paid to the fact that those who recruit players for this club have to compete with the National Hockey League for the talent they wish to attract. In these circumstances, it is very difficult under our present system for Canada to get a club which is capable of beating teams representing certain European nations.
I, for one, am not too disturbed because we have not been able to beat clubs from Russia and Czechoslovakia. As everyone knows, we are playing their best but we are not using our best. As I have often said, if the day comes when Russia has a professional hockey organization such as operates in North America, and we play the teams which do not qualify to play in their professional hockey association, I do not think there is any doubt we could beat those clubs with the type of club we are sending across today.
I point out to the minister that another meeting is being held this Friday in Toronto, and I submit that representatives of the Canadian Hockey Association should be specifically invited to attend. Although it is recognized that the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association is the governing body in amateur hockey, and has been for many years, times have changed in Canada. We now have in existence this new Canadian Hockey Association. At the present time seven of the players on our national hockey team have played in the western Canada hockey league which is now under the jurisdiction of this Canadian Hockey Association.
It is also common knowledge, if one talks to scouts for the National Hockey League teams, that in the opinion of these scouts ten or 11 of the top junior hockey players in Canada are playing under the banner of the Canadian Hockey Association. These are not my figures; these are the figures of the scouts for the National Hockey League.
I should also like to refer to one or two other matters in order to try to impress upon the minister the desirability of having


representatives from the Canadian Hockey Association attend these meetings. If people are going to sit down and hold a round table discussion on how to improve our national hockey team, then I think it is only advisable to have present the people who are operating some of the clubs that might be expected to contribute players.
For example, I can safely say there are players in the western Canada hockey league today who will be able to assist our national hockey team in its planned trips overseas. However, the representatives of these hockey players are not even being invited to sit down with a group of people whom the minister, or someone, has called together to discuss this important subject.
I understand representatives of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association are being invited to the meeting. They were invited to the last one and they are probably being invited next Friday. I also understand there will be representatives from at least two National Hockey League clubs. I assume there will be representatives from Canada's fitness council. Why should there not be present representatives from the Canadian Hockey Association who are operating a strong league in western Canada consisting of over 160 junior players, and who also operate a league in eastern Canada that consists of some 120 junior players?
I am not saying that these clubs would be able to make available immediately players to assist our national team. However, if representatives of this association were invited to sit down at a round table conference of the type envisaged, I think they could put forward some ideas for assisting our national hockey team.
In closing, I should also like to mention that it is apparent that the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association has in some manner blacklisted the Canadian Hockey Association simply because it has not operated fully within the rules and regulations laid down by the C.A.H.A. I give the Canadian Hockey Association credit for one thing: they have decided to operate on their own for one specific reason, namely, that they contend junior hockey players should be at least 21 years of age. The C.A.H.A. requires a player to be under 20 years of age to play junior hockey. In the days when there was a good brand of senior hockey played all across Canada, perhaps this provision was quite acceptable. Now we have all these various pro leagues, the time has come when we should have junior hockey-
March 4, 1969


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Rosaire Gendron: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Hockey Association was not represented. The Canadian Amateur Hockey Association is the officially recognized body by the International Ice Hockey Association. Any player who plays for Canada must be on the C.A.H.A. list. Because the Canadian Hockey Association is a breakaway organization, players within their jurisdiction are not on the C.A.H.A. lists. This is a potentially difficult situation and it is the wish of all Canadians interested in our
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion national team that arrangements can be worked out so that the best possible national team can be put forward.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has not interceded in what is basically a family quarrel. I would mention though that the Hockey Canada meetings were very representative. Members from the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, Canada Intercollegiate Athletic Union, Professional Hockey and Professional Hockey Players Associations were represented, together with the government and the public spirited hockey fans who, I am confident, will help to make Hockey Canada a success.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]


Wednesday, March 5, 1969