1969-05-30

PRIVILEGE


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The matter I am about to raise involves the privileges of all hon. members of this house. For several months the members of my party have been directing questions to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) about development programs to be introduced for Newfoundland. To those questions we have had inconsistent and conflicting replies. I therefore gave notice that I would raise a certain matter on the late show, hoping to inform the minister of the crisis facing Newfoundland and of the serious unemployment situation which has reached emergency proportions. I wanted to suggest short term programs which might help the province.
On coming here last night I found the minister absent. In fact, just before ten o'clock I was advised by the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Forest) that the minister would not be present in the house, being somewhere else. Neither was the first nor the second acting minister, if one may use that term, present in the house. I therefore feel that there has been a breach of privilege.
As Your Honour has so often said, the value of the late show is that it enables hon. members with grievances or questions to bring forward their subject matters at the time of adjournment. A responsible member of the government will listen to those grievances or questions, and reply. Of course, since we have a roster system under which not all ministers are present in the house at one time, it is very difficult for hon. members to address their questions to appropriate
bring forward their subject matters at the time of adjournment.
Having checked the record, Mr. Speaker, I contend that our late show procedure is unsatisfactory. Since there seems to be poor rapport between hon. members of this house and members of the cabinet so far as the late show is concerned, making it impossible for important matters to be discussed adequately and responsibly on the late show, and since the privileges of all members of the house are being curtailed by the ways in which our rules are being dishonoured by some, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-
-that the Committee on Procedure and Organization inquire into the operation of the rules relating to Standing Order 26, Standing Order 39(5), Standing Order 39(6), and Standing Order 40, and the roster system of ministerial attendance in the house; recommend revision of these standing orders and practices for the greater flow of administrative information to this house; and report back to this house by Friday, June 20.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for informing the Chair prior to raising his question of privilege of his intention to do so. Notice was given according to the Standing Order. I have therefore had the opportunity to give some thought to the problem now being alluded to by the hon. member. As the hon. member knows, the chair must decide at this moment whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. The motion the hon. member has in mind suggests that certain questions related to the rules should be submitted for consideration to the Committee on Procedure and Organization. I must remind the hon. member that this committee is in operation now and has very wide powers, including those powers the hon. member is now suggesting under his proposed motion.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
I would think in the circumstances there would not be much point in passing the motion or the house debating the possibility
ministers during the question period. In addition, since the question period is somewhat or referring this matter to a committee that is restricted it is often difficult for hon. mem- already empowered to look into the situation bers to ask their questions. As I say, if we do raised by the hon. member, not receive satisfactory answers during the It may very well be that this committee question period hon. members may again will want to consider the grievance now
Alleged Failure of Ministers to Respond raised by the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate. I see in the house some of the leading members of that committee, and I assume they have noted the submission made to the house by the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate. I suggest the hon. member have a conversation with his own representative on this committee so that consideration might be given to the possibility of looking into this situation at an early date.
If there is anything I can do to support the proposition advanced by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, I will be pleased to do so. Inasmuch as this is perhaps a substantive proposition relating to a committee which is already in existence and which has power to apply the remedy suggested by the hon. member, I would not think the matter should be dealt with by a question of privilege at this time.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: May I,
on a point of order with respect to this question, point out to Your Honour there is no mandatory obligation upon the committee to report back on any specific date. I point that out so Your Honour may take judicial notice of it. The government, the government house leader and the chairman of the committee may also take notice. A report should be presented before the end of this session which, hopefully, and most definitely should include some reference to the matter properly raised by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I wonder if I could point out on the same point of order the gravamen of the hon. member's complaint is that he was not given an answer. I wish to point out he was answered at page 9264 of Hansards-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is not rising on a point of order; he is rising on a question of privilege. If the hon. minister wants the debate opened on a question of privilege, I would not be willing to agree to this. I suggest there is no question of privilege. There might be a substantive motion. There is a suggestion the matter might be considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. The hon. member for Peace River rose on a point of order. If the hon. minister wishes to speak on the point of order, that is his privilege, but I think the minister along with his colleagues on the committee might want to give early consideration to the views expressed by the hon. member.

May 30, 1969



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Isabelle.
Third report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in French and English-Mr. Watson.
[Stage Direction]
Sixth, seventh and eighth reports of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry- Mr. Crossman (Westmorland-Kent).
[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, in French and in English-Mr. Hopkins.
Tenth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture,, in English and in French-Mr. Beer.
[Stage Direction]
Twentieth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Trudel (Bou-rassa).
[Editor's note: The text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-204, respecting the presence of the National Flag of Canada in both houses of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, many of us get used to seeing a familiar scene without noticing that something is missing. Many have never realized that this House of Commons, the very seat of Canadian government, is devoid of the national flag of our country. If any place in Canada is worthy of being arrayed by the flag surely the Houses of Parliament are.
Those of us who have visited national assemblies in other countries could not help but notice the prominent display of national flags in their chambers. Even the provincial legislatures I have visited in Canada display

May 30, 1969

the flag. In the case of Ontario both the Canadian flag and the provincial emblem are present.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that Standing Order 68(2) provides for a brief explanation. The hon. member should not make his second reading speech at this time.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the bill is to display in the House of Commons and in the other place, when parliament is in session, Canada's national flag. I would respectfully suggest to Your Honour that perhaps the mood of the house would be such that unanimous consent would be given to the passage of this bill today.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Hu Harries (Edmonton-Strathcona) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-205, respecting the disclosure of information to persons concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hu Harries: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that a person has the right to know what information about himself is collected and made available to others for a fee. There are many instances today where information respecting credit rating and other personal matters is sold by agencies and not made available to the person about whom the information is concerned. The purpose of this bill is to make this information available to the person concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question relating to NATO. Was the Minister of National Defence stating the policy of the government when he
Inquiries of the Ministry said that a compromise undoubtedly would be worked out between the deployment plan the minister presented in Brussels and the apparent strong objections he ran into from other NATO countries?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: It depends what the compromise is, Mr. Speaker. Obviously we consulted our allies, because after having stated our policy we felt there were various ways to implement it. Naturally our consultation will lead to a reconsideration by cabinet of our decision, which the hon. gentleman said was nothing anyhow, and we will then decide how much of the "nothing" we want to apply or change.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is useful to get such helpful and enlightening answers from the Prime Minister.


Mr. Benson:: Stupid questions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister answer my question and say whether the Minister of National Defence was stating government policy when he said a compromise would undoubtedly be reached between the plan presented and the objections made to it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May we assume then from the statements attributed to the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister that the government is now prepared to reconsider everything except the general principle the Prime Minister announced, which he said 1 said meant nothing, and which I said meant either nothing or a great deal? I am now asking the Prime Minister whether everything is now up for reconsideration and review, as it was before.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman said it could mean that we would withdraw 12 men or 1,200 or 12,000.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Twelve hundred.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We may move one or two men in one direction or the other and call it a compromise.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Some
people don't think this is funny.


Gerald William Baldwin: In reconsidering the question would the Prime Minister bear in mind the information he obviously must have obtained from the Minister of

May 30, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry National Defence, that Canada's allies, partners and friends obviously dislike the attempt by the Prime Minister to welch on essential international obligations?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



HOUSING


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing. As he knows, 1 personally am opposed to special privileges and discrimination. Because of the urgency of the matter may I ask the minister whether he will advise us why urban renewal projects and public housing in Vancouver have not been unfrozen, as have some in Ontario, and will he please tell us when he anticipates they will be taken out of the deep freeze in Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the question should be allowed, but I think I should remind the hon. member that we are now considering the very subject to which the hon. member's question refers, and it may be that the matter might be raised later on during the day. In any event I will allow the question.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, there is no attempt whatsoever to be discriminatory in dealing with either public housing projects or urban renewal projects. Certain of the public housing projects, which were delayed in an attempt to evaluate them in terms of their social and physical characteristics, have been released recently, indeed within the last few days. To my knowledge no specific project for the city of Vancouver has been held up.
With regard to the urban renewal matter, I am reviewing this as quickly as possible. I am not in a position to make any definitive statement at this time but hope to give a clear statement within a matter of weeks.


Harold Edward Winch: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the urban renewal project was recommended and passed by the authorities in Vancouver, why should it take weeks for a decision in respect of Vancouver and not of Ottawa?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is debate.
I would think this type of argument might be presented during the debate.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what the minister means so far as Vancouver is concerned when he mentions a matter of weeks.


Robert Knight Andras: There was no urban renewal implementation plan recently approved for the city of Ottawa, nor for any municipality in Canada as a matter of fact, since I assumed my responsibilities. I should like to have an opportunity, which I have not yet had, to review this very deep issue and bring to bear some reasoned consideration before I make a commitment. This is not a problem exclusive to Vancouver, any more than to any other urban project before us.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister when he expects to make his statement setting forth the guidelines for public housing and urban renewal?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was reasonably clear in my statement on second reading. When we have had consultation with the provinces and determined what guidelines and new criteria will apply to each province, and the terms of their particular needs, and have made that kind of a decision then I hope to make these specific guidelines and terms public.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Supply and Services who is answering for the Minister of Transport. Does the government intend to instigate an investigation into the tragic accident that took place yesterday in the Collingwood shipyards, in which there was a loss of life?


Hon. James A. Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed just before coming into the house that the industrial safety branch of the Ontario Department of Labour has already commenced an investigation into this unfortunate accident. Of course that is appropriate because, as the hon. member will know, the legislation covering the safety of workers in shipyards is a provincial matter.



FINANCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the persistent reports from international monetary circles and markets during the past few days of an impending general rise in interest rates
May 30, 1969

throughout the world, can the Minister of Finance advise the house what effect this will have on Canada? Does he expect there will be an increase in interest rates in Canada in the next few days?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is a question which I can properly answer. Any such answer that I would bring forward would be simply speculation as to what might happen in financial markets. As Minister of Finance I do not think I should speculate in this regard.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance remembering his assurances that, in the preparation of his forthcoming budget, our representations asking that the guaranteed income supplement received by old age pensioners be exempt from income tax will be given consideration?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, like other hon. members, the hon. member will have to wait until next Tuesday to find out what is in the budget.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I directed a question yesterday to the Prime Minister who indicated that the Minister of Fisheries would be answering when he was in the house. Today is the minister's turn to be in the house, but he is not here. Furthermore, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, who is supposed to be here but is not here today, and who has some interest in this matter, and in the absence of the minister who is supposed to be the Acting Minister of Fisheries, who is also supposed to be here today, I will direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries. This is my question:


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to notice that the parliamentary secretary is here today. Is he prepared now to answer my question whether, in view of the very serious charges made in St. John's by
Inquiries of the Ministry the premier of Newfoundland to the effect that the federal government was responsible for the pollution of the waters of Placentia Bay, the federal government will make just compensation to the fishermen affected?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say that the Minister of Fisheries who is supposed to be here today is in British Columbia checking on pollution out there. The Minister of Transport, who is in Newfoundland today, I am sure is checking on the pollution problem there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where are the rest of them?


Eugene Whelan: We have received the questions that were presented to the Premier of Newfoundland by some of the fishermen. The officials are processing them as fast as possible and I hope there will be a more formal answer in the house on Monday.
I would say that last Friday approval was given to the payment of fishermen's wages and on Monday these fishermen received payment, delivered by hand. We are not saying that this is being done 100 per cent accurately, but we are checking and have a man on the job in the area; we are making a personal investigation. We are all concerned about what is being done there and what the provincial premier has said about responsibility for the pollution. This matter is certainly being checked out.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Sl. Barbe):: A supplementary question to the
Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there appears to be no consideration given by any department to the province of Newfoundland, is the Prime Minister taking the comment literally, as announced this morning in Cecil Davis' book, that Newfoundland might as well be on another planet?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Has he any comment to make about the very uncomplimentary remarks made by his friend, colleague and former supporter, the premier of Newfoundland, about the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Public Works regarding their recent statements about N ewf oundland?

May 30. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):
Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries. Is he aware of the fact that the fishermen have protested the inadequacy of the payments? This is part of the problem. Also, is the federal government now prepared to accept the responsibility placed on its shoulders by the government of Newfoundland for the pollution of the bay?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are aware that some fishermen are dissatisfied. That is why we have a representative of the federal Department of Fisheries in the area personally contacting these people.
I do not know how to answer the last part of the question other than to say that the federal government is willing to accept its responsibility.


George Harris Hees: You are the only honest man over there. You should be the minister.


Mr. Crouse:: Move him up to the front bench.



FISHERIES


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have an easier question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries. Is there truth to the report that another foreign fishing vessel has been	arrested	and	seized	by	Canadian
authorities off the coast of British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that according to the rules he cannot ask the minister to confirm or deny rumours or reports.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I may rephrase my question in these words. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm or deny the report that another foreign fishing vessel has been	arrested	and	seized	by	Canadian
authorities off the coast of British Columbia?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance and ask whether he has heard about the accusations made yesterday by Mr. McLaughlin, president of the Royal Bank of Canada, that the federal government's past history of imbalanced budgets
[Mr. Hees.)
and squandering of public money is a contributor to inflation and should be straightened out? If he has,, would the minister like to inform the president of the the Royal Bank of Canada that the banks are the major culprits in the field of promoting inflation by pouring out thousands and thousands and indeed millions of dollars?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question is in order. It relates to the debate which will be taking place next week.



NATIONAL PARKS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Having had a week or so to think about the question I directed to him as to whether the policy of the government of Canada with respect to national parks has been changed, that is, with respect to the ownership of land, and whether the federal government is now prepared to offer to all provinces arrangements relating to national parks on the same terms as the minister arranged with the province of Quebec regarding the national park in Gaspe, can the minister now answer the question?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. We have no intention of changing our policy on parks or of signing new agreements of the same nature, and the federal government is legally the owner of the land in the Forillon peninsula.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister why the government insists on doing something that it has always insisted is wrong and is, through its own action and its own failure to carry out this policy on the same basis in the rest of Canada, forcing the province of Quebec to be in a position of accepting a special status.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there always were particular agreements on parks under certain circumstances. Special arrangements were made with Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and Nova Scotia, of which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) used to be premier.
May 30, 1969


Mr, Stanfield:: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister of Canada. Will the Prime Minister of Canada say whether he is going to offer the same terms to the other provinces of Canada or whether he, too, is going to be party to a position which he has insisted is wrong, and through the actions of his own government force the government of Quebec to be in a special status position with regard to this policy; or will the Prime Minister see to it that the same terms are offered to all the provinces of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister made clear that the government was adhering to its policy in the case of the Forillon park. The province of Quebec was not forced, as the Leader of the Opposition said, to be placed in a particular status. It is the province of Quebec which insisted, under the terms of the ARDA agreement, that the transfer of this particular territory be for a limited time. This agreement had been signed, and we just respected the agreement in this particular case. But I think it is quite clear that the minister is not saying that he will apply this exception in the future. Speaking for the government, I have no intention of signing any further agreements with provinces, including Quebec, which would permit this kind of arrangement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What's so funny?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister of Canada seriously standing in this house and saying he has made this arrangement with the province, to which nobody objects, but is not prepared to extend the arrangement to the rest of the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think we have now reached the point where we are no longer asking questions and receiving answers. This is debate. I suggest we go on to the next question.



ESTATE TAX ACT


Hon. Marcel Lamberi (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. The other day I asked the minister whether he would table the summary of the interpretation of the estate tax and gift tax revisions which followed the last budget. He indicated that he would. Could he possibly
Inquiries of the Ministry do it before the debate starts on Monday on Bill C-191, so we will be given the whole picture?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to have them available by Monday, although the debate on Monday is not on the estate tax because that bill has already been passed.



STRAWBERRIES-MAINTENANCE OF IMPORT DUTIES

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I directed a question to the Minister of National Revenue regarding the maintenance of strawberry tariffs. I wonder whether he is in a position to reply today to my question.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I recently
received a brief from the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture regarding the maintenance of import duties on strawberries during 1969. Since the matter was already under review by the Department of Finance, a copy of the brief was forwarded to that department in view of its responsibility for the effective level of import duties. It is understood that the matter is presently under active consideration.



CANADIAN FLAG


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as house leader. I would like to ask the minister, in view of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Cochrane and the absence today of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), whether we could have some assurance that the flag debate will not commence until the right hon. gentleman returns.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-Easf Richmond):: I have a rhetorical question for the Prime Minister. I wish to ask him whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by the Premier of Newfoundland that his minister of public works is a stupid jackass?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

May 30, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPBUILDING



APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE

Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of repeated representations, I wonder whether the minister can advise if the government has now appointed a chairman for the committee investigating shipbuilding in this country?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the chairman has been appointed by consent of both the department and the industry. He is Commodore Robertson. The initial terms of reference have also been agreed upon with the industry, and staff has been made available by the department to the Committee.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister can advise us as to when the committee will commence its work; will it be right away?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I understand the commodore will be working with the industry as early as next week.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenlre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, may I direct the question to his parliamentary secretary? In view of the fact that a few evenings ago members of this house upheld the honour of this chamber by whitewashing members of the fourth estate by a score of 18 to 2 would the parliamentary secretary arrange for physical training and lessons in softball for all members of the gallery, except for their third baseman?



NATIONAL PARKS


George Harris Hees: I have a question for the Prime
Minister. When certain arrangements and accommodations are made with regard to one province, is it the policy of the government to make the same arrangements available to all other provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member is pursuing the argument of a moment ago.


George Harris Hees: It is a fundamental and important point which should be cleared up, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has made it clear so far that certain accommodations were available to Quebec and not to other provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is not really a genuine point of order. I think the hon. member is pursuing the debate which started a moment ago, and we should return to the question period at this time.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: My question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the announcement by the Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion yesterday of the assignment of $100 million to $200 million for the redevelopment of Hull, is he prepared to increase the amount provided the Cape Breton Development Corporation for the redevelopment of Cape Breton Island, which can only be described as paltry in comparison?



FISHERIES


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries. Does the Department of Fisheries have any knowledge of foreign fishing vessels fishing illegally in Canadian waters?


Eugene Whelan: All I can say to
that is that we have had news that a Japanese fishing vessel was apprehended by a Department of Fisheries patrol ship 10.1 miles from the coastline off Quatsino Sound last night and is now being escorted to port.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the lack of definitive baselines, can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries indicate just where our territorial waters end?


Eugene Whelan: I can say that the spot where the fishing vessel was apprehended was within our old baselines, or within the territorial waters which we call Canadian waters, and even when the new lines come into effect, I believe on Monday, it will be found that the fishing vessel was well within them.
May 30, 1969	COMMONS



INDUSTRY


John Gilbert: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the determined drive by Philip Morris to take over control of Canadian Breweries and in view of the concern expressed yesterday with regard to foreign takeovers, will he implement the practical suggestion made by Walter Gordon with regard to the 30 per cent takeover by foreign corporations of Canadian companies?


Gerald William Baldwin: Who is he?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is entering into consideration of matters which will be discussed next week.



SHIPBUILDING


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, now that I have a copy of the message that was directed to the Prime Minister from the Collingwood Town Council in respect of the shipyard there, may I repeat my question of last Wednesday as reported on page 9169 of Hansard. I said:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Prime Minister. Did he receive a telegram from the Collingwood town council expressing their anxiety and alarm in respect of the circumstances in the shipbuilding industry in which 900 residents of that town are employed? Does the government share this concern and does it have any plans or proposals that would protect the jobs of these people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the telegram, if received, was directed to the minister concerned, namely the Minister of Transport.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question on another matter to the Prime Minister, in view of all the enlightenment we are receiving today. The matter arises out of statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, both inside and outside the house. Just to be absolutely clear on this matter, can the Prime Minister say whether the government of Canada now 29180-587
DEBATES	9273
Inquiries of the Ministry accepts the claim of sovereignty of the government of Peking over the island of Taiwan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have previously answered this question, saying that recognition of the government does not necessarily mean the recognition of all its territorial claims, and I gave some examples. I think that if a country wishes to recognize Canada we would not demand that it recognize, for example our sovereignty over the Arctic islands.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I assume from the answer given by the Prime Minister that the government of Canada does not accept the claim of the government of Peking as to its sovereignty over the island of Taiwan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not what I said, Mr. Speaker, but let us hear what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about this.


Gerald William Baldwin: You are supposed to be answering questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: Why
don't you take your responsibilities as the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. gentleman rising on a supplementary question?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of violating the rules of the house, even at the invitation of the Prime Minister. I simply want to ask the Prime Minister when he is going to state forthrightly the position of the government with regard to the claim of sovereignty by the government of Peking over the island of Taiwan.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously the question is-


An hon. Member:: Too much for you.


George Harris Hees: You will bounce off the floor on that.


An hon. Member:: Smarten up, kid.


George Harris Hees: Get them grinding. Where is that Liberal dialogue?


Robert Muir: You
took the easy way out. You couldn't face it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The question period is over.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

May 30, 1969
National Housing Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau that Bill C-192, to amend the National Housing Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Sieven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that I have an unusually large audience in the house for the continuation of the debate on the housing bill. Hon. members will recall that at the last occasion, on Wednesday before six o'clock, I lauded the minister and congratulated him on his good intentions to do something about housing. I also pointed out to him that he had to contend with an arm that he would trust to execute his desires, namely the C.M.H.C., which was not exactly in keeping with an efficient organization. Indeed, I pointed out that in the field of research their contribution had been nil. As mortgage guarantors they do not even do the job that private mortgage companies are doing. Private companies are lending more money with easier terms, so the comparison is certainly not in their favour.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
I have indicated that I am completely in favour of the minister's desire, through the medium of this new bill, to promote construction of low rental or limited dividend housing. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister that last year I was asked to help a group in Toronto build a limited dividend project consisting of 600 units in the heart of the city, almost within walking distance of downtown. The proposed rents ranged from $75 for a bachelor apartment to $130 for a two bedroom apartment.
The answer I received from C.M.H.C. was to this effect: "Well, Mr. Otto, those rents are much too high". As I say, this was last year when the welfare department was paying $156 a month minimum for the worst type of accommodation. So I asked a gentleman in C.M.H.C.: "On what figures do you base your statement that the rents are too high?" He replied: "We have some figures compiled in 1957". I was absolutely dumbfounded with that answer, but that is typical of their attitude.

Again, Mr. Speaker, at a later time I presented a critique on Habitat '67, a project that I think was wonderful, an idea that could be expanded a great deal, and their answer to me was, quoting directly from their letter:
First C.M.H.C. does not have a large stake in Habitat '67 either financially or from a prestige standpoint. Our financial contribution was the sum of $250,000 which was earmarked for research after the completion of the structure. We have no responsibility for the design or concept of Habitat '67 f
In other words, what C.M.H.C. is saying in this letter is that they are not interested in Habitat '67. They are not interested in promoting research or in granting money for that purpose in order to get Habitat '67 to conform to Canadian building standards.
All in all, I should like to say this about my experience with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This is not at all personal because I have had a great deal of gentlemanly attention from and have conducted some good negotiations with these people. I like them and I know the minister will like them. But when he analyses the situation coldly, I think he will find that C.M.H.C. is a dead duck. The corporation is absolutely useless in most of the fields in which it is empowered to act.
What is needed is a complete shakeup in C.M.H.C. Retire those who want to be retired. Get rid of the dead wood-yes, let us call it dead wood-and get a new organization. The minister is not going to get very far with the organization he now has.
If the minister wants to hear some ideas, I have 76 pages of ideas on how C.M.H.C. could improve its contribution to home construction. If the minister wonders why C.M.H.C. still has to come back to the house and ask for an increase of another few million dollars for guaranteeing mortgages, let me inform the minister that every other organization bases their guarantee on the loss ratio. In the mortgage field, as guarantor you have no loss. C.M.H.C. could easily guarantee twice as much as they are presently guaranteeing.
On Wednesday I spoke of the problem of getting National Housing Act money into areas outside Toronto and other large municipalities. This could be done by helping in the matter of administration and collection. I also spoke about C.M.H.C.'s failure even to grasp ideas concerning research, whether on sewage disposal or other types of land development. Perhaps the minister will ask C.M.H.C. why it is they demand an assurance that some lending institution is willing to put up money before the loan is guaranteed. It
May 30, 1969

does not make sense. If C.M.H.C. say that they will guarantee the money themselves, then a lot more lending institutions will compete in the mortgage field. At the present time lending institutions are actually making money just by giving some indication that they are interested.
The matter of legal fees was brought up by the former minister and his task force, and this is another area where the problem is easy to solve. Both the minister and C.M.H.C. know that every title has already been searched before they grant a mortgage on property. Why does the corporation not simply state that every piece of property mortgaged under the national housing legislation automatically has title insurance? As soon as the worry over title is removed and the title is guaranteed, legal fees will go down from $600 or $700 per house to about $25 because there is no need for lawyers. The solution is so easy; yet they cannot seem to see it.
On the question of assistance to provincial housing corporations I am sure-and I have explored this question with the hon. Mr. Randall and others-that if vendors could be given a national housing or C.M.H.C. guarantee-in different form, mind you-all types of buildings could be purchased. Vendors seldom receive very much money down, so if the Ontario Housing Corporation could give the vendor a bond based on the rent and buy the property which would be guaranteed by the government of Canada, then the vendor would be only too happy to sell. Even though he does not get one nickel down he does get a guarantee. With this he will be able to negotiate with a bank if he wants any additional cash.
There is one last matter on which I do not want to dwell because I have spoken to the minister about it. The minister will probably rise to the defence of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation because this seems to be the loyal thing to do. If C.M.H.C. were a department of government, I would not blame him for rising to their defence. But let me remind him that C.M.H.C. is a crown corporation, not the minister's department. He does not have to defend the corporation blindly.
Therefore, I suggest to the minister that he look at this establishment carefully, despite all the nice attention he receives from the gentlemen in charge. I think he will find that if Parkinson's law has set into any corporation it is well entrenched in C.M.H.C. Even Peter's law is well entrenched. It is a corporation that has little use at the moment. It is
National Housing Act
dead. It is stagnant. Yet it could be very powerful and influential and of great assistance to the minister. But the minister must shake it up. He must get rid of the dead wood and promote men who are ambitious, men who are keen to grasp new ideas. Otherwise all the good intentions that the minister has expressed, which I believe are well founded, having known the minister and his desires for many years, will come to nothing. What he requires behind him is an arm that will be efficient, that will do something and make its existence worth while.
[DOT] (12 noon)


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vanccuver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, may I join other hon. members who have spoken in offering my good wishes to the new minister in the work he has taken up. I believe a good start has been made. For the first time in living memory housing is not being treated as an "etcetera" of another department. It has been pried loose and is not to be considered as falling within the purview of a department unrelated to housing. I believe housing has come under five different ministries within the last ten years. Now housing is to be the responsibility of one minister. Soon I hope we shall have a full-time minister of housing, and I hope the present minister will become the full-time minister of housing and urban affairs. The field of housing is most important and ought to be the responsibility of a full-time portfolio.
I know that before the minister assumed his new responsibilities he took an immersion course in housing. I hope he was totally immersed. I hope he went deeply enough into the subject to gain a real insight into the problems. I hope he gained a knowledge of the housing needs of people with incomes of less than $6,500 a year. The problem increases in intensity for those earning less than that amount.
The housing problem is really not a problem of housing but one of income. Those with high enough incomes can obtain houses. Consequently the problem of housing is to provide homes for those whose incomes will not permit them to obtain their own homes. That is where the real housing problem lies.
I hope the minister feels that the time has come to stop talking and start building homes. Here may I say that I do not share the view of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), who has just spoken, that the minister will have to be under the dictates of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If
9276

May 30, 1969
National Housing Act
the minister is determined to build low cost houses and public low rent housing I submit he can assert his authority even over Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In my view ministerial determination is required if the right priorities are to be pursued. The corporation must be given the sinews of war. It must be given the authority and the money to do the job. There must be proper directives and proper co-operation with the provinces. I think the minister's first test will be in achieving that co-operation.
When we talk about homes being built we must ask ourselves, what kind of homes are they to be and for whom are they to be built? The minister said that the primary objective of the government is to provide decent houses for all Canadians. But, Mr. Speaker, by concentrating on that broad objective I submit that we are not focusing our attention sharply enough on the areas of greatest need.
Last year I attended the housing conference held in the city of Toronto. Over 500 delegates from all over Canada found that it was necessary for the government to lay down much more specific guidelines and directives than had previously been laid down. Guideline No. 6 of that conference was:
As long as government allocations for housing are insufficient, priority within housing budgets should go to helping those with the greatest need.
I am quoting from a pamphlet published by the Canadian Welfare Council. The pamphlet goes on to say:
The quantitative implications of such a policy have been estimated to be in the neighbourhood of 20,000-30,000 low-income dwellings a year requiring an investment of public funds of about $300 million annually-or about two to three times the best we have been able to achieve in any one year so far.
That will be a primary consideration for the minister. It is not good enough for the minister to say that we must provide decent housing for all Canadians. We must begin thinking specifically about the needs of certain Canadians, those with modest or low incomes. I am thinking of those who earn $6,500 a year and less. If we are to consider their needs we must close our ears and not listen to complaints from those people belonging to the group which has been mainly assisted by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the past. If the minister can close his ears and not listen to their complaints, if he will make a determined effort to attain the objective I have outlined, and if he will give adequate direction to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, then I think

that priority No. 1, the provision of housing for our low income groups, will be met. The minister must take this objective seriously. In February the Canadian Welfare Council stated:
Continuing research, limited dividend projects, non-profit and co-operative housing, acquisition of existing dwellings in scattered sites, and income supplements are all desirable parts of a comprehensive housing program, and the task force is to be commended for recognizing this; but to put them forward at this time as substitutes for public housing is grossly misleading.
I wish to emphasize the importance of such statements. Today I am speaking on behalf of those who must have public housing. I know how important limited dividend housing is and how necessary it is to renovate older homes. Nevertheless, if we are to begin to tackle priority No. 1 we must provide adequate public, low rent housing for our people. In my view this is a must and comes before everything else.
I have already indicated that the Canadian Welfare Council contends that we must build a minimum of between 20,000 and 30,000 low income dwellings every year. That is two or three times the 10,000 dwellings we now build each year. The public housing stock of Canada makes up less than 1 per cent of our total housing stock. On the other hand, as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) pointed out yesterday, 30 per cent of Britain's total housing stock consists of public housing. That ratio will not be achieved easily in this country. If we are to work toward its attainment the minister will have to apply concentrated attention to public housing needs and pay no attention to anything else. I do not know whether he is prepared to do that but he must do so if our housing crisis is to be overcome.
The report of the Task Force on Housing states that 100,0000 families across Canada are on waiting lists for public housing. I would point out that many other families needing public housing have concluded that it is useless to be on any waiting list. Some time ago in Vancouver I inquired about vacancies in a certain public housing project. The manager of the project told me that only death can create vacancies there. Some people think the public housing situation is so hopeless that they do not bother even to place their names on waiting lists. I was therefore glad to hear the minister announce that at least half a dozen projects would be taken out of the deep freeze. I was glad to hear that this is to happen in Toronto but was less than
May 30, 19S9

reassured to hear that it will be several weeks or even months before the minister can make a similar announcement with respect to the smaller and medium size centres of Canada.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), asked the minister this morning when Vancouver's two big housing and urban development projects will be taken out of the deep freeze. He could obtain no information other than the reply of the minister already publicized that it will be some weeks before that is done. I point out that since November authorities of the city of Vancouver have pleaded with the minister in charge of housing and with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to take these big projects out of the deep freeze in order that they may be proceeded with. The people of Vancouver are in desperate need of the Strathcona area development and the downtown project No. 4A. This would be the beginning. To have to wait for weeks is just too much. Something ought to be done to cut the red tape and defeat Parkinson's law, if that is what is doing it, and above all to co-operate with the provincial government. I point out to the minister that it will be a lot easier to get co-operation from the provincial government now as there will be an election in that province shortly. There is nothing like the prospect of an election to cause a government in office to discover that they must now co-operate with Ottawa on even so-called impossible miracles, because the official opposition is on their heels and crowding them. I urge the minister to strike when the iron is hot, and it is plenty hot right now, in order to get those two large Vancouver projects out of the deep freeze before it is too late.
Federal spending on housing must be focused on public housing. I wish to quote from page 25 of the minister's speech:
My particular concern then is for the low income group. It is my intention that the capital budget of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation- the direct federal investment in housing-will be devoted to the special programs for low income families, the elderly, and the disadvantaged-
Having read that far, I was thinking that this was grand. But then I read the rest of the sentence:
-to a greater extent than in any previous year.
That is when the balloon collapsed because in previous years the support from the federal government for public housing was pitiful. If the minister cannot raise his sights higher
National Housing Act
than that at the beginning of his job, I am afraid he will not be able to deal with the pressures caused by the need for public housing. The truth of the matter is that those in the middle and upper income groups have been able to profit very largely from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. However, those in the $6,500 and lower income groups cannot be helped by larger and longer term mortgages. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation simply must help this group.
I wish to point out three reasons why we cannot afford the luxury of slums. One reason is that slums lead to blighted lives. This country is littered with people who have led blighted lives and who have not had any chance to improve themselves because they were born in slums and still live in slums. In some cases they are already second, third or fourth generation slums.
The second reason we cannot afford the luxury of slums is that they are the seed-bed of poor citizenship. We need only look to our neighbours to the south to see what happens when slums are allowed to grow and ghettos to proliferate.
The third reason we cannot afford this luxury is that it involves the unnecessary spending of cold, hard cash. Some years ago I visited Seattle's first public housing project, Yesler Way. I called on a university professor who had done more than anyone else to cut through the red tape in order to make Yesler Way possible. I asked him the secret of his success in getting this project off the ground. He told me he had had a survey made in this slum area of the cost to the municipality of police protection, delinquency, crime, extra educational measures and all the services necessary where slums exist. He also had had a similar survey made of another district in that city, a comfortable middle-class neighbourhood. When he put the two cost sheets in front of the business community of Seattle they realized that slums were a luxury they could no longer afford. This is how Seattle's first public housing project got off the ground.
The business community and Canada as a whole cannot afford to tolerate slums. Housing must be made a public utility. Anything short of this approach will fall far short of the needed requirements in slum areas. It is true that condominium housing is possible for some of those in the $6,500 income bracket. I hope condominium housing will be pushed wherever there is a possibility of doing so.
I wish to point out to the minister that people in the $6,500 bracket can at best afford to pay no more than $100 a month, $75 for

May 30, 1969
National Housing Act
the actual rent and $25 for upkeep and repairs. This means they cannot afford a mortgage of over $16,000 and they require a 40-year term. They cannot afford to pay more than 4 per cent interest on a mortgage. Where are these people going to get mortgages at 4 per cent? In the United States, the Scandinavian countries-I don't know where the scoffers at Sweden are today-and in some other countries public housing loans are provided at interest rates as low as 4 per cent. They could also be provided in this country if the minister would accept the suggestion made by my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) that legislation be enacted directing banks, mortgage companies and other lending institutions to divert a stated percentage of their portfolio into housing loans at a 4 per cent rate of interest. They will not do this because they want to, but for the same reason we pay taxes and keep the lids on our garbage cans, because it is the law. They will not do it because of moral suasion, any other kind of suasion or appeals to their better nature. They will do it only if it becomes mandatory.
These are some of the facts which must be faced if we are going to provide housing for those people who are not in a position to provide it for themselves. These facts must be faced. I realize this is a mighty tough job to have suddenly dumped in one's lap, even if one is young and vigorous and baton twirling as the minister is doing at the moment. I do not blame the minister for doing that. It is much better than smoking.
Home ownership is possible in condominiums. I think the idea of renovating older homes is very good. My colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), will be dealing with that subject. It will be of great use in Vancouver and other centres. Home ownership of actual houses would also be possible on this basis in country districts, in small hamlets and villages.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
But the biggest mistake the task force made, if one can find it and I believe I have, is that it did not realize the truth that in 1969 the dream cottage surrounded by roses and owned by its occupants is not a possibility for the vast majority of people living in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Quebec City, Ottawa and other cities. The former minister was reluctant to believe that truth with the result that he threw out the baby with the bath water. He panicked when he realized

how far short our public housing projects fall from what they should be and put them all in the deep freeze.
I now want to deal with low rental projects, and the things we must avoid in future when we are considering them. We have to plan such projects well. We cannot have any more concrete mausoleums set in canyons of cement. I do not want to see any more projects like Raymur in Vancouver designed for families.


Mr. Hellyer:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: I know the former minister agrees. This is why he threw out the baby with the bathwater. He knew that in such projects babies could fall from high balconies or windows and be killed. I know that the low cost rental project in downtown Vancouver where elderly people are to live is fine because they can use elevators, and they do not put their feet six feet up to make marks on the doors, as sometimes happens in projects where families are living with children.
These projects must be planned with a view to the people who are going to live in them. I believe that 350 people to a project is the outside limit suggested by a number of housing experts. These projects must have variety and be provided with a number of other amenities. One of the greatest lacks in these projects has been the lack of recreational facilities and planned recreational activities.
The minister knows that I have been particularly critical about such projects as Skee-na Terrace in Vancouver, and Orchard Park and Little Mountain, but I have not been nearly so critical of MacLean Park because by the time construction of it started the authorities began to put in such facilities. We must have activity rooms in these projects. If we had activity rooms there would be far less tearing around by young people, ruining the buildings, spoiling the hallways and the doorways.
Not too long ago I visited the Bayshore housing development, a private project on the outskirts of Ottawa. There I found a very nice community centre as part of the project, containing rooms for elderly people, rumpus rooms for the young, meeting rooms, games rooms and other facilities. I have not heard of any disturbances at Bayshore, of riots, race or otherwise. The people there have planned living facilities. They are good tenants and are comfortable.
I suggest that when we get around to incorporating the same sort of thing in our public
May 30, 1969

projects we shall have the same sort of tenants. It may take a while to build up that type of morale in tenants. You do not suddenly take people out of poor areas and put them into very good areas without some kind of trouble. But as the chief public housing architect of Oslo, Norway, told me in that city many years ago, they found there that each generation removed from the slums improved over the preceding one in manners and behavior in public housing.
In the city of Vancouver the tenants of all the public housing projects have established the Vancouver Housing Inter-Project Council which has set to work to make recommendations for future public housing projects. Here are some of the things they recommend regarding activity rooms. The first is a large meeting room with a kitchenette and washroom, to be subdivided and used as a multipurpose room. The second is a large rumpus room for young people. The third is a preschool playroom with adjacent fenced area to be used as a tot lot. The fourth is a community workshop, particularly for apartment dwellers. A basement room with a workbench should be made available to tenants. There is such a room in one of our low rental projects in Vancouver and I can assure the minister that it is used. The fifth recommendation is that a sitting room should be available for senior citizens preferably in their own part of the apartment building. Finally, they say that a community office is also desirable, which could be used by a variety of people and various workers for private interviews, etc.
These are the types of facilities required to save public housing projects from being the sort of things that frightened the wits out of the former minister in charge of housing. I say that I do not blame him for being frightened when he saw these projects. I suggest that such facilities should be built into existing housing projects that were not properly planned in the first place.
In addition to activity rooms inside there should be outside facilities for recreation. There should be playing fields. There should be other facilities for young folk, for teenage activities, where they can enjoy themselves with proper supervision. I can think of Orchard Park in my own riding where there are no properly directed outdoor activities for young people. The result is that senior citizens who occupy a part of the project, small, low, single storey dwellings, are often wakened by what they regard as young hellions scrambling over the roofs, and the windows of these dwellings are liable to be broken by
National Housing Act
balls when games are played outside them. Mothers of children in that project are frantic because there are no proper play facilities for their children. This sort of thing should be avoided. There should be proper outdoor playing space provided for the young people.
With regard to Skeena Terrace and the provision of such outdoor recreational facilities, no doubt in years gone by the responsible minister said, "This is a ridiculous thing to ask for because there is no room outside." Of course there is no room. Skeena Terrace and other public housing projects were erected on the worst possible sites that no one else wanted for anything. Skeena Terrace is located on three arterial highways with no proper means of transport for the tenants to get to stores, to church, or to other places that people want to go.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, there is no playing space at Skeena Terrace. But let me tell the minister that there is something that could be done to improve the situation there. Right across from Skeena Terrace there is a large public park. In the corner of that park nearest to Skeena Terrace a large community centre could be built which would serve not only Skeena Terrace but Beulah Gardens, a nearby low rental project for old people. These projects are in the constituency of my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East.
The trouble about building such a community centre is that under the present division of jurisdiction it is the responsibility of the city, and the city simply cannot afford to put up a community centre on that very nice park site. Since the minister is ready to seek and extend co-operation, since the electoral circumstances are favourable for getting the cooperation of the Premier of British Columbia, and since the city of Vancouver is just itching to get some help to build a community centre on that side, I suggest that it would be a very good time for the minister to go out there, sit down with the provincial minister in charge of housing, Dan Campbell, and the city authorities, and try to get this community centre under way. I think this could be done, and that centre would provide several other things that the people in the public housing project need.
Once built the community centre would weld the public housing tenants into the community. It would do away with the ghetto status of Skeena Terrace. It could be the focus for activity programs. Instead of having to pay the whole shot for outside recreational

May 30, 1969
National Housing Act
areas and activity programs indoors and out, the minister could co-operate with the parks board of the city of Vancouver so that the community center could share in supplying workers to provide activity programs for the elderly people in Beulah Gardens and for the people, young and old, in Skeena Terrace.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
Do you see what I mean? This is the modern approach. When we talk about modern streamlined efficiency I think this means meeting the needs of people who cannot look after themselves and not those people who can look after themselves. If you will not do it on ethical grounds, for goodness sake remember that a mansion sits uneasy in the midst of a slum and that a healthy Canadian community cannot sit easy in the midst of the rotted downtown cores of our big cities.
I know I do not have very much time but there are a few other things I should like to mention. Mr. Minister, if you will undertake the rehabilitation of the whole concept of how to deal with low cost housing you will be able to change pariahs into participants; you will give the people in low rent housing something to live for, some link with the rest of the community instead of being cut off. Another thing I think you might take a look at, Mr. Minister, while you are fresh in office in this. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation projects have a rent geared to income policy. I agree with that policy, but it should now be geared to income, plus.
There is a plus of $50 and if tenants' incomes increase by more than $50 their rent goes up. If you want to provide incentives- today we talk about incentives on every hand and there is a danger of losing them-do increase that $50 limit somewhat. If you do so this will permit the people in public housing projects to get the training they need from manpower and other sources and to go out and obtain a job. When they have jobs and are established in them, then you can take them out of there and make the public housing available for people who really need help.
I urge you to do this because all across Canada there are many people-and I know them personally in my own city-in these housing projects who would like nothing better than to become trained, find work and get out. But they do not do that because the minute they start earning a little wee bit their rent goes up and for that reason they cannot afford to get out and earn. They need a little leeway in order to get established. I wish

you, Mr. Minister, would look at that situation to see whether we could get them trained so that they could earn.
This is participatory democracy. Participatory democracy is said to be the keynote now. It does not consist of the brass flitting about on beautiful journeys across this country to see how the grass lives and then coming back and making plans concerning what is good Tor the grass. Participatory democracy consists of the people who are doing the planning and building having the courage to take the initiative to take the action required in the lives of these people. Heaven knows we have had enough surveys. The task force conducted a great many surveys and interviews in addition to all the other surveys which have been going on. We know what is required and need no more surveys in order to make a start. If you do need surveys, I can tell you one place to get information. That is from the people who actually live in these housing projects. They are the ones who know the situation.
So please, Mr. Minister, before we make up our minds about you and while our minds are still open-and obviously my mind is wide open because you have not done anything yet and have not had an opportunity to do so-before we give vent to any preconceived prejudices of any kind or form any newly conceived ones, please take action of the right kind and you will earn our undying gratitude and that of the people all across Canada. We know you have the interests of the people at heart, but for goodness sake, if you really intend to cope with the problem of housing forget your friends, those who surround you, all those comfortable people, and keep your eye on the ball-in this case the people with incomes of $6,500 or less.


Mr. Douglas Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my major purpose in rising to participate in this debate is not to praise the government for proposing Bill C-192, nor is it to laud those supplementary policies enunciated Wednesday by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) responsible for housing notwithstanding that I realize that many attractive and badly needed features have been advanced as amendments to the National Housing Act. Neither is it my intention this afternoon to expound upon the whole range of problems dealing with the housing issue. This would be a repetitious exercise, the entire spectrum of housing already having received extensive and varied comment. However, I do wish to make or remake, as the case may be, a few salient points which
May 30. 1969

are tempered by the views of one who represents a large rural riding, that of Okanagan-Kootenay, dealing with a few of the peculiar problems that are being encountered in such a region.
Firstly, it is my contention that the government should give top priority to the problems of rural area residents and in particular make more N.H.A. funds available to those who reside in the relatively small communities therein. I submit that all people in rural areas should be afforded the opportunity of participating in federal housing loans, be they residents of municipalities or unorganized territories. Their lot should not be discounted in the light of the problems inherent in the larger urban centres. I suggest that present government policy and support regulations are directed in the main to the benefit of major population centres and to the detriment of the many thousands of our citizens situate in rural areas. For too long too large a proportion of available mortgage funds has been allocated to the large cities of Canada for the propagation of multi-million dollar apartment buildings and like projects. This imbalance should be rectified and the government should cultivate a willingness on the part of private financial institutions to place funds in more remote regions by itself overcoming an apparent reluctance to invest needed capital in places of rural habitation.
Contrary to lingering government thinking, a home to those living in Vernon, Armstrong, Sicamous, Revelstoke, Golden, Invermere, Kimberley, Cranbrook, Jaffray, Elko, Fernie, Sparwood and so many other smaller centres in my constituency, is no less important than is the necessity of accommodation for the folk of Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal. May I suggest that the principal ogre perpetuating this inequality in lending policy is C.M.H.C.'s present regulation requiring the construction of piped services to housing. In a phrase: No water or sanitary sewer, therefore no eligibility for N.H.A. financed loans. Although there are stated exceptions to this rule, in my experience leniency in their interpretation has never been the federal corporation's watchword. And there are many areas in this country, and Okanagan-Kootenay is representative, that will never be serviced with piped sewer and water. So, at the moment, hundreds of people living in unorganized portions of my riding and several thousand more who reside within municipal boundaries are effectively shut out from public assistance because they are on wells and/ or septic tanks. And for those who intend to 29180-588
National Housing Act
locate and build, to join their fellow primary producers, or take their employment in the extractive industries, the same fate awaits them.
Facilities which are entirely satisfactory to many of my people, and have been for years are still effectively quite unacceptable to the crown corporation. Moreover, even though modern technology has provided us with a number of more sophisticated and proven sewage disposal systems, C.M.H.C. has steadfastly refused to accept them, and as a result of these overly restrictive regulations it is impossible for many and too tough fof most to comply.
I therefore say that, even though I share the concern of all levels of government for the pollution of ground and water, which concern undoubtedly has given birth to these constrictions, and even though I am quite aware that the use of septic tanks in concentration will create difficulties in curbing pollution, surely a workable set of regulations which would supplant those that have outlived their usefulness can be formulated which would then permit the use of certain lands, presently exempt from mortgage financing, and a goodly portion of which will never be equipped with piped services, on a septic disposal and water well basis. Such a solution would inject a new and needy borrower into the program and would also raise the generally low standard of housing prevalent in sections of our country, certainly in several of the more depressed portions of my riding.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
On another matter, although Bill C-192 makes an attempt to assist those on small or fixed incomes, the 20 per cent of the people either below or hovering on the poverty level, I am not convinced that the intended modifications go far enough. Even though the amortization period for loans now permissible is to be extended, and although the amount of mortgage money is about to be increased to $18,000 for improvement and purchase of used homes, both of which amendments are commendable, are we still doing all we can to aim our policy toward assisting that class of people below the subsistence level or, for that matter, toward the average wage earner? I think not. Moreover, I think that the lack of any effective means to control rent, coupled with today's high cost of money, simply precludes these classes of Canadians from enjoying what every Canadian should be able to enjoy-reasonable accommodation.

May 30, 1969
National Housing Act
Whether a solution takes the form, as suggested in the Task Force report, of implementing a program of income supplements to permit low income families and those on fixed incomes to rent or even purchase housing according to their own needs, whether the government institutes a policy whereby, in certain cases, interest payments on home mortgages are wholly or partially income tax deductible, or whether interest rates on mortgages are set on a graduating scale depending on the size of the mortgage, thus encouraging less expensive homes and assisting lower income groups, there must be some better solution than that proposed. I urge the government to find one along these lines.
My third point this afternoon relates to the tremendous and stifling amount of red tape which one encounters and attempts to cut a swath through in his dealings with both the department and its agency responsible for housing. If I may be forgiven for again being parochial, I would like to cite the Sparwood land assembly program at present under way in my riding as but one example.
Approximately four and a half years ago it was determined by the provincial government that an urban renewal program should be put into effect for the Michel-Natal townsites. The municipality, on agreeing to such a scheme, requested that a land assembly be formed some four miles away in Sparwood. This area, as hon. members may know, is the region where the massive Kaiser coal development is now in its initial stages. It is some 38 miles from where the proposed Fording Coal operations are anticipated. In excess of some 500 additional housing units are urgently required for miners and for those people serving in an ancillary capacity.
Everyone directly concerned with this development, including the municipality and the coal company, has to my knowledge diligently pursued in every conceivable manner the frustrating task of attempting to traverse the maze of regulations and format restricting progress. The scheme is still off the rails, although admittedly success is now within reasonable reach. The problem? I do not really know, but I would strongly suggest that it is certainly one demanding an immediate solution.
Before I leave this subject I must say a word about the apparent unavailability of adequate mortgage financing in the south eastern portion of Okanagan-Kootenay. I am advised that the Kaiser Company has attempted in every foreseeable, proper way to get contractors to build permanent homes

as well as single dwelling units. I am told that developers with as much as 40 per cent equity have requested loans from C.M.H.C., banks and other lending institutions and have been advised that it was not desirable to invest money in this area. Of course the lending institutions were somewhat more willing to listen to the housing problems if Kaiser would guarantee the mortgages. But the company, although it has undertaken to develop 50 lots, is not in the housing business; it is in the coal mining business. Concurrently the company attempted to get contractors who already had loans in existence with C.M.H.C. to build apartments, but I am again, advised that C.M.H.C. had no funds available for this purpose in the Fernie-Sparwood area.
The whole point? It appears that there is great governmental concern over the alleged risk involved in putting public funds into this region. The region until recently was, admittedly, somewhat impoverished and depressed but it is a region now, I suggest, which has its future guaranteed, without risk. However, it is still a region that urgently requires a more relaxed housing policy which would enable it to obtain and utilize the mortgage funds it so desperately needs now.
On a final point, Mr. Speaker, in an effort to obtain the ideas and proposals of interested and concerned individuals and organizations in my riding in respect of the housing issue, I had occasion last October to write every mayor, regional district chairman, chamber of commerce, M.L.A. and real estate agency in Okanagan-Kootenay. The response to my solicitations was excellent.
For the benefit of the minister and the committee to which this bill will shortly be referred for deliberation, I would like at this point, in capsule form, to recite a number of the more important recommendations I received in response to my request. They are as follows:
1.	There exists a definite need for both greater mechanization in house building and for further research into more efficient materials and methods of construction. The National Research Council should intensify its research into the use of new materials such as fiberglass, for structural components, and other labour-saving techniques.
2.	The government should encourage more efficient utilization of land through development of rural housing and make financing readily available for such projects under condominium ownership.
May 30, 1969

3.	Lower interest rates are required on housing loans, especially insured loans.
4.	Eliminate the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials for houses costing up to $25,000.
5.	Greater assistance is required in developing skilled tradesmen in the construction field.
6.	Relax the requirements for and encourage the development of more senior citizens low rental housing projects.
7.	Encourage development of leasehold land for home construction.
8.	Investigate present C.M.H.C. and National Building Code standards with the idea of updating these rules relative to modern materials and methods.
9.	Consumer education should be provided by senior levels of government on the desirability of erecting basementless houses, with resulting construction cost reductions.
10.	The government should extend National Housing Act authority allowing moneys to be made available to municipal governments, as well as private corporations, for the development of residential subdivisions.
Mr. Speaker and hon. members, other than offering my own good wishes to the new minister I have nothing further to add at this time on the subject of housing. I thank all hon. members for listening attentively to my submissions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, the prolonged acknowledgement in which I just took part was certainly not for myself but rather for the hon. member who just spoke. I understand this was his maiden speech; therefore his feet are now wet.
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to join in this debate. It pleases my heart to see the former Minister of Transport who was in charge of housing in his seat today. In my usual charitable manner, if he would like the opportunity to speak before me I would certainly bow to that wish. Whether or not he has any thoughts in this regard, I suppose he does not want to do that, but I do not think this is because he does not have the nerve. I think he has shown a certain amount of steadfastness and principle as a result of what has happened recently.
I was very pleased to see the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras), who is now in 29180-5885
National Housing Act
charge of housing, bring forth this legislation because I think he has the vim, the vitality and the vigour required in this department. He also has an appreciation for reality. Perhaps that is why he is in the position he occupies now rather than with the Department of Indian Affairs. Perhaps he was too good for that department. I hope he will be too good for this department.
At the same time I appreciated his statement when he said there are more families than houses and that those available are substandard and cost too much. This is the crux of the whole matter. In spite of the Prime Minister's assumption, there is a housing shortage, and it depends on where one is whether or not it can be called critical. The fact remains that the country has some 5.5 million units in which to accommodate 5.7 million families. I went to school before the new mathematics were introduced, but this means that something like 400,000 families, not individuals, are involved in this great and growing problem. In other words, thousands of people are involved in this very important issue and are looking for direction and leadership from the government.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
We have a brilliant minister in charge of this portfolio, but I wonder whether the government is really apprised of the situation. In my opinion it is not. One of the most important things we have to be concerned about is creating a separate ministry of housing and urban development.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I know that the minister, with all his candour, will pursue this matter. Any policy with respect to housing cannot help but be a failure if we do not have long range planning in terms of the urban population explosion. We read and hear about this problem continually and statistics are published almost daily. I have said before that this nation of ours, with its immigration policy-we are apparently encouraging everyone to come here now, even deserters-will find that within the next 20 years our major cities will have in them a full concentration of people. In view of this situation, how can we sit here and say this is not the type of problem that deserves a full-time ministry?
We have to be concerned about the transportation corridors that will be needed and are becoming more and more necessary. We heard from the hon. member for Halifax who indicated that Detroit-Edison had found that

May 30. 1969
National Housing Act
we have to concentrate our efforts on transportation. We must be very concerned about pollution; we must be very concerned about the frustrations of urban living on a long term basis. We cannot meet these problems on a gradual basis by making just a few amendments to the National Housing Act.
I was very impressed as I always am, with the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). I am concerned that she indicated to the house-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My dear colleague, why don't you put your name on the list so you can speak? Why do you want to detract from the few minutes I have to make my speech? The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway indicated that we have in this problem the death of a dream. I should like to read from an article which appeared in the Hamilton Spectator of May 3 last. It reads in part as follows:
The federal government's proposed amendments to the Housing Act will sound remote to a large body of Canadians, particularly those married with families and with incomes of less than $10,000 a year.
Removing the interest ceiling on N.H.A. mortgage loans may attract more money to housing because the rate would probably go up to 10 per cent.
That figure is at least the fact; the rate may go up even more than that.
But how can a family man earning less than $10,000 a year buy a home and pay interest rates like that, even with the new mortgage period absurdly stretching 40 years? The question answers itself.
That takes very little figuring out. The article continues:
It needs very little figuring with a pencil and paper for a married couple with less than $10,000 a year to see that lifting the N.H.A. interest ceiling is meaningless to them. So it is that home ownership becomes practically impossible for the majority of Canadians, unless they live in those now favoured regions-small towns far from big citiesi have even heard this questioned.
-and industrial developments-where the houses look to harried city folk, unbelievably cheap.
The article continues:
High interest rates are killing an old Canadian dream of home ownership and slowly turning the country into one of landlords and tenants.
I come back to the question of having a minister charged with housing and urban development alone. There can be no question that there is a great need for such a ministry. I should now like to read part of a

communique issued by the Canadian Welfare Council:
An essential first step, we believe, is the appointment of a full-time minister for housing and urban affairs. The principle of a full-time minister was endorsed by the Canadian Conference on Housing (1968) which was sponsored by the Canadian Welfare Council and attended by delegates from every province and level of government, the housebuilding industry, universities, church, welfare and citizen groups. Such an appointment would affirm government's determination to assign problems of housing and urban development the priority they deserve and should not be construed as an infringement on provincial jurisdiction.
I was very pleased yesterday to hear the minister had indicated that the public housing freeze had been unfrozen to an extent. But what bothers me is that even though I have been in the house for six months trying to get some kind of dialogue going in terms of urban renewal, the minister has not seen fit to announce, as he did with respect to public housing, that the freeze has been taken off several urban renewal projects some of which have been going on for six years.
Hamilton is faced with this problem. The minister should visit Hamilton. The middle of our downtown area is razed; there are no buildings on it. We are waiting for direction and leadership from the government in this regard. We must have leadership and direction in order to deal effectively with the problem. I, like the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, cannot understand why this problem needs more thought by the government. The former minister of transport almost had me convinced that he had given me a commitment about a month and a half ago, but I was shafted again!
My friend the new minister in charge of housing almost had me convinced a while ago that we would have some sort of dialogue and he would give me a definite answer that so far as urban renewal projects are concerned Hamilton, Vancouver, Calgary, and other cities, were unfrozen. Then the minister retracted that statement. I wonder whether he is following the pattern set for him by his predecessor. I hope he was sincere when he indicated to me two or three weeks ago that I made a correct assumption when I hoped that no public urban renewal programs would be frozen before this house rises for the summer recess. I do not think this is asking too much. After all, we have been talking about this problem for six or seven months. I have a feeling that the minister will abide by his statement. I can only look at his past record in the Indian Affairs Department to judge how he will act in this situation. I do not
May 30. 1969

think the minister makes irresponsible statements. If he does decide to freeze these projects before we recess for the summer, a great many people will be very disappointed about his first effort in this field. I do not want to be the first to criticize the minister, but these people are waiting for a decision in this respect.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the housing crisis in Canada. Even though the Prime Minister denies it and even though the Liberal leader in the Senate denies it, I am quite sure the people of Canada are aware of it. Low income families are very much aware of it, and my party and most members of the Prime Minister's party are certain of it. It is very unfortunate also that even though this seems to be the fact, the Prime Minister raised a smokescreen explaining he could not do much about it because the former minister of transport wanted him to drive a truck through the constitution. May I say, with all due respect, that the people of Canada do not believe him. They are interested in leadership and direction in terms of solving what I would say is a very critical situation in Hamilton so far as housing is concerned.
The Prime Minister's position does violence to Canadian history. He cannot claim that the jurisdictional lines are clearly drawn, and he must not do so. I am very pleased to see that the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing has not taken the same view. He seems to be prepared to believe in participatory democracy, that is, going down to the lower levels of government in the provinces and municipalities in order to delve together into the several solutions by which leadership and direction must be given by this government.
The federal government has been actively involved with the	provinces and the
municipalities in working to improve housing and urban conditions since the last war. It is quite true that at various points precedents were set and new departures were made. That is because Canadian politicians of good will wanted to solve problems and not pussyfoot around. Therefore it is obvious that the solution to these problems can only be found
National Housing Act
through participatory democracy and not by working in a strait-jacket. Politicians did not get hung up in the legal dust of the constitution. Their concern was the bread and butter issues or, as stated by the former minister of transport, the nuts and bolts and, as I call it, the nitty-gritty issues. These are the matters to which this government should direct its attention.
I am very pleased to see this bill come before us because it is obvious that in some ways the government has stolen the thoughts of the Progressive Conservative party.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You may laugh, my friend, but I remember when the leader of my party crossed the nation speaking about a land bank. Everybody said that it could not and should not be done. Now I see that the minister is referring to municipal land assembly, not only for public housing but for housing in general. I say that where credit is due, let us give a little credit.
The rehabilitation of older homes is certainly welcome. It is a step in the right direction. At long last action is being taken on student residences. My party has urged this for the past several years, and it is a great step forward. In other areas, the reduction in insurance fees is certainly commendable. The provision relating to condominium housing will have to be studied and put into practice. This may or may not be good in terms of homes. If it does make them more available, I will be the first one to say that credit for it should go to the government.
We in this party are not obstructionists. We are here to give the government leadership and direction and certain ideas, and people should know whether or not they are stolen from us. The financial changes are also welcome if they will improve the flow of funds. In all likelihood they could be counterbalanced by the removal of the ceiling on the interest rate. Another commendable action of the government is the greater autonomy and freedom in approving urban renewal given to C.M.H.C. I have indicated already what I think about their stand on urban renewal and I do not want to repeat it. I think their attitude so far has been disastrous, one that shows complacency and indifference to the problems we are facing.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Robert Knight Andras: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that so far as

May 30, 1969
National Housing Act
Hamilton is concerned the urban renewal project being considered at the present time is the third, and that the other two have already been implemented?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In reply to the minister may I say that the York Street urban renewal program is extremely important, but if he would like to go to the corner of King and James Streets in Hamilton he will see that nothing at all is happening. We would be very interested to find out what is going to be done about it, and once we have an affirmative answer we will be able to proceed.
Another area I want to explore is the cost spectrum. It is all right for us to talk about removing the ceiling on interest rates and helping those on low incomes, the last of which is quite admirable. But it does seem to me that we are forgetting another important group. In this regard I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Spectator on the subject of housing prices priority. The article reads in part:
Discouraging statistics, placed before the Commons by Transport Minister Hellyer on Tuesday-
That would be last March 25 or thereabouts.
-reinforced the case for an active, decisive national housing policy with priority on prices.
I should like to hear the minister say something about inflation and the high cost of homes.
Cost is the crux of Canada's housing troubles. Other manifestations-shortages, overcrowding and slums-don't directly affect everyone. Prices do.
Then I should like to draw attention to this statement:
People who owned houses before prices went wild don't get bruised until they try to move up to something better. People with substantial cash reserves (for a down payment) and fat incomes (for mortgage and tax payments) suffer only in that they must use an inordinately large part of their resources for housing.
This bill is helping those at the very top in terms of income. We are giving very little consideration to those at the bottom of the ladder. The article goes on:
It's those caught between rising rents and rising prices who suffer most. And their numbers are growing. Ten years ago, only people at the bottom of the income scale couldn't afford decent housing. Then, it was considered normal for housing to take a fifth or a quarter of an average income. Now, it's not unusual to pay a third-even in public housing.
In other words, people within the $8,000 to $10,000 bracket are not in a position to buy a
[Mr. Andras.l
house. This is an area to which we should direct our attention. The Prime Minister can point smugly to the number of housing starts and say that the government is doing a good job. He can deny the existence of a crisis. But he should keep in mind that 60 per cent of his housing starts consist of high-rise apartments. These are not the resort of the decent poor. It does not help to tell us how many high-rise apartments have been started, complete with hanging gardens, water fountains, swimming pools and patios. This does not help alleviate the housing shortage. High-rise apartments with every conceivable luxury, including the fabled Hanging Gardens of Babylon, are reserved for the limited few. I should like the minister to concern himself with this problem.
There is poverty in this country. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) went through the statistics in this regard the other day. As a matter of fact, there is an appalling situation in Newfoundland where 52 per cent of the people of the province earn under $4,000. Seventeen per cent earn between $4,000 and $5,000, 11 per cent between $5,000 and $6,000, 6 per cent between $6,000 and $7,000, and 4.5 per cent between $7,000 and $8,000. So in Newfoundland, which I suggest is not an extreme condition, 80 per cent of the people receive incomes of under $6,000 a year. In view of these figures we must be very concerned about the cost of housing, and it is to this area that the government must direct its attention.
One does not have to be poor to be shut out from the little world of luxury living in terms of buying a home. In metropolitan Toronto- and the same goes for Hamilton-even if you earn $8,000 you are not able to own the average sort of home. I still want to believe that it is and should be everybody's dream to have their own little plot of land. This is why I feel we require a separate ministry in charge of housing and urban development. I am sure everyone is interested in owning a home, and it is up to the government to make this possible. Every man wants his own little plot of land with a fence round it and a rose garden. That is everybody's dream. We should not get the idea that everybody wants an apartment. We must remember that if that were the case there would be a great confrontation between landlord and tenant-and this can be awful.
I should like to say a word on the effect of high interest rates. The minister has indicated that the interest rate ceiling will be removed. I should like to put on Hansard what the Economic Council of Canada said in its fourth
May 30, 1963

annual review issued in September, 1967, in connection with mortgage interest rates:
Both Canadian and U.S. evidence suggests, in addition, that the demand for all mortgages is quite sensitive to the interest rates which they carry. Many potential home-owner borrowers, for example, may be deterred by virtue of the fact that a higher mortgage interest rate finds significant reflection in the size of the monthly mortgage payment, particularly given the long term nature of most of the loans now made.
I suggest that if rates increase once we have lifted the ceiling people are not going to be very interested if they are asked to pay 10 per cent, 11 per cent or 12 per cent. No one on that side of the house has yet convinced me that lifting the interest ceiling will bring about a lower rate. I would be apprehensive about getting involved in buying a house knowing that I would be paying off my mortgage for the next 30 to 40 years.
It is worth nothing too that one of the reasons for the drying up of mortgage money lies in the reduction of investment brought about through the Canada Pension Plan and medicare, which was exactly the prediction of the Progressive Conservative party. In addition to this the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has indicated there is going to be a further reduction of investment in mortgages as a result of the taxation of life insurance companies. I do not want to go into that matter because I think the hon. member for Halifax dealt with it. He said that next year there would be some $45 million less available for mortgages from these institutions. The hon. member had the relevant statistics and I do not. But this question is very important, and I hope the minister will be able to give some indication whether my colleague and I are right in this regard.
It seems to me that this government has deliberately set out to impose a heavy economic burden on the individual. No government could have succeeded better in this respect than the present one. The hon. Member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) remarked that this type of legislation accommodates big business. I shall have to sit and reflect on that statement and see what effect the removal of the ceiling on interest rates has. Is it going to help the man on the street who wants to buy a house, or those who are interested in lending money for mortgage purposes? This situation will have to be assessed and the members of this party will be watching it with a very cautious eye.
1 am sure other hon. members want to participate in this debate, and although I have
National Housing Act
reams of material and statistics I just want to leave you with one further thought, Mr. Speaker. I think we must be concerned, as I said before, about housing cost. I think the cost can be reduced, first, by removing the pyramiding sales tax. Although the minister is interested in solving our housing crisis it seems that he does not know where necessary money is to come from and which priorities to consider first. Unlike some, I think we have a housing crisis. Why have uniform building standards not been adopted across the country? I understand that present building regulations in force in various provinces and municipalities are causing deep frustration. I also ask the government to consider programs involving research into the use of new materials and new construction methods.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: A tremendous amount of work has been done in that field.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In that case I hope the minister will show me that I am wrong in my contentions. I also submit that the government ought to act on the question of interest rates and try to bring them down. Perhaps it might consider some way of allowing people to deduct interest charges from income tax.
May I close by saying that I think the establishment of the ministry I have alluded to is most necessary if the housing problem is to be solved. The minister in charge of the department ought to be responsible for housing as well as for urban development programs, pollution matters, transportation, house financing, the provision of recreational facilities, research into housing and so on. Finally, may I say that in my opinion not only does this bill not meet our problems but it does not even recognize their existence. One reading it might not think that there is a housing problem in Canada.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by making some comments which perhaps may help in the consideration of some of the points which have been raised thus far by opposition speakers in the debate and give a broader perspective to them in a way that I hope will aid in consideration of this very important bill. And this is a bill to which I give my entire support.
Reference has been made to the effect of the federal sales tax on building materials on building costs. But some, I submit, who comment on this effect greatly overestimate the impact of this tax. The rate of federal sales

May 30, 1969
National Housing Act
tax on most building materials is 11 per cent. That does not mean that it adds 11 per cent to the cost of a house. The amount an individual pays for his home includes cost of land, legal fees and the cost of construction. A substantial part of the cost of construction is in the area of labour costs. But only the materials used in constructing the house bear sales tax on their price. The tax is imposed when the materials are sold by the manufacturer and not at the price the builder pays. Therefore, taking all these factors into consideration, it has been estimated that the present federal sales tax on building materials may add between 3 per cent and 4 per cent to the actual cost of construction.
As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has said on a previous occasion and as I said during a late show debate not long ago when speaking on his behalf, one must recognize the hard fact that if important tax reductions were made at the present time the public would either have to pay the same amount of tax in some other way or go without some service or benefit which it has come to expect from the government.
Estimates based on the value of production of building materials and related statistics lead to the conclusion that the sales tax on all building materials now yields over $300 million a year. The revenue from materials used in the construction of housing of all kinds is more difficult to estimate but is believed to be in the area of between $130 million and $140 million. Therefore if the entire sales tax on building materials were to be repealed at this time, obviously some equivalent measure of taxation would have to be introduced to replace it.
An exemption on building materials used only in housing would, of course, involve lower amounts, but the sales tax not obtained thereby would still have to be obtained from other sources. Also, it would be very difficult to administer an exemption restricted to building materials used only for housing construction. As we know, Mr. Speaker, the tax is paid by the manufacturer of materials. He does not know whether the bricks, lumber or glass he produces will be used to build a house or factory. It certainly would not be an easy task to differentiate between residential and non-residential use.
No good answer has ever been given as to why the sales tax on construction material should be eliminated right across the board including, for example, the tax on materials

used in the construction of luxury office towers or luxury apartments. Speaking personally, therefore, I think it would be better to look at this matter in terms of rebates of sales tax to purchasers of low-priced homes, those selling below a certain price.
The other day, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) said that the proposed amendments to the income tax legislation contained in Bill C-191, which alter the method of taxing insurance companies, would have an adverse effect on the supply of mortgage funds in Canada. I believe the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) who spoke a moment ago made the same comment. These hon. members suggested that since these changes increase the tax on insurance companies to some $90 million and since half of the funds of these companies is invested in mortgages, the change would cause a decrease of $45 million in mortgage funds.
While the new tax could have some effect on the amount of funds invested by insurance companies in mortgages, it should be noted that the managements of these companies are not willing to say yet exactly to what extent they will react to the proposed changes. I therefore find it difficult to see how the hon. members who have made statements to the effect that there will be a reduction in the availability of mortgage funds to the extent they have mentioned can make those statements so definitely at this time.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, one could argue that the new tax revenue coming from this tax on insurance companies could help the government to make greater amounts of funds available to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for housing loans and subsidies than it might otherwise be able to do. Such action would certainly tend to offset any decrease in mortgage investments by life insurance companies. In any event, the amount of $45 million is not that much when compared with the total new investment in mortgage loans, which in 1968 amounted to some $2.7 billion. Also, while the possible effect on the supply of mortgage funds is important it should be remembered that the main purpose of these tax changes is to bring the taxation of the insurance industry into line with the taxation of other investment institutions and thereby improve the equity of our tax system.
I believe the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) made some suggestions about passing legislation to compel financial intermediaries or financial institutions to put a certain proportion of their investments into
May 30. 1969

mortgages. I think it should be stressed that the federal government is interested in having a greater supply of mortgage funds from the private sector, but the federal government has up to now and is continuing to put its emphasis on creating conditions which will encourage financial institutions to invest more in mortgages for homes. It will also continue its efforts based on discussion and consultation.
I am told that mortgage companies and trust companies at the present time have about 80 per cent of their investments in mortgages. One might ask whether they could go much higher and retain an appropriate degree of liquidity. Life insurance companies I am told have about 40 per cent of their investments in mortgages. One might ask the same question in this regard.
While it is correct to say that banks and some trust companies and insurance companies are under federal jurisdiction, pension funds are mostly under provincial jurisdiction, as are many trust companies and some insurance companies as well. It has been suggested from time to time that provincial laws regarding investments hamper the degree to which provincially chartered institutions can put money into home mortgages.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
If this is the case, it would seem this is an area for provincial initiative to make the necessary changes in their rules and laws. Coming from the industrial centre of Windsor, I believe industry should do more to meet the wishes of its employees by seeing that more of their pension funds are made available for mortgages for them and for their communities.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) made a rather interesting proposal that the various levels of government should be permitted to begin issuing bonds, the proceeds of which would be used for housing and the interest on these bonds to be deductible from income tax. I suggest this device would be of particular benefit to the wealthy.
There are bonds of this type in the United States. I have seen reports from that country which indicate that some wealthy people there are able to put all of their funds into such tax free bonds and as a result are able to escape paying any income tax at all. The United States government has recently proposed to Congress measures to ensure this
National Housing Act
situation no longer continues. It is rather surprising to see this type of proposal put forward by a member of the N.D.P. I believe this type of exemption-


John Gilbert: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I will be happy to accept a question at the conclusion of my remarks. This exemption will bear heavily on the general population which has to provide the funds for paying the interest and service charges on these bonds. If such bonds were issued and put on the market, they would compete for investment funds with other types of securities. This may have the effect of increasing interest rates. And concern has often been expressed in this house about high interest rates.
The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) suggested that mortgage interest should be deductible from income tax. This type of proposal has been made many times in the past-that home owners should be allowed to deduct municipal tax payments and mortgage home payments from taxable income for income tax purposes. Advocates of this proposal usually point out landlords are allowed to do this with regard to properties they rent to others and therefore homeowners should be allowed to do the same. While this argument seems superficially attractive, there are weaknesses in it. It is true landlords are allowed to consider interest and other charges such as depreciation, however, they are obliged under our tax laws to consider rental payments as revenue. This law does not apply to homeowners.
If this law were changed and the homeowner had to report as income the rent he pays as a tenant on his own property, perhaps then the argument might be made more strongly that he should be able to claim as deductions from income tax costs items such as the payments he makes for mortgage interest. At the present time he is not obliged to report as income what he pays in rent or in effect the investment income he has from living in his own property. The argument might be made in reply therefor that he should not be allowed to claim the costs.
It is interesting to note as I have said that the proposal to which I referred has been mentioned on a number of occasions in the past. The Carter Royal Commission put forward a number of grounds for rejecting it. I will not go over all these grounds, but I want



S2S0 COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
May 30, 1969
National Housing Act
to put on the record that the Carter Commission stated in part such a deduction would be of value to homeowners only and would provide no relief for persons who rent their accommodation. This would put the latter group at a considerable disadvantage. This is of some significance as a prime proportion of the low income group rent their accommodation.
Perhaps some of these thoughts may help in consideration of the points to which they are directed, points which are certainly worthy of consideration in the context of this debate. The federal government has been working to give leadership and assistance in the field of housing, particularly since the end of the second world war. The report of the federal task force on housing pointed out that: "more than one-third of the total national production of housing since 1945 has been carried out" because of federal activity in support of housing. In 1968, 196,800 housing units were started and 210,000' are forecast for this year. If this rate continues, the target called for by the Economic Council of Canada and by the task force to fill Canada's housing needs for the 1965-70 period will clearly be met. It appears, looking at the rate of starts in the first quarter of this year, compared with the rate for the fourth quarter of last year, a rate which is much higher, the results in housing of last year will be substantially exceeded in 1969. It is more than likely that this year will again be a record one for residential construction.
These figures help us to keep this question in perspective. It could be said this activity has certainly been stimulated by the additional measures taken by the federal government last year which have been added to the other measures it has put into effect during the past five years.
As an example of what this meant for one particular urban community, let us look for a moment at what this has meant for housing starts in my own Windsor area. There were only 495 in 1962 but in 1968 there were 1,469, the best year since 1965. In the first three months of 1969 there were more than 1,100 housing starts compared with some 200 or so in the first three months of last year.
If one looks at public housing in Windsor, including senior citizens' units there were 909 in existence in 1963. Today, there are 1,691. Under construction at present are 557 units for senior citizens, with a call out for proposals for the construction of a further 200 family units. This increase in public housing has 
been made possible in my opinion largely through the stimulus of federal government measures implemented in the last five years. And yet, in spite of these efforts and what they have brought about, there still is not a supply of decent housing at a reasonable cost sufficient to meet the demand for it in Canada today-a demand reflecting our rapid urban growth in recent years.
The director of research for the city of Windsor, Mr. C. T. Ouellette, has recently conducted a survey which shows applications for 835 family units and 919 senior citizen units on the active waiting list for public housing in Windsor today. Similar examples can be gathered from almost every urban area of any size in Canada. Obviously, there is certainly more that has to be done. The Canadian people understandably are calling for further action. I think that in presenting this bill at this time the federal government is responding in a positive way to this call for action. Its aim is to help bring about a significant improvement in the supply of homes for Canadians.
Let me touch briefly on some of the changes it covers. A number of them in the bill or in the regulations, I expect, will help more people to be in a position to buy their own homes, people who could not afford to consider doing so before. It provides for increases in maximum loans for both new and older homes, with the effect of lowering the down payment and lessening the need for expensive second mortgage financing. There is an increase in the maximum amortization period to 40 years. This will help bring about lower monthly payments. The reduction of the mortgage insurance fee by 50 per cent will certainly bring about a reduction in cost.
A needed and important change is the increase in maximum loans for older homes. This will help eliminate second mortgage financing which adds to the cost. This step helps bring home ownership more within the means of people with lower incomes who are more likely to be able to afford the prices at which older homes are offered.
This provision, together with another making possible federal loans for the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing homes in urban renewal areas, will help bring about a more effective use of our existing supply of housing. All this means that more of the new homes that are being build will be bringing about an absolute increase in our housing stock instead of simply replacing houses which are torn down during urban renewal, as was the case all too often before.
May 30, 1969
[Stage Direction]
The removal of the provision tying the ceiling on interest rates for N.H.A. mortgages to rates for short term federal borrowing is aimed at encouraging more private funds to be available for home mortgages. It is hoped that by letting the rate find levels based on market forces there will no longer be the same drying up of funds for housing mortgages that used to come about from time to time in the past, when lenders found more attractive opportunities elsewhere. At the same time one looks forward to the government's anti-inflationary measures bringing about a downward pressure on interest rates. And one should not overlook the fact that another recent change in the regulations provides a five year roll-over for N.H.A. mortgages, enabling the borrower at the end of the five years to seek a more advantageous rate if it is available at that time.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The bill rightly reflects the government's desire to give first priority in its policy to meeting the housing needs of low income groups. And the government is therefore also rightly applying this same priority in the way it will be carrying out its own program of direct lending and subsidy payments for housing.
It is extending the bounds within which it will make loans for limited dividend projects, and projects developed by non-profit organizations. There will be much greater scope for action in this field. It will help take care of the needs of people whose incomes may be somewhat above the limits of eligibility for public housing but who are not yet able to find decent housing in the open market, something seen quite frequently in the Windsor area.
These changes provide new opportunities for trade unions, churches, employee pension funds and industrial firms to develop projects with fixed lower levels of rental, and also co-operative housing projects such as the new Solidarity Tower project now being built in Windsor under the auspices of the Union of Automobile Workers with the help of a direct federal loan.
The government was certainly wise in recognizing that the immediate need for shelter for the lower income groups transcended the importance of dealing with the social problems that appear to have been created by the methods of developing public housing previously in use. It is proceeding to allow public housing projects, which had been sufficiently developed so as to be on the verge of
National Housing Act
construction, to proceed, and at the same time it is taking a wise step by going on to work out new approaches to try to eliminate some of the stigma, the social difficulties, that all too often have been attached in the minds of some to living in public housing projects.
Also the willingness of the federal government to share now with the provinces in the cost of acquiring or renting existing units for public housing purposes, will mean a more effective use of existing stock, as well as a step toward lessening the setting apart of people in subsidized housing from the rest of the community.
The increase in the maximum mortgage to $18,000 for older homes will also open the way to an extent not possible before for tenants in public housing units, particularly those whose incomes have gone to or above the maximum to purchase the units in which they live, another matter of great interest to housing in the Windsor area.
An important factor in the present cost of housing is the excessively high cost of serviced land, and its shortage as well, in our urban areas. The bill makes possible a new form of federal action to help tackle this problem. It will make possible loans to provinces or municipalities-I presume with provincial approval-or to provincial housing agencies, of 90 per cent of the cost of acquiring and servicing land, and this land will then be available not only for the building of public housing but now for the first time for private housing as well. These loans, to be made at a preferential rate and for 15 years, should help lower the cost of homes built on land assembled in this way. The existence of such publicly owned land assembly developments should also, through competitive pressure, help hold back the cost of lots on privately assembled land, and therefore the cost of homes built on them.
This measure illustrates how the federal government is in a position to accomplish more in the field of housing at the present time, by taking into account the realities of our present constitution. Under this constitution, over the years, housing has been considered to be essentially under provincial jurisdiction. Certainly problems connected with it, and other urban matters as well, cannot be dealt with by the federal government alone, or solely under its direction. There are many areas of concern which affect the supply and cost of housing which can be dealt with only by the provincial governments and the municipalities.
[Stage Direction]
May 30, 1969
National Housing Act
Examples of these are matters of zoning, planning assessment and building codes. Now' there is need for action in these areas and this action can come only from provincial governments. There is room for more provincial initiative in these and other areas of policy and administration in the field of urban affairs. There is room for more provincial initiative, at the very least, in taking advantage of financial assistance made available by the federal government for housing to the maximum possible degree-something that has not always been the case in the past-in every province of Canada.
To be effective, to get real results today the federal government's method and scope of action must take into account our existing constitutional arrangements. It is not a matter of getting bogged down in "constitutional niceties" or, as some have claimed, in "hiding behind the constitution", but instead, of a facing up to and a dealing with "constitutional realities". And these realities are that our present constitution exists in a certain form. Until it is changed if we want to get anything done right now in the field of housing, or for that matter in any field of activity requiring some form of government support or intervention, we have to be aware of and work within its framework.
If, and as I think it should, the federal government is to do more than it has been doing until now in the field of housing and on other matters of concern to our cities, then it cannot simply ignore our present constitution. If the federal government attempted to do so the results would be confusion, negative confrontation and complications-certainly not the most effective use of taxpayers' money. In other words, more constitutional court cases perhaps, but not more housing.
At the same time when it comes to housing and urban affairs generally, the federal government should exercise its existing constitutional jurisdiction as fully and as creatively as possible. And to the extent that this jurisdiction is lacking, it must then, through cooperation and consultation with the provinces, work out with them arrangements whereby they would exercise their own jurisdiction to fill in the gaps. This co-operative approach has already been used with success in recent years on a number of occasions. It is being used by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) and by the government at the present time to move toward the essential goal of decent housing at reasonable cost for all Canadians.

I should mention, however, that it could be that no matter how creatively used, the present constitution may not enable effective solutions to be found for all current problems. Therefore, while federal and provincial governments are doing what they can to fill the needs of Canadians under the existing constitution, it is in the meantime of real importance to increase the pace of discussions on its reform and change.
Shakespeare once wrote, "The people are the city." Today 75 per cent of our people live in our urban areas. With the continuing trends in this direction it could well come to be said that "Canada is the city," because that is where its people will be. This federal government therefore, if it is to continue to be a meaningful and relevant government for the Canadian people in days to come, cannot fail to be increasingly involved, within its jurisdiction, in finding solutions to the problems of urban life. The biff before us today shows how the government is responding in a positive way to this need for involvement.
John Gilbert: Would the Parliamentary
Secretary permit a question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes.


John Gilbert: With reference to his comment concerning the floating of bonds by the federal government, the provincial governments and municipal governments, would he direct his mind to the statement of the President of C.M.H.C. who said the all absorbing problem is mortgage moneys and that we needed $4 billion for the financing of homes in 1969? On the basis of the performance in 1968 wherein the lending institutions advanced the mere sum of $795 million, and we need about $1,600,000,000 to have them fulfil their commitment of 40 per cent, what recommendations has the Parliamentary Secretary to suggest to increase the amount made available by the lending institutions?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I caught the hon. member's figures correctly. I used the figure of investment by insurance companies alone in 1968 of $2.7 billion. Perhaps we are talking about different things, but in any event it seems to me that you do not solve one problem by creating another one.
It would seem to me that before giving tax benefits, which may help the wealthy people more than the people in lower income groups, something which I hope the hon. member would not support, we should explore other
May 30, 1969

avenues. One of those other avenues is contained in this bill, namely, not to tie the mortgage rate to an artificial level such as the federal borrowing rate, in the hope that this change would stimulate the flow of more private money for mortgages, and also to use the very persuasive and consultative powers of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) to persuade more private money to move into mortgages. I am not talking about higher rates but rather competitive ones. I want to see rates come down. 1 want to see other measures linked with the efforts of the government to decrease the inflationary pressure on the economy and maintain the economy at a high rate, something which has been done very successfully in the days since 1963.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


John Gilbert: I have another question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). Would the hon. member be agreeable to having the Bank of Canada increase the money supply by, say, $17 million which is the amount required by the public sector to take care of housing needs.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Is it the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) speaking or the hon. leader of the Creditiste party? It is difficult to know which. I am surprised that this type of suggestion is put forward so quickly-I shall not say "glibly", because I do not want to appear to be unfair

since I feel he is sincere and wants to do something about solving the housing problem.


John Gilbert: Just answer the question.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I think I did so in the first part of my reply. I believe we must be careful not to do things which will increase inflationary pressures and decrease the value of the money. It is worth looking at, but at first glance it would appear to be like something that would be put forward by the leader of the Creditiste party rather than by the New Democratic party which claims to have some degree of realism in the field of economics.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the member who just spoke. Because he is parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) do we take from his remarks that an official position is being stated to us, namely that the Carter royal commission recommendations in respect of abolition of the 11 per cent sales tax has now gone by the board, or was he expressing a personal opinion?
National Housing Act


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The hon. member has been in the house a number of years and knows that when tax changes are to be made they are put forward in the budget presentation. I am putting forward to the house and for the record some of the difficulties which would seem to make across the board elimination of the tax inadvisable at this time. As I said I do not know why the hon. member is so interested in taking the tax off luxury apartment buildings and big office towers. I did not know that these people need the help. I thought it was needed by those in the lower income group. Although I thank the hon. member for what might be a compliment, in spite of my official position I must say that any announcement of tax charges will have to come from my distinguished senior colleague, the Minister of Finance, in the usual and proper way.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: agree wholeheartedly with all the great statements expounded by my colleague the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) because there is no other issue in the field of urban policy which reflects the urgency that is now felt than does the failure of the government to act on housing. We have had ministers and parliamentary secretaries quote statistics. Well, let them do what "turns them on", but comforting statistics are no substitute for a roof over a person's head.
I say there is something dishonest in ministers and parliamentary secretaries rising to give fulsome statistics on the number of housing starts when they know that proportionately very few are single family dwellings and the majority are out of reach of the average Canadian. We heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say in this house there was no housing problem in Canada. He went to great lengths to prove his point. I am sure, as many Canadians are sure, that his speech did not result in providing, a home for a single family.
The fact is there is a problem. It is serious and because of government refusal to accept the problem, it is growing more serious daily. You cannot just have housing for the wealthy, yet that is the policy followed by this government. They will provide homes for the rich but nothing for the moderate income groups and the poor. I say to the Prime Minister there are poor people in this country. I do not mean people who make less than $20,000 who might be considered poor in the eyes of the rich man's cabinet which sits over

May 30, 1969
National Housing Act
there. I mean real poverty, abject poverty. It is a serious and growing situation.
What happened to the war on poverty? It was lost without a shot being fired. The Prime Minister must learn that poverty is no respecter of racial barriers. It is the same in every language. Bilingualism is no defence against poverty. Poverty is the same in Alberta as it is in Quebec. What is this rich man's government going to do about providing homes for those who cannot afford to house their children? The Prime Minister has never satisfactorily answered the devastating criticism launched by the former minister in charge of housing.
I want to say that the member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) was sincere. He had an honest and sincere desire to improve housing conditions for Canadians. As he said in his statement and in his letter to the Prime Minister, he was touched by the plight of thousands who are poorly housed, ill fed and badly clothed in the big city ghettos of this nation. He was alone in that cabinet in being touched by these problems. Nobody else gave a tinker's dam, so he was forced out. This government has pursued a housing policy dictated by the big builders, completely ignoring the interests of individuals.
Why did we leave the field of public housing? No matter how the Prime Minister may protest, the government's record in public housing is disgraceful. The government is now facing up to the situation and is going into the housing business in co-operation with provincial and municipal bodies by building public housing units at low rents where they are required. I say it is about time.
Only by some such positive and drastic action will the price of homes be brought down. The government should act immediately to remove the iniquitous 11 per cent tax on building materials. We have been told by the former minister of the Prime Minister's reluctance to act, of his falling back on constitutional excuses as a refuge against taking needed action. I say to the Prime Minister the constitution must not become a straitjacket strangling the possibility of necessary action. People come before constitutions.
The disastrous aspect about present government policy, of which the housing failure is a part, is that the government is following a restrictionist policy which is now going to become still more restrictionist. What this country needs is a policy of expansion providing incentives to investment and development; opening the north; maintaining a

Canadian presence, pushing forward the frontiers of science and increasing the level of prosperity and national income for every Canadian. No nation ever worked its way to greatness with welfare policies alone.
In order to save free enterprise in this nation we will have to produce more, save more, invest more and take steps to cut taxes. Taxation is crushing the life out of the economy and the government is responsible. We are told glowingly that all levels of government are spending something like $1,200 for every Canadian. It would be more accurate to say that all levels of government are talcing $1,200 away from every Canadian. This is reflected in a loss of incentive and prosperity which is being siphoned away from the citizen by tax-drunk governments which do not know when to quit. There is little to choose between the high tax welfare and regimentation policies of this government and outright socialism. The government has allowed itself to be overtaken by racing urbanization in the 196Q's. While the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet are preoccupied with arid constitutional speculations thousands are without homes. The government is lagging badly in the social reconstruction required for the buoyant 1970's now on the horizon.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
According to the Economic Council, Canada's population will reach 26 million in 1980, 33 per cent higher than the 1964-66 average. Personally, I regard this as a conservative estimate. Projected figures for total national income show that national income in 1980 will be double the 1966 figure although, in real terms, it will only be 50 per cent higher because of the continuing erosion of inflation. This means that in 10 years we will have lost 50 per cent of our prosperity because of the government's failure to deal with inflation.
It is not enough to say that this government has failed to produce policies to deal with inflation. The fact is that the government's policies have produced inflation on a scale never known in this country in peacetime. The Canada Pension Plan and medicare, as well as huge and irretrievable non-productive government expenditures over a ten year period, have blown up the inflation balloon to a point where it is out of control.
We are now faced with a stagnation of western economic prosperity because the government allowed our world wheat markets to be taken over by the United States, and while prices continue to rise we face a drop in income. This is what the former Minister of
May 30, 1969


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in his speech on Wednesday, the hon. minister responsible for housing placed particular emphasis on housing for low income Canadians. His decision will certainly help in alleviating their present condition. I believed that the minister's priorities have given housing new momentum and Canadians new hope. I shall speak today about Metro Toronto because it is the city I know best, but I have no doubt that similar situations are occurring now or will occur in the future in other parts of Canada. I intend to speak mainly about public housing.
Two years ago a research study of housing needs was commissioned by the metropolitan Toronto planning board. Because of the complexity of the subject matter and the changing conditions of the housing market, this study was completed only in March of this year. This study reveals that for the period starting in 1966 and ending in 1981 there will be a need for approximately 95,000 public housing units in Metro Toronto. This figure is in respect of families of three or more persons with an income of up to $5,640 per annum and experiencing one of four housing inadequcies. The first is an inadequacy resulting from poor structural conditions either alone or in combination with overcrowding. The second is an inadequacy due to poor condition and occupancy by one or more families, either with or without overcrowding. The third is an inadequacy due to occupancy by two or more families, with or without overcrowding, and the fourth is an inadequacy due to overcrowding alone.
This estimated need of 95,000 public housing units was surprisingly high and it required careful study. A criterion was developed for this purpose. They called it the

May 30. 1969
National Housing Act
effective demand ratio. This is the proportion of the total number of eligible families who have applied for public housing and who would accept it when offered to them. This ratio, however, is subject to change. It depends on the availability and acceptance of public housing, on the waiting period, on the choice of location, on the type of dwelling, and also on public awareness. At present it is approximately one to three, which means that one of every three families on the waiting list would accept housing when offered. This ratio is important to planners, administrators, and politicians if they are to forecast the needs for public housing. Perhaps it is important enough to warrant a study under the auspices of C.M.H.C.
After having applied this ratio to the number of public housing dwelling units needed in Metro Toronto for the ten year period from 1971 to 1981, the report recommended 3,500 dwelling units per year over a period of ten years at a cost of $56 million per year in 1969 values. This recommended long term provision of 35,000 dwelling units of public housing for Metro Toronto would go only part way to meeting the housing goals of the report.
The report states that there are 47,000 families who would not apply for public housing but who would still be living beyond their means and in inadequate housing. It also reported that there are a further 134,500 families in middle and lower income brackets who would be unable to afford adequate housing in the open market but would not qualify for public housing under present policies.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Here we hit on the importance of housing programs in the private sector which produce the importance of producing cheaper housing on a large scale and eventually reduce the pressure of the demand for public housing. I refer to low cost, low down payment, condominium projects as at present proposed, and others. Two other factors make the metro Toronto situation rather unique. One is the shortage of suitable sites for housing projects. Metropolitan Toronto is quickly running out of land on which to build. It is becoming obvious that some publicly assisted housing will have to be built in the growth areas of the fringe municipalities.
The second factor relates to the fact that present provincial legislation limits the action of the Ontario Housing Corporation to those municipalities which, like Metro Toronto, have requested a supply of such housing. It is unlikely that the municipalities in the fringe

metropolitan area would request the Ontario Housing Corporation to construct any publicly assisted housing to meet Toronto's demand. The only reason for a request from the town of Mississauga for public housing was a demand from its residents. The situation could be improved only by enlarging the political and economic responsibilities of the metropolitan corporation of Toronto, but so far the provincial government has opposed this suggestion.
In his closing remarks on Wednesday, the minister welcomed suggestions. I shall try to submit a few on the subject of public housing. But before doing so, Mr. Speaker, allow me to look for a moment at the success the private housing industry has had in the provision of apartment buildings. What are the reasons? They are probably these: No. 1, they are conveniently located; No. 2, rents are in fair proportion to the average income; No. 3, there is the ability to offer tenants a wide range of amenities from shopping centres to swimming pools. Our existing legislation for public housing has so far been pretty dull. If we wish to achieve a reasonably successful public housing policy in cities where land costs are almost prohibitive we can learn from the approach adopted by high-rise developers.
If our new legislation reflects the social needs of people living in public housing projects, we will be making progress. For instance, our new legislation could recognize the indispensability of day nurseries in a public housing program, of recreation rooms, of workshops for adults, of recreational areas and adequate open spaces for young people. In co-operation with provincial and municipal authorities, our new legislation could recognize the indispensability of guidance and counselling services in public housing projects in order to assist people to find their way in our rather complex urban life; it could provide guidance and information on the services offered by governments, schools and volunteer agencies, including the increasingly important question of consumers' rights. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that these services are relevant if we are to have well integrated public housing projects.
Like other major national policies, the success of a housing policy rests upon the co-operation of federal departments and other levels of government. I shall devote a few remarks to this aspect later. Investment measures aimed at reducing speculative actions were outlined on Wednesday by the minister. In addition, we must find fiscal measures
May 30, 1969

with the same objective in mind. But this is not the only area of federal responsibility. To house Canadians we need the help of the Department of Transport to develop commuter services into our growing cities. This could sometimes be done by utilizing existing railway lines.
Another federal department which could be helpful in relation to housing is the Department of Manpower, by intensifying its efforts in attracting people to smaller Canadian cities so as to alleviate the pressure for housing in the metropolitan areas. The Department of Regional Development is already helping to bring jobs to Canadians, rather than Canadians to jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I shall now put forward some ideas on the role other levels of government can play in housing Canadians in the coming years. The Assessment Act in the Province of Ontario is a fairly good example of the point I wish to make. It is an outdated act, rurally orientated and blissfully unaware of urban requirements. It penalizes improvements to houses except for a coat of paint; it permits the kind of land speculation we have had in metropolitan Toronto; it offers incentives to demolish buildings and convert them into parking lots, thus adding to urban congestion. Probably other provincial acts affecting housing are in need of revision.
At the municipal level, particularly in Toronto, much could be done. For instance, statistics show that during the last five years houses in Toronto have been demolished at the rate of about 1,000 dwelling units per year. Demolitions have taken place mainly to make room for high-rise buildings, schools, expressways, parking lots, and so forth. Today's housing shortage in Toronto would be a modest one had we planned to encourage high-rise buildings on vacant or commercial lots, keeping the houses we had rather than demolishing them; had we discouraged the construction of cross-town expressways and instead given impetus to public transportation in order to make it highly competitive and reduce the pressure for highways.
Here is another example. I know of one municipality which has gone so far as to prohibit two families living in houses which have a frontage of less than 40 feet. This is the effect of an incredible by-law enacted over ten years ago in the borough of York in Metro Toronto. It is a restrictive measure in times of increasing demand. This is another law at the local level which requires close scrutiny. With sufficient knowledge of the
National Housing Act
subject, one could probably prepare a long list of pieces of legislation enacted at other levels of government which have had a negative effect on our housing policy. Perhaps each of us in this house can play a role in our own constituency and assist the minister in his efforts. But at the same time, I hope funds made available through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will become the medium to effect better planning. After all, if we are to offer the funds we should ensure that they are spent in the best possible way, and that we exercise some indirect planning powers.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? The hon. member directed most of his remarks with regard to the housing problem to metropolitan Toronto.
I know he is a counsellor of the city of Toronto. I wonder whether he would persuade city of Toronto officials to sell the Langstaff property to either the Ontario Housing Corporation or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for public housing purposes. As he knows, in Toronto there is a waiting list of 16,000 for public housing.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Caccia:: I am glad to report in reply that two months ago we were successful in stopping an attempt to sell those farms to private developers. At that time we hoped that legislation would come from the federal government permitting the acquisition of large tracts of land. If the amendments which the minister announced are approved when the bill comes before the house for third reading, they will provide an ideal opportunity to do something along the lines suggested by the hon. member, or something very similar to what he has in mind.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is probably the most important debate that has engaged the attention of the house in this session. I think that whether or not the crisis in housing is recognized, and whether or not a smokescreen has been raised in any corner of the house or outside the house, housing next to security in our country is the greatest keystone to freedom. When a man owns his home and can live in it securely with his family, then you have the keystone to the survival of freedom in the western world. Until the head of every family in Canada has at least the opportunity to own a home, one cannot say that he has either freedom or a real stake in the country. It is one of our prime goals to do the best within our power to ensure that the opportunity is given

May 30. 1969
National Housing Act
to each man to own a home. I do not think, because I am not a socialist, that it is our duty to provide that home tor him. However, in certain cases where we have made it impossible for him to provide it for himself, I think we should take emergency measures to provide temporary homes of some kind.
When I was the member for Athabasca I had 21 Indian reserves in my district, and not one of them had adequate housing. I would go further and say that out of the 21 reserves not more than three had any decent housing whatsoever. There were probably 18 that had no good housing and only three had any decent Canadian housing. I am sure that hon. members will bear with me for mentioning this because this is the area where the shortage is most acute. By their own lack of foresight when they drew up their treaties with us, these people have failed to ensure that we give them the opportunity to obtain homes for themselves. Perhaps in a situation such as this we must step into the housing field and provide shelter for these people until they obtain full citizenship rights and are able to provide it for themselves.
So far as economic ghettos in our cities are concerned, and they cannot be called anything else, we have also been neglectful in this respect. All governments can be blamed for neglect in this area. Nobody wishes to take the blame for it, but I do not want to see any more of the constitutional smokescreen being thrown up.
I have not always seen eye to eye with the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), and I do not suppose if he were to come back as minister responsible for housing I would see eye to eye with him. Nevertheless, I think he made an honest attempt to cut through the smokescreen and to let in some fresh air. At least to he took some positive and definite action by travelling across the country and talking to people who were involved. His task force came up with a report which should not be ignored. In the amendments to the act which appear in Bill C-192 the government, after having got rid of the former minister of transport, accepted the advice contained in the report of the task force and is now belatedly trying to plug some of the holes in the act. Not only should they have seriously considered the report but they should have acted on most of the recommendations contained in it. I am quite sure that even if they were not able to act on most of the recommendations because of constitutional limitations, both the provincial and municipal levels of government would have been more than 
willing to go along with a great many of the recommendations in the report.
I do not usually trot out my legal knowledge, but my main reason for taking legal training was to find out exactly what roadblocks the constitution of Canada sets up in matters like this. I can say that our constitution is sufficiently flexible to allow men of goodwill to get around any constitutional hitch there may be in our efforts to take action for the welfare of our country. It is not the constitution which is wrong but rather those people who try to use it as an obstruction and as an excuse when they are either unable or unwilling to handle the matter.
The problem does not only lie in providing enough money for housing under the N.H.A. We might use all the money in the treasury and things might still go wrong. I happen to think like the last member who spoke. I was glad to hear a member on the government side have the courage to say that not everything is well and that not all the wisdom is concentrated on the front bench opposite. I do not know whether C.M.H.C. has been allowed to use its initiative and I do not think that members of the house who have been in support of bills to provide more money for housing under the N.H.A. ever intended any of the money to go into high-priced high rise apartments. That is not the kind of emergency measure to which I am referring.
The large corporations of Canada, whether they are publicly owned or whether they are owned by the tycoons of industry, can well afford to raise money on the Canadian, the United States or the international markets, to build the high rise apartments of their choosing, with penthouses and rents ranging anywhere from $200 to $1,000 a month. They would do that no matter what C.M.H.C. says. In my opinion it would be a misuse of public money to give it to those people who already have a monopoly in the money affairs of our country. They should not be allowed to dip into the treasury.
I believe it is the intention of this parliament to make money available to the young married couples in Canada, particularly to those starting out in life who wish to own a home of their own and who do not want to be saddled with debts for the rest of their lives. There are many things that the constitution allows us to do to ensure that the explosion in the price of land is stopped. It cannot be stopped by allowing unfettered ownership and use of the land by private industry. We have restricted the so-called liberties of man
May 30. 1969

before now in cases where there have been abuses.
In my opinion, the exploitation of land adjacent to the large metropolitan areas of Canada is a standing disgrace. We are all too ready to complain about our labour unions when they go on strike for higher pay. If one has to pay $300 for rent one has to get sufficient pay somewhere, unless one is ready to steal the money. The only way that I know to get the money is to ask for more pay, but industry is not that anxious to give it to you unless you are ready to make a strong demand. I am quite sure that if we could ensure reasonable rents, there would not be so much need for strikes. The question of housing is tied in intimately with our whole economic structure, and our economic structure is tied to our so-called ideologies. "Revolution" is a word I hear bandied about. If you are a super-Conservative you join a revolution against the working man, and if you are a working man you revolt against the blue-blooded tories, and so forth. I agree with revolution, but let us have a revolution against the hidebound idea that some people do not have as much right as other people to make a decent living and to live as well as the other fellow in the country. This kind of revolution I will join.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
There is a need for this kind of revolution on the front benches opposite as much as in the extreme left side of the house where we often hear of men's duty to each other. Whether or not them methods are the right ones is another argument. However, I do not want to get into that argument today. Instead, I want to explore the housing problem. I do not think we are taking a proper look at the way to balance the economy of Canada. It is the avowed purpose of this government, it seems, to close down the small family farms. If these farmers are driven into the cities we just cannot forget about them. The housing problem is not going to solve itself. If it is government policy to drive the farmers from small family farms and fishermen with small operations into the cities, then we must have a housing policy to deal with the situation. Housing is the second most important thing in life. The first is personal freedom, and the second is shelter for one's family and food on the table. Without that you have trouble.
It is to the credit of the Canadian people that we have not had far more trouble than we have. Lack of housing is something that
National Housing Act
gets into more corners than racism or language rights. For my own part I would not particularly worry which language my children spoke so long as their stomachs were full. If my children did not have food I would do almost anything to get it. I will compromise on language and culture, but I will not compromise on empty stomachs or on a system of government that deprives my children of an opportunity to be decently housed. How people can be so patient when we frustrate them, I do not know.
We do not have 20 years to think about this problem. If we do not solve it we will be replaced, and if we are not replaced we should be. Therefore, let us get down to brass tacks and make sure that the funds are available through C.M.H.C. to build houses. Let the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) not tell us there is something sacred about interest rates, because there is not. After all, money is artificial. It has no value at all except among Canadians, who honour the piece of paper on which a certain value is printed. We could have a gold standard, a timber standard or a fish standard. What the Bank of Canada does is to honour a promissory note. I think the Social Crediters are right when they say money could be made available free of interest. Under our law money could be made available at a reasonable rate of interest if we wanted to pay the price and made sure exorbitant profits were not made.
Coupled with a housing policy there must be a monetary policy, an economic policy. We must develop basic industries like farming, fishing and lumbering. We must think about conservation. If our young people want to stay on relief all summer instead of fighting forest fires, or patrolling our forests, or being surveyors, then this means we have lost our grip in terms of pioneering, of working with our hands. Under such conditions the price of housing will go up. There is no magic about this; we must have timber to build houses, and we must have it at a reasonable price.
One hon. member made the point that the sales tax on building materials does not really affect the price of a house. I submit that is patently ridiculous. I agree we must get revenue from somewhere, but I question that this is the proper place to raise it. I have never questioned the right to tax me for the liquor I drink, and I am not a teetotaller. Luxuries like this are a perfectly proper place to raise taxes. But I do not think taxing the bricks and boards with which I try to build a modest home for a modest family is the proper place.

May 30, 1969
National Housing Act
The hon. member suggested, if I understood him correctly, that instead of the tax being 11 per cent, in effect it represented only 3 per cent on the cost of the home alone. It seems to me he is looking at the problem through the wrong end of the telescope. I suggest the 11 per cent grows to 14 per cent, 16 per cent or even 18 per cent when one thinks of mortgage cost. By the time you have finished paying off your mortgage you have paid double the value of your home. Every time you put on another tax the price increases. As I said before it is a vicious circle. If you charge your tenant too much rent, he will want too much for wages.
I have done a lot of criticizing and my suggestion is this. Having provided more money under the National Housing Act for mortgages as a stop gap measure, the government must now turn its attention to restoring the country to full employment. We must train people for employment, and this should be part of our policy. We must not put all our eggs in one basket. Since we have put more money into mortgages under the National Housing Act we might also put more money into trade training and into research.
I am glad to see that under this bill some money is set aside for research into housing. A great deal of the wealth that will come into the coffers during the next 20 years will originate north of the 60th parallel. Housing is going to be a problem in the north, perhaps forever. Money for housing will not come easily in the north. Therefore, we shall have to pick up the tab and provide housing in the north for construction workers, explorers, government employees and other people. I think that is a fair tax upon the government purse, because it is in this way that will expand the Canadian economy. Through the expenditure of a few extra hundred millions on housing we will produce more minerals, more oil, more timber and fish, as well as more security.
We cannot expect private industry to underwrite the cost of building houses at Coppermine, because as soon as the Coppermine Company has taken all of the minerals out of that area it will move on to another area, as was the case at Elliott Lake. Therefore, I suggest we should examine the possibility of providing mobile homes, or aluminum homes, properly insulated which can be taken into the north by snowmobile or tractor. Then, when a company is ready to move to the next mine these mobile homes can be rented to the next developer.

I do not think we should be so wooden about this. We should not throw up our hands and say we cannot get mortgage money, and therefore we cannot develop the north. What we require are the proper houses with the proper type of financing. Let us hear no more about northern development being impossible because our forefathers in 1867 did not understand atomic energy and other substances that are being produced at Coppermine River. We can supply the answers if only we use our brains. This is the right attitude for progress. Let us put first things first. Let us spend a little less time empire building, standing before the mirror and sitting before T.V. Let us spend a little more time solving our problems, instead of dreaming up fancy notions about why we cannot do so.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, the Liberals, then sitting on the opposition side, missed no opportunity to criticize the legislation introduced by the government, nor to jeer at the future envisioned by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
Even though this government has been in power for only a few months, it is time to point out the inaction, the idleness and the incompetence of those who are administering the country, particularly in the housing field.
The expression "the great illusions" would describe perfectly the policy and the legislation brought forward since the opening of parliament. As you know, the word "illusion" comes from the Latin word "illusio" and from the Latin verb "illudere" which means "to mock at". It is defined in the dictionary in these terms:
A perception that represents what is perceived in a way different from the way it is in reality.
Therefore, according to that definition, in introducing the housing bill, the government is creating illusions. They are treating the people with derision and contempt. The government is trying to make us believe that the moon is made of green cheese. They want to give hope to the people with Bill C-192, but in fact they are not fooling anybody. This is a deceiving bill. They are simply deluding and deceiving themselves, because we know what they are driving at, when they bring in hastily and at full steam a put-up, incomplete and inadequate bill which is not going to
May CO, 1969

meet the housing needs of the people of Canada.
Mr. Fernand Beauregard, of the newspaper La Presse, made a very good analysis of the reasons for the ruthless introduction of this bill. After having briefly considered the main provisions of the bill, in the April 30 issue, he concluded his article as follows:
Coming less than five days after the resignation of the minister Paul Hellyer, in charge of housing in the cabinet, the tabling of this bill will undoubtedly lessen the concern of those who deplored the procrastination of the Trudeau government about the housing problem.
According to this newspaperman, the bill will not result in more houses being built, in Canadians getting more decent and more reasonable dwellings, but it will lessen, and I quote:
-the concern of those who deplored the procrastination of the Trudeau government-
-about the housing problem.
And the article concludes as follows:
All seems to indicate anyhow that the Prime Minister has speeded up the introduction of that bill, in order to make it more difficult to accept at their face value the reasons put forward by the Minister of Transport to explain his resignation.
We realize that the people are not taken in, nor are the reporters who, however greatly they contributed to create Trudeaumania or Trudeaulatry, are beginning to detect the clearly political intentions behind the government bills.
We can only hope that the reporters of the written and spoken press will continue in that direction and will not be afraid of fustigating governmental policy, especially in the case of legislation such as the bill now before us.
In short, what does Bill C-192 say? What does it offer to alleviate the housing crisis which prevails in Canada? Here are its main provisions: It increases the amounts available under the National Housing Act; it extends, for some types of loans, the repayment term; finally, it eliminates the ceiling on the interest rates for loans granted under the National Housing Act.
The bill under consideration, as most of the others that are considered in the house, except perhaps the omnibus bill, deals only with financial matters. In other words, it admits that members of the Ralliement credi-tiste are right in saying that the financial problem is the main problem in Canada, in provinces as well as in municipalities.
This bill deals only with loans, repayment, repayment terms and interest rates. All those
National Housing Act
questions pertain to finance and are related to the monetary problem. Therefore, we cannot blame the members of the Ralliement credi-tiste, who contend that the financial problem is the most important we have to solve, to take part in this debate, which bears exclusively on financial questions.
The housing problem is a financial problem. The Hellyer report on housing and urban development, at page 13, deals with this urgent question. Urgency is the word which permeates the whole report. Secondly, the report deals with the interest rate increase, but not as extensively. The report says, and I quote:
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. In a world of rising need and increasing expectations, a bit more and a bit better are not good enough.
And immediately after, the Hellyer reports deals with what follows, and I quote:
The Task Force is convinced that Canada has the resources, material, technological and intellectual, to meet these needs and problems.
Mr. Speaker, that is what the Creditistes have always maintained. Canada has the necessary material and technological resources to meet those needs and problems. Canada has all the manpower needed to build houses. In fact, thousands of unemployed workers are anxious to find jobs; thousands of construction workers are unemployed and would be very glad to build houses for Canadians who need them.
Canada now has engineers, architects and technicians capable of conceiving harmonious housing projects where Canadian families will be housed decently.
We also have building materials. Canadian cement plants, for instance, are only producing at 75 per cent of their capacity and steel plants are able to turn out iron, steel and any other ferrous metal. Lumber dealers are ready to sell the logs which are piling up in their yards. The Canadian forest industry is only too happy to produce more lumber and to meet the needs of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the Hellyer report also said, and I quote:
The Task Force is convinced that Canada has the resources, material, technological and intellectual, to meet those needs and problems.

May 30, 1969
National Housing Act The Hellyer report is excellent. It was presented to us, here, in Parliament. I want to congratulate the man responsible at that time for the housing program. I believe he is a very courageous man. The work he did was tremendous in finding what we have known for five years.
As I have just said, I agree with the task force when they state that Canada has the material and technological resources to meet the present demand for decent housing for Canadians.
But when I read the bill before us, that is Bill C-192, I doubt that Canada has the intellectual resources to use these natural and technological resources because the government is unable to make the mental effort necessary to make available to those who want to build homes, the financial resources of the Bank of Canada. As a matter of fact, the government refuses to adapt the financial system to the physical realities of this country.
The intellectual resources are lacking, I say. Intelligence is wanting among the authors of Bill C-192. Larousse says that intelligence is the ability to perceive, to understand. The government will not recognize, understand and make financially possible what is physically possible and morally desirable, and this because their minds are unable to understand or perceive.
However, when applying the philosophic principle according to which whatever enters the mind first enters the senses, we must admit that the sensory perceptions of the Liberal members are obviously defective since those members have eyes that see not and ears that hear not. Mr. Speaker, if their intelligence is not functioning, if it is not aware of the means to solve financial problems, it is because they fail to see and they do not want to understand. In short, their ears are plugged and I would even say they are "controlled". By whom? By big capitalists who are eager for returns on their capital and who thus increase their income.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
We shall then try again to unplug their ears, to open their eyes and to teach them the creditiste language in financial matters.
At page 31 of the Hellyer report regarding the availability of mortgage funds and the increase in interest rates, one reads:
To secure an adequate supply of mortgage funds is not necessarily to ensure that such funds will be available at rates of interest which bring housing costs within the range of the average Canadian 
wage-earner. Indeed, there seems no question that the sharp rise in its cost during the past 30 months has been the largest single factor in placing the price of home-ownership beyond the reach of many middle-income Canadians. A rise of one percentage point in interest rates adds more than $9 to the monthly payment on a $15,000 25-year mortgage. A two percentage point increase in the same mortgage raises the monthly payment by some $19 and the total cost over 25 years by about $5,700.
Further, it is said quite timidly, and I quote:
If the cost of money is easily identifiable as the major factor in the rising price of housing in Canada, it also unfortunately is the most difficult problem for which to find a simple solution. There are no simple solutions ... Something can be done and the Task Force is urging to do it in the strongest possible terms.
Mortgage interest rates must come down. The alternative is to continue to deny large numbers of Canadians access to the housing market or to face the prospect of government action unpalatable in force or cost.
Mr. Speaker, after all that procrastination, those delays and those labour pains, the Hellyer Task Force gave birth to a mouse, which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did not abort, but instead rushed to deliver that it might be, as expressed in section 195(1) of the Criminal Code: "...completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not it has breathed, it has an independent circulation, or the naval string is severed". And so the government gave birth to that mouse in order to solve the financial problem of those who want better housing, and so that the interest rate on loans granted under the National Housing Act might freely find their own level in the financial market place.
That is intelligent but irresponsible control. In a trice, the Task Force rejects the idea of subsidizing interest rates, on the ground that it would cost too much in annual subsidies. Subsidies would cost-states the report- starting with four per cent for those earning less than $4,000 a year and dropping one percentage point per $1,000 up to $7,000, "more than $60 million a year for the 25 year life of the mortgage."
The Task Force feels that $60 million a year is too much to house adequately the 296,000 non-farm families in that income range, although those same 296,000 families pay, alone, more than a third of the income tax collected by the government.
The government says it costs too much to help the low income families and, as an alternative solution, it offers a 9|, 10 or 10J per
May 30, 1969

cent interest rate and perhaps more, depending upon the greediness of financiers who control the Canadian economic life.
Such is the policy offered by the government. It is, in our opinion, a retrograde one that must absolutely be rejected.
A few days ago, during the debate on the occasion of the Minister of Transport's resignation, the leader of the Ralliement creditiste (Mr. Caouette), quoted at length the recommendations made by Mr. Gaston Bardet, dean of studies at the Higher International Institute of Applied Town Planning in Brussels, who advocates among other things, and I quote:
-loans without interest are the only thing that can take us out of the housing stalemate.
As to housing, Mr. Bardet writes that there is no way out if the state becomes usurer. We condemn voracious financial companies, but when the state practises such usury, we must denounce it in the most vigorous terms.
The state does not have to practise usury nor to borrow for public financing, for that could be done by applying the Social Credit guidelines.
The Hellyer report said, and I quote:
If the cost of money is easily identifiable as the major factor in the rising price of housing in Canada, it also unfortunately is the most difficult problem for which to find a simple solution.
A few years ago, the present Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) started his political career by attacking what he called "the Creditiste myth". Such attacks, on top of the numerous titled awarded him by the big financial interests, finally brought him political rewards.
I cannot go over all the shabby, fallacious and deceiving arguments used by the present Postmaster General and Minister of Communication because my time is running short.
After reading the Hellyer report will the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications tell us whether it is a myth or usury? Will the minister tell us whether it is a myth when the Canadian government makes interest free loans to foreign countries? Will the minister tell us whether it was a myth when, in the period between the great wars, Germany financed a building program practically without interest or at a 1.5 per cent rate, just enough to cover the administration costs?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being four o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members'
National Housing Act
business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions and public bills.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion among members who are interested in these bills. I think there will be agreement, and I put this proposition to the house, that the house might meet during the period set aside for private members' business for the purpose of considering Item No. 1, namely, the report stage and the consequent third reading of a bill relating to The Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation. Following this disposition the house would then adjourn.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I understand there have been certain discussions to which I have not been privy. There might be some possibility of making progress on Item No. 11, the private bill of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), respecting the Nova Scotia Savings & Loan Company. I wonder if there is any possibility after dealing with Bill S-7, of dealing with Bill S-34? Perhaps there could be some agreement to this effect.


Frank Howard: It is difficult to do all of these things at once, but I think there might be a disposition to include in the order, if the house desires, a special order to consider Item No. 1, Bill S-7, and to put item No. 11, second reading and consequent referral to the committee of Bill S-34, in a position of priority so it will stand as Item No. 1 during the next alloted period for private bills. There would be agreement to this.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 21, consideration of Bill S-7, respecting the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation
Private Bills as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and on the amendment (Mr. Saltsman) page 5826.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
question is on the amendment.


Frank Howard: Because I have spoken on the amendment, Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order to get the floor to say that with the concurrence of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) I ask permission of the house to withdraw the amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlelon) moved:: That Bill S-7, respecting the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.
May 30, 1969


Duncan Gordon Blair: that the bill be read a third time and do pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill S-34, an act respecting Nova Scotia Savings & Loan Company (Mr. McCleave).
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think the understanding was that this bill would simply be put at the head of the list the next day that the item, consideration of private members' bills, comes up.


Robert Jardine McCleave: This was my understanding too, Mr. Speaker, and I am grateful to the hon. members who arranged it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: If this was the agreement, then the order stands. Pursuant to special order made earlier this day, this house stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock.
At 4.05 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.



Monday, June 2, 1389