1969-05-28

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: Statistics are not now maintained in a manner which would readily provide this information. To obtain this and other information requested in the question at this time would necessitate the carrying out of a special survey throughout the department both in Canada and abroad and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to provide an accurate answer. This special survey would also require an extremely large expenditure.
Attention is directed to Hansard, page 2401-2, dated September 25th, 1967.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF BUREAU OF STATISTICS PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No. 1,697.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF TRANSPORT PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Department of Transport, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4 During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5. How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No.
1,697.
9150	COMMONS DEBATES	May 28, 1969
Questions
LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF VETERANS LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF SOLICITOR AFFAIRS PERSONNEL	GENERAL PERSONNEL


Mr. Forlin: 1.	In the Department of Veterans Affairs, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (e) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No.
1,697.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF AGRICULTURE PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Department of Agriculture, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No.
1,697.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Department of Solicitor General of Canada, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No.
1.697.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF POST OFFICE PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Post Office Department, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No.
1.697.
May 28. 1969


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Department of Defence Production, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No. 1,697.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF FISHERIES PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Department of Fisheries, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No. 1,697.
Questions


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF HEALTH AND WELFARE PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Department of National Health and Welfare, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No. 1,697.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF LABOUR PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Department of Labour, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No. 1,697.

May 28, 1969
Questions
LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF CONSUMER AND LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF EXTERNAL CORPORATE AFFAIRS PERSONNEL	AFFAIRS PERSONNEL


Mr. Foriin: 1 In the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No.
1.697.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF SECRETARY OF STATE PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Department of the Secretary of State, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No.
1.697.


Mr. Foriin: 1.	In the Department of External Affairs, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No.
1,697.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF INDIAN AFFAIRS PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Norlhern Development):: May 28. 1969 Executive Category	COMMONS DEBATES Administrative and Foreign Administrative Service Support Operational Category Category Category	Questions Technical Category	9153 Scientific and Professional Category2	88	158	30	18	228(b)	20	1,039	1,200	532	247	2,024(c)	nil	16	43	39	5	73(d)	4	138	190	24	21	3432. (a)	10	-	nil	13(b)	-	123	-	-	20	190(c) (d)	-	1 15	=	-	nil 1	2 253. (a)	2	3	-	-	-	nil(b)	20	27	-	-	-	8(c)	nil	nil	-	-	-	1(d)	4	6	-	-	24.	5	359	475	98	57	1,0081	33	50	3	3	90(b)	4	322	410	91	53	891(e)	nil	4	15	4	1	27(d)	2	52	67	8	4	1275. (a)	83	17	-	9	21(b)	-	9	15	-	3	4


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF FORESTRY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL
Mr. Foriin: 1.	In the Department of Forestry and Rural Development, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No.
1,697.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Department of Manpower and Immigration, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4 During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5. How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No.
1,697.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF PUBLIC WORKS PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1 In the Department of Public Works, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category

May 28, 1969
Questions
and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No.
1.697.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF JUSTICE PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Department of Justice, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?


Yves Forest: See
the reply made this day to question No.
1.697.


REPRESENTATIONS TO WESTERN REGIONAL DESK
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many representations have been made to the Western Regional Desk since its inception?
2.	How many of these representations have been dealt with satisfactorily?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: 1. As stated in the answer to Question No. 1008, the duties of the Regional Desk Officers include acting as a liaison between the Prime Minister and those voluntary organizations which concern themselves with issues and problems common to many Canadians, and to be of assistance to Members of Parliament in their dealing with the Prime Minister and his office. In these respects, the Regional Desk Officers act upon suggestions and requests received by them both in Ottawa and in the regions for which

they are responsible in whatever form they are received. Necessarily, much of the work of the officers is done in the form of person-to-person discussions and in telephone conversations. By virtue of the fashion in which these representations are made, no record of the number of representations made to it is kept by the Western Regional Desk.
2.	Again, as stated in the answer to Question No. 1,008, the Regional Desk Officers refer problems of citizens which come to their attention to the Prime Minister, the Member of Parliament for the area, a governmental department or other appropriate government agency as seems most appropriate, having regard to the nature of the problem. The Western Desk Officer makes every effort to deal satisfactorily with all representations made to him.


SALARIES OF GOVERNOR GENERAL AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS
Mr. Laprise: What is the total of salary and administrative costs attributable to the Governor General and the provincial Lieutenant-Governors?


James Edgar Walker: I am informed by Government House as follows:
Governor General

Salary.	46,504.
Allowance for operating Rideau Hall and the Citadel, including the cost of entertainment, gifts,
Governor	General's medals,	etc.	72,000
Office of the Secretary to the Governor General
Salaries.	371,948
Other administrative costs, including travelling expenses, telephones, telegrams, stationery, materials	and supplies, etc.	76,154
Order of Canada
Salaries.	12,375
Initial organizational expenses including design and production of new insignia and travel costs for recipients	in Centennial Year.	66,498
645,479
The above figures are for the fiscal year 1967-68 as the final expenditures for 196869 are not yet available.
May 28, 1969

Lieutenant-Governors
	1968-69 Salaries	1968-69
	(Statutory)	Grants*
	$	$
Alberta	18,000	15,000British Columbia	18,000	18,000Manitoba	18,000	15,000New Brunswick	18,000	12,000Newfoundland	18,000	12,000Nova Scotia	18,000	12,000Ontario	20,000	18,000Prince Edward Island	16,000	10,000Quebec	20,000	18,000Saskatchewan	18,000	15,000Total	182,000	145,000
* Grants as detailed in the 1968-69 Estimates to the Lieutenant-Governors of the Provinces of Canada towards defraying the costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE NEWS BRIEFINGS
Mr. Paproski: During the three background briefings by federal officials for news reporters attending the Constitutional Conference referred to in the answer to question Number 1,531 at page 7313 of Hansard March 31, 1969, did these officials make reference to the probable position that certain Premiers of the Prairie Provinces might take and, if so, whose opinion did they express?


James Edgar Walker: As stated in the answer to question number 1,531, the purpose of the background briefings was to provide answers to reporters' questions concerning positions taken by the Government of Canada at the Conference. It is possible that in the course of one or more of these briefings references might have been made to public statements of position made by some of the 10 Provincial Premiers. If, in explaining federal positions, some speculation were advanced with respect to the possible future position of any Provincial Government, this would have been in a hypothetical sense and for purposes of illustration only.


LENNOX ISLAND RESERVE DEVELOPMENT WORKER
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	Is there a community development worker presently engaged on the Lennox Island Reserve on Prince Edward Island and, if not, when is it contemplated that one will be appointed?
29180-580J
Questions
2.	What is his name, when did he begin his activities and what is the nature of his responsibility?
3.	What further steps are being taken to assist the members of this particular Band by way of improved housing, education and transportation facilities to the mainland?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. No.
The Superintendent is a former community development worker and regular visits to Lennox Island are made by community development consultants from the Department's regional office. The Prince Edward Island Department of Development is responsible for implementing the recently-signed Comprehensive Plan for Development (a federal-provincial agreement under ARDA), and will be employing a community development worker in the Lennox Island area.
-2. N/A.
3.	The housing and education programs administered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are available to the Lennox Island Band. The Department will be working closely with the provincial Department of Development and the Lennox Island Band, in the preparation of development plans for the area which include possible transportation links to the mainland.


REPRESENTATIONS TO ATLANTIC REGIONAL DESK
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many representations have been made to the Atlantic Regional Desk, by whom, and what has been the nature of each request since its inception?
2.	What decision has been reached in each case?


James Edgar Walker: 1 and 2. The duties and procedures of the three Regional Desks were set forth in the answer to Question No. 1,008 and referred to in the answer to Question No. 1,862. As revealed in the answer to the latter question, representations made to the Regional Desk Officers take the form of telephone conversations and personal interviews as well as communications in writing. As a result, no record of the number, the name of the person making the representation, or the decision reached is kept by the Atlantic Regional Desk or either of the other two Regional Desks.

May 28, 1969
Questions


EUROPEAN TRIP OF MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Harding: 1.	What was the purpose of the recent trip to Europe of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	What countries did he visit and which government officials did he meet?
3.	Did he meet with representatives of any business concerns and, if so, what are the names of the companies they represented?
4.	Did any officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the National Energy Board accompany the Minister?
5.	Were there any consultations between the officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and other government departments prior to the Minister's trip and, if so, what other departments?
6.	Have any commitments for exploration or requests for further information been received resulting from the trip and, if so, from whom?
7.	Was the Government of Alberta and were the governments of other provinces informed of the Minister's trip prior to his departure for Europe?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. To
meet with senior government and industry-officials in five major European cities to promote resource development in Canada's north.
2.	Rome, Italy, March 16-18; Ambassador, C. C. Crean; Ministry-Counsellor, Mr. G. F. C. Hughes; Second Secretary (Comm.), Mr. C. Renaud; Minister of Industry, The Hon. Mario Tenassi. Paris, France, March 18-22; Ambassador, M. P. Beaulieu; Minister Counsellor, C. O. R. Rousseau; Mr. A. Bettencourt, Minister of Industry, France. Berne and Zurich, Switzerland, March 22-25; Ambassador, S. A. Roberts; Commercial Secretary, G. E. Blackstock. Dusseldorf, W. Germany, March 25-27; Ambassador, R. P. Bower; Consul General, G. A. Browne; Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, Diether Beneke, North-rhine, Westphalia. London, England, March 27-30; High Commissioner, Charles Ritchie; Minister (Comm.), L. H. Ausman. Lord Chal-font, Minister of State, Britain, (Foreign and Commonwealth Office).
3.	In each of the five major cities the Minister met the leading bankers, industrialists and industry leaders. At each meeting the Minister delivered a 15 to 20 minute address on resource development and mineral potential of Canada's north. The film "The North has Changed" (in English, French or German version as appropriate) was then shown, followed by a question period. During the one

to two hour reception period which followed, the Minister had an opportunity to meet most of the guests and answer questions directly. In addition to meeting guests at the film receptions, meetings were held with the following companies:	(1) Entreprise de Recherches et D'Activites Petrolieres; (2) De-minex; (3) Thyssen; (4) Mannesmann; (5) Ma-tallgesellschaft; (6) Bayer; (7) Rothschild.
4.	No.
5.	Yes. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and External Affairs.
6.	No commitments have been made for exploration, however, requests for further information have been received from the following firms: (a) Entreprise de Recherches et D'activites Petrolieres; (b) Elf Oil Exploration and Production Co.; (c) Berne Newspaper "Der Bund"; (d) de Rothschild; (e) Dresdner Bank.
7.	No.


MOOSONEE EDUCATION CENTRE
Mr. Roy (Timmins): 1.	What were the invoiced charges per day, per student, to the Department of Manpower and Immigration for the following courses given at the Moosonee Education Centre during the months of September, October, November and December 1968: Construction Labourer's course, Heavy Equipment Operators course, Hotel and Hospital Services course?
2.	What were the invoiced charges for similar courses given in Timmins or other locations nearest Moosonee?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minisier of Manpower and Immigraiion):: 1.
Name of Course	Start Date	Estimated Cost Per Day Per Student* $Construction Labourer	October 15, 1968	8.00Heavy Equipment Operators	October 15,1968	15.00Hotel and Hospital Services	October 15, 1968	6.00
* The province has received interim payments at these rates. Final claims for actual costs on the basis of expenditures incurred are to be submitted by the province before April 1, 1970.
2. Estimated cost per day per student for similar courses in other locations are the same as for the Moosonee Education Centre.
May 28, 1969


STUDENT ATTITUDES TO INDIAN PROBLEMS
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development received a report on student attitudes to Indian problems pursuant to a service contract dated September 8, 1968?
2.	What monies were paid, and to whom, with respect to work done in the preparation of the said report whether or not it is completed?
3.	By what name is the said report known?
4.	To whom has the report been distributed?
5.	Is the government prepared to make the said report available to (a) all Indian Bands and (b) Parliament and, if not, for what reason?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This Department has no knowledge of any service contract dated September 8, 1968 or any subsequent report on student attitudes to Indian problems pursuant to that service contract.


&quot;THE WINDOW&quot;
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Does the Ontario Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development produce a publication called "The Window"?
2.	If so, has anyone, other than a departmental employee, been engaged in any phase of its design layout preparation, production, distribution or other work with respect to it and, if so, what is the name and address of each such person, the work performed and the amount paid for such work?
3.	What is the monthly cost of producing and distributing this publication?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes.
2. The first issue of The Window was published in March, 1966 and until April, 1969, private agencies were not involved in any aspect of the work required to publish The Window. Berger, Tisdall, Clark and Lesley Limited, Public Relation Consultants, P. O. Box 61, Toronto-Dominion Centre, Toronto, were contracted to take over the publication Window, and the first issue of the newsletter was produced by them in April 1969. The Canadian Government Printing Bureau prepared the plates and did the actual printing.
The cost of producing this issue and printing 1,500 copies of Window are as follows: Art Work for Mast Head done by Mr. W. Turnbull, 36 Drury Crescent, Bramalea, Ontario, $50.00; Set-up of Final Copy done by Mr. Wright, Plant Manager, Canadian Government Printing Bureau, Cold Type Composition Section, 208-36 Adelaide Street, Toronto, Ontario, $101.00; Plates and Printing done by Mr. G. Deane, Branch Manager, Canadian
Questions
Government Printing Bureau, 1 Front Street, Toronto, Ontario, $110.68; Total cost, $261.68. 3. Approximately $225.00.


MAIL TRANSPORT BY AIR CANADA
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	In each of the last ten years, what amount was paid to Air Canada for the transportation of mail for the Post Office Department?
2.	What would have been the total amounts if the per ton mile rate had been the same as that in effect in the United States?
3.	What is the expected annual increase as a result of the "all up" policy announced by the Postmaster General last October?
4.	What efforts are currently being made to reduce the air transportation costs of Canadian mail?
5.	What consulting firm is studying the matter?
6.	When was its report submitted to the Minister?
7.	When will the said report be made public?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: In so far
as the Post Office Department is concerned:
1.	The amounts paid to Air Canada for the transportation of mail by the Post Office Department in the last ten years are, as follows:
Fiscal Year	Total
1959-60	$ 9,941,925
1960-61	10,234,868
1961-62	10,212,570
1962-63	10,511,136
1963-64	11,073,498
1964-65	12,064,808
1965-66	12,705,718
1966-67	13,359,157
1967-68	14,083,440
1968-69	14,879,060
2.	The requested comparison of the amounts which would have been paid if the ton mile rate had been the same as that in effect in the United States probably refers to a statement carried by the press on April 28, wherein the Postmaster General was quoted as saying "the Department pays the government owned airline 49.9 cents a ton mile while the United States Post Office pays 24 cents a mile".
The comparison made was based on the general rates of payment in effect for the calendar year 1968 in both countries to trunk line carriers for priority mails on domestic services. In order to make an exact comparison of all the domestic service mail payments in the United States several complex factors have to be taken into account. These

May 28. 1969
Questions
include terminal charges at certain airports and the payment, in the United States, of Public Service Revenue, a form of subsidy, to certain airlines. A firm of consultants is presently studying the various factors associated with the conveyance of mail by air in Canada.
The total amounts paid to Air Canada in each of the last ten fiscal years includes payment for the conveyance of mail by air to points outside of Canada and the United States as well as to points within Canada and between Canada and the United States. There are multiple rates involved depending on the class of mail and the destination. The Canadian Post Office Department does not have details of the various rates of payment which were in effect between the United States Post Office Department and the United States air carriers for the performance of international service over the ten year period in question.
3.	It was expected that the extension of the "all-up" policy announced last October would increase the annual volume of mail carried in the domestic service by 12 per cent. Records of five months of operations under the new policy indicate that the estimate was accurate.
4.	As mentioned in item 2, a firm of consultants is currently studying the various factors which have to be taken into account in arrangements for the conveyance of mail by air.
5.	Samson Belair Riddell Stead Inc.
6.	A report on the progress of the study was submitted and discussed with the Postmaster General on April 16, 1969.
7.	The final report on the study of air mail rates of payment is part of a larger study on other phases of mail transportation. It is expected that a final report will be received about the end of June 1969; in view of the confidential nature of some of the sources from which the information forming the basis of the conclusion was drawn, a decision on the tabling of this report cannot be made until it is available for study.


WHISTLERS MOUNTAIN SKI FACILITIES
Mr. Sulalycky: How much has been spent in each year since 1954 by the federal government on Whistlers Mountain ski facilities in Jasper National Park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Capital Costs: 1955-56, slope clearing $1,418; 1956-57,
[Mr. Kierans.l
slope clearing $3,486; 1957-58, ski hill road $19,388, slope improvements $1,998; 1958-59, slope clearing $2,998; 1959-60, area development $7,950; 1960-61, first aid and toilet building construction $18,983; 1962-63, area enlargment $10,311;	1963-64,-present-nil.
Operations and Maintenance: Only capital costs can be specifically identified to 1965-66 because effect.
the accounts procedure			then in
Wages Material Power			Total
$	$	$	$5,653	449	129	6,2313,275*	312	148	3,735638*	238	155	1,0311965-	661966-	671967-	68
* Reflects phasing out of slope maintenance and the ski patrol.
Also between 1955 and 1965 there were contributions to the development which are not reflected in the accounts of that period. Lumber to build a chalet, for example, was provided from bulk supplies.


'TOBACCO-COSTS OF FEDERAL ENCOURAGEMENT OF PRODUCTION
Mr. Mather: What, In dollars, was the total amount spent by the federal government In 1968 to encourage the production of fine grade tobacco and for the welfare of the tobacco industry?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: The Department of Agriculture does not have any program to encourage or promote the tobacco industry but does conduct research programs to develop varieties of cigarette and cigar tobacco which, when grown under Canadian conditions, are in demand on the domestic and export markets. This program involves the screening of genetic materials, studying the inheritance of characteristics of agronomic importance such as yield and resistance to diseases, and quality characteristics such as leaf texture and nicotine levels. These evaluated genetic materials are then used in developing varieties which are calculated to give the producer optimum returns on the tobacco market. During 1968 the cost of such programs amounted to $536,160.


'WHEAT-REQUEST FOR FLOOR PRICE
Mr. Diefenbaker: Will the government give favourable consideration immediately to giving a guaranteed floor price for wheat for the years 1969 and 1970?
May 28, 1969


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I wish to report as follows. In July 1968, the government announced that the initial payment for No. 1 Manitoba northern wheat for the 1968-69 crop year would be $1.70 per bushel. The government is presently giving consideration to the initial payment for wheat for the 1969-70 crop year. The initial payment is, in effect, a guaranteed minimum or floor price.


WOOL IMPORTS FROM NEW ZEALAND
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	What quantity of wool was imported into Canada from New Zealand during the period January 1, 1968-December 31, 1968, and what was the average price per pound paid for this wool?
2.	What quantity of wool was imported into
Canada from Australia during the period January 1, 1968-December 31,	1968 and what was the
average price per pound paid for this wool?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. and 2. Imports of wool into Canada from New Zealand and Australia during the period January 1, 1968 to December 31, 1968, and the average price
per pound, are	as follows:		Average
			price
Country	Quantity	Value	perlb.	$'000	lb.-$New Zealand	6,788,443	2,890	.4257Australia	5,543,511	3,009	.5428SOUTH	REGINA POST	OFFICES


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	Are there any sub-post offices in the South Regina area and, if so, what is the location of each?
2.	Is it the intention of the Department of Communications to establish a sub-post office in this area?
3.	If so, what is the planned location and on what date, approximately, will the facility become operative?


Eric William Kierans: In so far
as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. (a) Yes. 4 in area south of Wascana Creek; (b) Sub No. 24, 2104 Grant Road; Sub No. 18, 3410 Hill Avenue; Sub No. 36, 2730 Montague Street; Sub No. 26, Tamblyns Drug, Albert Street and 25th Avenue.
2.	Not in the near future.
3.	See 2.
Questions


YMCA-YWCA CAMPAIGN
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Is the Government of Canada contributing to the YMCA-YWCA campaign for Ottawa and, if so, what is the amount which has been or will be contributed?
2.	What is the purpose of the contribution?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1. A contribution is being made to the Ottawa YM-YWCA Building Fund of $1,000,000, of which $700,000 has been paid in the 1968-69 fiscal year and $300,000 is to be paid in the present fiscal year.
2. As its Centennial Project, the Ottawa YM-YWCA undertook a development program to improve its facilities in the National Capital. The contribution was made as a testimonial of government appreciation of the "Y" movement throughout Canada, and a recognition that the YM-YWCA in the National Capital has obligations not incurred by other local associations in this national movement.


GRAIN SALES COMMISSION FIRM
Mr. Soulham: Will the government give consideration to establishing forthwith a fully Canadian orientated grain sales commission firm charged specifically with the responsibility in co-operation with the Canadian Wheat Board of selling Canadian wheat feed grains and oil seeds?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Several fully Canadian firms are agents of the Canadian Wheat Board and are engaged in the marketing of Canadian wheat, feed grains and oil seeds. The Government would welcome a decision by any of these firms to enlarge and expand their grain and oilseeds marketing operations and would also welcome the establishment of new firms with the capacity of expanding sales of Canadian grains and oilseeds.


WILDLIFE SERVICE ADVERTISING PROGRAM
Mr. Yewchuk: What is the annual cost of the advertising program sponsored by the Wildlife Service of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The
Canadian Wildlife Service does not have an advertising program. The Hinterland Who's Who film clips broadcast on television are made by the National Film Board and are

May 28, 1969
Orders for Returns
supplied to television stations for use at their discretion. No charge for this type of public service broadcast is made to the Department.


DEATHS OF WAR DISABILITY PENSIONERS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What is the approximate number of war disability pensioners who die each month?
2.	Is the government considering retroactive features to legislation arising from the Woods Report which would benefit survivors of such deceased veterans since the report was completed?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. 425.
2. This is a matter of Government policy, on which an announcement would be made at the appropriate time.


HEALTH AND WELFARE PUBLIC RELATIONS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare have a public relations staff and, if so, how many?
2.	What was the total cost of public relations for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes. The Department of National Health and Welfare has a public relations program administered by an Information Services Division having a staff of 40 employees. The cost of operating this Division for the fiscal years 1960-61 to 19C7-68 was as follows:
Fiscal Year	$
1960-61	357,618
1961-62	371,672
1962-63	374,433
1963-64	313,230
1964-65	459,686
1965-66	614,346
1966-67	1,273,252
1967-68	1,137,854



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Department of Finance, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French
[Mr. Chretien.)
as their mother tongue (b) have English as then mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1988, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?
Return tabled.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF TREASURY BOARD PERSONNEL
Mr. Forfin: 1.	In the Treasury Board, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5.	How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?
Return tabled.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF NATIONAL REVENUE PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the Department of National Revenue, in each category and class, how many employees (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (e) other (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) are bilingual?
May 28, 1969

4 During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) other (d) were bilingual?
5. How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?
Return tabled.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF AGENCY CROWN CORPORATIONS PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many employees of agency Crown Corporations in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) have another language as their mother tongue (d) are bilingual?
2. In each of the corporations mentioned in part 1, how many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) have another language as their mother tongue (d) are bilingual?
3. In each of the corporations mentioned in part 1, how many emloyees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) have another language as their mother tongue (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, in each of the corporations mentioned in part 1, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) had another language as their mother tongue (d) were bilingual?
5.	In each of the corporations mentioned in part 1, how many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English, in 1968?
Return tabled.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF BANK OF CANADA AND OTHER GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS PERSONNEL
Mr. Forlin: 1.	How many employees in each category and class of the following: the Banks of Canada, the Industrial Development Bank, the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition, the National Arts Centre Corporation and the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) have another language as their mother tongue (d) are bilingual?
2. In each of the corporations mentioned in part 1, how many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) have another language as their mother tongue (d) are bilingual?
3. In each of the corporations mentioned in part 1, how many employees earning $17,000 and
Orders for Returns over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) have another language as their mother tongue (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, in each of the corporations mentioned in part 1, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) had another language as their mother tongue (d) were bilingual?
5.	In each of the corporations mentioned in part 1, how many employees in each cateogry and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English, in 1968?
Return tabled.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY OFFICES PERSONNEL
Mr. Forlin: 1.	How many employees in each category and class of each of the following: the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Insurance, the National Gallery, the National Research Council, the Public Archives and National Library, Public Printing and Stationery, the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Public Service Commission (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) have another language as their mother tongue (d) are bilingual?
2.	How many of these employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) have another language as their mother tongue (d) are bilingual?
3.	How many of these employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) have another language as their mother tongue (d) are bilingual?
4 During 1968, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number, how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) had another language as their mother tongue (d) were bilingual?
5. How many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?
Return tabled.


LINGUISTIC CAPABILITIES OF PROPRIETARY CROWN CORPORATIONS PERSONNEL
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many employees of proprietary Crown corporations in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) have another language as their mother tongue (d) are bilingual?
2.	In each of the corporations mentioned in part 1, how many employees earning from $12,000 to $17,000 in each category and class (a) have
Orders jor Returns French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) have another language as their mother tongue (d) are bilingual?
3.	In each of the corporations mentioned in part 1, how many employees earning $17,000 and over in each category and class (a) have French as their mother tongue (b) have English as their mother tongue (c) have another language as their mother tongue (d) are bilingual?
4.	During 1968, in each of the corporations mentioned in part 1, how many employees were appointed, reclassified or promoted in each category and class and, of this number how many (a) had French as their mother tongue (b) had English as their mother tongue (c) had another language as their mother tongue (d) were bilingual?
5.	In each of the corporations mentioned in part 1, how many employees in each category and class took courses (a) in French (b) in English in 1968?
Return tabled.


YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ADULT TRAINING
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For each province, Yukon and Northwest Territories what is the total number now taking training under the Occupational Training of Adults program of the Department of Manpower and Immigration?
2.	(a) How many entered training under this program during 1968 (b) how many did not complete their course (c) how many completed their course (d) how many of those who completed their courses found employment through Canada Manpower Centres (e) of those completing their courses, how many of them received increased hourly or weekly earnings as a result of this training?
3.	For each province, Yukon and Northwest Territories what was the total number that commenced training under the Occupational Training of Adults during January and February, 1969 (a) how many completed their courses during those two months (b) how many did not complete their courses during this period (c) how many of those completing their courses were able to find employment through the Canada Manpower Centres (d) how many were able to receive increased hourly or weekly earnings as a result of this training?
4.	(a) What criteria are used by the Canada Manpower Centres in referring workers to training in the various courses under the Occupational Training of Adults Program (b) what criteria are used to assure that those taking courses under this program have employment available when they graduate (c) what exact program guideline or procedures have the Canada Manpower Centres to assist those who have difficulty in finding employment when they graduate?
.. 5'. What is the estimated number of persons that the Department of Manpower and Immigration will be referring to training courses during 1969 under the Occupational Training of Adults Program (b) how are those estimates arrived at 
May 28, 1969
by the Department (c) has the Department any assurance that all those referred to training during 1969 will get employment when they graduate (d) what are the criteria used by the Department in planning the numbers to take training under the Occupational Training of Adults program?
Return tabled.


TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING AGREEMENT
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is there a federal-provincial agreement on capital expenditures for technical and vocational training and, if so, (a) what are the terms and conditions of this agreement (b) what was the share of the Province of Quebec?
2.	Has the federal government turned over to the Province of Quebec all of the amounts provided for in the agreement and, if not, for what reasons?
3.	Has the federal government cancelled this agreement and, if not, for what reasons?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 103 for the production of papers is acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 103 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
SCOTT-SEWELL CONSULTANT STUDY Motion No. 103-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study by Anthony D. Scott and W. R. Derrick Sewell, prepared for Treasury Board, titled, "The Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis by Canadian Federal Government Agencies".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Would Your Honour be good enough to call notices of motion Nos. 113 and 133?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

May 28, 1969



DIRECTIVES ON DRAFT DODGERS AND DESERTERS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 113-Mr. Lewis:
That an Order of this House do issue for a copy of the directive or directives of the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding draft-dodgers and military deserters.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I wish to report as follows. The papers requested in this notice of motion are directives circulated within the department from headquarters to held staff. It has not been the practice to make public such papers because of their confidential character. In view of this perhaps the hon. gentleman would agree to withdraw his notice.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I am afraid not, Mr. Speaker. These directives are policy directives that affect the immigration policy of the government, and therefore should be made public.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48.



INDIANS-DOCUMENT RESPECTING GRANTS ISSUED SUBSEQUENTLY TO CIRCULAR

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 133-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any document prepared in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development entitled, or relating to "Grants to Indian Hand Councils subsequent to the issuance of Circular No. 15, dated September 18, 1968, which is entitled "Grants to Indian Band Councils".
Yves Forest: On behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I would like to inform the hon. member that subsequent to the issuance of circular 15, dated September 18, 1968, entitled "Grants to Indian Band Councils", no additional documents have been issued. Under the circumstances would the hon. member from Skeena consent to withdrawing the motion?


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask how I happened to get one if they have not been issued or are not in existence? I think the minister had better check further.
Motions for Papers Mr. Speaker: Transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48. Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do so without assessing any blame or accusing anyone of laxity. But I invite the attention of the house to the fact that there are now more than 60 notices of motions for the production of papers that have not yet been called. In addition to that number, at least 20 such motions have been transferred for debate. I understand how this has happened, but the fact of the matter is that this does relate to the public's right to know what is going on, and I think that this matter, like the passport problem, should receive attention.
I wonder whether the government house leader would be willing to initiate discussions through the usual channels to see whether there is something we can do to overtake this backlog?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that of these 60 motions to which the hon. member referred, 36 have been put on since May 12. I presume that the hon. member is interested in having the government look into these documents with care, and the departments are doing so.
As to the notices of motions that have been transferred for debate, the rules are well known by the hon. member and his colleagues. There are certain documents that are internal documents; there are others that are privileged. The hon. member may insist, as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) did, that he is entitled to have them,, but the rules of this house are well established. Merely because the hon. member wants a document is no reason why the rules should not be obeyed. In particular there is no reason why the notices of motions should not be transferred for debate.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is another rule which you invoked a little earlier, namely that a notice of motion is transferred for debate at another time. The government house leader has no right to debate the motion now, as he has done. I know the rules, perhaps not as well as the house leader knows them, but I am aware of them. If he wants to debate the motion now I am ready; otherwise I must say that I object to his remarks.

May 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that I opened my remarks by saying that I was assessing no blame. I was asking the government house leader if he would enter into discussions to see whether something could be done jointly and co-operatively to deal with this backlog.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance, who no doubt is preparing a budget speech. In view of statements contained in his budget papers of yesterday emphasizing the continuing problem of inflation, will the government as an interim measure reconsider its refusal to seek the acceptance of price and income guidelines throughout the economy in order to fight inflation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my hon. friend will have to wait until next Tuesday to hear my proposals about the particular problem he mentioned.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is because I fear what the minister may say next Tuesday that I am asking whether he or the government will consider a policy such as I have suggested, as an alternative to fighting inflation by the creation of unemployment?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I hope in the fight against inflation my hon. friends opposite will stop asking the government to make additional expenditures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether the Prime Minister was speaking without his approval when he indicated in the Atlantic provinces 
that the government would increase expenditures in areas of slow growth in order to offset the effects of other anti-inflationary programs it had?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I think we are now embarked upon a debate. Perhaps I could recognize the hon. member for Wellington, who has a supplementary.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Since the government spent $950 million more for goods and services last year and since 83 per cent of these taxpayers' dollars went to pay increased costs brought about by inflation, will the minister advise the house how he proposes to combat this situation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend again will have to wait, as will other people, until next Tuesday.
If, even at the risk of being out of order, I might answer the question asked just prior 'to that asked by the hon. member, I wish to say that the Prime Minister does not have to ask me for permission to speak, or for permission to advocate spending more money anywhere in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for Exter-u^l Affairs about confusion in the passport office. Because of this confusion many members or their secretaries have to spend hours m the passport office trying to find applications which have been lost. Since the fault does not lie with the administrative staff, which is making valiant efforts to deal with the situation, and since the problem has been brought about by changes in policy which have increased the volume of applications, is the minister prepared to allow that office to revert to previous procedures? Under those procedures those who hold passports could have them renewed, without making fresh application. Perhaps this might be done on a temporary basis until the peak of the tourist
May 28, 1969

season is over or until regional offices are opened.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct an impression left by the hon. gentleman who asked the question. I had an examination made of the number of people who have applied for passports; these are people who would ordinarily be applying for a renewal. Such people constitute only 15 per cent of those applying. So these applications are not serious when one considers how to deal effectively with the problem. As I have said many times, the problem arises from the enormous increase in the travel requirements' of the Canadian public.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister thought of making representations to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration so that British subjects who have resided in this country for a long time may temporarily, until the peak of the tourist season has passed this summer, be allowed to travel even though they have not secured a certificate of Canadian citizenship? This, it seems, would help the situation to some extent.


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said to the house, temporary passports are being issued under the circumstances.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister had an opportunity to consider the question I asked as to whether he would explore the possibility of making similar arrangements with France in the interest of Canadians who might wish to visit France?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been looking into a number of these measures. I do not feel it will be necessary. The peak of the passports applications is now past.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell William Sharp: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the peak of the applications has passed and I expect in the next two or three weeks it will revert to a comparatively normal situation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I take it from the minister's response he is not seriously exploring the opportunity of making such an arrangement with France?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. This matter is being explored.
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hast-ings): Is there discrimination against the French speaking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the minister told the house last Thursday that the persons who received these certificates of citizenship would travel at their own risk, can he give an undertaking that certificates of citizenship will be issued which will enable persons to travel to Great Britain without having to run any risk? May I also ask the minister to tell this house what administrative genius changed these regulations without having application forms printed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Can the
minister advise how or why it is when members or their secretaries phone the passport office they receive the perennial answer "We cannot locate the passport or the application"?


PASSPORTS-AVAILABILITY OF NEW APPLICATION FORMS-PRICE OF TEMPORARY PASSPORTS
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I wish to ask the minister how soon he expects to have the new application forms available for the general public and instructions given to the public so they know how to apply.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, they will begin to be distributed next week.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if the price of a temporary passport is the same as that of a normal one?


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs, perhaps on a purely housekeeping basis, arrange to have individual chairs in the passport offices so that elderly people do not have to stand for hours or until they collapse?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Les Benjamin. (Regina-Lake Centre):: In
view of the reply the minister made to a
Inquiries of the Ministry question I asked last Monday regarding the emergency issuing of temporary passports, we can assume this means deleting some procedures. Will the minister state whether the R.C.M.P. or any other security investigation branch of any department of government are searching files of passport applicants and removing these files for foreign investigation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Since the committee on agriculture will meet in Quebec City, at the Chateau Fron-tenac, on June 8 and that many farmers will be present along with the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, is it the intention of the Minister of Agriculture of Canada to attend?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to attend that meeting. Unfortunately I had made a commitment for that day in western Canada before I knew the dates that were set by the standing committee.


David Réal Caouette: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Would not the minister agree that it is about time to visit eastern Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has had three trips to Quebec.


EXTERNAL AID
[Stage Direction]
REDUCED EXPENDITURE IN FOOD PROGRAMS Mr. R. Gordon L. Fairweather (Fundy-Roy-al): Mr. Speaker, I have a non-passport question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Page 19 of the budget papers tabled yesterday discloses a reduction in funds for the international food aid programs. I am wondering whether the minister and the government accept the implications of such a cutback, and can we be assured that programs to alleviate hunger in the world will be expanded rather than cut back?

May 28, 1969
Mitchell William Sharp: As the hon. gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, our programs are responsive. We ask the countries concerned in what form they would like their aid. We have every reason to believe that the amounts that will be provided by this budget will be adequate to meet the demands and, if not, that they will be enlarged.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. A week ago I asked him if he would make a statement on motions on the functions and the organization of the cabinet secretariat, and he indicated it would be rather a lengthy one. However I still go back to the question: Will we soon be having a statement on motions in regard to the very extensive changes taking place in the organization of that secretariat?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was giving an answer to the question last week when I was cut off by some method or other,-I can't recall how-but what I intended to say then I repeat now. When these changes are completed I intend to explain them to the public and to the house, if it is at a time when the house is sitting. On various occasions at press conferences I have explained the basic facts of the re-organization of the P.C.O. into a planning section and an operations section. The news item to which the hon. member referred last week merely concerned the implementation of that division.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question asked for a statement on motions in the house where members may comment on it. We are not all invited to press conferences.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My estimates were in front of the house just a couple of weeks ago and it would have been possible then to go into a lengthy explanation. I have nothing special to report at this time beyond what I have said. I have repeated many times that there is a division of the Privy Council office into these two basic functions and we are now hiring the personnel to perform them. I would have no objection, on some other occasion, to explaining to the house and the country the way in which a good government operates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

May 28, 1969


HOUSING
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question to the minister in charge of housing. If the hon. gentleman has a formal and prepared text that he is going to use when introducing the housing legislation will he make it available immediately to spokesmen of the opposition parties, so that they can follow it as he speaks?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.


HIGHWAYS
Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a non-passport question to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the United States government requested the permission of the Canadian government for a Congressional subcommittee to hold public hearings in Calgary, Alberta, on June 19 on the subject of paving the Alaska Highway?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have to take that question as notice.


WHEAT-CASH PAYMENT TO FARMERS-TWO-PRICE SYSTEM-FLOOR PRICE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has he anything to report to the house on the results of the meeting held this morning by himself, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon (Mr. Lang) with representatives of western agriculture who called for an immediate cash payment of $2,000 for each wheat farmer, for the establishment of a two-price system for wheat and for the establishment of a government-farmer group to develop a comprehensive grain policy?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that it was not a group from western Canada. There were representatives from all over Canada at the meeting this morning. I can only add to that that it was a useful discussion.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can he indicate to the house whether he advised the agricultural representatives with whom he was speaking this morning that the government is giving favourable consideration to the three matters I mentioned and which they raised.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, indeed, and the meeting is going on this afternoon with several senior officials of the Department of Agriculture.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question arising out of an answer given a few moments ago to question No. 2183 which reads as follows:
Will the government give favourable consideration immediately to giving a guaranteed floor price for wheat for the years 1969 and 1970?
The answer as I heard it was that the floor price is $1.70 per bushel. I never have heard that that was the floor price, but that was the answer. I ask the minister what representations have been made by representatives of agriculture either this morning or earlier this week concerning what the floor price should be, so that the western farmer will not find himself in an impossible position by reason of the inflation of the cost of those things he must buy and his inability to sell the wheat he has.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question, and not trying to answer the debate raised in the question-


John George Diefenbaker: There is no debate. It is a fact.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -the reply that was made regarding the price of $1.70 did not indicate that it was a floor price. It was said it was the initial price which also constituted a floor price. The other part of the question concerned what representations have been made. I am sure the right hon. gentleman knows we have received many and varied representations concerning what the floor price ought to be and indeed on what basis the other prices established in the wheat industry ought to be.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad the minister has confirmed I was right in my interpretation of the answer given a moment ago. Among the representations made will he tell the house what the spread is between the present initial price of $1.70 and the maximum asked for by the farm organizations as a basic price.

May 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the spread, because of course these are opinions, but we have had representations that the domestic price of wheat be as high as $2.95 a bushel or $1 over the I.G.A. floor.


WHEAT-SPECIAL MEASURES TO INCREASE SALES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the indication in the budget papers that sales of wheat will probably be lower this year I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether we may expect an early decision concerning any special measures to be taken to assist the western wheat grower and in particular whether we may expect an answer one way or the other from the minister in the course of his budget speech.
Kon. E. J. Benson (Minisfer of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, decisions of the government in matters of policy will be made known to the house in the usual manner.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister announce government policy and introduce any necessary legislation before the summer recess in response to the representations of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the recommendations of the Committee on Agriculture of this house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as has been said announcements of government policy will be made in the usual way.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Beatle John Lennon has written, spoken and acted on a clear philosophy about war and peace and because of his prestige among a large segment of the international community on the subject-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -does the minister plan to confer with Mr. Lennon while he is in Canada?
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may wish to come back at ten o'clock tonight.


George Harris Hees: Get in bed with John Lennon at ten o'clock.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Has the hon. gentleman received complaints from the Canadian film industry with regard to the growing Americanization of C.B.C. program content? If so, would he discuss this matter with the president of the C.B.C. and report back to the house?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall any recent representations from the film industry on this matter, but some may have reached the department very recently. I have already discussed this matter with the president of the C.B.C. and I intend to pursue this discussion further.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would the Secretary of State discuss the matter with the chairman of the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts with a view to having it referred to that committee for consideration.


Mr. Pelleiier:: Mr. Speaker, if it is not against the rules of the house to refer a question in this way, I personally have no objection. I shall have to consult the chairman of the committee.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: 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 will protect the jobs of these people?
May 28, 19G9


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have no knowledge of having received such a telegram, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, did he not receive a telegram two days ago, because it came over the C.B.C. that it had been received in the Prime Minister's office.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


ENCOURAGEMENT TO MAINTAIN MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Transport on this matter of shipbuilding. Can the minister say whether the decision has been made to include the matter of the building of ships in Canada in the study that is now under way on the Canadian merchant marine within his department, and if so what was the decision?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, no such decision has been taken, as my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated the other day. The shipbuilding industry itself has formed an internal committee which I understand will make representations to us, and presumably these could be considered along with the report on the merchant marine. This would seem to be an appropriate way to deal with the matter.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the statement in the budget papers that prices are higher than is desirable and that the price of meat in many parts of Canada has doubled in the last six weeks what is the minister doing to protest this action and protect the consumer?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for a very general statement. Such a statement would normally be made on motions.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: Perhaps I might rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister agree to make a statement on motions within the next week to advise us of any measure he has in mind to deal with the immediate rise in the cost of living.
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have appointed the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission and will be announcing the balance of the membership shortly. I am also awaiting budget night.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, could the
minister estimate how high the prices will have to go before we can get direct action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member is asking the minister to give an expression of opinion. The question in those terms is not in order.


REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION MEMBERS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he expects to appoint the other members of the Commission this year.
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs): Yes, Mr. Speaker.


BRIDGES
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that the Quebec government intends to reduce the toll rates on the Eastern Townships highway, effective July 1st, does the minister also intend to reduce the toll on the Champlain bridge, which is part of the same highway?


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


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg North Cenlre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It is similar to one I asked several months ago, at which time he said he would look into it. I wonder whether the present minister intends to ensure that certain red starred assistant air traffic controllers at the Winnipeg and other international airports, whose pay has been frozen for a number of years now, will soon receive equitable monetary adjustments?

May 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I advised the house a few days ago that the whole matter of the future of air controllers is under study and no doubt this matter will be considered during my discussions with them.


INCORRECT DESCRIPTION OF POLITICAL AFFILIATION
Mr. Paul Yewchulc (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has been brought to my attention that last Thursday a Calgary newspaper reported me as the Liberal member for Athabasca.


An hon. Member:: What an insult.


George Harris Hees: That's slander; sue.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I want the country and hon. members of this house to know that I object to this kind of misrepresentation and that I find it derogatory, provocative,, inflammatory, most insulting and as close to yellow journalism as you can get.


Mr. Speaker:: Order,, please. I suggest the hon. member might also be out of order.


POTATOES-EXPORT OF P.E.I. AND NEW BRUNSWICK PRODUCT TO U.S.
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether there have been any discussions between this government and the government of the United States with a view to obtaining more favourable tariff entry of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island potatoes into the United States even on a temporary basis, in view of the very depressed conditions of the potato industry?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I had a discussion last Friday with Mr. Hardin the new Secretary of Agriculture for the United States, mainly for the purpose of getting acquainted with him. I am unable to give any details about that discussion, but my friend can take it that we discussed a number of matters upon which representations had been made to me in this house.


STRAWBERRIES-MAINTENANCE OF IMPORT DUTIES
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have an agricultural question I should like to direct to the Minister of

National Revenue. Has the minister had an opportunity to consider the representation made some three weeks ago by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture regarding the maintenance of import duties on strawberries during 1969, and when can the house expect his decision on this matter?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into this matter. I do not remember the exact situation.


RESPIRIN-PERMISSION TO SELL IN CANADA
Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, in view of press reports concerning the drug Respirin, which state that this unusual compound is able to cure or alleviate not only respiratory ailments but also pigeon chest, hunchback and mental retardation, and that Senators and Members of Parliament are among those who have enjoyed dramatic cures, can the Minister of National Health and Welfare say why his department reapproved this patent medicine for sale in Canada when such dubious claims are advanced?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NEWFOUNDLAND-DAMAGE TO WEST COAST COMMUNITIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has received any representations from the provincial government of Newfoundland regarding flood damage to communities on the west coast affecting homes and causing damage to schools and fishing facilities and if so has any action been taken to investigate such damage with a view to preventing any recurrence?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally aware of any such representation. However, I will be glad to look into this matter and make a reply later.


COMMUNICATIONS
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the refusal by the vice-chairman of the
May 28, 1969

Canadian Transport Commission to allow evidence to be given regarding the tie-up between Northern Electric and Bell Telephone and, if so, will he undertake to study the matter to find ways of amending the relevant legislation so that this important information can be made public?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it has now been drawn to my attention and I will be very glad to look into it.


TOURISM
Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is considering limiting amounts of money that Canadian tourists can take out of the country on trips abroad?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the question directed in different terms might be placed on the order paper.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour asking him, in view of the governments expressed concern about American take-overs, whether he can assure us that the proponents of continued Canadian autonomy within the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway and Transport Workers union are having a fair chance to present their case in the face of the determination of the unions' top brass to merge it with the International Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine that the hon. member, who has been associated for so many years in a progressive manner with the labour movement, would be the last one to suggest that we interfere with the internal operations of the union. I am sure he would expect that in a union, if in no other organization, democracy should prevail and that members should have a full opportunity to express their opinions on this subject.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, instead of that gratuitous lecture I wonder whether the minister would mind answering the question?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he agrees that everything is possible to the Babe Ruth of the bargaining table?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister cannot answer questions which are out of order.


An hon. Member:: Casey at the bat.


George Harris Hees: You struck out that time, Bryce.


An hon. Member:: He looks like Babe Ruth.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister inform the house whether Canada's intended NATO plans mean that we might become ineligible for membership in NATO's nuclear planning group and thus lose whatever influence we now have on NATO nuclear planning and strategy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this question is argumentative and is not acceptable when asked in those terms.


IMMIGRATION
Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he has undertaken an investigation, as he said he would, in respect of an American who smuggled a tape recorder into this country through a customs point?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, regarding this alleged smuggling into Canada of a tape recorder, in the absence of identification of the individual concerned, I have had to assume he is the person described in the press as a deserter from the United States armed forces who entered Canada and was admitted as a provisional landed immigrant at the Port of Lansdowne.
It is a matter of policy not to reveal what goods are declared by individuals at customs nor to give publicity to seizures made of goods not declared and subject to seizure and penalties, where the goods are for personal use and not for commercial purposes. An inquiry is being made into the matter and I

May 28, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry
can assure the hon. member that should the tape recorder in question have been the property of the immigrant, and not declared at customs by him at the time of entry-and I want to emphasize this point-it will be the subject of a seizure.


Donald MacInnis: Perhaps the minister could tell us at a later date how it is that this was publicized in the Toronto Globe and Mail, showing the hiding place of the tape recorder' and with the criminal in question discussing with immigration officials the entry into Canada. Apparently he was permitted to pass through customs with the tape recorder.


John Cole: It is for this reason I emphasized the point that if the tape recorder is the property of the immigrant and was not declared at customs by him at the time of his entry, it will be seized.


Donald MacInnis: I am not satisfied with that answer. What if it did not belong to him? He still smuggled it in.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


WATER RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
POLLUTION THROUGH PULPMILL OPERATIONS Mr. Thomas S. Barnell (Comox-Alberni):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, arising out of his widely publicized statement that his department was considering closing two pulpmills unless they did something about eliminating or lessening the water pollution which their operations create.
In order to put an end to the speculation as to which particular pulpmill the minister had in mind, could he inform the house as to which one he was speaking about?
Hon. Jack Davis (Minisler of Fisheries and Forestry):: In view of the advanced state of our discussions with the companies in question, I would prefer not to do that.


Mr.   Barnell@: Can the minister then tell the house what steps these two particular plants have in mind, and when they will be in a position to inform us?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POLLUTION-PREVENTION THROUGH LEGISLATIVE ACTION
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate to the house the 
extent of the progress on the new Canada water act which will give the government the control required to prevent rather than to punish for pollution?


John (Jack) Davis: I believe that question should have been directed to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Canada water act.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I then direct my question in that direction?


COMBINES
John Stratford Burton: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister advise the house whether his department or the director of the combines investigation branch has investigated or is now investigating oil industry arrangements which divide market areas east and west of the Ottawa valley to determine whether this constitutes a violation of the restraint of trade provisions in Canada's anti-combines policy?


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


REQUEST FOR NAMING OF PERSONNEL OF COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare when we may expect the appointment of the royal commission in connection with the use of drugs, which he indicated some weeks ago would be appointed?


John Carr Munro: I wish to advise the Leader of the Opposition that this is not a royal commission but an inquiry, and I hope to be in a position to announce its membership shortly.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister seriously consider having members of parliament serve on such a committee?


John Carr Munro: I see some merit in the suggestion, but I do not think it is feasible for this particular inquiry.
May 28, 1969


STUDENT UNREST
John Howard Lundrigan: My question is directed to the Solicitor General. Several weeks ago he indicated he would consider making a statement on motions regarding R.C.M.P. evidence on infiltrators and their roles in precipitating unrest. Is the minister now prepared to make such a statement on motions and to enlighten the house with regard to the type of information which the R.C.M.P. has on this subject?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: considered the matter and I do not see how a statement can be made on motions giving that type of information to the house. It has not been the practice to give that type of information to the house, but if there are any specific matters that hon. members wish to have cleared up, I would be glad to answer any questions or give such information as can be given.


PHASING OUT OF FEED GRAIN SUBSIDIES
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to clear up a matter arising from a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. He indicated that I took as notice a question put to me on May 16 concerning the phasing out of various feed grain subsidies. I looked into the matter, as I undertook to do, and I find that on May 16 the hon. member was ruled out of order before he finished his question.


GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he has yet received the report of the three man task force that was appointed to look into government information services, and if he has not received a report, has he any idea when it is likely to be submitted to him?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I inquired of the chairman of the task force a couple of weeks ago and was told that the report would be submitted before the end of the month. I imagine that we might have to accept a little leeway there, but I know the report is in the last stages of preparation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question,
The Patent Act
Mr. Speaker. When the report is received by the Prime Minister, is it his intention to make it available to the members of the house and to make the contents of the report public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot say, Mr. Speaker. It will take some time for the cabinet to consider the report and to decide whether it should proceed by way of immediate implementation of publication for discussion, or alternatively publish a white paper indicating the reforms we envisage in that area. But I appreciate the interest of the opposition. We on the government side feel that the whole area of governmental information is a very important one and that we must proceed with as much speed as possible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a suppelmentary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's statement concerning the importance of the matter, with which we all agree, would he agree that it is therefore extremely important that the public and members of the house should have the benefit of the report itself, rather than an expurgated copy of it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday May 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (for Mr. Basford) that Bill C-194, to amend the Patent Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: that Bill C-192, to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and
National Housing Act
referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps before the hon. member launches into his presentation I may say that when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) rose I thought he did so for the purpose of seconding the motion. I assume it should be recorded that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) seconds the motion.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my remarks by making a few general observations on the needs and requirements of our housing policy and its consequences for the development of our society-our cities.
In one way, the housing problem is easily defined. Quite simply, there are more families and non-family households in this country than there are dwellings, and too many dwellings are inadequate.
This means that some families have to double up in a single dwelling.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order. Would the minister be good enough to furnish me with a copy of his address? He has done so for others.


Robert Knight Andras: A copy is on its way to the hon. member.
To resume, Mr. Speaker, this means that some families have to double up in a single dwelling. It also means that many people are living in substandard housing, and face the resulting threat to health, comfort and selfesteem. There are many families that are overcrowded because the accommodation is too small for their needs.
One can see before one a piece of paper with a mass of numbers and columns headed by phrases such as "dwellings in need of major repair", "dwellings lacking running water and flush toilets", "dwellings without private bathing facilities", and other such headings. Those figures, columns and headings are the statistical measurements of the problem. But the significant measurement is in terms of deprivation, suffering,, congestion, disparity and squalor. These are the things that define the housing problem to me. The statistics, such as they are, reveal to us that while there has been consistent improvement in all the indicators of housing shortage since the end of world war II, a very real backlog of need still exists. Poor people for the most part bear the brunt of the suffering that is inescapably entailed in this backlog.

May 28, 1969
Most Canadians are well housed. A considerable number could be said to be indulgently housed. A few are lavishly housed. I am sure that all of those suffering the worst deprivations of the housing shortage would like to be better served, but I suspect also that it is difficult for them to make themselves heard. I have no doubt that the majority of Canadians whose housing is adequate but not indulgent would welcome an improvement, and many of them can and do say so. And some of those who are indulgently accommodated would like still better provision at lower cost and are in a position to express their discontent. And they do so.
The articulation of discontent stems from the whole spectrum of housing conditions and aspirations representing all income levels. Some of this articulation of discontent is valid, and some is not. It has reached a decibel level which is described by some as a housing crisis. The housing problem is something different. That is rooted in the actual deprivation of people at the lower level of the spectrum and can only be solved by the provision of decent accommodation for them.
Another significant dimension is that Canada today is primarily an urban society. Almost three quarters of Canadians live in the larger towns, cities and metropolitan areas. By 1980, it is estimated that more than 80 per cent of the population will be owning, renting, or hunting for shelter in our urban centres. Current trends indicate that almost one third of these people will live in our three largest urban centres of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
The quality of life in these rapidly growing communities is a matter of serious concern. We have heard much and can expect to hear more about pollution, overcrowding, traffic congestion, inadequate recreational facilities, alienation, deprivation and the inertia of some of our institutions. These issues cannot be neglected indefinitely nor can they be resolved by the methods of the past.
Nor can they be solved quickly or easily, Mr. Speaker. No single level of government, no one person, holds the key to their solution, or the formula for building better communities. The answers must be sought in joint planning and co-operative endeavours. We must seek ways for all levels of government, together with interested citizens, to achieve an urban environment which offers the physical, social and cultural dimensions of healthy and creative living.

May 28, 1969

The provision of adequate housing is one of the most important tasks in our continuing effort to develop better communities. It is clear that a necessary, although perhaps not sufficient condition for this objective is a much larger supply of adequate dwellings. The only way to get a larger housing stock is to build more houses. The recent task force on housing and urban development which was led by my distinguished predecessor in this office, called for a minimum housing output of one million units over the next five years. I do not doubt that we can achieve this target. The task force carefully designated this objective as a minimum and recognized that it will take some time to realize the goal of decent housing for every Canadian.
While the primary objective of federal housing policy can be simply stated as decent housing for every Canadian, the instrumentalities for reaching the goal are not simple. No country in the world has yet been able to reach this desirable stage for its population. Federal housing legislation incorporates two broad types of instrument. On the one hand there is the loan insurance apparatus which has the purpose of improving the private residential mortgage market, and stimulating the greater flow of capital resources into housing. These arrangements, while they may be of direct significance mainly to middle and upper income groups, serve nevertheless to increase the total stock of housing and, through the filtering process, to benefit lower income groups.
On the other hand, there is a variety of loan and subsidy arrangements designed to modify and transcend market forces and to provide accommodation directly for people whose incomes or other factors would not otherwise enable them to obtain it.
One might well ask: if the aim is primarily to increase the housing stock, why do we not rely wholly on the filtering process and get on with the business of inducing the private entrepreneurs to generate the flow of resources into housing, buttressing, guaranteeing, supporting, and cajoling them to whatever extent is necessary in order to rapidly bring about the desired increase in the housing stock? The answer is that exclusive reliance on the private market is expensive. There are limits to the commitment of labour and resources which the economy can allocate to residential construction. The task, therefore, is not just to encourage a larger resource commitment to housing but also to get a high yield out of what the country can afford in terms of completed dwelling units.
National Housing Act
It is an increased number of dwelling units, not just an increased investment, which diminishes the housing backlog. It is important to recognize this in terms of the constraint on the commitment of our productive resources which arises from the recognition of other legitimate social priorities in Canada.
We must, therefore, not only improve the operation of private markets in order to accelerate the total output of housing but we must also stimulate the provision of modest accommodation for low income people, augmenting the process if necessary with what may be regarded as non-market devices in order to get a higher yield of new units out of the nation's housing effort.
The argument for government loans and subsidies for low income people does not rest solely on the issue of distributive justice. It depends also on the hard economic reality that in order to achieve the size of housing stock which is needed in this country, we must greatly increase the share of the new housing program which provides modest accommodation for people of low and modest incomes.
Let me simply point out, by way of illustration, that an additional $100,000 investment in housing can provide two $50,000 homes or six $17,000 homes. I think in face of our current situation the one distribution is an extravagant use of resources, the other more equitable and productive.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Bill C-192 incorporates amendments to the National Housing Act that affect both the loan insurance arrangements and those provisions aimed primarily at housing for low income people. It also touches on questions that are related to the broad problem of urban development. Because I believe that in the future we will be obliged to place greater emphasis on housing for low income people, I want to comment now on public housing as one aspect of this policy.
The task force raised many questions about the social implications of the existing types of public housing projects. The task force itself, many social agencies and knowledgeable individuals have made many suggestions that would serve to improve the quality of these projects, to minimize the stigma attached to those residing in public housing, and to create an environment that achieves human dignity.
The government intends to proceed as rapidly as possible to encourage developments designed to enhance the quality of life in

May 28, 1969
National Housing Act
these developments and to encourage improvements in housing for low income groups, However, while we are undertaking studies of methods of improvement, we cannot lose sight of the fact that many people are suffering now from an inability to locate and pay for adequate housing in the purely physical sense. The needs are pressing in several parts of Canada, particularly in the large cities. The government cannot hold up projects in the advanced stage of development where prolonged delay in approval will result in the failure to provide the accommodation these people so desperately require. The task force has drawn public attention to this problem. Current projects, wherever possible, are being improved to reflect these views.
To clarify the immediate and long term intentions of the government let me state clearly that we support in principle, and will give high priority to, the continuation of federal assistance for increasing the supply of housing for low income groups. The program over the past few years has built up increasing momentum. It will not be frozen or curtailed while we give continued and active study and analysis to its effectiveness and adequacy.
Specific public housing projects which have been approved by C.M.H.C., but on which final authorization was delayed pending a statement on policy, will now be given the go ahead. We have indicated this decision to the provincial governments concerned. We intend to consider all applications as they are put forward, and we will authorize acceptable provincially supported projects to the extent of the funds available within a generous but not unrestricted budget. But we will not let this decision prevent the immediate intensification of discussions with the provinces with a view to improving the physical and social characteristics of public housing. We hope to reach agreement with each province quickly as to the type most suitable to its particular area.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister permit a question at this point. Am I to assume from what he is now saying that he considers it was a mistake to hold up these projects?


Robert Knight Andras: I do not consider it to have been a mistake, Mr. Speaker. I think it was a valiant effort. Everything was done to try to effect improvement to projects in train. But my dilemma was that a period of time had elapsed and I felt we had reached the stage that, even though there was something better possible in the future, we had an immediate 
requirement. I do not think that was a mistake, but time came upon us very quickly.
We look forward to the completion of these discussions within the next few weeks so that we can put forward improved criteria for public housing projects to be effective as soon as possible, but at the latest in the planning of projects proposed for development with federal assistance in 1970.
It is also our intention, following consultation with the provinces, to initiate an ongoing program of research and study into the wider aspects of low income housing. This research will include even more intensive consideration of the social, economic and psychological factors involved in subsidized housing so effectively dramatized by the report of the task force. We want to develop new concepts for improving our techniques for providing this type of social assistance.
Within the terms of the existing legislation there is scope to improve our methods of increasing the supply of subsidized housing and its quality. The present legislation enables us to consider with provinces projects developed through purchase from the existing stock rather than the construction of totally new units. The province of Ontario has utilized this approach to good effect already.
We are equally willing to consider subsidized housing acquired under lease arrangements, the prime leases to be negotiated by provincial housing authorities either on a long term basis or for a comparatively short term of, say, three to five years.
In the case of acquisition, the provinces can choose one of two existing federal assistance programs. First, there is the federal-provincial partnership. Under this arrangement the federal and provincial government share on a 75-25 per cent basis in the ownership, capital cost, and operating losses of the project. By the second method the federal government lends 90 per cent of the funds needed at a preferred interest rate, has no ownership interest, and pays 50 per cent of the operating losses. As I said, the provinces can choose to lease the accommodation. In this case, the 50 per cent operating subsidy by the federal government would apply.
We realize that both these techniques can be successful only where there is a significant vacancy rate in the community. In this context people should not be required to move to create vacant units for purchase or lease by the government.
These approaches do not increase the total stock of housing units, but they do provide
May 28, 19G9

for some immediate relief and a better distribution of the available stock among income groups and a better integration of public housing into the general community. We want to explore with the provinces the increased contribution these programs can make.
These are other low income people who need help-those whose incomes are above the practical limits for public housing but who still cannot obtain decent accommodation in the open market. Therefore, I am particularly pleased that the bill before us will enable limited-dividend companies and non-profit organizations to make an even greater contribution toward reasonably priced accommodation.
Although section 16 of the act has been operative for years and many worth-while projects have been constructed by limited-dividend companies, the volume has never reached adequate proportions when measured against need. The same applies to section 16A, which authorizes loans to non-profit corporations. Over the years since the inception of this program these types of housing projects have received a preferential interest rate and greatly extended repayment period.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
To provide further impetus the new measures contained in the bill will increase the lean level to 95 per cent of value from the present 90 per cent. It will also allow hostel and dormitory accommodation to be included in developments, irrespective of sponsorship. In fact, it widens eligibility for assistance to embrace sponsorship by any organization, corporation or individual.
I believe that these new arrangements will provide more low rental housing. In addition, it is an opportunity for private enterprise to add its full weight to our current endeavours. While the changes will have the effect of removing the 5 per cent limitation or restriction on potential profits, they will not affect the rentals charged because these are governed directly by contractual arrangements between the sponsor and C.M.H.C., as are the income limits for the tenants. It will be a requirement that these rents be substantially lower than those for comparable accommodation produced under normal lending arrangements.
One of the more significant features of Bill C-192 is the recommendation for a substantial increase in the assistance available for existing housing. Hon. members will appreciate that, even with easier home-ownership facilities now being made available for new hous-
National Housing Act
ing, all Canadian families who aspire to home ownership will not be able to or may not even wish to realize their ambition in the new housing market.
Many of these families could satisfy their hopes through the purchase of lower priced dwellings in the existing stock. But mortgage financing for such homes is often difficult to obtain, especially in an amount which would allow the purchase with the modest down payment essential in the vast majority of cases.
At the present time many buyers have to resort to . secondary financing, with the result that they are forced to make payments on first and second mortgages at the same time. Loans of up to $10,000 for the purchase of existing housing were first authorized about three years ago. The program proved successful in many communities; but again, particularly in our major centres, it is obvious that larger first mortgages are needed. An amendment in Bill C-192 now provides for 95 per cent loans up to a maximum of $18,000 and permits the full proceeds of the loans to be utilized for purchases and/or improvements. I wish to point out that home improvement is no longer a basic condition for the loan. I am firmly convinced that these changes have great implications for our housing program. They will be particularly effective in our largest centres where the need is most urgent.
Some of these changes will benefit public housing tenants. The incomes of some families living in public housing units have increased to the point where those families no longer need subsidy assistance. Until now it has been necessary for such families to seek other accommodation or pay higher rents based on their income and ability to pay. Some provinces have suggested that families be given the opportunity to buy the house in which they live and thus become home owners rather than public housing tenants.
This new loan level for existing housing of $18,000 would be suitable for all public housing projects in Canada. Consequently, where the provinces and the federal government agree it will be possible to make mortgage arrangements to allow tenants to buy their units.
Although the present legislation would appear to be wide enough to allow NHA insured loans for condominium projects, the bill before us states clearly the authority for the support of this form of housing. This relatively new type of home ownership is growing rapidly in Canada. I think eight out of 10 provinces have passed appropriate legislation
9178

May 28, 1969
National Housing Act
or are in the process of passing it. It is my hope that the approved lenders will support its use on a substantial scale. Condominiums can do much to extend home ownership to many families, including some who might not otherwise be able to afford homes.
Bill C-192 deletes references to loan-to-val-ue ratios from the statutes and incorporates them instead into the regulations. This will enable the government to respond more quickly to changing circumstances. By regulation we recently increased the maximum NHA loan for the ownership of new houses from $18,000 to a more realistic $25,000.
To complement this increase a regulation will be drawn setting the loan ratio at 95 per cent on the first $20,000 of value and 80 per cent of the remainder up to the maximum loan. These actions will have the effect of measurably reducing down payments and eliminating much of the secondary financing which can produce very high monthly payments.
Also, to maintain monthly payments at a lower level, the bill extends the amortization period on loans for both new and existing housing to 40 years. At the same time the mortgage insurance fee is being cut to 50 per cent of the present charge. This will save $150 to $175 on the average single family home.
The new proposals contained in this bill comprise a much broadened approach-an approach offering vastly improved financing arrangements which will enable many families to again contemplate home ownership.
A major element, Mr. Speaker, of our federal housing policy has been the system of mortgage insurance provided under the National Housing Act. We must continue to look to private lending institutions for the bulk of our housing capital. The flow of funds from these sources must remain adequate. Canada's housing requirements demand a greater volume of private lending than ever before.
Preliminary indications and contacts are encouraging regarding the flow of mortgage funds from the capital market. But to confirm that this will be the case I intend in the very near future to hold discussions with the approved lenders.
At the present time the interest rate ceiling on NHA loans made by private lenders and insured under the act is established by the governor in council at per cent above the long term Canadian borrowing rate and is adjusted at the beginning of each quarter.

This quarterly variation has produced irregularity in the mortgage flow, often to the disadvantage of the borrower. For this reason the bill proposes freeing the rate entirely.
Certain of our lending institutions borrow investment funds on a relatively short term basis and it is common practice in their conventional mortgage lending to use five year terms. A recent change in the regulations permits NHA insured loans for a five year term with a longer amortization period and these measures will encourage additional private investment in housing. Accordingly, Bill C-192 amends the act to allow for an increase in the aggregate amount of loans which may be insured under the act from $11 billion to $15 billion. We feel that this adjustment will be adequate for the full participation of the lenders under the National Housing Act until 1971.
I have talked at length about housing and briefly about urbanization. These are inextricably linked. These two subject matters cannot be dealt with in isolation, being related to one another. Hon. members are aware that there has been much discussion in recent months about urban renewal programs in Canadian cities. It will be recalled that the urban renewal section of the National Housing Act was amended in several important ways in 1964. The legislation was extended to include blight of all kinds. Not just housing, but commercial and industrial property as well. The 50 per cent participation of the federal government was extended to include the cost of replacing all obsolete streets, underground services, and federal loans were provided to cover two-thirds of the municipal cost share of the work.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Following the enactment of the 1964 amendments, the provinces and municipalities responded enthusiastically and federal commitments for urban renewal since 1964 have been $170 million. Urban renewal projects are under way or contemplated in every major Canadian city and in a large number of smaller communities as well.
The task force reported that too often housing is being demolished in urban renewal projects to make way for commercial or public uses of various kinds. The task force asked whether it is proper to demolish existing housing in the face of the need for a greater stock and for its more flexible use. The current legislation fails to make provision for the rehabilitation of existing housing and thus prolonging its useful life.
May 28, 1969

We therefore propose, in Bill C-192, that the legislation be amended to provide for federal contributions of 50 per cent of the cost to provinces or municipalities for the acquisition and rehabilitation of useful housing in urban renewal areas. This change will make it possible to restore housing rather than to demolish it and to upgrade that part of the housing stock that can be salvaged. It is my hope that this change will introduce much more flexibility for provinces and municipalities in dealing with urgent renewal programs. As soon as the legislation is enacted, we propose quickly to discuss this new feature with provincial and municipal representatives of those cities whose projects have been deferred. We must also face another problem created by increased urbanization, the inflated land costs in our larger centres. As I am sure all hon. members are well aware, one of the most limiting factors in producing all forms of housing is the shortage and high cost of serviced land.
The existing legislation contains authority for federal-provincial partnership in land assembly developments to help overcome this problem. However, this program under section 35A has not generated much action. Section 35C of the National Housing Act provides 90 per cent loans to a province, municipality or public housing agency to acquire and service land, but as it now stands it is restricted to public housing purposes. Such loans are made at a preferred interest rate prescribed by the Governor in Council for a term of up to 15 years.
While the bill before you makes no reference to an extension of these arrangements, I will be introducing an amendment at the report stage. This amendment will extend the 90 per cent loans to cover provincial or municipal acquisition of land for all housing purposes. Private as well as public. This proposed change has been discussed with the provinces and all have concurred. Indeed some provinces have requested urgently that this amendment be made. Of course, adequate sewage treatment facilities must be available to service the land developed.
The present forgiveness feature for federal loans made under the act for sewage treatment projects terminates in March, 1970. The value of this legislation was emphasized by the representatives of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities who recently came to Ottawa to make their annual presentation to the government. We are well aware of the value. They impressed upon us
National Housing Act
not only its purpose in assisting municipalities with their general programs, but that it very definitely contributes to an anti-pollution program throughout the country. Much has already been accomplished by this useful program and it is obvious that much remains to be done.
Many communities have projects in the planning stages that could not possibly be completed by March, 1970. To ensure the continuation of this program, Bill C-201, introduced Friday last, will extend the forgiveness incentive for a further period of five years to March, 1975.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that these amendments and consequential regulation changes represent another major step in the evolution of our housing policy. The passage of these two pertinent bills, C-192 and C-201, will provide a more flexible instrument to facilitate the realization of our federal housing objectives acting in concert with the provinces.
As I indicated earlier in my statement, federal housing policy seeks to encourage the required flow of capital into residential housing mortgages, to provide special assistance to those who are disadvantaged, to probe through research and experimentation into the broader aspects of urban problems and to help the provinces and municipalities in terms of municipal infrastructure financing and expertise. If the federal government is to devote more energies to one over another of these it will be to assist with all the resources we can command, the poor, the aged, the handicapped in their legitimate but more difficult search for decent shelter. 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 to a greater extent than in any previous year. These, Mr. Speaker, are the basic premises on which I will work.
I want to give sincere and due credit to the achievements of the past, especially the immediate past, and their thrust for ongoing change and improvement. But, too, I want to look to the future. One must deal, responsibly, within the parameters of what is realistically possible at any given time. As of now this provides considerable leeway for improved housing performance. If and when I find that these possibilities have been exhausted I shall probe the contraints and the arrangement of government priorities to seek needed adjustments.
29180-581J

May 28, 1969
National Housing Act
As a new minister I intend to keep an open mind, receptive to and seeking constructive suggestions and advice from all sources inside and outside government departments, inside and outside governments. Particularly, I will welcome any and all suggestions hon. members may wish to make and it is my hope that each will add his own valuable contribution to the debate.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Mr. Robert  Mc@: Mr. Speaker, before the minister concludes his speech may I ask him a question. At page 23 of the text provided he has stated he would be introducing the amendment to deal with land acquisition at the report stage. Can he not do this earlier when the bill is in committee? I think everybody would agree we could examine all its ramifications there. Would he agree to taking that course?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would be agreeable to seeking the passage of that amendment at the earliest possible stage but the procedural advice which I received, and that I conveyed to the house earlier, was that I should do it at the report stage. However, if there is any way to speed it up I will be delighted.


Mr. Robert  Mc@: Mr. Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. John Parsons of Halifax have had to spend many days recently in cold spring weather living in a tent in a backyard in Halifax. They have read with interest, and very considerable scepticism, the comment of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that there is no housing crisis in Canada. When one considers that the Parsons, like a good number of other families, have an income from which they could devote approximately $125 a month for accommodation, one realizes that something is seriously wrong. I shall get into the seriously wrong things later in my contribution.
First, I would like to compliment the minister upon assuming a very important portfolio. Actually it is a "without" portfolio, and I wish I could compliment him upon being minister of housing and urban affairs. However, he is to be a Minister without Portfolio, although seized with this very important matter of housing, and there is not a soul in this chamber who would not join with me in all good wishes to him. I think I can say, although perhaps I am offending the oldest political rule in the book by being kind to an opponent, that his characteristics of earnestness and sincerity will stand him in good 
stead in the years ahead as he tackles our housing problems.
One year and one day after the Prime Minister became prime Minister his righthand man in English speaking Canada, his right-hand minister in cabinet, resigned. I refer to the former minister of transport who also had been seized with housing matters. I hope that the former minister, who performed a useful function for Canadians by working on the task force on housing, will take part in this debate, although I do not see him in the chamber today.
Sir, when that minister resigned he stated, and I quote from an article by him in the Toronto Daily Star of May 10:
I find myself unable to keep my pledge (of meeting Canadians' urgent housing problems) because of a concept of federalism espoused by the Prime Minister which, in my view, prevented action not only to meet the housing problem but to deal as well with a number of other issues which I believe to be of major concern to Canadians.
In the letter that the minister sent to the Prime Minister at the time of his resignation on April 24, he said:
I feel there is a lack of initiative in using federal powers to deal with issues such as housing, polution, inflation and urban development which are so vital to the needs of ordinary people in our modern, industrialized society.
Later on, sir, 1 will be making an argument based not only on what the former minister of transport said but on other factors that I feel would compel this parliament to establish a ministry of urban affairs. I do not think we can possibly advance into the 21st century and solve our problems without it, particularly the growth problem that, believe it or not, is going to turn the area between Milwaukee and Quebec City into the world's greatest megalopolis within some 30 years. I will unveil that portion of my speech later on.
Now, back to the view of the Prime Minister regarding the constitution, and back to the problem that caused the former minister in charge of housing to resign from the cabinet. No housing crisis? Of course, Mr. Speaker, the housing crisis is not a general crisis across the whole range of housing except in so far as costs and inflation are a general factor everywhere. But certainly for the poor people of Canada there is a housing crisis, and a housing crisis of major proportions.
Recently the Prime Minister visited Calgary and met with certain people who protested a new development in that city. Five houses were being demolished to make way for a new high rise apartment, and it was the
May 28. 1969

eviction notices to a score of families in these big old houses that spawned the Calgary organization that tossed tomatoes at the Prime Minister. One would think that having tomatoes tossed at one would make one reflect on one's statement that there is no housing crisis, the statement which prompted the tomato tossing.
Now, to deal with the minister's bill. There are 21 clauses in it. Clause No. 2 removes the interest ceiling, no. 3 cuts the insurance fees in half. Clause no. 7, as the minister pointed out, makes changes, and I think significant changes, in the low rental housing area. The change in clauses 9, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 20- almost one third of the bill-is that the Governor in Council no longer needs to approve of certain decisions by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The task force suggested cutting red tape at the municipal level, but C.M.H.C. and the present minister have made what I think is a very smart move in this direction, although he did not refer to it in his speech, by giving C.M.H.C. greater independence. It is a step that I believe could quite easily be supported by everyone. Four other clauses in the bill increase the ceiling amounts of loans by several millions, and by hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases. As the minister has explained these should carry the act through until, say, 1971, when we will have to increase the ceilings again.
Clause 14 provides for some increase in research. I wish it were more because I think the only way we are going to solve the housing crisis which affects the poor people in Canada is by some major breakthrough in cutting down the costs of building homes. If I had my way, instead of running around with a task force I think I would take a leading architect, some leading industrial engineers, and some leading builders, lock them up in a room and tell them to come out in a month's time with a program that would bring the benefits of mass production into the housing field, possibly using new materials and certainly using the best new techniques that could be devised. Unless we make an approach on that line we will always be struggling with the very serious financial problems that beset homebuilding in Canada.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Now, resuming the resume of the bill before us, Mr. Speaker, I think there is an improvement in the student housing situation. Some more flexibility is brought into that field. I think this is a commendable step. Indeed, of all the features in the legislation,
National Housing Act
perhaps the only one with which one could seriously quarrel is that which removes the ceiling on the interest rate on mortgage borrowing. I will have something to say about that in a few minutes. Looking at the accomplishments of the minister as contained in the bill, I would say some five recommendations of the task force on housing are included. The task force, as we know, made some 45 recommendations altogether. In addition, the minister very sensibly has reversed the decision of the former minister to freeze low cost .ental projects, public housing projects. He is allowing them to go ahead but faces the problem of finding the same solution the former minister sought, that of coming up with better criteria and better types of public housing. However, the result of the decision by the former minister is that public housing projects have been postponed because of the freeze for approximately six months. This has added very seriously to the problems the poor people of Canada face in respect of having a good roof over their heads.
While the minister dispenses a pretty interesting and tempting package of proposals for us, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is at work. The Minister of Finance has presented to us Bill C-191 which by clause 15 would impose certain new taxes upon the insurance companies of Canada. In 1967 the total mortgage portfolio held by the life insurance companies in Canada amounted to $6.6 billion. This represented 50 per cent of their total assets. In other words, the housing industry in Canada could not exist without this massive amount of money the private sector has made available. The best opinion we have, however, is that this clause 15 will result in a 15 per cent increase in the tax and operating expenses of the life insurance companies with the further result that $90 million less will be available for mortgage funds. If we use the yardstick I noted that they invest about half their assets in housing then we can expect a $45 million decrease in the funds made available by life insurance companies for mortgages. That I suggest is a rather substantial blow to the home building industry of Canada.
As Mr. K. R. MacGregor, the president of The Canadian Life Insurance Association and before that superintendent of insurance in the federal government, noted on "Viewpoint" on May 12:
The broader effects of the new taxes will be felt more in the extent and nature of the capital provided through life insurance companies. Since the war, the life companies have financed about

May 28. 1969
National Housing Act
one out of every four housing units built in Canada but the new conditions are bound to reduce the volume of these investments.
So, one must look at the whole policy. I hope the minister will yet be able to persuade the Minister of Finance to take a second look at a policy which in effect will drain $45 million from the home construction industry in Canada.
In respect of the removal of the interest ceiling and the other suggestion that the interest rates be re-evaluated every five years, the task force points out at page 28 of its report:
A rise of one percentage point in interest rates adds more than $9 to the monthly payment on a $15,000 25-year mortgage, raising its total amortization cost by more than $2,800. 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. These are hardly insignificant amounts. Nor do they tell the whole story. Developers and builders operate on credit, too. When their cost of money, short or long-term, is high, they have no alternative but to reflect this increasing cost in higher prices for their product.
Later on on that page we find one of the shortest sentences in the task force report:
Mortgage interest rates must come down.
Then on the following page we have the recommendation of the task force:
To ensure a more continuous and even flow of mortgage funds and in the hope that the NHA rate might well decline, the Task Force therefore recommends that:
The interest rate for insured loans under the National Housing Act be freed to find its own level in the financial marketplace.
This is one point which surely will be contentious with relation to the legislation presented to us by the minister. In committee we will have an opportunity to explore the ramifications of that particular matter. I should like to point out, however, that these mortgages under the National Housing Act are insured. A special insurance fund exists. Those who have read the task force report will know that the loss under this fund so far has been running about 50 per cent of the insurance moneys paid into it. So, I suggest there is a very small element of risk in insured N.H.A. mortgages. If there is a small element of risk, I suggest this makes it all the more reasonable for people to accept a lower rate of interest or return on their money which they invest in the mortgage part of home building in Canada. This point will be pursued when the bill is before the committee.

The minister also pointed out that there are provisions in the bill for the five year rollover type of mortgage. That means that the interest rate may be re-assessed and renegotiated at the end of each five year period. This may provide some flexibility, but I ask whether back in 1964 anyone would have gambled that the interest rates would stay between 6 per cent and 7 per cent rather than reach levels of, say, 9J per cent; who would want to gamble concerning what the interest rates will be five years from now? Certainly we would all like to see them come down. But there is no guarantee that the 9->
per cent interest rate will come down at all. The inflationary peak is still on our economy and there is simply no guarantee whatsoever in that regard. So, for the several reasons I have mentioned a determined fight will be made to hold the present provisions in the National Housing Act rather than allow interest rates to go to hell, west and crooked.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Now, let me refer to the problems of the low income group where the real crisis exists today in respect of housing in Canada. The task force report at page 52 states:
-there is no question that first and most urgent priority must be given to the needs of the lower-income groups, whatever their racial origin or geographical situation.
Only one per cent of Canadian dwellings are publicly owned low rental units and the Canadian Welfare Council has estimated that 50 per cent of Canadians need some public help with housing. The fourth annual report of the Economic Council of Canada suggests that at least one million Canadians live in substandard housing. The fifth report of the Economic Council estimates that 29 per cent of the entire population, including 4.2 million urban residents, are living in what they define as a low income situation.
The research office of the official opposition has gone into this matter of Canadian incomes quite thoroughly. In Newfoundland 52 per cent earn less than $4,000 per year; another 17 per cent are in the $4,000 to $5,000 category; another 11 per cent are in the $5,000 to $6,000 category; another 6 per cent are in the $6,000-$7,000 category and 4.5 per cent are in the $7,000-$8,000 category. This makes up almost the entire population of Newfoundland. There simply is not enough income available to over 90 per cent of Newfoundlanders to fulfil their dream of owning houses.
May 28, 1969	COMMONS
In Prince Edward Island the figures in respect of these earnings are as follows: 68 per cent earn $4,000 per year; 14 per cent earn between $4,000 and $5,000; 7.6 per cent earn between $5,000 and $6,000; 4.5. per cent earn between $6,000 and $7,000, and 2.5 per cent earn between $7,000 and $8,000. So again the bulk of the wage earning population in that province is simply unable to buy homes if you use the yardstick that one's income should be at least $8,000 per year.
In my own province of Nova Scotia, 54 per cent of the people earn less than $4,000 per year; 16.5 per cent are in the $4,000 to $5,000 category; 11.5 per cent are in the $5,000 to $6,000 category; 6.5 per cent are in the $6,000 to $7,000 category, and 2.2. per cent are in the $7,000 and $8,000. Again the story is the same. Most Nova Scotians are simply unable to own even the most modest home.
In New Brunswick the figures are almost identical to those for Nova Scotia. Some 54 per cent earn under $4,000; 16.5 per cent fall in the next $1,000 category; 11.5 per cent earn between $5,000 and $6,000; 7 per cent earn between $6,000 and $7,000 and 4 per cent earn between $7,000 and $8,000.
We now move into central Canada where we find that 45 per cent of the wage earners in Quebec earn less than $4,000 per year; 17 per cent earn between $4,000 and $5,000; 13 per cent fall within the next $1,000 level; 9 per cent fall within the $6,000 to $7,000 category; and 5.5 per cent earn between $7,000 and $8,000.
In Ontario, generally estimated as the richest of the provinces, 40 per cent earn under $4,000; 15 per cent fall within the next $1,000 category; 14 per cent fall in the next category; 11 per cent in the next and 6.5 per cent earn between $7,000 and $8,000. Even in this province, with its resources and great industry, there are many people who will simply never have the chance to own their own homes at today's costs.
In Manitoba 48 per cent of the wage earners fall in the $4,000 per year category and the figures in respect of the next four $1,000 steps up are 16 per cent, 13 per cent, 8 per cent and 5 per cent.
In Saskatchewan the figures are almost identical being 40 per cent under $4,000; 15.5 per cent in the next category, then 12 per cent, 8 per cent and 5 per cent.
In Alberta the figures are 45 per cent under $4,000, then 16 per cent, 13 per cent, 9 per cent and 6 per cent. Then in British Columbia
DEBATES	9183
National Housing Act
the figures are 38 per cent under $4,000, 13.5 per cent, 14' per cent, 11.5 per cent and 7.5 per cent.
So, from the standpoint of even those provinces which you might call the "have" provinces such as Ontario and British Columbia, more than half the wage earning population receives an income which would not under any circumstances permit the owning of a home. This government's failure to deal with costs is illustrated, I suggest by the lack of action on the task force recommendations and the recommendation of the Carter Royal Commission that the 11 per cent sales tax be removed. There has been a conspicuous failure in this regard on the part of this government, or at least there seemed to be to the former minister because it apparently was largely responsible for his resignation. His own land assembly suggestions were ignored on constitutional grounds.
The new minister has apparently had somewhat more success in this area. He told us today about the amendment that he will be presenting. Incidentally I have had a question on the order paper for several weeks which asks whether the recommendations of the task force were studied with a view to determining whether or not they were constitutional. My understanding, as a result of contacts with reliable sources, is that these recommendations have been found to be constitutional. That was not the Prime Minister's opinion, but the Prime Minister is not a law officer of the Crown. I suggest he should not be a legal advisor to his own government on constitutional matters. There are people being paid very well to perform this function. They have had considerable practical experience over the years with the constitution of Canada, and they are the people whose advice should be sought on these matters. In any event, I have asked the question and in the immortal parlance which exists around here I suppose I will soon get an answer.
Earlier I mentioned the wage level problem across Canada. Perhaps I should also mention that it seems to be the dream of Canadians to own their own homes. This is a dream which is almost impossible of fulfilment for most of them in view of the way things are today. None the less, it is a dream which exists in the hearts and minds of the men and women in this country. The task force report points

May 28, 1969
National Housing Act
out that approximately 80 per cent of Canadians wish to own their own home. This statement appears at page 17 of the report and I will quote directly from it:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Invariably the response indicated that at least 80 per cent of those present wanted to own their own home, the same figure incidentally which Professor Edward Michaelson of Toronto obtained in a more scientific sampling.
Yet the figures on wage levels in Canada that I have read into the record undoubtedly indicate that at least 80 per cent of Canadians cannot own their own single family dwelling. The statistics have borne out that single family housing starts have decreased each year in Canada. In 1948, the figure was 63.6 per cent, in 1964 it had gone down to 46 per cent and in 1968 it had dropped to 38 per cent. This is something on which all of us should reflect.
This decrease in single family housing starts does not so much reflect the lack of building as the lack of economic resources to make use of what is available. For example, the Toronto Progressive Conservative Forum established a special housing and urban services committee which, after considering the limited dividend provision of the act, stated in its report:
Between 1950 and 1964, 436 projects containing 32,462 housing units were constructed in Canada under section 16 of the National Housing Act by limited dividend housing companies and private entrepreneurs, for rental to families and individuals of low income. This is an average of 2,164 units per year. However, in 1965 only 70 suites were constructed under this scheme, and in 1966, 1967 and 1968 none were constructed.
This situation becomes grimmer and grimmer when one realizes the nature of the massive problem we are up against in dealing with reasonable accommodation for those on low incomes. The president of the Canadian Association of Real Estate Boards, Mr. Dennis R. Stewart, stated that:
-60 per cent of persons who are seeking homes do not have the income for one at current prices.
Mr. Stewart also notes that:
-since they cannot qualify for C.M.H.C. loans restricting payments to 27 per cent of income, they are forced into rental accommodation where many pay up to 40 per cent of their income.
If the Prime Minister is still not convinced that there is a housing crisis for people on lower incomes in Canada, let me tell him that the Toronto housing authority currently has 11,000 families, most of them earning under $5,500 a year, on the waiting list.

I said earlier that I am sorry one cannot address the minister as minister of housing and urban affairs. I think that there are many good reasons for establishing such a department as quickly as possible. Indeed, this was one of the recommendations of the task force. The task force suggested in part that the government through such a department could encourage, support and co-ordinate an expanded urban research program with greater priority on the initiation of practical research programs including pilot projects. I think that in the field of research the need for such a department becomes very apparent.


Robert Knight Andras: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he not agree that the matter of how I can be addressed only means that my services are a little less expensive than they would be otherwise?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the minister is a young man with a family and, like everyone else here, we try to do our best to bring up our families. I would not begrudge him the extra income which he would receive as the minister of housing and urban affairs. I think that in any event, he is going to earn every penny he is being paid. I wish he were being paid at the more decent level of a minister with portfolio.
There are other problems, such as problems of pollution and of urban transportation. These are the things that should be dealt with by a department such as is recommended by the task force and such as my own party recommends. But there is probably a better reason than that for establishing such a department, one that will become apparent before the end of this century, and that is the development along both sides of the St. Lawrence River of the most heavily populated part of North America. At present the area that extends from Boston to south of Washington has the distinction of being a megalopolis, but it is hedged by the Appalachian mountains on one side. Probably it cannot go further north or south for climatic reasons, and possibly it has reached its natural size in any event.
Recently in Detroit a farsighted company, the Detroit Edison Company, retained the services of a great Greek architect, Dr. Con-stantinos Doxiadis. The Doxiadis group went to work in the city of Detroit, looked at its future growth, and by the time they had completed their studies found that they really had to examine the growth of the whole area from as far west as Milwaukee to as far east as Quebec city. So, what started as a problem
May 28, 1969

for Detroit was projected for the next 30 years, and that group could only find the solution by looking at the development between Milwaukee and Quebec city. The Doxiadis group came to the conclusion that a megalopolis would develop on both sides of the St. Lawrence waterway system and around two of the Great Lakes. The following statement appears in a brief resume of the Doxiadis studies:
The 1960 population of the Great Lakes megalopolis was 22.5 million versus 7 millions of the eastern megalopolis. The eastern megalopolis, although older than any other area of heavy population concentration, has a limited growth potential due to geographic considerations. It is predicted that within the next 30 years the Great Lakes megalopolis will actually overtake the eastern megalopolis in population.
The word "overtake" simply means another 15 million people, without taking into account a reasonable increase in the population which will take place in any event. Those who think that Lake Erie, with the population around it now, has a pollution problem should realize the enormity of the problem that will exist around Lake Erie with double the number of inhabitants. The same could be said, I suppose, with regard to Lake Ontario. The fact is that this megalopolis which is foreseen within 30 years, spreading from Milwaukee through Detroit, up both sides of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and up the St. Lawrence to Quebec City-
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: "Dawn the St. Lawrence", surely?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, down the St. Lawrence to Quebec City. It would go through two provinces and, I suppose, five or six states. This seems to me to be a most compelling argument in favour of a department which could put its resources into planning, in conjunction with Ontario and Quebec, in preparation for what is bound to happen. This department would study the urban transportation situation which is bound to develop. It would study the transit of electric power. This is a major factor and is the reason the Detroit Edison Company commissioned such a study in the first place. There are all sorts of compelling reasons for action on the part of the federal government through a department of the kind I am suggesting if there is to be anything in the nature of a half decent, orderly growth in this area which, in Canada, will stretch from around Windsor to Quebec City. I hope the minister will be able to use
National Housing Act
his influence to have this grave deficiency in our present set-up corrected.
In brief, I think most of the measures which have been presented to us by the minister can be supported. They will, of course, be studied in the committee where important questions will, I am sure, be asked, and some amendments put forward. I believe that the clauses dealing with interest might well have been left out of this legislation altogether, at least until we have some control in parliament and in the country over inflation. The bill has many commendable features. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the problems of about half the people of Canada, those in the lower income brackets, will remain largely unsolved despite this legislation.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: It would be very easy for me to say that the minister in charge of housing is a man of compassion, sincerity and ability. He took those qualities with him to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; he listened patiently to the complaints of the Indians, indeed, he probably listened too patiently because he was subjected to severe criticism from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other persons. The effect of this was to render him somewhat ineffective in his performance. It is easy to say he will bring compassion and sincerity to his new duties as minister responsible for housing. But what he really needs is conviction and determination if he is to solve the housing crisis in Canada today.
After listening to his 26-page performance today, I can only conclude that he has attempted to become an image-maker. He has attempted to become the good guy with regard to housing, because housing has become so delicate an issue in Canada that all the newspapers and housing authorities have begun to jump on the government for action. As I listened to the minister's speech I could not help thinking it represented a big, gift-wrapped box with very small gifts contained therein.
I intend to make a few suggestions in the course of my brief remarks. I was pleased by the minister's statement just before resuming his seat that he would welcome any suggestions hon. members might wish to make, and that he hoped they would make their contributions to the debate. Yet when the spokesman for the Conservative party got up, the minister headed straight for the television
9186

May 28. 1969
National Housing Act
cameras and the microphones instead of listening to the worthwhile criticism expressed by that hon. member.


Robert Knight Andras: The first thing I will read in Hansard.


John Gilbert: If that represents an attempt to become an image-maker, if it is an attempt to become a good guy, one would be critical of the minister's performance.
Bill C-192 is really a slap in the face to most Canadians. It is really a housekeeping bill in relation to the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It represents capitulation to the financial institutions in respect of mortgage financing and interest rates. It reflects the callous, arrogant and determined intention of the Prime Minister not to give federal leadership in the field of housing. The Prime Minister shelters behind the constitution while thousands of Canadians have no place to lay their heads, while thousands of Canadians are forced to endure poor and inadequate housing and while most Canadians are obliged to pay far more than they can afford by way of rent, repayment and interest rates.
This cannot be said to be the minister's bill. It is the Prime Minister's bill. It is a poor answer to Canada's housing needs. It is the Prime Minister's attempt to fulfil election promises and his implementation of the recommendations of the task force report. I do not have to review what happened to the task force report, or recall the consequent resignation of the former minister of transport in charge of housing. He stated that differences had arisen between himself and the Prime Minister with regard to the concept of federalism and that he had a responsibility to his constituents to help provide decent housing, clean air and clean water. I hope the hon. member who was in charge of housing will rise in his place soon and make some constructive criticisms of this legislation.
I was impressed by an article which appeared in last Saturday's Toronto Daily Star under the headline "Trudeau is Only Fair as Prime Minister, Voter Survey Indicates". It was written by Peter Regenstreif, and this is what he had to say:
After one year in office, Pierre Trudeau gets an "only fair" or "poor" rating from most of the Canadian electorate for the job he has been doing as Prime Minister, according to a national survey.
The public is disappointed with his handling of basic issues such as high taxes, the cost of living, housing and poverty.

It goes on later to say:
A Don Mills processing engineer said: "I think Trudeau has improved our image in the world. They know who he is now outside the country and they sure notice Canada now. And young people are more interested in government now that he is there."
Trudeau's detractors feel that he has done little or nothing while in office and that he's been too much of a swinger: 41 per cent of those criticizing him-23 per cent of the entire sample-do so because, as a garage mechanic in Beauce in rural Quebec put it: "He's too busy with travelling around and being kissed by young girls."
A Montreal plant manager was blunt: "All he's done is a lot of talking and no doing."
The next paragraph goes on:
Rural Quebec is unhappy. A maintenance supervisor in Alma claimed: "Abortion and divorce bills won't do anything about our problems here. He should be busy doing something about the Saguenay and Lake St. John districts. We need employment here."
Westerners are especially up in arms. A farmer in Milk River, Alberta complained: "He hasn't done anything noticeable. We've lost our markets. But he shrugs off the important issues and he avoids any concrete answers. No one knows what he stands for-and wasn't he a comic in England?"
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Here is a survey under the byline of Peter Regenstreif, one of the noted surveymen in the country.


Mr, Corbin:: Ha!


Mr, Gilbert:: I hear one of the Liberal members is not too happy with the comment about this survey. Bill C-192 is the Prime Minister's bill, not the bill of the minister in charge of housing. I also note that after the Liberal backbenchers read Bill C-192 they became very disturbed because they found it wanting in regard to supplying houses to persons in the low income groups and in regard to alleviating the high cost of land.
I hope that Toronto members will rise in their places and relate to the minister the housing problems we have in Canada, because there has been an almost graveyard silence from the members of the Liberal party who represent Toronto in connection with this problem. I do not hesitate to say that the problems of Torontonians have been expressed by the Toronto members of the New Democratic party while there has been a stony silence on the part of Toronto members in the Liberal party. I hope that the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens), who has had broad experience as a former mayor of Toronto as well as experience in housing and urban development, will broaden the debate by making a constructive contribution.
May 28, 1969

The new minister has assured us that he has an open mind on this subject, and that he has been immersing himself in this subject of housing. Last Friday he surfaced to bring forth one amendment concerning the extension of the date on loans to the provinces and municipalities for the construction or extension of sewage treatment projects. Today, I notice he added to the category of definitions. This is the first time I have heard the word "indulgibly" accommodated. I should like the minister when we get into the committee to give us the full meaning of that word because it appears to be one that one of the men in Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has dreamt up or has read in some periodical and which he thinks may apply to Canadians.
I am not very impressed with the start made by the minister. Instead of setting forth a target of a number of housing units for Canada and giving the proper mix of housing, whether it be residential public, co-operative or housing for senior citizens, and also emphasizing the high cost of land, high interest rates and giving housing guidelines, the minister has indulged in rather a price essay on housing problems. It is an essay that has probably been composed by some of the learned economists employed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The minister's speech was no reflection of his compassion, sincerity and ability. I have said that this bill is a slap in the face to most Canadians because it is only a housekeeping bill. It is a capitulation to the financial institutions. It is also an indication of a lack of leadership.
We find that the first amendment contained in this housekeeping bill is to widen the definition of the word "house" so as to include condominium housing and existing homes for the purpose of loans made by approved lenders. We then find a series of increases in the statutory limits. There is an increase in the statutory limit on insured housing loans under the National Housing Act to approved lenders of from $11 billion to $15 billion. This is not very impressive because our commitment as of December 31, 1968 was $9,500 million. In other words, there still remained $1.5 billion within the statutory limit. Having read of the performance of C.M.H.C. last year, I am aware of the fact that only $793.4 million was spent by assured lenders on housing.
Secondly, there is an increase in the statutory limit from $5,200 million to $6,100
National Housing Act
million for public housing. Again our commitment as of December 31 last was $4,300 million. Last year we spent only $217.7 million in this department, which was less than one half the total for 1967. Again, we would have been far within the existing statutory limit.
Thirdly, there is an increase in the statutory limit for home improvement loans of from $550 million to $600 million. The commitment as of December 31, 1968 amounted to $479 million, whereas last year we spent only $23.9 million, representing 10,524 loans, which compared to 1967 was a drop from 16,631 loans which amounted to $35.2 million. So, again we would have stayed within the statutory limit.
The minister is also increasing the statutory limit for student housing from $350 million to $550 million. Our commitment as. of December 31 last amounted to $307 million; last year we spent only $60.1 million. The existing statutory limits and the intended increase indicated that, with the exception of student housing loans, and, if the performance this year is the same as the performance last year or even if there is a slight improvement, there will be no necessity to increase the old limits to the proposed new statutory limits. In other words, these changes are mere housekeeping, window dressing, to create the impression of concern and activity when in fact there is a lack of concern, and inactivity.
I have said that this bill amounts to a capitulation to the financial institutions. When I read Clause 2 of the bill, which frees the fixed interest rates on insured loans through the instrumentation of the Governor in Council, my first reaction was; Who asked the government for this change? Was it the borrowers, the mortgagors, or was it the banks, the insurance companies and the trust companies?
We all recall the experience of the banks when they were limited to an interest ceiling of 6 per cent under the Bank Act. We remember the great performance they put on before the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, as it is now called. They said they must have an increase beyond the 6 per cent, and the government yielded. We now find that bank interest rates range from 8 per cent upward. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it was not the mortgagors who asked for the freeze on interest rates to be lifted, but rather the banks, the insurance companies and the trust companies.

May 28, 1969
National Housing Act These companies have been playing a cat and mouse game with the government. Instead of ensuring a steady flow of money into the mortgage market, they have held back and refused to participate or have invested in other fields that give them higher yields. We all recall the experience of the former minister of transport in charge of housing last August when he called to Ottawa the representatives of the insurance companies, trust companies and banks and explained to them the problem being encountered in regard to mortgage financing. They refused to increase the flow of mortgage money and in September, when we returned to Ottawa, what happened? We had to put $170 million, which could have been used for public and senior citizen housing, into the mortgage field. I mention this to illustrate the performance of some insurance companies. The annual C.M.H.C. report for 1968 indicates that the volume of mortgage money made available by insurance companies in 1968 declined from the total made available in 1967. The insurance companies also practice the trick of putting their money into equities. They would sooner do that than put money into mortgages. That shows how necessary it is for us to obtain commitments from financial institutions for mortgage moneys. We can do this by persuasion or, if necessary, by legislation. They ought to set aside, out of sums they can invest, money which can be made available for mortgages. After all, whose money do insurance companies collect? Their money comes from the premiums paid by ordinary Canadians. There is an obligation, therefore, on our insurance companies to see that sufficient mortgage money flows to the mortgage market and that there is no shortage of mortgage money.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I was impressed by a statement made by the president of C.M.H.C. In a report he said that the all absorbing problem facing many in this country during 1969 has been the problem of lack of mortgages. He realizes, as I hope the new minister realizes1, how necessary it is to impose lending obligations on our financial institutions in order that those institutions can fulfil their obligations to all Canadians.
When I heard that maximum mortgage repayment periods were to be extended from 35 to 40 years, I was at once reminded that most C.M.H.C mortgages run for 25 years. Now, we are to extend the term to 40 years. Can you imagine what that will do to the

average Canadian, Mr. Speaker? He is ready to buy a house by the time he is 25 or 30. By then he is married and probably has a couple of children. During his 30's, when he has many expenses and is buying a home and trying to raise a couple of kids, he faces the prospect of a 40 year mortgage. He will be 70 by the time it is paid off. Is that not a great performance on the part of the government?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is where I come in, with pensions.


Mr. Givens:: It is an open mortgage.


John Gilbert: The hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) says it is an open mortgage. I hope he realizes how heavy will be the morgage payments with present high interest rates. The homeowner will be repaying his loan for 40 years. When he is 60 or 65 years of age his income will decline but he will still have to maintain high, fixed mortgage payments. That is the sort of thing our financial institution have persuaded the government to countenance.
I see that the regulations are to be changed and that mortgages can now be renewed every 5 years. It is not the borrower who has asked for these changes; it is the financial institutions which want to take advantage of rising interest rates to screw even tighter the financial vise. They want mortgages to be drawn on their terms. They do not put people first but profits first, and for that they should be roundly condemned.
The government has failed to give leadership in the field of housing. All the same, I should like to see the minister without portfolio who is responsible for housing elevated to the position of a full minister. I suppose he would be the minister of housing. After all, to argue that you are saving Canadian taxpayers $8,000 a year by calling him a minister without portfolio is not fair to the minister. I say he is entitled to a ministry.


Mr. Alexander:: That is right.


John Gilbert: I wish the minister had
brought forward a proper housing program and included in that an appropriate housing mix. Special emphasis ought to have been paid to low income families. That was not done. Instead, the government has hidden behind the constitution and has given no comfort to those without homes.


Mr. Bigg:: I agree with that, Mr. Speaker.
May 28, 19G9


John Gilbert: On April 25 of this year, the Prime Minister said in this house that there was no housing crisis in Canada. Yet today the Minister said we have a housing crisis. Then, he indulged in semantics and said, "You know, there is a difference between a housing crisis and a housing problem". He indulged in a word marathon-if one may call it that- and one must assume that C.M.H.C. economists advised him about aspects of the housing problem. Nevertheless, his argument was that there is a distinction between a housing crisis and a housing problem.
The Prime Minister displayed a callous and arrogant attitude on April 25 when he spoke about housing. Having been to Camden in the Maritimes and seen the deplorable housing conditions there and having had tomatoes thrown at him in the west, the Prime Minister may have said to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing, "You know, you had better say there is a housing crisis, but you could perhaps indulge in a little semantic word play and say there is a difference between a housing crisis and a housing problem".
The N.D.P. party says there is a housing crisis, and that view is shared by most Canadians. But why do we say this, Mr. Speaker? We say it because there is a shortage of housing stock and because houses are very expensive. I hesitate to repeat figures, but I must repeat them if I am to persuade the government that there is a shortage of housing in Canada.
The report of the task force on housing indicated that there are 5.5 million housing units in Canada and that there are 5.7 million family and non-family housing users. On the face of it, therefore, we have a shortage of
200.000	homes. The report said that of these 5.5 million houses, 500,000 are in sub-standard condition. Also, 400,000 families are doubling up and 100,000 people are on waiting lists for public housing across this country. I am prepared at this stage to accept the findings of the Economic Council of Canada and of the task force on housing. Clearly, 200,000 homes must be found.
Let us examine what housing units have been built in the past. In 1966 I note that
134.000	units are listed as being built; in 1967 that figure increases to 164,000 units and, in 1968, to 196,000 units. Yet I note that these are housing starts. When one examines the number of houses completed, one sees a slightly different picture. I am talking about homes which are ready for occupancy. We
National Housing Act
find that in 1967, 149,242 units were completed; the completion figure for 1968 rose to 170,993 units. I emphasize that these latter figures are for housing units which have been completed.
Let us examine the types of homes that were built in 1968. Of 196,878 homes begun in that year, 111,425 consisted of apartments or row housing units, only 85,453 being single family, semi-detached or duplex accommodations. As the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation indicated in his annual report, this is the first year in which construction of private dwellings has accounted for less than half of total housing starts. Is it any wonder it was necessary to have $170 million for construction of detached and condominium units in September of last year?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I remind the minister in charge of housing of the brief presented by the Co-operative Union of Canada wherein they stated the broad outline for mixed housing should be 65 per cent residential single family homes and apartments, 10 per cent to 20 per cent public housing and 15 per cent co-operative housing. In 1968, 98.5 per cent of all homes were residential, 1 per cent public housing and I think I am being generous when I say .5 per cent was co-operative housing. This is the problem which faced the former minister when he presented his estimates to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. There is nothing in this bill which will correct the imbalance of housing.
We in this party say there is a housing crisis in Canada not only because there is a shortage of housing, but because of the high cost of housing, land costs, mortgage financing, interest rates and the material costs. I wish to deal with these separately. Very little of the material costs are accounted for in the sharp increase in home costs. Production methods have absorbed much of the increased labour costs.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) refused to remove the 11 per cent sales tax, this indicated he wished to retain this financial instrument. We in this party said at that time if the tax were not removed it should be applied as part of the down payment on a home valued to $25,000. The increase in the cost of labour and material has not been the major component with regard to the high cost of housing. It is the second phase of mortgage financing, as the President of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has said.,

housing purposes, with a provision allowing the interest as an exemption from income tax. These are three methods to meet the problem of the high cost of housing caused by high interest rates.
The third component of the high cost of housing is high land costs. These have been excessive in most major cities across the country. When I read the recommendation of the task force that we should set up land banks I could not help but think of the Malvern project just outside Toronto, where the federal and provincial governments participated in purchasing a large tract of land in 1953. However, in 1969 there is still not one home built on that property. That does not mean we should not direct our attention to developing the land bank idea. I hope the minister can persuade the provinces and municipalities to take advantage of the amendments he is suggesting so that they will buy large tracts of land and thus bring down the cost of building lots.
I also recommend that the minister immediately incorporate the capital gains tax suggested by the Carter report. I recommend that a higher assessment be placed on inner core city vacant land and on vacant land on the peripheries of cities held by developers who are waiting for urban development to spread out from the cities.
I would now like to say a few words about public housing. One of the greatest disservices that the former minister of transport in charge of housing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Badanai):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Let him carry on.


John Gilbert: I would like to thank members of the house for their courtesy. I have only about five more minutes and I will try to make the rest of my speech as brief as possible. I was just saying that one of the greatest disservices done by the former minister was to put a freeze on public housing, and his attempt to downgrade public housing. As a result of criticism by the press, social workers, and concerned organizations, the government has realized its mistake and is now attempting to provide a better deal in the public housing area.
I have said on many occasions that our public housing effort is a disgraceful one. We have only 40,000 public housing homes. That represents less than 1 per cent of our total
National Housing Act
housing stock. The report of the task force on housing attempted to use public housing as a whipping boy, and attempted to downgrade it. But men like Professor Rose of the University of Toronto suggested to members of the task force that they should remember the type of slum housing that public housing replaced.
Public housing may have had a certain stigma attached to it, but nevertheless public housing has served the needs of many Canadians who, without it, would be living in much worse accommodation. When I think of a country like England with 30 per cent of its housing stock represented by public housing, and of a country like Sweden with an almost similar record, it makes me realize what a disgraceful record we have in this area. One of the reasons that people downgrade public housing is that it lacks supporting services such as recreational facilities and day care nurseries. I hope the minister will see to it that new public housing projects have these services.
I am sure I have the consent of all hon. members when I say that housing is a basic human right of all Canadians, and that all Canadians are entitled to housing at a reasonable cost. When I think of what we have done in housing and compare it with what we have done in education, it makes me realize that if we conducted our educational institutions in the same way as we conduct our housing projects very few Canadian children would see the inside of a school. Surely, we have a responsibility to all Canadians to see that they get decent, clean, proper, adequate housing as a basic human right, in the same way as they get educational services.
I would hope that the minister would give leadership in easing housing needs, and that he will give an assurance that the government will spend the $720 million which is required in order to have a steady flow of mortgage moneys. I hope he will tackle the question of interest rates. I hope he will seriously consider setting up a building corporation to build homes for senior citizens, and place public housing projects under its jurisdiction. Other building corporations in Canada need a crown corporation to give them leadership and direction in this important field. I hope the minister will continue to assist research into housing, so that we can develop a type of house which meets all the social and environmental needs of Canadians.
I have found that most Canadians are very patient with the government and its inadequate performance. But I would say to the

May 28, 1969
National Housing Act
minister that if he does not produce a performance which meets the approval of most Canadians by the end of this year, he should then take a course similar to that taken by the former minister and resign, thereby underlining the need for leadership and for a decent housing program.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, this bill entitled: An act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954 provides us with the opportunity not only to scrutinize the policy of the government with regard to housing and its suggestions to improve the housing conditions of the Canadian people but also to find out how this government intends to build a just society in Canada.
I think that only one word can properly describe Bill C-192 on housing and this word is disappointment. It is disappointing first for tenants paying rather high rents and who had hoped that with this new bill they could some day own their own home at a reasonable price, consistent with the promise made to them.
It is disappointing also for our young people who wish to get married and who some day would like to become home owners, because they thought that the housing reform would be favorable to them.
It is also disappointing for our businessmen, our contractors who know the needs of the people, who are aware of the great demand for homes and of the housing requirements of the Canadian people and who cannot meet these requirements. They have the expertise, the manpower and the materials available, and our country can supply even more. They know the needs of the people who wish to become home owners and who counted on the amendments to the housing legislation now under consideration so as to know what to do in order to satisfy the needs of a large sector of our Canadian people.
This is a disappointing bill on account of the interest rate, not only because the government does not put any ceiling on it but also because it has removed the one that existed and was already too high.
Moreover, this bill does not provide in any way for corrective measures against the increasing cost of housing. We had, a few years ago, the 11 per cent tax on building materials and on top of that we paid an 8 per cent provincial sales tax. As for prices, an average tax of about 45 per cent is due to the price of various Canadian products. And to

all those taxes is added the financing, so that when our houses are paid for in 40 years from now, we will have paid for about five houses instead of one, and I have here, Mr. Speaker, figures to prove it.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This bill is a disappointment for the people, for the electors who had put their faith in the man who promised them a just society. It is especially disappointing for the taxpayers who have to pay the so-called social development tax and who cannot profit by this promised social development because the laws lead to social recession rather than to social progress. In other words, it is the most underprivileged who are especially affected by this so-called 2 per cent social development tax and it is precisely they who will not profit by the benefits which could be brought about by this so-called social development tax.
So that one should be tempted to call me to order in the course of my remarks on this bill to amend the Housing Act, when I speak of the just society, of the land promised by the Liberals, of the personal income tax, of the so-called social development tax, I want to sum up, for this house, the substance of my argument.
I shall demonstrate that the taxpayers whose income is under $4,000 will supply funds for mortgage loans under the Housing Act and that those same taxpayers will not benefit from the amendments to that act.
I shall also demonstrate, with the help of statistics, that the small taxpayers will also contribute to the consolidated fund through the so-called social development tax, but that they will be unable to benefit from the amendments to the act.
In addition, I shall demonstrate that the average taxpayers, that is those whose income ranges between $4,000 and $5,000, who pay a considerable amount of personal income tax and who will pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the consolidated fund through the social development tax, may be able to use the amendments stipulated in Bill C-192, but that by so doing, that is by using the capital loaned for a longer period at an undetermined interest rate, they will only be led to bankruptcy. So that, in their case, the just society that was promised will, in reality, be a step backward economically and socially.
Finally, in conclusion, only the "haves", the rich, those whose income exceeds $7,000,

May 28, 1969
$10,000, $15,000 and $25,000 will be in a position to benefit from the legislative measures proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the minister now in charge of housing (Mr. Andras) which, to our mind, constitutes a very odd concept of a just society.
To summarize, Bill C-192 is unfair, like all the main measures of which the government and the Prime Minister seem to be so proud, that is the so-called social development tax and the legislation condoning homosexuality and abortion.
First, a few words about this just society which was mentioned about ten times in the Speech from the Throne and to which the Prime Minister devoted a good number of speeches during his election campaign and in the course of his interventions in the house.
The government has been in office for months and one still wonders what is the meaning of this just society which was promised by the Prime Minister. Was it an illusion meant to insure votes for the Liberal party?
For instance, does this just society, according to the Prime Minister, only mean that two consenting adults can enjoy freedom of action between the four walls of a bedroom where the government should not put its nose? Does this just society tolerate also that those who live in this bedroom be reduced to unemployment, misery and slums?
It is true the Prime Minister who sponsored Bill C-192 has omitted to include this measure in the priority bills announced in the Speech from the Throne, in order to establish a just society.
Therefore, it is not surprising to find that the Prime Minister introduced this bill that will lead to a just society, because he understands and recognizes that the bill is very unjust for the Canadian nation.
In bill C-192 amending the National Housing Act, 1954, there is no sign at all of the just society the Prime Minister talked about during the election campaign.
What does Bill C-192 propose? First, it increases from $11 billion to $15 billion the aggregate amount of all loans that may be insured under the National Housing Act.
Second, it extends from 35 to 40 years the maximum term of the loans.
Third, it allows for the escalation of mortgage interests on market rates.
National Housing Act Where do these billions of dollars advanced to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for loans to be made under the National Housing Act come from? The answer is simple. These $15 billion provided for insured loans, as the $6.1 billion in loans that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation can provide directly, as well as the $600 million granted as loans for home improvement, and the $650 million to reduce the insurance fees, they all come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Who replenishes this Fund? Certainly not the chartered banks or the Bank of Canada. It is all the taxpayers, the individuals and the businesses, the workers, the businessmen, the industrials, who are taxed by the government of Canada.
On that point, Mr. Speaker, with your leave and that of the house, I would like to put on record the following table, taken from a document on fiscal statistics, published in 1968 by the Department of National Revenue, and which gives statistics on the taxable reports, according to the civil status, the dependents and the income for 1966.
Mr. Speaker, this table shows how much the taxpayers with a married status paid in 1966, and those people needed a place to live, as they had one, two, three or four dependents.
This table shows also how much the taxpayers subject to the so-called social development tax would have paid if it had been levied in 1966. Obviously, if we had the statistics for 1968 or 1967, the figures would be higher for both personal income tax and the social development tax, but they are not available.
But, Mr. Speaker, if we must admit that the Consolidated Revenue Fund is made up of revenue coming from the income tax and the so-called social development tax, we must conclude that the taxpayers who pay any kind of taxes, as well as those who are subjected to the so-called social development tax, replenish the Consolidated Revenue Fund, from which the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation draws funds, when it runs short, under the National Housing Act.
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, there cannot be any doubt. On November 4 last according to Hansard, at page 2360, the Prime Minister stated in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and I quote:
It is a general tax for social development pur' poses, and has been imposed to meet the escalatioi of costs in many areas of expenditure.

National Housing Act According to the Prime Minister's (Mr., Trudeau) report, there is no doubt that the 2 per cent social development tax replenishes the consolidated revenue fund from which the C.M.H.C. draws its funds.
What are the lessons to be learned, then, from the table which has just been put on record with regard to the personal income, under the so-called social development tax, according to the latest figures available?
I would like to know whether the house agrees to the table being put on record?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
May 28, 1969
	Wlli thosc taxpayers in the $4,000
to $7,000 income bracket be able to take advantage of those new amendments?
To answer this question, one must make calculations and find out what would be the monthly or annual payment on a loan obtained under the new provisions of the act.
On that matter, Mr. Speaker, with your permission and the consent of the house I would like to put on record the table con-temed in Publication No. 34 of the Financial Publishing Co. and entitled "Monthly Mortgage Payments".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Badanai):: Order, please. I suggest it would be better if this was done at the end of your speech.
[ Translation]


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What do we learn from the table? That 508,366 families with 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 dependents, earning less than $4,000, with a taxable income of $389,833,000, have paid in personal income tax a total of $49,863,000.
If those families had been contributing in 1966 to the so-called social development tax, they would then have paid $7,796,000 into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Yet, although they have paid some $57 million into the Fund in 1966 (and these figures would certainly be higher according to the 1968 statistics), they will not be able to get a single cent for better accommodations under the amendments proposed in Bin C-192.
With regard now to families with an income ranging between $4,000 and $7,000, we realize that there are 1,294,374 of them. We also find that in 1966 they paid into the consolidated revenue fund a total amount of $479,250,000 as personal income tax and that they would have paid, under the so-called social development tax, an amount of $64,859,000, if such a tax had existed. Let us keep in mind once again that the figures would certainly be higher, if statistics for 1967-68 were available.
Now, what benefits will those wage-earners and taxpayers draw from the new provisions of Bill C-192?
They might obtain insured loans up to $25,000, according to the new regulations enacted by the governor in council on April 25, 1969, which increase the ceiling of loans from $18,100 to $25,000, for an increase of $7,000.

With the table, it is possible to find out at a glance what will be the monthly payment on a $1000 loan at rates of 5, 7, 9, 9i and 10 per cent, over 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 years.
To get the monthly or annual repayment on a $25,000 mortgage, for instance, all we have to do is multiply by 25 the figures given in the table for a $1,000 loan.
With your permission, at the end of my speech I shall table the chart and the previous one so they will appear in Hansard.
Here are a few examples of figures one can find in the table. Let us first examine the case where the repayment period is extended from 35 to 40 years.
Let us take, for instance, the case of the extension from 35 to 40 years of the repayment period. On a $20,000 loan bearing interest at 10 per cent and refundable over a period of 35 years, the borrower will have to pay back $168.80 per month for 420 months, or $2,025.60 per year, for a total of $70,896.
If we figure it out the same way for a similar $20,000 loan at 10 per cent, but refundable over 40 years or 480 month's, we come up with the following figures: monthly installments of $166.60, for an annual repayment of $1,999.20 and a grand total of $79,968.
What is the difference on a $20,000 loan at 10 per cent and refundable over a 35-or 40-year period? Only $1.60 less for the borrower to pay each month.
The borrower will have to reimburse only $26.40 per year over a 40-year period instead of 35 years. But in all, the difference after 40 years will amount to $9,072.
The poor fellow-and that is the name he deserves-who will have borrowed $20,000 at 10 per cent for a 40-year instead of a 35-year period will have his monthly instalments decreased by only about $2, and the total of his annual payments will be only $26 less.
But because his loan will spread over 40 years instead of 35, he will have to pay $9,000
May 28. 1969
more because he will have to make a monthly payment of $166.60 for 60 extra months.
A gift of over $9,000 to big finance, the only one to get something out of the provisions of this bill. Not the contractors, not the tenants, not the owners, but big finance.
That is a gift of more than $9,000 to the lenders because the borrower will have been granted the privilege of paying back his loan over a period of 480 months or 40 years instead of 420 months or 35 years.
That is the just society of the Liberals! That is the just society of the Prime Minister: the enslavement of Canadians by moneylenders!
I could repeat the argument with regard to loans of $15,000 or $25,000. The results would be just as bad and just as disappointing as the bill now under study.
For example, for a loan of $15,000 at 9 per cent, the comparative figures would be the following: for a 35-year mortgage, the monthly repayment would amount to $115.82, for a 40-year one, it would be $113.85, which gives a saving of $1.97 per month.
The yearly saving will only be $23.40, if the reimbursement of $15,000, at a rate of interest of 9 per cent, is spread over 40 years instead of 35.
However, under the terms of the mortgage, and this is what is important-the borrower, if he reimburses his debt over a 40-year period instead of 35, will have paid $6,012 more to big finance. This is a handsome gift to big finance, to money lenders and to banks, which are creating credit money out of nothing.
Once again, this is the just society of the Liberal government and of the Prime Minister, who sponsored such a bill.
But in addition to this tribute the future borrower will have to pay to big finance, the figures shown on this table, which are simply fantastic.
The house-owner who borrows $25,000 at 10 per cent and who repays it over 40 years will have to pay, in the way of interest, to the finance corporation, the fantastic amount of $74,960 for a $25,000 loan. This sum would enable him to build three other houses of $25,000 each.
The house-owner who borrows $20,000 at 9 per cent repayable over 25 years' time, will have paid, for the interest only, a sum of $44,840 before he is able to refund his $20,000 loan, which adds up to a total sum of $64,840.
National Housing Act Thus, the amendments proposed by the government cannot help those who want to build a house and are unable to solve the serious problems of housing.
There is no point in adding any further comment. The only ones to profit by this law will be the rich, the "haves", those who make a high salary and the investors who will find more rewarding to invest their savings and their capital in high dividend enterprises rather than in the ordinary shares of companies which bring less return than the mortgages. They will then take advantage of the provisions of the National Housing Act to build themselves a house because they will find it more profitable.
All in all, Mr. Speaker, it will be the rich, the "haves" who will profit by the billions made available to the Central Mortgage Housing Corporation under the National Housing Act and who will consent direct, insured loans through the resources provided by the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
However, it is not only the "haves" and the rich which provide for this Fund through taxation, but also the people who make an average salary, ranging from $4,000 to $7,000 per year and those whose income is under $4,000 per year. This just society promised by the Liberal government will only exist for the rich and will remain most unjust and antisocial with regard to the most disadvantaged of our Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, as the previous speaker just said, this bill is a slap in the face of the Canadian people, for we had expected a different legislation from the one now before us. Canadians will be greatly disappointed, and rightly so, with this bill that will only worsen the housing problem in Canada. It is a critical problem which would require logical solutions so as to enable the poor in this country to live more decently and to have at last a house of their own. But, at present, as some of us pointed out, a person of 30 who buys a house will have paid in interest, at the age of 70, for at least three other houses. The Liberal government tried to sell that kind of just society to the Canadian people during the last election campaign. Those who will have only to write a cheque, when the mortgage is granted, will have to wait 40 years for their capital to yield a 10 per cent interest. This legislation will only contribute to encourage big finance and make the poor poorer, make fewer big ones grow bigger and more small ones smaller.



May 28, 1969
National Housing Act
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. During the course of the hon. member's remarks he made a request of the house that certain tables be filed as part of his speech. I should like to point out to him and to the house that this is quite contrary to the normal practice in this house, but I am prepared to put the question to the house. If the house gives unanimous consent, then these tables can be filed as part of the hon. member's speech.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize but I would like to point out that your colleague has already agreed to put on the official record those two tables, as part of my speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As I understood the remarks of my predecessor, this question was be put to the house at the conclusion of the hon. member's remarks. If I misunderstood that statement, then of course the tables will be filed. But even so, I think it is probably consistent with good parliamentary practice to put the question to the house because, as I pointed out to the hon. member, this is quite contrary to normal practice. I leave it to the house. Is there unanimous consent that these documents be filed as part of the speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[Editors Note: The Tables Referred to follow.]



ON A $1,000 LOAN.

[Stage Direction]
41 1 71	9%	lot'	Month	Total	Year	Total	Month	Year	Total	Month	Year	Total	mois	Year	Total20	(240)	6.57	78.84	1,576.8(1	7.69	92.28	1,845.60	8.89	106.68	2,133.60	9.20	110.40	2,208.00	9.52	114.24	2,284.8025	(300)	5.82	69.84	1,746.00	7.00	84.00	2,100.00	8.28	99.36	2,484.00	8.61	103.32	2,583,00	8.94	107.28	2,682.0030	(360)	5.34	64.08	1,922.40	6.59	79.08	2,372.40	7.93	95.16	2,854.80	8.28	99.36	2,980.80	8.63	103.56	3,106.8035	(420)	5.01	60.12	2,104.20	6.32	75.84	2,654.00	7.72	92.64	3,242.40	8.08	96.96	3,393.60	8.44	101.28	3,544.8040	(480)	4.79	57.'48	2,299.20	6.14	73.68	2,947.20	7.59	91.08	3,643.20	7.96	95.52	3,820.80	8.33	99.96	3,998.40
Note: To determine the cost of a $25,000 loan at 10% interest over a 40 year period, for instance, refer to the above table and the following example:
Example: per month: per year: total:
2_5 X 8.33 25 x 99.96 25 x 3,998.40
= $ 208.25 = $ 2,499.00 = $99,960.00
03
*<
to
[Stage Direction]

o
o
o
in
[Stage Direction]
w
td
>
For any amount of loan, follow the same operation with the figures in the table above.
Source: Monthly Amortized Mortgage Payments,
Publicatoin No. 324,
Computed by FINANCIAL PUBLISHING COMPANY.
National Housing Act

[Stage Direction]
CATEGORY	DEPENDENT	NUMBER	1 TAXABLE INCOME	
(in 	
TOTAL TAX	\ 2% SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT TAXo	256,490	229,799	29,600	4,5961	107,206	84,315	10,681	1,686<^to. « $4,000.	2	78,682	49,211	6,179	9843	41,882	19,405	2,380	3884	17,321	5,887	846	1185	6,785	1,216	177	24TOTAL:	508,366	389,833	49,863	7,7960	323,560	958,476	144,822	19,1701	260,169	715,335	106,009	14,307o o o w o	2	288,545	745,974	110,836	14,9193	199,560	454,516	66,524	9,0904	115,426	221,470	31,306	4,4295	107,114	147,193	19,753	2,944TOTAL:	1,294,374	3,242,964	479,250	64,859GRAND TOTAL:	1,802,740	3,632,797	529,113	72,655
o
o
[Stage Direction]


o
w
[Stage Direction]

>
<-3
[Stage Direction]


a
[DOT]<
[Stage Direction]
tn
oi
u>
National Housing Act
May 28. 1969
Mr. Sleven  Olio@York East: Mr. Speaker, some gentlemen opposite, you yourself, and probably some hon. members on this side will be quite surprised to see me rise as the first speaker from this side, especially since the minister knows what I am going to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do
you?


Mr. Sleven  Olio@York East: I know what I am going to say. First, I want to congratulate the minister on his appointment as minister in charge of the Crown corporation, and to thank him for his consideration in allowing me to take part in this debate. Under the new rules this can be done, but previously it would not have been as easy for me to rise as the first speaker from this side.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The remarks I have to make are in no way intended as criticism of the minister. Of course, he has no department, he has no staff; he merely answers for a Crown corporation, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. My remarks are directed to that corporation. I shall try to prove to him that all the good intentions expressed in his speech, as well as the intentions of the bill before us, will come to nothing if his tools are insufficient. I shall submit, and try to prove, that with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation he will have a hard time getting anywhere.
Before I proceed, there is this question of whether the housing situation represents a crisis or a problem. I should like to give the house the benefit of my experience in this field. I have been actively engaged in housing construction for over 20 years. Whether this is a problem, a serious problem or a crisis does not mean very much. Calling it one or the other will not solve it. But I should like to identify it. Not only is there a shortage of houses in the metropolitan areas, but that shortage is aggravated by the fact that over the past 50 years the construction industry has built houses to last 30 years. There is therefore a continuing series of homes which can no longer be used.
There is a further difficulty. Seventy-five per cent of our people live in cities. In Toronto, to get decent accommodation-not fancy accommodation, just decent accommodation- the cost is 50 per cent of the take-home pay. Most Canadians will tolerate 25 per cent, but whether they pay rent or whether they own
National Housing Act
their own homes, 50 per cent is too much. For example, in Toronto one can rent what are called town houses-row houses with two or three bedrooms, a living room and so on, quite nice. Do hon. members know that a family has to earn between $9,000 and $10,000 a year to bring in $600 a month and that 50 per cent of this would go for rent? Actually, in this case the rent amounts to $283 a month, plus heating. This is really a crisis, because it affects a particular spectrum of people who have to rent or pay for accommodation. The man directly concerned has probably been working for a long time; he believes he is entitled to some good food, good clothing and so on. But now he finds he is living less well than he did ten years ago. And he is boiling. This is a serious problem.
It is senseless merely to say we have the best accommodation in the whole world. It is like saying the average depth of the Ottawa River is three feet, with the inference that one can walk across it. It is senseless. These are particular problems. They affect the people in the cities and they will eventually affect those in Montreal and other areas who at the present time are not suffering so much.
I wish to draw attention to one other aspect. There are many who do not understand the cause of these difficulties. A friend of mine remarked to me recently: I cannot understand this problem because I can buy a prefab house and put it on my land in the country somewhere at a cost of some $5,000. It would be a modest house, with two little bedrooms, a bathroom, a living room and so on, but it would serve. Of course, if people want automatic dishwashers, dryers and so on, they will have to pay for them; that is why their houses cost $35,000. If you tell people that they are entitled to yachts, they will want yachts; it is like saying to them "If there is no bread, eat cake".
But this man did not get to the root of the problem. The root of the problem is the cost of land. It is true one can buy a prefabricated house for $5,000 or $6,000, because the construction industry has kept up to date very well with regard to cost. But it is not true you can put such a house anywhere near a metropolitan area. When the price of land is running between $10,000 and $12,000 on the outskirts of a city and between $23,000 and $30,000 in Toronto itself, you cannot put a $6,000 house on it. The construction industry has kept up to date. In 1955 we were building homes for roughly $8.70 a square foot. Now, the cost is between $12 and $13. But when one considers the inflation which has taken

May 28, 1969
National Housing Act
place in the past 14 years and the type of house we are providing now, the cost is well in line. I think the construction industry has been extremely able. It has introduced mass production of stairways, kitchen units, windows, doors. It has even eliminated the hammering of nails by carpenters-that is all done automatically. The industry has tried to push ahead despite municipal restrictions, provincial restrictions and, in some cases, labour restrictions, and it has done a marvelous job in keeping costs down.
Nevertheless, it cannot provide a house at a low price when the cost of land is double the cost of construction. This is where the C.M.H.C. has failed. In the past month or so I have heard many comments on the housing situation. The word "housing" arouses a reflex action, it seems, in a lot of people in Canada. The word we hear is the word "constitution". I cannot understand for the life of me how we got into the constitutional question with regard to housing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Otto:: One might think we were the only people who were keen to press on with housing. Mr. Speaker, I believe provincial and municipal politicians are as concerned as we are about this subject, if not more so. If on any issue we could hope to gain co-operation from the municipalities and the provinces without getting into a constitutional hassle, this would be the issue.
I looked at the National Housing Act, part five, for instance; having to do with housing research and community planning. I found that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is allowed to do absolutely everything-everything they have done, and everything they may want to do. According to section 33 the corporation may, out of moneys advanced to it, bring about land or housing production by way of purchase, loans or otherwise, install or service any improvements to or in respect of any land required by it, and develop such land for housing purposes. Moreover, the corporation has power to manufacture windows, doors under this act. It has power to process lumber. Every conceivable power is there already, and how in the world we ever got into a constitutional hassle over this is a mystery to me. Had the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation been on its toes, had it been of any use whatsoever, we would never have been in this position.

Let us examine the position of C.M.H.C. as mortgage guarantors. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) read a report by the president of the corporation in which he and his directors deplored the lack of money available. The hon. member for Broadview said the minister should act like King Canute holding back the tide. He thought he should legislate restrictively. But, Mr. Speaker, money knows no boundaries. It flows from nation to nation, taking the easiest course. Why does this happen?
In an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on December 3 the president of the Life Insurance Association is reported as saying:
Canada needs a new type of financial institution similar to British building societies or U.S. mortgage loan associations to channel funds into mortgages.
He also said the insurance companies would be putting less and less money into mortgages, and that we could expect this to be the case. He expressed the view that it would be senseless for a mortgage company, a loan company or an insurance company to lend money at 7 per cent or even 9 per cent when the loss brought about by inflation alone was between 4 per cent and 5 per cent. Now, Mr. Speaker, until we try to control the inflationary cycle, this situation will be extremely hard to deal with. We have to keep the rise in wages and prices in line with the increase in the gross national product and until we do so, we shall not get very far. We shall not succeed in forcing anyone to do what we think they should do. The money will not be there.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
If the government were to say that it is not possible to have a wage and price increase of 9 per cent if the gross national product increases only 3 per cent-because this would mean 6 per cent inflation no matter which way you slice it-then we might get some co-operation wtih regard to investment. But you cannot force investment on the part of life insurance companies, or anybody else for that matter. They are buying equities because they are a hedge against inflation. They are competing with other life insurance companies in the United States who are selling insurance which offers real values. When they sell you a policy for $25,000 or $30,000 which matures in 35 or 50 years, you will receive a real value, not the current inflated dollar value. These companies have to meet and keep up with tough competition; as a result funds for mortgage purposes dry up.
May 28. 1969

Other sources of mortgage funds have been suggested. For example the building and loan societies that are common in Europe could be applicable here. It would need a littlte initiative on the part of Central Mortgage and Housing instead of their just decrying the lack of money. Loan and building societies encourage people to invest money and then buy a home. It is a co-operative arrangement and could apply to the trust and loan companies in Canada.
. Mr. McCleave: Could I put a question to the hon. member on this point about building societies. Is he not aware that the only one that existed in Canada, the Nova Scotia Savings and Loan Company, as it is presently known, altered its charter because it was found that the building society operation did not work in Canada?


Mr. Sleven  Olio@York East: I have heard it said that nothing will work. The first answer you are given when you put forward an idea is that it just will not work. I say that other systems must be found.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what Adam said to Eve.


Mr. Sleven  Olio@York East: They must be found and they can be found. As long as we keep believing that we are going to get $4 billion or $5 billion a year from life insurace companies we will not look at alternative sources.


An hon. Member:: How much?


Mr. Sleven  Olio@York East: I said $4 billion or $5 billion a year. We will not investigate other methods if we believe we can get the money from this source.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has also been decrying the fact that private investors are not investing their money in areas outside large cities, that these rural areas have trouble getting insured loans. Has anyone ever asked why companies prefer to invest in the large metropolitan centres? The minister indicated to me privately that he knows why, but I am sure that C.M.H.C. does not know why-because they have never asked.
As the minister has pointed out, life insurance companies and other companies have no way of administering loans in small towns; as a result they do not want to expand their operations there. However, C.M.H.C. is empowered to administer mortgages and collect money. This they can do at a small charge. Consequently, there would be no
National Housing Act
problem in making money available in smaller areas.
As for land assemblers, the less said the better. Let me consider for a moment the role of research, for which we are going to give the corporation more money. I should like the minister to ask C.M.H.C. exactly what results have been produced during the last ten years. What new methods of construction have been approved? What new ideas have they accepted? I think the last one they accepted, and this with hesitancy, was the use of aluminum siding. But what have they done with this research money? We spend $39 million a year to keep C.M.H.C. operating.
For example, a little while ago I approached them with an idea in connection with sewage disposal. Sewage disposal systems, municipally organized and provincially administered, are at the crux of land cost. In Ontario there is the concept that all the sewage up from as far as Kapuskasing must come down through trunk sewers into Ashbridges Bay; otherwise the system will not work. Central Mortgage and Housing swallowed this concept hook, line and sinker. I read an article on a method of sewage disposal used in seven states which is more efficient-in fact, it is a miniature disposal plant-and can be installed by builders. It is bonded and guaranteed for 99 years. It cuts the cost from the present $1,300 a housing unit to $170 per unit if builders are allowed to develop the system. The effluent from this system is not even exuded into streams but is used in lawn sprinklers, and so on. It is made by a firm in Port Credit, near Toronto, but not one has been approved by C.M.H.C. because it would take them 20 years research to find out whether it would work.
If the periphery around Toronto were not tied to the trunk sewer system land would be available from one side of the city to the other. In that case the speculators would have nothing to speculate with. If one person wanted too much for his land, somebody else would sell it cheaper. With this system a builder would put in his own services. Many developers and builders would be glad to do this. They would like to put in schools, roads, the whole kit and caboodle, instead of having to pay high prices to speculators. But Central Mortgage and Housing do not think of this. They say that it is, after all, a municipal problem. The municipalities would dearly love some leadership in this regard because they cannot afford the cost of research.

May 28, 1969
National Housing Act
In the field of construction it is private industry that has made the changes and introduced the new ideas. Private industry has encountered much difficulty in getting these new concepts approved by Central Mortgage and Housing.
With regard to low rental housing, again I know the minister means well and wants more limited dividend housing loans. In this regard you must again work through C.M.H.C.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be useful to confirm to the house that tomorrow we will have an opposition allotted day, and on Friday we will continue with the debate in progress. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) might have some further information about the subject matter for the allotted day tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that is an invitation one can hardly resist. We have filed notice of a motion for tomorrow which will be moved by the hon. member for York South dealing with the subject of takeovers of Canadian resources, industry and financial institutions by foreign corporations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 29, 1969