1970-06-12

PRIVILEGE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects all members of this House. It is based on the failure of the government to table in the House and make public the interim report of the Le Dain Commission inquiring into the non-medical use of certain drugs. I have given Your Honour the required notice of this question of privilege.
Public inquiries or commissions come under the Inquiries Act and are established "to permit the Governor in Council to conduct inquiries into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof." There is nothing in the Act which authorizes the government to hide or conceal, even for a limited time, any report or reports made. In support of that I refer to the report of the commission on security. In that case the government saw fit to hold back part of the report but justified it on the ground that the national interest must prevail.
The very careful wording of the Act constitutes an irrebuttable presumption that the public interest of the people of Canada is involved. This and the fact that the Canadian taxpayer is footing the bill make it impossible for the government to maintain that any report of this or any commission, either interim or final, is the private property of the leaders of one political party to be suppressed or publication delayed to suit the partisan convenience and interest of such people. To do so is a contempt of the rights of this House.
Tradition, constitutional precedent, and the present practice in this country and in the United Kingdom where this type of inquiry originated all support the view that a report must be tabled in this House when it is received by the government.
Nor should the government or any minister be permitted to play games by pretending that the report has not been officially tendered to the government when in fact the contents have been made known.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that it is public knowledge today that the commissioner involved has made some serious charges in this regard. In the United Kingdom the present practice is to fix a time limit and publication must be made in accordance with this.
Finally, in this contemporary age of a great public interest, on an issue of such tremendous importance, and at a time when the right of the public to be fully and immediately informed is accepted as part of our democratic system, the failure of this government to be frank and honest and table the report constitutes a contempt and a breach of the privileges of the members of this House as trustees of the rights of all Canadians. This represents a conflict between the "just society" and the "secret society". I therefore move:
That the question of the failure of the government to immediately table the interim report of the commission of inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to consider and report back to this House whether such failure is a contempt and a breach of privilege and for a declaration as to the duty of government to table reports of commissions of inquiry forthwith after they have been received.
If Your Honour holds there is a prima facie case, I ask that this motion be put.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members know, the ruling which the Chair has to make before the motion proposed by the hon. member can be put is whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. I have serious doubts about this. I recognize the importance of the matter raised by the hon. member. The hon. member referred to the fact that in another jurisdiction there is a rule which specifies a time limit within which certain reports have to be filed. There is no such rule in our Standing Orders. On the contrary, there is a procedure which is specified in the Standing Orders whereby members of this House can obtain production of documents or pro-

June 12, 1970
Taxation Reform
duction of papers, that is, by making such a motion. It may be that hon. members do not think this procedure should be followed in the present instance, but I do not believe there is a prima facie case of privilege and the motion should not be put.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development- Mr. Watson.

[Stage Direction]
Eighth Report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hopkins.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under Standing Order 43 for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on a subject of urgent and pressing necessity.
At 6 p.m. yesterday the Minister without Portfolio from Windsor West tabled, pursuant to Standing Order 42(2), a letter from the Minister of Finance to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs wherein the Minister of Finance announced changes in the personal income tax rates during the first five years after the coming into effect of the tax proposals so as to neutralize some of the tax increases incorporated in the white paper proposals. Included in the statement is the following sentence on page two:
But I have said the white paper proposals are going to be changed and the changes will substantially reduce the amount available for prospective tax cuts.
Such an indefinite and confusing statement can only create uncertainty and bewilderment in the minds of the members of both parliamentary committees now hearing public tes-

timony on the government's tax proposals and in the minds of the public making representations. Why discuss proposals and changes which no longer are relevant or which may have been materially altered? A clearcut statement of the changes decided upon is called for immediately along with the reasons for the changes. The responsibility rests with the government.
I therefore move, seconded by my hon. friend from Halifax-East Hants.
That this House request the Minister of Finance to issue a concise statement with reasons for the changes decided upon in the white paper on tax changes, and that the same be communicated immediately to the parliamentary committee studying the said white paper.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West under the terms of Standing Order 43. This motion can only be put by unanimous consent. The Chair will inquire whether there is such consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity, and the motion cannot be put.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This simply discloses their closed minds.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will ensure that the interim report of the commission inquiring into the non-medical use of drugs is tabled in order to avoid forcing the resignation of the commission chairman in the middle of a very useful study? I call the attention of the Prime Minister to this statement attributed to the chairman:
Failure to table the report before the House rises at the end of June could raise such serious questions about government intentions and the utility of the commission's work that the commission would no longer have an atmosphere of sufficient confidence in which to operate.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: If the report is tabled it will certainly not be
June 12. 1970

under any threat, either that of a question of privilege or the resignation of the chairman. I do not believe the chairman made such a threat in those words.
This being said, I can only repeat your own ruling, Mr. Speaker; it is usual for a government to take cognizance of a report before tabling it, and this is what the cabinet is now in the process of doing. There has been no indication of when we would table it and I cannot give any indication this morning.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is not moved by the chairman's conception of the usefulness of inquiry in these circumstances, would he not be moved by the urgent desire of the public for this information and the urgent need for more research, as well as the dismay of all those concerned in this question, including the social agencies, at the delay in tabling this report, which is viewed as accruing to the detriment of many young Canadians and their families?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the so-called dismay seems to be exaggerated. It is not unusual for government to take at least a week or more to consider the report of a royal commission. I repeat, this is what the government is in the process of doing. I have very high regard for the members of the commission and I understand their anxiety. They have published what is an interim report, and the government is considering it as such.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister intending to indicate that the minister of health has had this report for only a week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that it came to cabinet within a week or less, and it is only within that time that we have had the report in both languages.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Prime Minister in connection with this matter. Bearing in mind that all parties in the House are perplexed, even divided, on this question and that we do not want to make an issue out of it or pose any threats, would the Prime Minister give serious consideration to the tabling of the report at an early date without comment, even before the government takes a position, so that the public can have the information contained in it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is a very simple question. The answer is yes, we will
Inquiries of the Ministry give consideration to tabling it. The part of the question of privilege that we could not admit was that it asked for the report to be tabled immediately, and there is no rule here or anywhere else that a royal commission report should be tabled immediately.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then there ought to be one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why don't you move one and then we will know what "immediately" is. However, I can give the House the assurance that the report will be tabled. May I just put it to the opposition parties that I hope they will make a statement of their position on the report as quickly as the government will.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the information given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in answer to Question 1,304 put by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, which information is to be found at page 7946 of Hansard. The information discloses that in the smelting and refining of metals foreign-dominated companies now control 84.9 per cent of the business, and in the petroleum refining industry foreign companies now control 99.9 per cent of the industry in Canada. In light of these facts, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister intervened in the case of the uranium industry in order to preserve Canadian ownership, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to intervene in this matter, and has he any intention of making an announcement before the House adjourns regarding the government's policy on foreign ownership?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I said some weeks ago that the government did have the intention of taking a position and stating its policy with regard to the whole problem of foreign investment. I indicated that this certainly would not be done, as I said then, within a matter of a couple of months but that it would take some time. This work is progressing. I think we will probably take the same position as the New Democratic Party in rejecting the extreme position submitted by Mr. Watkins in Winnipeg.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question,
June 12, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that we have been waiting for some time for the government to announce a policy arising out of the study being conducted for the cabinet by the Minister without Portfolio from Windsor West, may I ask the Prime Minister how soon we can expect some statement of policy from the government in light of the very serious information produced by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in answer to the question to which I have referred?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer concerning how soon. I would indicate that it would be a matter of several months. I can only give that as the minimum time it would take us to come to grips with this problem which is one that I do not think can be changed overnight even if we were to make our announcement of policy within a few weeks. Therefore I cannot encourage the hon. member to think that these statistics will be suddenly changed by any magic.
INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH CANADA DEVELOP'	MENT CORPORATION


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question regarding a matter which the government has indicated as policy, namely, the implementation of the recommendation of the Watkins commission in respect of the setting up of a Canada Development Corporation which the government has been promising for years. May we expect legislation to set up the Canada Development Corporation during this session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in view of the number of days remaining and the number of urgent matters on the Order Paper, obviously I cannot give such an undertaking. If I were sure that the House would agree to the policy decision taken by the government and pass it into law in a very short period, say a day-if we could have that undertaking by all parties I could give the undertaking asked for by the hon. member.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Real Caouetie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of

State I will address my question to the Prime Minister.
According to reports, Renee Claude, a Montreal singer, who will represent Canada from July 10 to 12 in Athens, has proudly stated that if federalists are stupid enough to call on independentists, so much the worse for them. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister whether he could make representations to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as usual, in order that we be represented in Athens by someone who sings about the unity of Canada instead of singing about its division.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to pass on to the CBC the representations the hon. member has just expressed.
I do not care any more than he does to be called an idiot, but I think that those who take pride in the fact that they are prostituting themselves to get the federal government's money are not in a better position than we are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance whose day it is to be in the House, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the 27.7 per cent increase in the profits of the chartered banks during the first six months of their fiscal year, would the Prime Minister suggest to the Minister of Finance that he might sit down with the presidents of these organizations with the least possible delay and suggest to them that, as this very large increase in profits comes on top of a very good year last year, the chartered banks can very well afford a substantial decrease in their interest rates which would greatly help to stimulate the economy and employment, both of which very much need stimulation at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly transmit this suggestion to the Minister of Finance. We are very glad the Conservative party is taking this tough line with the banks.
June 12. 1970


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary. Does the Liberal government take an equally tough line?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Do you or do you not, or are you
taking a soft line with your friends?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: My
question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In reference to a statement by the Secretary General of the United Nations yesterday to the effect that Canada should be involved in an international conference to settle the Viet Nam war, can the minister advise whether recent discussions have been held on this important matter and whether the government has indicated its willingness to participate in the kind of conference envisaged by U Thant?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have kept the House informed on most of these initiatives, I think, and have indicated that we would be prepared to attend such a conference.



TAXATION


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the unscheduled absence of the Minister of Finance I will ask the Prime Minister whether the government has decided on certain changes in the proposals in the white paper on tax reform, as indicated in the minister's letter, and, if so, what are they and will they be published shortly to remove the uncertainty that is surrounding all of the discussions at the present time?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I can respond on behalf of the Minister of Finance who is presently attending the annual meeting of the Canadian Bankers Association in Vancouver.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: There's your liaison.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: He would therefore be in a position to express any necessary remarks to

Inquiries of the Ministry them to ensure that they do their share in ensuring the economic stability of the country.


An hon. Member:: It is a bit late, is it not?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would like to respond further by saying that when the government is ready to announce modifications in the tax reform proposals it has put forward, it will do so in the usual manner and in due course.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Does the minister agree then that any discussions that may be held with the public at the present time are arguments in a vacuum because many of these points may become academic?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will
appreciate that this is an argument.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But it is so
obvious.


Mr. Max  Bailsman@Waterloo: My question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio speaking for the Minister of Finance. Since considerable changes have been indicated in the white paper in advance of the committee report and since there is an indication that the government may not be in a position to implement some of these measures before 1972, is it the intention of the government to at least bring in a measure to raise the exemptions before that time?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I have nothing to add to my previous answer which I think covers the point raised by the hon. member.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the Minister without Portfolio talks to the Minister of Finance today, would he pass along my suggestion to him while he has all the boys together so we can perhaps get some action on bank rates by next Monday?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question for the minister. How are members of the public who are concerned about the tax proposals to know what are still government proposals and what are not government proposals in light of the minister's comments in the letter? Has the Minister without Portfolio any way of indicating to the public what are still government proposals?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am sure that the representations made by the public to the committee and to the government will continue to be very useful. When decisions are ready to be
June 12, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry announced, this will be done in the usual way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister not agree that the representations being made to the committee are directed to certain proposals on the assumption that these are proposals of the government and that it is a travesty for the government to continue to invite these representations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is obviously debate. I would not think the question is acceptable from a procedural standpoint.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I should like to direct a question either to the acting Minister of Transport or to his Parliamentary Secretary or perhaps to the Minister of Public Works. I do not know exactly where the responsibility lies. Is the minister aware of the fact that a couple of industries have vacated lakeshore land in Kingston and that there is now a question as to the ownership of that land and whether or not the land should be given to a private developer from Ottawa or be developed as a recreational facility? Further, if he is aware of this would the minister undertake to assert federal ownership of the land or interest in the land, and also assure the House that it will not be handed over to the private developer?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing about this matter but I thank the hon. member for drawing it to our attention. I shall talk to the Minister of Transport, and if there is Public Works responsibility in the matter we will see to that.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to draw it to the attention of the Minister of Transport so that the whole thing may be dealt with.


Arthur Laing: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is what I said I would do.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
[Mr. Gray.)
Can he tell the House if Mr. Jean-Paul Lefebvre, former Liberal member for Ahunt-sic, is still a member of his staff, since his appointment as general director of the Liberal party of Canada, Quebec section?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question, in as much as it is in order, should be put on the order paper.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have the United States authorities indicated to the government their concern respecting the entry into Canada of a significant number of young men of draft age?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I have had no representations of that kind and so far as I know none have been made to my department.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is he in a position to indicate whether or not the government intends to reassess the degree of assistance it is going to give Peru in view of the information that has now been made available as to the extent of the disaster in that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government made further decisions to extend additional aid to Peru. We are sending some tents and we are sending a cargo of flour. The government also has under consideration even further measures if these can be useful.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister about the roster system. Is he aware that 12 ministers are defying the roster system today with respect
June 12, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry to House attendance? Ten are not here and might be allowed to make this statement. Is two are here when they should not be.	this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: Is the Prime Minister also aware that a former minister, the hon. member for Trinity, has been in his place for three days in a row with a smile on his face?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I share the distress of the hon. member. As the hon. member may have noticed, the ministers who are present in some three cases are pinch-hitting as acting ministers for some who are away on urgent government business-in Paris, in Vancouver, and in other parts of the world. But if the hon. member looks around at his own ranks he will realize that toward the end of the session attendance tends to drop down a little bit.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the Prime Minister mind answering the latter part of my question about the possibility of the hon. member for Trinity going back into the cabinet now that his policy has been adopted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think that part of the question is in order.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Greenwood.



Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of a press report which attributes certain remarks to him with regard to the sale of Phantom jets to Israel, could the minister tell the House what is the government's position on this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in view of the publicity that this press report has been given I think it essential that I set the record straight. The report is inaccurate. I made no comment whatever-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course the minister can do this only on a point of order or question of privilege because of the well-established rule that members cannot ask ministers about statements made outside the House, but if there is agreement the minister


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On motions.


Mitchell William Sharp: Then, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the question has been raised I think it is important, if the House will permit me, that I should put the record straight. It is causing some confusion.
I made no comment whatever in Rome concerning a possible sale of military aircraft by the United States to Israel, either at the NATO meeting or at any press conference, other than to say that this subject had not been discussed at the NATO meeting. We did, of course, discuss the Soviet buildup in the United Arab Republic, which is causing very grave concern. I expressed no opposition and I do not do so now to the possible sale of military aircraft to Israel, and it is most unfortunate if any such impression had been created by this inaccurate press report.



NATIONAL PARKS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Now that the minister and his officials have had an opportunity of studying at some length the decision of the Supreme Court as to the validity of certain types of leases in the national parks, would the minister advise whether it is the government's intention to go ahead with Bill C-152, or is it to be a dead letter as it should be?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet completed our studies of the problem and of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. As soon as we have, I shall be glad to report to the House and to the hon. member.



EXPLANATION BY WHEAT BOARD OF DEMAND FOR REPAYMENT OF CASH ADVANCES- DRAWING OF 1970-71 ADVANCES

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in
June 12, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry charge of the Wheat Board. Will the minister take steps to see that letters of explanation and apology will be sent by the Canadian Wheat Board to those farmers who have been wrongfully sent letters threatening them with legal action and penalties with regard to outstanding balances on 1968-69 cash advances which in most cases are not in default?
Hon. Otto E, Lang (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I will take the specific suggestion of the hon. member under consideration and discuss it with the Wheat Board. I have discussed the matter with them, and they have made it clear in press releases that no farmer who has been delivering grain on quotas will be considered in default with regard to payments outstanding from the 1968-69 crop year. I will certainly be glad to check if that information is being adequately given to farmers who have received these notices.


Albert B. Douglas: Will the minister again recommend that prairie farmers be permitted to draw their full 1970-71 cash advances this fall, in line with the policy of last year, even though the previous year's cash advances may not be fully repaid?


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken on that as yet.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the wide discrepancy between the 27.7 per cent increase in profits announced by the banks and the 6 per cent wage increase policy of the government, is the government giving consideration to a policy of restraint on profits such as it is proposing on wages?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has obviously misunderstood the purpose of the whole operation. He is referring to percentages that have accrued over the past and it would obviously be easy to indicate many salaries and many wages which had gone up over the past by considerably more than 6 per cent-


An hon. Member:: Twenty-seven per cent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes. Some unions are asking for 30 per cent and 40 per cent, as the hon. member knows-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So the question is really as to the future and the controlling of inflation. The hon. member should remember that the guidelines regarding profits were laid down last February, I believe it was, when the-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: For banks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -banks and other members of the professional financial community agreed to certain guidelines, and that they would not raise their prices or charges as much as their costs. This is obviously intended to squeeze their profits. Once again these voluntary approaches can only work if we have the co-operation not only of all members of the community but the active support of all members of this House-that is, if they are really serious in wanting to fight inflation.


David Orlikow: In view of the fact that the 27.7 per cent increase in the first six months of this year for the banks comes on top of a 25.5 per cent increase last year, or an increase of 53 per cent in two years, does the Prime Minister not think that the supposed guidelines should be looked at again to see if they really mean anything in terms of restraint on profits such as is proposed for wages?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The guidelines proposed by the Prices and Incomes Commission are being looked at by that commission. That is why from period to period they have come up with new proposals and the government thus far has always supported them.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister not agree that the fight against inflation would be greatly helped if he would screw up his courage, meet with top labour leaders of this country and discuss with them the important economic problems facing this country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Hr. Hees: -instead of being afraid of meeting with a rebuff from the labour leaders?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I
should remind hon. members that when the Chair calls for order, that is an invitation for hon. members to observe the request of the Chair. I believe the hon. member for York South wishes to ask a supplementary question.
June 12, 1970	COMMONS


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,
I apologize. There was so much noise coming from the other side of the House that I could not hear you. I therefore apologize, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like the Prime Minister to explain to the House either now or at some other time why the working people of Canada, some of whom are making incomes that are fairly low, and the unions representing them should agree to a 6 per cent limit on increases in their incomes


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: *-when the banks have enjoyed much larger-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I should have intervened earlier in this debate. We have clearly entered the field of debate. This is the question period. I think that the last two or three questions were more in the realm of argument than in the field of questions. I think I ought to allow the hon. member for Lisgar to ask his question.


David Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, I realize that the time is passing but I do not think we were debating. The government has enunciated a policy. Something has happened in the economy which is normally-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. The hon. member is debating. He first debated, in my view, the question and now he is attempting to debate the ruling of the Chair. I think we ought to call on the hon. member for Lisgar.



BARLEY-AMOUNT OF DELIVERIES TO THUNDER BAY UNDER ADDITIONAL QUOTA

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. Would the minister inform the House how much barley the Wheat Board hopes to receive for delivery to Thunder Bay under the extra quotas now in force in Manitoba and Saskatchewan for that grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board has very substantial shipments of barley to move.
I do not have precise figures before me, but they are in the order of 20 million bushels or 22478-19
DEBATES	8049
Inquiries of the Ministry more which are required in the period. In the last week on which I have seen reports, 5.2 million bushels came in.



WHEAT-ESTIMATE OF SEEDED ACREAGE-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON REDUCTION UNDER LIFT PROGRAM

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio. In view of the fact that the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool crop report shows plantings of approximately 8 million acres in the province as of June 5, as well as seeded acreage for other crops, can the minister inform the House whether his department has had surveys conducted of the acreage sown to wheat in the three western provinces to determine if it is in line with the Lift program?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that no comprehensive surveys of any great accuracy have been made. I should caution the hon. member against relying too heavily upon the figures to which he referred since I believe the analysis is very limited and in percentage form. The hon. member, I think, should not put money on those figures.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate very much the advice the minister gave me. I will therefore ask him if he will take an opportunity before the end of the present session to make a statement on motions to indicate to the House the acreage reduction under the Lift program and the probable amount of money that therefore will be disbursed to the farmers in the western region?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to do so if the figures available by that time are sufficiently accurate to allow anything very substantial to be said.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Would the minister take it upon himself to advise that economic apologist, Dr. John Young, that he cannot put the blame for unemployment and other problems on the backs of labour but that he should place it on a bumbling government where it belongs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.
8050	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



REPAIR FACILITIES FOR MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT

Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Would the minister indicate whether or not any active negotiations are being carried on today or this week in connection with the overhaul and maintenance programs relating to Tracker and Argus aircraft and whether or not there is any future possibility of employment for the four or five hundred men involved?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the department is now in active discussions with a number of companies concerning the repair and overhaul of Tracker and Argus aircraft.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising out of an earlier exchange on foreign ownership. Is the minister aware that another foreign-owned company, Skil Corporation of Chicago, is planning to phase out its west coast subsidiary, Power Machinery, which will entail the loss of 125 jobs? Also, will the minister undertake to investigate this matter thoroughly to see what can be done?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce have been in touch with company officials about this matter and are pursuing it with them. However, the company in question has indicated that no firm decision to close has in fact been made.



THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. Rene  Maite@Champlain: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Did the government of Quebec submit a request to him concerning an amendment to the constitution on the oath of allegiance to Her Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth?

DEBATES	June 12, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any request having been made to my office or the office of the Minister of Justice. If such a request had been made, I would advise the member, but as far as I know, such is not the case.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieite):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Quebec legislature on the need for co-operation on the part of the federal government to achieve such a change, would the Prime Minister say whether he shares the opinion expressed in the said statement?


Mr. Speaker:: The question asked by the hon. member is essentially the same as the one put yesterday by the hon. member for Shefford, I think. He is inviting the Prime Minister to express a legal opinion. I suggest that the question, in such terms, is not in order.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Mafane):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the matter of the oath of allegiance is being considered by the Department of Justice, and as for as it comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government, whether the latter will gladly extend its full co-operation in order to solve a problem which, in my opinion, does not prevent an elected member from fulfilling his duties.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member expresses an opinion, and in that sense, his question is out of order. However, I wish to mention that the first part of the question is in order-


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member
please resume his seat.
To that extent, the Prime Minister would perhaps like to answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As for the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am not aware that such a proposed change is considered by the Minister of Justice. I will inquire in this connection, but I do not think that I will have to tell the House otherwise.
June 12, 1970



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to my genial friend, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would he indicate whether he is considering the white paper proposal by the province of Newfoundland to approve an integrated development plan which would superimpose the establishment of a park in the Bonne Bay area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned by the problem of the Newfoundland government's white paper. My problem deals with the enforcement of the National Parks Act and I have clearly stated in the House-and I have also advised the Newfoundland government-that we will be ready to act when it is willing to surrender the land we need, subject to the usual regulations providing that there must be no mining or oil operations on such land.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate if the province has threatened to withdraw from signing the agreement for the Bonne Bay Park if the federal government would not accept the integrated development plan in the white paper?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker, they did not make any threat concerning the proposal for the setting up of a national park.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. It has to do with his recent announcement indicating that the government is interested in urban councils. I wonder whether the reversal by Mr. Bourassa of Mr. Tessier's indication that he found nothing wrong and as a matter of fact encouraged municipalities to 22478-19)
Inquiries of the Ministry deal directly with the federal government has been jeopardized as a result of Mr. Bourassa's
reversal?


Hon. Roberl K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: I am not aware of any reversal, Mr. Speaker. It has been indicated to me that Mr. Bourassa made a statement yesterday afternoon to the effect that he has no objection to municipalities discussing matters directly with the federal government. He agrees with the formation of a tri-level council. He reiterated the position, with which I thoroughly agree, that Quebec will not give up jurisdiction over municipalities. In any event, that was never the intention of our suggestion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question. Can the minister advise whether he has received approval from any of the provinces of the plan submitted by the government? If not, does he intend to hold meetings with their representatives as soon as possible in order to acquire the required approval?


Robert Knight Andras: As has been indicated, I have had a specific agreement from Mr. Tessier. Prior to that I had some rather casual conversations, not in the precise form that I suggested the other evening and I intend to address myself to a discussion with my counterparts in the provinces as quickly as possible.



POLLUTION


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I intended to address my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry but in his absence I will direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. It is in connection with complaints emanating from the lower mainland of British Columbia regarding the reported spraying of arsenic on the B.C. Ferries dock at Horseshoe Bay and the danger to the water and fish in that area. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what the situation is and whether the government is interested in it?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secrefary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: can say, Mr. Speaker, is that we are aware of it. We are checking to see what effect this is having on shellfish in the area. I understand the spraying is done to keep the termites from eating the dock or something of that nature.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: They are also in the Liberal party.
June 12, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry HARBOURS



COME-BY-CHANCE, NFLD.-BENEFITS TO PROVINCE UNDER FEDERAL AGREEMENT TO BUILD WHARF

Mr. Waller C. Carler (Si. John's Wesl):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. When I directed this question to the Minister of Transport on June 9 he suggested that I direct it to the Minister of Public Works when he was next in the House. My question concerned a statement by an official of the Department of Transport to the effect that the federal government agreement to build a $16 million wharf to serve the planned refinery at Come-By-Chance, Newfoundland, is contingent on certain additional benefits guaranteeing more revenue for the province of Newfoundland. What are the additional benefits?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada had undertaken an offer to build the wharf at Come-By-Chance. It was subject to a clarification in the agreement between the federal government and the province with respect to their ability to repay the investment. The cost of the wharf is recoverable. At the present time there are continuing discussions between officials of the government of Canada, the provincial government and the company with a view to seeing whether we can get this matter straightened out and the work undertaken.


Walter C. Carter: Can the minister indicate if the signing of the agreement will be contingent on Newfoundland getting additional benefits other than those already agreed to by the company and the province?


Arthur Laing: What we are interested in, Mr. Speaker, is a financial provision so that the considerable amount of money involved, probably $16 million, will be returned to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about run out of time. Perhaps the House will allow the hon. member for Broadview to ask a question. He has been trying to do so for a few days.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the Solicitor General. Last

Friday I asked the Solicitor General to have a public inquiry or set up a committee to investigate the conditions in penitentiaries across the country, especially the high suicide rate at the present time in some of our penitentiaries. The minister said he would consider this and make a decision. Has the Solicitor General made a decision with regard to this very important problem?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraifh (Soliciior General):: Mr. Speaker, it is not our present intention to set up any such commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: Is the President of the Privy Council rising on a point of order?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There have been discussions among the representatives of the parties. I think there is general agreement to an order that for the purpose of today's debate the initial spokesmen in each group should be allowed 20 minutes and the remaining speakers allowed 15 minutes. If agreeable, perhaps this could be made an order of the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There is agreement on this side of the House with respect to the proposal made by the Government House Leader.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This House declares that the government must, in view of the disastrous decline in residential housing construction, announce before the summer recess new measures to stimulate a significant expansion in the number of housing units being built, to reduce the total cost of individual homes for middle and low-income Canadians, and to reduce or eliminate unemployment in the construction trades.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I suppose many members wonder why this motion has been placed before the House and the people of
June 12, 1970

Canada. Your Honour has just read the motion, thus giving an indication of what it is about. It is only necessary to read a few newspaper editorials to see the publicity being given to the gathering momentum about the lack of initiative by the government with respect to housing starts. I wish to put on the record some statements, particularly from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I quote from an article which appeared in the May 9, 1970, issue of the Hamilton Spectator. This article quotes Albert Fish, past president of the Ontario Association of Real Estate Board and reads in part as follows:
Canadian cities are heading into the worst housing crisis since the end of the Second World War and it is becoming impossible for nine out of ten city families to own a home, a housing expert said yesterday.
An article which appeared in the June 10, 1970, issue of the Globe and Mail, emphasizing the gravity of the situation is headlined, "Housing Starts in Ontario off 44 per cent". The article reads in part:
Urban housing starts in Ontario totalled 14,114 in the first five months of this year, 44 per cent fewer than in the corresponding period last year, preliminary figures from Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. show.
What is even more significant, this article, by way of Dow Jones Service, reads:
Housing starts in urban centres totalled 8,392 dwelling units in May, off 50.1 per cent from a year earlier-
I now refer to an article which appeared in the June 2, 1970, issue of the Ottawa Journal. This article quotes Mr. Johnson, president of the National Housebuilders Association, as follows:
[DOT] (12 noon)
We may be seeing a real housing shortage by next spring. Rising costs have priced homes out of the reach of over 80 per cent of Canada's wage-earners.
He goes on to state:
The federal government raises sales taxes on construction materials, then runs around like a chicken with its head cut off trying to lower housing costs.
What is the situation in Hamilton? I quote from an article which appeared in the Hamilton Spectator of June 4. The headline reads, "Multiple Dwellings Hit Hardest-20 per cent Drop in House Building". It begins:
Housebuilding in Hamilton has dropped 20 per cent so far this year compared with the first five months of last year.
Any forecast of things to come is, at best, nothing more than an educated guess, and two of the leading educated guessers are Cen-
Request for Housing Statement tral Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Economic Council of Canada. Both predict a decade of tremendous demand for housing accommodation, great and conflicting pressures in providing it in the urban environment of the seventies, and exceedingly keen competition for the means to finance what is needed. In mid-January, Mr. Herbert Hignett, president of CMHC said that 2,500,000 dwellings must be produced in Canada during the seventies-1,100,000 by 1975 and 1,400,000 by 1980. He set a price tag of about $4 billion on this construction.
According to the Economic Council of Canada, of ten highly-industrialized nations Canada ranks only eighth in the percentage of population living in urban areas. In 1961, this proportion was 62 per cent as compared with Britain, in first place, with 77 per cent. But Canada was way out in front when it came to the average annual percentage of growth of urban population. It topped the other nine nations with an annual rate almost twice that of the next in line-4.1 per cent as compared with second place United States with 2.7 per cent. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon how one views urban development, this pre-eminent rate continues. Canada's strong increase in population growth and rate of urbanization is likely to continue until 1980 at least.
The Economic Council forecasts a population of about 26 million by 1980, a growth since 1965 of 28 per cent. This is the highest growth rate for that 15-year period of seven leading countries including Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the United States. The council estimates that of this 1980 population of 26 million, 20 million will reside in urban areas. Perhaps of more significance is the estimate that while all urban areas will grow immensely, those which are already the largest will grow most rapidly and disproportionately. With millions of new urban dwellers being pushed into existing facilities, it is not hard to perceive the outlines of some of the problems which will be created.
I noticed in the Ottawa Journal of April 13, 1970, an article by James Nelson under the heading, "Five Million Families Push Housing Needs". It states in part:
About the middle of this year, the number of families in Canada should reach 5,000,000, twice what it was in 1940 and 1,000,000 more than in 1959.
The figure is important in projecting sales in all lines of business, but particularly in housing. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation estimates that the current 190,000 a year growth in demand for accommodation will jump nearly 230,000 in 1971-76.
June 12, 1970

Request for Housing Statement
The unfortunate fact about today's development picture is that almost all single-family dwellings are designed for the taste and the purse of an affluent society. Yet the urgent need is not among the affluent; it is largely among the group which lies between the poverty line as defined by the Canadian Welfare Council, around $3,000 per year, and the poverty line as set out by the Canadian Labour Congress-$10,000 or $11,000. The need is greatest in the twilight zone of our affluent society, among those without economic elbow-room who are prisoners of the city.
I should like to put on record what the Canadian Welfare Council said in its statement of April 26, 1970. It read from the first page as follows:
The committee views the current housing situation as continuing to be an emergency for people of low-income and a serious problem for middle-income Canadians. In terms of rent levels, vacancy rates, and mortgage interest rates, it is obvious that conditions have deteriorated since the conference was held in 1968.
It is against this challenge to produce less expensive, relevant housing that the government's taxation policies in general and the white paper proposals in particular must be measured. Against this background, Mr. Speaker, you will be keenly aware of one of the fundamental shortcomings of the government white paper: it covers only part of the tax field. No one has any idea of government policy on consumption and sales taxes. In considering the impact of new tax programs on the housing industry it is surely of prime importance for us to know whether the government is now willing to contemplate any relief from the onerous 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. This demand has been made so often that we proponents of it must be sounding somewhat like a broken record. But it still remains a valid demand.
There are a number of proposals in the white paper which will generate great frustration and confusion for home owners and for people in the real estate business. The major one is, of course, the proposal to apply capital gains tax to owner-occupied homes. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), as I understand it, wants to exclude most Canadian homes from capital gains tax, but unfortunately the white paper does not say just how this is to be achieved, nor does there seem to be any practical and simple method of accomplishing this end. Not only would homes be tied up in endless red tape, but it is noticed there are major discriminatory features attached to this proposal.

For example, a home owner would be exempted from tax if he moved from one area of Canada to another in connection with a change of work. On the other hand, no consideration is given for any other reason for selling a house and buying another- expanding family needs, for example. The value of a home will be fixed on valuation day. How does a home owner ensure that valuation is made in a way which will give him some protection? The Minister of Finance says, "Put your own value on it and we will take your word." But he says nothing about what is likely to happen when a dispute arises with the government over the size of the capital gain.
The minister has indicated that the Department of National Revenue will accept any reasonable value which a home owner may establish, for example, by looking at newspaper advertisements or talking to neighbours. I can see the courts and lawyers having a field day with this idea. Further, will Canadians have the foresight to open new books of account? Will they have proof of every home improvement valued at more than $150 so that costs can be applied against the capital gains they realize when selling? Now we hear that the $1,150 annual exemption on individual homes may not be high enough to exempt most homes from capital gains tax.
This is the kind of frustration which Canadians will face daily if the white paper is implemented as it stands. But having regard to the major housing problems likely to arise in the next ten years, there are much more fundamental objections to certain other proposals in the white paper. Perhaps the most serious is the proposed abolition of the two-level system of taxing companies without the substitution of an alternative. This would strike a severe blow at the smaller construction firms which are so important to our housing program. The incentive to plough back investment so as to expand production would be removed as far as the small firms are concerned. The much-needed growth in our productive capacity would be threatened and, in the face of continuing demand, prices could only rise.
I realize that the present lower rate applies even to huge corporations and the two-level system was often open to abuse. But it is unacceptable to me that the system should be abolished without presenting some offsetting provision to help overcome a capital market bias against smaller businesses. Higher taxes on the major elements of the
June 12, 1970

housing market can only add to the cost of housing, and the less generous depreciation provisions for apartment building will, as the Montreal Real Estate Board recently pointed out, drive rents up faster. While taxation policy alone will not solve our housing problems, it is important that we should not increase the obstacles through our tax policies. Yet that is just what the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and the white paper proposals seem to be doing. Little wonder, then, that many are questioning the government's intention to be more effective in making homes available and in encouraging home ownership. At this stage the government should face up to realities and release from the proposals the personal, permanent residences of Canadians.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
However, what disturbs me even more is that this situation is a prime example of what this government has been doing. It has shown a lack of co-ordination in the federal approach to the urban environment, particularly to the housing problem. The tax policy is merely the most visible symptom of a general failure to examine and to co-ordinate all policies as they affect housing. There is no over-all design; there are simply unrelated policies. What particularly concerns me and many members of the House is that when the minister appeared before the Committee on Health and Welfare during the committee's examination of his department's estimates, he said the projected housing figure for 1970 was 180,000. We know the Economic Council of Canada has indicated we must have at least
200,000	units per year. Let me just read once more the statement of the Canadian Welfare Council, which goes even further than this. They say:
However, in view of CMHC's own statement that "a program as high even as 250,000 units per year would not create a sufficient stock *within five years to bring an end to overcrowding, doubling up, and the continued use of deficient dwellings", the committee questions the degree to which this can be considered an achievement. The committee is also alarmed that in the first quarter of 1970, an annual rate of only 160,000 starts was maintained. I
I remember questioning the minister with regard to what his position was on the government's anti-inflationary policy, which had certainly been increasing unemployment, the figure now being almost 7 per cent. The minister said this was just a regrettable side-effect of the government's policy and that he would have to go along with it. But when wearing his other hat he said the government
Request for Housing Statement was interested in seeing that it reached the target of one million homes announced in the Throne Speech. I also asked the minister, with regard to the government's anti-inflationary policies, why the private sector was going to become involved in mortgages only to the extent of about 10 to 15 per cent of its involvement last year. I quote from the minutes of the committee on this point:


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Is there any indication why their funding would be down?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, there is. I think I would come back to the point that they plead, and with some justification, I think-they plead the effect of antiinflationary measures, the tight money fiscal policy of the government to combat inflation.
So there you have it, Mr. Speaker. The government is being blamed because of its anti-inflationary policies which have not only increased unemployment in this country but have made sure that Canadians will not have the required number of housing units. In regard to unemployment, we must bear in mind the number employed in the housing industry today compared with previous times. I have figures that compare 1969 with 1970. They show that in January, 1969, there were
431.000	employed in the construction industry, and that in the same month of 1970 there were only 416,000-a decrease of 15,000, or 3 per cent. In February, 1969, there were 419,000, compared with February, 1970, when there were 391,000-a decrease of 28,000, or 6 per cent. In March, 1969, there were 416,000 in the construction industry, compared with
406.000	a year later-a decrease of 10,000, or 2J per cent. In April, 1969, there were 431,000, compared with 426,000 in April, 1970-a decrease of 2J per cent.
In other words, there are a further 10,000 people without work in the construction industry. Perhaps they are working somewhere else, but the point is that as a result of government policy we have in 1970 an unemployment rate of 21.9 per cent in the construction industry, compared with 18.2 per cent last year. This represents an increase this year of 3.7 per cent. I cannot understand the government's thinking in this regard. We are living in an urban-oriented society and housing will unquestionably play a critical role in urban life. Unless the government realizes this fact and appreciates that some priorities must be set in terms of housing, the present situation, which has reached critical proportions since the last war, will be further aggravated.
8056	COMMONS
Request for Housing Statement
We have on several occasions indicated that alternatives should be considered by this government. I was pleased to note that the minister indicated approval of one of these alternatives on returning from his trip to Europe, namely, that there is some acceptability of the concept of building societies. The other day I asked the Minister of Finance whether the government would review its policy in this regard, but the minister adopted a kind of smart aleck attitude and said that anybody could start a building society. What he did not say was that in order for a building society to become a reality, there would have to be some tax incentives.
I hope the minister will take this question to his colleagues again for consideration. As long as interest rates continue to rise to the present level, which is around 10J per cent, more money must be brought into the housing field. I asked the minister about this matter the last time the committee considered his department's estimates, and he said that CMHC could not put more money into housing. I asked him about the billions of dollars in the pension funds, and he said there were some problems with the provinces in this regard. Although that may be true, I should like to know whether the minister is making any moves to acquire some of this money for housing purposes. I think the minister, in all fairness, would agree that one practical solution to the housing problem these days would be the creation of building societies.
Another proposal we have made to the minister is the removal of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, a tax that has a very real effect at this time. I do not know why the minister has not indicated whether this is feasible at the present time. I understand that it would take $600 to $700 off the price of a house, at the very minimum. Another alternative to present government policy is to control land prices and to limit speculation by having, not so much land banks but by acquiring land that is serviced. I see no possibility of our being able to help those in the lower-income bracket, much less people in the middle-income bracket, if the cost of land continues to escalate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired, but he may continue with the agreement of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I will not take up much more time since there are others who would like to condemn the government

DEBATES	June 12, 1970
for its inhumane attitude toward the housing situation confronting many Canadians, a situation that will continue to exist with present government policy. All I can say is that we in the opposition have every reason to put before the House and before Canadians the motion I have moved. I hope the government will give housing a high priority and that it will accept some of the alternatives put forward by the opposition in order to alleviate the housing shortage. I was pleased to hear the minister indicate the other day that he is all for urban councils. I was also pleased to note that it was this party which initiated this idea. We stated that unless we had three-level conferences there would be no way of solving the problems of urban development, one of which is housing.
I close by saying that urban renewal is still a fact of life. It is a fact of life because, even though the freeze is on, urban decay continues. I hope the government is conducting some research into this matter, rather than just imposing a freeze as part of government fiscal policy. In view of the heartache, frustration and alienation caused by the policies of the government, it is beyond my comprehension how the government could think that such policies could find acceptance. I hope that before the end of this year the government will introduce a firm policy defining what urban renewal means, particularly in terms of rehabilitation, and will offer some guidelines in this regard.
* (12:20 p.m.)


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party completely agree with the substance of the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), to the effect that there has been a serious decline in housing in the first five months of this year and that the minister should take immediate steps to stop the crisis that has been created and introduce measures to solve the problem. In fact, yesterday I proposed a motion under Standing Order 26 to have a special debate on this very matter. Yesterday I also asked the Minister in charge of housing to set forth in a statement on motions some of his ideas in respect of meeting this critical situation.
The Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing (Mr. Andras) has reached the same position concerning housing that he reached as Minister without Portfolio in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He has indicated that he is a man of
June 12. 1970

concern, compassion and knowledge, but having acquired these three attributes he finds he cannot do what is required to be done and what he would like to do to solve the problems. The minister attempted to do something in respect of the Indians and Eskimos across Canada, but as soon as he commenced to do so he was stopped.
Now he is confronted with the same problem in regard to housing. He now has a new role; he is now the apologist for government inaction. He is the greatest builder of paper houses this country has ever known. He has become the smokescreen of the government. When the crisis emerges, he makes suggestions such as the one he made last year, that in the CMHC budget for 1971 he would bring forward $200 million for what is known as experimental building in order to develop some of the innovative ideas the builders might have. In respect of that $200 million we have not seen an indication of any great innovation. When he knew he was on the griddle for his poor performance in respect of housing starts in Canada, he came forward with the urban council idea. I recall that at the federal-provincial conference in 1967, Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson brought forward the same idea. Members of the New Democratic Party agree with this idea and I think most Canadians would agree with it. It received a cool reception, however, and was not acted upon. I think it would take more than two or three years to set up the proper framework for an urban council so that it would have immediate direction and would be in a position to take meaningful action in respect of housing problems.
I find that the minister in charge of housing has become a sophisticate in housing jargon. Ever since he read the book on housing dynamics he has attempted to use all the jargon referred to in that book and seems to be trying to confuse the issues. I recall that in his first speech after being appointed minister in charge of housing he said the simple way to solve the housing problem in Canada is to build houses, more houses and more houses. But now he has changed his tune and has become the apologist for the government.
If the minister were in private industry, on his performance to date he would without doubt be fired because of his incompetence and inaction with regard to housing. Let me review his record since he was appointed to this portfolio. In May of this year, CMHC figures indicated a 50.1 per cent decline in housing starts in urban centres as compared
Request for Housing Statement with a similar period last year. Now the projection has dropped to 169,000 housing starts for 1970. Last year there were 210,000 starts. This was the first time the country had broken the 210,000 housing starts barrier. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the government indicated it wanted to build one million homes over the next five years. The figure has dropped to 169,000 for 1970. This indicates a substantial drop in respect of achieving the target of one million homes over the next five years.
I recall the statement by CMHC back in 1969 in which it was said that a program even as high as 250,000 emits per year would not create a sufficient stock of houses within five years to bring to an end the overcrowding, doubling up of families in housing accommodation and continued use of deficient dwellings. Here we have CMHC referring to
250,000	units, the Economic Council of Canada refers to 200,000 and 210,000 units and the government of Canada refers to one million units over the next five years. Yet the projection for this year is 169,000 units.
I recall the CMHC budget for 1969-70, which the minister set forth. There was to be a substantial increase in the support of low-income and moderate-income housing. The figures I have indicate that only 27,000 units were built last year, which amounts to only
7.9	per cent of all housing starts in Canada. The minister's projection for 1970 is 35,000, although he must know there are 100,000 people on the public housing waiting lists throughout Canada, and that in Toronto alone there are 18,000. His record with regard to starts is most discouraging. In respect of rents across Canada, the consumer price index indicates an increase of 5.5 points for the 1968-69 period, compared with an increase of 3.5 points in 1966-67 and 4.7 in 1967-68. It would be fair to say that the consumer price index for 1969-70 will rise above the 5.5 points increase of 1968-69. The minister has taken no action to request that the provinces impose rent controls, especially in the major cities throughout Canada, as a measure to fight inflation.
The NHA interest rate at the moment is 10.3 per cent. The conventional rate is 11 per cent, and the rate on second mortgages ranges between 15 per cent and 20 per cent. There has been a substantial drop in the prime rate which the banks charge, and yet CMHC has taken no action to bring down the interest rate charged by conventional lenders, or even by itself on its mortgages. People cannot buy
June 12, 1970

Request for Housing Statement homes at these exorbitant interest rates. With interest rates of 10 per cent and 11 per cent, and with mortgages ranging between $20,000 and $25,000, by the time a person has paid off the mortgage he has paid more than double its principal amount. When we think of a 35-year or 40-year mortgage being assumed by people 25 and 30 years of age, we realize that they will be 65 or 70 years of age before they make their final payment.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
With regard to the financing of homes, we have experienced a substantial drop in mortgage financing by major lending institutions, insurance and financial companies. When the minister appeared before the committee he attempted to put the blame on pension funds, but he did not say that he would get tough and require that a percentage of investment portfolio moneys held by these companies be directed toward financing housing. He did not hesitate to change the 25-year mortgages to 5 years to give the financial institutions a decided advantage with regard to interest rates, nor did he hesitate to free mortgage interest rates. But when it comes to telling the banks and other financial institutions that they must direct a certain percentage of their investment portfolio to the financing of housing, he remains silent.
The record also indicates that home ownership for low-income Canadians appears to have been reduced in the last few years. The percentage of NHA mortgage borrowers in the lower-third income group dropped from
17.9	per cent in 1965 to 6.4 per cent in 1969. With regard to housing, apartments have composed the highest number of building units to date; 52.7 per cent of all starts in 1969 were apartments, compared with 38.3 per cent in 1966. In Toronto alone, of the housing starts 77.8 per cent were apartment dwellings, and in Montreal the figure was 80.7 per cent. This trend to high-density units corresponds neither to the preferences nor to the needs of most Canadians. All these factors have resulted in an emergency for people in all income categories and a serious problem for middle-income Canadians.
After spending a few minutes setting forth the record of the minister in charge of housing, I find it incumbent upon me to tell the House what we in the NDP would do if we were faced with the same problem. First, we would bring forth legislation dropping all mortgage interest rates to 6 per cent. This would help to curb inflation and would stimu-

late home buying. It would help to decrease rents across the country. We would then bring forth legislation, if necessary, to ensure a steady and sufficient flow of mortgage moneys so that homes may be built across the country; and we would give priority to certain types of homes.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


John Gilbert: I will be glad to answer any questions when I have finished my remarks. We would make sure that residential homes and apartments had priority over shopping centres, luxury apartments, gas stations and other commercial ventures throughout the country. This would be a step in the right direction toward solving the housing problem.
Second, we would ask the provinces to impose rent controls in major cities or areas where it is shown that high rents are contributing to inflation and making it difficult to obtain shelter at reasonable rents. Third, we would introduce new subsidy programs to assist people to purchase or rent homes. In 1969, people at all income levels spent only $20.9 million on public housing subsidies, and the federal contribution amounted to only $12.6 million. This amounts to about 60 cents per person.
Compare that with subsidies for family and youth allowances, which amounted to $29.12 million; subsidies for post secondary education, 13.59 million; railway subsidies, $5.73 million; dairy subsidies, $6.20 million; defence subsidies, $86.22 million. When you compare those subsidies with the 60 cents per person paid for housing, you realize what a low priority the government gives to assisting people with low incomes to obtain housing. It is without doubt a shameful record.
Our subsidies program would include housing allowances to individuals to help them pay their rent. It would include rent supplements to low-income residents in non-profit and co-operative housing. We would subsidize interest rates to all income families, including condominium and co-operative homes. Fourth, we would curb inflation in the cost of land and we would impose a capital gains tax on land speculation. We would acquire large tracts of land with provincial and municipal co-operation. When these lands were obtained, we would lease them and exercise more positive and direct control with regard to land use. If any appreciation in value was obtained as a result of the development of these lands, this appreciation would go to the
June 12, 1970

public rather than to a private person or company. We would use a minimum of $100 million of the experimental $200 million fund that the minister set up as a start, to acquire these lands, and no sale of Crown lands would be made to private companies.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) questions with regard to the development of housing in land on the Kingston area waterfront. We were told that at this time a private developer by the name of Teron is interested in developing waterfront property in the Kingston area which should be used for public recreational purposes. I ask the minister to direct his attention toward helping people of Kingston develop these waterfront properties for public housing and for public recreational use.
I ask that he contact the municipal officials in Kingston, give them assistance for urban renewal projects in this area and allocate some of the $200 million of the experimental fund to develop this area. To sell this property, which really belongs to the public, to private interests would be indicative of a preference for individual profit rather than concern for the public of Kingston. I ask the minister to apply his immediate attention to this matter.
Fifth, we would develop a program of rehabilitation, because the home improvement loans program has failed as a result of high interest rates and the limitation on the amount that may be borrowed. We would make grants and low-interest loans to enable people to improve their homes. Sixth, we would have citizen participation in neighbourhood improvement organizations, in housing design and development, and in housing management. If we are to have participatory democracy, we must start at the grass roots. Through citizen participation in these areas, the principle of participatory democracy would be fostered.
Seventh, we would set up a separate ministry of housing and urban affairs, and we would have full consultation with all levels of government to assess housing needs. Thus we could allocate housing moneys to those areas of Canada which need housing most. We would give some direction with regard to the type of housing that should be built. We would also set up a Crown building corporation which would use all the newest ideas with regard to design and building techniques in the development of homes. We would stress the importance of building homes for
Request for Housing Statement the lower income groups and for senior citizens. In this way the Crown building corporation could give the lead to Canada with regard to co-operative housing.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I have come close to the end of my 20-minute allowance, Mr. Speaker. Much like the hon. member for Hamilton West, if I were to record all my criticisms of the government I would require two hours and 20 minutes. I hope the minister will implement some of our ideas with regard to meeting the housing crisis, and that he becomes more than a builder of paper houses, an apologist for the government and a smokescreen. I hope he shows the man of concern, compassion and knowledge that he really is, and that he makes a deep impression in the housing field. If he does not, he will have to transfer from this department as he did from the Department of Indian Affairs, except that next time he will not have a ministry; he will be relegated to the backbenches. I hope that does not happen, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, it is true, as the motion points out, that recently there has been a decline in residential housing construction. This is a regrettable situation. I know the minister is aware of the problem and that he is trying to do something about it. It is very easy for opposition members, and for backbenchers in this party to be critical. I am sure the minister would like to see built all those houses that he talked about when he first assumed this portfolio. But it is not always as easy to get things done as it would appear; certainly, it is not as easy as it is to stand up in this House and criticize. However, I hope the minister will be able to deal with the problem and that before the House adjourns he will be able to make further announcements of steps to stimulate construction of residential housing.
As a representative from Montreal I would point out that the situation there is not nearly as bad as it is in other Canadian cities. I am not as familiar with other cities as I am with my own, but I understand the housing situation is much worse in Toronto, Ottawa and other places. Within the last three months I purchased a small home in my Montreal constituency. Prior' to that I had been checking the Montreal housing market. The housing advertisements showed small homes for sale at a low price not equalled in many other places. There have been advertisements
June 12, 1970

Request for Housing Statement regarding housing developments on the south shore of Montreal, in Brossard, Candiac and elsewhere, where three-bedroom, fully contained houses are offered for sale at $14,000 with a $500 down payment. These are new houses.
I have in my hand the Montreal Star, and here I see an advertisement for a house for sale in my constituency. The price is $22,000. It is a six-room house, with playroom, 1J bathrooms, fireplace, appliance kitchen and garden. They are asking $4,000 in cash, with a first mortgage at 7 per cent. As 1 say, the total price is $22,000. It is in Montreal west, one of the garden municipalities. Here is an advertisement for a two-year old home in my constituency. It has four bedrooms, 2| baths, family room, fireplace, double garage, with a 9 per cent mortgage and a $9,000 down payment. Here we have a house in Boucherville, on the south shore of Montreal, with three bedrooms. The mortgage interest is 5J per cent, with mortgage payments at $71.45 per month. There are other very good homes advertised. Here is a bungalow built in 1970, for $19,750, which has three bedrooms, playroom, fireplace and garage. These homes are in Montreal, close to the centre of the city. Many of these places are within 15 minutes' driving distance of downtown Montreal. They are residential areas. They are not what can be considered rundown areas. I realize this may be exceptional in Canada and that these conditions are not to be found in other places. However, this is not to say that there is not much to be done in Montreal.
The area in which Montreal is most lacking is that of public housing. The examples I have given are of homes which middle-income people could purchase with $4,000 or $3,000 down payments. I do not have the advertisements here from the Saturday papers, because it seems our library does not keep the Saturday papers, but I have seen the Saturday papers advertising $14,000 homes with $500 down payments. As I say, the lack in Montreal has been in the area of public housing. But in the last year and a half there has been a great improvement. Up until then the situation was deplorable. Montreal, the largest city in Canada, had only tv/o public housing projects, proportionately away behind Toronto, Vancouver and other major cities. A year and a half ago the Montreal city administration finally realized the city was badly lacking in public housing and now homes are being built for low-income people. These are attractive homes and are being built properly.
[Mr. Allmand.l
Another phenomenon of the housing situation in Montreal is the high vacancy rate in apartments, not only in luxury apartments but in middle-class apartments. As has been pointed out by other hon. members, families, especially those with young children, do not prefer to live in apartments. Many of the apartment units in Montreal have fairly low rents, and there are many vacancies. They are in areas of Montreal which are not away out in the suburbs but which still are residential areas.
I understand that the minister will point out again that there has been an increase in investment in public housing, although there has been an increase in investment in public housing, although there has been a decline in housing starts. As a matter of fact, he has already announced a great shift in priorities, and the volume of public housing has increased. We who are interested in the problems of the cities were greatly encouraged by the minister's recent announcement concerning the possibility of the establishment of an urban council. As a representative from the province of Quebec, I was particularly pleased to note the statement made by Mr. Tessier, the provincial minister of municipal affairs, clearing the way for Quebec municipalities to consult directly with the federal government. Some opposition members have stated that they suggested this step many weeks and months ago. That is true, Mr. Speaker. Many of us have done the same, but the fact is that when we were trying to encourage constitutional change it was not appropriate to invade an area of provincial jurisdiction without provincial consent.
* (12:50 p.m.)
The present constitution gives over-all or comprehensive jurisdiction for municipalities to the provinces. No matter how much the federal government may have wanted to deal directly with the municipalities, it could not ignore the views and attitude of an important and significant province of Canada, such as Quebec. That is why it was very difficult to deal with certain municipalities directly, and I can appreciate the difficulty. Montreal withdrew from the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities four years ago, precisely because of pressure brought to bear by the government of Quebec. The announcement by the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing (Mr. Andras) and the Quebec minister of municipal affairs has greatly pleased me. Clearly, there has been a great change of
June 12, 1970

policy in Quebec. Not only have there been statements in Quebec saying that there would be co-operation with respect to cities, but last week agreements were signed to establish the first national park in that province. The agreement signed with respect to regional economic expansion will do much for the city of Quebec and the region of Trois-Rivieres. My colleague for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) is present in the House and no doubt will say something in this debate. There was also an agreement signed with respect to new industries in the Granby area, which also is most encouraging.
Speaking as a citizen of Montreal, I would now encourage the leaders of that city to rejoin the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. Since it is one of the most dynamic cities in Canada, it could contribute much to the federation, and it has much to gain. I think the city's counsel would be meaningful for the federation. I hope Montreal will soon take steps to rejoin the federation and participate in the proposed Canadian urban council.
The motion before us refers to the cost of homes and asks the government to take steps to reduce the total cost of individual homes for middle and low-income Canadians. The minister has announced that several research and pilot projects now under way are designed to do that. I have met architects from the Montreal area who are working on programs of this nature and who have participated in low-cost housing programs.
The task force on housing has said, as have many other people, that there is room for great improvement in this area. They mean that the technology of mass production in housing must be improved. Whereas the manufacturers of most consumer products have for a long time reaped the benefits of mass production and new technology, the house builders have lagged far behind. Whereas the price of items inside the home- items such as household appliances and furniture-have been greatly reduced in price over the past 30 or 40 years, the price of homes has not been reduced mainly because methods of mass production have not been used in the housing industry.
I do not think that we at the federal government level can find all the solutions to that problem. It is true that unions involved in house construction have not cleared the way for the implementation of new mass production techniques which could be used. If we are to introduce mass produced housing on a
Request for Housing Statement large scale, we must obtain the co-operation of a number of unions. Also, if we are to build great numbers of mass produced housing units, we must ask for changes in zoning regulations and building codes, and these are matters which fall under provincial and municipal jurisdiction.
We shall also need co-operation to curb land speculation and to build up public land banks for housing purposes. There must be co-operation in the provision of more and better serviced land on which large housing projects can be built. I know that portions of the agreements signed by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) with Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Quebec provide for the establishment of serviced land with sewers and other facilities.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Thomas Miller Bell: Let the hon. member finish.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I shall finish with the point I had begun making. I thank hon. members for allowing me a few extra minutes. I was saying that agreements which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion signed with several provinces provide for the establishment of serviced land to be used for municipal purposes and housing. I think this is a step in the right direction. In conclusion, in common with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) I regret the decline in residential housing starts and hope that the government will be able to do more to promote the expansion of such housing. I know the minister is aware of this problem. I feel that he is doing his very best. I should like him to be able to carry out the request made in this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part
June 12, 1970

Request for Housing Statement in this debate on a subject of great urgency and importance. I begin by expressing surprise that when the mover of the motion and the first speaker for the New Democratic Party spoke this morning, stressing the importance of this matter and putting forward certain proposals, no spokesman for the government felt it was necessary to respond. I am not insisting that the minister should speak right away. However, it seems to reflect the attitude of the government toward this House and this subject. It is hardly in keeping with the situation that exists with regard to housing in Canada today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is not necessary to go over the ground already covered with regard to the housing situation in Canada. It has been clearly established that housing starts were substantially down for the first five months of this year. Housing construction is down approximately 43 per cent. It is down with regard to all parts of the country. The month of May was even worse than previous months. There has been a crisis developing with regard to housing in every province in Canada. In Saskatchewan, housing starts are down 90.4 per cent. In the great province of Ontario, one of the industrial centres of Canada, the figure is down 48 per cent. In the city of Windsor housing starts are down 80 per cent, and in the city of Toronto 53 per cent. The prospects for the next few months are no better, based on information available with regard to applications for new loans.
A few weeks ago, when the situation seemed very serious, the minister estimated there would be 180,000 housing starts in 1970. Is this still the forecast of the minister? If not, how many housing starts does the minister now expect? What is the minister's target? I think the House is entitled to know his expectations. What does the minister propose to do to achieve this target? So far this year the course has been steadily downward. We must speak frankly in situations such as this. The estimate with regard to the number of housing starts can only be the result of horrible forecasting or callous disregard of the implications. I do not want to accuse the minister of callously disregarding the implications because I do not think he is that kind of man. Therefore, I must accuse those responsible for forecasting for the government of a very high degree of incompetence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I cannot believe that even this government would have sat back had they foreseen what was going to happen and what has happened. This is a very important subject because of the effects on people seeking shelter. It is also important in a number of other respects. It is important with respect to the major fight this government claims it is contending, the fight against inflation. The cost of houses has risen between 55 per cent and 60 per cent since 1965, far exceeding the rise in salaries or wages. The cost of housing is one of the leading components in the consumer price index. It has already been pointed out that this index has gone up and up. In the month of May the consumer price index rose .2 points and the cost of housing rose .7 points.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Moreover, housing is one of the most heavily weighted items in the consumer price index. Clearly, therefore, the cost of housing is a most important factor in inflation. The increase in the cost of housing is reflected in the demands for wage and salary increases; there is no need to elaborate on this point. While we must agree that in Canada, generally speaking, inflation is not due to a shortage of goods or to too many dollars chasing too few goods, the area of housing is plainly one in which shortage of supply is reponsible for the steady rise in cost and, by extension, for the steady increase in the cost of living. In other words, this is an area in which shortage of supply is an inflationary factor and in which a policy of restraint is the worst thing in the world a government could contribute toward reducing inflationary pressures.
Obviously, an important part of any successful anti-inflation fight in Canada is to increase the supply of housing. The supply of housing must be increased, and we must get rid of the tax on building materials. Increased flexibility must be attached to the making of loans for the construction of housing units of all kinds, and this must be done on a regular basis, not on an intermittent basis.
The minister has admitted that the government's policies of restraint have been a substantial factor in the disaster which has taken place this year with regard to housing. He has admitted that the change in taxation policy adopted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) in 1969 as far as life insurance companies are concerned has affected their willingness or ability to advance money in the housing market. He has admitted that the
June 12. 1970

tight money policy followed by the government has placed the banks in a position where they have been unable to move strongly into this area. The policy which the government has followed is, therefore, inflationary as far as its effect on housing is concerned, and this is bound to be reflected in the demands of the working man for salary increases.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Now, in the month of June, figures for the first five months of the year are before us and they show some of the results of the government's disastrous housing policy. The Economic Council of Canada had the following to say in its Sixth Annual Review last September. X will read at some length because I believe it sums up the whole question very well.
In view of the large rise in the total housing stock required to 1975 under conditions of rapidly rising levels of new household formation, it is essential that a high rate of new residential construction be maintained, and that there should be no major setback in this sector, such as occurred in 1966. Indeed, over the next year or two, it is particularly important that a very high rate of new housing completions be achieved to increase the relatively low vacancy rates now prevailing in various major Canadian cities. This is one essential requirement for achieving a moderation in the recent very high rates of advance in shelter costs. In these circumstances it is vitally important especially under the financial conditions of today, that the seasonally adjusted annual rate of new housing starts be carefully monitored month by month. If there should be any clear sign that new housing starts are falling off in a significant way, possible remedial actions should be quickly considered. We are now in a situation in which a major housing crisis could develop within a very short period of time.
That is what the Economic Council of Canada said last fall, and I think it is not unfair to say that the government seems to have completely ignored the warning. Yet this is a government which prides itself on efficiency and says that everything is happening as planned. It has bungled, despite warnings from very high places. I do not like to say this, but I think it is true. The only explanation I can find-and I do not think it applies to the minister in question today-is that the government has been so set on getting at labour and picking a fight with it that it has failed to take seriously the developing crisis in housing.
I have been advocating a fair set of guidelines for this country for the past two years. Six per cent is not fair; it cannot be called fair when an increase of 10 per cent occurs in
Request for Housing Statement other places. But the government is insisting on a 6 per cent limitation. We need an incomes policy, but hon. gentlemen opposite have made it very difficult to achieve such a policy in Canada, with public support, because of the way in which they have been behaving.
What is urgently needed as part of any anti-inflation program is a serious attack upon the human misery which has resulted from the disastrous fall-off in housing which we have experienced this year. If imaginative measures were called for in 1969, then certainly bold and imaginative measures are needed today. The matter is urgent because the government has allowed to happen the very thing which the Economic Council warned should be avoided at virtually any cost.
It is high time the minister rose to tell us what his plans are to make more money available for housing at lower cost, whether the government intends to re-examine the level of CMHC loans and make more of them available, and what it will do to end the policy of turning on and off the amount of loan capital available for housing construction-a policy which is disastrous not only for housing starts at any time but in its disruptive effect by weakening the ability of the industry to respond again in a satisfactory way.
I ask him to tell us what the government intends to do about the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and what action it proposes to take to remove the unsettling effects of the white paper proposals as far as they concern home ownership. I call upon the minister to answer these questions. I do not ask him to explain what has happened. I know what has happened: the government has bungled; the government has allowed housing starts to settle to a disastrously low rate. This has happened as a direct result of government policies. The government must accept full responsibility for what has occurred.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
A number of suggestions have been made from the opposition side of the House. More money should be made available for housing, and the cost of the money lowered. Let the government reduce the cost of building materials by eliminating the sales tax. The problem of housing is a long-term one, but I address myself this afternoon particularly to the immediate emergency in which the country finds itself in the field of housing as the
June 12, 1970

Request for Housing Statement direct result of the policies of this government. I ask the minister to get off his seat and to tell the House and the country what he proposes to do about the situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before recognizing the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain), is the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) rising on a point of order, or to ask a question?


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Certainly.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. gentleman indicated that for the last two years he has been recommending a fair system of guidelines, and he rejected 6 per cent as an appropriate rate. What rate does the hon. member regard as appropriate for these guidelines?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have not rejected 6 per cent in principle, or in any other way, as an appropriate rate. What I reject is the way the government has gone about the whole question. In view of the way it has proceeded, how can the government expect anybody to accept the package it proposes when it is so obviously unfair in the circumstances? I simply say to my hon. friend that the guidelines package, to be acceptable, must be fair. I would ask him at some time to try to convince me or any fair-minded person that what the government proposed recently is fair in the circumstances and does carry conviction.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, from reading the motion, it is easy, I think, to realize that the mover, the hon, member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), is good-natured, mature and broad-minded. He could have said, with some malice not often heard from him, that this House wants to blame the government. But far from doing so, he proposes that, and I quote:
This House declares that the government must, in view of the disastrous decline In residential housing construction, announce before the summer recess new measures to stimulate a signifiant expansion in the number of housing units being built, to reduce the total cost of individual homes for middle and low income Canadians, and to reduce or eliminate unemployment in the construction trades.
At first glance, the motion seems mild. In fact, it refrains from blaming the government too strongly, and I guess that the mover, even if he sits in the opposition, realizes that the

housing shortage is a problem for which not only the government is responsible.
There are several factors. For instance, the scarcity of available capital, the rise in interest rates-for which the government is not necessarily responsible-and the disastrous strikes which occurred in Quebec when certain labour unions refused to co-operate with the government. All these factors played a part in the economic slowdown in the construction field.
When the mover asks the minister to announce measures, I have the impression that he will not have to wait too long and that he might learn a great deal this afternoon because we on the government side know that the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing (Mr. Andras) is very active and deeply concerned about the housing construction problem in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to relate certain recent decisions to the construction problem.
First of all, I would like to thank the government, and especially the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand), for having designated Trois-Rivieres as a special area. The latter recently announced measures which will improve the substructure of my area and therefore will facilitate not only the establishment of new businesses but also the construction of new houses.
I am particularly grateful to the government for having taken this decision which was welcomed by the population. It had the effect of a shot in the arm for our economy. As everyone knows, activity in the building trade is a sign of general prosperity. That is why we are all in favour of incentives for construction. The minister could give more details than I could and he will be able to do so when he speaks this afternoon. I would also like to comment the recent statements made by the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs. He said that he was hoping for better co-operation among the three levels of government.
This is not a new request, but I am pleased to note that for the first time in several years, when we are all wishing for an improved climate among the three levels of government, the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is a former mayor and president of the Union of Quebec Municipalities and who is quite aware of the problem, has just made the statement that the Canadian Federation of Mayors has been asking for for several years.
June 12, 1970


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in 15 minutes it is impossible to cover the subject before us. Many of the details have already been dealt with. I want to start by saying in the presence of the minister that a simple fact is that in the field of housing and urban affairs this government has fiddled and diddled for the last two and more years, with disastrous consequences for Canada and for the people of Canada.
This minister, like the minister before him, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), and like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) so often, has developed a rather disarming habit of sounding cheerful about the situation. The minister always expresses concern for and great sympathy with the disadvantaged people. Indeed, he is always full of concern and pain, but completely empty of policy and action. His concern and sympathy will not build homes. They will not provide accommodation for the disadvantaged people of Canada. However sincere he may be-and I do not doubt his sincerity-the fact is that for years now the housing situation in Canada has gone from bad to worse. The government has stood still without taking any of the steps that might have enabled it to improve the
June 12, 1970	COMMONS
situation, so that every year we are in a worse situation than we were in the year before.
Mr. Speaker, all of us in the opposition-I know I am, and I am sure all my colleagues in the New Democratic Party are-are aware of the fact that the housing problem in a sense is a universal one. There are very few cities in very few countries of the world that have been able to keep up adequately and quickly enough with the rapid urbanization which has been taking place in the last several decades in all the industrialized centres and countries of the world. No one can expect this or any other government to solve the problem overnight, because it is a cumulative problem which results from the rapid urbanization which is more rapid in Canada than anywhere else.
It is a problem which cannot be solved except in the course of some years. Perhaps it cannot be completely solved except in the course of a generation. It is precisely because of this fact that I say to the minister, with all the seriousness of which I am capable, that the fact that there has been an accumulation of decades of mismanagement in the past, together with the fact that this is the result of rapid urbanization which grows year after year, and the fact that it might be years before we can solve the housing problem, is all the more reason this government should be soundly condemned for not having taken the first steps toward a solution.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
No one expects miracles from the minister, but one did expect from the Prime Minister, the swinger of 1968, and from this government some kind of modern approach to this problem, some recognition of the urgency of the problem. We expected some steps which would indicate that we were making at least a modest start on licking the problem of the shortage of housing, of the slums in the cities, of the deteriorating homes in which people have to live, of the overcrowding, of little children playing in the streets because of the absence of parks and playgrounds in our cities, of the traffic jams in the cities, of the air and water pollution and of all those things about which government spokesmen have sounded lyrical and poetical for years now. That is why I for one was forced to say to the conference of mayors and municipalities, at which I had the pleasure of speaking last Tuesday at lunch, that it seems to me these problems are so overwhelming now that they have become almost entirely unmanageable.
DEBATES	8067
Request for Housing Statement
The failure of this minister to do the least that should be done with respect to solving these problems, his failure to take some fundamental approaches in this respect, makes the problems worse every day. It is not as if this or the former government were not fully aware of this problem. I re-read only this morning, in preparation for my comments now, a speech which the former Prime Minister, Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, made to a federal-provincial conference on housing and urban development held in Ottawa on December 11, 1967. At that time Mr. Pearson said:
Although every level of government has had its failures in this increasingly vital area of our national and local life, fortunately we still have time in Canada to correct our mistakes and to avoid repeating them in the future.
It is a pity that the present Prime Minister was perhaps absent when Mr. Pearson made the statement, because we still had a little time then. We still have a little time now, but we are not correcting our mistakes and apparently we will not avoid repeating them in the future. On the contrary, we continue to compound them and to make the situation worse. Mr. Pearson in the speech to which I have referred also made the following comment which I draw to the attention of the minister and of the Prime Minister. Having said earlier that there were difficulties and limitations as to jurisdiction, he said:
But the urban environment is now of such fundamental importance to every aspect of Canadian life, including the health of the whole nation and its economy, that local problems in all areas of the country collectively present a national problem which clearly concerns the federal government.
This was said on December 11, 1967, and I am certain that if I looked through Hansard and if I had the time to re-read speeches made by Mr. Pearson and other people in the years before 1967, I would find exactly the same kind of statement-that our program until now has been a failure, that we still have some time to correct our failures, and that all of this is a national concern and a national responsibility. But as I look at the picture in 1970 as compared with 1967, I see that the housing situation now is worse. The price of our houses has gone up, our rents have gone up and the total urban picture has become worse since December 11, 1967. This government, as is apparent from what we see all around us, stands clearly condemned for total failure in the important national area of housing and urban affairs.
It is not as if construction has not been going on. You cannot visit any city in this
June 12, 1970

Request for Housing Statement country without seeing construction taking place, unless there is a construction strike. There is not a city in this country-and I have been to many cities in recent months- where you do not see luxury apartment buildings going up, entirely unnecessary office buildings and unnecessary and redundant commercial buildings going up, whether they be shopping plazas or service stations at some corner, the only corner that is left at the intersection, all the other corners already being occupied by gas stations or bank buildings. It is not as if construction was not going on in Canada, but in social terms it is totally unnecessary construction.
If the funds, the effort, the labour and the resources which are spent in this field of socially unnecessary and less than useful construction at this particular time were turned over to the construction of public housing, to the rehabilitation of old homes, and planning and beautifying the cities, we would not be in the serious difficulties in which we now find ourselves.
I do not make any apology for emphasizing the social philosophy I and my colleagues have often expressed in this House. Our present housing crisis is one of the most visible results of the total failure to organize our society and our economy, of our inclination to leave it to private developers-as I said to the conference of mayors and municipalities in Halifax-to shape our cities, because in the long run they are the ones who do so. They decide what kind of construction they will undertake and they make the decision as to what kind of plan they want, even though municipalities frequently have plans and zoning by-laws. As I said to the conference, I do not know of any single case where the objectives of the municipal plan have not been bent, and perhaps even abandoned as a result of the pressures and the lobbying of the private interests which conflict with the public goals which the municipal councils and planning agencies have set for the city.
We have permitted the private developers to do this. I do not condemn them; they are playing according to the rules as they know them and they are interested in profit, which is why they are in business. They are interested in a situation which will maximize that profit. But I do condemn government at all levels for its failure to demand that our cities be planned, that the people in the cities, rather than the private developers, have something to say about the shape of our

urban environment, and that we set priorities for the use of capital and resources for construction.
Top priority should be given to public housing. The second priority should be given to area development and rehabilitation, and the third priority should be given to low-cost housing for the lower and middle-income people. Only when these priorities in construction are met should we permit the building of banks, office buildings and high-rise luxury apartment houses. These are the priorities that we should set for ourselves in Canada. This is the only way in which this problem can be tackled. It will not be solved in a year or two, but it should be tackled so that the people can have hope that it will be solved, that the quality of our urban life will not be undermined and that the hopelessness of a great many of our low-income people can be removed and some hope given them.
I think my time is about up, so I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. I know that in the files in my office-and I am sure in the files of every hon. member of every party- there are literally hundreds of letters written over the last few years by old people, people with families, young people who cannot afford to pay the rent they are forced to pay, who cannot buy the homes they want to buy, who have nothing left to eat after they have paid the rent, who are on welfare, who are on a long waiting list for public housing and who are totally desperate about their position with regard to accommodation.
*>
(2:50 p.m.)
These are the facts, Mr. Speaker. I join the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in demanding from the minister not merely an expression of his concern, because we accept the fact that he is concerned. We demand not merely an expression of his sympathy, because we know him to be a generous and sympathetic person. We ask that he not waste any of his time telling the House he is as concerned as everybody else-we take that concern for granted-or telling the House he is sympathetic, because we take that as given. We demand that he rise from his seat and tell this House and the people of Canada what he will start to do tomorrow to meet this urgent and overwhelming problem in our cities.
Hon. Roberi K. Andras (Minister without
Portfolio): Those are interesting challenges, Mr. Speaker, and I can understand and feel the concern-I use the word of the hon. gen-
June 12, 1970	COMMONS
tleman who preceded me and who talked about his earnestness. Perhaps we all have words to which we stick very faithfully.
There is reason for the concern expressed by hon. members, particularly about the low level of housing starts in May. In fact, if anyone were justified in projecting to the end of the year the May rate of housing starts, or anything close to it, the implication would be that we would get less than 140,000 units this year, and this would also probably include in the same projection only 15,000 starts in low-income housing. Certainly a low level of achievement of that nature would justify the most profound criticism of and concern for the government's policies in this area. But I say with the most deliberate emphasis that there is no justification for such a dire projection.
Healing with the month of May, the fact is that there were several factors combining to yield the low level of housing starts, but they will not persist.


David Orlikow: How about April and
February?


Robert Knight Andras: I referred to these factors briefly in the House yesterday, but I think they will bear repetition. First, there was a temporary decline in low-income housing starts. In April, starts of these dwellings had totalled 2,488 units but in May they totalled only 886 units. This kind of fluctuation has to be expected from time to time, reflecting the combination of decisions about the start of construction of low-income housing projects by provincial housing agencies and by nonprofit or low-income housing corporations. I may say that there were events taking place in some of the larger provinces during May that gave rise to their preoccupation with other measures. But this decline in activity in May did not reflect any cutback in commitments for this kind of construction on the part of the federal government.
In fact, at the beginning of that month over
13,000	loans were approved for these dwellings, for which construction had not yet started. For your information, Mr. Speaker, and that of hon. members, this was almost three times the number committed to this program at that time a year ago. I can assure you that those financial commitments, while not resulting in starts in the month of May, will not go to waste. If ever there appeared any danger of that, of course we could quickly reallocate them and find many other willing takers for the funds we are providing. So this activity
DEBATES	8069
Request for Housing Statement will recover. But I do expect, and I think we should all face it, that the starts of such dwellings will fluctuate from month to month. I think everyone should face this fact.
The second of the special circumstances was the impact of construction stoppages in Quebec and British Columbia. The Quebec stoppage is already over, I believe. I do not pretend to know what will be the future course of the B.C. situation, but the work stoppage will not last forever. When it ends there will be a catching up on the construction that has been delayed, for which the land has been acquired and for which the financing and all other preparatory work has been completed.
The decline in starts of low-income housing and the impact of construction strikes are estimated to have accounted for about three-quarters of the decline in the rate of housing starts from April to May. The rest of that decline was the lagged result of the decline in mortgage lending which was under way in the second half of 1969 and which continued into the first quarter of 1970. But that decline in mortgage lending activity has already reversed itself, and had in fact done so before the May housing starts data became available.
Institutional mortgage lending under the National Housing Act reached its low point of a seasonally adjusted annual rate of some 21,400 units in March. That rate doubled in April to 42,800 units, and was at a rate of over 50,000 units a year in the month of May. Those are mortgage commitments, and they do not immediately, at once, result in starts. For conventional mortgage lending activity the data are a little less current because they do not come under the NHA statistical apparatus. But the data do show a reversal in trend in March, with the upturn continuing in April, bringing mortgage loan commitments from an annual rate of 33,700 units in February to 46,800 units in April, and I would expect that there have been further increases. I would also expect that these trends in mortgage lending activity will have a discernable effect on housing starts not later than July.
What of the rest of the year? First, as to starts of low income housing units, I expect these to be about double last year's level. In 1969 commitments were issued to provincial housing agencies and to non-profit and low-rental housing corporations for 27,000 housing units for low-income people. That is totally apart from a significant amount of hostel accommodation. So we were committed to
27,000	units in 1969. Construction actually got
June 12, 1970


John Gilbert: So have we.


Robert Knight Andras: Quite apart, therefore, from the discussions which I have had from time to time with my cabinet colleagues on these matters, I have, in concert with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), caused a committee of senior officials from the Department of Finance, the Bank of Canada and from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to be formed several weeks ago, and this is keeping a keen eye on the progress of house building and mortgage lending activity. And if for any reason things appear likely not to turn out the way I have been suggesting, the warning lights will flash and consideration will have to be given to remedial action.
The major component, Mr. Speaker, in the government's housing target for the year 1970 is to see that commitments are made for low income housing units for close to 35,000 dwelling units, together with a significant number of hostel units. That target is deliberately directed to where we believe the real need to be.
I have pointed out elsewhere that this target, together with the commitments for low income housing achieved in 1969, add up to more than 75 per cent of all such activity for low income people in the 20-odd years prior to the beginning of 1969; while that may not be enough and I should like to see more done, I doubt if it indicates that no start has been made in the solution of this significant problem.
The other part of the government's housing concern for 1970-


An hon. Member:: Twice zero is still zero.


Robert Knight Andras: -is to see that the private market for new housing operates as effectively as possible, and contributes as much as it can to the production of new housing. Surely, in the circumstances the most effective contribution we can make to that is to see that inflationary forces are abated. I am confident that the combination of public action directed to the housing needs of low income people, together with an effectively operating private market, will yield the 1 million new housing units that this government is committed to over the five-year period. That does not mean, and never has meant, that there is a commitment to build a constant average of
200,000	housing units in each of those five years.


John Gilbert: That is what we were given to understand.
June 12, 1970	COMMONS


Robert Knight Andras: The trend will be up, in line with the growth in householders, starting from a rate below 200,000 units per year and reaching above that by the end of the five-year period. I think it is only common sense to recognize that variations from any precise figure in any given year can be expected. Despite statements by some hon. members, there has never been a commitment to a target of 250,000 units per year. No responsible body, least of all the Economic Council, has ever suggested that 250,000 starts per year represents a feasible or in some sense absolutely "required" housing target for 1970, and I submit it is no contribution to the improvement of public policy relating to housing to suggest otherwise.


David Orlikow: And what about Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Robert Knight Andras: The same thing applies there. The objective of 250,000 housing starts per year is extremely desirable and represents a degree of perfection that no country in the world has attained in the short space of five years. I would love to do this; hon. members would love to do it and the government would love to do it, but it would mean the abandonment of other priorities which, perhaps on other emergency debates on other days, hon. members would say ought to be the current top priority of this government on that day.


David Orlikow: That does not let the government off the hook.


Robert Knight Andras: I should like to close by saying that the government's housing policy and actions are set within a longer time frame than a month or statistical variations arising from month to month. While these variations are important in giving us trend information, and require examination, which we are giving them, this matter should really be looked at in a longer time frame, and I think all hon. members will in the end recognize that we will reach our objectives as indicated in the throne speech last fall.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And in the end we will all be dead.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I heard the comments of the minister in charge of housing on the motion the official opposition brought forward today.
We were expecting an answer offering a solution to the extremely serious housing
DEBATES	8071
Request jor Housing Statement problems of this country. We well recall that last year towards the same date the government brought forward in the House Bill C-192 on housing. The bill's purports were good, but to date it has not achieved the goal the government had set for it. For the past year, and this year more than ever, we have been aware that Canada's housing problems are still the same if not worse than last year.
The minister has again expressed the pious wishes we have been hearing since 1968. Two years have gone by and here is what the minister said in May 1969 in his statement on Bill C-192, which I have here:
Quite simply, there are more families and nonfamily households in this country than there are dwellings, and too many dwellings are inadequate.
o (3:10 p.m.)
What a discovery!
-and too many dwellings are inadequate.
It also means that many people are living in substandard housing, and face the resulting threat to health, comfort and self-esteem. There are many families that are overcrowded because the accommodation is too small for their needs.
The housing problem... is expressed in terms of deprivation, suffering, congestion and squalor... "families that do not keep their own household", "dwellings in need of major repairs", "dwellings lacking running water and flush toilets and without private bathing facilities"-
And the "litany" goes on that deplores the lot of thousands of Canadians who are without proper housing at this time.
We remember also quite well that at that time, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hell-yer), chairman of the task force that investigated housing problems in Canada and travelled about 25,000 miles to that effect, submitted a report to this House and eventually had to resign as minister in charge of housing.
And in the May 1969 issue of the newspaper Le Travailleur Canadien, one could read this:
The hon. Paul Hellyer resigned at the end of April from his office as Minister of Transport-
Just before he resigned, Mr. Hellyer disclosed a new surrender of the government before the powers of money.
A few moments ago, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) said that housing problems in Canada today are everybody's responsibility except the federal government's.
Capital is scarce in Canada for housing projects. Who is responsible for putting money in circulation if not the federal government? It is its responsibility and the hon. member for
June 12, 1970

Request for Housing Statement Trois-Rivieres, who is no longer in his seat, said that the lack of capital in Canada was attributable to everybody, except to the government which is responsible for it.
He also said that the rise in interest rate is one of the reasons why there is a housing shortage in Canada and that everybody was to be blamed for it, except the present government.
He also mentioned that the 11 per cent tax on building materials constitutes one of the direct causes of the problem. He indicated that he was favouring its removal. However, I remember quite well that several proposals to remove this tax were brought before the House but the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres always voted against them. Are the answers of the government side serious?
Last year, there appeared in the March 5, 1969 issue of La Presse an article, which reported the following, and I quote:
The CNTU of Montreal proposes that a vast public housing sector be set up in Quebec-
For that purpose, the CNTU set up a committee of tenants which it called for the occasion the Tenants' Association. That committee presented a report from which I would like to quote:
The report points out that estimated Canadian needs in housing units to be built per year vary between 170,000 and 200,000. In Montreal, between 35,000 and 40,000 would be needed. The Tenants' Association states that in its opinion, 100,000 low-price units would be needed in Montreal while governments have built less than 1,000 to replace the 14,332 which have been demolished.
It is estimated that the number of over-populated housing units in the Montreal area is 90,903.
The Tenants' Association also conducted a survey on housing costs in Canada as opposed to other countries of the world. It reported as follows:
Moreover, it is found that, in general, Quebecers on the whole pay more for housing.. .than in several other countries of the world, that is 18.8 per cent of the family budget as compared, for instance, to 9.9 per cent in Sweden, 7.4 per cent in Italy and 5.5 per cent in France.
Those figures were published by the Tenants' Association. Nonetheless, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres this afternoon would have us believe that the housing situation in Canada was one of the brightest compared to the conditions prevailing in other countries.
In its editorial of January 8, 1969, Television de Quebec (Canada) Ltee had this to say about interest rates and housing:
It is surely not by increasing its interest rates on loans from 8J to 9 per cent, as the Central Housing

and Mortgage Corporation did on January 1, that the federal government will encourage Canadians to build. In addition, it is not by maintaining its 12 per cent tax on building materials that the government will encourage contractors to undertake building projects.
The following appeared in La Presse on January 4, 1969, and I quote:
The former president of the Housebuilders' Association, of the Montreal district, Mr. Albert Gagnon, expressed the hope that all builders will refuse, as he does, to build houses as long as the interest rate of 9g per cent on mortgage loans will remain in force.
In a brief submitted to the Association, Mr. Gagnon said that the rate was prohibitive.
The spokesman of the Montreal builders before the Hellyer Commission points out, in his submission, six consequences which, according to him, would result from the increased interest rate.
It must be noted that the six effects mentioned have been felt in the past year in the Canadian economy, mostly in the housing field. The first effect of the increased rate was the following:
an increase in the rates now being charged by all loan companies.
This followed the increase in the mortgage interest rate by the federal government. I continue the quotation:
The rate of conventional loans could easily reach 11 per cent or more;
The rate is now 11 per cent in most Canadian areas.
Therefore, his prediction came true. He goes on to say:
-a sharp slowdown in new housing starts resulting in a housing shortage:
This effect has also been evident in the past year. I continue the quotation:
-a spiralling increase in unemployment, a situation quite opposite to a policy geared to the "just society";
A society "just for fun" has been advocated or, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, a "just society." He did not say for whom! Two years after his coming to power and thanks to the publicity he has enjoyed so far, we realize that we now have a society "just for him". The quotation goes on:
-rent increases which will be reflected in a higher cost of living;
Everywhere, especially in the larger Canadian cities, rents have gone up.
I continue the quotation:
-more pressing claims from the unions for wages increases which will contribute to strengthen the inflationary trends-
June 12. 1970

But Mr. Gagnon had foreseen that following the increase in interest rates, the workers, as was seen last year, would go on strike in order to get pay increases, thus causing more inflation. The government would like to fight inflation, but they are responsible for it.
The sixth consequence pointed out by the former president of the Housebuilders' Association is the following, and I quote:
-the citizens will be deprived of their legitimate right to live in adequate housing or to own their homes.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The six effects mentioned on January 4, 1969 made themselves felt 15 months later.
And, Mr. Gagnon advocates the very thing that we, of the Ralliement creditiste, have asked on many occasions in this House. As a solution to this problem he recommends the following, and I quote:
-an immediate lowering of the interest rates on CMHC loans for people who earn less than $10,000 a year; also the elimination of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials for housing purposes;
He also recommends the passage of a measure already in effect in the United States, and I quote:
That the Income Tax Act be amended so that small home-owners be able to deduct municipal and school taxes from their taxable income.
We know that in the United States a homeowner can deduct from his taxable income his municipal and school taxes in addition to the interest which he pays on his mortgage, which is prohibited in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would have many more recommendations to make yet. I have before me a thick file on housing in Canada. It contains recommendations, study reports, statistics, and an analysis of the needs in the housing field. These studies have not been carried out by us by by the task force and experts who considered this problem even before the task force chaired by the hon. member for Trinity did so.
Ever since I have had the honour of sitting in this House, I have noticed that under the former administration as well as the present one, the cost of housing has continued to rise. Today, it is nearly twice what it was in 1960.
Inflation affects housing as well as all other segments of the economy. And the Ralliement creditiste is not responsible for it. We, of the Ralliement creditiste, claim that the Bank of Canada should put at the disposal of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation the credits required to enable it to lend to individuals,

Request for Housing Statement namely to young couples who want to own their homes, at a rate of interest of 3 per cent, which is quite normal.
Instead of going to the international money market to find the capital it needs to finance itself, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should go to the Bank of Canada; it could then offer loans for 20, 25 or 30 years to the young who want to marry, or any other Canadian who wants to marry or own his home, at 3 per cent interest. Then, we would not witness inflation in the field of housing.
In addition, we would not witness the current unemployment in the construction trades, and we could build within two or three years the million units Canada needs, according to the Minister without Portfolio. And even then, we would have some way to go to meet the needs of the population, in view of its increase.
We know there is a serious housing problem. Having a place to live, owning one's home is a vital need; it is the normal wish of every Canadian. Every Canadian has the right to own his home and as we do not lack anything else in Canada, the housing problem is surely an artificial one. This is an "artificial" problem as there is no shortage of materials, contractors, or labour. Indeed supply and demand exist. However, in order to balance supply and demand, we must first apply the recommendations made by the task force under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Trinity as well as the ones put forward by the Creditistes for many years in this House.
The housing problem in Canada is an "artificial" one, and it is impossible for the Parliament of Canada to solve it without solving first the problem concerning finance, which is the most important one. Should a war break out and should we need one million housing units for servicemen, we would not be talking in this House of the scarcity of money. We would not say that the housing shortage is due to the municipal or provincial governments but we would settle the problem. Indeed the Minister of Finance would solve the financial problem within a few hours so as to accommodate our servicemen in the one million housing units we would be able to build at the present time. We need them even though we are in peacetime.
I regret that the hon. member for Trinity who was in the House this morning cannot be here now for I would advise him if he wants to apply the recommendations made by his task force-recommendations which by the
June 12, 1970

Request for Housing Statement way compelled him to resign, to side with the Creditistes to settle first the financial problem and then the problem of housing.
Mr. Speaker, our families are lacking accommodation. Our young people who want to marry have to crowd in unhealthy dwellings-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
Does the House agree to allow the hon. member to carry on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Shefford.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I shall try to be brief, Mr. Speaker.
Our young people need homes. Hon. members have similar problems. People need homes while lumber piles up, rotting. The unemployed are living on unemployment insurance benefits instead of being put to work building homes. The people are tired of all the wishful thinking in which this House has been indulging for the past ten years.


Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin m-remarks by saying I appreciate the job which the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing (Mr. Andras) has done. His approach has been one of genuine concern for the people who make up urban Canada.
All too often we forget that our cities are made up of people, the people who work in them and the people who live in them. There is a tendency to think of our urban areas as consisting of so many houses, apartment buildings, offices, industries and freeways. The minister has avoided this pitfall and has attended admirably to the needs of those who, because their incomes are low, have despaired in the past of ever getting suitable accommodation at reasonable cost. Under the minister's guidance, the housing stock available to low-income families and to our senior citizens has grown significantly and will continue to grow.
However, the fact remains that overall the number of housing starts is down to an unfor-giveable amount. This should really come as no surprise to some of us. It was painfully obvious months ago that this would be a bad year in terms of the number of housing units

begun. The reasons for this are simple, even if the solutions are not: inflation, the tight financial situation and labour disputes. Yet even when it was clear that massive assistance would be required if we were to do our part this year to arrive at the goal of 1.1 million units which the Economic Council has set for the period 1970-1975, the government did not respond. I could understand this if money were not available. But when I see millions of dollars going into the Lift program, when I see the government making available to the provincial governments $300 million more than originally provided for in the current fiscal year, when I see vast amounts being spent on regional development projects, I know that money can be made available if the government deems it desirable.
We have here a question of priorities. The government must surely count housing and urban affairs as being deserving of very high priority. Yet it has not given this impression. Why? I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the finger of blame points in a number of directions. First, I have to admit that part of the blame must rest with those, such as myself, in the backbenches of this party who have not spoken out often enough or loudly enough on urban affairs and who have stood idly by while the frontbench has made housing the whipping-boy for inflation. There have been exceptions among the backbenchers, such as the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) and the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney), but by and large the backbenchers of this party have not put the case for the cities strongly enough.
* (3:30 p.m.)
Secondly, I blame the opposition parties. Every goverment needs to be prodded, and this government is no exception. But it seems the opposition contains more plodders than prodders. Certainly some members, such as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), have presented constructive suggestions to the government and tried to alert their colleagues to the importance of the housing crisis. But clearly these members have not been successful in converting their colleagues, because every day this chamber echoes to the cries of rape-seed and the ghost of the Newfie Bullet.
If the government is to be convinced of the importance of the housing problem, all interested parties must maximize their input
June 12, 1970	COMMONS
into the decision-making process. Where does the National Housebuilders' Association maintain its headquarters? In Toronto! It should be here in Ottawa where officers of the association could be in daily contact with government and its officials and be in a position to influence government policy rather than just react to it. Likewise, I charge the real estate fraternity of this country with not making its problems more apparent to the government. There can be no denying that some of the blame for the housing situation today lies with the real estate people themselves.
The housing crisis cannot be viewed in isolation from the sum of the problems plaguing our cities. It is an integral part of the urban dilemma which can be solved only within a unified framework. We must-I repeat, must-establish a department of urban affairs. For too long we have developed piecemeal programs with little or no understanding of how each would affect the other. We have failed to recognize the basic fact that our urban environment is a complex system constantly interacting with itself.
We have failed to come to grips with the concept of the urban unit and how that total unit will react to new programs and developments. We have, in fact, proceeded as if we were operating in a vacuum. Housing problems have been tackled as if the urban context were irrelevant. This kind of thinking, or perhaps I should say lack of thinking, cannot go on if we value our existence as an urban society. A department of urban affairs would serve to develop and co-ordinate urban policy, and the minister in charge of this department would then be in a position to see that programs affecting our urban areas produce harmony rather than conflict, gardens rather than ghettos.
Surely, if the problems of agriculture require the attention of two full-time ministers and the fiscal operation of this country demands the efforts of two cabinet members, then the problems of urban Canada in which 70 per cent of our people now live and in which 85 per cent will live in the year 2000 are worthy of the attention of a full ministry. And, Mr. Speaker, if I may make a suggestion to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras), would be an excellent choice for minister of urban affairs.
I have some further suggestions for government action now. I believe the government should announce for this fall a large mort-
DEBATES	8075
Request for Housing Statement gage commitment for medium and low priced houses and condominium development. This mortgage money should be made available at a rate of no more than 8 per cent. This action would have the effect of lowering competitive interest rates without subsidization and would at the same time reduce unemployment in the construction trades. As hon. members may know, 40 per cent of the cost of a house is on-site labour. The great rush of housing starts which would result from a program such as I am proposing would not only serve to improve the housing stock for middle income Canadians, but would have a very significant and beneficial effect on the unemployment situation.
Further, the government must bring extreme pressure on the banks of Canada to meet the challenge of the housing crisis. But how have these institutions responded to date? They have upped interest rates and they have tightened conditions borrowers must meet. The conventional insurance lenders have gone even further; they are demanding exorbitant equity positions, thus increasing their own profits. This is of no help in meeting the housing crisis. The government must demand that these offenders adjust their policies in order to meet the challenge.
The federal government must also consider offsetting the effects of the white paper on tax reform, which has created a marked decrease in large apartment projects. The white paper suggests the elimination of some depreciation benefits, has created uncertainty in the building profession and has retarded building construction. Provincial governments must also examine their programs; their restriction against large funds in estate trusts entering the mortgage market is unforgive-able. The third level of government in Canada, the cities and municipalities, continue to restrict construction by lack of planning, restrictive building by-laws and lack of adequate zoning.
At this point I should like to comment on the suggestion made earlier by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). He suggested that the government make available mortgage funds at an interest rate of 6 per cent. I point out that this is a 100 per cent increase over the figure used in the election platform of this party in 1968. At that time, NDP candidates went into the field and suggested a rate of 3 per cent for all Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation mortgages. I suggest to the hon. members of the New Democratic party that since their 1968
June 12, 1970

Request for Housing Statement rate of 3 per cent has jumped to 6 per cent by 1970, by 1972 the NDP will be offering 12 per cent mortgages; I suggest this is not good enough.


David Orlikow: We have those now.


Thomas Henry Goode: These members are insisting on 6 per cent mortgages, but what are they going to do about those people who presently have mortgages at rates of interest between 7 and 10 per cent? Are they going to subsidize them as well? If so, where will they find the money?
They also talk of rent control. With great fanfare they tell the people of Canada that they are going to bring in rent controls. They know very well that the federal government cannot introduce rent controls. Furthermore, these rent controls would have to be enforced by the provincial governments, and certainly I have not seen the government of Manitoba showing any sign of moving into this field at an early date, as hon. members suggest. The provincial government of Manitoba is not entering this field, and I suggest that an NDP federal government would not either.
The urban challenge of the 1970's is with us. If we do not act quickly with courage and imagination, this challenge may well become a catastrophe from which Canada will never recover.
o (3:40 p.m.)


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to contribute, in a very modest
way, to the debate on the motion proposed today on housing. I think the choice could not have been wiser in view of the sorry and desperate plight of the greater part of our population in this field.
We all agree that the proposals of this government have only brought inadequate results. Some will even say that the government has done nothing, but I will go even further. However, it is to be wondered whether the government has done enough and whether it might not do more. I think we can answer this question.
For the past year or year and a half, they have been talking about giving a new impetus to housing in the near future, and they are still talking about it. Since the unemployment rate is particularly alarming in Quebec, I think it is the duty of Quebec members to press the government to come up with suggestions, proposals and much more effective legislation than those put forward in the last years.

How can a new impetus be given to the housing industry in the short term? There has been a lack of realism, I think. The minister mentioned earlier that millions had been spent on housing. But we know very well that even those considerable amounts are not adequate considering the great number of people with a low income.
I am not in the habit of limiting myself to criticism. But I think that the pitiful failure of the government to provide housing for low-income groups should prompt us to press more strongly than ever for more effective measures on their behalf.
It was said that a number of housing units had been built, but the interest rate on mortgages, which can be most detrimental to the building industry, has always been glossed over.
I have already urged that loans at 5 or 6 per cent be made available to those earning $10,000 or less per year. I will be told: But who will pay the difference in interest? I will answer that it is obviously up to the government to make up the difference. However, I do not believe that easier loans, longer amortization periods up to 40 years will allow more Canadian citizens to purchase a house, for they will then have to pay for it three times over.
Reference is made to low-cost housing, and I think I am in a position to say a few words on this matter. This week, I got the happy news: in my constituency, more particularly in the city of Joliette, a $600,000 housing project will be built. Now those $600,000 can at the most allow the construction of 51 3 and 4 room dwellings and this is a 50-year loan bearing at 8 per cent interest. Therefore, the owners will have to pay a monthly rent of $136 for a 3-room dwelling and of $150 for a 4-room dwelling. I do not believe that this can be considered low-cost housing. Surely, this project is important for my area and this large city of my constituency. I appreciate the launching of the project, but I know very well that only professional people will benefit from it.
It is therefore our duty, as members of this House, to demand more realistic action for small wage-earners. We have the opportunity today to try again and ask the minister to be more compassionate and understanding and to make it possible for small wage-earners to live in adequate dwellings with suitable rents.
It is true that for several years, we have been asking the removal of that hateful 11 per cent tax on building materials. Reference
June 12, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	8077
has been made to the possibility of granting loans to workers earning from $5,000 to $10,000 per year at an interest rate of 5 or 6 per cent. I venture to think that the government will react to those recommendations. We could be told that we are only criticizing. I think that our suggestions are acceptable. I am convinced that such a policy would likely give new life to the building industry in Quebec as elsewhere in Canada.
Indeed, the construction industry employs close to 30 per cent of the Canadian labour force. Somebody could say that there is the risk of inflation. Everything that is said about inflation makes me laugh, because the government policy to eliminate it made it worse. Inflation has never been so bad. Yet, the budgets of various departments were cut while more unemployment was created to eradicate inflation. The policy of the government in that regard did not produce the expected results.
Housing is not any better for all this. If the suggestions to get construction going again were implemented, thousands of new jobs would be created and industries would be more prosperous.
As for the 500,000 unemployed who receive from $53 to $60 a week, they could find work. They would pay small taxes on certain building materials. However, the general 11 per cent tax on building materials would have to be repealed.
Not wanting to deny my colleagues the opportunity of speaking-they probably have much to say-I conclude my remarks by saying that, like an important segment of the population, I am quite disappointed with the housing policy of this government. Of course, I have had the pleasure of approving the policy of the government in other fields, and I even made it a point to do so. As to the failure of the policy concerning housing and assistance to low wage earners, I feel it is my duty-and I do not think I am wrong in saying so-to hold the government responsible for it.
They can say all they want about establishing a department of urban affairs, about dialogue or co-operation between municipal, provincial and federal governments, but as long as we fail to reduce substantially the interest rate and to bring in legislation to lower the price of building materials, it will be completely ridiculous to talk about boosting the construction industry and the minister's wishes today will remain pious ones.
Request for Housing Statement
I dare hope that these few comments will incite the government to be more serious, more courageous and more sincere as regards the great number of people who need suitable housing at reasonable prices. It is the only way to offer them decent homes. That is the only way to put the building industry back on its feet. To speak at greater length on that subject would probably be a waste of time. I hope that the government will avail itself of these suggestions and that I will not be regarded as confining himself to destructive criticisms. On the contrary, while trying to make suggestions I keep hoping that the government will stop turning a deaf ear to the possibility of housing low income people in proper homes at reasonable prices.
Mr. Speaker, I think this would be a good show of humanitarianism, because we would then recognize that a homeowner is a precious asset for society, since the one who owns a home is always more interested in society than the tenant. The owners are more fully aware of their responsibilities, because they wish to protect their property. I suggest that to be able to afford an adequate home is an honor and something to be proud of. It would be within everybody's reach if reasonable interest rates were available and if materials were moderately priced. I do not see any other solution. I am not well versed in economics, but I think I can say that the economists who have come up with housing proposals so far have been way off the mark.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Request for Housing Statement year period. I can certainly see that in an economy characterized by cycles, by periods of inflation and by periods of near recession it is appropriate that houses not be constructed in an even pattern. There ought to be years in which we should do better than one-fifth of 1,100,000, while there will be other years when one might not expect to reach this number of housing units.


David Orlikow: There is no hurry whatsoever for houses in Don Valley.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I might say that I have not heard any member of the opposition today challenge the target of 1,100,000 as not being more or less the proper level to be reached in five years. What I would like to urge on the government is that it should perhaps have more confidence than it seems to have in the ability of the private sector to produce housing for Canadians at reasonable prices. It is the assumption that the private sector is unable to do this that has led to the emphasis the government has placed on the provision of public housing. I should like to quote from the remarks the minister made a few moments ago when he said: "The major component in the government housing target for the year 1970 is to see that commitments are made for low income housing for close to
35,000	dwelling units together with a significant number of hostel units."
These public housing projects are not developed by the private sector, they are developed and financed by the government. There will always be a need in our society for some element of housing subsidy or housing support by the government. However, I am glad to see signs in other places that the government is beginning to recognize the private sector is, perhaps with some assistance, capable of producing housing at lower prices than it has done in the past. I should like to deal with one of those signs, but before I do so I wish to emphasize the point I just made and to indicate to you, sir, that there is a very great danger that this strong emphasis on the aspect of public housing will lead us into a situation where the rest of society also is going to have great trouble in being able to afford adequate housing. By concentrating very heavily on public housing, we may find ourselves in a situation where the rest of society suffers from adequate attention.
Recently the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs was presented with a brief from one of the largest residential developers in Canada. I took the trouble to obtain

their financial statement. Perhaps legislators and tenants are not supposed to read these financial statements because they contain some very disturbing pieces of information that may enthuse shareholders but that are less promising for the rest of us. I should like to read from this statement. I think the passage I will read shows that increased attention is necessary to what the private sector is doing for those in our society who can afford houses at reasonable prices. It reads:
Probably the most significant factor for our Industry in 1969 was the increasing effect of high interest rates on the cost of providing residential rental accommodation. These high rates are likely to continue to hamper the industry for the better part of 1970.
The residential rental market has not as yet reflected, through its rent levels, the extra costs imposed by these interest rates. Consequently buildings being built for absorption by the rental market in 1970 will be unable to produce a reasonable rate of return until rent levels properly reflect these increased costs.
That is very disturbing news for anyone who in the last two years has found his rent increasing. The message here is that, even with rents at their 1970 levels, it is not economic for developers to build apartments, for example. Rents must increase according to this financial statement to justify the construction that is taking place this year. This is a very disturbing statement. It tells us that if we allocate our government revenue to public housing to the extent that we overstress that aspect, we are tending to produce a situation where the rest of society may find itself unable to afford the only kind of housing that can be constructed at present costs. So, I think the government, in allocating its resources, has to turn its attention to the situation that exists generally in the housing market.
While public housing is important, and while there will always have to be some, the provision of it should be contrasted with some of the other things the government could do to stimulate housing. Let me illustrate this in one way. In public housing there is a multiplier effect for government expenditure of .95 to one, that is to say, whenever the government spends 95 cents toward public housing, $1 worth of public housing is produced because for every 90 cents that Ottawa puts up the provincial government puts up 10 cents. By an expenditure of 90 cents, therefore, the federal government can obtain the benefit of the multiplier effect and obtain a $1 worth of housing.
June 12, 1970	COMMONS
Let me contrast that, because the contrast is remarkable, with some of the other things that the government could do with its $1 for housing. I suggest that for every $1 the government spends in the servicing of land there would be $30 or $40 of benefit as a result of this multiplier effect. Around my own city, the principal block to the construction of a sufficient number of houses for the people who live in the Toronto area is the lack of available serviced land. A dollar of government activity in this area can go very much farther than a dollar of activity in the area of public housing. It is for this reason that I was greatly encouraged to see CMHC recently extend an invitation to the private sector to bring forward unconventional and innovative plans and new ideas for constructing homes for Canadians at reasonable prices. This is a project that I heartily endorse.
To the extent that the government is prepared to make investments in the servicing of land to bring this great multiplier effect to which I have referred into play, it is obvious that there are constitutional considerations which will require the co-operation of the province of Ontario. For this reason, as an elected member from Ontario, I can only hope that all other members of the House will urge the government of Ontario and all provincial governments to seriously consider the initiative that was taken by the minister the other day in recommending the establishment of an urban council to deal precisely with this type of problem where there is a great federal interest in stimulating activity, but where work on the ground can only come about with full provincial and municipal co-operation.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. James A. McGraih (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, when the minister replied he said there was no justification for our dire projections. I sat listening to him, hoping he would say something positive to allay the fears of the House and the country over the serious housing crisis facing Canada. I heard nothing. In fact I heard words that more than justified the pessimism that is felt on all sides of this House, and right across the country, following the government's failure to come to grips with the housing crisis.
I was hoping that the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) would be in the House. I noticed he was here today and I hoped he would participate in this debate. It is well to recall the famous task force on housing and
DEBATES	8079
Request for Housing Statement urban development which was headed by the minister's predecessor, the member for Trinity, just over a year ago. We remember that task force going all across the country, holding public hearings and seeing first hand the ugly picture of urban and rural poverty.
We read with interest its report. The hon. member for Trinity was so impressed with what he saw in his pilgrimage across the country that he came back to Ottawa firmly resolved that something had to be done, and done immediately. Unfortunately, the government of which he was a member did not agree with the urgency that he felt, and the minister resigned. That was the last positive word we had from the government on housing. It was the last indication of hope, of any suggestion of the government coming to grips with the housing problem and the attendant problems of poverty and unemployment.
It would be well for the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras), who is sincere in his intentions, to retrace the steps of his predecessor, to go into the poverty ghettos in our cities and see the way that the poor of Canada live. Oh yes, we hear a great deal from hon. members who represent the large cities about the urban problems of pollution, transportation and recreation. But, Mr. Speaker, what about the more serious problem of the lack of adequate housing?
Today in this proud land of ours there are people living in the most abject poverty, with children who have to be watched constantly for fear of their being bitten by rats. There are people living in our cities who do not have the ordinarily accepted convenience of adequate plumbing facilities. The hon. member for Trinity saw this. He saw it in my city; he saw it in other cities; he saw it in the rural areas of Canada. He was so impressed, or should I say depressed, with what he saw that he felt if the government's just society was to mean anything, something had to be done for Canadians living in substandard housing.
In the declaration of principles that formed the preamble to his report he mentioned that every Canadian should be entitled to clean, warm shelter as a matter of basic human right. I ask the minister how long can the thousands of Canadians who live in urban poverty wait to enjoy what should be this basic Canadian right? As the minister well knows, there are areas in my own city without plumbing facilities, without adequate facilities of any kind. I refer to the area
June 12. 1970


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion that has been moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I am happy to support this motion because, as my colleague for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) said a moment ago, the city we have the honour to represent faces many problems in housing and urban renewal. Certainly, neither the agencies coming under the minister responsible for housing nor the government are paying to this problem the necessary attention. Little hope is therefore held out to those people who are suffering as a result of inadequate housing conditions that their problems will be solved in the foreseeable future.
As my colleague said a few moments ago, we sympathize with the minister responsible for housing. He realizes that he is filling the office once occupied by the man who had to resign because the government was unwilling to go along with his recommendations based on the report of the task force on housing. One of the recommendations of the former minister, now the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), was that the government 22478-21
DEBATES	8081
Request for Housing Statement should remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials, a worth-while recommendation which would have brought tremendous benefits to people in the middle and low income groups who might wish to buy or build a home. That 11 per cent sales tax probably represents $600 or $700 in the price of a house, an amount which often makes the difference in a person's ability to buy or build a home.
The minister is in an awkward position, because he must try to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. On the one hand, he must support the anti-inflation policies of the government which are having a ruinous affect on housing and urban renewal in Canada as well as on the economy generally; on the other hand, he must put on a brave front of showing concern for the many thousands of Canadians who are forced to live in substandard conditions and for those with families who are on the waiting lists for public housing. In one breath the minister supports the government's anti-inflation policies, which are probably the greatest enemy of housing and urban renewal in this country, and in the next breath he must address various associations interested in housing, associations such as the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities and the Canadian Homeowners Association, and go through the motions of showing he is interested in the affairs of the average Canadian who is trying to acquire a decent home.
Before my time expires, may I refer to something that is very, very serious in my riding of St. John's West. I am referring to the Mundy Pond urban renewal scheme. The present scheme was probably presented to the people in the early 1960's and a grandiose plan was prepared by the planners on instructions from the federal government, the province and the municipality of St. John's. A great deal of fuss was made. The people of Mundy Pond were to be given a new lease on life; their neighbourhood was to look like the Eutopia of St. John's, and their hopes were built up to the skies. Unfortunately, they have been kept dangling for at least ten years. At least three municipal elections have been fought on the issue and several federal elections, not to mention a number of provincial elections. But the people of Mundy Pond are still suffering. No more has been done up to now than was done ten years ago. The plan to redevelop that area is still on the drawing board. From what I understand there is very little likelihood of any start being
June 12, 1970

Request for Housing Statement made on the project this year. This is trying the patience ol those people too much. It shows a complete and utter disregard for their feelings.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Canadians have been suffering too long from the shortage of suitable homes for the people in the low and middle income brackets. The solutions to these two problems should be fundamentally different. The first problem is essentially that of poverty, and the second is the inability of the market system to function. This problem prevails not only in my province, but right across Canada. A large number of Canadians are desperately in need of homes who are not earning salaries that qualify them for a National Housing Act mortgage. I understand that a person must be earning $8,000 or more a year to qualify for such a mortgage. In a large number of areas in Canada, including Newfoundland, that regulation eliminates approximately 90 per cent of the people wishing to buy or build a new home.
The government should encourage municipalities to avail themselves of the limited dividend section of the National Housing Act. They should be encouraged to build co-operative housing. This also applies to the building societies, as mentioned this morning by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West. The municipalities should be encouraged to become involved in housing on a much larger scale with, of course, financial assistance from the government. A large number of communities could take advantage of section 16 of the National Housing Act, dealing with the limited dividend aspect. The federal government should encourage the municipalities in order that decent low cost homes will be available.
Public housing is a must in most urban areas of Canada. In the city of St. John's, Newfoundland, we have far too few public housing units. As my colleague pointed out, there are waiting lists of 400 to 1,000 people in this city with a population of less than
100,000	people. We should give serious consideration to providing more low cost public housing. A new concept should be adopted with regard to public housing, with funds being made available to the middle income group so that they could build small homes on land developed by the municipality with the co-operation of the federal government. This land would be given to the people on a lease basis. This would enable them to acquire title to a piece of land on a lease back

basis with a very small down payment. With CMHC financing, they could erect a home suitable for themselves and their families. This avenue should be explored by the minister in charge of housing and the government in conjunction with the provincial governments and municipalities. The middle income people would derive great benefits. In some respects this could also assist the low income group.
I understand that 100,000 families in Canada are on waiting lists for public housing. The minister's statement this afternoon will be of little consolation to those people desperately in need of better accommodation. The government is sadly lacking in its approach to housing. The number of starts made this year is far below that projected a year ago. It is a sad commentary in this day and age, when we are putting men on the moon and satellites in the sky, that a large number of Canadians in all parts of this country, especially in the economically depressed areas, do not even have proper toilet facilities. It is a sad commentary on the policies of this government. As was pointed out by the hon. member for St. John's East, every effort should be made to bring forth a bold new approach to the problem of housing in Canada.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wish to point out that we do not have a quorum and therefore I would ask you to count the members.


James Aloysius McGrath: That reflects the attitude of the government to this whole problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Badanai):: Order. I shall instruct the clerk to count the members in the House.
On the count being made, 20 members were declared to be present.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Badanai):: There is a quorum.


Walter C. Carter: I wish to impress upon this House, the government and the minister responsible, the need for immediate assistance to those people on the bottom half of the income ladder in Canada. I think the minister would be well advised to read the statements
June 12, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	8033
by Dr. Albert Rose of the University of Toronto. He said:
The most important change that could be made in our national housing policy would be a formal declaration that the federal and provincial governments intended, during the balance of this century, to discriminate in favour of families and individuals at the bottom half of the income ladder.
I think this is very good advice for the minister in charge of housing as well as the government. I urge the minister to get on the ball and get the Mundy Pond urban renewal scheme under way in order to fulfil the promises that have been made for the past ten years. The government should show that it cares about these people, is aware of their problems and will do everything possible to alleviate this situation.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was chided about the housing emergency, he flourished a set of figures purporting to show that in the year 1969, 225,000 housing units would be built. He stated that was within the target set by the Economic Council of Canada for the five-year period 1969 to 1973, and that in fact there was no housing crisis.
The Toronto Star, certainly not an anti-Liberal newspaper, on May 10, 1969, ran an editorial commenting on that view expressed by the Prime Minister. The editorial was headed "But Pierre Baby, There is a Crisis". What was said in that editorial is essentially true today. There is no housing crisis in the constituency of Mount Royal which the Prime Minister represents. There is no housing crisis in the constituency of Westmount, which is represented by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). There is no pressing need in the constituency represented by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) who suggested there was no need to hit the target of 250,000 homes in any particular year to reach the objective set by the Economic Council; there is no housing crisis in the constituency of Winnipeg South, particularly on Wellington Crescent which the minister knows so well. So I was not surprised when I did not hear very much from the Prime Minister about the housing crisis.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
But I was disappointed in the speech made by the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing (Mr. Andras). He told us that while starts were running at only 160,000 units for the year, he expected we would do better
Request for Housing Statement than that and build between 180,000 and 185,000 units. That figure falls far short of what the Economic Council said we needed. I give the government credit; the minister told us we would build 35,000 public housing units this year, and this is better than we have done for many years. But the number is still small in comparison to the need. There are
100.000	families or more waiting for accommodation and it is obvious we are falling further behind in meeting our housing needs every year. I say this bearing in mind the need, not of 210,000 units a year but of the
250.000	units mentioned by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and I say it without going into all the catastrophic effects of increased housing prices on the ordinary person.
A few years ago, ten years ago, when we talked about people in the lower income brackets, we were talking about people who were making less than $60 a week. Now, we are talking about people who are making less than $100 a week. But these are not the only people who are in trouble. Eighty-five per cent of the people of this country are in trouble if they do not have their own homes. In cities like Toronto, unless a man earns between $8,000 or $9,000 a year he cannot even qualify to get a house under the provisions governing the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The interest rate on mortgages is now running at more than 10 per cent, which means that the vast majority are locked out of the possibility of house purchase, or else they are buying houses by cutting back on the most essential needs such as food and clothing.
I have a great deal of respect for this minister, for the job he tried to do when he was concerned with Indian Affairs and for the job he is trying to do now. For this reason, I was particularly sorry to hear him adopt the complacent view he took today. Those of us who are interested in the problems of housing, and in ordinary people, know that this minister is probably more interested in these questions than are all the other cabinet ministers put together. When he takes a complacent view, I can only say we are in real trouble. We in this party have consistently taken the view that the estimate of 250,000 units a year is a conservative one. And we are failing to meet that objective by 25 per cent this year. If the housing needs of the people are to be met, then housing must be given a much higher priority both federally and provincially within the economy. We agree with the con-
8084	COMMONS
Request for Housing Statement elusion of the Canadian Conference on Housing held in 1968, that housing is just as socially necessary as is education. The need for the construction of all types of housing in this country far exceeds the money which is, or will be, available even if we could bring interest rates down.
There are demands in this country for high rise office buildings with air conditioning and carpeting from wall to wall; there are demands for factories, for larger filling stations or service stations-service centres as they are now called; for high priced apartment buildings, for public housing and for houses for ordinary citizens. The total demand is far greater than the amount of money, labour and materials which we can accumulate in any one year. It is not surprising that banks and the finance companies are not doing more in the private housing field. After all, they are primarily interested in making profits for their shareholders. I am not being critical of them, bearing in mind the kind of society in which we live. I refer the hon. member for Don Valley to the announcement yesterday or today that bank profits were up by more than 25 per cent in the first six months of this year as compared to last year. It is no wonder the banks are much more interested in putting their money into shopping centres, filling stations, office buildings and luxury hotels than they are in ordinary housing.
As I say, I cannot blame them. They are there to make a profit for their shareholders. But we can blame governments of Canada, both federal and provincial, for permitting this state of affairs to continue and for failing to establish, through consultation, a system of priorities. I submit there is much more need in Ottawa for 2,000 moderately priced homes than there is for the third building which the Campeau Construction Company is putting up very near here at the present time.
* (4:40 p.m.)
I submit there is much more need for three or four thousand housing units, public or private, in the city of Toronto than for another Toronto-Dominion Centre in the city of Toronto. I submit there is more need for 2,000 homes in Winnipeg than for the Richardson building that was opened some months ago. But until governments in this country look at the problem in this way, and people tell the governments in Canada that housing is the number one priority, we will continue to do what we have been doing until now and build
180,000	housing units when we need 250,000.
[Mr. Orlikow.l
DEBATES	June 12, 1970
We will continue to encourage the building of more office buildings in Ottawa so that civil servants can move from temporary buildings, which are old but habitable, into high rise buildings that are air conditioned and all the rest. We will continue to permit oil companies to build more filling stations and permit the building of more shopping centres, the cost of which is borne by the consumer in the price of the groceries she has to buy in order to live.
In closing, I hope the minister will stop being so complacent, which is the only way I can describe the speech that he made today. I hope that even though we do not know who are members of this task force, what subject it will be studying and at what cost, the minister will put it to work to examine some of the housing problems facing this country. When this work is completed I hope the federal government will tell the provinces and municipalities that those things which need doing the most should be done. This is not the building of fancy office buildings or high rise luxury apartment buildings, but rather the kind of homes that the ordinary people of this country who earn $60, $70, $80 or $100 a week need so desperately at this time.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


David Orlikow: Certainly.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: What evidence has the hon. member for thinking that the banks and trust companies earn a greater return on loans for office buildings and shopping centres than on loans for apartment buildings?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is very simple. It is obvious where the money is going and that that is where the action is. Apart from making more money, I am sure the hon. member will agree it is much simpler for a bank or a mortgage or trust company to lend $5 million, if I may use that figure as an example, to just one company so there is one transaction, to build one building, rather than to lend the same amount to a couple of thousand individual prospective homeowners. As I say, the answer is simple; the evidence is that the homes we need are not being built. Instead, office buildings, hotels, shopping centres and filling stations are being constructed.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite who have
June 12, 1970

contributed to this debate today have made comments on the present situation and described the various aspects of the problems in connection with housing. Some members have taken the trouble to put forward proposals; some, like the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), have put forward a lengthy list of proposals in an endeavour to provide some alternatives. But by and large, we have had a recitation of statistics and generalizations of the sort that have been made in this House in years past about a very complex and difficult subject.
However, one thing has emerged from this debate today, and it is that practically every hon. member opposite, with rare exception, has deplored inflation and indicated that inflation has had a negative effect on housing. I could not think of a better compliment in recognition of the efforts that are presently being made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to break the back of inflation than this common theme that has been followed in the debate today. Even hon. members opposite seem to recognize the importance of this aspect.
A look at housing policy over the past two years indicates a gradual reduction in the size of the housing problem. The problem is being approached area by area, beginning with housing for Canadians who are at the bottom of the income scale. Before this task could be initiated, the federal government ordered a document produced by a task force which, perhaps for the first time, provided a clear indication of the complexity of the problem of supplying Canadians with housing.
As far as federal responsibility is concerned, except for four or five, the major recommendations of the report have been implemented. It is true some of the recommendations have not. Some of them had to wait until the right time. One recommendation saw the light of day last Wednesday when the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing (Mr. Andras) announced in Halifax a three-level council. This announcement was made possible as the result of a radical change of attitude on the part of a major province in this country, Quebec. This announcement having been made, one hopes that other provinces will follow suit and endorse the idea of a three-level council, including, of course, the province of Ontario.
In his speech this morning, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand) gave examples of the complexity of this problem by reading advertisements pub-
Request for Housing Statement lished in a Montreal newspaper which showed that the situation in Montreal is quite different from the situation, for example, in Toronto. He quoted advertisements offering houses for sale in Montreal at a price of $14,500, with a $500 down payment. So that in fairness, one cannot generalize and describe the housing situation as a national crisis. There are variations from region to region, from province to province; and in each area the components of the variations differ.
The next aspect that has been given attention during these years has been the priority given by the government to producing housing for Canadians with low incomes. Figures to this effect have been cited by previous speakers. In other words, considering the resources available, it has been possible to give precedence to that portion of the total housing problem which is of a most urgent nature; that is, the provision of decent housing for Canadians who cannot afford a roof.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Within this general policy, last April we saw a new development when new rental fees and new regulations were announced for people occupying low income housing. Also there was a very important inclusion in the National Housing Act to permit something which was not possible before. I refer to the inclusion of social and recreational facilities in future projects in recognition of the necessity for these in projects of any size. Another step within this area was the provision of $27 million this year for loans for limited dividend housing. This again is for that spectrum of the population in Canada which is in need.
Another measure for low income Canadians is the provision of $200 million. This is an encouragement and an invitation to Canadians to produce new ideas, new approaches and new designs, I would assume, for the government to produce houses for middle income Canadians. This measure is an indication that today we are at least approaching the question of housing within the limitation of the resources available, rather than approaching it on a gigantic universal scale as proposed by some opposition members. Probably the effect of these measures will be felt during the second half of 1970. Therefore, today we are debating statistics and figures that really do not present the picture for the entire year 1970. Whatever the total figure may be-and we do have reason to hope it will be a fairly encouraging one-certainly, we all agree
June 12, 1970

Request for Housing Statement there is no room for complacency on this question. Housing policies in any nation are the subject of criticism, and quite rightly so, because everyone is entitled to increasing standards of fine housing.
In Canada we must strive for higher standards. But, a look at what has been done so far from 1968 up until now would indicate that all the signs are there and that, once having assessed the entirety of the problem, the minister has approached the problem initially here the urgency is greatest. He is gradually moving into the areas of lesser urgency, keeping in mind the total picture. Therefore, members on this side of the House are convinced that the minister is doing well and we have the utmost confidence in him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 58, the proceedings on the motion before the House are deemed to have expired.
This House stands adjourned until Monday, June 15, 1970 at two o'clock p.m.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Monday, June 15, 1970