Joseph Warner MURPHY

MURPHY, Joseph Warner

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Lambton West (Ontario)
Birth Date
December 21, 1892
Deceased Date
July 3, 1977
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Warner_Murphy
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=35a61aaf-7c98-4099-aa37-d5384b719315&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer, gentleman, lawyer

Parliamentary Career

June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
PC
  Lambton West (Ontario)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
PC
  Lambton West (Ontario)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
PC
  Lambton West (Ontario)
June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
PC
  Lambton West (Ontario)
March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Lambton West (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 181)


November 28, 1960

Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lamblon West):

should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with a Canadian of Polish descent by the name of Mr. Koyer, who formerly lived in Sarnia and later moved to Montreal. He made a trip to Poland to see his mother and was arrested. What action, if any, has been taken, and can the Prime Minister bring us up to date about the situation?

Topic:   HOUSING
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink

November 25, 1960

Mr. Murphy:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I was just about finished anyway. I do not need to outline my point at greater length, except to say that I think consideration must be given to those areas outside a municipality- a city in this case-where such disposal plants will never be built, probably a strip half a mile wide and a few miles long, where the departmental engineers would ascertain to their own satisfaction that there is ample drainage for septic tanks.

Under this clause may I be permitted to ask the minister whether he would consider the feasibility of making loans available under this legislation to the owners of older homes with four or five bedrooms in order that they could acquire smaller homes. It is very difficult to resell homes of that type, especially when they are practically paid for and no mortgage is available. Could consideration be given to amending the act so these people could obtain mortgages and put their homes up for sale. The purchaser would be able to finance the deal under those conditions, and he is unable to do so on any other basis. The vendor could then acquire a new, smaller home. I suggest this is a sound idea to which consideration should be given.

Topic:   TO AUTHORIZE URBAN RENEWAL, ETC.
Full View Permalink

November 25, 1960

Mr. Murphy:

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I am in order in raising my questions under this clause, but I do not know under what other clause they could be raised, and if I am not in order Your Honour will draw it to my attention. With respect to the solution to this problem we are facing, may I ask the minister whether it is under regulations or legislation that speculative loans are not available now.

I wish to make reference to a land assembly project in Sarnia to which I referred the other day. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation made available two lots per builder for the purpose of constructing homes commencing this fall. Unfortunately for us there were only 40 lots available in that section. I was wondering whether the minister would consider making this arrangement applicable to the rest of the builders who would like to avail themselves of the opportunity of securing two lots for the purpose of construction beginning this autumn if they could purchase those properties somewhere within the residential area from which people commute to Sarnia for employment.

I think it is important that the government be made aware that today housing accommodation is required not only by people in the city but by people living from 10 to 20 miles away who commute to their employment in the city. I raise this point because a regulation was introduced some months ago to the effect that no building would be permitted in the urban areas where there are no sewage disposal facilities. The effective date of that regulation was postponed to January 1 next. I suggest to the minister that he give serious consideration to postponing the effective date of that regulation for at least another six months after the first of next year.

I have had some correspondence with the minister on this subject. These regulations naturally become effective overnight, and it would not be proper to have it otherwise. In my own area, where I am familiar with the situation, of course, I know that some of the builders purchased property at a high

price. The property was not serviced by sewers. They were, of course, hoping to build on the property, and found themselves with a great deal of land upon which they could not construct homes. Some were actually faced with bankruptcy. They were relieved to a certain extent by the postponement of that regulation. I urge the minister to seriously consider a further postponement after January 1, 1961. I personally know that some of those who have made a great contribution to our area would be under a terrific financial handicap if they were unable to make use of the property which they purchased at a high price.

Turning now to an area outside the city which could be classified as part urban and part rural, I am wondering where the dividing line is drawn with respect to the requirement for sewage disposal. In my correspondence with the minister I indicated that there are many areas in my riding where there never will be sewage disposal plants, and where as a matter of fact the soil is such that they will not be required because there is a gravel strip-

Topic:   TO AUTHORIZE URBAN RENEWAL, ETC.
Full View Permalink

November 25, 1960

Mr. Murphy:

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member for Nipissing, who I thought was taking his seat.

Topic:   TO AUTHORIZE URBAN RENEWAL, ETC.
Full View Permalink

November 25, 1960

Mr. Murphy:

I have one question I should like to ask, and it concerns an interpretation. This may be clear to other hon. members, but I should like a further explanation. I note that loans may be made "for the purpose of assisting in the construction or expansion of a sewage treatment project". Does this mean that the project must not have been in being; that it must be a new project? That is my first question, and my second question hinges on that. If the project is in being and the municipality desires to expand it because of this bill, is that included?

Topic:   TO AUTHORIZE URBAN RENEWAL, ETC.
Full View Permalink