1958-05-15

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-7, to amend the Indian Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: The purpose of the bill is to give native Indians the right to vote in federal elections without any infringement on their hereditary or aboriginal rights, and is to be taken in conjunction with the bill standing in my name on the order paper immediately following this one.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Frank Howard: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-8, to amend the Canada Elections Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY REPORTED STATEMENT IN WASHINGTON WITH RESPECT TO TOLLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday I asked him a question concerning shipping toll charges on the St. Lawrence seaway and he replied as set out in yesterday's Hansard at page 65.
While he was replying to my question the president of the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation in Washington made the statement that tolls on the seaway had in effect been agreed upon and would be made public on July 1. May I ask the minister why he was not aware of this decision, and why decisions of this kind must always emanate from Washington?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the decision on tolls is a joint one between Canada and the
United States. It has been studied jointly by the tolls committees of both countries. To my knowledge the discussions are still proceeding, no firm decision has been reached and the statement I made yesterday is correct.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and I do so because I am unable to see through the greenery. In view of the fact that the Minister of Public Works, when addressing the 41st annual meeting of the British Columbia division of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association at Vancouver on April 29, is reported as saying:
It won't be long, I hope, before we'll be starting on the Columbia, a billion dollar project, and my hope is based on the trend-
-would the minister inform the house of the developments in these negotiations which give cause for hope, and also give the house a definitive explanation of the word "trend" as used by the Minister of Public Works in his statement?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West for giving me notice of his question. I am not altogether clear from the question as to the negotiations to which he refers, but I think he probably means negotiations with the government of British Columbia or the United States government or through the international joint commission.
I would suggest that it would be well if we left a statement in this regard for a few weeks until certain developments are completed, at which time I could give the house a much more thorough statement than I could make at the present time.
As to the reference to the word "hope", we all know the Minister of Public Works is an optimist and I am very glad to share that optimism with him. I, too, am very hopeful that things will be progressing on the Columbia river. As for a definitive explanation of the word "trend", I am not sure

Inquiries of the Ministry whether my hon. friend has reference to trends in national development or whether he refers to political trends.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the report in this morning's Globe and Mail and Gazette that the central intelligence agency of the United States alleges it has a memorandum quoting the late E. Herbert Norman as saying that he feared he would be called before a royal commission and would have to implicate 60 or 70 others? If so, could the minister inform this house whether such a proposal for a royal commission was considered by the government, or whether the appointment of a royal commission is now being considered to clarify the situation from the Canadian viewpoint?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to advise if the bureau of transportation economics operating within his department has now completed its study undertaken last year regarding transportation problems in the Atlantic region and, if so, when we may expect a report on its findings?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, that study has not been completed.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, acting upon the advice of the Minister of Finance I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. As the municipalities in Canada are at the present time preparing their budgets and mailing tax notices, is he in a position to elaborate on his reported pledge to call an informal federal-municipal conference in 1958, and

also to indicate whether some increased aid to municipalities may be available in 1958?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government is in the position at the moment of being unable to answer either of those questions definitely.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources pursuant to the very welcome assurance he gave in the last parliament that the government would give consideration to extending the time for completion of the work on picnic sites in Newfoundland, which is providing badly needed employment and which got started very late because of the condition of the roads. I can assure the minister that such a step would be very welcome.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's question. This is a matter which, I think, we have been considering and when a decision has been made there will be an announcement in the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the minister.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister going to take any action against the 19 companies which have been found guilty of fixing the price of pulpwood bought from farmers and settlers in eastern Canada, according to the report of the investigation under the Combines Investigation Act published on April 29, 1958?
(Translation):


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. As it was drafted in French, I might perhaps answer in the same language.
The report was received on March 31 and published on April 29. The department is now choosing a legal adviser to whom the matter will be submitted.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
(Text):
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Since the Minister of Justice has replied in French to a question asked in English, perhaps I can reverse the roles now.
(Translation):
I want to ask the Minister of Transport a question. Has the hon. member received representations from the Montreal chamber of commerce with regard to the choice of a name for the new bridge connecting Montreal island with Nuns' island? Would the hon. minister also give serious thought to giving this bridge a name that would be associated with the French-Canadian history of the city of Montreal?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very pleased to consider the question.
(Text):



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has any report been received as a result of the recent investigation into the possibility of instituting a letter carrier mail service in Kitimat and, if so, what recommendations are contained in the report and what action is planned to institute such a service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If we begin to ask the Postmaster General about arrangements for letter carrier service in each of the constituencies I think we could occupy ourselves indefinitely. The question is undoubtedly one of importance in the hon. member's constituency, but it seems to me it would be equally well dealt with on the order paper, and I suggest that it be put there.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during my absence the hon. member for Niagara Falls asked a question regarding the employment of civilian employees at Point Edward naval
Inquiries of the Ministry base near Sydney, Nova Scotia. As hon. members will know, this base has been used as the home base of the reserve fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy for a number of years. Owing to the present policy of having as many ships as possible in commission the number of vessels in reserve has been reduced. This year some ten Bangor type escort vessels were reconditioned for transfer to the Turkish navy. In order to accomplish this reconditioning in time 113 casual employees were taken on strength. It is expected that the last of these vessels will be handed over to the Turkish navy before the end of this month, as the Turkish crews are already in Sydney; therefore the work load in Sydney naval base will be reduced.
We appreciate that it is difficult for men to obtain other employment there, and a committee has been set up consisting of representatives of the Department of National Defence, the national employment service and the civil service commission to try to find alternative employment for these men. In addition there is a reconditioning program at the base starting at the end of this month, and a further examination is being made to see whether some more permanent operation may be established at that base by the reallocating of naval services from elsewhere. Everything possible is being done in order to find employment for the men who are now at the base. There have been no discharges made, and none will be made before the end of this month.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister inform the house if a copy of the Gordon commission report and studies will be made available to hon. members of the House of Commons?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that one copy will be available to every hon. member on request through the distribution office.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I reiterate a question which I asked the Prime Minister yesterday in his absence. When may the house expect the report of the royal commission on coastal shipping?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I just noticed that the question had been asked as I looked over Hansard a moment ago. I will communicate with the chairman of the commission with a view to ascertaining when the report may be expected to be filed with the appropriate minister, and when it is it will be tabled in the house.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister tell us whether the floor price for pulpwood, when established, will be on a regional or a national basis?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be inappropriate for me to try to make any statement along that line anticipating the advice that the advisory committee may give, or the advice which the stabilization board may give.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. When may we expect the official opening of the new federal building in Sudbury and its occupancy by the post office and other government departments?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to find the answer to that question? I am unaware of it.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 14, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Starr-Mr. Sevigny in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the temporary extension of the seasonal benefit periods under the Unemployment Insurance Act for a six weeks period, from May 18, 1958, to June 28, 1958.
Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Chairman, under the rules of the house I have but a few moments left at my disposal. However, I propose at some later date, either during the resolution stage or when we are discussing

the bill, to make further observations in connection with this matter. But, taking advantage of the few moments that remain,
I should like to go back to the emphasis I placed yesterday upon the severity of the unemployment problem which now confronts Canada.
Possibly in this connection the committee would be interested in the April issue of the Canadian Statistical Review which has just come out today and which contains some very interesting statistical observations. It has to do with the percentage of people without jobs and seeking work in Canada. It shows that in January of 1958 the percentage figure was 201; in February of 1958, 202; and in March of 1958, 213. The index of 100 is based on 1956, which was the last full year of the last Liberal administration.
It is of the greatest interest that the figures published earlier, before revision, were as follows: January, 195; February, 196. The March figure shown above, namely 213, is a preliminary figure and it may well be higher than 213 when the revised figures are available later this month. Therefore, on the basis of this revision, the government is confronted with a very serious situation which will not in any way be obviated or minimized by the assurance of the Prime Minister that all is well and that the bottom has been reached. The evidence is that that is not so, and on this government rests the responsibility of meeting the mandate which was given to it by the people of Canada, based upon the assurances of the leader of the government himself that this problem would be resolved courageously.
We have no program put forward by this government consistent with those assurances. The day before yesterday the Prime Minister said that the measure now before us would resolve this problem of unemployment. I dealt with this situation yesterday but I repeat that this particular measure, welcome as it is to the extent that it goes, in no way resolves in any particular the problem of unemployment, the statement of the Prime Minister to the contrary notwithstanding.
In spite of what has been said by the Minister about the cost, the amendment will fall far short of meeting the need. It will do no more than allow supplementary benefit claimants who are on claim as of May 17 to continue after that date as long as their respective entitlements will permit. Many claimants will exhaust their benefit periods during the week of May 17. Some others may get an additional week, as the minister indicated yesterday, still others two weeks and so on. But it should be clearly understood that those claimants whose benefit

periods terminated at any time prior to May 17 will receive nothing even though they may continue to be unemployed.
That situation is a by-product of this measure, and I think the house and the country should know that the measure before the house does not go as far as the generalizations in the speech from the throne suggested on Monday last. I say to the minister that his figure of 200,000 persons who will benefit in part from this measure is undoubtedly a correct statement, if he says so, and what he says 1 accept readily; but I suggest to him that in order to give stuff to that statement we should know what "in part" means. What percentage of the 200,000 will receive the full amount during the period of six weeks? That may not be easy for my hon. friend to give, but in the absence of that reply the 200,000 figure must stand with obvious limitations.
At a later time I hope to indicate that I think the government has a responsibility to do more in this particular measure. That opportunity will come, but my closing words at this stage-I am sure the Minister of Labour will be the first to acknowledge what I am saying-is that this is not an unemployment measure but a relief measure. To the extent that it covers and gives assistance to those in need it will be welcomed on all sides of the house, but by no means, by no stretch of the imagination, can it be concluded that this measure goes as far as earlier indications seemed to suggest.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, first may I say that this measure, limited as it may be, is certainly welcomed by both myself and my colleagues with whom I am proud to be associated. It seems that the history of this country has always been that every winter we have seasonal unemployment. That, I believe, was the basis on which the unemployment insurance fund was first established. In recent years, in fact three times since world war II, we have had quite severe recessions. Unfortunately the recession we are having at the present time has all the earmarks of that strictly forbidden word "depression". In fact I believe that only in one year during the 1930's, if even then, was the situation as serious or any more serious than it is today.
The hon. member for Essex East is a rather difficult man to follow because he has touched on almost every point that one might wish to bring up, but I think it will bear repetition that the measure before the house at the present time certainly does not solve the problem of unemployment.
In all probability it is not intended to do that. I should also like to stress the fact
Unemployment Insurance that it would be regrettable if wrong impressions should be created across our country by the way this measure was brought in and possibly the measure of publicity it received at that time. It could possibly create the misunderstandings that unfortunately were created when a similar measure was brought in during last session. I have met many people, and possibly other hon. members have also done so, who had the impression that they would qualify for benefits under the amendment made during the last session, but unfortunately when they applied for those benefits they found to their sorrow that they were not eligible.
Welcome as it is, this measure is nothing more or less than one extending payments for certain classes of unemployed. There is no provision for the unemployed without sufficient contributions. There is no provision for many of the unemployed whose benefits have already run out. I should like to know whether the government hopes to bring in before too long some measure to alleviate the condition of these classes I have mentioned. It is fine to help the ones this legislation will help, but what about the ones it does not touch? I am hopeful that further measures may be brought in at a later date in order to deal with those persons.
The Minister of Labour yesterday quoted a few figures. He said he hoped this legislation would benefit roughly 200,000 of our unemployed and that it would benefit them to the extent of $14 million. A matter of simple arithmetic tells us that the calculation works out at an average of $70 each for the 200,000 people. Spread over a six week period it works out at $11.66 per week. I am sure all hon. members will realize that with today's prices, $11.66 per week is not going to keep too many wolves from the door.
There is one other aspect of this measure about which I should like to have more information. It is not clear to me yet where this additional money is coming from. It has not been explained, at least to my understanding, whether this money is to be paid from the unemployment insurance fund or from the consolidated revenue fund. My understanding of the unemployment insurance fund is that it is based, dollar for dollar, on the contributions of the employer and the employee, with the federal government contributing 20 per cent of that total. I also believe that was the basis of the formula to meet the normal needs of seasonal unemployment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right; take the case of Newfoundland.

Unemployment Insurance


Murdo William Martin: I cannot help
wondering whether, if these additional or extended benefits are charged to the unemployment insurance fund, it will not tend to upset the apple cart. I know the minister mentioned yesterday that the fund was still in a fairly robust condition, but we also realize that it is possibly not as robust as it was a year ago. If this unemployment stiuation does not change, as we all hope it will, in a few months we could be in for serious difficulty.
I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that this should definitely be treated as an emergency amendment. This is not normal unemployment as we have known it in the past. An emergency measure should not be charged to a normal fund. It should be handled out of the consolidated revenue fund. It should not be handled by the relatively small numbers of insured people in this country. The emergency should be met by the people of Canada as a whole.
During the remarks he made yesterday my friend the hon. member for Essex East made reference to another matter which could be possibly of considerable benefit at this time, namely the abolition of the automobile tax. I might remind my hon. friend and other members of this house that we had in the last house a measure dealing with the reduction of the automobile tax and, if my memory does not fail me, I believe most of his colleagues voted against that measure.
I am glad to see the change of heart.
I should like to return now, Mr. Chairman, to this matter of the unemployed in this country who will not benefit from this measure. At the present time they are forced to fall back on the resources of their municipalities. I fail to see where the municipalities at the present time are any more able to meet this situation than is the federal government. The resources at their disposal certainly are not anything to be compared with the resources at the disposal of the federal government. I believe this matter is something that should be taken under consideration. The only hope, as far as the municipalities are concerned, is not that they are going to get any assistance but that at least their situation will not get worse with regard to those who will be able to benefit from this measure at least for another six weeks.
I hope the government will take these matters under consideration and make the necessary moves to alleviate the situation both of the unemployed and of the municipalities in which they reside.


Mr. Carter:: This legislation will be generally welcomed in my province where unemployment has reached unprecedented proportions and where, because of a curtailment in the woods operations and reduction of

employment on the United States bases, the prospects for employment are poorer than they have been at any time since confederation.
When the minister was speaking to his resolution he stressed the fact that the present formula will be used in relation to this extension. In that connection there are one or two questions which I should like to ask him, because I think they have an important bearing on the amount of benefit a person may receive from this legislation. As reported at page 85 of Hansard the minister himself quoted certain examples. Among them he stressed the point that this legislation would enable people to benefit who became entitled on the 17th day of May. If we follow the present formula, a person gets five weeks' benefit for six weeks' stamps, and he must have 15 stamps to quality. That means that the minimum entitlement that a person who is qualified can get is about 12 or 13 weeks. This extension will enable him to receive six or possibly seven weeks of his entitlement. The first question I want to ask the minister is what happens to the balance of his entitlement, the remaining six or seven weeks during which he cannot benefit under this extension. Will it be possible for him to carry over that entitlement into another benefit period?
The second question I would like to ask the minister is, what about those people whose regular benefits run out during those six or seven weeks, in other words whose regular benefits would run over into the extension period? Will they also carry on and take advantage of this extension right up to the end of June?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to thank the minister for having extended this benefit period, and I am very pleased to know that the benefits may apply to 200,000 people and give a benefit of $14 million.
In my area we have a serious unemployment problem, and the situation very much hinges on the problem of seasonal employment. During the past year the period during which our workers have been able to work in sawmills has been curtailed owing to lack of sales and in most cases they are no longer eligible, because of the short sawing season, for regular benefits. They have therefore depended for some time on seasonal benefits. I was very perturbed to find that after the last extension of seasonal benefits, when the period was advanced by one month and an additional month was added to the end of the period, these people were no longer eligible to draw seasonal benefits for the length of the benefit period.

I agree that if 200,000 people are eligible then we have done something, but I was certainly under the impression, as I think were many of my constituents as well as many of those people in other areas who were accustomed to drawing seasonal benefits, that if we extend the seasonal benefits we will be giving to those people who are seasonally unemployed the advantage of these benefits. There has been a great deal said right across the country with respect to a standing seasonal benefit taking care of the unemployed on this basis.
I think we should possibly consider the matter of again providing supplementary benefits and, if necessary, changing the basis of contribution so we can cover, on a supplementary basis, these people who are seasonally unemployed for the full length of time during which they are entitled to benefits.
The minister has said this is an emergency measure, and I feel that some consideration could be given to the fact that we could take additional money-the $14 million or probably a considerably larger sum-out of the consolidated revenue and put it into a supplementary benefit for the seasonally unemployed. If we did this we would not be hurting the unemployment insurance fund for years to come. I say this because, although the minister has said this is a temporary measure, I am quite sure if a similar situation arises next year there will be a great deal of pressure and considerable weight in the argument that the arrangement should be carried forward once again.
I think some consideration should also be given to changing the arrangements now in effect on the basis of the contributions. I am of course aware that this matter could better be discussed at various stages of the bill, but I do think some consideration should be given to industries such as the lumber and the automobile industries where lay-offs have taken place seasonally over the years and people have become more and more dependent upon what we consider to be seasonal benefits. Now, because of other curtailments, their periods of employment have decreased and their need for benefits has correspondingly increased.
If a person went on seasonal benefits-and many in the lumber industry in my area did go on seasonal benefits in the first week of December-then they are no longer eligible and will no longer be eligible under this amendment. In fact they have not been eligible for seasonal benefits since some time in early March. I think the impression has certainly been given to many people across Canada that the changes which were going 57071-3-7
Unemployment Insurance to be made would be much more generous than they have been, and would cover those who are no longer qualified for seasonal benefits in the regular way. If we now put into effect a supplementary benefit period, that would allow those people who for several weeks or months have been excluded from seasonal benefits to draw some assistance.
There is, of course, a method which could be used to assure them seasonal benefits at the present time. That method is provided for under the public assistance legislation, which of course goes into the matter of municipal assistance. I am aware that many, or at least some, of the unemployment offices have forms under that particular legislation, and these offices help the claimants who are no longer able to qualify for seasonal benefits to fill out these forms and they send them down to the town hall, after which the federal, provincial and municipal governments review the situation from the point of view of public welfare.
I am one of those who have paid into the unemployment insurance fund from the date it commenced, and I am sure that many of us who have never had and will never have an opportunity to draw benefits are benevolent enough to wish to see some change made so these people-and particularly the municipalities, who are ill-equipped to handle even minor expenditures on such a welfare basis- may be helped by taking some of the money from the general revenues and having it given to the commission to enable them to carry on with supplementary benefits for this period as requested by the minister. That could be carried out on a supplementary basis, in addition to the seasonal benefits, for those who have now exhausted their seasonal benefits.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, as far as this measure goes it will, of course, receive the unanimous support of all hon. members. However, I want to be quite blunt and say I am very disappointed in what the Minister of Labour apparently believes is the necessary emergency measure at this time as an answer to unemployment in Canada when the seasonal benefits, as they are called, are running out.
When I think back to only a few weeks ago and remember how the hearts of the Conservative candidates bled for the unemployed of Canada; when I remember their platitudinous statements about what they would do for the unemployed immediately the House of Commons was called, should they be elected to power; and when I read the terms of this emergency measure as far as financial aid is concerned, I am unable to reconcile

Unemployment Insurance those bleeding hearts before the election with the action taken by the Conservative government after the election.
I think we all fully understand that unemployment is the measure or the scale of our economic trouble. There can be no question but that Canada faces a serious unemployment situation and, in consequence, major difficulties both for the country generally and for the unemployed in particular. Our unemployment situation can be broken down into two categories. I believe that a little less than 40 per cent of our working force are not covered by any unemployment insurance provisions whatsoever, and I cannot help but wonder just what thought, if any, the government has given to how that part of this 40 per cent who are unemployed are getting by today.
However, the resolution before us does not deal with this 40 per cent of our labour force which is not covered by unemployment insurance. It deals, in part, with the just over 60 per cent who do come within the provisions of the act, of which group many hundreds of thousands are today unemployed. These people have run out of both regular benefits and seasonal benefits, or are about to do so.
In an effort to take care of the situation to some extent the Minister of Labour introduced this motion, and we congratulate him on having done so. But while congratulating him on the distance he has come we should like very much to know why he has not considered the emergency in all its aspects, and taken the opportunity afforded by this resolution and the proposed bill to take action to guarantee at least a semblance of a standard of living so as to afford the basic requirements of life to all who come within the provisions of the act. Even with the provisions which have now been introduced many will not be able to carry on unless they can get work.
I find it difficult to understand the thinking of the government and the minister with regard to this matter. First of all we are told that this is a temporary extension of the seasonal benefit period. It will close on June 28 of this year. The minister obviously must realize that there will be many who will not have employment by June 28, nor will they be in receipt of benefits. But the fact that he uses the expression "temporary" can mean only one thing; that he is either fooling himself or that he is trying to fool this house and the public in general, because if he has the fantastic idea that there will be a return to economic and employment normalcy by June 28 he has another guess coming.
I wish he were correct. I wish it were not necessary to have an extension of the benefit

period. But if we are going to be honest with ourselves-and I think as newly elected members we should be honest-we must recognize that there is nothing temporary about the unemployment situation in Canada.
It appears, therefore, that under the principles of this resolution the Minister of Labour should have had the decency and the courage to face the facts and recognize that it is not only necessary to bring in a change in the Unemployment Insurance Act at this time to extend benefits until June 28, but that the proper thing to do in a civilized country under a responsible government would be to bring in the necessary changes to take care of the unemployed until such time as they can find employment. Must we be faced just prior to June 28 with yet another amendment to the act? I am afraid this will be the case unless the Minister of Labour decides to allow the unemployed to do without.
I wish to register strong objection to the policy of the government. I want to urge the government to face the economic and unemployment situation of this country in a realistic way, and give the people an assurance that satisfactory solutions will be found prior to June 28. I should also like to add to what has already been said by some previous speakers, namely that sympathetic though the administrators in the various provinces may be, they are governed by regulations made in Ottawa, and because of the way in which these are worded they will not be able to give assistance, even under these provisions, to countless thousands of needy unemployed in our country.
In the same way I have questioned the use of the word "temporary". I also question the use of the word "seasonal". The provisions of an act of this House of Commons or of an amendment thereto should be designed to take care of the unemployed no matter how long they are out of work. I am telling hon. members that a man can be just as hungry on June 29 as he can on June 28; he can be just as hungry in the fall as he can be in the winter, if he is out of a job.
I feel that not only in the last parliament but also in this parliament the government is making it completely obvious that it does not understand economics or the needs of the people of this country. Members of the government do not understand the broad principles which should apply to the care of our people if they are incapacitated, hungry or unemployed at any time of the year, and the sooner recognition of these needs comes about-and I am sorry such recognition is not evident in this measure- the better it will be both for the government and for the people.

That is the general principle. There is also a particular principle which may not apply in some of the provinces of Canada but which very definitely applies in British Columbia, one of whose constituencies I have the honour to represent. Seasonal unemployment is not based on dates that may be set by the Conservative government. Seasonal unemployment is based on the occupation in which you are engaged, and there are various seasons for each of the various occupations.
Let us take the fishing industry and lumbering operations as an example. Depending on the weather you can be seasonally unemployed in the winter but you can also be seasonally unemployed in the summer. Under the concept of the past and apparently under the presently existing concept seasonal unemployment is taken not on the basis of the occupation but on the basis of whatever date the government decides to set as the period when the individual can be unemployed and draw extra seasonal benefits.
If I correctly interpreted the speech from the throne I understand this is not the last time the Unemployment Insurance Act may be opened during this the first session of the twenty-fourth parliament of Canada. I can only say that we in this group welcome the advance that is being made, but we feel very sad at what is either the lack of knowledge of the present government or its lack of initiative, in that in the introduction of the emergency measure it did not spread the benefits to cover all emergencies in the labour field as far as unemployment insurance is concerned.
I recognize the sincerity of the Minister of Labour; I do not question that one bit. His sincerity leads me to believe that he will as speedily as possible introduce a complete overhaul of the act, bringing in major amendments; and when he does so I trust he will bring in an increase. I am sorry that none is provided for at this time. I feel confident that the ready acceptance that will be given the present change by all parties in this house will lead the minister to introduce the kind of changes to which I have referred.
I was in Winnipeg when the Prime Minister addressed the second national convention of the Canadian Congress of Labour. I sat in the auditorium as he spoke and I heard him waxing as only he can wax-and I mean "waxing" in more than one way- eloquently and telling the people of Canada to spend, spend, spend. I can still picture him as he stood there telling the people to spend. There are a few hundred thousand people in our country who do not have money to spend, and there are also a few hundred thousand 57071-3-7i
Unemployment Insurance who are dependent on unemployment insurance. They would like to spend, but the maximum they can get is $32 a week.
Mr. Chairman, I would like you to attempt to buy a house or rent an apartment in the city of Vancouver, for instance, and learn what the monthly payments would be. In many cases you would be required to pay anywhere from $85 to $140 a month. If you are unemployed and eligible for unemployment insurance you can receive a maximum of $32 a week. Thousands of families in my city find this amount barely adequate to pay their rent, their mortgage and bank payments and their taxes. There is little enough left over for food and clothing. And the Prime Minister asks them to spend.
It is easy enough for us in this house to get by, earning as we do between $10,000 and $37,000 a year, but the working class man who is buying a home and who unfortunately through no fault of his own is unemployed finds it difficult to provide for his family on unemployment insurance. I think it is the epitome of outright, damnable hypocrisy to go out, as the first minister of Canada did, and tell the people to spend, spend, spend and in that way work our way out of our present problems.
The government is now going to do some spending, which is fine and dandy; but it should give the many people on unemployment insurance a little more money to spend which would help them to restore the economic balance and give them something more than the amount of money required to meet their basic rent and mortgage payments.
I suppose it is useless to ask that an increase in unemployment insurance payments be granted today, but I hope this will be considered by the minister and speedily acted upon. I feel quite strongly about this. I feel I understand the problems of those who are unemployed, because I see them almost every day in my home constituency. I also met those who were not eligible for unemployment insurance because of technicalities in the regulations governing the administration of the act.
I welcome the present measure and will most certainly support it. I thank the minister for having gone as far as he did, and I hope he will take the opportunity in the not too distant future to correct his present mistake in not bringing in major amendments to the act and an increase in the benefits payable thereunder.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity of congratulating the Prime Minister on what I consider is his great personal achievement in securing his

Unemployment Insurance election as such. I am sure that great numbers of Canadians were very much influenced,
I trust temporarily, by his Lincolnesque vocabulary, his persuasive though somewhat ecclesiastical manner and his Shakespearean sense of the value of dramatics, phonetics and cosmetics. I am sure we all agree that without any doubt the Prime Minister provides a brilliant political facade to the economic deficiencies of modern capitalistic society.
That is the way we in this group look at it, Mr. Chairman. However, I am somewhat inclined to think that the Prime Minister's eminence is somewhat overemphasized by the flatness of some of the landscape around him. Nevertheless, in our opinion, regardless of his wishes and best intentions-and I give him all credit for good wishes and good intentions-he cannot under this system avoid being to some extent a political flockmaster for the economic barons of St. James and Bay streets. I hasten to say, however, that we all wish him well in what he does to offer us palliatives to partially remedy the evils of our present day capitalist society.
We in this group look upon this present measure as a palliative which will provide minor relief to a minority of the unemployed in Canada at this time. I am not going to speak at length on this subject, because other speakers in our group have advanced our point of view. However, before going on to my other few remarks, I cannot resist mentioning at this stage an editorial which appeared in the Trail Daily Times of March 8, 1958, a Conservative newspaper owned by the family of the Minister of Public Works, in which unemployment and the unemployed are dealt with.


Howard Charles Green: It is not owned by me.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should explain in fairness that it is owned by a nephew of the hon. gentleman, if I am correct in my understanding, but in any event having some family association. In this editorial there is some criticism of the unemployed and reference is made to about one-third of the unemployed in Canada lacking initiative. The editorial says in part:
Unhappily, theirs is what appears to be a growing attitude among people today-the attitude that Canada owes its sons a living, and its older sons a pension.
Surely Canada, with all her natural resources, owes a living to anyone who is willing to work; certainly she owes the older citizens a pension. However, after berating the unemployed and then berating the party to which I belong and berating the present member for Kootenay West, the

writer puts in this article facsimiles of advertisements of job opportunities in Canada. Then he goes on to say that if people will only buy there will be lots of employment.
The job opportunities which he advertises in this editorial created a great deal of interest in my district. These are the advertisements for salesmen for garter belts, girdles, brassieres, real estate, Watkins products, unique promotion plan, door to door salesmen of other products. This is published in this paper, indicating the thousands of job opportunities that are available for the unemployed in Canada who will only show initiative. You know, Mr. Chairman, it reminds me of the Tory attitude years ago. I can see that the Minister of National Defence is not agreeing with me. I am sure many members of the Conservative party would not agree with this.
I remember reading the records of the House of Lords on one occasion. The House of Lords was dealing with an education act to provide free education for a larger number of people in Great Britain. This noble lord rose in the House of Lords. He was a very well known Tory with a record of great service to the empire and commonwealth. He said, "After 50 years of service to the empire and commonwealth and 50 years of interest in public education, and after witnessing the expenditure of a vast amount of money on public education, I and one of my associates have come to the conclusion that all we have succeeded in doing is lowering the level of the vulgar writing on the toilet walls about 12 inches."
That is about the attitude of some people toward the unemployment question. I give credit to the sincerity of those who bring this measure forward but we in this group believe these remedies are quite insufficient. They are temporary; they will improve things in some instances, but we simply are not approaching this question in a realistic manner.
The government suggests a national development and public works program. We have supported that because we need public development and public works; we need to put as many people to work as possible. That presents a limited scope from the point of view of sound economics and from the point of view of employing the largest number of people at this time. We in this group say that what causes our unemployment is simply surplus production which is not being sold at home or abroad. There is the whole basis of the reason for our unemployment at the present time. Here we have surplus wheat, surplus lumber, surplus metal, surplus fish. In our opinion the only sound remedy is a planned economic system



IS, 1958

[Stage Direction]
that provides for a sound expansion of our overseas trade. I am not suggesting this can be done overnight, or that it is a simple matter. On the other side of the world in Asia we have almost unnumbered millions suffering from the deficiencies of industrial production, food production and things of that sort.
I might say that while we support every effort to expand our markets in Britain and in Europe, this is a very well harrowed and ancient field which offers limited opportunities for the expansion of our markets for industrial and agricultural products. We wish the government well in what they can do in that direction, but it presents a very limited field. We say the markets in Asia present a great opportunity for us to do something within the reasonable future to remedy our unemployment situation and accept our responsibilities to some extent for international welfare and the welfare of other people.
We recognize the difficulties in this respect. It is not as easy to deal with these people as it is to deal with people who have sound currencies. We have not made an attempt in this direction. We know certain things can be sold for sound currencies, dollars, but they are in limited amounts. We say, as I have said before, we should first of all recognize these countries because they have certain sovereign pride and things of that sort, and you cannot deal effectively with people until you recognize them. It is not sufficient to send trade ambassadors up the back stairs and not recognize them officially if they get into trouble. We should recognize China so we could have an ambassador there, with consuls and commissioners.
. ^ read a statement about five weeks ago m which Mr. Mclvor, the former chairman of the Canadian wheat board, said that if we could obtain the Chinese market our wheat surplus would disappear almost overnight. There are three or four possibilities there. We believe there should be a recognition of those countries. We should do everything possible to expand our markets in Asia to relieve our unemployment. We should accept local currencies and have those currencies reinvested in local development, something after the fashion of the Colombo plan, and so on.
People say we cannot afford that. Is it better to afford that than to have 500,000 or 600,000 unemployed and idle people in Canada. We have calculated that if those people were all employed, if our farmers were producing at full blast and all the working people employed in this country, they would be paying income tax. The present
Unemployment Insurance unemployment is causing a loss to the Canadian people of somewhere between $350 million and $500 million in income tax. Is it not better to keep our farmers producing and paying income tax, and to keep our workers producing and paying income tax, and to use the surplus income tax we receive from this source and add it to what we have to stimulate markets in Asia along the lines I have suggested?
We in this group believe there is no other solution for the planning of our marketing. We should accept our responsibilities to the people of Asia, the underprivileged and underdeveloped countries of the world. We should sell our surpluses to them on a long-term credit basis and accept their currencies and reinvest them for their industrial and agricultural development. At the same time we should accept our responsibilities to the farmers and to the unemployed of this country. We believe that is the sort of plan that is essential if we are to commence to solve this recurring disease of capitalism, namely unemployment, which faces us at the present time.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I do want to say that we support this measure and we support all the other measures. I am not for a moment questioning the hon. gentlemen's integrity or their intentions or their best wishes, but we do want to emphasize the fact that they fail to realize that we are living in a rapidly changing world where, if we do not accept new principles, probably of a mixed economy, and a new basis for a trading relationship with Asia, we shall continue to have unemployment and we shall continue to suffer the disabilities of our national development that are related to it. That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.
(Translation) :
Rodolphe Leduc: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief remarks concerning this bill.
In the first place, I wish to congratulate the minister for having brought in this amendment, just as I did when he introduced one last November. This November amendment was such as to bring help to a large number of seasonal unemployed, as the amendment proposed by the minister at this time will certainly contribute much along the same lines. However it will not solve the problem of unemployment in my constituency nor anywhere else in the country as a whole.
What we are voting at this time is nothing more than direct relief, such as was experienced under the Bennett regime, with this difference that between 1930 and 1935 direct

Unemployment Insurance relief was afforded to all unemployed who needed it whereas under the terms of the proposed legislation relief will only be given to those who qualify for seasonal benefits under the unemployment insurance act regulations. Now in my constituency as in the rest of this country there are a certain number of people who will receive no benefit whatever from the proposed amendment.
The other day I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) announce that there would be implemented in this country a program of public works designed to relieve unemployment. I have noted that among those that were listed, very few could directly solve the problem of unemployment in my constituency.
I would like the house to know that in my constituency, as in a number of others in the province of Quebec, most of the unemployed are bush workers, farm workers and workers in certain types of industry. The unemployment problem is more serious in the province of Quebec than in other provinces of this country. There are more unemployed in Quebec, in proportion to the population, than in the other provinces of Canada, a fact which is mainly attributable to a slowdown in the pulp and paper industry. The measure brought down by the government, that is the program of public works announced by the Prime Minister, will not solve the problem of unemployment in my constituency.
My constituency is served by three unemployment insurance offices. The southern half is served by the Hull unemployment insurance office, the Lievre valley area by the Buckingham office and the northern part of the constituency, extending from Grace-field north of Maniwaki, by the local office at the latter point. It is only from the Maniwaki office that I can obtain exact figures with regard to the number of unemployed, since those who live in the southern part of my constituency and in the Lievre valley area are served by the Hull and Buckingham offices, which also look after the unemployed from other constituencies.
I would like to bring to the minister's attention the fact that last week there were still more than 2,000 unemployed receiving unemployment benefits from the Maniwaki office alone. In my constituency, there are over 3,000 persons receiving unemployment benefits at the present time and I should like to point out to the minister-


Paul Joseph James Martin: How many?


Rodolphe Leduc: More than 2,000 jobless come under the Maniwaki office. I should like to point out to the minister that, according to the officers in the unemployment insurance office in Maniwaki, there is in the northern part of my constituency, that is to say from Gracefield northward, a labour or working force of 3,500 or 3,600 coming under the Maniwaki office and that at the present time more than 2,000 of them are jobless. This means that over 60 per cent of the working population of the northern part of the constituency is jobless and I am convinced that, by June 28 next, there will still be over a thousand workers without jobs unless the government undertakes some public works in my constituency.
So it is my duty to suggest to the government some public works which could be of assistance in solving the problem and in giving jobs to these unemployed.
If the federal government could come to an agreement with the government of the province of Quebec or with municipal councils, it would be very easy to undertake road construction work as well as sewerage and water service works in some municipalities. Moreover, the Gatineau park, which is a federal undertaking, is in my constituency. All the government would have to do would be to grant a few extra million dollars to the Federal District Commission. Then, the commission could undertake to complete the park, which is part of the national capital plan. In Aylmer, last year, the municipality donated a beach to the Federal District Commission on the condition that a park and a public beach be set up there. Well, if the Federal District Commission had the funds required, it could undertake such works immediately. Other works which would be of assistance to the unemployed could also be undertaken in my constituency. You must not think, Mr. Chairman, that the building of highways into the Yukon, of a railway leading to the Great Slave Lake, an important extension of our airports and their equipment, as well as an intensification of harbour works, will solve the problem of unemployment. On the contrary this will help but a small proportion of the unemployed, not only of my constituency but of all constituencies in the province of Quebec and other provinces.
If the government really intends to solve the unemployment problem, to give jobs to the jobless, I urge it to undertake such useful public works in the various constituencies of the province and of the country.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a suggestion which could very well be the subject of an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act. In my constituency as elsewhere, many people cannot get unemployment insurance benefits; I refer to farm hands. At the present time, these people do not qualify for benefits and it seems to me that the time has come to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to cover them since, at present, many farmers cannot hire any unemployed persons, as these people, knowing that no stamps will be affixed to their unemployment insurance booklet, do not wish to work on the farms.
This situation is also unfair to farmers' sons who, instead of going to work in industries, remain on the farm to help their father and are thus deprived of unemployment insurance benefits. It seems to me that the law should be amended so as to include farm employees.
These were the few observations I wished to make. I urge the government to be kind enough to take into consideration the few suggestions I have put forward. In order to bring a real solution to the unemployment problem in the rural parts of the country, the federal government must co-operate with the provincial governments toward the implementation of a public works program capable of relieving unemployment.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I can assure you right now that my remarks on the resolution before us will be very short.
My remarks are prompted by what the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) had to say yesterday when he proposed the resolution now before us, and I quote from page 85 of Hansard of May the 14th:
I would like to note that in the five months beginning December 1, 1957, and I think this will answer a question asked in the house earlier, almost $230 million were paid out in unemployment insurance benefits but in spite of these heavy expenditures the unemployment insurance fund had at the end of March a remarkably healthy balance of more than $740 million. We feel that this fund is therefore in a sound position to yield this extra protection which we feel should be provided and thus continue to do the Job it was intended to do.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we know that on March 31, 1957, the unemployment insurance fund contained $884,800,000 and, according to the minister's statement yesterday, on March 31, 1958, i.e. hardly nine months later, this fund had decreased to $740 million. And judging by the present unemployment situation in this country and by the number of
Unemployment Insurance unemployed who are receiving, and will continue to receive benefits, we may assume that the unemployment insurance fund, which was so sound when the Liberal government relinquished control to the present administration on June 22 last, would, on April 30 of the current year, have been reduced to $675 million, and before May 31 will probably have gone down to less than $600 million.
And if we may judge by the number of unemployed who I said, will probably continue to receive benefits, the unemployment insurance fund will be reduced by 50% by March 31, 1959.
I therefore agree with the previous speaker in saying that this legislation for direct relief is no different from the one passed by the Bennett administration except that, at that time, direct relief was taken from the country's general fund, whereas to-day it is paid out of money put aside by this country's workers.
I would like to close my brief remarks by quoting words spoken last Tuesday in Montreal by commissioner R. J. Tallon, who was representing the workers at the Unemployment Insurance Commission. According to La Presse of May 14, 1958, page 17, Mr. Tallon said:
It is unfair that the workers and leaders of industry should be the only ones to assume the cost of assistance to needy citizens. This should be the responsibility of the nation as a whole.
Which means of this country's government. (Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are one or two questions that I should like to put to the minister and one or two observations I should like to make about the proposed amendment. Like other hon. members on this side of the house or, perhaps I should say, in this quarter of the house, I reluctantly support this amendment which is for the purpose of extending the winter into June. I think we should remember that that is its purpose. These seasonal benefits were established for the purpose of meeting the seasonal unemployment problem that is inescapable so far owing to our climatic condition in this country. It seems to me that, for a government that is obliged to say that the winter season is being extended into June, it is rather hard to argue that the economic situation in the country at the present time is not a serious one.
If the hon. member for St. John's West, the minister without portfolio, were in the house or if the hon. member for St. John's East were in his place, I am quite sure they

Unemployment Insurance would echo my words that in the province which we represent in this house the unemployment situation is very serious indeed. I think the minister is well aware that from the nature of things the amount of seasonal unemployment in that province, and perhaps to some degree in all the Atlantic provinces, is rather greater than it is in many other parts of the country. As a consequence, the number of persons capable of receiving these seasonal benefits because they have enough stamps to entitle them to receive the benefits and who are still receiving them at this late date must be very small.
In order to give us who represent that part of the country a clear picture of what it is the minister is asking us to do, I feel that when he replies or at some stage before this measure is passed he should give us this information. Of course, I should like to see the information for every province but I should particularly like to see it for the province of Newfoundland. I should like to know how many persons received seasonal benefits this year since the 1st of December, 1957, how many have already exhausted their benefits and how many are still receiving them. It may well be, as the minister has said-


Mr. Starr:: In Newfoundland or in all Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like the information for both. In fact, I should very much like to see it for every province; I should like to have it broken down by provinces, but that may be asking a great deal of the minister. However, I certainly should like to see it for Newfoundland. From the very large amount of correspondence I myself have received-and I know other members from Newfoundland have had a similar experience -it is my impression that the number of persons whose benefits have expired and have been expiring and who are now having to go on the dole is increasing very rapidly and has been increasing very rapidly ever since early March. There are some of us who were nasty enough to have the suspicion that one of the reasons the government was so anxious to dissolve the last parliament and have the election at the early and unseasonable date at which it was held was precisely that they knew that these seasonal benefits would expire and that there would be a great deal more discontent in the country in April than there was in March.


Michael Starr: If the hon. member would
permit me to do so, I should just like to inform him that there has been a drop in

registrations in our offices across Canada to the extent of 120,000 in the last month, a more rapid pace than they dropped off last year at the same time, even without seasonal benefits.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rather anticipated the
minister would say that. Perhaps he would tell us how much of that drop in registrations consists of fishermen who, of course, would be going back to fish and who would only have been eligible for seasonal benefits in any event; and how many others are in rural parts and who, once their benefits had expired and there is no reasonable prospect to their getting jobs from the offices, do not consider it worth while to keep their names on the roll?


Michael Starr: If the hon. member would put
this question on the order paper I shall be glad to get the information for him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister who is not
a new member of this house and who is asking us to take a rather extraordinary measure-


Michael Starr: A proper measure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -in extending seasonal
benefits that in a previous regime were required only in the winter time into the summer I think should not be telling hon. gentlemen opposite, the small band of people in the opposition, that they can wait for the order paper to get information relating directly to the measure that he is piloting through the house.


Michael Starr: The former government left
the people destitute after April 15.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member has the floor and he has the right to speak.


An hon. Member:: Don't be so touchy.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no intention of
sitting down, although my hon. friend who very rarely makes a contribution in this house would like me to do so. I want to protest against the attitude of the minister in the course of this debate.


The Chairman:: I think the hon. member
for Bonavista-Twillingate realizes that if he takes his seat then the minister can answer his questions. If he does not do so, he is not obliged to answer them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. member
for Laurier for coming to my defence. I must say that I myself would have taken

no exception to the minister's attitude although I am afraid that it is a rather curious commentary, and not the first one in this very short period we have been here so far, on the attitude of the overwhelming majority.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: First of all, on the very
day that the Prime Minister, with his hand on his heart, talked about extending the rights of parliament, an effort was made to prevent the opposition from having its traditional right, its fair share in debate. I know you are going to tell me I am out of order, Mr. Chairman, and 1 recognize the fact that I am. But today we have the minister doing what I really cannot complain of because I am afraid I have done it occasionally myself; I refer to interrupting in the middle of sentences in an effort perhaps to disconcert a speaker. However, I am not at all disconcerted. But what I am disconcerted about, Mr. Chairman, is the difficulty that there appears to be in appreciating what will be the real effect of this measure. Though I profess to be no expert on the Unemployment Insurance Act, it is very hard for me to conceive that there could be many persons who would have enough stamps left in their books to get seasonal benefits who would not have had enough stamps in their books to get regular benefits.
There may be the odd case here and there of someone who has had employment through the winter and who has lost his job in April or late in March but who would not yet have exhausted his seasonal benefits. But, as I understand it, the purpose of these seasonal benefits is to give benefit to persons who have not enough stamps to get regular benefits. The government already extended the season by something like eight or nine weeks during the last parliamentary session so it is hard to conceive how it could be possible that in this country where, the government says, employment is increasing rapidly, there could still be 200,000 people who could benefit under the proposed extension of this act.
I therefore think we ought to know a little more than we do about what it is the government is going to ask us to do and what the real effect of it is going to be before the debate closes. Even if only a few people will benefit it is, of course, a very good thing to do in the circumstances, but I have a suspicion that the number of people who will benefit from this measure is very small.
I do know that, in the province of Newfoundland at the present time

and I know this from correspondence I have received from people in my constituency since the election

that there is an increasing number of 57071-3-8
Unemployment Insurance persons who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits and are having to go on relief. This group increases every week. Fortunately in Newfoundland we have a reasonably well organized system of outdoor relief-rather better than that which exists in some other provinces-but still it is a humiliation for many people to have to go on relief. It is a regrettable necessity and it seems rather a curious commentary on the speech-and I use the word in the singular because it was the same speech-made over and over again by the Prime Minister only a very short while ago.
Before we go further in this debate, I think I should perhaps refresh the memories of some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house with respect to what their leader did say during the election campaign and the kind of appeal that was made and the kind of promise that was given on this question to the people of Canada. I have a reproduction of an article from the Toronto Star on February 28 last. The heading of it is, "Let No one Suffer is Diefenbaker's Pledge to Jobless."


An hon. Member:: Who wrote it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was written by Bruce Macdonald, a very reputable member of the press gallery who accompanied the Prime Minister over a good part of his tour, I believe, and I am sure the Prime Minister would admit he was an accurate correspondent. If the Prime Minister wants to quarrel with Mr. Macdonald's report he may do so. In the first paragraph, the subject matter was the floor prices on fish. I might cite that paragraph on another occasion, but it would, however, be out of place at the moment. The article continues:
Discussing unemployment, he said it could not be denied that it did exist in some parts of Canada,-
That was quite an admission for the Prime Minister to make when according to the statistics issued by his own government 590,000 persons were unemployed in the country.
-it could not be denied that it did exist in some parts of Canada, for which the Liberals were to blame,-
Although we had not been in office for the previous nine months. He went on as follows:
-unemployment in March, 1955, stood at 9.5 per cent of the working force,-
That figure, of course, is not accurate as the hon. member for Essex East showed in the figures which he gave us yesterday from the bureau of statistics. We all know, of course, the Prime Minister has no great passion for accuracy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

Unemployment Insurance


John Whitney Pickersgill: And he went on as follows:
-which was a higher percentage than exists today.
That statement, of course, was completely untrue.
"I will make one more promise," the Prime Minister asserted.
I have had experience, I know the lot of the average Canadian.
Of course most of those in this house do not, but the Prime Minister does.
-I know the lot of the average Canadian.


Mr. Walker:: That is more than you do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let the hon. gentleman speak for himself.


Mr. Charlton:: He is speaking for himself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I continue:
"I've gone through it," he said, dropping his voice and speaking in solemn tones.


An hon. Member:: You have some of those, too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. McPhillips:: He is sensible, anyhow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Again I continue:
I'm not here for the purpose of telling of my experience in my early days until well into my late teens. I know, I know . . .


An hon. Member:: You are a funny boy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And again:
... I know ... a man who is unemployed is a human being, not a statistic.
All of us who were elected by our fellow citizens know that, too.
I make this promise. We acted.
I think the Prime Minister never said truer words than when he said "we acted".
We acted. My pledge is to every man and woman in this nation who is unemployed-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now listen to these words:
-to every man and woman in this nation who is unemployed-so long as I am Prime Minister no one will be allowed to suffer in this nation.
No one will be allowed to suffer in this nation. There was some question as to my source of information but I have another quotation, this time from the Montreal Star, and this is a Canadian Press story. It reports the speech made by the Prime Minister in Toronto and the date is March 5, 1958. I will just read the last paragraph of it.


An hon. Member:: Read it all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It says:
As long as I am Prime Minister, this government will not rest while one Canadian remains out of work. No one will be allowed to suffer.


I do not know, Mr. Chairman, what are the conditions in the riding which you represent, but I do know that in the riding I represent there are at present hundreds of people on the dole.


Mr. Bigg:: They need a new member over there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They need a new government, perhaps. I know 'that in the riding I represent and the ridings represented by the hon. members for St. John's there are hundreds of people on the dole.


Michael Starr: He is doing something about it, though.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can only say that those who are on the dole are suffering; perhaps not suffering actual physical privation, though some of them certainly are, but suffering because they want to work and there is no work. The Prime Minister said no one would be allowed to suffer. Then he came into the house the other day and used these astonishing works: "First, we meet the problem of unemployment by again removing the difficulties inherent in the extension of payments." This is how the suffering is being relieved.
I know the minister is not going to get up and tell us that even a small proportion of those people who are now unemployed will be covered between now and June 28 by this measure. The minister is an honest man and' I know he would make no such dishonest claims. But I do think that before we are asked to pass this measure the minister should give us some further information.
Of course, he cannot guess about the number of those who are not yet unemployed and who may become unemployed, but surely the minister would not have recommended this measure to the house if he had not found out from his officials how many people there are in the country today, or at the latest date for which he can get the information, drawing the seasonal benefits and, on an average, how much more benefits they are entitled to draw, whether it would be one week more or two weeks more; in most cases it would not be more. This is the kind of information which the minister should give us in some considerable detail because otherwise a false impression is likely to be created.
I had a letter from one of my constituents this morning from which I gather that this impression is already widespread. I know that what this man said was wrong, but nevertheless it is the impression which has been given. He said the government extended the benefits from March to May 15, but that "they won't give me any more". Of course he was not entitled to any more,

because he did not have the necessary stamps but many people have the impression that because this measure is being extended for another six weeks every unemployed person in the country will be looked after for another six weeks.
To the extent that this provision is helpful we welcome it, but I am afraid it will have a very small effect indeed in any part of the country. In those parts of Canada where seasonal unemployment is, on the average, more severe than in others, the effect will be less. Obviously it will have the most effect where there is the most regular employment and the least effect where seasonal employment is experienced from one year to another more severely, because in those areas there will have been less opportunity for people to have accumulated stamps in the past and thus become entitled to receive benefit.
I do not intend to labour this point but I should like to remind the minister again of the particular information which I should like to have and which, I am sure, other members from Newfoundland would like to have in so far as that province is concerned, namely the number of persons who have at any time since December 1 received seasonal benefits, the number who are still receiving seasonal benefits and, if they can be given, the comparable figures for the whole country. Those figures would be interesting, and I think the minister should also tell us his estimate of the period of time during which those persons now receiving benefits are likely to continue receiving benefits under this measure and also give us some kind of guess as to how many persons not yet unemployed may become unemployed and likely to be covered by these provisions, because, as I say, he is not likely to have brought in this measure unless some estimate had been made.
Of course, if there are no such persons, if the optimistic view which the minister expressed when he interrupted me is the correct one, and if no one is going to lose his job, that information will not be relevant. In such a case, however, I think the minister should tell us why it has been necessary to extend this period until June 28, because it is almost inconceivable that there would be any considerable number of persons drawing benefit now who would still be entitled to benefit by June 28.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. members who have taken part in this debate on the resolution stage, and to thank those who put forward suggestions.
We will, of course, endeavour to answer some of the questions that have been asked,
Unemployment Insurance questions, that is, with regard to which information can be obtained at the moment with reasonable ease. Naturally we cannot supply answers to questions when no statistics are available. That would require crystal ball gazing and even though I am sometimes depicted in the role of a prophet I can assure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that that is not my profession. However, I do appreciate the attitude taken by hon. members and it heartens me to know that they will support this measure even though that support may in some quarters be reluctant.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the minister would wish to be very fair. There was only one hon. member who used the word "reluctant" and he certainly did not use it in the sense which the hon. gentleman has suggested. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate spoke of being reluctant, but not in the sense in which the hon. minister has just used it.


Michael Starr: No, no. I referred to it in the
same sense as it was put forward at the time and I do not mean to do it in any other way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister will allow me to put my position clearly. I am as reluctant to support the measure as the minister was to introduce it, and no more reluctant than that; and the minister himself said he was very reluctant to have to introduce it.


Michael Starr: Now the hon. member is crystal ball gazing and looking into the future. I am not reluctant in bringing in this measure because I know it is going to benefit a great many Canadians who, in the past, after April 15 have been left to shift for themselves without aid of any kind from the previous government of which the hon. member was a minister.
This government did not intend to bring in this measure as one putting an end to unemployment. It was brought in to help in a situation which has been serious and which we admit has been serious. It was brought in to help those who find themselves affected by this situation to tide over the period of time before employment in Canada is at its highest peak. This measure was brought in for that purpose alone, and it was brought in on a temporary basis in that it is only in effect for the year 1958 and for the period May 18 to June 28. Unemployment is serious, and we realize that unemployment is serious-


An hon. Member:: At last.


Michael Starr: I have admitted it in this house and I have admitted publicly that unemployment presents a serious situation. I want to
108	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance tell hon. members that this is a cause of concern to myself and to this government at all times, and it is because of this situation that the present measure is being presented to parliament. It is being presented in good faith and as showing good faith to the people of Canada to help them in a difficult situation. If we felt the same way as the former government felt about the situation in 1955 and in other years we should have taken no action at all and just sat it out as the former government did.
There has been an expression of alarm and concern about the position of the unemployment insurance fund. And yet, at the same time, there has been alarm and concern about those who will not be receiving any benefits under this measure. Unemployment insurance is an insurance. It has been set up as such on a contributory basis. We are going to help 200,000 people under this extension which will cost approximately $14 million. Hon. members opposite may disagree with me on that but those are the figures that have been supplied to me by experts in the department who are continually working on this problem and have the data available.
I said that unemployment insurance is on a contributory basis. Surely it cannot be on any other. The formula has been changed for seasonal benefits. A person now receives five benefits for six weeks of contributions and in order to qualify for seasonal benefits he must have since March 31, 1957, at least 15 contributions in his book.
A number of questions were asked and I will endeavour to answer first the question asked by the hon. member for Essex East. I believe the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate wishes the same information. The number of seasonal benefit periods established December 1, 1957 to April 30, 1958, which is the last date for which we can get a record at this time, was 373,674.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is from December 1 to May 15?


Michael Starr: April 30, 1958. The estimated amount of seasonal benefits paid from December 1, 1957 to April 30, 1958 was $71,026,817. This is the last date for which figures are available at the moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In my question I asked for information covering the period December 1 to May 15. Has my hon. friend that information?


Michael Starr: We could get information only for this period.


Mr. Denis:: It does not include the farmers.


Michael Starr: This includes all persons who have established a claim for seasonal benefit periods.


Azellus Denis: There are many who did not work and did not receive any benefits.


Michael Starr: Our registrations at the national employment service offices would have dropped considerably if we had cut off seasonal benefits on April 15, as was the custom in the past, but this government wanted to help these people. We extended the period for one month earlier and one month later and now we are granting a further extension. We could cut this off and let those people shift for themselves as they did in the past under the former administration.


An hon. Member:: You are a real Tory.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Will the minister permit a question? Even with the 200,000 receiving seasonal benefits under the new measure will there not still be more unemployed not receiving any benefits at all than there were last year under the Liberal administration?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, that is obvious.


Michael Starr: I have not the figures available but I would suggest the hon. member is guessing and indulging in crystal ball gazing. Let me remind the hon. member that those people are receiving benefits which they did not receive during that period of time when the hon. member was part of the government sitting on this side of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because they had jobs then.


Azellus Denis: And you think this is supposed to correct the situation?


Michael Starr: In answer to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo the balance of entitlement that a claimant may have at June 28 lapses on that date. However, some or all of the contributions that provided this entitlement may count for either regular benefits later or seasonal benefits next year. In answer to his second question, claimants whose regular benefit terminates after May 17 will automatically qualify for this seasonal extension that we propose in this legislation.


Chesley William Carter: Just to clarify what the minister said, if a person has six weeks of unused benefits before he became eligible on May 17 can he use that six weeks to qualify next year or must he qualify first before he can use those six weeks?


Michael Starr: It may count for either.


Chesley William Carter: He can use it to make up his 15 weeks next year?


Michael Starr: It may count for either regular or seasonal benefits next year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was not the question.


Chesley William Carter: My point is this. Next year that same person instead of requiring 15 new stamps could qualify with nine new stamps and six left over from this period, is that
correct?


Michael Starr: I am not certain about that but I could obtain that information for the hon. member.


Harold Edward Winch: Are we not at the resolution stage and not the committee stage?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are in committee.


Michael Starr: In answer to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I have part of the information he wanted. The number of seasonal benefit periods established in the period December 1, 1957 to March 31, 1958 in Newfoundland was 17,822 and the amount paid in seasonal benefits in this period to these people was $3,542,070.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister may have forgotten the other two questions I asked, the number at the latest available date still receiving benefits in Newfoundland and the number still receiving benefits in the whole of Canada. It seems to me that is the most important figure of all.


Michael Starr: I am reminded since the hon. member has spoken that the authorities at the unemployment insurance office advised me that that information is not available at the moment. They cannot give that information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As of April 30, for example?


Michael Starr: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is ridiculous.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, would the minister be good enough to try and secure the information to clear up the point I raised, perhaps later today?


Michael Starr: I will try to do so. I conclude that with these remarks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before my hon. friend concludes perhaps he has forgotten my question or perhaps he intends to answer later on. I asked him to indicate the number of persons who had established seasonal benefit claims from December to the middle of May. My hon. friend says he can now only give that information to April 30.


Michael Starr: Yes, April 30.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the second part of my question I asked what was the aggregate amount of seasonal benefits paid
Unemployment Insurance to such persons during that period and I will amend my question to make it to the period the end of April.


Michael Starr: I have already indicated it was $71,026,817.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could say a word about this other point. The minister says he is not a crystal ball gazer, that he obtained the figure of 200,000 from his officials as the best estimate these experienced people could give. I assume that this total must be made up of two kinds of persons. It would include persons receiving benefits now and persons who will become eligible between now and June 28. It cannot be anything else and what I have said is really a statement of the obvious. I am sure the minister does not know the figure for May 15 nor does anyone else and it would be unreasonable to ask for it but surely it is not unreasonable when he is introducing this measure and when he tells us 200,000 people will benefit from it to ask him how many people were benefiting from it on the last date on which the commission added up the number. I am quite willing to accept April 30 if that is the latest date for which the minister has information. That seems to me to be a most crucial piece of information.


Michael Starr: I gave that information; 373,674.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That number were receiving benefits on April 30?


Michael Starr: Yes, that number had established seasonal benefit periods.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But many of those people had gone off benefit, surely?


Michael Starr: About 90 per cent of that number actually received benefits on that date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On April 30?


Michael Starr: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Seasonal benefits?


Michael Starr: That is right.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the workers of my constituency, I congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) for introducing a measure extending by six weeks the period during which unemployment insurance benefits can be paid.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that all labour unions in Canada are happy to see that the Minister of Labour is asking for a six weeks extension of these benefits.
The difference between this government and the administration led by my hon. friends from the opposition is that the Minister of Labour is more readily able to cope with

Unemployment Insurance an emergency or to recognize when an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act is in order.
Therefore, on behalf of the workers of my riding, I take this opportunity to congratulate and to thank the Minister of Labour.
(Text):


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I indicated when I spoke earlier that I had some other remarks to make which, under the rules of the house, I was precluded from making because of lack of time. One could make them on the first clause of the bill but this would be just as convenient a point at which to do so.
I understand the difficulty that attends the minister at this time in answering some of the questions, particularly those that seek to elicit precise information as to the actual numbers who will benefit. The minister ought to indicate to his officials the desire on this side of the house for this information which I think could be given perhaps a little more precisely and in greater detail than has been given thus far.
The minister says that the number of people who will benefit in part is in the neighbourhood of some 200,000 individuals, and he gives as the total cost of the particular amendment before the committee some $14 million by way of estimate. I suggest that if 200,000 people are going to benefit, and if any of that 200,000 are going to benefit for longer than a period of a week, it cannot possibly be done at a cost of $14 million.
Last night I was trying to make some calculations and in my own amateurish way I came to the conclusion that it could not possibly be done unless the benefits for at least 75 per cent of the individuals were to be paid for less than a week, certainly not more than a week. Perhaps before we reach the bill the minister would inquire of his officials whether or not it is possible to give more detail with regard to this particular aspect of the problem.
The reason we are interested in knowing this is not only because of the obvious one. We wonder whether or not the fact that six weeks is the period selected does not arise so much out of a desire to help a group of unemployed who need assistance as out of a statement by the Prime Minister. To me the period of six weeks is an unusual one to take. It happens to be the figure that was pulled out of the air by the Prime Minister during the election when he was speaking in the city of Winnipeg and I wondered about it at that time. Knowing the Prime Minister's desire to give the impression that all of his promises are being fulfilled, it would not surprise me-and I am not now charging the

minister with this-one bit if the figure of six weeks was a figure selected not by the commission itself or not recommended by the minister, but selected arbitrarily by the Queen's first minister so that he could at some later date say, "Here again I have carried out my promise". I do not know whether that is so but it is a form of speculation in which I think the minister will acknowledge we on this side of the house, particularly at this stage of the new parliament, are entitled to indulge.
I mentioned to the minister earlier that there would be great disappointment if the extension of these benefits did not include those whose benefits run out prior to May 17.


Michael Starr: It cannot.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister has indicated that it will not include them. I can only say that will mean that a very considerable number of people in this country, potential beneficiaries, will receive this information with the greatest regret. It certainly does not jibe-as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate indicated-with the promises made by the Prime Minister during the election. I have in my hand an unrevised book which contains the statements and promises made by the Prime Minister, not in the election of 1957 but in the election of 1958. I find, not from the Toronto Star but from an equally responsible newspaper, the Brantford Expositor, that the Prime Minister is reported on February 17 as saying:
Like Mr. Pearson, the Prime Minister said he does not regard the unemployed as mere statistics. He knew how grim unemployment was from personal experience.
"The humblest of our people will not be forgotten," he promised. "The people who are unemployed will not be put in the false position of being put on relief".
I ask the minister, is this particular measure a fulfilment of that promise? No one is going to be given relief; no one is going to be given the dole. I will see to it that you get jobs. That was the statement of the Prime Minister. Then, the next day, February 18, in a telecast made to the nation, the Prime Minister said:
Unemployment reached a postwar record of 520,000 in mid-January.
By the way, that was an understatement.
As long as I am Prime Minister of Canads everything that can be done-everything without regard to limit-will be done to the end that no one will suffer.
I am sure that the Prime Minister meant that. No human being wants to do anything that will cause others to suffer. But I ask the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact that a very substantial number of recipients of benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, whose benefits will run out before

May 17, will not be included in this measure, can it be said that this proposal is consistent with the assurances or the promises given by the Prime Minister to the people of Canada during the course of the election? I think that no one can confidently argue that that is so.
Then, on February 27, as reported in the Patriot of Charlottetown, the Prime Minister said:
I make this promise. We acted. My pledge is to every man and woman in this nation who is unemployed-so long as I am Prime Minister no one will be allowed to suffer in this nation.
I say to him that in those provinces where there is no public assistance measure and in the municipalities where there are no relief measures, or in provinces that have no relief measures and where they will not profit from this measure there will be people who will suffer. I know of people in my own constituency who will not qualify under this amendment and who will suffer and who will, as a result, not receive the kind of assistance which this measure seeks to provide. I say that in that particular the Prime Minister's promise to the people of Canada is not being fulfilled by this resolution. Then he said in Chatham, near my own city of Windsor, on March 5, as reported in the Chatham News:
But I say to them, unemployment is less today than in 1953, 1954 and 1955 . . .
That was not, of course, an accurate statement.
I know the needs of the humble . . . and as long as I am in power no person is going to suffer because of the inaction of the government.
These are some of the statements and there are many others. I say to the minister as a member of the government-I am not directing these remarks to the minister because he did not make these statements but through him to the Prime Minister-that this measure and any program of the government now known to the house or the Canadian people do not fulfil the promises made to the Canadian people by the Prime Minister of this country.
I suggest furthermore that instead of 200,000 people benefiting for a period of over 8 days there will be less than 40,000. I suggest that my hon. friend ascertain during the dinner hour before the bill is reached whether or not that calculation is not a more correct one.
I want to deal with something that was said by the hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon. member for Timmins. I think what they said was constructive and it was important that it should be said. This particular assistance is being provided out of the unemployment insurance fund, a fund now roughly
Unemployment Insurance $742 million, I think, a fund contributed to basically by the employee and employer groups of our country with a lesser contribution by the taxpayers of Canada generally. All groups are rather proud of the actuarial position of the fund. They are proud of the fact that this is something to which individuals have contributed themselves, something with regard to which they deserve the right of beneficial treatment as a result of their own contributions and hard work.
What are we doing? We are taking out of the fund moneys for the benefit not only of those who have contributed but for many who have not contributed to the fund, and the argument made by the two hon. members to whom I have referred is that this is a responsibility that should be borne not by two groups of the population but by the taxpayers generally.


Michael Starr: I wonder whether the hon. member would clarify his statement that the fund will be beneficial to those who have not contributed to it, that people will derive benefit from the fund who have not contributed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad my hon. friend has corrected me. He is quite right, but people will benefit from the fund who have not contributed in equal measure. That is what I meant to say and that is important.
Mr. Pallet!: Which is quite different.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not quite different as I am going to show if the hon. member will just be patient. What will happen is this. This is the third time we have resorted to this particularly extraordinary means of dealing with the fund apart from the main provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is conceivable that we could have an abnormal unemployment situation year after year and that together with other intrusions on the fund the result might be that it might get down to a couple of hundred million dollars, let us say.
At that point the Minister of Finance will have to give consideration to replenishing the fund and I am sure if that time arrives there will also be a disposition to increase the contributions of employers and employees. I say that if that kind of situation eventuated it might be unfair to these two main contributing groups.
The minister may say that it was the government of the Liberal party that introduced the principle of seasonal benefits. That is true but when we did so we provided for grants made out of the consolidated revenue fund. We replenished the fund. We amended the act in 1950 to provide for the payment of supplementary benefits during the period January 1 to March 31. There were four classes

Unemployment Insurance to be covered, as I indicated yesterday, and two of those groups were covered by direct contributions of one cent each that were imposed on them to take care of the moneys being provided by that particular amendment.
With regard to the two other classes, and I need not give the details of their character, the minister of finance was authorized to transfer from the consolidated revenue fund a corresponding amount so that in no way was there any impairment of the unemployment insurance fund. That was likewise done when in 1955 the then government of the day brought in further supplementary benefits, and when Newfoundland entered confederation the unemployment insurance commission administered an unemployment assistance scheme that was financed out of the consolidated fund. That was what was done by the previous administration with regard to this measure and as a result of the steps they took the integrity of the fund was maintained.
Last year the seasonal benefit period was extended so that it commenced on December 1 and ended today and, of course, is now being extended to June 28. In addition, my hon. friend proposes a change in the formula for calculating the duration of benefit. The formula was one week of benefit for two weekly contributions. The formula now is five weeks of benefit for every six weekly contributions. The 1957 amendment made no provision for additional revenue to the fund to meet the cost of the new formula and the extended period.
My hon. friend estimates today that the amount of money involved in his proposal will come to $14 million. I have suggested that it could conceivably come to $25 million or $35 million if a substantial number are going to benefit for over a seven or eight day period. Last year the amount of the expenditure was, I think, $31 million. Whatever it was, it was a considerable sum of money. In any event, that was taken out of the fund and the government has taken no steps to replenish it.
It is clear that at some date this or some other government, in the event of depletion of the fund to a substantial degree, will have to take steps, but what I am pointing out is that at that time there will be a disposition to impose upon the two main contributing groups a further obligation and if the situation is as I am now describing I do not think that would be fair to them.
We have on the statute books now a measure that was designed for this very situation. We have a public assistance act which was introduced by the previous administration. That legislation was introduced so as

to impose the burden upon all the people of Canada and not only upon a limited number because the responsibility for maintaining those who need this assistance is a responsibility that does not belong to the unemployment insurance fund per se. It is an obligation that belongs to all of us and the principle behind the public assistance act was to do that very thing.
I know that the Minister of Labour has a very good answer, an answer which I would give myself if I were sitting in his seat, namely, that under that act as amended last year by the previous administration by removing the threshold it is up to the province to set the amount of assistance. At the present time no province pays assistance by way of relief to the level provided for under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Therefore I agree with the minister that in order to give the maximum measure of assistance to those who need it he is quite justified at this time in the circumstances, faced with the emergency, in using the unemployment insurance fund, but I say that at some time he should take steps to replenish it, if not now.
Then I say further that, having in mind the opportunity now at his disposal, he should take steps in negotiation with the provinces to see that they accept their responsibility in connection with this matter. I am sure that, for instance, in Ontario the reason why the public assistance act is not being used-I fully agree with the minister; and I know this because I heard the premier of Ontario say it when we were discussing this very matter in another room in this building-is that the government of Ontario did not want to pay relief payments that were at the same level as the unemployment insurance benefits. I say that it should be the objective of the Minister of Labour and of this government, in negotiation now with governments that are so friendly to them, to see that they increase their payments under the public assistance act to a level that will warrant on future occasions for these particular purposes the use of public assistance rather than the unemployment insurance fund.
But in any event, now that the minister has no other alternative but to use this measure, I say to him that the government at the same time should have taken steps to replenish the unemployment insurance fund to the extent that it was intruded on last year and to the extent that this year it proposes to intrude on that fund. It may be that the contemplated amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act will go in part toward that objective; I do not know. The minister may at some time perhaps indicate to us, if he can, what particular amendments

he has in mind, if the story is true that he does have in mind further amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. But if the minister does not accept the suggestion that the fund should now be replenished and if he does not want to follow the practice which was pursued by the previous administration in this particular, I hope that the minister will at least say to us, as was suggested to him by the former member for Coast-Capilano last year, that at least very careful consideration should be given by the government and particularly by the Minister of Labour to the position of the fund in the light of this very serious situation that now confronts us and in the light of the possible situation which could eventuate on another occasion.
I think that the points made by the hon. member for Timiskaming, the hon. member for Timmins and others, particularly with regard to the fund, deserve support. It is for this reason that I have spoken about that matter perhaps longer than I should have spoken. But I say to the minister now before I take my seat that our position is this. We welcome this measure to the extent that it goes. We feel that it is not fair to give the impression that it goes farther than the general statement in the speech from the throne indicates. But above all, we take this opportunity of reminding the government of their own assurances to the people of Canada, of the pledges they made in the course of the last federal election campaign as a result of which they were accorded the largest majority ever given a political party in this parliament. The government has a very heavy responsibility. The only way in which it can be adequately discharged or honourably met is by the government giving leadership and really doing something to provide work, as it said it would, for the almost 600,000 men and women in this country who are now at this period without work. That is a responsibility that rests on the shoulders of the government. No majority, no amount of debate will excuse this administration from the need of facing up to that responsibility not at the next session but at this present session of parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to rise very briefly in order to ask the minister another couple of questions about his statistics. I did a little bit of arithmetic while my friend the hon. member for Essex East was speaking. I will put this very slowly because I do not want to misrepresent what the minister said. If I understood correctly what the minister said, it was that there were approximately 373,000 persons who at one
Unemployment Insurance time or another up to April 30 had been entitled to receive unemployment insurance seasonal benefits. He said that approximately 90 per cent of that number was still receiving that on April 30.


Michael Starr: There were 226,000 receiving seasonal benefits who were claimants on April 30.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, 226,000 on April 30. The figure I used in arriving at the 90 per cent was 336,000, and I just could not believe that the minister thought the number was going to drop from 336,000 to 200,000 between April 30 and May 15, so I am very glad indeed to have that explanation. In other words, on April 30-that is two weeks ago-[DOT] there were 226,000 persons receiving seasonal benefits and the minister says he anticipates that 200,000 will receive benefits under the legislation he is now proposing. To put it another way, there are about 26,000 he thinks, who have gone off for one reason or another or who will have gone off by tonight.


Michael Starr: If I might explain, it is
estimated that 25,000 of the 226,000 will go off the rolls before May 18, leaving 201,000. It is further estimated by the department that they will go off at the rate of 32,000 a week until 41,000 will remain after June 20.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Forty-one thousand?


Michael Starr: Forty-one thousand-the average rate of benefit is estimated at $20 per week.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the minister for that information; it is the information I was seeking.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I have another question I would like clarified and perhaps the minister could give us the answer after the recess if he cannot give it now.
He mentioned earlier that there was a drop of 120,000 in the registration of unemployed persons during the last month. Could the minister give us the exact dates to which he was referring and at the same time, if he has them, could he give us the total figure of unemployed released by the dominion bureau of statistics for similar dates?


Michael Starr: No, Mr. Chairman, I have not the dominion bureau of statistics figures for similar dates. These are the national registration figures as of May 1, 1958 and they show the total in Canada as 758,028. From March 13, when the seasonal high point was reached, to May 1, the total has decreased by 128,757, as compared with the decrease of 123,136 which occurred in the corresponding period of last year. That is what I referred to when I said that the rate in that period between those dates was more accelerated than it was in the year before.
114	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister perhaps give us the percentage of the drop in both cases?


Michael Starr: I do not have them. (Translation):


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, representing as I do a constituency where most of the electors belong to the working class I feel it is my duty-a pleasant duty, by the way-to thank the government for bringing in this legislation which will certainly be of benefit to all these workers who now find themselves in very unfortunate circumstances through the lack of foresight of our predecessors.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a constituency which, unfortunately, was not too well treated by the previous administration and if my electors have chosen me to represent them here it is because they have recognized that the government in power at this time has, on occasion, managed to provide for the immediate needs of the working people.
While I do not wish to impinge in any way upon the rights of the opposition, may I point out at this time that it is not by holding up the passage of emergency measures designed to help workers that we can help them.
During the last campaign, to which our friends made reference some time ago, they proclaimed themselves, on various occasions, to be the friends of the worker. Moreover, I listened to certain Liberal members refer to the words of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker): "I will see that you get jobs."
We are proud of those words of the Prime Minister since it is not the Conservative party, to which I belong, that left the working people of this country in straitened circumstances. On the contrary it is our opponents who, through their lack of foresight, are responsible for the situation. I am sure that the amendments brought in by the government will really help the worker, who is bound to appreciate that help, a help which will be all to the credit of the government that -concerned itself with the workers' problems.
Mr. Chairman, I trust you will forgive my nervousness. I hope to be able to overcome it in time, and I ask my colleagues' indulgence.
I have been elected here to represent workers and I intend to defend their rights and to support emergency legislation which will bring relief to those who, unfortunately, were all too long neglected by our friends in the previous administration.
(Text):
Resolution reported and concurred in.


Mr. Starr thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-9, to provide for the temporary extension of the seasonal benefit periods under the Unemployment Insurance Act for a six weeks period, from May 18, 1958, to June 28, 1958.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Michael Starr: the second reading of the bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the bill has had general distribution.


Michael Starr: I made copies of the bill available, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and the leader of the C.C.F. party.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. My hon. friend was kind enough to pass one on.


Michael Starr: But there has not been general distribution.


Lionel Chevrier: Are there not extra copies?


Mr. Speaker:: I am informed that there are not copies available for general distribution. I have put the motion for second reading.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think it would be most unusual, Mr. Speaker, to proceed without having a copy of the bill before every member. I have had an opportunity of seeing it but there are many others who are interested. What is the reason for the delay; can we not get the bill within a few minutes?


Michael Starr: I am very sorry about this, Mr. Speaker; I took it for granted that the bill would be made available.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not my hon. friend's fault.


Michael Starr: Yesterday or the day before I made a few copies available to the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. party. If a few more bills can be made available and my hon. friends feel they should be made available before we go on to second reading I will certainly do my best to provide them.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion which perhaps might be helpful. If the minister and, of course, the house leader would agree, perhaps we might go on with the housing resolution now and the minister might have the bill on unemployment benefits available so that at eight o'clock we could return to consideration of his bill.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we would be very glad to do that. There may be this difficulty: the printed bills, copies of which have been given to the leaders of the opposition parties, are not printed in large numbers and you will notice that there is a blank for the date of the first reading.

Unemployment Insurance


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would suggest Mr. Slarr: I am not of the same opinion that they could probably be obtained during because I do not know what the circumstances the course of the evening.	may be or what might happen.


Howard Charles Green: It might be possible to get them later this evening but I doubt whether very many have been printed as yet.


Murdo William Martin: I think if you would give instructions right now to the printing bureau they could do that before eight o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: We will do our best.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if hon. members would consider passing second reading. It is a debate on principle and I take it that the principle of the bill has been discussed, and then defer the committee stage until after recess.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, without wanting to hinder the progress of the house in any way I think, with your approval, we would prefer to suspend the debate or to move an adjournment of the debate and proceed with second reading later.


Harold Edward Winch: May I just say, Mr. Speaker, that to some extent we in this group agree with what has been said for we have in the past been somewhat upset by the fact that there were so few of the printed bills available on occasions of this nature.
I feel certain, however, that I am safe in saying as far as our group is concerned we understand from the bill what is its intent. We have had a very full opportunity of making our opinions known at the resolution stage. We feel accordingly that there is no requirement or necessity under the circumstances for discussion on second reading of the bill even though we have not all had the bill in front of us.
We in this group are most anxious, having had our say very fully in the resolution stage, that the bill be accepted as speedily as possible in order that-although not as many as we would like will receive the benefits of the bill-as many people as possible will do so without delay.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I just say I fully agree with what has just been said and I share the desire of the hon. member that there should be no delay in the passage of this bill.
I feel sure, however, the hon. minister would confirm that if we did wait until eight [DOT]o'clock and if the bill is then passed there would be nothing lost.


Michael Starr: I do not know.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister explain?
57071-3-Si


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely the minister could be a little more precise than that. If we have the bill and we pass it, say at nine o'clock, there would be as much advantage from that procedure as if the bill were passed at this time. Is that not right?


Michael Starr: I did not quite follow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am saying that in view of what the hon. member who has just spoken said, and in view of the fact that we concur in the desirability of putting through this measure at the earliest possible moment, notwithstanding its limitations, and, having asked for a copy of the bill, which is certainly not an unusual request, no disadvantage or loss will occur by postponing our deliberations on second reading until eight o'clock. Is that not the situation?


Michael Starr: I do not know, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt to say that the Clerk informs me that between 20 and 25 copies of the bill could be distributed now if that would meet the problem.


Harold Edward Winch: May I, through you, Mr. Speaker, ask the leader of the house, the hon. Minister of Labour and perhaps, the hon. member who has just spoken whether anything would be lost if, in the light of the full discussion we had on the resolution, the bill were now passed through second reading and as many copies as possible made available during the committee stage when we reconvene later.


Michael Starr: I understand that there are 25 copies available. Are any more necessary to go round?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us distribute the bill and let each hon. member look at it.


Michael Starr: It would mean printing 265 copies of the bill and I do not know whether that could be done tonight.


Lionel Chevrier: May I repeat the suggestion I made earlier that pending the distribution of these 25 copies and the time it takes for hon. members to look at the bill we might proceed with the resolution on housing so that no time would be lost.


Howard Charles Green: That is very good, Mr. Speaker, but I hope I am not going to encounter the same problem on my housing bill, because there are probably only 25 copies of that available.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If you do as
well as the Minister of Labour you will be doing fine.

National Housing Act


Mr. Bourque:: As a printer, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why we cannot print 265 copies if we are able to print 25. The presses run at about 5,000 copies an hour and it only takes five minutes longer to print the extra copies.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it by the unanimous consent of this house that second reading of this bill be taken later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Howard Charles Green: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to increase from four hundred million dollars to seven hundred and fifty million dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this resolution sets out practically word for word the actual bill which will be brought before the house. It deals only with one section of the National Housing Act, namely section 22 which is the section that provides for advances out of the consolidated revenue fund for the payment of certain loans.
The purposes for which this money has been used in the past are as follows: in the first place, it was used for making direct loans in the smaller centres of Canada, direct loans by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corpo-ation. In addition, it was used for what is called the limited dividend plan, that is, in assistance to the financing of the undertakings of companies which build low rental dwellings for old people and for low income families. A third use to which the money provided under this section has been put was to finance the building of rental housing for workers in primary industries; in the mining industry for example, in forest industries and other primary industries.
Under the act as it was originally passed in 1954 there was a total sum provided under this section of $250 million. When we took office last summer there had been spent for these three purposes I have mentioned, namely direct loans in small centres, financing of limited dividend corporations and advances for housing in primary industries, approximately $100 million so that there remained available under this section of the act about $150 million. This was the position in the summer of 1957; $150 million available for housing under this section.

We had not been in office very long before we found that there was a rapid falling off in housing construction across Canada. Lending institutions were advancing money reluctantly because of the tight money policy then in effect and this tight money policy was hitting the building industry harder than any other industry in the country. It was fairly easy to get a loan for an expensive home but it was very hard to get one for a small home. At the same time there was a great demand for smaller homes by young people wishing to buy their first home and by older people with modest incomes. It therefore appeared to us at that time that there was a great need for homes of this kind. Also, we began to see this dark cloud of winter unemployment coming up over the horizon.
For these various reasons the government adopted what we have called a small homes loan policy. We decided to take this $150 million which was available under the existing legislation and use it for lending out for the construction of small homes. We put a limit on the size of the homes; 1050 square feet was the maximum for a three-bedroom home, for instance. We found that this was the only fair way to impose a limitation because if we put a limit by way of money value then in some of the centres of Canada it would have been impossible for anybody to qualify. We also limited to 25 the number of loans that any one builder could get in order to spread the work out across the country and among various builders.
We made an agreement with the lending institutions of Canada, including the banks that they would act as our agents in the placing of these loans for what we considered was a reasonable fee. This meant we could get action quickly. They were in the lending business and we considered that the fastest way to get small homes under construction was to put out these loans under this agency plan.
When we adopted the plan we were uncertain that it would be a success. After all, we were very green in government but of more importance we were not quite sure we had found the right solution. However, we had splendid advice from the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and also from the lending institutions. We try to discuss these things frankly with the people in the business whose main function is to provide funds for the construction of homes and that has been our approach throughout.
The results of this policy have been extremely gratifying to the government and I think to all hon. members of the house. By the time November had rolled around we

found that the $150 million was rapidly being depleted. I would remind hon. members it had to be used as well for direct loans in the smaller centres and for the limited dividend corporations. We did not try to expand the loans for housing projects in the primary industries and that was a very small part of the business in any event.
Last December the members of that parliament were good enough to put through a bill increasing to $400 million the total amount available under this section. That meant an addition of $150 million. At the time we asked for this increase we also changed the down payments, the idea being that this would mean people with lower incomes, a group that had not been able formerly to take advantage of the plan, would derive benefit under the scheme. In addition to reducing down payments we increased the proportion of a person's income that could be spent on housing when the application for loan was being considered. I believe it was increased from 23 per cent of a person's income to 27 per cent. The decision with regard to this proportion, of course, really rests with the lending institutions some of which I believe are still working on the 23 per cent basis. One other provision was that work had to be commenced within a certain number of days. This restriction was imposed in order to get work under way during the winter months.
The plan continued to go well throughout the winter. Loans continued to go out and starts were made on new houses and finally we reached the position early in March when we had to stop putting out loans for the construction of rental apartments. About 20 per cent of the money had been used for financing small apartments although the main purpose was the construction of small homes. About a month ago the balance remaining became so small we also had to stop the loans for small homes. The loans for limited dividend corporations as well as direct loans in the smaller centres also increased in that period.
When we suspended the plan we had many applications in the offices of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Applications came in very rapidly in April. I sometimes wonder whether some applications made under this agency plan should not really have been made under the ordinary National Housing Act insured loan. Be that as it may, when we were running out of money we went to the lending institutions and the banks and stated the problem. We explained that many people wanted to build small homes and requested them to take on the applications in order that no hardship would result and there would be no delay in the construction of homes in Canada. The institutions have responded very
National Housing Act
well and over 75 per cent of the applications with which we were unable to deal last month have been taken up by the lending institutions.
Perhaps hon. members would be interested in the figures which will illustrate what has happened to the $400 million fund. I have figures here as of May 9. Under the agency loan plan-that is, our small homes loan plan-$256,485,766 had been put out. Every cent of that sum has been put out since last August. I sometimes think when the opposition grow very critical of the government for doing nothing to provide employment during the winter they tend to forget that not one cent of this $256 million-odd would have been spent if it had not been for this small homes loan plan.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister should not anticipate what is going to be said.


Howard Charles Green: I am not anticipating, I am just remembering what has already been said.


Lionel Chevrier: Not in this debate.


Howard Charles Green: It was said this afternoon that we were doing nothing about unemployment, that we had not provided any work and that we were sitting in our seats letting the world go by and all that sort of thing.
By the way, I would be interested to hear any member of the opposition say that this small home loan plan has not meant direct employment in Canada in winter of at least 100,000 Canadians building houses for young Canadians, strengthening the foundations on which this nation rests. We are rather proud of this small homes loan plan, as the hon. member for Laurier will, I am sure, understand. For direct loans in small centres-mind you some of this had been advanced before last autumn; this is not since last August- $59,051,214; to limited dividend corporations, $70,193,114; and for housing projects and primary industries, $6,343,519. Therefore, there was a total of $392,073,614 used up, leaving something less than $8 million in the fund.


Lionel Chevrier: May I get the amount for the direct loans to small centres?


Howard Charles Green: The amount is $59,051,214.
The number of units covered by this small home loan plan is 26,241. As of April 30 there had been starts-that is, houses actually under construction under this plan-of 20,675, and 1,722 of the small houses and apartment units had been completed.
It is interesting to see the difference in the group of people who have been helped by this

National Housing Act
small home loan plan. I have here a table which I should like to place in Hansard. The table follows:



CHARACTERISTICS OF AGENCY AND NONAGENCY NHA LOANS. 1957

[Stage Direction]
Single Family Dwellings Only Fourth Quarter, 1S57
Non-	Per Cent
Agency Agency Difference
Average estimated cost of single family		
dwellings 	$15,146 $13,192	13%Floor area/sq. ft	1,199 1,048	13%Average construction	cost sq. ft	10.38 10.23	1.5%Down payment	(approx.) 	$ 3,746 $ 2,692	28%Single Family Dwellings	(Full Year 1957)	Per cent ol Applicants	Applicant's Income	Non-Agency	AgencyUnder 2,000 	-	-2,000-2,999 	. 0.1	0.13,000-3,999 	. 6.0	11.34,000-4,999 	. 29.1	46.35,000-5,999 	. 27.7	25.86,000-6,999 	. 16.9	9.57,000-7,999 	. 8.7	3.98,000-8,999 	. 4.6	1.39,000-9,999 	. 2.2	0.510,000 and over 	. 4.7	1.3Total 	. 100.0	100.0
Hon. members will appreciate that quite outside this small homes loan plan there are the regular N.H.A. housing loans. For the fourth quarter of last year the average estimated cost of a single family dwelling under the non-agency plan-that is, under the regular N.H.A. plan-was $15,146. Under the agency plan it was $13,192, or a cut of 13 per cent.
I come now to down payments. Under the agency plan these were approximately $2,692, and under the non-agency plan $3,746, a difference of 28 per cent.
I shall now deal with the figures for the income of the applicants for those loans; they are also interesting. Under the non-agency plan there were .1 per cent under $3,000 and the same per cent, by the way, under the small home plan; under $4,000, six per cent under the non-agency plan, and 11.3 per cent under the agency plan; under $5,000, 29.1 per cent under the non-agency plan and 46.3 per cent under the agency plan. We have got these benefits down to a lower income group. I am not maintaining this afternoon that it is yet down as far as I would like to see it go, but we have succeeded in extending those benefits down to a much lower income group than is the case under the regular National Housing Act loans.
This brings me to our present request. We are asking for an additional $350 million.

That will bring the total amount under section 22 to $750 million. This money will have to be used for the direct loans in small centres which are of great importance. We do not intend to have those Canadians who live in small centres by-passed in our governmental housing policy. Then, it will also have to provide for financing limited dividend corporations. We have done, and we shall continue to do, everything possible to encourage those limited dividend corporations. This is the plan under which a service club or a church may form a corporation to build houses for senior citizens. We think that these undertakings are of great benefit to the nation, and we shall give them every possible assistance.
It will also have to provide for continuation of the small homes loan plan which the government initiated last summer. We have as our objective the helping of young Canadians to build houses, the idea being to do everything possible to help Canadians to own their own houses; also to provide employment. I doubt whether there is any way in which jobs can be furnished more quickly than in housing, not only jobs for the men who do the work but also for the men and the women who make the furniture and all the other articles that go into a house and in the development of land, and so on. This particular activity in our country involves a great many jobs.
We do not aim to become the main source for housing money. The view of the government is that the bulk of money for housebuilding should be provided by the private lenders. It is hoped this year that there will be 140,000 housing starts in Canada. That will be a record. I think the nearest was about 137,000. As of today it looks as though that objective will be reached, by the way, in spite of all the hard-times talk we sometimes hear from-well, I will not say whom. I do not want to make any trouble for myself in getting the bill through the house.
John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is learning wisdom.


Howard Charles Green: I am being very polite.


Lionel Chevrier: He does not want to hold up his own resolution.


Howard Charles Green: One hundred and forty thousand starts and an average loan of $10,000 mean $1,400 million to be found by somebody for building these houses. Quite frankly, we are not in the business to that extent and I do not think any government in Canada could or should be. So I repeat that we believe the bulk of the money for housebuilding should be provided by the private

lenders. Our intention is that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should act only in a residual capacity, in other words, to make available the facilities of the National Housing Act to all qualified applicants when loans cannot be obtained from the approved lenders.
The extent to which the corporation will draw on the proposed additional funds will, of course, depend largely upon the participation of the private lenders and, as I intimated a few moments ago, I am very glad to say that in recent weeks the private lenders have been playing a more active role in the market. During the first 18 weeks of 1958 approved lenders made insured loans-these are ordinary N.H.A. loans quite apart from the small home loans-for almost twice the number of units as in 1957, the figures being 11,775 as against 6,054 last year.


Mr. Garland:: Will the minister permit a question? Can he suggest why that was so?


Howard Charles Green: I think one reason is that whereas last summer the housebuilding industry was heading for a real slump, when the small homes loan plan was initiated and we set out deliberately to encourage housebuilding across Canada the builders of Canada and the lending institutions, including the banks, caught the vision.


John Richard Garland: I expected an answer to my question.


Howard Charles Green: There was not much vision anywhere before June 10 of last year. I had better be careful. However, there has been a spirit of optimism in the housebuilding industry of Canada ever since. I hope it will continue. Mind you, if it should appear that people are no longer ready to buy small homes then we will have to change our policy accordingly. It may be that some other type of building will have to be fostered, but I am sure the hon. member for Nipissing will admit that there is a very good spirit across the country today so far as housebuilding is concerned. It has been one of the bright spots and we aim to keep it that way because we think it is of tremendous importance to the very fabric of the nation.
I would ask that the house approve the resolution. I hesitate to ask that the bill be put through more than one stage in the one day. I only do so because at the moment we are right out of business and we wish to have this money available so that there will not be a falling away. At one time the government thought of providing the money without waiting for parliament and we probably could have done so but we are genuinely concerned about any whittling away of the rights of parliament, particularly where the division
National Housing Act
of parties is so unequal. I am sure that members opposite will give us credit for doing a lot of worrying about that situation. We decided that it would be far wiser to delay for the few intervening weeks and place the issue squarely before parliament and get parliamentary sanction before we expended any further funds.
The members of the other place, at least a small part of them, are waiting with a good deal of impatience, I imagine, for the measure which was under debate prior to this one and the amendment to the National Housing Act so that they can be passed this week. I am hoping we can get this measure through quickly. An opportunity will be given to discuss the whole housing policy at an early date, probably on the estimates. We are very anxious to have suggestions. We do not pretend to have all the answers on this matter and we will provide an opportunity for such a discussion.


Mr. Badanai:: May I ask the minister whether money will be available for housing in villages and other small communities? Up to the present it has been impossible for anyone living in a small village to obtain a loan. We have cases in my constituency of small communities where people have been unable to obtain loans notwithstanding the great efforts made by them.


Howard Charles Green: This comes under the direct lending activities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. My understanding is that this money is supposed to be available for the smaller centres.
Finally, may I repeat the offer we made last year that if members of the two parties in opposition wish to undertake a study of housing activities all the facilities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be made available to them just as they are available to members of the government party. Last year we had a committee of our own members making a study of housing problems and we believe it would be very beneficial for as many private members as possible to acquaint themselves fully with these problems.


Mr. Cresiohl:: Will the minister answer a question? Can the minister tell us what yardstick was used to gauge the sufficiency of the additional $350 million?


Howard Charles Green: I do not want to give away any trade secrets but we are hoping that this amount will be sufficient certainly until another parliament meets.


Leon David Crestohl: Is it purely a guess or an estimate or was it gauged by some system of estimating the sufficiency of the amount?

Unemployment Insurance Mr. Green: We considered what amount we thought would be required and this was the conclusion reached. Of course we cannot be sure but we believe this amount will be adequate. At the same time we have to convince the Department of Finance that we are not asking for more than we really need. The hon. member will know that this is another consideration which has to be borne in mind because there are many other ways to spend the money.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Lionel Chevrier: I understood, Mr. Chairman, that at eight o'clock we would resume the discussion of the extension to unemployment insurance benefits in order that the legislation might go to the other house and be disposed of this evening. However, I am ready to proceed if need be.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: We shall await the arrival of the leader of the house.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I understand that copies of the bill amending the Unemployment Insurance Act are now available for distribution. Accordingly I move that the committee rise, report progress on the housing resolution and ask leave to sit again later this day.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Starr for the second reading of Bill No. C-9, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent Mr. Starr, seconded by Mr. Green, moves that the bill entitled an act for the temporary extension of seasonal benefit periods under the Unemployment Insurance Act be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.

On clause 2-Act not applicable in certain cases.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but when you called clause 2 I was looking at section 50 and I was also thinking of subsection 2. If I may, I should like to ask the minister about it. I take it that subsection 2 of section 1 simply means that the waiting period of a week is waived.


Michael Starr: That is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At first glance one would think that a person did not qualify who established benefit periods on or after May 18. It is simply a waiver?


Michael Starr: That is right. In other words when the seasonal benefit period starts on December 1 there is a waiting period of one week. In this case because of the extension of time we have waived that waiting period.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one question I should like to put to the minister. I understood him to say, in reply I think to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, that this extension would apply also to unemployment insurance for fishermen. I was wondering whether there was any restriction other than that in the bill. Does it mean that if fishermen cannot fish, even though it is a period when there is normal fishing in that area, he would still be entitled to benefit?


Michael Starr: The fisherman is in the same category during this period as he was at December 1. If he has sufficient contributions to qualify him for the seasonal benefits on or after May 18, he will be entitled to them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I was trying to get at was this. Apparently I did not express myself very well. What is the criterion of unemployment? Is it the same as it would be in winter. In winter in most of these areas everyone knows the fishermen cannot fish, whereas in the summer it is normal to fish. I was wondering just how that would work out.


Michael Starr: I do not know when the fishing season starts on the Newfoundland coast or in Vancouver. Of course that will be determined in the same way. A person must be available for work in order to receive unemployment insurance benefits. It will apply just in the same way to fishermen.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Are we on clause 2?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Yes.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: If we are on clause 2, may I point out that it reads as follows:
This act does not apply to a person who on or after the 1st day of December, 1957, under the Unemployment Insurance Act as in force prior to

the coming into force of this act, established a seasonal benefit period that terminated on or before the 17th day of May, 1958 because he exhausted his benefit rights with respect thereto.
Can the minister tell us what was the total number of employees who applied for unemployment insurance benefits on or after the 1st day of December, 1957 and whose benefit had expired before May 17?


Michael Starr: I am afraid I cannot say at this moment. I could supply this information to the hon. member after getting in touch with the department in order to get these figures. But I have not these figures available at the moment.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: These figures are quite important. We have to take into consideration the statement which the minister made yesterday. I think we will all agree that quite a large percentage-maybe the largest percentage-of those who applied or who qualified for seasonal benefits had their period expire before May 15 because they had exhausted their unemployment insurance stamps. In concluding his remarks yesterday when he introduced the resolution, the minister used these words as reported at page 86 of Hansard:
It is, in fact, a re-affirmation of an aim we have often enunciated, namely that Canadian workers shall not suffer hardships because of unemployment that occurs through no fault of their own.
I want to stress the point to the minister that all those who have exhausted their seasonal benefit period before May 17 are now unemployed through no fault of their own. I think they have just as much right to be looked after as have those who will come under this bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We seem to be on clause 2 but I am still a little bit confused because of the enumeration of the section. I had in mind the implications of the first clause on the back page which is section 52 of the present act, with the amendment provided, and that amendment provides that there shall be only one period between December 1, 1957 and June 28, 1958. That seems to be very restricted, having in mind the purpose of this legislation. It certainly will discourage anyone who has had seasonal benefits and who might be offered temporary work. It will certainly discourage such a person from taking temporary work if he knows that once he goes off seasonal benefits before June 28 he cannot qualify for seasonal benefits again. That is clearly one of the results of this clause and it restricts the number of individuals who could qualify under this amendment.
Unemployment Insurance


Michael Starr: The basic qualification for receiving unemployment insurance benefits is that one must be available for work. Unless he is available, he is unable to receive seasonal benefits.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course I agree with that. A person who receives unemployment insurance must be prepared to take work if it is offered to him. But my point is this. In the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act by the local offices, no matter how much they may try, in the case of temporary jobs it is not always possible to give full effect to the directive my hon. friend has just mentioned.
In any event, assuming that a man has had seasonal benefits and assuming that a temporary job is offered to him, which he must take, having taken that job he then cannot qualify -if he needs to do so-for a seasonal allowance between the period when his temporary job has ceased and June 28. I say that on that account this section is quite restrictive even though he may still have stamps and even though his credits may not have run out. Is that not the situation?


Michael Starr: I am not certain about that, but I will endeavour to get the answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can quite understand that perhaps the minister would not have the answer at his finger tips but the difficulty is that if there is any validity in my point the rectification will come too late because, as I understand it, the government hopes to send this measure to the other place tonight.


Michael Starr: We will have the answer before the house passes the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister has had the opportunity since we were in committee on the resolution of ascertaining the figure for which I asked this afternoon and which he did not then have. That is to say, the number of persons in the province of Newfoundland who on April 30 were receiving benefits?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I have not been able to get those figures because they are not available. I have checked and I am afraid my answer must be the same as I gave earlier, that they are not available at our office at this moment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not for a moment wish to hold up the measure on account of this statistic because, as I said this afternoon, even if this measure was going to benefit only a very few people we would still have no intention of opposing it, but I wonder if the minister could undertake to give us the figure as soon as it is available or can be compiled?
122	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance He gave us a figure of 226,000 across the country at April 30, if I recall correctly, and he estimated that as of today that figure would be 200,000 or 201,000; I think he estimated a 25,000 reduction. I think we in this house would all like to know the distribution by provinces. That should not be very difficult to get and if the minister would get that and make it available I am sure we would all appreciate it.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The minister said he could not supply the figure on the number of persons who had exhausted their benefit period up to date or to May 17, but would he not have available figures as to the number of persons who were receiving seasonal benefits and whose period had expired, say on April 30. These figures must be available because he has been producing all types of figures which terminated on that date.


Michael Starr: I can get those figures, but they are not available to me at this moment. They would need to be tabulated and I would need time to get them. Had I anticipated the hon. member would require this figure I would have prepared myself to give it to him.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: But the hon. minister will realize that these figures are quite important because they are so much related to his last remark made yesterday when he said that no Canadian worker should suffer hardship because of unemployment. I am sure, and I want to state again, that perhaps over 100,000 or even 150,000 workers would not be able to qualify under this measure because they have exhausted their seasonal benefit period before this amendment to the act would come into force.


Michael Starr: In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Essex East, I am informed that if a claimant who qualifies for, say 20 weeks entitlement should go to work after drawing, say 10 weeks, he will be able to again draw benefits on becoming unemployed. That is, he could go back again on benefits.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He draws under the Unemployment Insurance Act provisions but he can only draw under this amendment, surely, one seasonal benefit. If he has had the benefit it is under the act as previously amended providing for seasonal benefits. Then, having drawn those benefits, he is entitled under this section to only one seasonal benefit.


Michael Starr: The old section provided for a seasonal benefit period-at least the one that was passed last year-from December 1 to


May 15, while this one only extends it from May 18 to June 28, but the same principle will apply as applied last year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then it is clear that what I said is true. There is only one seasonal benefit; he may need another seasonal benefit and he cannot get it and on that account this clause is restrictive.
While I am on my feet I might ask a further question with regard to the final part of clause 2. It is clear that it does not include those whose benefits have already run out prior to May 17. That is quite clear and it is one of the points which the hon. member for Gloucester had in mind and it eliminates a very considerable number of persons unemployed. Before dinner I had suggested that the number might be less than the minister suggested with respect to those who would benefit under this amendment. The minister had suggested 200,000 and I know of course that he said "in part". But I suggested that the number fully benefiting would not be more than 40,000. I am now wondering if even that was not too high a figure and would it not be fair to say, having in mind the present levels of unemployment, having in mind all those who ran out of benefits prior to May 17 being excluded, and having in mind the six weeks period, that the number of individuals who would benefit under this amendment for the six weeks period would be perhaps not more than 20,000?


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, earlier, the hon. member guessed at a figure of 70,000 and then it was 40,000 and then in the space of a few minutes it dropped to 20,000. These figures which have been supplied to me on the numbers who will benefit during that period of time have been supplied by people who are well versed in these matters and who have had many years of experience so I think I would take their estimate as being fairly accurate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think the minister and I are really at cross purposes. I am not suggesting that the information given by his officials is inaccurate. I agree with him that it should be accepted because they are reliable and efficient public servants but the minister said on the basis of this information that 200,000 individuals would benefit, in part. That was the statement; not 200,000 would benefit, 200,000 would benefit in part. Before dinner I suggested that, that being the case, for the reasons I have mentioned, it might be that not more than 40,000 would benefit for the full six weeks period and, since then, I have

Unemployment Insurance
been looking over the figures and I think it Star is a very reliable newspaper and it would be more reasonable to conclude that quotes the manager of the Windsor office as 20,000 only would fully benefit.	saying 3,000 will benefit.
If the officials could give some help in this regard I would be very grateful to them, but I think it is important that we understand clearly and that the country understand clearly the full implications of this measure. They will also understand that it does some good but that it does good in a limited way and for a limited number. It is clear that it does not apply to those whose benefits run out prior to May 17, but is it clear that persons who have been able to file a claim for seasonal periods following their regular benefit period can qualify?


Michael Starr: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is no doubt
about that?


Michael Starr: There is no doubt about that. I want to say something in regard to what the hon. member said a moment ago as to his guess that only approximately 20,000 would benefit during the whole period of six weeks under the extension of this act. I am not going to argue that point because I think he is only guessing but, as a matter of fact, in the city of Windsor alone, as I am advised by our local manager, if we did extend this act for another six weeks then something like 6,000 people would be taken off the rolls. So it is going to help at least to the extent of 6,000 persons in that city alone for the next six weeks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it benefits that number in Windsor no one will be happier than one who has represented that constituency in this house for a long time and who has always had a sympathetic concern for his constituents.


Mr. Churchill:: They were not so sure of you this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were so
sure that they returned the member for Essex East for the seventh time. And I should like to say, in the spirit of comradeship which obviously pervades the Minister of Trade and Commerce at this moment, that if it had not been for "the vision" he would not be sitting here tonight.
The Minister of Labour says 6,000 will benefit. I have a statement here which appeared in the Windsor Star of this morning and which quotes the manager of the Windsor office of the unemployment insurance commission as saying that an estimated 3,000 will benefit from this extension of seasonal benefits in that area. The hon. gentleman says 6,000. I hope that is right, but the Windsor


Michael Starr: I quoted the figure 6,000 because I happened to be talking to him. I happen to be interested in the situation in Windsor and took the trouble to find out what the situation was there, and this was the figure supplied to me. In any event, I hope the hon. member for Essex East is correct and that there will not be more than 20,000 people benefiting by this measure, because we hope the number will not amount to 20,000. We hope it will be less.
I should now like to answer some of the questions which have been put to me by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Seasonal benefit periods established between December 1, 1957 and April 3, 1958 amounted, for Canada as a whole, to 373,674 and for Newfoundland to 21,395. Seasonal benefits paid in the same period amounted, for Canada, to $71,033,226 and for Newfoundland to $4,595,449. Seasonal benefit claims at local offices in all Canada on April 30, 1958 amounted to 226,870, and in Newfoundland to 15,178.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the minister very much.


Romuald Bourque: May I ask the minister a question pertaining to an unemployed person whose benefits end on May 31st? Would such a person have a seasonal benefit of four weeks or would it be six weeks, or would it end on June 28 as marked in the bill?


Michael Starr: I presume the hon. member is asking whether a person entitled to regular benefits which expired on May 31 would quality for the remaining period to June 20. The answer is yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister answered the question asked by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo? He had to leave the chamber a moment ago and he asked me to take this up for him. The question concerned any stamps that might be left over for which benefit would not have been received on June 28.


Michael Starr: I thought I gave that answer but I am not certain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister will recall that he said he was not able to give a precise answer as to whether, if a certain number of stamps were not used for benefit, they could be counted in a succeeding period.


Michael Starr: I did give an answer to the effect that the balance of entitlement which a claimant might have on June 28 lapses at that date. That is what I think the hon.

National Housing Act
member had in mind. However, some or all of the contributions which provide this entitlement may count for either regular benefit later or for seasonal benefit next year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo-and I am speaking from recollection-said:	suppose there were six
stamps which had not been used, would the claimant have to get 15 new stamps before he would have any entitlement, or only 9 before he could get entitlement for the next season.


Michael Starr: No. They lapse on June 28, so he would have to accumulate stamps from March 31, another period of contributions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He would lose the benefit of those six stamps in that case.


Michael Starr: I would not want to answer that; I am not quite certain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I admit it is a difficult
question, and I should not expect the minister to have the answer at his fingertips.


Michael Starr: I should like to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester who wanted to know how many people had exhausted benefits on April 30. I am informed that there is no record of this number until the end of the year.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Green -Mr. Sevigny in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to increase from four hundred million dollars to seven hundred and fifty million dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, together with a number of hon. members on this side of the house I have been given the responsibility of placing before the committee the viewpoint of the opposition on this matter. I confess at once that I am not an expert on housing, but because of the circumstances in which I found myself I have had to do a lot of reading in the last two days on the most interesting subject of housing. I found, much to my amusement, that I did not have at my fingertips the expert advice which I once had when I sat on the other side of the house and I recalled the words of a former member of this chamber, now in

another place, who one day stated here that it was almost like moving from a private car to an upper berth. However, I do not complain about the circumstances. In fact, in a sense I am somewhat happy because I am relieved of many responsibilities.
I recall some of the suggestions that were made to us by hon. members opposite when we sat on the right of His Honour about technical and expert assistance and I hope they will not soon forget the recommendations which they made in that respect from time to time. Although I am not an expert on housing I am convinced of one thing and it is this. We on this side of the house would like to see every Canadian own a decent home and we are prepared to co-operate with the government with respect to this measure to the degree to which it will provide that kind of housing.
The former hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount last year paid a tribute to the Minister of Public Works for the manner in which he presented the resolution he introduced at that time. I recall what a clear and lucid picture the minister gave at that time and he did the same thing shortly before six o'clock this evening and while I will not be able to commend him for everything he said I do want to commend him for the thorough manner in which he presented the resolution to the committee. I would not be fair to myself and to those who sit with me here if I were not to say he indicated in that presentation that he has a full knowledge of the subject matter which he was submitting to the committee. I thank the minister for the suggestion of co-operation on the part of his officials. He made a similar offer last year of which advantage was taken and we on this side of the house had the benefit of assistance from Dr. Bates, the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and some of his assistants and I can assure the minister that that information was of great help to us. Had it not been for the short time at our disposal I am sure we would have again availed ourselves of that similar help this year.
I should like to tell the minister that he should not be too touchy about what was said in another debate about unemployment because nothing of that sort has been said yet in this debate. I am not guaranteeing that it will not be said but I am sure no one on this side of the house will deny that this is a good measure in principle which will tend to relieve unemployment. What was said earlier-and I hope I am not out of order, Mr. Chairman, when I refer to it-

was not in complaint of this particular measure but in discussion of the unemployment situation as a whole.
In breaking down the amounts of money that have been spent on housing in the several categories I believe the minister said some $392 million had been used up out of a possible $400 million leaving roughly $8 million in the fund. In effect, to use round figures, some $400 million was spent by the government since it took office with reference to housing.


Howard Charles Green: No; $100 million of that had already been spent when we took office.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I understood from the minister that when the government took office about $150 million was left out of the $250 million originally passed by the former administration. The point I was trying to make is this. Notwithstanding that expenditure in the intervening time from the month of February until March unemployment had increased by some 70,000 in this country. In fact, the figures given by my friend the hon. member for Essex East indicate that in the month of March, the latest period for which we had figures, the unemployment figure had reached 600,000. Surely this measure is going to be of assistance, and there is no doubt in my mind about that, but the position we have taken is that this is not enough. There must be measures of an additional character.
Dealing more specifically with the resolution now before the committee: It seeks to increase from $400 million to $750 million the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the National Housing Act. We are being asked to advance these funds to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purpose of making loans as broken down by the minister earlier under the four headings he mentioned including agency loans, direct loans to small centres, limited dividend corporation loans, housing projects and the like. This measure is also for the purpose of making loans under section 40 and subsection 40 (a) of the act which is the section under which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been making a large number of the loans which are popularly referred to as agency loans.
The minister earlier this week stated in reply to a question that substantially all of the funds already voted by parliament have been used up and only a small balance remains, namely $8 million. As I understand the position it is this: unless parliament places other moneys at the disposition of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
National Housing Act
it will have to discontinue its lending operations. We of the official opposition do not think this would be desirable and accordingly we have every intention of supporting this resolution and of facilitating its adoption by this committee and also of facilitating the passing of the requisite bill.
However, our acceptance of the resolution does not mean we have nothing to say on the matter of housing in general because we know the funds to be placed at the disposal of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be used to make various types of loans and that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation itself is only one of several kinds of financial institutions that ordinarily invest their funds in mortgages. The increasing of the funds to be available to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is, therefore, in our view the appropriate occasion to review the housing situation generally and that is what I would like to do now dealing with certain points as briefly and as factually as I can.
In that connection I believe I should sound a note of warning because it is quite clear from what was said by the Prime Minister and other prominent Conservatives during the election campaign that they believe their actions in providing substantial funds for housing have been of invaluable assistance to the economy generally. I shall not deny that the loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have had a beneficent effect on the building of new homes but the facts as to mortgage lending in Canada last year make me wonder whether the government's intervention in this field, hitherto occupied almost exclusively by private institutions, has not merely had the effect of encouraging these institutions to seek other forms of investment for their funds.
I have here the Canadian housing statistics for the fourth quarter of 1957, published by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They show a number of things which I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. They show firstly that in 1957 the life insurance companies and the trust, loan and other lending institutions invested $239.3 million, which was not much less than the $254.9 million they invested in those mortgages in 1956. These figures can be found on table 17 on real estate lending. Secondly, I should like to say that in 1957 the chartered banks actually increased the amount of their loans under the National Housing Act. The amount of such loans approved in that year was some $15 million greater than in 1956. As a matter of fact, as shown on table 18, this amount was $173.5 million as against $158.2 million. Thirdly, the loans under the National Housing Act made in 1957 by the life insurance companies and

National Housing Act
the trust, loan and other lending institutions dropped very substantially. Whereas those lenders had invested $267.1 million under the National Housing Act in 1956, they invested only $104.6 million in 1957.
This, hon. members will agree, is a very big reduction and one cannot avoid asking oneself what is the reason for it. The answer seems to be suggested by the statistics which show that in 1957 Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loaned $235.2 million in contrast to $19.9 million in the previous year; in other words, the government, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has not only made up for the reduction in lending by the private institutions, but has lent more than $100 million besides.
I realize the difficulty in establishing positively that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation activities account for the reduction in private investment and therefore I shall not attempt to labour the point any further. However, it will be sufficient for me to state and to draw to the attention of the government the dangers of it coming to occupy a preponderant or overdominating position in this field.
There are advantages in encouraging institutional lenders who favour this type of investment, and not the least is the advantage which comes from the fact that these lenders are very sensitive to indications that in any particular locality or in any particular type of accommodation there is over-building.
The next point I wish to touch on is that the building of new houses affords good employment opportunities and for that reason I consider it important not only that the government should be able to make loans, if and when that is desirable, but also that it should not discourage the traditional lenders in the mortgage field.
Throughout the election campaign and since the government has emphasized the value of its lending activities as a means of providing employment. But having regard to the numbers who have been out of jobs I am very much surprised that at the very time the government was proclaiming the virtues of its lending program as a make-work project it was positively discouraging the building of rental accommodation.
Early this year builders were told-they were encouraged-to submit plans and specifications to those making the agency loans, and they were led to believe that their applications would be given favourable consideration. Many builders went to considerable trouble and expense to prepare plans and specifications and then without warning the lending institutions were advised that the agency arrangements for rental loans were terminated.
I hold in my hand the directive, or the advice, given by the executive director of the corporation in this regard. It is too long for me to read. Suffice it to say that this action was intended to conserve finances for home-ownership purposes. The minister touched on that earlier, but surely it is a rather highhanded way of proceeding, particularly when it seems desirable to encourage all forms of building as a means of increasing employment, and as the need of rental units is very acute in many places and in some cases greater than single family residences.
If the placing of these funds at the disposal of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation means more work and more employment in one field, it is difficult for me to understand why one should discriminate against rental housing in favour of single-family houses because one provides just as much employment as the other. In fact, I am told that the former provides more work than the latter.
This brings me to another point, namely that there is a real need to give attention now, having regard to present levels of employment, to the question of slum clearance and to the building of low-rental accommodation. I should like to remind the committee, if I may, that after the convention of the Liberal party which was held in Ottawa in January, several resolutions were adopted but one particularly having to do with housing. I do not want to labour the point, but I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the preamble of the resolution and to one or two of the items that had to do with housing.
Because of the importance of good housing to our way of life and to the health and happiness of Canadians, the Liberal party has as its goal the provision of a decent home for every Canadian.
Accordingly we on this side of the house stand for that measure and we stand also for the encouragement of the building of moderate and low-rental accommodation by increasing the maximum loan. We are in favour of introducing a municipal grants assistance act under which the federal government would assist municipalities in the installation of essential services. We would like to extend the participation of the federal government in slum clearance and urban redevelopment programs by increasing the federal government's share of the cost of acquiring and clearing blighted or substandard areas, and in special circumstances by lending to the municipalities their share of the cost of such projects. We would increase the federal government's share of the cost of constructing low-rental subsidized housing for low-income families.

National Housing Act
I hope, therefore, that the government will later this session introduce further amendments to the act, designed to make federal assistance greater and its co-operation along those lines more effective.
I come now to another point which I think should be of great interest to the committee and, of course, to the minister, namely the rate of interest to be charged on loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. During the election the Prime Minister repeatedly stated that as a result of government action since last June interest rates had fallen sharply. He made that statement at Calgary on March 14; he made a similar statement at Selkirk, Manitoba, on March 17; and he spoke of it again in Halifax on March 24. He pointed out that the rate had fallen from a high of 4.3 per cent to 2.89 per cent in recent weeks. Yet despite all of these assertions, the rate of interest on the loans by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation remains fixed at 6 per cent. I hope that when he speaks later the minister will explain the reason the government has for maintaining the rate at 6 per cent, and how he reconciles the maintaining of that rate with the Prime Minister's electoral pronouncements. No doubt the minister, in his usual skilful fashion,-


Howard Charles Green: I have a good answer for that.


Lionel Chevrier: -will explain these questions. Well, if he has a good answer then probably he can explain this one. I refer to the pronouncement made by the Solicitor General in a speech he made not so long also about the legislation which was going to be introduced in the house. I hope the minister will deal with that.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: On housing?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I should like to refer to the statement made by the Solicitor General and I hope the house will bear with me if I read it in French because it is a report that appeared in he Devoir of November 9, 1957. I am informed that it is a very accurate statement of what the Solicitor General said and it goes like this:
(Translation):



HON. BALCER ANNOUNCES HOUSING AND CREDIT LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Leon Balcer, Solicitor General of Canada, let it be known yesterday that the Conservative government is planning legislation on housing and on measures designed to promote loans and to put money in circulation in Canada. He also indicated that the Diefenbaker government might make a step backward in order to reduce the high rate of interest imposed by the Liberal government prior to June 10.
(Text):
1 cannot refrain from translating that part. It states:
The Diefenbaker government will make a step backward-
I do not understand why he made that statement but in any event that is the effect of the translation.
-in order to reduce the high rate of interest imposed by the Liberal government prior to June 10.
Then he goes on and says something more significant with his reference to his colleague, the Minister of Public Works.
(Translation):
The Minister of Public Works will shortly introduce a bill which according to Hon. Leon Balcer, will promote the building of homes. The Minister of Finance, for his part, is said to have in mind another bill which would settle the matter of interest rates and easier borrowing.
(Text):
I hope the Minister of Public Works will be able to explain to the house the statement of his colleague, the Solicitor General, in Montreal in addressing a construction group when he said that the interest rate on mortgage loans would be reduced. Of course, I will tell the minister at once that if such a bill is introduced it will get quick support from this side of the house.
I would also ask the minister to tell us what effect the increase of $350 million for housing will have on the money market in Canada. The Prime Minister told the electorate several times that the releasing of $300 million for new housing had eased the tight money situation and of course I would not think for a moment of going into the political aspects of that question since the minister himself refrained and restrained himself more than once with reference to a discussion of a political nature on this measure. Therefore, I will also refrain but I wish he would tell me what effect the additional $350 million is expected to produce on interest rates.
There are a number of other things I could say but I am prompted to refer to a statement that appears in one of the local newspapers written by a person whom I am sure the Minister of Public Works would have liked very much to have seen in the house but who, thanks to my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa West, is not able to be in the house. I could say something else to my hon. friend-
John Whitney Pickersgill: Prenez garde.


Lionel Chevrier: -but since it concerns a lady I do not think I should and even if I did so I would have to say it with my tongue in my mouth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
128	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act


Lionel Chevrier: I made that mistake once before.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is a very appropriate place for it.


Lionel Chevrier: I made that mistake once before and I hope the house will accept my apology for my imperfect English. However, this article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen is extremely critical of some aspects of the housing situation in Canada generally and of some of the measures which the minister is introducing this evening. I wonder whether I would be allowed-


Howard Charles Green: Are you quoting it as an authority?


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend wants to take it as such I have no objection. I am not saying how I am quoting it. I should like to put it on the record and if my hon. friend wants to reply to it I will be most interested to listen to what he will have to say. This is what the article which appeared in the Citizen of May 9 has to say in part:
It does seem time to stop, look and seriously consider more effective control in preventing public credit designed to provide housing from being exploited to send land costs zooming at six times the rate per square foot of building costs . . . Young families and new settlers need moderate priced rental housing . . . More multiple units are needed at moderate rentals for the increasing number of "no-family" households.
There is no doubt about land values zooming, to use the expression of the lady who wrote the article. If my hon. friend looks at table 56 of Canadian Housing Statistics entitled "Estimated Costs Of Single Family Dwellings Financed Under The National Housing Act" he will see under the column headed "Land" that land costs increased from $523 in 1947 to 2,293 in 1957. In the first quarter of 1957 land cost was $2,153 and in the last quarter $2,443, an increase of almost $300. That is a tremendous increase, and I believe I am accurate in saying that land cost is perhaps the most important of all the elements that enter into the increased cost of housing.
The situation with reference to land is so serious that I believe it is having an effect on the whole question of housing. This very rapid increase in land costs is not only undesirable but is giving rise to the impression that public credit is being exploited to send land costs so high. I believe the situation is serious enough to have the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation look into the matter because I think it is one which the minister will want to have examined more carefully.
I would also ask the minister to look into the question of appraisals. I cannot avoid thinking that they are not being made in


the spirit of the National Housing Act. Appraisals too are an important part of the discussion of the resolution as in the question of housing generally. I think I have almost used up the time at my disposal and I will not proceed further because I know the government is anxious to bring in the bill as quickly as possible so that it can be passed. I may have something to say later.
I hope that the minister will find it possible to answer some of the points which I raised. More particularly I will listen carefully to what he will have to say concerning the suggestion, the promise or the statement by his colleague that legislation would be introduced to reduce the rate of interest on loans.


Erhart Regier: At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I should like to assure the minister that the group in this corner of the house is in wholehearted agreement with his main aim of obtaining this additional money for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I was very much interested in the minister's remarks this afternoon. I should like to express our apreciation for his kind offer when he extended an invitation to members of the opposition who were especially interested in housing to use the offices of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in order to make themselves more knowledgeable members when they speak on this subject.
I was also very much interested in the minister's remarks because it was an amazing half hour. It was almost like a chinook out west where for one hour you have a temperature of 30 degrees below zero and then for several minutes you experience a temperature of 30 degrees above zero. The minister seemed at times to be one of the finest advocates of socialism in this house that I have heard for a goodly number of years. Yet every once in a while he insisted that he was a genuine free enterpriser after all; he only regretted that free enterprise was not meeting the housing needs of the Canadian people and therefore he was by force of circumstances a very good socialist and was pleading with the house to be socialist with him.
The minister reviewed the act since 1954 and he listed the uses that had been made of the money that had been made available to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He mentioned the direct loans in smaller communities, the limited dividend plan for low rental houses and, as a third, he listed the fact that the money had been used for the building of low rental houses for workers in primary industry. I believe the minister forgot to mention a fourth use that was made



IS, 1958

[Stage Direction]
over a goodly number of years, namely a time when the money supplied by this parliament was used to supply a nortion of the regular loans that were made by the private lenders. I believe it was 25 per cent of all loans made under the act by private lenders at one time.
Howard Charles Green: That was an earlier plan. That plan has not been in existence since the amendments, I think, of the year 1954.


Erhart Regier: National Housing Act
which was an appeal to private investors of Canada to make available enough housing money so that 3J million new homes could be built in this country in the next 23 years. With a rough bit of arithmetic it appears that he would mean by that 150,000 housing units per year. I am afraid that our experience over the last several years has shown that the mere appeal of government members or civil servants at annual meetings and the like for investment in housing is quite inadequate. Investment capital naturally flows where it earns the highest return and, as the minister very well knows since he was in the house with me during the last several years, when the earnings of Canadian enterprises began to rise, especially after the reduction in corporation taxes allowed by the former government, the interest of people who had investment capital at their command began to move away from the orthodox fields of investment and in the direction of industrial expansion because the return there was so much higher. In such cases as public and private utilities investment was at least as secure as it was in housing. At such times the former government became quite frantic and appealed in similar terms to the appeal made last night in Ontario and to the minister's appeal in the house this afternoon. They appealed to the managers of investment capital to make more provision for the housing needs of the people but their appeals fell on deaf ears and did not bring about the desired results. So the former government finally found a new source of capital for housing.
The chartered banks of Canada have never been primarily interested in the investment of capital in long-term industrial expansion and the government realized that these banks, because of our economic expansion, were a little flush with funds. The chartered banks were then put into the field of housing and that arrested the decline in housing for a time, but only for a time. It was not very long before the banks had invested what they considered to be an equitable and safe share of their assets in housing. The earnings of corporations continued to increase and less and less private money was made available for housing. These pious hopes for the social needs of Canada being met by mere appeals at annual meetings will not bring money into the housing field, and we must have that money.
It is for these reasons we have always advocated a national investment board whereby the government of the country would assume some responsibilty for the direction of the flow of investment capital and would see that there was a rational distribution of the

available investment capital at all times. I know this would involve amendments to several acts. The Bank Act would likely have to be amended; the act respecting loan companies would have to be amended and the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act would require an amendment, and other acts would have to be amended. There are, however, ways and means available to the government whereby it could exert the pressure necessary to be exerted on managers of investment capital to ensure that we will not have a reckless expansion of certain segments of our industrial enterprise-often to our own regret later on when we find we have not the markets to handle increased production-and to ensure that enough money will be available where it is most urgently needed in the public interest.


Mr, Walker:: Might I ask my hon. friend a question? Getting back to the subject of the bill, I wonder if my hon. friend would indicate to this side of the house whether or not he is in favour of the bill before us because, so far, none of us have been able to determine that.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member may not have been present in the house when I started to speak. At the outset I said we heartily endorsed the minister's request for an additional $350 million to supply the housing needs of the Canadian people through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


An hon. Member:: He has been here all the time.


Erhart Regier: If the hon. member has been listening he would have heard what I said, but perhaps his microphone is not working any better than mine. I did wish to point out that in our opinion this is not adequate and that a mere appeal to private initiative to supply, on an almost voluntary basis, the other 75 per cent of the mortgage needs of the Canadian people for housing is not necessarily the answer. Experience has shown this to be the case as the minister knows full well. As a matter of fact, private enterprise suddenly lost all interest in investment in housing in Canada about a year ago and it took quite a bit of aggressive action on the part of the minister-and I would like to give him full marks for this-to make more money available. However, if he feels that the making available of $150 million or $350 million is going to prevent a slump in housing, all I am saying is that this is not necessarily the case. It all depends on where the other 75 per cent of the money is going to come from. If the earnings of the Canadian corporations are going to be allowed to rise again, as they

have done on other occasions, the minister six months hence may find himself suddenly left holding the bag with his 25 per cent and he will find that the other 75 per cent of the money on which he had relied to meet the needs of our people has vanished.
I hope we will have another chance to discuss the act but I do regret that the minister has not yet seen the need to supply insurance policies under the act, insurance for the buyer as well as the lending agency. It is becoming a very common practice in this country, wherever there is a new housing subdivision, that two or three days after the new home owner has moved in there is a knock at the door and an agent, very often the agent from the very life insurance agency which has handled the mortgage, calls and is able to convince the new home owner that he should buy a life insurance policy which will retire the mortgage in the case of his death.
I feel that is to be regretted because under the act the buyer has to pay a premium which insures the lending agent against default, against inability of the buyer to meet his monthly payments. However, there is nothing in the act to give adequate protection for the buyer's equity in his new home. I feel that even if a slight extra rate in this insurance premium is necessary, the government might be able to supply this added protection for the occupant of the new home.
I note again, as I did last year, my concern that much of the success of the minister's program has involved a reduction in the size of the home. Many people in Canada have commented to me about the dangers involved in building units of hundreds upon hundreds of new homes which are limited as to floor space in relation to the number of rooms provided in the houses, and there is a fear abroad that these homes may end in years to come as areas which we sometimes refer to as slum areas. This may be part of the price we have to pay for an aggressive home building program. I do not know. But I regret it if this is one of the sacrifices we have to make in order to obtain homes for our Canadian people.
I have not yet looked at the minister's estimates but I hope he is going to ask for more money for the research department of the C.M.H.C. We have made tremendous technical advances in almost every field of activity, yet when it comes to building a home we are using almost the same techniques as we used 40 or 50 years ago. I do not know where the bottleneck is, but I hope the day is not far removed when we shall see some technological advances applied to the building of Canadian homes, because it is the high cost of homes which is primarily responsible for many of our difficulties.
57071-3-9i
National Housing Act
I am going to end now-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, members of this house who feel that there is anything amiss when other hon. members are discussing housing in the light of the serious situation in Canada today have many things yet to learn in this present session, and I can assure them that they will hear often from me on this and on other subjects. I do not mind at all when Conservative members of parliament are pleased to see me sit down. When Conservative members of parliament love to hear me speak I feel I should be failing in my mission.
Housing has social implications. The saying is that when poverty enters the door love flies out of the window. Thus, all of us who are concerned about the social welfare of our Canadian people will welcome this move to make more homes available.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam for the moderation of their remarks and also for the suggestions they have made. We will have them very carefully considered. I believe the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does a very worth-while job in keeping in touch with developments in the housing field as they arise, and there are always useful suggestions made in a debate of this sort.
I was a little surprised by the lack of logic or commonsense shown in a portion of the remarks made by my old friend the hon. member for Laurier. He began by criticizing me very severely for having the government do all the lending. He said: You should let the private institutions do this lending; you are going too far; you are getting the government into this field too deeply. And then, after he had made a few other remarks and forgotten what he said in his opening, he told me: you had better drop the interest rate; you are charging too much; there has been a decline in general interest rates, so why do you not lower the interest rate on housing.
The hon. gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he wants us to get the lending institutions to put up more money for home building the finest way to fail in that objective would be to drop the interest rate, because the problem has been that where the lending institutions can get a higher rate of interest in some other investment the tendency was to put their money into that other investment and not into housing. I am sure that upon reflection the hon. member will appreciate that this is the situation. Were we to announce tonight that the interest rate on N.H.A. loans is to be lowered it would be

National Housing Act
just that much more difficult to get mortgage money from lending institutions. As a matter of fact the present rate is well within the statutory provision and I think it would be doing a great disservice to the country if I were to announce a drop such as the hon. member for Laurier has suggested.
Then the hon. member inquired what effect I thought this $350 million would have on the money market. Neither he nor I are experts on financial matters. I do not pretend to be able to prophesy what effect it will have on the money market, but I am sure it will have a good effect in providing homes for young Canadians. There is no doubt at all about the effect of the policy of the former government when it supported the tight money policy. There certainly is no question about the effect that had on housing and on the availability of funds for builders who were to construct that housing.
The hon. member for Laurier said we should get into the slum clearance and redevelopment field. I did not deal with that subject because it does not come under this particular section of the National Housing Act. These redevelopment schemes are joint federal, provincial and municipal schemes. Money is provided quite apart from this particular section, so a discussion of that subject was not relevant in the debate before the committee this evening. The hon. member read me part of the platform which was passed by that ill-fated convention last January. The actual fact is that we are very much interested in redevelopment schemes and are doing our best for them. For example, there is a redevelopment scheme in Halifax and I signed the agreement for the dominion government last month. Then again, we are going ahead with the Jeanne Mance project in Montreal. There are also negotiations under way for a redevelopment scheme in the city of Windsor.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam mentioned the fear that these small homes might become slum areas. I am confident that that is not the case. I would be extremely upset if I thought that would be the result of the small homes loan plan. The hon. member will be interested to learn that great interest is being taken by architects, designers and builders in the construction of modern, efficient small homes. A young builder-designer who lives just across the Fraser river from the hon. member's constituency won a prize in a nationwide contest for the finest design for a small home last year. Architects and builders are taking a great pride in working out attractive and efficient small homes. They realize just as we do that if more and more expense is put into homes all the time then it will never be possible for the vast majority of our people to acquire proper houses. The real need is for the development of a first class modest home and it is that type of house in which the present government is interested.
The hon. member will also realize that we could not very well go into the life insurance business. I understood his suggestion to be that the government should arrange to take a life insurance policy on the person who buys a home. That is a pretty far-reaching suggestion and we are not in favour of a plan of that kind.
The hon. gentleman might be interested to know that in his own area the small homes loan plan has been a greater success than in any other part of British Columbia. In the area coming under the jurisdiction of the New Westminster office of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation there have been 1,283 housing units built for a total value of $12,750,781.35. In that particular district, a great portion of which is in the


Paul Joseph James Martin: Welcome.


Howard Charles Green: I did not hear that comment. I presume the hon. member for Essex East was not complaining this time.
I hope there will be one under way shortly in the city of Vancouver. As a matter of fact, I hope there will be a small one in the city of Trail in the constituency of my old friend the hon. member for Kootenay West. Whenever a city takes the initiative and shows an interest in a redevelopment scheme we pay three quarters of the cost of the investigation leading to a redevelopment, half the cost of acquiring the land and then we pay three quarters of the cost of a new housing scheme to house the people who have to leave the slum area. We are keenly interested in these redevelopment plans.
hon. member's own riding, there has been a great amount of homebuilding and I think he will agree with me that these new homes are not of the slum type. However, we will keep all these suggestions in mind and I hope that at an early date it will be possible to have a discussion which will cover the whole housing field. This particular measure covers only the funds required for one section of the National Housing Act. As such I believe debate is properly limited to a discussion of the housing activities which come under that particular section.
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, before coming to the few remarks I propose to make on this resolution, I wish to take this first oppor-

tunity to offer you my sincere congratulations for the honour which your party has bestowed upon you in choosing you as chairman of this house.
1 know by experience that such functions entail much honour but, on the other hand, many responsibilities are attached to them. However, I am sure that you will discharge your duties with good judgment and impartiality and I wish to extend to you my personal good wishes.
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention tonight to speak at great length on the resolution that is now before the committee. As the minister has just said, we will have other occasions in the future to discuss the whole housing situation. In addition to that, when a similar measure was introduced last December I had occasion to make some remarks and suggestions on the subject. At that time I said that although more millions were placed at the disposal of prospective borrowers it does not mean that many more people with modest incomes will be in a better position to take advantage of the provisions of the act. Those words can be repeated with even more significance today.
Although I am in favour of this resolution I think it does not go far enough and consequently it does not reach the real purpose of the act which is to provide a decent home for every Canadian. For example, how can a prospective borrower secure a loan of $9,000, if his weekly salary is $65 which is the average salary in the province of Quebec? He will be advised by the banks or the lending institutions that they cannot grant his request because the monthly payments will be not less than $78 or $80 to amortize the capital and pay off interest and taxes; and this amount of $78 or $80 does not take into account the ordinary expenses for the maintenance of the house. It seems logical to assume, therefore, that a borrower who wants such a loan will have to earn a salary of at least $85 a week. Moreover, according to the latest information I could obtain the average income of people who bought houses under the act last year was $5,857.


Howard Charles Green: That does not refer to applications under the small homes loan plan; that is under the ordinary National Housing Act part.


Maurice Bourget: I will come back to that point later and explain exactly what I mean. From what I have said we can see it would be impossible for the great majority of wage
National Housing Act
earners to meet monthly payments on a $9,000 loan, the requirements being too high.
Another point I would like to raise at this time has to do with the difficulties that are experienced by those who live in small cities or municipalities in trying to obtain loans from the lending institutions. Even if the supply of mortgage money is increased, unless the government takes immediate action and sees to it that some of this money is made available for the construction of houses in all regions this legislation will be of little or of no benefit at all to the thousands of Canadian citizens who live in small towns or municipalities. I know from experience that it is very difficult for people living in cities with a population of fewer than 35,000 to obtain a loan. It seems that the lending institutions have a certain reluctance, or are not interested enough, to make loans for the construction of houses in those areas. I am quite certain that many hon. members who come from small cities are aware of this fact and I can see no reason why those thousands of Canadians living outside of large metropolitan areas, who also pay taxes, should not benefit equally from the money that is supplied by our own government.
For instance, if one refers to the report published by the bureau of statistics, entitled, "New Residential Construction, March 1958," he will find that more than 80 per cent at least of the dwellings that were started or completed between January 1, 1958 and March 31, 1958 are located in metropolitan areas. In this pamphlet on page 9 there is table No. 3 having to do with construction of dwelling units in urban centres of 5,000 and more. If one looks at the province of Nova Scotia, for instance, he will find that under construction of dwelling units from January 1 to March 31 of this year out of 96 starts, 84 were in the city of Halifax. Out of 272 dwellings completed, 183 were also completed in Halifax, which is the only metropolitan area in that province.
In Quebec province there were 3,536 starts. Out of that number 2,997 were in the city of Montreal. Out of 6,347 completions, 5,050 were in the city of Montreal. In Ontario the situation is exactly the same as far as proportions are concerned. Eighty or 85 per cent of the starts and completions took place in the metropolitan areas of Hamilton, London, Ottawa and, of course, particularly Toronto. We have one of the best examples when we come to the province of Manitoba. Out of 265 starts, 263 were in the city of Winnipeg and out of 612 completions, 545 were also in the city of Winnipeg.
I hope that the Minister of Public Works, who I know is taking a good deal of interest

National Housing Act
in this question, with the help of the experienced officials of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will find ways and means to improve the situation in this regard. May I assure the minister at this time that I am not doing this in any critical way, but I am trying, as he asked us to do, to put up some constructive suggestions.
There is also another reason why many cities and municipalities are unable to take advantage of the act, namely that very often they are unable to finance the installation or extension of essential services. I believe it is the responsibility of the senior governments to see to it that their growth and development are not retarded just on account of their inability to pay these costs. I am quite sure that most hon. members have in their constituencies, cities or towns which fall into that category. Surely, and particularly in this difficult period when there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed persons all across Canada, the federal government, in collaboration with the provinces, would be more than justified in giving financial assistance to the municipalities.
I think that now it the time to introduce some kind of legislation or to amend the National Housing Act to assist municipalities in the installation of trunk sewers, water mains and other essential services or, on the other hand, make available to the municipalities the benefits of the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, which was passed by the federal government in 1938. By that act the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the governor in council and, of course, subject to the provisions of the act, could make a long-term loan to a municipality to enable such a municipality to pay the whole or any part of the cost of construction or extension of projects that would be self-liquidating.
The rate of interest at that time was 2 per cent. I do not want to say that it should be 2 per cent today, but I think the government should help in supplying more money to the municipalities to undertake such projects at a reasonable rate of interest.
I have with me a copy of the report on the operations of this act for the year ended December 31, 1957. Of course, lending operations under this act ceased some years ago, but it is interesting to note the variety of projects that were undertaken with its assistance. Applications were made for installation and extension of water and sewer mains, filtration plants and reservoirs, pumping stations, street paving and many other kinds of projects which are related and are needed when a city or a municipality wishes to develop a certain area for new housing construction.
[Mr. Bourget.l
In the province of Quebec applications were approved for nearly $2 million at that time. This shows clearly that that kind of legislation was greatly beneficial to the development and growth of our municipalities. I hope the minister will give serious thought to this suggestion.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, another point which, to my mind, is of the very highest importance with regard to this important matter of housing is that of the interest rate paid by the borrower.
In December last, when I took part in a debate on a similar measure, as I recalled at the beginning of my remarks, I had asked the government to lower this rate, at least with regard to those who earn less than $5,000 a year. Today I wish to renew this request, in even stronger terms. I would like the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) to see to it that the interest rate is lowered in appreciable proportions, especially since, at this time, the cost of money is on the decrease. We should also-I do not want to labour this point since I dealt with it last December-extend the amortization period in order to help those with modest means to meet their monthly payments. Otherwise, if the interest rate is not decreased, if the amortization period is not extended, this will prevent most wage earners from taking advantage of this legislation.
All those who are interested in this matter keep pleading the case of people who, because they earn little, find it hard to secure loans.
No later than this morning I read in Le Devoir, on the editorial page, the following remarks:
In 1957 the demand for long term credit was quite high thereby bringing about an increase in the interest rate, which fell however towards the end of the year. This caused a decrease in mortgage funds provided by lending institutions. To correct this, the interest rate authorized with regard to loans under the National Housing Act was raised to 6 per cent.
On the other hand, the down payment was reduced to such an extent that the act now allows the loan of 90 per cent of $12,000. Such a mortgaged debt at 6 per cent, even spread over 25 years, is excessive for three out of four wage earners. More and more, the average income of borrowers under the N.H.A. exceeds the average income for the whole of Canada. In 1950, the average income of borrowers was $3,638. It reached $5,312 in 1956 and $5,857 last year.
It is therefore obvious that, if the situation is not remedied and if the interest rate is not reduced, it will become increasingly difficult for those who really need it to qualify under the act.
In the province of Quebec, as I said to the hon. minister in December last, his task would be easier if, with the help of his colleagues from Quebec who are now more numerous

in this house, he could convince the premier of that province to grant an interest rebate also to the people of that province who wish to borrow under the federal guarantee. Such efforts will be easier now that his friends in Quebec no longer consider the federal government as a foreign government.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure that all hon. members realize the great importance of the housing problem, having regard especially to its effects from the social point of view. That is why I wanted to make these few remarks today, hoping that the government will propose the improvements which are absolutely necessary.
(Text):


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, in rising to make a few remarks on the resolution before us I should like to say, before going into the details of the resolution and our ideas and opinions relating to the principle behind it, that I enjoyed very much the interesting discourse earlier today by the Minister of Public Works, especially his account of the historical background behind some of the more recent changes in the National Housing Act. Often history is used to cover up or cloud over what might be inadequacies in the future. I am not suggesting, of course, that the account of the story behind the changes in the National Housing Act in the last few years was designed for that purpose, but in our opinion there are many inadequacies in the act itself and the operation and administration of it. We do not intend to go into them at this time but hope that on a subsequent day during this session the minister will introduce a bill with more extensive changes in the National Housing Act than is
National Housing Act
contained in the legislation now before us which is confined merely to one section and one phase of the operation of the act.
I was most interested to hear the minister make reference to the increase from 23J per cent to 27 per cent, I believe he said-


Howard Charles Green: Twenty-three per cent to 27 per cent.


Frank Howard: I am sorry, I thought the minister said 23J per cent.


Howard Charles Green: I made a mistake. It should have been 23 per cent.


Frank Howard: I was most interested to hear his reference to the increase in the percentage ratio.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader what
the business is tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall continue with this measure and I hope we can get it through by one o'clock. Otherwise it may be impossible to have royal assent tomorrow. Following the conclusion of this debate, we will then go on with the debate on the speech from the throne.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to give the leader of the house the impression that we will conclude by one o'clock but I can assure him of our full co-operation on this side of the house so that we may be able to conclude during the course of the day. I know there are many members on this side who still want to speak but I cannot give any assurance that we will be through by one o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 16, 1958