1959-02-27

A. V. ROE COMPANY STATEMENT ON DISCUSSIONS WITH COMPANY OFFICIALS

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister, who is indoors today with a cold, I should like to report to the house on the discussions which have been proceeding in recent days between the government and senior officials of A. V. Roe Canada Limited. These discussions had as their aim the continuance of the plants of Avro Aircraft Limited and Orenda Engines Limited, and the companies' special design, research and production facilities.
The companies are at present engaged in the performance of certain contracts for the government apart from the discontinued Arrow program. Work on these other contracts will, of course, be continued. In addition, various new programs and extensions of existing programs have now been proposed by the companies to the government in the fields of military and civil aviation and nuclear power. These proposals have been carefully examined, and certain of them will be further studied in the hope that they will offer opportunity for the employment and effective utilization of technical and production personnel and facilities.
Moreover, the companies recognize their responsibility to make every effort to obtain contracts from sources in addition to the Canadian government. They are performing some work at present for the United States and other governments, and will vigorously explore ways and means of obtaining orders from the United States under the recently announced arrangements between Canada and the United States for production sharing.
If the companies are to be in a position to develop new programs and designs and to accept and fulfil contracts for production, they must retain the essential nucleus of their design, research and technical staff. To assure this desirable end the government has agreed to share equally with the companies the payroll cost of certain technical work to be undertaken by this essential nucleus of personnel for the next six months. It is expected
that by the end of that period some of the projects of the companies should be substantially advanced.
It is the hope of the government and the companies that these combined efforts will result in a steady increase in employment.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I know the house will have listened with interest to the statement the minister has just made. We on this side are confirmed by that statement in our view that these discussions which have been taking place in the last few days might well have been taking place months ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If that could have been done, then the further study now being given to the proposals from the company might have resulted in action before the cancellation of the Arrow program. We notice also, Mr. Speaker, that the proposals have been made by the company. Perhaps while these studies are going on now, after the cancellation, the government itself might be able to make some proposals for the continuance of this work.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the Minister of Finance this morning will, I am afraid, mean little comfort to the 14,000 people who have been affected by lay-offs, because the only real substance of his statement was that the payroll for a certain nucleus of skilled persons would be shared equally by the government and the company. If those negotiations had taken place months ago we would not, I am certain, face this crisis which is presently faced in the aircraft industry. I urge the government to continue talks with the company and to keep on with negotiations until a solution is found and this very important industry saved for Canada. I would urge the government to exert even greater pressure on the United States to obtain for this country a fair share of production orders.
Mr. Speaker, we are encouraged that the government is talking with the company. We hope such talks will continue, but the statement of the Minister of Finance, while it is helpful in that it goes in the right direction, is certainly no answer to his very important question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think something needs to be said to correct

Inquiries of the Ministry the very serious misimpression left by the words of the Leader of the Opposition, and to the extent to which they were echoed by the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I feel sure that if the minister makes a further statement the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Assiniboia would also like to do so, and we would enter on a debate, which would be quite improper at this stage of the proceedings. Therefore I think the hon. minister should not take the floor again unless he wishes to explain briefly an error or misimpression.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell us how many Avro employees are affected by this new arrangement, and what the estimated cost will be over the next six months' period?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to be precise about this matter. This obviously is something that will depend upon the course of the contracts and other matters within the management of the company. As the house has been made aware, a number of men in excess of 2,000 have been working this week at the plant, and according to the best information we have the addition to that number of the technical group to which I made reference in my statement this morning should bring the number employed at the present time to approximately 3,000.
The hon. member will recall that this is a starting point, and it is expected that employment will gradually increase from this point on. That has been the desire of both parties to the negotiations.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance relating to the announcement of discussions with the A. V. Roe Company. I wish to ask the minister whether this arrangement will extend to the Orenda engine establishment at Nobel.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The statement I made this morning applies to the two companies, the Avro company and the Orenda engine company. The work carried on at Nobel, of course, is included within the scope of the arrangement I announced. I am sure the house is aware that the type of operation carried on at Nobel is different from that carried on at the plants at Malton, but the

government is assured that the operations at Nobel are included within the scope of the arrangement I announced earlier today.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twil-lingale):: May I ask a supplementary question. Did the government take advantage of the presence here of A. V. Roe company officials to discuss the mass lay-offs in Cape Breton and Bell island by other companies controlled by the same parent company?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was not present at any meeting when that subject was discussed, Mr. Speaker; therefore I cannot give my hon. friend the answer to his question. My task was with the program to which I referred in my statement this morning.



TABLING OF TELEGRAMS CANCELLING CONTRACTS

Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I would like leave to table copies of telegrams which were asked for yesterday.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister would agree, in view of the importance of these documents, to have them printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Mr. O'Hurley:: I have no objection.


Mr. Speaker:: What are the documents again?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Copies of the telegrams terminating the Arrow contract.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent that these telegrams, comprising about four pages, be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of telegrams referred to above, see appendix, page 1487.]



VETERANS REHABILITATION ACT


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-31, to amend the Veterans Rehabilitation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



WAR SERVICE GRANTS ACT


Alfred Johnson Brooks: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-32, to amend the War Service Grants Act.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the trade agreement with the Soviet union expires tomorrow, might I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what have been the results of the discussions with the Soviet government to replace that agreement?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: Negotiations have been going on, but I am not in a position at this moment to state what conclusions have been reached.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question. Does this mean that when the agreement expires tomorrow there will be no trade agreement with the Soviet union?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This particular agreement will expire on the date mentioned, but that does not preclude the possibility of another trade agreement being signed.



SALT FISH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to report on the progress made by the interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of James A. Roberts, appointed on November 12 last to discuss salt fish marketing with members of the industry in Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland? Have meetings been held and, if so, what decisions if any have been reached?


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a very important subject, Mr. Speaker, and one on which I hope to make a statement to the house within the next two weeks.



COMMUNIST CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia asked whether China had accepted the offer of the Canadian wheat board to send to China experts to train the Chinese in how to use Canada's excellent high protein wheat as a mix with their own. No acceptance of this offer has yet been received.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Oiiawa West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, supplementary to the answer he gave a moment ago. Through what channels was this offer made to China?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Through the usual channels, Mr. Speaker.


George James McIlraith: What are the usual channels for offers of this kind to China?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have a trade commissioner stationed in Hong Kong, as my hon. friend knows very well, and through channels such as that the wheat board would communicate with the officials representing the Chinese trading corporations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister if this means that our trade commissioner in Hong Kong is in diplomatic contact with the Chinese government in Peking?


Gordon Minto Churchill: By no means, as the Leader of the Opposition knows very well.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In that case, how can he make a formal offer from the Canadian government to the Chinese communist government?


Gordon Minto Churchill: He could make suggestions from the Canadian wheat board to the 16 trading corporations of China, as he did last year which resulted in the sale to China of almost $8 million worth of Canadian wheat.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that reservations over the holiday period are often hard to obtain, I should like to ask the leader of the house whether he is in a position to give us any information with regard to the Easter recess.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: We always aim to please our friends opposite, though sometimes it is a little difficult. With regard to this question of an Easter adjournment, our thinking is that the house should be adjourned during the week preceding Easter and resume its sittings on Monday, April 6. I am not yet clear on what day the adjournment will be sought.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: May
I ask a supplementary question. Will the far western members be allowed to travel by plane?


Howard Charles Green: As one of the far western members for many years, I never had any trouble doing that.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Will the adjournment be before the budget is introduced or afterwards?


Howard Charles Green: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is really fishing. Government policy on this particular matter will be disclosed in due course.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Y. R. Tasse (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister say whether any inquiries are being made by the combines branch into the Helga Dan incident which I drew to his attention some time ago, in which a shipping conference, or members thereof, are reported to have brought pressure to bear upon shippers to refuse cargo to the Helga Dan and cancel cargo bookings already made?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. As hon. members know, it is not the general practice to discuss inquiries which are going forward under the anti-combines legislation unless and until a report is made to me by the restrictive trade practices commission and duly published. In view of the marked public concern about this matter, however, and the natural expectation that we would take some interest in it, I may say that the combines branch is making inquiries into the arrangements reported to have given rise to this incident.
(Translation):



WORLD HOCKEY TOURNAMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Martel (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he aware of yesterday's Canadian Press report to the effect that Maurice Richard seems to be having a hard time getting a passport and visa in connection with a trip to Prague, Czechoslovakia, where he plans to attend the world hockey tournament? Could the minister indicate whether he will see that a passport and visa are granted in due time to a man who is Canada's best hockey player and at the same time an ambassador for Canada.
(Text):


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I have not seen the press reports to which the hon. member has referred, and I do not know the details with


respect to this problem of "the Rocket" alias Maurice Richard. I shall be very happy and eager to work for an investigation of this particular matter.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. My question is prompted by a young lady who visited my office early this morning.
In view of the fact that Vice Admiral John Hughes Hallett, M.P., complained in the House of Commons in Britain last night that when he was deputy commander of the NATO Atlantic fleet in 1952 no one ever told him where the atom bombs were kept, would the minister inform the house if senior officials of the Canadian defence forces will be kept in similar ignorance as to the whereabouts of nuclear weapons in Canada?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, Vice Admiral Hallett was an officer in the Royal Navy, not in the Royal Canadian Navy; therefore I have no information as to the instructions or information given to him. However, I can assure the hon. member that in all matters affecting the discharge of their duties our own admirals will be kept fully informed.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Russell asked this question:
Will the hon. gentleman have bilingual name plates affixed to the present science service building on Carling avenue, when the divisions of his department are regrouped at the end of March?
I find also that on February 20, when I was absent from the house due to illness, the hon. member for Hull and the hon. member for Russell asked somewhat similar questions. This will be a reply to all those questions. The main signs on buildings and general experimental areas at the central experimental farm are in English only. I understand that has always been the situation. On notice boards which give information to visitors on rules, hours and other matters, both English and French are used.
Following the reorganization of the department which comes into effect on April 1 next a number of signs and notices will have to

be changed. This will give an opportunity to decide where additional information can be given in both languages.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the intention of the minister to give equal importance to the French and English languages with respect to these buildings?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I always give equal importance to both languages wherever the need for that is indicated.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour. Has the government received a request from Mr. George Burt, Canadian director of the united auto workers' union, for intervention with Canadian automobile companies to make certain if possible that Canadian companies will produce smaller cars, and not allow the Canadian market for automobiles to be filled to a large extent by small automobiles produced in the United States? If such a request has been received, what was the reply? Also, what is the statement of the government in response to Mr. Burt's assertion that unless something is done unemployment in the Canadian automobile industry may exceed that caused in the aircraft industry?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I personally have not received such a telegram but I read in the morning paper that a telegram of this nature was sent to the Prime Minister, and this question therefore will be brought to his attention.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister of Labour or anyone speaking for the government can say whether the Canadian government, either on the request of someone else or on its own initiative, has considered this very important problem?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not attempting to rule on this matter, but it seems to me that the size of automobiles is not a matter of ministerial responsibility. I daresay there is a possibility that jurisdiction might be extended to that field, in which case that question could then be asked; but at the moment I fail to see its relevance.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order you have raised, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of
Inquiries of the Ministry the size of automobiles as such but a question of employment in a very important Canadian industry. If employment in that industry is being threatened, as this responsible union official suggests, I submit it is a proper question to ask of the government. However, I am satisfied with the reply that it is being looked into.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. As a result of the provisions of the Canadian statute relating to Indian affairs there is a distinct indication of discrimination against the white man by the Indian. This becomes apparent because of the fact that an Indian woman marrying a white man loses all her rights as an Indian, and as a result there are numerous common law arrangements to overcome this situation. Further, realizing that there are as many marriages between whites and Indians as there are among Indians, can the minister inform the house whether this particular section is under review for amendment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska and the hon. member for Lapointe asked me about the basis of allocation of our new issues of stamps, and implied we were not meeting the demand. The house will understand, of course, that these questions reflect the popularity of the attractive new stamp designs of the present government as compared with those of our predecessors, when similar problems did not seem to arise.
With the golden anniversary of flight issue, which is the present one, we introduced a new policy of automatically allocating such new issues to every accounting post office in Canada in quantities estimated to be sufficient to permit their sale over a 10-day period. That policy was introduced on my own suggestion because I found on my field trips that many of the smaller post offices did not specifically order the new issues. I felt that the significance of their message should be carried into every part of our country.

Inquiries of the Ministry
However, if the post offices wish more than their allocation they are perfectly free to order whatever quantity is desired, either before the stamp is issued or when they are required, as long as our stock lasts. I understand that the post offices about which I have been questioned have received sufficient stocks to meet the expected demands, and additional stock is available when required.
I might add that the popularity of these new stamps has made it necessary for us to have increasing quantities printed. The 1958 quantities, which started at 15 million for the first issue were gradually raised to 25 million for the last. This year 30 million were printed for the current issue, which is the first this year, and 32 million will be printed for our NATO stamp, which will be the second issue this year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, sir. In a view of the principle enunciated by the minister the other day that the portraits of living things are never put on stamps, may we assume the minister timed this stamp to come out on the day of the death of the Arrow?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, there is one-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Better think about it overnight and tell us tomorrow.


William McLean Hamilton: There is one recognizable aeroplane which appears on the stamp, and that is the Silver Dart. The one in the background is representative of delta wing aircraft generally and bears a number of characteristics differentiating it substantially from the Arrow or CF-105. The differences are immediately recognizable to anyone who has any knowledge of the subject whatever.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question; in view of recent events, would the minister consider having this commemorative stamp redesigned to include two wreaths on the wing tips to indicate the death of the aircraft industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we have spent enough time on this particular issue.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, of which I have not given him notice. Is the minister in a position to inform the house as to the effect on the Canadian
[Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace) .1
economy of yesterday's announcement by the Bank of Canada of a new discount rate of 4.32 per cent, and does he still feel as he did on February 13 that this represents a fluctuation within a not very wide range?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The rate on treasury bills over the past two weeks is approximately what it was when the Liberal government went out of office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Tight money.


Erhart Regier: I should like to follow that with a supplementary question. Is the government taking any measures to establish a rediscount rate independent of the weekly offerings of treasury bills, or is this government now endorsing the tight money policy of the former government?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This government will never endorse the tight money policy of the former government; you may be sure of that. That was a policy imposed by the former government with a view to restricting credit and restricting business activity, and it deliberately drove up interest rates. The present government has no part of that tight money policy. The hon. gentleman, if he is acquainted with what has been happening in the money markets of this continent, must be aware that interest rates have been rising rapidly in the United States. This has had an inevitable effect on interest rates in this country.
As to the steps the government may propose to take in regard to rates, those will be matters to be announced to the house whenever it is appropriate to announce such action. To the extent to which my hon. friend is interested in fiscal policies, financial policies in the broader sense, I must ask him to be good enough to be patient until the budget comes down.


George James McIlraith: A supplementary question. When will the budget be brought down? Is the minister in a position to inform the house?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can assure the hon. member that if he is in the house at the time the government announces the date on which the budget will be brought down, he will be one of the first to hear it.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-26, to amend the Northwest Territories Act.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-28, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954-Mr. Green-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Sale of loan.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to ask the minister one question on this clause concerning a subject to which I made reference at the resolution stage. In the district I have the honour to represent there are a relatively small number of people who build some very nice log homes, modern in every respect, with cement basements and very well constructed and very beautiful in appearance. These homes, of course, are built from logs. For instance, the rafters may be even round poles six inches in diameter. Because of the desire of these people to have this rustic type of dwelling, I wanted to ask the minister whether those wishing to build log homes which will be very well built but of materials somewhat different from those in standard homes, will be able to obtain loans under the National Housing Act.


Howard Charles Green: Yes; I understand so, Mr. Chairman. The other day the hon. member for Kootenay West raised the question of whether loans could be obtained in Nakusp in this riding. We have had investigations made since the earlier debate in committee, and the management of the Trail office, in whose territory Nakusp is situated, states that no resident of Nakusp has contacted the office for a National Housing Act loan. It is possible that an approved lender may have refused such a loan, but the corporation is ready to grant one to any creditworthy borrower there.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for having the matter investigated. I think possibly that is just what happened, namely that they applied to approved lenders, their application has been rejected and they have taken it for granted that it was the corporation.


Erhart Regier: I should like to ask the minister for some enlightenment on a matter that has caused me some concern for a number of years. When organizations such as the New Vista housing society in Burnaby and other like organizations apply for loans to provide low cost rental units, they are able to get 66968-9-92
National Housing Act
assistance under the National Housing Act. However, when they want to build a convalescent home or a home for elderly people who do not require hospital care but who yet require some nursing care, and apply for a mortgage under the terms of the National Housing Act, they are told that this type of project cannot be entertained under the provisions of the act.
I know that by now a number of organizations have asked for such assistance. I do not know whether or not they have formally applied. I happen to be on the board of directors of the British Columbia teachers' housing co-operative. At the present time we are engaged in building a project to house elderly teachers who need nursing care, and we shall be obliged to obtain our money on the open market at such a high interest rate that it will add considerably to the level of rentals. From speaking to the late E. E. Winch I know he went through the same hardship in building the first convalescent unit, if it could be called that, of the New Vista housing association.
Has any consideration been given by either the senior officials or the minister or both in consultation to extending the terms of the act in such a way that such projects might be undertaken and might obtain the benefit of the low interest money that is available? As the minister well knows, in all parts of Canada there is an urgent need for homes at rentals as low as possible where people can spend the last one, two or three years of their lives.
At the present time the only places to which these people can go are the privately owned and operated nursing homes. In the first place they are obliged to charge extremely high rates, running up to $300 and more per month. The minister knows that we have many of these privately owned homes. In the second place the waiting list for admission to these homes is extremely long. Some homes have had people waiting for a year.
Also, as the minister knows, the unfortunate and regrettable fact is that many of these homes are most inadequate. While some of them render excellent service-and I would not want to be misunderstood-there are also a fair number of them which are nothing but operations which are less than desirable, both from the standpoint of the fees they charge and the standpoint of the services they render to our elderly people. Has the minister ever given any consideration to extending the terms and conditions so these projects might be included along with regular low rental units?


Howard Charles Green: This question has been raised on different occasions down through the years

National Housing Act
and has been carefully considered by the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, by my predecessor, Hon. Robert H. Winters and by myself. The hon. member will realize that the National Housing Act is an act designed to provide homes in which people can live. It was never meant to provide nursing homes or convalescent homes. I think these come under the scope of health and welfare departments. They are particularly a provincial responsibility.
The problem in connection with opening up the act to include convalescent homes of this type is this. Where do we stop? I think the result would be a diminution in the money that could be spent on housing, in addition to the causing of many other problems which are certainly not the concern of the officials administering the National Housing Act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am informed that some of the university people were hoping that loans would be available under the National Housing Act for the building of residences, in view of the shortage of university residences. Has the government given consideration to the extension of loans into that field?


Howard Charles Green: This is another field which has Deen carefully considered. Here again we would not be building houses; and if we were to go into giving assistance in the construction of residences for universities, we would also be asked to take similar action for nurses and many other groups in the country. It has been felt that this matter does not come within the purposes for which the National Housing Act was passed. In the last year there has been considerable alleviation of this problem because the Canada Council has made grants to various universities in order to assist them in the construction of residences.


Mr. Garland:: Does the minister care to bring us up to date on the amount currently in the insurance fund?


Howard Charles Green: Officials of the corporation inform me that at the end of the calendar year it amounted to about $39 million.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if at the same time we might have the approximate amount, if the figures are available, for last year by which the annual revenue in the fund increased, and also the debits to that fund?


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, the act now
covers the building of senior citizens' homes, but those homes must be of the detached type. I am wondering if the act cannot be extended to cover the boarding house type of senior citizens' homes? I have one particular case in mind in West Summerland.

There the municipality is willing to guarantee bonds, and all the rest, behind it, and I am wondering if the act can be extended to cover the boarding house type of senior citizens' homes?


Howard Charles Green: The National Housing Act
confines activities of the corporation to individual housing units. We are not able to go into the boarding house business under the terms of the act.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the minister
could tell us if it would be possible to remove the provision in the present act whereby when an insured loan is sold to other than an approved lender, the insurance becomes void. I know that if it is administered by an approved lender the insurance remains in effect. There must be some reason for this. It would seem there might be individual lenders who would like to buy a mortgage, or two or three, and might wish to administer it themselves in order to save the charges which would normally be made by the approved lender. This would provide the mechanics of extending the liquidity of these insured loans and broaden the market for them. I was wondering what is the objection of the corporation.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, it is basic in
the insurance principle covering these loans that the loan must be administered by an approved lender or by the corporation itself. Apparently the thinking behind that was that the insurance should not be available where anybody at large was administering the loans.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think it is basic at
all, Mr. Chairman. I can see the disadvantage of allowing anyone at all to apply at the outset for an insured loan, because the corporation has to deal with a limited number of organizations, and organizations with which it is familiar; and just from the standpoint of red tape and mechanics it would not be possible to allow applications for insured loans from individuals or people who are not approved lenders. But I cannot see what the principle is which prevents these loans being sold subsequently to individuals or persons other than approved lenders with the insurance remaining in effect.


Howard Charles Green: The principle is this, that with the insurance behind the loan then the corporation will have to make good if there are losses under the loan. If the loan is being administered by someone who does not administer it properly, then that person will not suffer the loss; the loss will have to be paid out of the insurance fund.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The corporation's feeling is that only approved lenders are capable of

administering these loans in such a way as to guarantee or reduce the risk of the corporation; is that the reason?


Howard Charles Green: Evidently this was the thinking when the act was passed. Mind you, I admit at once that in many cases, perhaps in most cases, a person who had a mortgage would administer it properly, just as well as one of the approved lenders. But if it were opened right up and this restriction removed without any qualification, then of course anyone who bought the mortgage would have the benefit of the insurance whether he administered the mortgage properly or not.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to revert to the boarding house type of senior citizens' accommodation. My reason for so doing is that I have had a little bit of experience with regard to the actual construction of the boarding house type of home. We in Oliver, a town in British Columbia where I live, did construct a boarding house type of senior citizens' home and it has been most successful.
There were many reasons for choosing it. First of all, probably the most important reason was the fact that the actual over-all cost of construction per bed was considerably lower. We tried at that time to get federal aid under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but could not do so. West Sum-merland, the other town which wants to put in a boarding house type of home, favour it simply because they feel that the cost of construction would save an awful lot of money and they could do it. There is another reason, of course, and that is that the means of control in the house, looking after people and all the rest of it, is much cheaper.
My point is that the government will provide funds under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the detached type of dwelling. Having in principle decided that they will help those people, then surely it would be common sense to provide the same accommodation at a cheaper rate. That is the whole purpose behind my question. You have a more favourable type of accommodation, so why not go into the business? I feel that C.M.H.C. is basing this decision simply on security. In other words, if the dwelling does go broke in years to come, then their security is safe because with the detached type of house they can sell it, rent it, or do what they like with it. With the boarding house type, of course, that is not so. But in the case of West Summerland, British Columbia, which proposes this type of boarding house for senior citizens, it would seem that the whole project is backed and guaranteed by West Summerland and it would only seem reasonable that the government, 66968-9-924
National Housing Act
if they are not prepared to do so at the present time, should look into this in the future as a means of providing accommodation which is necessary in Canada at the present time and is becoming increasingly more necessary.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if I might go back to my original question about the insurance fund, with regard to the amount by which the fund is increased each year, and the annual debits for the last year?


Howard Charles Green: The mortgage insurance fund at the end of 1956 stood at $22,145,828. In 1957 it stood at $30,364,883; and at the end of 1958 the figure was not $39 million, as I told the hon. member a few moments ago, but $45,680,766.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the hon. minister could give me the figures over a comparable period for each year, say for a three-year period, of the debits to the fund?


Howard Charles Green: This is a tough question. Perhaps we should continue with the discussion and the officials will try to get the answer in the meantime.


John Richard Garland: Yes, of course. My reason for asking this question is perhaps obvious to the minister. It seems that the fund is growing substantially each year, and I wonder what justification there may be for maintaining the rates that are charged. I appreciate, of course, that any administration wishes to take a cautious approach to these things, but it would seem to me that this fund goes on building up. That is why I wondered whether the minister had these figures.


Howard Charles Green: The officials tell me that there are over $3 billion of potential risks standing against this amount which is held in reserve, and until there has been further experience in the operation of the act it is believed it would be unwise to make any change.


Erhart Regier: I am pleased to note that the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary has made an observation along the lines of some remarks which I myself had made previously. The whole purpose of this act, as the minister will agree, is to assist Canadians with their housing problems. I do not think we should be too much concerned about the particular type of housing involved.
When I say that, I have in mind a warning sounded by Mr. Mansur in reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Eglinton during a sitting of the banking and commerce committee on February 11, 1954.

National Housing Act
At page 147 of the proceedings Mr. Mansur, in answer to the hon. member for Eglinton, had this to say:
I think, Mr. Fleming, that the very sharp increase in home ownership in Canada of which everyone seems so proud has as one of its components a fair amount of "forced home ownership" of which we should not be so proud.
This raises the problem of what kind of housing is the most valuable from a social standpoint and, I might also add, from the standpoint of our municipalities; and I often wonder whether we are very wise in making our arrangements in such a way that many people who should be renting homes are being put into the position of forced home ownership, as Mr. Mansur warned. We find people living 18 or 20 miles away from the centres of our cities, people living on the outskirts, who according to all the rules of economics should be tenants living nearer the hearts of our centres of population.
When the minister says that hitherto loans on such projects as housing for university students, accommodation for boarding elderly Canadians and accommodation for chronically sick cases could not be considered under the terms of the act, the minister should carefully consider whether these proposals are not also a manner of offering housing to Canadians. It should not really matter to us whether this housing is in the form of boarding houses or residences for students or places where the chronically ill elderly people may live, or whether it is in the form of individually owned homes of the kind which today cause so many headaches because of the manner in which new housing subdivisions are being developed.
I think the minister might well consider a change in basic policy here. I realize full well the validity of the minister's argument when he points out that housing for chronically ill people is basically the responsibility of the Department of National Health and Welfare and especially of the health and welfare departments of the provinces. I also know that our national hospital plan provides for federal assistance to provincial governments if they will undertake to build hospitals to look after chronically ill patients. However, I believe the minister also knows- and if he has not yet been informed I hope he will note this fact-that the government of British Columbia while on the one hand encouraging all municipalities to begin building hospitals for the chronically ill has thus far flatly refused to give any financial assistance toward the building of such hospitals, even though financial assistance is available through the federal government. The provincial government is apparently unwilling to

pass on the assistance available from the federal authority, and unwiling to make its own contribution.
The need is real, and it is most urgent. 1 hope the minister can see his way clear to reconsider his position and take the attitude that the whole purpose of the National Housing Act is to provide accommodation for the people of Canada, and that it will not necessarily be designed for assistance toward individual home ownership. I think the problem is more complex than that.
I should like to raise a second point at this time with respect to housing for senior citizens under the National Housing Act. Under the provisions of this legislation this government makes loans only toward the building of such units. However, as the minister knows, some of the provincial governments instead of making loans offer outright assistance. In British Columbia, the minister's home province, the provincial government pays one-third of the capital cost. I believe the day is long overdue when the senior government should consider using the act in such manner that it can make an outright donation to equal at least the donation made by any provincial government, instead of offering loans for capital construction which must be repaid with interest, thereby increasing rental costs.
I should also like to ask the minister if he is able to issue a renewed assurance that interest rates under this act will not be raised in the year ahead. As the minister is well aware, the interest rates on long term federal government borrowings have always been a determining factor in interest rates charged under this act. These rates have been rising for a considerable length of time, and I believe present federal rates are only one-hundredth of one per cent short of an all-time high since the Bank of Canada was first established. There is abroad the apprehension that if federal interest rates on long term borrowings remain this high or go higher the operating margin left to the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will become so narrow that the interest rate payable under the terms of the National Housing Act will be increased.
I believe the Canadian people would like the minister to make a statement on the matter at this time. I know how happy we were about six months ago when he assured us that for the time being at least there would be no increase in the interest rates allowable under this act.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is one that I raised last year. I was very interested in hearing the hon. member for Nip-issing ask for information concerning what

is happening under the insurance fund. I do not think the minister could be accused of having been persuaded of the correctness of the socialist approach, but I feel he would be exercising sound common sense in looking after the welfare of people who acquire homes under the act if he would give serious consideration to amending the insurance feature in such a way that monthly payments on homes purchased under the act would be paid in periods when the home owner is unemployed.
This may seem a fantastic idea to some Conservatives, but may I point out that many automobile agents are now advertising automobiles on the monthly payment plan and included in the terms of sale is a condition that any monthly payment falling due while the prospective car owner is unemployed will be automatically paid out of the insurance fund. We have many thousands of unemployed Canadians who are experiencing difficulty in meeting the monthly payments on their homes, and a cause of serious concern to them must be how long they will be able to continue without making regular monthly payments. Payments on homes during periods of unemployment could be included in the insurance feature. I also believe the government should consider providing life insurance for the purchasers of homes, and also insurance for payments during periods of complete and total disability.
If private companies can initiate schemes of this kind in their efforts to promote sales I do not think it is too much to expect the federal government to begin offering somewhat similar terms and conditions to purchasers of homes under the National Housing Act.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I would hesitate to take the lead in bringing about a system whereby the National Housing Act was administered in the same way as the sales of automobiles. If we ever adopted that system of financing I am sure of one thing, and that is that homes would cost the Canadian people a great deal more than they cost today.
The hon. member mentioned that everything was being done for home owners but very little for people who live in apartments but this, of course, is not the case at all. There are millions and millions of dollars being put out under the National Housing Act for rental accommodation. This money is being expended in different ways. For instance, it is available under the insurance provisions. Loans are not limited to homes that are individually owned, and in many cases loans are made for apartment buildings. There were 7,000 units started last year under the limited dividend provisions of the
National Housing Act
act. In the dominion-provincial loans scheme these, too, are all for rental accommodation; and for several months under the agency plan we were making direct loans to builders for apartment accommodation. Mind you, as the funds became low we restricted these loans to homes, but millions and millions of dollars have been provided under the provisions of the act for rental accommodation.
The hon. member said that Mr. Mansur had made a statement to the effect that there was some reason to doubt the wisdom of what he described as "forced home ownership". I have not read the statement made by Mr. Mansur, but I would doubt that it contained all the implications the hon. member mentioned. His suggestion appeared to imply that people should be forced to live in the centre of cities. The hon. member suggested we were getting too many homes in the suburbs, and that we should make people live downtown in rented accommodation. One of the reasons Canada has grown into a great, strong, young nation has been that to such a large degree it is a nation of home owners. Everyone in this chamber today who has had to start out and acquire a home of his own and dig the garden-I know in my own case I had to wheel rocks from all over vacant lots to make a rockery, and I might say that the rocks in Vancouver are mighty big-is of necessity a good citizen with a sense of pride in home ownership and a strong feeling of identification with his local community. When you own a home your roots go down. You take pride in that home, and it contributes to your feeling of happiness and well-being. I believe it is just human nature to respond in this fashion.
The hon. member expressed the opinion that it is a bad thing to have so many homes in the suburbs, and he referred to those individually owned homes causing headaches of all kinds. Well, they may cause worries to municipal authorities and transportation authorities and possibly in other ways, but we are a nation of free people. Canadians are at liberty to make their own choice, and they do not have to buy a house if they do not want to. Certainly in the last year they have shown every indication that they want to buy houses, and they want to buy small houses.
I have the figures here for the starts in the month of January. On an earlier occasion I gave the starts for the calendar year 1958. Starts to the number of 4,790 were made during the month as compared with January, 1958 when the figure was 3,945. This is an increase of 21.4 per cent. These are not completions, they are starts. If we had the figure for completions, naturally it would be

National Housing Act
much higher because there were many more houses started last year. These are brand new starts for the month of January.
Then, in so far as people not wanting to buy houses or not wanting to own houses is concerned, there again the figures for January are very reassuring. The number of completed and unoccupied houses at the end of January, 1959 showed a decline from the previous year in spite of the fact that thousands and thousands more houses were built last year than in any other period in Canada's history. The figures are 3,010 as of January 31, 1959; 3,190 as of January 31, 1958. The figure is very reassuring. Housing in Canada is very, very successful at the present time. I think Canadians from coast to coast realize that fact.
Naturally we are very interested in any suggestions for the improvement of the housing policy. We try not to close our minds to suggestions of any kind, but my good friend from Burnaby-Coquitlam can rest assured that in Canada the housing picture is not too bad at the present time, and that the officials of the corporation and the government will endeavour to keep closely in touch with developments and change the policy as needs may require.
He mentioned the interest rate. There is no intention of raising the interest rate. That should be made clear at the present time. He is quite right in bringing that up. I think if he were responsible for housing policy he himself would hesitate to branch out into all those other proposals such as providing life insurance and nursing accommodation. After all, it was nursing accommodation and not housing that he mentioned. This also applies to going into the various other fields. We try to get into just as much as we can possibly handle in a sensible way. I think the housing program in Canada today and also under the former government-I am not claiming all the credit for the present government-is a policy which is typically Canadian and which has been succeeding very well.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, I have a little difficulty being seen down here. I wanted to bring one or two suggestions to the attention of the minister before the bill passes. I was particularly gratified to hear the minister's remarks on the putting down of roots and the resulting good citizenship which accrues thereby. It seems to us in the Yukon, at least in the past, that a good many policies such as the housing policy of the federal government have sort of by-passed the people up there. It simply does not work.
A good example of that, as I am sure the minister is aware, is the fact that since the

housing act has been in existence only three or four units have been constructed by private individuals. The reason for this is quite apparent, namely that transportation costs to those northern areas simply increase the cost of construction to the point where it is simply beyond the means of the average income earner. A house which would cost $10,000 or $11,000 to build in Edmonton or Winnipeg would cost as much as $14,000 or $15,000 in the north.
As the minister knows, a family man with three children cannot get along in a house in the cost bracket of $9,000 or $10,000. He needs a three bedroom house, and in the northern areas this usually runs him up into the neighbourhood of $14,000. This house in the Yukon, at any rate, would end up costing him between $18,000 and $20,000. Even when you apply the maximum loan of $12,800 it can readily be seen how far beyond the capabilities of the average income earner this house is. He simply is not able to raise the down payment.
The minister has said that in Canada housing is very successful. From my own observations, and from listening to his remarks and the remarks of most other hon. members, 1 can fully realize this. I think it is very successful in the rest of Canada; but with all due deference to the minister-and I believe through no direct fault of his own-this success has not yet extended to the northern areas of Canada.
I said I was particularly interested in hearing the minister's remarks concerning the putting down of roots because, like him, I believe it does make for good citizenship. I might go further and say that unless the family man can look to good housing as well as to health and education facilities in many of those pioneer communities, and the possibility of obtaining them, we in the north will not get that type of permanent settlement that is desirable. One of the best methods of providing that facility to the individual who wishes to go north is by providing it under the provisions of the National Housing Act.
I understand that in some of the provinces there are schemes available which will allow an individual who wishes to build a house to draw on provincial funds for the purpose of bridging the gap between his down payment and the down payment required by the National Housing Act. I may be wrong here, but I believe some such scheme exists in Ontario.
I have this suggestion to make to the minister. I am sure he is well aware of the fact that the Yukon territorial government cannot afford to put up funds for this purpose. It might be possible, however, for the minister,

in co-operation with his colleague the minister of northern affairs, to arrange that funds be made available to the territorial government through the federal government for this purpose. A fund of this nature would enable the individual in the north to be assisted in raising the down payment necessary to bring himself within the terms of the National Housing Act.
Many hon. members might wonder why this suggestion concerning a fund should be made at all. I put this suggestion forward rather than suggest that the act be amended to accommodate special circumstances which are applicable in the north. An act which is national in scope cannot be amended to cover regional difficulties. I quite understand this. However, somehow or other this gap must be bridged. This suggestion of setting up a fund to assist the individual in the north will, I think, achieve that objective.
Now, the difficulties with regard to building in the north are many, and if we are to achieve any degree of permanency about the settlements, if we are to attract people to the north to achieve that degree of settlement which is essential to the proper development of the north, then we must look in the direction of providing those people who wish to go to the north with the amenities, perhaps not all the amenities but at least the bare essentials that are available to their fellow citizens in the south.
I shall terminate these remarks with the observation that in the opinion of the people in the Yukon, the housing act which has been so successful in providing homes for families with average incomes in the south, and in providing low rental and low cost accommodation, has certainly not been available to them. They have been working under a handicap. The turnover in population has been large. The inducements to settlement have been poor, and one of the areas in which improvement could definitely be made is in the area of housing.
Already, through his department and in co-operation with his colleague the minister of northern affairs as well as officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the minister has made available to municipalities in the Yukon a scheme whereby low rental units may be constructed. I understand that the municipality of Whitehorse has already initiated plans to take advantage of this scheme. I am now speaking of low cost housing and plans which would enable the individual to acquire his own home which, because of the many factors I have described, is impossible at the moment.


Howard Charles Green: These are very interesting comments that the hon. member for Yukon has
National Housing Act
made. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation adds 20 per cent to the Yukon appraisal rates but the loans, of course, are subject to the statutory maximum of $12,800. It might be wise if the Yukon council were to make some recommendation with regard to this policy. As the hon. member knows, there is now limited self-government for the Yukon and I have not heard that the council has made any suggestion that provision should be made for second mortgages on homes in the Yukon. This policy is in effect in the province of Quebec, but not in Ontario. It may also be in effect in some of the other provinces. It seems to me that would be a better way of making provision to meet this need than to try to amend the National Housing Act so that one provision was available for the Yukon and a different provision for the rest of Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Of course I did not suggest that the act be amended, and I said that was why I made the alternative suggestion. I referred to the difficulty in amending an act national in scope to apply to any particular region. Certainly, as the minister has suggested, the initial request in this regard should come from the territorial government, and I shall certainly take steps to see that they are apprised of the minister's remarks.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the minister's officials have yet been able to determine what amount the insurance fund has been debited for losses?


Howard Charles Green: Since 1954 there have been 10 claims on the fund from approved lenders for an aggregate amount paid of $99,077. There has been no loss to the fund in the taking over of the houses. There have been seven foreclosures of insured loans by approved lenders, under which no claim was made on the fund.


John Richard Garland: I think the figures we have just been given are ample proof that the corporation should give consideration to lowering the rate on insurance. I know the overall amount of money involved is large, but it seems to me that if, as I understand, there has been a debit of only $99,000 since 1954, while in the last year alone this insurance fund has been supplemented by something of the order of $15 million, then the insurance fee could be lowered.
Mention of this fact leads me to the main problem, I think, in connection with housing today. I do not want to take away from what has been accomplished in this last record year, but I think everyone will agree that one of the main problems in the industry today is the increased cost of housing. I do

National Housing Act not think there is anything quite so alarming to those who are concerned with the low income group, and there is no one in any corner of the house who has any priority in interest in this group. It seems to me our housing legislation is not fulfilling the need for which it was originally designed, that is the need for housing in what is sometimes referred to as the lower half of the income scale.
As I say, I am not seeking to detract from anything the government is doing at the present time, but this is a very real problem. I wondered what thoughts the minister may care to express today as to what the government may be doing to try to bring down the cost of housing. We know that each year there seems to be a continuing spiral of rising costs. We are not suggesting controls or anything of that sort, because we are well aware of the problem. I wondered if the government had given any thought to setting up a committee or a study group perhaps within the framework of the corporation, or one that would include officials of the corporation and some of the best brains of industry, finance and representatives of provincial and municipal governments. Perhaps some serious study could be given to this problem of rising costs.
I recall that not long ago an outstanding spokesman for the house building industry in Toronto made the statement that before long all houses in that particular area were going to cost $20,000 or more. This is a real problem, and it is preventing people in the lower income group from getting houses. I could not agree more with the minister- notwithstanding all that is being done in connection with limited dividend schemes and so on; they are all very good and should be encouraged-that there is no substitute for the man owning his own home. I think most people recognize the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult for him to do so with these rising costs.
There is another problem to which I referred briefly here on Wednesday. Some means must be found to narrow the gap between the cost of these homes and the amount of the loans. I think these two problems are the major ones we are facing today. I wonder whether the minister would care to comment on them.


Howard Charles Green: Of course, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member is advocating larger loans, that would mean that the person who is going to get a home would require an even bigger income than he is required to have at the present time.


John Richard Garland: Unless the regulations were changed.


Howard Charles Green: I think there is a good deal of wishful thinking when it is suggested that any government should bring down the price of homes. It is easy to make that suggestion; and of course the federal government is always the last government to which people run in order to have it do all these things.
The hon. member suggests that the federal government should bring down the price of homes. After all, we live in a free country. As I said the other day, we have no intention of putting a ceiling on wages or of controlling prices. They have all been going up. The wage earners have been getting higher wages-and I am not quarrelling with that fact-and people have been getting higher prices for their goods. The corporation has been doing everything possible to keep down the price of homes. This is one of the main worries the officials have. In addition to that, each year the Canadian Construction Association, which also is greatly interested in this problem, has a conference in Ottawa to which are called representatives of many different fields of interest in housing, and extremely useful work has been done in this regard.
The hon. member will realize that the small home loan policy puts a limit on the size of a home. There are also many other restrictions. Many of the frills cannot be put into these homes if a loan is to be obtained. People like to have frills. They like to have the modern conveniences. I expect they are going to continue to like to have them. The price of homes simply cannot just be set at a certain figure and stopped from rising. The situation, of course, is far worse in a city like metropolitan Toronto. The problem is not nearly as great in the smaller centres of Canada. We are doing everything we can to try to keep the prices down.
In thinking of the debates that have taken place this session on the subject of housing, I am afraid the impression has gone out that nobody with a small income can get any help whatever under the National Housing Act. This is far from the truth. Over 13 per cent of the people benefiting under the small home loan policy have been in the income group from $3,000 to $4,000 a year. If more homes were built in the rural areas or in the small towns there would be a much larger percentage, but the people in those areas are not seeking new homes to the same extent as are people in the metropolitan areas. One reason that the figures look high is that so many houses have been going into the metropolitan areas like metropolitan Toronto. It is figured now that the lower half income group are from $4,500 a year down; that is for

family income. We are therefore getting well down into the lower income groups with our housing policy.
Another thing is that in respect of many of the loans for small amounts, we find that the borrowers do not want to put into a home the percentage of their income that they are allowed to put into it under the regulations. They can put in up to 27 per cent on the cost of a home; that is for the carrying charges on a home. However, there is fairly clear indication that in the lower income groups the buyers do not want to put that much in. Of course they are free to make their own arrangements. They are not forced to put in 27 per cent. If they did so, of course, it would mean that buyers with smaller incomes would be able to benefit under the provisions of the act. However, these are all extremely helpful suggestions that hon. members are making, and we will certainly give them careful consideration.


John Richard Garland: Can the minister tell us at this time how much of that $375 million, I think it was, which the corporation put out last year went into areas having a population of 50,000 or more?
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: In the first place, Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) for having a further considerable amount voted to the C.M.H.C. to enable Canadians to acquire homes. The amount, which has already reached the billion-dollar mark, has helped and is still helping provide employment for workers, and develop construction throughout Canada.
In my constituency, especially in Repen-tigny, there has been a real housing boom, thanks to the C.M.H.C., or to the amounts which were voted as a result of the proposal made in this house by the Minister of Public Works.
The Minister of Public Works has already done much to improve the C.M.H.C. In the first place, down payments have been lowered and higher amounts are being loaned for building or purchasing homes. Secondly, the level of income required to obtain a loan has been lowered.
Again, I congratulate the minister for making these extra funds available to contractors and to individuals who want to build homes. At the moment, according to official statistics, Canada ranks first among all countries in the world in percentage of home owners, 65 per cent of existing houses being now occupied by owners.
National Housing Act
I feel this is the best way to get Canadians interested in the future of their country, because a house owner becomes conscious of his responsibilities and his sole concern is to promote his country's interests.
In 1958, house building reached an all time high, thanks to the considerable amount of credit put at the disposal of Canadians by the Minister of Public Works.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to make two suggestions. I do not know whether it would be appropriate to consider the possibility, in order to promote house building in the wintertime, of granting a certain rebate or lower interest to anyone who built, say, between November and April. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, this is a suggestion I am humbly submitting to the house.
Moreover, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in co-operation with educational institutions and provincial governments, should consider the possibility of making eligible for government insurance, under the National Housing Act, all loans granted by loan institutions for the building of residential accommodation for students in universities and other educational institutions.
Mr. Chairman, I have sought to be brief. I merely wished to make those suggestions, in all humility, to the Minister of Public Works.
(Text):


Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, when I spoke the other day on the principle of this bill I expressed my concern about the discrepancy that exists between the metropolitan and major urban areas as compared to the other areas of this country. As a matter of fact, in the statistics issued by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation we have at table 9 the number of dwelling starts- and I would confine myself only to the starts -in metropolitan and major urban areas. We can figure out for ourselves how many units are constructed by provinces in those areas, but on table 3 we have the number of dwelling starts by provinces. In table 1 of the same book we have the number of dwelling starts by areas. They show the number of starts for urban areas of 5,000 population and over, and for rural areas, non-farm and farm.
I wonder if it would be possible for the minister to give us some further information, because I am especially interested by those small municipalities and cities. Is it possible for the minister to give us, by province and

National Housing Act
by area, the number of dwelling starts, confining myself to up to October last? What I mean is this. I would like to have the number of dwelling starts by provinces in rural non-farm areas and in urban areas of 5,000 population and over. I understand that those figures might not be immediately available, but I will be satisfied if I have my answer when we reach section 6 of the act.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this would
require an entirely new set of statistics, and it would take us a little while to get them. However, I shall be very glad to give them to the hon. member as soon as possible.


Gabriel Roberge: Even if it is not today, Mr. Chairman, I will be quite satisfied if I have them at a later date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the minister one question. Has any progress been made in getting houses built under the housing act in the fishing settlements, particularly in Newfoundland?


Howard Charles Green: Apparently there has not been much use made of the act in these communities. The hon. member will be interested to know that the corporation is now working on a do-it-yourself plan of house which it is thought would be acceptable in these areas.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was hoping, sir, that the president of the corporation, having formerly been deputy minister of fisheries and therefore well aware of the problems, would ultimately come up with some really good idea. This sounds like the beginning of a good one.


Howard Charles Green: He comes up with the answers to most problems.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We appointed him for that reason.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I am still not very happy with the reply of the minister to the issues I raised previously. I agree with him wholeheartedly that housing is a very successful enterprise at this time. I think the minister will also agree with me that in the main the act has been very, very successful in providing home ownership for that class of people who are of average or above average income level, but as far as supplying housing to those of below average income is concerned the act has in the main been a complete failure. As for supplying housing in the rental field it has been an utter failure and flop. The minister's own statistics reveal that.


Howard Charles Green: That is a ridiculous statement.


Erhart Regier: The minister says 7,000 units, which is only 5 per cent of the units built last year.


Howard Charles Green: That is only under one plan.


Erhart Regier: Yes, only under one plan; but I daresay that under all plans not 10 per cent of the housing which has been built has been for rental purposes. This has been going on year after year after year, and we have a large segment of the Canadian population who do not wish to become, and many who should not become home owners because of their work or other circumstances. It is this continued lack of the building of rental housing that is causing one of the very serious difficulties today.


Howard Charles Green: Might I point out to the hon. member that about one third of the housing starts last year under the National Housing Act were rental units.


Erhart Regier: Might I then have from the minister the statistics which bear out that statement?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering whether the minister could tell us how he arrived at this estimate that one-third of the housing units which were bulit last year under the auspices of this act were units for rental purposes.


Howard Charles Green: It is not quite that good. We checked the figures at noon, and of the total N.H.A. units in 1958-86,762-rental units amounted to 18,041.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the minister is now in a position to say how much of the $375 million placed through the corporations last year went out to municipalities of 50,000 or more.


Howard Charles Green: We will have to get that information. We have not got it available here.
The Depuiy Chairman: Shall clause 1 be approved?


Erhart Regier: No. The minister has done some research over the lunch hour, and I have also done a little research. I agree that I was wrong, and I am very pleased to note the admission of the minister that he also was wrong. There has been a very pleasing improvement in the percentage that has been devoted to the cost of rental units when we consider the 1958 statistics and compare them with the statistics for 1957. I have obtained the information that in 1957, 23.2 per cent of the housing units that were built were built for rental purposes. I have only the

figures for the first three-quarters of 1958, but I notice that the figure has risen to 26 per cent. I welcome this development.
I should like to assure the minister that I am not making any effort to be political. After all, we are engaged in a serious matter, namely supplying the Canadian people with the housing that they need. Housing is one of the major needs in the lives of all of us, and I should like to appeal to the minister to consider all our proposals on their merit alone, as I know he means to do, without regard to whatever quarter of the house from which they may come.
The minister made reference to the rocks in British Columbia being mighty big, and we in this group realize well that the rocks are mighty big. The rocks in the government who represent British Columbia are mighty big also, and while they represent only 13 per cent of the composition of the government I know they represent 50 per cent of the brains, and with one minor alteration they might even represent 75 per cent of the brains of the government. We are very pleased with the work the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has been able to do as minister in charge of public works, and especially with his efforts in the field of housing. I have heard some rather alarming rumours, but I am not very worried about who is the leader of the house, nor am I very worried about who is deputy prime minister. However-and I say this with all sincerity-I should like to see the minister who is now occupying the position of Minister of Public Works continue in that office because it is one of the most important offices in the government of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Erhart Regier: I am very much in order,
because I am referring to the minister in his capacity as the member of the government responsible for the administration of this act. The minister has told us that housing is going on very successfully at the present time, and I agree with him that this act is aiding those whose incomes are above average and, more lately, even those of average income, to satisfy their needs for housing in the dominion of Canada. We have no quarrel with that, and the minister is very wrong when he says that I attempted to imply that it was a bad thing to have many people living in the suburbs. I hope I did not say that; I hope I did not imply it. I hope I did not imply that I favoured any policy which would make people live downtown, to use the minister's words.
I have read through Hansard and I find that all the thinking represented in the ideas or suggestions offered the minister within 66968-9-93J
National Housing Act
recent days follow the same line; that is, how can we assist to increase the possibility of home ownership. All the arguments tend to be in that direction and even some of the changes in regulations under the act are inclined that way. I warned the minister a year ago about the danger of reducing the standards or minimum requirements as to the size of future houses in Canada. At that time I believe I said that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation might find itself responsible for the building of areas that will be future slums. I regret the tendency to reduce standards and minimum requirements in order to encourage more Canadians to become home owners.
The minister has received many proposals one of which was that the period of amortization be increased. All the thinking in this house seems channelled in the direction of what can be done to enable more Canadians to buy homes of their own with the hope of eventually owning them. I appreciate that the minister has some conception of economics. As I indicated before, he has one of the sharpest minds in the government. I know he has heard of a fundamental law of economics, the point of maximum return. I am not so sure that that point has not already been reached if not exceeded in this policy of encouraging an increasing number of Canadians to become owners of their own homes.
I know the government is opposed to subsidized ownership of homes and I am afraid that like its predecessor it is also opposed to subsidized rental as a basic principle. We in this group see nothing wrong with subsidization in either field if it is in the national interest. I believe the minister knows full well that private enterprise has found it no longer profitable to build homes for rental purposes with the exception of luxury apartment suites. There was a day when it used to pay an individual to invest his life's savings in the building of an additional home for the purpose of renting it. He could safely count on receiving $1 per month in rental for every $100 of his investment. That situation no longer applies in Canada and in fact it has not applied for some years. Rarely today does a Canadian invest his life's savings in the building of homes for rental purposes. That is done now usually only in the case of superdeluxe apartment blocks where extraordinarily high rentals can be charged.
When we consider that private enterprise has completely deserted the home rental field so far as ordinary Canadians are concerned it can be seen that we have a problem on our hands. That is what Mr. Mansur the former president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was referring to as I indicated

National Housing Act
this morning when he said that there is a danger in forced home ownership. Mr. Mansur pointed out that this problem does not exist in French Canada but in English Canada. At page 148 of the report to which I have referred he is reported as having said:
One other major difference in English-speaking Canada which I think has an influence is that there is not the landlord class in English-speaking Canada that there is in French-speaking Canada. The entrepreneurs in that field are not intrested as they are in the province of Quebec. Further, in English-speaking Canada we do not have that big sector of the most efficient rental housing of all-
I should like to underline this opinion of Mr. Mansur.
-the most efficient rental housing of all, the duplex and the triplex where the owner lives in the bottom unit and is a resident landlord in respect to the one or two units above him. This is the ultimate in efficiency in managing rental property. This does not exist in the other parts of the country.
Mr. Mansur went on to say:
I think that every effort should be devoted, as we are trying to, to encourage entrepreneurs is the residential field to get into activities like row housing-a form of rental housing which would be satisfactory to the English-speaking Canadian housewife and yet be economical for management by the landlord.
I believe those words are worthy of serious consideration by the minister in determining the administration of this act. In addition to the major point I have attempted to make that the act has not been too successful in meeting what may well be the major housing need of the Canadian public at this time and that is accommodation on a rental basis at modest rates.
I should like to ask the minister how far the present amendments to the act are intended to go or may go toward eliminating the existing racket in the mortgage field. 1 am sure the minister knows very well what it is to which I have reference. Are these amendments designed in any way to eliminate the regrettable occurrence on the Canadian scene where first mortgages are offered for sale at discounts as high as 25 per cent and second mortgages are offered as high as 50 per cent? I am sure the minister would agree that most of this negotiable paper being offered for sale is new paper. They are planned and plotted in advance of the building of the houses. We have a very unfortunate case in New Westminster, as the minister well knows, which is now before the courts and I may not debate it here. But I am pleased to see that at long last one of those cases has been hauled up before the courts for a judicial decision.
I also noted the minister's announcement that he is not contemplating any rise in interest rates in the future. I am very

happy and I think millions of Canadians will be very happy with that announcement. Can we assume as a result of the minister's announcement that, in the interests of more housing for Canadians, this government will be prepared to meet an operating loss on the part of management of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation? I think this is a vital answer to both management of the corporation and to our concern as to how long a period of time we may expect the minister's announcement on interest rates to remain valid.
I suppose the minister forgot to indicate his reaction to my plea that this government at least match what the provincial governments are doing and that they make a grant toward the provision of housing for senior citizens at least equal to the grant of one-third of the capital cost now being supplied by some of the provincial governments of Canada.
The minister has gone to great lengths to emphasize that this government considers itself only in the role of a residual lender. I think the sooner it acclimatizes itself to harsh, cold economic realities the better because, as the minister very well knows, the government is no longer a residual lender; it is the major lender and the major partner; therefore, I think we should not hear very much more of that residual lender business.
We have assumed this as a responsibility of the government of Canada and I think rightly so. I think that is where it ought to belong and the sooner we adjust our thinking along those lines the better off housing will be in Canada.
At the cost of repeating, I should like to say that our basic contention is that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been tremendously successful and especially under the auspices of the minister who is responsible at the present time. However, our contention is that most of the help has gone to those who really do not need the help of the taxpayers of Canada, and that those who need the help of the community at large for the purpose of ownership, and especially in the rental field, have been left without the assistance that was originally announced as being the aims and objects of this act when it was first introduced in the House of Commons.


Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the minister at this time. I realize that I spoke on housing several days ago and I shall make my remarks as brief as possible. A good deal

has been said today about rental housing. There is a group of people on whose behalf I should like to speak because I have had considerable dealings with them. I refer to people who work in hospitals, especially in a hospital where there is a nurses' training school and a large staff of staff nurses, dietitians, laboratory technicians and all sorts of people of that kind, people who make employment in hospitals their life work. In the past we have had a great deal of trouble in finding housing accommodation for them. Would it be possible for a board of governors of a hospital to form a limited dividend company and build apartments for hospital staff? I know it was tried once before because I was involved in it myself at the time but nothing was done. I think it is a very important subject and I should like to get the opinion of the minister.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the answer is that if such a limited dividend corporation were formed, the units built would have to be self-contained and it might not be possible for the occupants to be restricted to the people mentioned.


Erhart Regier: I should like to have an answer from the minister on what his approach is to the operations of this corporation. He has informed us that there is no intention to raise interest rates and yet I believe money is made available to the corporation at cost to the government. That means an ever narrowing margin to the corporation. Is it government policy to subsidize the corporation if necessary or, when we get to the point that the corporation can no longer show a net return, will the government then raise interest rates?


Howard Charles Green: This is a hypothetical question, Mr. Chairman. There is no intention to subsidize interest rates. There is still a margin between what the government can get money for and the interest rate but we have no intention of adopting a policy of subsidizing interest rates.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister in a position to give us any information as to what the margin of C.M.H.C. operations was last year and also what the government is now paying or using as a base of long term interest rates on those bonds? We all know of the six per cent, but I should also like to know the average of what had been received. I note it lends money at less than six per cent.


Howard Charles Green: I cannot give the hon. member those figures this afternoon; I do not have them before me. The fact is there is a gap between what it costs the government to get the money and the interest rate. As I said this morning, we have no intention of raising the
National Housing Act
interest rate. What may happen next year or the year after I cannot say, but I would also add we are not going into the business of subsidizing interest rates.


Erhart Regier: I can assure the minister that we welcome his assurance that interest rates will not be raised. I am sure the officials must have the latest annual financial report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation before them at the present time and I am also sure they know very well now how they are faring even on a monthly basis. How did the corporation fare in its operations in January of this year? I think that would be most revealing because it has a bearing on the minister's announcement that, for the present, there will be no rise in the interest rate.


John Smith: I should like to pursue a little farther the question of this building that I mentioned earlier and the minister's answer. The minister said this building would probably be for nurses, and it would not be possible to finance it through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The building I had in mind would not be confined to nurses. I am not thinking about student nurses because they are taken care of in a different manner altogether. This building would be designed to take care of the people who work in hospitals, and that might include nurses, but would also include the people who work in the laundries, interns and others.
In our area we have apartments which are designed for old age pensioners, and they work out very well. If it were necessary to have this building available to anyone who wished to occupy it then, of course, we could not confine it to people who work in the hospital.


Howard Charles Green: I think the best method would be for the hon. member to put the facts of his case before the officials of the corporation, then we could decide whether or not it would be possible to help.


Gabriel Roberge: I should like to make one observation. I was listening this morning to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm, and if I am not mistaken he was asking the government to study the possibility of extending the act to cover loans for the building of residences for university students. I am very happy to find that it seems the hon. member has changed his mind and now favours federal aid to universities.


Mr. Howard:: I have a couple of questions I should like to ask arising out of the earlier discussions, but first of all I would say that

National Housing Act
I appreciate the opportunity of directing my remarks to 25 per cent of the talent in the cabinet.


Howard Charles Green: That is too high a percentage, 1 am afraid.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The minister would be a better judge of that than I.
The question of interest rates was raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, and I should like to pursue it. I think this has a great bearing on our attitude toward this and other clauses in the bill. With respect to the lending of money, in percentages or in units of the interest rates charged, what is the return from C.M.H.C. to the treasury? Now, at the resolution stage I understood the minister to say that these advances are made to C.M.H.C., but that when repayments are made certain deductions are made, such as administration costs, the cost of getting the money and so on. The Minister of Public Works indicated he would like to get some credit for having that money go into the Department of Finance. Can he not give us any indication of the amount of money returned, in terms of the interest rate charged on the loans and its relation to the six per cent, so we would have an idea of the cost of administration and of borrowing money?


Howard Charles Green: The corporation makes no deductions from the moneys it receives from the mortgagors. The whole amount is paid into the treasury.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I am sorry, but I did not catch what the minister said.


Howard Charles Green: The whole amount that is collected from the mortgagors is paid into the treasury without any deduction by the corporation.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Would it be the Department of Finance, then, to whom it is paid, and would the Department of Finance have this information available? What is the difference between what it costs to borrow money in the first place, as compared with what the interest charges are, so that we could think in terms of profit or loss if those are the terms that are used?


Howard Charles Green: The money which the corporation gets is charged to it at a certain rate which is set every six months by the Department of Finance.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Could the minister tell us what that rate is?


Howard Charles Green: It varies from time to time. It is 4f per cent at the present time.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is helpful to a degree; that is the rate at the moment. This 4f per cent interest charge, has that been increasing in the past year or two? What was it a year ago? What has the average been over this past year?


Howard Charles Green: It varies from time to time. A year ago it was one-half per cent smaller.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I understand that C.M.H.C. computes its operations on a calendar year basis, so what would be the average over the past year? Are you able to determine that?


Howard Charles Green: We could not give the hon. member that information today.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It would take quite a bit of work?


Howard Charles Green: It involves the amounts that are obtained, which vary, as does the rate from time to time.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have another question which involves the interest rate. There is a section of the act which states that the governor in council may set the interest rate to be charged to borrowers, and that there will be a maximum with respect to that. In so far as insured mortgage loans are concerned the act says the maximum rate allowable cannot be more than 2J per cent above the interest rate on long term government bonds. I wonder if the minister could indicate at the moment, having in mind this formula that the rate cannot be more than 2J per cent above the rate on long term government bonds, what the maximum rate could be? I realize the minister said it is going to remain at six per cent, but assuming at the present time he was desirous of raising it, what would be the maximum?


Howard Charles Green: That would have to be in accordance with the act; at the moment, it could go to 6J per cent. I think it is a little unfortunate to have any emphasis placed on these particular figures. For one thing, it would be just too bad if the people across the country got the idea they were going to have to pay more for their loans. I have already dealt with that and said that there was not that danger at the moment. After all, this is not going to happen, this 6f per cent is not going to be charged in the immediate future.
The very fact that these fictitious interest rates are shown or pictured in the house may have a bad effect on the borrowers. They may think that they are going to have to pay that much more and therefore they will not borrow any money and therefore they will not build houses. On the other hand, publicity the other way to the effect that interest rates

are going to go down and all this kind of business and that they must go down means that it may be more difficult to get money put into homes by the lending institutions. As I have intimated, we have held the line at six per cent and we have no intention of changing it under present conditions. This is the vital fact which should be kept before the Canadian people. I would regret very much if the idea should get out as a result of these questions this afternoon either that the interest rate is likely to be raised or on the other hand that the interest rate is likely to be lowered. It is not going to help housing very much and it is not going to help the Canadian people very much if this impression goes abroad.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I hope I do not fall within the category of one who is to be criticized by the minister's comments. It is certainly not my intention to instil in anybody any fear that interest rates are likely to go up or go down. I would prefer to see them go down and to see a government announcement to that effect so that we can deal more successfully with borrowers under this act. We have been merely trying to make it as completely sure as we can, and to get the minister to reiterate it time and time again without too many qualifications, that interest rates are not going to go up. We were told on other occasions or other parliaments have been told on other occasions that interest rates would be maintained at a minimum, but slowly over the years we have seen that interest rates under the National Housing Act have been going up and up. It is not the minister of public works, whoever he might be at that particular time and it is not Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or it is not this government which decides what these interest rates will be; it is somebody outside. It is the private financial institutions who decide what the interest rates will be. That fact was quite evident when they were raised to six per cent. It is not our desire to try to scare anybody off. I hope the Minister of Public Works is not trying to lay the ground work for blaming somebody else if interest rates go up or if there is some drop-off in production.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, this morning
I had the honour to address this house briefly, but in my absence this afternoon the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) attempted to falsify the truth by ascribing to me certain statements that I never made in this house-
(Text):


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
National Housing Act


The Deputy Chairman:: I will hear the hon. member for Megantic.


Gabriel Roberge: I just heard the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm say that when I rose a few moments ago I said in this committee something that was not true. I think that the hon. member should be asked to withdraw what he has just said. If he wants to correct what he said or what I said, that is all right with me but he cannot say in this house that I am not speaking the truth.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, when I had the honour to address the house this morning, I was not at all referring to grants to educational institutions. I merely enquired whether C.M.H.C. officials, in co-operation with provincial governments, after the latter have been advised or informed and provided that they agree, might make it possible for educational institutions in Canada to take advantage of the National Housing Act with regard to students' residences.
There was no reference at all to university grants, although I shall have occasion to deal with that particular matter at some later date, but the hon. member for Megantic has been dishonest with me-
(Text):


Erhart Regier: I wish to say a word on the point of order, Mr. Chairman. I do not know how this thing works. I do not know how far we can hold the translator responsible. However, I heard the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm say that the hon. member for Megantic attempted to falsify the truth. I think the hon. member for Megantic has a perfectly valid point of order and that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm ought to withdraw, if this translation is official. If this is unofficial, I have nothing to say.


Gabriel Roberge: I wish to speak on the point of order, if I may; I might raise a double point of order. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, before he again started to speak on this matter-and of course the Chair did not rule on this matter-went on to say that I was dishonest. That is even worse than what he said in the first place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Megantic. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm said that the hon. member for Megantic was malhonnete. I submit to Your Honour that he should be asked to withdraw that expression because it is not proper for any

National Housing Act
hon. member to say that another hon. member of this house is dishonest, no matter in which language he says it.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, in order to close this discussion, I would ask that hon. members look up tomorrow's Hansard, which constitutes the official record. The hon. member for Megantic took advantage of my absence, as opposition members are given to do, and attempted to put words in my mouth that I never said.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is another insinuation.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The question of whether the hon. member took advantage when another hon. member was not here is not the point at the moment. The point at the moment seems to be whether or not the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm referred in unparliamentary language to the hon. member for Megantic. As all hon. members know, it is not unparliamentary to say that a statement is untrue. However, it is unparliamentary to say that an hon. member is lying. If that is the impression that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm left with the members of the committee, I feel that he would agree with me when I say that it would be much better if he would withdraw the remark.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman,-


Charles Edward Rea: Is the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka speaking on the point of order?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Rea: I will hear him.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: What I heard on the translation system was that "the hon. member was dishonest to me". That is the way it was translated. I feel it was not a case of being dishonest but of being unfair.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, to comply with the standing orders of the house, I shall merely say, and I am sure everyone will understand me, that the hon. member for Megantic credited me with intentions which are not in accordance with the statements I made this morning.
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 1
carry?


John Richard Garland: Before the clause carries I wonder whether the minister is yet in a position to say how much of the $375 million 
placed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was placed in areas with a population over 50,000? I asked that question well before lunch. I should like to have an answer.


Howard Charles Green: This will require a special set of figures. This will have to be run off by regions. We will get that information as quickly as possible and let the hon. member have it.


Mr. Fisher:: There are several points I want to raise in connection with this legislation. I imagine that the minister is familiar with one of them through the hon. member for Scarborough. It relates to the problem in connection with the area known as Stapleford farm. I am going to relate this matter to the bill very shortly. As the minister is aware, there has been going on in the Scarborough region a controversy that has two aspects.
One is the fact that people in privately developed subdivisions are up in arms over this Stapleford farm development because they have paid approximately $2,100 or $2,200 for their property, and it appears that people in an adjoining area putting up their own homes under the land settlement scheme can get their lots for $800 or $900. This has caused hard feelings.
The other aspect is that there is this feeling, which is supported by a letter I have here written to the Hon. William Nickle by the education director for Scarborough, that figures which have been released in connection with this plan have not been fair in that they do not show that where you have rental units you have the type of families where there are more children than usual, and so you have an extra burden on the school cost. I thought the hon. member for Scarborough could take a certain pride in the position which he took at certain public meetings in the area when this controversy developed, but I would like to know what the hon. minister and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials intend to do in this particular field to try and straighten out this problem, which promises to be a developing one.
An animosity is developing between people in private subdivisions and these land settlement plans with rental units, and I would like to ask if there will be any consideration given to tackling this educational side of the problem. In a city like Port Arthur or Fort William it would not be a particular problem, because you have one educational authority; but where you have a cluster of educational authorities, a rental housing scheme means that there may be a funnelling and concentration into that area of an inordinate number of children, and so the school costs go up inordinately. This is a real problem, and I

would like to suggest that the figures in connection with what the federal government is spending in the metropolitan areas are really disappointing.
The Lawrence park development, the Regent park south development and the Scarborough development really add up to a pittance in terms of rental housing in comparison with the great wen which has been growing at Toronto. All the good intentions in the world which have been expressed by the hon. minister and the previous minister are not going to give a real, dynamic lead in this particular rental field. The hon. member for Welland has already made the point that this matter is an important one. I do not think the minister has given us enough indication that his department, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and this legislation is going to have any particular effect in this field. I would ask that he consider very seriously what can be done to head off these developing conflicts between people who may have National Housing Act loans themselves but who look over at a subdivision where you have rental units, which in turn gets their backs up. As I believe the hon. member for Scarborough pointed out at public meetings, this injects a sort of class distinction into the community which is bad; but more than that, it is beginning to put an opprobrium on rental housing just at the very time when that is a topic the federal and provincial governments should be attacking.
The other point I wanted to bring up arises from an answer which I received on January 19 from the corporation, through the minister, relating to foreclosures. I was very pleased with the information supplied in this answer, and I wondered why the hon. minister or the corporation did not make more of it. We have had only a total, I think, of eleven mortgages which had to be foreclosed in 1958 under the National Housing Act. I want to point out in this connection that on June 12 of last year Mr. Bates, the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, was reported to have told a Senate committee, in relation to mortgages being in arrears:
The situation is not dangerous yet, but in many parts of the country there is evidence of people being in difficulties.
I would suggest that the information which has been tabled indicates that the fears of Mr. Bates have not quite been realized. This article, reported in a press release from the Ottawa bureau of the Globe and Mail dated June 12, points out that there is a reserve fund of approximately $30 million, built up as insurance against these loans collapsing. Mr. Bates went on to say:
National Housing Act
All seven claims made on the fund arose from foreclosures necessitated by a disruption of the borrower's family-
In other words, these were very special circumstances.
The corporation sold the houses involved and actually made a profit of more than $4,000 on the seven transactions. This profit went into the insurance fund but if any of the original borrowers turned up, he would have a claim on any profit made on the sale of his house.
The point I want to make is that according to the evidence filed the foreclosures have been so few that the reserve fund must be in a strong position. I would like to know why the minister last year took exception to members asking questions about a moratorium on foreclosures of mortgages. Does not the very stability of the whole operation and the fact there is still little pressure on the reserve fund indicate that there should be lower interest rates? It seems to me that should be one of the chief arguments in support of that proposition. If there are so few foreclosures, and the people getting involved in this type of housing are so trustworthy, why cannot we see some advantage accruing out of that situation? I know that the hon. minister cannot foresee a continuation of this recession; I am sure he is one of the persons who would tell us we are moving on to bigger and better times and that things are going ahead. Therefore perhaps there will be even fewer foreclosures. Why could there not be some adjustment in this particular regard? The only adjustment I can see in this legislation is that, as far as foreclosure is concerned, any lawyer who gets into the deal will get an extra $50. With all the respect I have for the legal profession, I see no reason why in this particular situation they should be getting the extra fees.


Howard Charles Green: I dealt with this question of the reserve fund at some length this morning. I would point out to the hon. member that if, for example, one of the mining settlements in his own province were to shut down its mine, there could easily be a loss occasioned running up into $30 million or more which would have to be met from the reserve fund. This fund is set up as an insurance fund, and it is being watched very carefully. The whole position is being kept under close supervision, and just because there has been no need to draw on the fund to any extent for the last three or four years would be very poor grounds for cutting the fund in half. The corporation is simply following good business practice in building up this reserve fund. What may be done later on is a different matter, but as of today I do not think

National Housing Act
anyone can quarrel with the business judgment that the officers of the corporation have shown.
Then the hon. member also mentioned Stapleford farm. This is a project which is still under investigation. It involves not only the federal government but, primarily, the provincial government, and the settlement of the problem arising between one group of residents and potential residents is primarily the responsibility of the provincial government. We have a similar difficulty right here in Ottawa on the Base Line road. The corporation has quite a few difficulties; this is only one group of them, and there are many others. I think the hon. member will find that the problem will be worked out in a fairly satisfactory manner.


Douglas Mason Fisher: With regard to what the minister has said, I can see the possibility of a mining community such as Elliot Lake collapsing, of course, but this is an example of a case where the many people who are taking advantage of this housing act are, in effect, subsidizing a particular community, and the government is taking advantage of that. If there is a special risk in the Elliot Lake community, for example-and I think all hon. members know, if they come from northern Ontario, that there is a possibility of things going haywire there-why should this not be treated as a special case, instead of the risk being spread across the country?


Howard Charles Green: I would point out that the statement just made by the hon. member for Port Arthur is exactly the opposite of the statements made by the union leaders from Elliot Lake. The people there were not able to qualify for ordinary loans under the National Housing Act; loans would only be made where the mining company would guarantee repayment, and the union leaders came to me and stated their case. I thought they were reasonable in asking for the same kind of treatment in Elliot Lake as the people in Port Arthur were getting. The hon. member cannot have it both ways. I have already moved to meet the wishes of his own union people. If he wants that ruling reversed- I would not reverse it anyway-I should like to know where he stands.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should think that the solution is not to give the people of Elliot Lake the advantages that the people in the rest of Canada have, in so far as they are a special risk, but rather for the government to recognize that this is an area of special risk and to treat it as a special case. As to the remarks made by the minister about the views of trade union leaders, I may say that there

are many things brought up in by unions with which I do not wholly agree.


Mr. Stinson:: Since the hon. member for Port Arthur appears to have completed, for the moment at least, his questioning of the minister with respect to this legislation, I wonder if he could tell us what he meant when he said that certain of the citizens from Scarborough had an inordinate number of children.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This must be straightened out right away. I wonder if I could do it by reading the information contained in this letter to the Hon. William Nickle. The letter is signed by R. W. King, executive secretary of the Scarborough board of education. Mr. King, on the second page of his letter states-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Will the hon. member please explain to me what this has to do with the bill? There may be a point.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I was asked to answer a question. I just wanted to make the point that the statistics presented by the secretary of the board of education in Scarborough indicate that wherever in Canada you have low rental housing you have a pattern of more children than you have in privately developed subdivisions. So this is the danger. I would hate to believe that Scarborough had an inordinate number of children. I do not think you can have too many, as the former minister of citizenship and immigration would no doubt agree.


Erhart Regier: I think the minister would agree that he might have been a little off base when he said the loss in one single mining community might run as high as $30 million. If I understood him correctly, that would mean about 3,000 homes. I think the minister might wish to correct that statement.


Howard Charles Green: There are over 3,000 loans.


Erhart Regier: In Elliot Lake? In that case I can see quite a predicament arising for the hon. member who represents that area.
However, I wish the minister would answer the question I asked him earlier, whether these amendments to this act now proposed will do anything to help eliminate the racketeering in mortgages that is occurring at the present time. I note that the minister did not state the views of the government on my appeal that the government should match the contributions of the provinces toward the provision of homes for senior citizens rather than making a loan to these enterprises which has to be recovered with interest out of rentals. If the minister does not want to answer this question, if he does not want to

commit the government, and if he will tell me that the government has the matter under consideration and is really concerned to do as much as the provinces are doing, I would be very happy. I should hate to put the minister in a position where he might commit the government if there is any hope at all along this line.
The main issue this afternoon has, I think, been the apparent desire of the minister to have things both ways in the matter of interest rates. He has told us in an unmistakable manner that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is not to be operated at a loss. That will not be tolerated. He has also placed emphasis on the fact that the government is to be considered only as a residual lender and that private capital is to be encouraged to enter the housing field wherever possible. The minister knows very well that the rate of interest on private capital in housing today is considerably in excess of 6 per cent-I think the average rate from one end of Canada to the other in respect of a first mortgage is at least 7 per cent, if not more.


Howard Charles Green: 
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I believe I can speak with a little authority on the subject of housing for senior citizens for, as the minister knows, my late father as a member of the provincial legislature of British Columbia started the first project of this kind in that province. I may say he always received the greatest assistance and co-operation from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As a matter of fact, on that project we now have approximately three-quarters of a million dollars worth of housing and although it breaks my heart a little to say it we still owe Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approximately $387,000.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam raised a question which I think deserves sympathic understanding and perhaps comment on the part of the minister. As was pointed out by the minister it is possible to borrow money from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at less than the usual rate for projects of this kind. Approximately seven or eight years ago when the projects were started in British Columbia it was possible to supply senior citizens with an excellent modern home or apartment at a rental for a couple of approximately $21.50 or $22.50 a month, if my memory is correct. Because of increased costs of construction and repairs it is no longer possible to provide accommodation at that rate.
What is not generally recognized by the majority of people and often not by the tenants themselves is that the basis of the rental is not established by organizations in this field such as New Vista, Canadian Legion or the United Church but rather it is established by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The corporation checks each year on the administration and financing and sets the rental. The corporation has almost complete control but I do not question this because it does advance money at lower rates of interest than could otherwise be obtained. Whereas a few years ago it was possible to make homes or apartments available at the rental I mentioned it is now necessary to charge up to $35 a month for new accommodation. The modest increase in old age pensions and the lower dollar value results in the senior citizens being penalized. In view of the fact that the government of

National Housing Act
British Columbia has contributed not less than one-third of the capital cost as an outright grant and in view of increasing costs confronting our senior citizens is it not possible for the federal government to bring rentals more in line with the ability of senior citizens to pay?


Howard Charles Green: I think it should be made clear that rentals on existing projects have not been increased at all. Where new projects are being built the cost of construction is a great deal higher than the cost of earlier projects and so, of course, the rental is based on the current cost of construction. I believe that is the situation.


Harold Edward Winch: If the minister will check with his officials I believe he will find that any change in rental as a result of the increased cost of administration, decoration or repairs has to be authorized by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. No change may be made without the authority of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Howard Charles Green: If the operating costs, not of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but of the limited dividend corporations go up they have to take the responsibility of applying and getting the approval of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation before they can increase the rent.


Harold Edward Winch: I have no objection to that.
I have been connected with these projects in British Columbia since their inception. We are proud of the housing we have and as I said it amounts to approximately three-quarters of a million dollars worth of construction.
I am simply pointing out to the minister that because of increasing construction costs and the increasing costs of administration, decorating and repairs the associations carrying on that kind of work with the consent and authority of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in order to remain in the black as they must be are having to raise the rents. I know that we could rent these houses or apartments for $125 or $150 a month if they were on the market. The rental of this accommodation is now as high as $35 a month and because of increasing costs and a lessened dollar value it is out of the range of many senior citizens. We are simply asking if it is not possible for the federal government to make a contribution at least equal to that made by the provinces thereby enabling the associations involved in this field to bring down the rentals.


Howard Charles Green: This would mean a new policy right across the country.


Harold Edward Winch: Of course.


Howard Charles Green: As far as I am aware there
has been no such request from the Canadian Legion. They have some low rental housing projects in Vancouver as have many of the service clubs. I believe that these organizations make a contribution toward the cost. The result of the suggestion of the hon. member would involve a complete change in policy across Canada but I shall be very glad to look into this question.


Harold Edward Winch: That is all I ask.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I was rather
amazed at the approach taken by the minister a few moments ago. First of all he deplored my mentioning the racket in the mortgage field. I was hoping he would associate himself with my attitude in this regard. The minister knows very well indeed that in his own home town first mortgages may be purchased at a 25 per cent reduction of the principal and second mortgages may be purchased for discounts running all the way up to 50 per cent.


Howard Charles Green: Not National Housing Act mortgages.


Erhart Regier: I will agree with the minister at once; these are not National Housing Act mortgages, but I think the minister did not understand what I was asking. I was asking, will these proposed amendments in any way help to eliminate this racketeering that exists in the mortgage field in Canada? When I made the statement that first class mortgage rates in Canada were at least seven per cent the minister cried blue ruin and attempted to say that I was only attempting to get newspaper headlines. May I say to the minister that I know intimately one association whose assets are $1,500,000-plus, and that those people have been able to find safe investments, have been able to lend out on first mortgages even more money than they have at eight per cent, and have been able to place all the money at their disposal on first mortgages at eight per cent for many long years now.
If the minister attempts to cast any aspersions on my claim that a realistic; first mortgage rate across Canada at the present time is seven per cent I think he is very misinformed indeed because first mortgage rates by private lenders-I am not now referring to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation mortgages-are at least seven per cent. The minister is attempting to have things both ways. Since he is a British Columbian I can well understand that. We have long learned to have our cake and eat it, too. We pay off the debt of the province while our debt climbs higher than ever at the

same time. We are used to that kind of policy. However, the minister said he is absolutely opposed to a subsidy for the operations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He made it very definite, yet at the same time the minister must know that earnings at the moment on the 1983 federal conversion bonds are approaching five per cent.
The act allows for a margin of operations to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation of 2\ per cent, which would bring the interest rate that might be charged to somewhere near seven per cent. The minister assures us that interest rates will not be raised and we love that assurance. At the same time he denies to the officials of the corporation any idea that they can count on an operating loss and retain the support of the government. I do not know what is the operating cost margin percentagewise of the corporation. I would be very happy if the minister supplied us with that information. What is the actual cost percentagewise? Is it one per cent, is it three per cent or is it two per cent? We would like to know. However, when the minister goes overboard, as he did a year ago, in attempting to create the impression that we shall have to do whatever is necessary to interest private capital into the housing field, he knows as well as I do that this means only one thing. There is only one kind of bait that will attract them unless the government is prepared to take action, namely the bait of higher returns. When the minister assures us that the return will not exceed six per cent and we know that the base is rising and we know that there must be some expenses connected with the operations of the corporation, we do not know what we are to take from that.
The minister says he will not countenance subsidizing the corporation. At the same time he says, despite all statistics to the contrary, that he will remain firm. We welcome this decision more than the other, I must say. We welcome the decision that interest rates will not be raised. We would regret very much to have to pass this legislation and one month hence read that because of market conditions it is regretted that the government has had to raise interest rates beyond the six per cent level. That is the only thing we want to be assured of. We want to be assured that if necessary the government would rather subsidize the corporation than see a further rise in the interest rates, and the minister has not yet satisfied us on this point.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
National Housing Act
On clause 3-Administration of insured loans.
John Richard Garland: I want to speak for just a moment on subclause 2 of clause 3. This clause is applicable only to loans made after the coming into force of the act. The minister will recall that at the resolution stage we had a few words to say on this matter. We dealt with it at some length on second reading, therefore it is not my intention to restate the arguments I put forward at that time. I am not in any way getting away from the fact that we gave full support to this on second reading, but it does seem to me that by this subclause 2 we are creating two classes of mortgages, namely those that are guaranteed up to 98 per cent and those that are 100 per cent guaranteed.
I know that by this very legislation the government is anxious to make mortgages more negotiable. This is most desirable. It seems to me that in creating these two classes of mortgages no assistance at all is being given to the mortgages that exist today. I cannot see any real reason why a mortgage made next year should by the implementation of this act be made more desirable. A mortgage made next year will be more desirable, more negotiable than one made, say, last year. There does not seem to be really any justification for setting up two classes. Can the minister say a word on that?


Howard Charles Green: Apparently there is some slight price differential between a mortgage on which the insurance is up to 100 per cent and one on which it is 98 per cent, but not as big a price differential as there would be between a mortgage which carried an interest rate of five per cent and one which carried a rate of six per cent.
As the hon. member knows, there are many mortgages which come under the National Housing Act which are at a rate other than six per cent and we did not feel that there was any reason why we should make a donation of two per cent on the mortgages which have already been issued.


John Richard Garland: It does seem to me that the desire of the legislation is to make those mortgages more negotiable. I cannot come to any other conclusion than that we are setting up two distinct classes of mortgages, one more desirable than the other. It would seem to be as desirable to make mortgages that were made a year ago or two years ago as negotiable as many that may be placed in the future.


Howard Charles Green: Of course, we have different types of mortgages because the interest rates have been different. In addition to that, one of the main purposes of this amendment is to

National Housing Act
encourage fresh money to come into the mortgage market, and it will have that effect. Anybody putting up money now will have an insurance policy which covers up to a total loss. The officials believe it would be unwise to make this retroactive to apply to all the mortgages which have already been issued by the corporation in the years gone by.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have just one question with respect to this particular clause. In effect, from what I can gather, it does remove any possible element of risk on the part of the investor, does it not?


Howard Charles Green: No, it may not quite do that. Hitherto, they could only be protected up to 98 per cent and now, under the amendment, they can qualify up to 100 per cent under the terms of the mortgage.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I think probably that is what I was getting at in the first place. If a bank, for instance, or an approved lender under the act lends money, from now on after this bill is passed and receives royal assent that loan is insured and guaranteed. There is no element of risk whatever, is there?


Howard Charles Green: It certainly removes most of the risk. In my view, one of the main attractions of the amendment from the point of view of the corporation is that it will make it possible for trust funds to be invested in these mortgages to a far greater extent than is possible now. When the insurance coverage was only 98 per cent some of the lenders were advised that they could not put in various types of trust funds.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The minister said it would remove most of the risks. What would be the balance left after most of the risk has been taken into account? What risk is there left?


Howard Charles Green: I can only give the hon. member one good example. A lawyer might charge $500 for the foreclosure and the figure that can be recovered is only $150 even when these amendments come into effect.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The minister should have
answered my question by saying "yes" in the first place. Then, we would not have had to go all around like this.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Advances out of the C.R.F. to make loans and pay losses.
John Richard Garland: Before clause 6 carries, I must say that I find it strange that the minister, surrounded with all the top brass he has, is unable to tell me how much of the $375 million that the corporation placed last year,

went into the large centres of Canada. I raised the question earlier today, and I should like to have an answer before the bill passes.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently it is a question of the way in which the statistics are kept and the machines operate. The corporation has not this figure available in this particular manner. They will have to make what they call a special run, and apparently that run cannot be made today.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the minister might question his officials to see if the figures are available in a different form. I do not want to have them set up a new set of figures. It seems to me that this information must be available, in perhaps different form, but which would convey the same information I am seeking. I want to know what percentage of this $375 million went into the large centres of Canada, that is all. Perhaps I can help by asking, do they have figures for other than the centres of 50,000 I mentioned? Would they have figures for centres of 100,000 and over?


Howard Charles Green: My officials say they can get this by Monday. Each week I get a return showing me the activities of the week, and the hon. member might get a sufficient indication of the split from that to satisfy him. For example, in the week ending February 20, approvals in centres of under 55,000 were $375,086; centres over 55,000, $235,619. Then, the figures for 1958-59 up to this date were, under 55,000, $37,832,531; over 55,000, $17,815,776.
In addition a great deal of the money went out to builders. There was not so much in the week ending February 20 because we cut off the loans to builders on December 31 for the reason that if the money were lent after that they would not be building in the winter, so builders' loans that had not been dealt with amounted to $51,211, and in 1958-59, builders' loans totalled $168,866,381. The figures for these loans to builders are not broken down into centres of over 55,000 or under 55,000, and this is where the officials are meeting with their difficulty. However, I think it can be taken for granted that the great bulk of the money which went into builders' loans went into the centres of over 55,000.


John Richard Garland: Can the minister say, how much of the $375 million that was placed last year was placed in the Toronto area?


Howard Charles Green: We can get these figures, but the large percentage of it was in metropolitan Toronto. More money has been put into metropolitan Toronto than in any other

place in Canada. I will get that figure and will let the hon. member know.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might make a suggestion to the hon. lady who is in charge of the department. Instead of following the usual procedure of beginning with the departmental administration item, I suggest that we allow that item to stand and take one item in each of the three branches of the department. We could have our general debate, I would suggest, first on immigration, then on citizenship and then on Indian affairs. I think the hon. lady would agree with me that in the past there has been a tendency to dash all about over the field and it has been extremely hard to follow the debate. I am quite sure that this procedure will not take any more time of the committee. As far as my hon. friends on this side are concerned I think we would say that if that procedure were adopted we would not precipitate any further general debate on the departmental administration item although we might raise questions.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, I am in agreement up to a point. I think it might be better if we took the whole of each division at one time rather than just the first item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That procedure would be perfectly agreeable.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We could take them in the order of immigration, then citizenship, then Indian affairs and then the departmental administration vote. Is that what the hon. member had in mind?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. I am sure that procedure will be quite agreeable to us.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If that procedure meets with approval, Mr. Chairman, it is quite agreeable to me.


The Chairman:: Is it the pleasure of the committee to agree to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Ellen Louks Fairclough: With regard to that arrangement, then-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. lady but may I say that we are now considering item No. 52.
Immigration branch-
52. Administration of the Immigration Act, $1,199,386.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, in introducing to the committee the immigration estimates for the fiscal year 1959-60, I should like to say a brief word regarding immigration activities in the calendar year just passed. In 1958, 124,841 immigrants were admitted to Canada and, with the permission of the committee, I should like to table a statistical report on immigration for 1958.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Does the hon. lady wish to have the report printed in Hansard?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the report be tabled and printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The report is as follows: Immigration to Canada by Ethnic Origin
4th Quarter Calendar Year
Ethnic Origin	1958	1957	1958Albanian 	4	22	13Arabian 	13	87	69Armenian ....	34	272	189Austrian 	160	2,293	905Belgian 	114	2,786	1,000British 	4,002	112,828	26,622English 	2,436	72,476	17,065Irish 	555	14,336	3,291Scottish 	921	23,514	5,626Welsh 	90	2,502	640Bulgarian 	2	59	15Chinese 	825	1,669	2,615Czech and	Slovak 	22	307	139Danish 	246	7,790	1,799East Indian ...	125	317	451Egyptian 	3	52	19Estonian 	27	221	122Finnish 	188	2,829	1,258French 	327	5,471	2,539German 	2,247	29,564	14,449Greek 	1,365	5,631	5,418Hungarian ....	280	29,825	2,723Icelandic 	4	56	43Iranian 	3	24	13Italian 	7,283	29,443	28,564Japanese 	40	178	188Jewish 	528	5,472	2,290Latvian 	22	415	186Lebanese 	37	348	244Lithuanian ....	25	168	140Luxemburger .	-	124	26Maltese 	93	654	473Mexican 	11	15	29Negro 	357	634	781Netherlander .	757	12,310	7,595Norwegian 	77	1,337	4711468	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Immigration to Canada by Ethnic Origin-Cone.
	4th Quarter	Calendar Year	
Ethnic Origin	1958	1957	1958Polish 	1,153	2,909	2,996Portuguese ...	607	4,748	2,177Roumanian ...	27	206	130Russian 	48	375	196Spanish 	120	1,182	639Swedish 	48	763	282Swiss 	87	1,294	793Syrian 	5	76	21Turkish 	18	91	99Ukrainian 	51	494	351Yugoslavian ..	516	5,725	4,868Others 	16	92	65From the United	States 	2,803	11,008	10,846Total 	24,720	282,164	124,851Immigration	. to Canada	by (Intended)	Occupational Groups	Occupational	4th Quarter	Calendar Year	Group	1958	1957	1958Managerial ...	212	1,216	944Professional ..	1,403	16,040	7,553Clerical 	978	16,829	6,745Transportation	125	4,127	902Communica-	tion 	51	1,127	327Commercial ..	325	6,132	2,066Financial 	42	427	163Service 	2,612	17,574	11,501Agricultural ..	639	10,838	5,071Fishing, Trapping	and Logging	29	827	169Mining 	42	1,866	344Manufacturing,	Mechanical and	Construction	2,134	54,376	17,476Labourers 	1,937	19,471	9,388Others 	94	661	429Total 	10,623	151,511	63,078Not Destined to	the Labour Force	Wives 	5,450	52,533	24,795Children 	6,820	70,673	30,444Others 	1,827	7,447	6,534Total 	14,097	130,653	61,773Grand Total ..	24,720	282,164	124,851Immigration to Canada by Province of	DestinationProvince	4th Quarter	Calendar Year	1958	1957	1958Newfoundland	103	495	373Prince Edward	Island 	12	134	78Nova Scotia ..	259	2,789	1,786New Brunswick	126	1,674	1,031Quebec 	5,832	55,073	28,443Ontario 	13,294	147,097	63,853Manitoba	674	11,614	4,732Saskatchewan .	423	4,427	2,595Alberta 	1,401	21,131	8,429British	Columbia ...	2,559	37,528	13,400Yukon and	Northwest	Territories ..	37	202	131Total 	24,720	282,164	124,851
[Mrs. Fairclough.l

Age Group	and Sex of	Immigrants	Age Group	Arrived in Canada (4th Quarter 1958) Total Males	Females0-4 	2,494	1,290	1,2045-9 	2,209	1,163	1,04610-14 	1,623	862	76115-19 	2,351	991	1,36020-24 	4,294	1,484	2,81025-29 	3,420	1,385	2,03530-34 	2,340	955	1,38535-39 	1,547	678	86940-44 	896	399	49745-49 	942	387	55550-54 	763	297	46655-59 	649	233	41660-64 	471	137	33465-69 	360	139	22170 and over ..	361	116	245Total 	24,720	10,516	14,204Age Group	(Calendar Year Total	1958) Males	Females0-4 	11,019	5,651	5,3685-9 	9,925	5,123	4,80210-14 	7,239	3,825	3,41415-19 	10,676	5,192	5,48420-24 	24,933	11,307	13,62625-29 	20,273	10,363	9,91030-34 	13,053	6,538	6,51535-39 	8,458	4,302	4,15640-44 	4,755	2,449	2,30645-49 	4,257	2,095	2,16250-54 	3,270	1,369	1,90155-59 	2,523	938	1,58560-64 	1,837	547	1,29065-69 	1,377	496	88170 and over ..	1,256	435	821Total 	124,851	60,630	64,221Immigration	to	Canada by	Country	of LastPermanent Residence Country of Last Permanent 4th Quarter Calendar year	Residence	1958	1957	1958Algeria 	18	483	132Australia	273	2,772	1,898Austria 	364	5,714	4,544Belgium 	170	3,909	1,776British West Indies 	422	1,162	1,192Central America 	4	24	24Ceylon 	1	12	39China 	243	856	894Czechoslovakia	6	20	42Denmark	248	7,683	1,746Egypt 	33	421	116Estonia 	-	4	4Finland 	172	2,684	1,177France 	441	5,869	2,727Germany 	2,136	28,430	13,888Greece 	1.300	5,460	5,190Hong Kong .	583	866	1,752Hungary 	204	31,643	2,362India 	85	186	325Ireland 	198	5,358	1,226Israel 	122	482	531Italy 	7,101	27,740	27,043Japan 	41	223	199Latvia 	-	11	-Lebanon 	62	401	312Lithuania 	-	6	1Luxemburg ...	4	205	56Malta 	85	586	447
Immigration to Canada by Country of Last Permanent Residence-Cone.
Country of Last
Permanent	4th Quarter	Calendar year	Residence	1958	1957	1958Mexico 	39	124	104Morocco 	
Netherlands,	26	920	414The 	735	11,934	7,420New Zealand .	65	573	446Norway 	76	1,340	482Pakistan 	15	83	62Poland 	1,172	690	2,292Portugal 	566	4,423	1,938South America	422	2,376	2,168Spain 	65	613	318Sweden 	79	1,093	442Switzerland ..	128	1,800	1,024Syria	-	18	11Tunisia 	11	109	123Turkey 	
Union of South	42	129	227Africa 	54	464	367U.S.S.R	
United	6	19	18Kingdom ...	3,673	108,989	24,777United States .	2,803	11,008	10,846Yugoslavia	274	1,048	984Other African .	22	573	203Other Asian .. Other	17	117	98European 	23	140	128Others 	91	371	316TOTAL ...	24,720	282,164	124,851Immigration to	Canada by Country of	CitizenshipCountry of	4th Quarter	Calendar year	Citizenship	1958	1957	1958Australia 	243	2,738	1,798Austria 	192	2,498	1,033Belgium 	
Central	124	2,917	1,087America 	1	18	12Ceylon 	1	15	33China 	791	1,560	2,473Czechoslovakia	8	14	25Denmark 	242	7,780	1,784Egypt 	9	156	47Estonia 	3	23	22Finland 	188	2,811	1,261France 	397	6,204	2,845Germany 	2,195	28,513	14,107Greece 	1,324	5,498	5,273Hungary 	202	31,801	2,315India 	90	177	334Ireland 	216	6,398	1,439Israel 	135	537	577Italy 	7,254	28,935	28,242Japan 	35	180	183Latvia 	8	101	36Lebanon 	61	416	317Lithuania 	3	27	39Luxemburg ..	3	159	36Mexico 	35	88	94Morocco 	
Netherlands,	13	320	209The 	755	12,132	7,488New Zealand .	62	596	453Norway 	76	1,321	461Pakistan 	14	83	62Poland 	1,182	810	2,367Portugal 	568	4,486	1,963South America Southern	97	506	513Rhodesia ...	3	40	25Spain 	80	845	447
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Immigration to Canada by Country of Citizenship-Cone.
Country of	4th Quarter	Calendar year	Citizenship	1958	1957	1958Sweden 	54	788	292Switzerland ..	110	1,515	896Syria 	3	18	14Tunisia 	3	55	63Turkey 	
Union of South	41	120	214Africa 	65	513	411U.S.S.R	
9 United Kingdom	48	27and Colonies	4,432	109,252	26,885United States .	2,517	10,087	9,695Yugoslavia ...	254	1,050	935Other African .	-	63	8Other Asian . Other	12	62	37European ..	20	119	113Others 	590	7,771	5,861TOTAL ...	24,720	282,164	124,851The intake	in 1958 was	substantially be-	low that of	1957 but not	too far	off the
average annual intake for the post-war period. The relatively lighter flow in 1958 enabled the immigration branch to concentrate on the establishment in continuing employment of those who did not completely settle in during 1957 and, in addition, to place those unsponsored immigrant workers who came forward in the 1958 stream. Incidentally, those who came forward in 1958 have been placed without any significant difficulty. During 1958, by means of a positive and energetic placement program, employment was located for new Canadians as follows:
In business and industry ..	39,006
In agriculture	 5,794
As in the past, very good co-operation in placement matters was received from the national employment service.
At the same time, in 1958 it was possible to give particular attention to those cases where recent arrivals had acquired the necessary funds and experience to become established in their own enterprise. Settlement in agriculture and small businesses was arranged as follows during the year:
	Purchase	Down
(a) In Agriculture Number of properties	price	paymentpurchased 	
786 Number of properties rented 	
83 Number of immigrants settled 	4,132 (b) In Small Businesses	$10,063,800	$3,266,500Number purchased .. 1,303	8,683,000	5,146,800Number of persons, including operators, employed	6,166
The above figures tell only part of the story of successful immigrant establishment in Canada, as these are only the cases which

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration came to the attention of and have been tabulated by the department. While precise figures are not available, it is a well-known fact that many immigrants do not seek the assistance of the department but become established very successfully on their own initiative.
Now a word about non-immigrants. Last August, in order to establish effective control over the temporary admission of persons who might seek employment in competition with Canadian residents or who sought temporary entry with a view to subsequently applying for permanent residence while actually in Canada, I announced a policy regarding the stricter application of regulations governing non-immigrant entry. In order to be fair about this, the new policy was not made retroactive and I further stated that those non-immigrants then in Canada who wished to remain here could make application for permanent admission before March 1, 1959, and if their case had merit it would be given sympathetic consideration. As expected, the department has received many applications for landing from persons who were in Canada at the time I made my announcement. Up to January 31, 1959, 3,805 applications, for permanent admission had been received from such persons. Of the 3,805 applications, a total of 2,012 have been finally dealt with and of these, 1,808, or roughly 90 per cent, have been given favourable consideration and the persons landed, while the applications of 204 have been withdrawn or refused. One thousand seven hundred and ninety-three cases were still in process as of January 31, 1959, and of these, 1,703 have been given approval in principle and landing action will follow provided the applicants can meet the normal medical standards, etc., while the merits of the remaining 90 were yet to be assessed.
I think it can be said that the new procedures seem to be accomplishing their purpose very well indeed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. lady permit a question?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Surely.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Were those 2,000 cases, or as many of them as have been dealt with up to December 31, included in the total of immigrants for the year, or is that 2,000 more?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The figure I gave you was up to January 31; but those who were landed prior to December 31 were included in the figures of immigrants for last year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, there were 122,800 new immigrants instead of 124,800: that is the point.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have not got the figures here up to December 31. They are round figures. The 2,012 figure is up to January 31, and I think there were 1,700 up to the end of December. But that is the general idea.
At present, as was the case in 1958, stress is laid on encouraging the admission of suitable and desirable persons with capital or other means of self-establishment who have a sincere desire to come to Canada for the purpose of setting themselves up in business or to purchase farms. The availability of employment in various occupations and of small business or other opportunities, or the lack thereof, is forwarded regularly and frequently to immigration visa officers abroad to assist them in counselling prospective immigrants. The Department of Labour and the national employment service have been most co-operative in assisting this department in developing accurate information on employment conditions. Emphasis is placed on the sound counselling of prospective immigrants abroad in order that those who do come forward will be fully aware of what lies in store for them here.
It is confidently believed that economic conditions now warrant a more optimistic approach to immigration planning for 1959. As in 1958, unsponsored immigrants will be carefully selected according to their general suitability. They will be fully counselled as to employment and other conditions in Canada. Regardless of over-all economic conditions, there are always occupations and areas in Canada where immigrants can be placed, taking advantage of opportunities which the less mobile Canadian workers cannot or will not accept. As mentioned previously, immigration officers experienced little difficulty in finding employment for the unsponsored immigrants who came forward in 1958, and it is confidently anticipated that the same conditions will apply for 1959.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. lady has been very helpful in giving a very simple and factual statement on which we can base our observations about the immigration branch and its activities for the past year, and try to form some impression of what is likely to be the prospect for the year 1959. I must say that the hon. lady will perhaps be relieved to hear that I do not think she will find much quarrel on this side of the house with the position which is being taken by the government about open placement immigration. We might quarrel about things which are outside the hon. lady's control; that is to say, about the way in which this government has allowed the economy to deteriorate so that it is not safe for the hon. lady to encourage as many open placement

immigrants as we were able quite safely to encourage when we were in office, but that is another matter which I do not think it would be quite fair to discuss on the hon. lady's estimates.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You can talk about your
109.000	in 1955-56 too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, we can talk about the
109.000	in 1955 or 1956.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: 1955.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The figures for 1956, as the hon. lady will perhaps remember, were I think the second highest since the war. No; there was one year earlier. But in any event, I am not particularly anxious to go into this past history, although I have no objection to doing so if the hon. lady wants a debate on that subject. I am much more concerned with talking about the situation which now exists and the prospective situation for 1959, because we obviously are not going to be able to do much about what has already happened. I do hope that the optimistic forecast which the hon. lady gave for 1959 will turn out to be right, because if I understood her correctly what she was saying was that conditions in Canada were going to be so bright before this year was over that she would be able to receive, without any difficulty so far as placement and settlement is concerned, a much larger number of immigrants than were received last year.
I must say that I doubt very much if this will be true, regardless of what improvement there may be in the economy, which we all hope for. Because one thing the hon. lady will I think learn when she has been a little longer in the department than she has been up to now is that there is a very serious time lag in immigration. When conditions become unfavourable for immigration and there is a discouragement of immigration, it takes quite a long time to get the steam up again. In 1955, after we had had a barrage all through the early months of that year from the hon. lady and other people who were on this side of the house about how the country was going to the dogs, because of unemployment, we found that had a very discouraging effect indeed upon immigration in that year. I am afraid that the figures of unemployment in this country, and certain recent incidents, will have that effect again.
One of the things that is going to be most discouraging to immigration prospects, particularly from the United Kingdom this year, is what happened last Friday, just one week ago. I, like most other hon. members, listened to or watched television, and I saw the workers coming out of the A. V. Roe plant,
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration many of them for the last time. As I listened to those voices, if my ear is any good, three out of four of them were English and obviously of relatively recent-I would say postwar-immigration. I am very much afraid that the blow to confidence that has been given there will result in a good many of these people going back home again. What is very likely to happen is that the Canadian born among these highly trained people, who are freely admitted to the United States, will go to the United States in numbers we will have cause to regret for many years. Those who are not Canadian born and therefore admissible to the United States only under quota will in many cases, particularly in the case of the British, tend to go home discouraged.
I cannot congratulate the hon. lady on one thing that happened in 1958 which had never happened before in the history of our postwar immigration. The hon. lady, presiding over this department in her first year, managed to get the British immigration into second place. Always in the past it had been in first place, and for a government which was going to do for the commonwealth that which we were said to have neglected to do, this is not a very proud record.
I have one other general criticism of the hon. lady's administration of the department. I do think that under her administration, so far as I have been able to observe it, the department has been unnecessarily restrictive in its attitude towards sponsored immigration. I repeat again that I have no criticism whatsoever to make of the open placement policy. I believe it would be very foolish to encourage people who have no ties with anybody in Canada to come here in the expectation of getting jobs only to find jobs very difficult to get.
I am not an immigration broker as the hon. lady well knows, but because I occupied for three years the position she now occupies I do have a certain number of these cases brought to my notice from time to time, and it does seem to me that there are a good many cases involving sponsored immigrants, or persons who are sought as sponsored immigrants, who have opportunities of employment or who, in some cases are not seeking employment, when permission to enter is denied in circumstances where entry would have no possible effect upon the labour market. It is true that they might in occasional cases come here to take a job with a relative which, had they not come, might conceivably have been offered to someone on the rolls of the national employment service, but in many more cases I would suspect that no one else would be employed at all.
1472	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I do think there is room for a little more flexibility and generosity, judging from a random sampling-and I confess it is no more-than appears to have been the practice during the past year, and particularly since parliament adjourned and since the new procedure which the hon. lady announced last August was adopted. I know what difficulties there are.
I do not think there is anyone in the house who knows better than I do what the difficulties with regard to these people are- people who come here claiming to be visitors but who really do not intend to be visitors at all but are just using the procedure as a back door method of getting into the country. I know what an embarrassment it can be, and I have recollections of being embarrassed in the house on some occasions about some of these cases. On the other hand it does seem to me that one of the things which a minister in charge of this department has to accept is a certain amount of embarrassment for doing what is intrinsically the right thing, even if it be sometimes misunderstood. However, I know of cases where there has, I think, been an unnecessary strictness with regard to visitors and an unnecessary amount of suspicion.
I do not intend to parade a lot of particular cases. As far as particular cases are concerned, I have always taken the view that the time of the committee should not be taken up with them unless a case is illustrative of some general principle, and when we come to deal with the citizenship branch it will not surprise the hon. lady if I tell her that I have a few cases of principle about which I intend to make some observations. But speaking generally, I will discuss with the department or with the hon. lady herself any individual cases I have in mind, and there are not many in which I am interested.
However, I want to make this general observation: I do think there is room, particularly if the hon. lady is really confident about the optimistic forecast she made, for a little more generosity and a little more relaxation, and perhaps a few more exceptions to the rigid application of the rules than has been applied to some of these cases in the last few months. I know how easy it is to become afraid of the economic situation, and with the mounting unemployment we have seen in the last few months I would not blame the hon. lady too much if she was frightened. But I do not think she frightens too easily, and I hope she will have the courage of the conviction she expressed this afternoon.


Frederick Coles Stinson: Don't worry about that.
[Mr. Pickersgill.l


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall let the hon. lady do her own worrying. The hon. lady was not much given to criticizing the department over which she now presides when she was on this side of the house, but she has colleagues who were, and on this subject of sponsored immigration she will, of course, remember that there was a great deal of criticism of the administration of the department in former days, particularly in the last year during which I was minister. Possibly I should not make any reflection of even a general character, but I was about to say that perhaps that criticism was intended not so much to apply to the administration itself but was made with an eye on the effect it would have in headlines in the press. Anyway there was a good deal of criticism about the alleged heartless disregard shown by the department of the rights of Canadian citizens. I am not, of course, going to make any similar criticism, because I do not intend to change the position I took when I occupied the place now occupied by the hon. lady, and I must say that for this part of my observations I could wish that the Minister of Justice was here in her place, because he was one of the critics, and even when he was presiding only temporarily over the department he did say he had plans in progress to change the procedure.
I have always taken the view that nc person except a Canadian citizen and, to a limited extent, a landed immigrant who is temporarily out of the country has a right to enter Canada. The citizens of Canada, through parliament, have the right to decide who should be admitted and who should not be admitted and no rights of entry vest in individuals until those rights are acquired in Canada. However, this view was not taken by the present Minister of Justice or, so far as his somewhat obscure utterances seem to be capable of clear interpretation, by the Prime Minister. The Minister of Justice was clear about it, as he usually is, and he took the view that sponsors had some rights, that Canadian citizens have the rights to apply for relatives and that they have the right to have those applications considered in a judicial or quasi judicial manner. And the Minister of Justice when he was acting minister of this department did say something about this subject about a year ago on the estimates. I should like to remind the minister of what he said, because I should like to know whether she is pursuing this activity which the Minister of Justice said was being undertaken by the

present government to remove the iniquities of which we were supposed to be guilty when we were in office.
I asked the Minister of Justice on January 30, 1958 what was being done to deal with these cases where sponsors were being refused, and whether the reasons for refusal were going to be given-a procedure to which the Minister of Justice attached great importance. I do not wish to take up too much time with this. As reported at page 4058 of Hansard of January 30, I asked the following question:
Might I ask a question with respect to a term used by the minister. We all use the term "applicant" loosely: does the minister mean the sponsor or does he mean the immigrant?
The acting minister replied:
So far as getting authority for the revealing of information is concerned, it would have to be obtained from the proposed immigrant. The result of the studies we have been giving to this matter so far would indicate that if the information is released directly to the proposed immigrant, if he wishes to send it on to his proposed sponsor or to other interested parties, then that is up to him.
The word "reason" is used in that context with reference to the reason why someone was turned down. An unidentified hon. member then stated:
But they cannot get it.
The acting minister then went on to state:
The present policy and the past policy with regard to security cases is that information is not given, nothing is said. With regard to certain health cases, nothing is said. These are the problems with respect to which we have been giving a lot of study and which are under review at the present time.
I did not ask the hon. lady about this last August because I realized she had taken up this portfolio about the day the session began and I thought it would be unfair to expect her to have had time to familiarize herself with this admittedly intricate and difficult problem. That is why I did not bring it up then and I am bringing it up now when she has had many months in office during which to give attention to these matters. The acting minister of citizenship and immigration then went on to say:
Some of the work in my department has been subdivided so that certain committees can review the question of information in security cases, and with respect to immigration and citizenship, and information on rejections for health grounds.
I particularly draw the hon. lady's attention to the following words:
The system which I would like to see instituted and indeed the kind of system we have in mind, is a system where an applicant for admission to Canada or an applicant for the grant of a certificate of Canadian citizenship-perhaps I had better confine my remarks to immigration cases only for the moment-might be informed of the reasons for his
Supply

Citizenship and Immigration
rejection and might then have an opportunity to have his case reviewed by a board which would be guided by definite principles in considering that application so that the applicant or his sponsor in Canada-if he is sponsored-may if he wishes present his case to a review panel, and so that he will know and have a hearing.
I may say that I do not personally advocate what the hon. gentleman was then advocating. I do not advocate it because I do not believe it is practical or practicable. When the hon. gentleman and the hon. lady were on this side of the chamber they made a terrific indictment of the former administration because it failed to do these things. The present Minister of Justice a year ago told us that the department was giving active study to this matter and was trying to work out procedures for dealing with these cases. I would be exceedingly interested if, when the hon. lady replies, she would tell us whether these ideas have now been given up, whether the government has come to the conclusion that after all we were right-as I think we were-or whether it intends to take these matters out of the immigration branch and hand them over to quasi judicial boards of some description or other to give reasons where applications from sponsors are refused or what the procedure is to be.
This is an extremely important matter indeed. It was the contention of the Minister of Justice, not merely when he sat in this side of the chamber but even a year ago, when he was sitting over there, that these sponsors have certain rights. In view of the legislative menu for this session, with the bill of rights as the main course, it seems to me this is one thing we should clear up finally one way or the other on these estimates. We should know if the government takes the position taken by the Minister of Justice.
My own view is that the proper attitude is the one taken by almost every other country in the world under which parliament- if there is a parliament in the country-has control of the entry and that no right should inhere in persons who are not citizens of that country. Even in the declaration of human rights of the United Nations the right of migration from one country to another has never been included and so far as I know it has never been suggested for inclusion.
I do not wish to appear to take a heartless view. I am a strong believer in sponsored immigration. I believe it is by far the best kind of immigration. The reason for that is that the sponsored immigrant comes to someone he knows or who is related to him with, so to speak, a certain connection with the country before he arrives and there is perhaps at least a 50 per cent greater chance on

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the average that he will orient himself to his new surroundings more easily and satisfactorily. Of course, you can have open applicant immigrants who turn out to be quite remarkable people and sponsored ones who turn out to be egregious failures. We all appreciate that. However, I do not think I would find any quarrel in the committee with the view that, on the average, sponsored immigration is on balance much more likely to be successful and capable of being carried on with less dislocation to the country and to the individuals than open placement migration. I believe I have already said that I thought the hon. lady was a little too tough in her treatment of sponsored cases. That is the impression I have. That is one thing. It is another thing to say we are going to establish a system of rights in this field with judicial or quasi judicial boards to determine what those rights are. I think the government and the minister should now be in a position to tell us what the government's intentions really are in this matter.
I do not intend to take the whole time of the committee until five o'clock but there are one or two other questions I should like to put now though I will not elaborate on them. I will merely state my questions so that the hon. lady may have an opportunity to have them looked up for the next time we come before the committee.
The minister will recall that shortly before I left the department we undertook some special procedures for the admission of limited categories of persons from Poland once it became apparent that, because of the political evolution there, it was possible for some people to get out. I should be very interested as I am sure all hon. members of the committee would be, to have a report on how that has worked, how it is working now and approximately how many people have been involved.
Now that the West Indies Federation has been formed-and the hon. lady of course has visited it-I have been wondering what views the government has about the question of immigration from the West Indies and in order that the hon. lady will not have to ask me what my views are I shall state them right now. If I had remained in office I had intended to suggest to my colleagues that once the federation was formed we should seek to negotiate a quota system similar to what we have with India, Pakistan and Ceylon. I am not wedded to that particular view and perhaps the government has better ideas but I believe there is a problem here that simply cannot be glossed over, a problem that I confess was a good deal of worry to me.
I should also like to know what the situation is in Hong Kong and whether we are finally disposing of that problem which should be disposed of largely by the passage of time.
I would be particularly interested if the hon. lady could bring us up to date on the Hungarian settlement situation. She gave us figures last year which were very encouraging at least to me when she told us that only about 500 of the 35,000 had gone home, and I think we were well rid of those 500. At that time which, of course was last August, there were about 500 others actually receiving help from the department which indicated that the vast majority of them had at least got themselves settled to some degree. I think this is quite remarkable, considering that these people came here with nothing whatever, unlike practically any other group of immigrants we have ever had. In that context-and here again I am not seeking to be in the slightest degree controversial-I should like to say to the hon. lady that I understand the government has before it an application from the University of British Columbia for some further limited assistance in order to complete the education of the Hungarian students in the forestry faculty there. I understand that an application is before the government for this purpose and I want to assure the hon. lady that she will find no dissent in our party if she accedes to that request.
I should like in one word to give my reasons for taking this view. Bringing this whole faculty from behind the iron curtain to Canada, was one of the things that caught the imagination of the free world at the time it was done. Whatever the situation inside Canada may be, the international effect of having that experiment fail and having it said behind the iron curtain that we were not able to handle this problem would, I think, be very damaging not merely to the reputation of Canada but to the reputation of the free world. It is unfortunate that 1957 and 1958 were both poor years in the forest industry of British Columbia or this problem would not have arisen. For that reason I think there would be very strong grounds which would commend themselves to most sensible men and women for acceding to the very modest request, as I understand it, of the University of British Columbia. I do not wish to continue now but I may wish to make some other brief observations or ask questions later on.


Harold Edward Winch: You may carry on for another five minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think I have five minutes more.


Harold Edward Winch: We will give it to you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hoped the hon. member for Vancouver East was going to follow me.


Harold Edward Winch: I would love to, but not for five minutes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If he does not wish to follow for five minutes, there are one or two other things I would like to ask about.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, we do have just about five minutes and possibly it would serve the purpose if I replied to two or three things which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has brought up and that would get the answers on the record at this time and use up the available time without interfering with the well laid plans of the hon. member for Vancouver East.
I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate must admit that to some extent he was talking out of both sides of his mouth when he said that British immigration was down and yet he wants the sponsored immigration to be opened up because he knows that the sponsored immigration generally speaking does not come from the British isles. Whether or not that could be developed I could not say but most of the people who come from the British isles are not sponsored immigrants. Therefore, if you wish the sponsored immigrants to be increased in volume necessarily you are going to have a greater number than you would have-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think the hon. lady wants to be unfair to me any more than I want to be unfair to her. I had assumed that no one objected to the policy which I believe was always approved on both sides of the house that we should have, except for health reasons, absolutely free immigration from the United Kingdom. I must say I do deplore the fact that in my opinion, British immigration has not been encouraged by the present government as much as it should have been. In making my comparison, I was comparing open placement immigrants, which I never thought of as including immigration from the United Kingdom, United States, France or Ireland, from the countries from which we get sponsored immigrants.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to say that the hon. member also made reference to the fact that for the first time, British immigration had dropped to second place. But he also made some remarks with reference to commonwealth immigrants and, of course, if you put the commonwealth in-
Private Bills


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I am sure the hon. lady must have misunderstood me. I never said commonwealth immigrants at all.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The hon. member used the term in connection with the criticisms which had been levelled at the previous government by members on that side. Now, granted I am being-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say commonwealth immigrants; I said attachment to the commonwealth.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In any event, when you take the number from the commonwealth you do get an increased number. In so far as the West Indies are concerned, we did have a larger number last year, as a matter of fact, 1,192. When the hon. member gets the table which I gave to Hansard earlier in my remarks he will find those figures.
I have just about time to make one more observation with reference to the Hungarian settlement in which the hon. member is so keenly interested. With regard to the numbers who have returned to Hungary, that position is unchanged.


John Whitney Pickersgill: About 500.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, approximately; but there are about 300 who are receiving assistance from the department at the present time and we hope that as spring approaches even they will be placed.
The next time the estimates are up for consideration I will have answers to the other questions which the hon. gentleman has put. I could start on some of them now, but like the hon. member for Vancouver East, I think it will be just as well if I gave the complete explanation rather than be interrupted in the middle of it.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 53 to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the
house will now proceed to the consideratior of private and public bills, the former having precedence.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Alan Macnaughion (Mount Royal) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-9, respecting the North American Accident Insurance Company.

Industrial Relations


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Mr. Speaker:: There are a number of divorce bills standing on the order paper for second reading. Is it the wish of the house that they be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill SD-79, An Act for the relief of Eu-phemia Caldwell Miller Armitt Esber, otherwise known as Effie Monas Esber.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-80, An Act for the relief of Goldie Yelin Freedman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-81, An Act for the relief of Claire Segal Pott el.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-82, An Act for the relief of Klara Schillinger Aschner.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-83, An Act for the relief of Bernice Helena Peritz Loeb.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-84, An Act for the relief of Margaret Soil Rajeczky.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-85, An Act for the relief of Audrey Edna Watson Robert.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-86, An Act for the relief of Abbie Alice Mahon Reed.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-87, An Act for the relief of Alice Christine Leduc Patrick.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-88, An Act for the relief of Georgina Joan Saunders Smith.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-89, An Act for the relief of Bryan Mills Taylor.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-90, An Act for the relief of Dorothy Sarah Sheehan Burchmore.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-91, An Act for the relief of William Irvine Moore.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-92, An Act for the relief of Audrey Lynn MacGillivray.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-93, An Act for the relief of Sarah Goldfarb Nash.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-94, An Act for the relief of Witolda Poplawska Wojciechoswski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-95, An Act for the relief of Martha Waugh McClure.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-96, An Act for the relief of Leslie Ronald Cant.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-97, An Act for the relief of Cecile Desjardins Morin.-Mr. McCleave.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-8, to provide for minimum wages for employees.

He said: In introducing this bill, I think it would be wise to refer to the explanatory notes which are very simple and which read as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to establish a minimum rate of wages with respect to all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction. This bill provides that such minimum rate of wages shall be $1.25 per hour. The bill also provides that its terms do not affect any employee whose rate of wages is higher than the minimum established by this legislation. However, any rate of wages less favourable to employees than $1.25 per hour is superseded by this bill.
It has been generally recognized by this government and the former government that there is a need in Canada for the establishment of a federal labour code. This bill, if passed, would provide one part of a federal labour code. In addition to this bill, we have now under the Department of Labour the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and if a federal labour code were introduced we would add such measures as an annual vacations with pay act; statutory holidays with pay act; maximum hours of work act and other acts of a similar nature affecting labour under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This bill is not new, as it was introduced into this house in 1957.
The first time a minimum wage bill was discussed in this house was in 1935 under the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. At that time, Mr. Bennett, a former Conservative leader, introduced legislation to implement part of the recommendations of the 1928 Geneva conference because Canada was a signatory to the convention that followed. In 1928, the League of Nations set up an international labour office in Geneva, and during the eleventh session of the international labour conference certain recommendations were made which would be binding on those nations that signed the convention. One recommendation was that this convenion be implemented by the countries that signed it.
If we refer to the report of the proceedings of this international labour conference we find that at page 624 they discussed a minimum wage act. These are the directions given to the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett by the international labour organization when he tried to pass his minimum wage act. Section II reads:
For the purpose of determining the minimum rates of wages to be fixed the wage fixing body should in any case take account of the necessity of enabling the workers concerned to maintain a suitable standard of living. For this purpose regard should primarily be had to the rates of wages being paid for similar work in trades where the workers are adequately organized and have concluded effective collective agreements or, if no such standard of reference is available in the

circumstances, to the general level of wages prevailing in the country or in the particular locality.
For effectively protecting the wages of the workers concerned and safeguarding the employers affected against the possibility of unfair competition, the measures to be taken to ensure that wages are not paid at less than the minimum rates which have been fixed are to include:
(1)	arrangements for informing the employers and workers of the rates in force;
(2)	official supervision of the rates actually being paid: and
(3)	sanctions for remedying and preventing infringements of the rates in force.
The Conservative government of that day believed that this was fair and just and, having signed the convention, proceeded to introduce a measure to implement it in Canada. The resultant act is to be found in the statutes of Canada, chapter 44, 1935. When introducing this matter the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was concerned about the effect it would possibly have and some of the objections that might be taken because of the British North America Act. For these reasons he outlined in the preamble many conditions that he hoped would make this measure acceptable to the Canadian people. However, governments being what they are, his government was defeated and a Liberal government followed under the Right Hon. Mackenzie King who referred the matter to the supreme court where it was held the act was ultra vires of the federal government.
The matter of a minimum wage law for Canadians was discussed in the house on a number of occasions in the intervening years until 1957, at which time Mr. Stanley Knowles, who had supported this idea for many years, introduced a bill similar to the one I am now introducing. I have had to change the rate in this bill to bring it into line with the standard of living, as was suggested by the Geneva conference. I think it is necessary, because of the geographical conditions prevailing in Canada and also because of the British North America Act which
Industrial Relations
places some of the rights of labour under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments and some under the federal government, to take a look at what has happened in this field over the intervening years in the various provinces.
In every case, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, there are now on the statute books of the provinces various forms of minimum wage legislation. These pieces of legislation have been amended from time to time so that in many conditions they are not similar to one another, although in general they are. By 1958, the British Columbia act had been revised so that the minimum wage rate was set at 65 cents an hour instead of the previous weekly rate of $22 per week or 55 cents an hour. The Manitoba act was amended in 1957 to produce a rate of 60 cents an hour for males and increase the rate for women by two and three cents an hour. In Saskatchewan. the minimum was raised in 1957 from $26 to $30 per week in the towns, and from $24.50 to $29 in the larger cities. In Quebec the minimum rate was revised in 1957 to 60 cents an hour in zone 1, 55 cents in zone 2, and 50 cents in zone 3, an increase in each case of nine cents an hour. New Brunswick increased the rate from 38 to 45 cents an hour for women in hotels and restaurants and from 40 to 50 cents an hour in other types of employment. Nova Scotia also set new rates of $21.60 a week in zone 1, other rates applying in other zones.
As we can see by these rates, there is a great variance in the minimum rates across the country. With the permission of the house I should like to put on Hansard pages 12 and 13 of a Department of Labour publication containing charts of the minimum rates in effect in the various provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to insert in Hansard at this point the two charts on minimum wages in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: The charts are as follows:

VI-1 MINIMUM RATES FOR EXPERIENCED WORKERS UNDER MINIMUM WAGE ACTS*
The table shows the minimum rates for full-time experienced workers. In Nova Scotia and British Columbia, there are two Minimum \\ age Acts, one applying to men and the other to women workers, but in Nova Scotia the Male Minimum Wage Act, 1945, has not been proclaimed. In trie other provinces, the Act applies to both men and women. In Ontario, minimum rates have been fixed for women only. In New Brunswick, only one order is in effect for men-that covering the canning industry.
Establishment



FACTORIES


[Stage Direction]
Sex
Nfld.

[Stage Direction]
cents
per
hour
35"
50"
[Stage Direction]
$ per week 21.60, Zone I 19.20, Zone II 14.40, Zone IIIb,'
35"
50"
[Stage Direction]


35"
50"
35"
50"
[Stage Direction]
cents
per
hour
Que.
65 h
As in factories
As in factories
As in factories'
50
cents per hour 60, Zone I 55, Zone II 50, Zone IIId
As above
As in factories
As in factories
Ont.
$ per week 22, Zone I 20, Zone II 18, Zone IIIe
As in factories
Man.
cents per hour 58 cities 54, rural£
60'
As in factories
As in factories
As in factories
55, Zone I 50, Zone II 45, Zone IIId
As above
As in factories
As in factories
As in factories
As in factories
Sask.
$ per week 30, cities and 15 larger towns and a 5-mile radius; 29, rest of province®
As above
As in factories
Alta.
$ per week 28, centres over 5,000 population; 24, rest of province
cents per hour 60
30, centres over 5,000 population'; 26, rest of province"
As in factories
As in factories As in factories
As in factories
As in factories
As in factories
As in factories
As in factories
As in factories
As in factories

[Stage Direction]
As in factories
As in factories
As in factories
As in factories
75
65
[Stage Direction]
o
c!
w
[Stage Direction]


n
o
[Stage Direction]
o
[Stage Direction]
w
Industrial Relations
66968-9-94J
(*) Workers over 17 years.
( ) Minimum rate of 45ji per hour in fish-processing industry anywhere in province.
(d) Zone I-City and Island of Montreal; Zone II-Quebec and district and places over 6,000 population; Zone III-remainder of province.
m w? 1 T°™nt°' Hamilton>
Wlndsor' Ottawa and environs and London; Zone II-places of 3,000 or over; Zone III-places under 3 000 ( ) Workers of 18 and over. Employees under 18, 48i per hour.
mins^ter,'Mapfe C^eek;Meadowl^ke™M™Ifortf Melvll^^i^aw^.^osetownf Shaunavo^,'Trfs'(^le!n^*50'a' ^ Can°ra' Humb°ldt' KamSaCk'	L1°^
(h) Applies to canning or processing of fish, vegetables or fruit.
under)17T*l°6Tl7-18r, $18^19, $22.Und6r 19' in °entreS °Ver 5,000 P°Pulation: under 17 years, *20; 17-18 years, $22; 18-19 years, $26. Elsewhere in province;
(J) Rate applicable to city or town applies to hotels and restaurants within 20 miles June 1-September 30.
As indicated in the table, w^eekly rates are set in some provinces, hourly rates in others.
[Stage Direction]


a
>
w
*
to
[Stage Direction]


cn
co
[Stage Direction]


Industrial Relations
[Stage Direction]
Industrial Relations
Because of the suggestions that have been made at various times I think it is only fair that we should ask for minimum rates set higher than the average rates in Canada. To take a look at some of the rates, I think we should start with some of the lower ones in such industries as the canned and preserved fruits and vegetables industry. This information is reported in a pamphlet put out by "The Honourable Gordon Churchill, Minister of Trade and Commerce" and is entitled "Man-Hours and Hourly Earnings with Average Weekly Wages, December, 1958". In the canned and preserved fruits and vegetables industry the average hourly earnings as of December 1, 1958 in cents, was 113.7; in the leather products industry, 114.8; boots and shoes, 109.3. In each case the number of people working in the industry was less than 20,000. In service industries, for hotels and restaurants, the average was 96.7 cents an hour, with 34,000 employees; for laundries and dry cleaning plants, with the lowest average of all industries in Canada, the average was 97.3 cents, with only 14,750 employees.
But the large bulk of the employed persons in Canada that are reporting to the dominion bureau of statistics-805,117 employees in manufacturing-earn an average of 167.2 cents. In some industries like mining, with 75,545 employees, they earn 197.9 cents per hour. From these figures-and we could mention others that are exceptionally high like primary iron and steel at 229.3 per hour for 28,000 people-it can be seen that in asking for $1.25 an hour we are certainly not asking for an exorbitant amount of money.
We should like this minimum wage law to be put into effect and be incorporated in a Canadian labour code. This code has been asked for by the Canadian Labour Congress. It has been asked for by the C.C.C.L. It has been asked for by many of the national unions. I think it is desired by all employees in Canada. I am happy to say that the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) has asked the various labour organizations for suggestions as to what the labour organizations would wish established in a federal labour code. I commend the Minister of Labour for his initiative. In view of his record in these matters, and certainly in following that of the former leader of the Conservative party, R. B. Bennett, I think we can expect to see something done in this line in the very near future. We are asking for a federal code but we are also asking in this bill for this provision to be applied only to those employees under federal jurisdiction. These are few in number. They take in such

employees as those in banks, in communications, in transportation, in civil service and a few other various industries.
Then I would point out that this minimum wage of $1.25 is not to be considered as a wage but is to be considered as a minimum wage and all other wages should seek to be higher. One of the advantages of having the federal government pass this type of legislation is that it sets a pattern for the provincial governments to follow. I think that this pattern is something that is desirable. Certainly the need for this type of legislation has been pointed out in the province of Newfoundland where conditions are certainly not as would be suggested if we had a Canadian federal labour code.
The federal government by passing this type of legislation is going to raise the standard of living of very few people because the majority of people under federal jurisdiction are now receiving a much higher rate of pay than this. But it will set for the provincial governments a pattern at which they can aim and by which they can hope to raise the standards in each of the provinces. This procedure is necessitated by the fact that the British North America Act made a division between those jurisdictions that come under the federal code and those that would not be covered under a federal code. The rate of $1.25 is the amount that has been asked for by the Canadian Labour Congress when they came to the government a few months ago, on January 22 of this year. In making their presentation, they had this to say:
We believe parliament should enact a national minimum wage of $1.25 an hour and a national maximum work-week of 40 hours.
Certainly this last would be happily received in the province of Newfoundland. Then they go on to say this:
In our last appearance before you we suggested to you that you might try to convene a conference with the provinces with a view to establishing uniform nationwide legislation on labour relations. We set out in some detail what we thought such a conference might accomplish. We also suggested to you, as we have suggested in our proposed amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, that industries of nation-wide scope and importance should be brought under the act as has been done with grain elevators, for example.
In asking for this minimum of $1.25, which is 25 cents higher than was asked for by Mr. Stanley Knowles when he introduced this bill or a similar one in 1957, we are taking into consideration the inflationary trend and the need for an increased wage to keep up with the standard of living. In asking for the passing of this act we are also asking that favourable consideration be given to maintaining equal pay for equal work so

that women as well as men will be able to obtain the benefits of a minimum wage of $1.25.
I think there may be some objection in some parts of Canada to a rate of $1.25 because this is an arbitrary figure. It may be higher in some provinces in relation to the average rate of pay in that province than it will be in others. In the passing of this bill I think some consideration can be given to geographical locations and the rates of pay in various localities. This is something that can be done when and if this bill is referred to the standing committee on industrial relations. This bill could be amended so that it would take into consideration some of these geographical factors. I think consideration should be given by the house at this time to the passing of this minimum wage act so that we can give leadership to the provinces of Canada and can comply with the wishes expressed and the conventions entered into at the international labour conference long ago in 1928.
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, before taking part in this debate I would like to check whether the actual bill is in order in that clause 4 states $1 an hour, whereas the explanation states $1.25 an hour.
I imagine it is a typographical error which the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has had changed in the house. If that is so, then I would like to go back to November 28, 1957, when Mr. Knowles first introduced his bill, because with the exception of the change from $1 to $1.25, and a rather minor change in the rates to be deducted for board and room, this bill is identical with the bill introduced by Mr. Knowles.
Mr. Knowles, in the same manner as the hon. member for Timiskaming, went back to 1935 when the government of Mr. Bennett, who was prime minister at that time, presented to parliament what was popularly known as the Bennett new deal legislation. Mr. Knowles went on to say that in this new deal legislation was incorporated a minimum wages act; but this was found to be ultra vires of the federal parliament and was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Liberal government which came into office after the election in 1935. The reason it was declared ultra vires is that the court plainly stated that labour matters come in part only under federal jurisdiction, and part under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore it was not proper for the federal government to enact the legislation proposed by Mr. Bennett.
Industrial Relations
Mr. Knowles then got around that point in his bill by limiting its application to employees who come under federal jurisdiction. At the same time he made reference to the brief, as did the hon. member for Timiskaming, which was presented by the Canadian Labour Congress on October 21, 1957, in which Mr. Jodoin stated as follows. I am now quoting from page 1620 of Hansard for November 28, 1957:
But the dominion should not confine itself to doing as well as the best of the provinces.
He is referring to the $1 minimum wage proposed in Mr. Knowles' bill.
It should give a lead. It should, specifically, establish a legal maximum work week of 40 hours and a legal maximum wage of $1 an hour. This is not really a very drastic proposal.
Later on he goes on to say that a minimum of $1 an hour might be hard to apply immediately, but in most provinces the legal minimum rates are preposterously low. Mr. Jodoin did recognize that there would be difficulties in the application of this type of legislation, and that it would take some time. I find it rather strange that the hon. member for Timiskaming should feel that in the short space of a year or slightly more the rather difficult proposition of selling this to the provinces could be made easier by a general increase of 25 per cent, raising it from $1 to $1.25.
There was reference made in regard to comparison with United States figures and United States legislation. The legislation in the United States is called the fair labour standards act. This act was enacted by the United States congress in 1948 and it established a national minimum rate of pay and a maximum work week in industries under United States federal jurisdiction. The act initially set a minimum wage objective of 40 cents per hour which was to be reached in successive stages over a period of seven years. Subsequent amendments increased the minimum wage from 40 cents to 75 cents per hour in 1950, and to the present minimum of $1 an hour in 1956. But in the United States, because of their control of interstate commerce there are some 24 million workers who come under federal control.
In Canada there are only about 400,000 employees in industries which are under federal jurisdiction. Now, of those 400,000 employees some 70 per cent, or 280,000, come under collective bargaining agreements, which the hon. member will admit is the proper and best way to set wages. Of the remainder who are not covered under collective bargaining agreements, a very small percentage will have wages lower than $1 an hour. The figures given by the labour department indicate there

Industrial Relations
are some 20,000 lower than $1 an hour, and in the case of $1.25 I would estimate it would not be materially higher because the classifications covered by federal legislation are not usually the lowest paid people in the country. There is no doubt that minimum wages acts have a very fine purpose, and that is to see that the worker gets a living wage. But other factors have to be borne in mind. The capacity of industry to pay, the nature of the work and service, and the general level of wages.
In this same debate to which I referred on November 28, 1957, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) pointed out that the minimum basic rates established by provincial legislation varied considerably, and I am indeed grateful to the hon. member for Timiskaming for putting on record a factual statement in regard to these various rates. The method of setting minimum wage rates in the provinces does vary from the method proposed in this bill in that they are usually handled by minimum wage boards who have the power to adjust these wages by regulation. A weakness in this bill is that you have to come to parliament every time you want an adjustment, and the hon. member has shown that in the short space of one year he considers the adjustment should have been 25 per cent above that proposed previously by the very able spokesman of his party. So that means that if this kept on it would be a yearly matter. However, the way the provinces operate is to set up a minimum wage board which has the power, through regulation, to set minimum rates. This bill therefore embodies a new approach in Canada as far as setting a minimum wage is concerned.
In regard to minimum rates in the provinces at the present time, some of these, as the hon. member has said, are quite low. He did point out, I believe, that they varied from some 35 cents to 75 cents an hour. He pointed out a zoning system was used in certain provinces; in other provinces there is a differential between urban and city areas. The hon. member's bill would, I think, try to make the federal government beat a club over the heads of the provinces by invading their field. From the figures I have given and the admissions of the hon. member himself, there is no real need for this measure as far as employees coming under federal jurisdiction are concerned. These are not the people he is aiming at. He is aiming at those areas under provincial control which do not at the present time have a wage level equivalent to what he is proposing, and he did read out certain figures from the Department of Trade and Commerce to bear out his contention.

I think it is not a good thing for this parliament deliberately to invade the fields which are set apart for the provinces, especially as all the provinces except one-Prince Edward Island-do have minimum wage boards or other means of setting minimum wages.
This minimum may appear low by our standards, and when I say "our standards"
I am thinking of the province of British Columbia from which I come. However, it must be remembered that there are many varying factors to be taken into account. The range of occupations covered must necessarily be large, including farm labourers, domestic servants and baby sitters and other groups not yet represented by labour organizations. In addition, the place of work also varies widely from urban areas to remote rural areas.
I think the proper way to set wages is by collective bargaining and mutual agreement between employers and employees. To try to do it by setting a minimum wage level which would have a blanket application throughout the country is in my opinion misguided. It would be unenforcible because it is a matter outside our jurisdiction, and in any case it would be almost unenforcible in practice.
The point which the hon. member made with regard to such a bill setting a pattern for the provinces does not appear to me to have much validity, because I think the provinces will continue to do just what they think is in the best interests of their people and in the best interests of the development of industry. There may be one exception to that. Although no one can quarrel with the intent of the bill, which is to try to provide better wages for the workers of Canada, I believe there are much better ways in which the objective which the hon. member has in mind could be accomplished.
At the heart of the bill lies, as I have said, this figure of $1.25 an hour, if we leave out the question of board and lodging. I do not understand why that matter was ever put into the measure because, as the hon. member knows, construction workers and others engaged in employments which require them to work away from home and where special provision is required for board and lodging are almost invariably covered by union agreements, with the exception, perhaps, of domestic servants and farm labourers.
I think the hon. member will be disappointed if he hopes that in some of the agricultural provinces the farmers are going to look with much favour on this proposition, or if he thinks that the agricultural provinces which would have control over this field would pass any such measure. The best way to

settle the wages of farm labourers is by agreement between employer and employee, with the scarcity of farm labour giving the employee his greatest bargaining strength. It is, of course, admittedly more difficult for this kind of labour to be adequately represented through collective bargaining.
In conclusion I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that ability to pay must also be part of any wage settlement. So although in principle we support the idea of trying to do what the hon. member wishes to do, and although we hope that the provinces will continue as they have done in the past making provision by regulation for continual increase in minimum wages to keep in step with the times, this bill is certainly not the way in which it should be done.


John Smith: In rising at this time to take a small part in the debate I wish to assure the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) that I appreciate his sincerity in bringing in a bill of this kind which in many ways could benefit those who have to work for a living. Most of us I am sure would agree in principle with most parts of the bill. Nevertheless, I consider that I must point out some of the problems we should face if we were to embark on legislation of this kind at the present time.
I have had considerable experience of labour legislation and I was for many years a member of a labour organization. I have acted on arbitration boards, on bargaining committees, and on a great many other committees dealing with labour. This bill, in my view, is one that should be considered from a regional standpoint. I do not think we could justly set up a minimum wage which would be fair and equal in all parts of Canada. I do not feel, for example, that I am in a position to say that a $1.25 an hour would be a fair minimum wage in and around the Toronto area or, to go to extremes, in the northern parts of Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland. I do not feel, therefore, that it would be possible at the present time to put into effect, and make workable, a minimum wage which would be fair in all parts of Canada unless this were done on a regional basis.
We must all remember that in the provinces we have departments of labour and ministers of labour and that it is their job to provide good legislation suitable to the provinces which they serve. I do not think that we in Ottawa should try to invade their field, at least at the present time. I said that I have had some experience in labour matters, and I should like to refer to the industrial standards act which is an act to provide for minimum wages and
Industrial Relations
reasonable hours of work. That act has been on the statute books in the province of Ontario for some 15 years and throughout those years they have never been able to put it into effect in such a way as to make it work.
I may say that I have had some experience with that on an enforcing committee. It was not the employers of labour who gave us the greater problem. It was the employees themselves. If you set a minimum wage rate that is more than the prevailing rate in an area you immediately have a problem. After all, this is a free country and if a man chooses to work for $1 an hour it is going to be a big responsibility for someone to make him work for $1.25 an hour. A problem of enforcement is created. Who is going to enforce legislation of that kind? Who can make it work? Is it going to be done by the local municipal police, the provincial police or the R.C.M.P.? If you place an act on the statute books and want to make it effective it has to be enforced. The problem of enforcing a minimum wage entails a great deal of expense and a large number of persons who could serve to enforce it.
I feel that we should be cautious before proceeding to pass a law that is going to affect the whole of Canada. I made some reference to putting such a provision into effect. In communities where there is a minimum wage and where that wage is perhaps higher than the prevailing rate you find it has a tendency to pull down the prevailing rate to the minimum. There is no mistake about that. When contractors go into an area to tender on jobs they will tender at the rate set by the government, the minimum rate. Again a problem arises. If the minimum rate is higher than the prevailing rate it creates a disturbance in the area and problems arise that have to be met. Before we go too far with respect to a measure of this kind I feel we should give serious consideration to the point I have mentioned.
The riding that I represent is one of the most highly unionized in the whole of Canada but as I stand here and say that I do not feel I am not a friend of labour. I know that as far as our community is concerned minimum wages are not considered to be too important as a subject of labour legislation. There was a time in the years gone by before unions became as widespread and well organized as they are today-and I might say I participated to a considerable extent in the organization of at least one- when perhaps the need for a minimum wage was greater than at present but unions across the country are doing an excellent job in preventing what we used to refer to as slave labour. Between the unions and the

Industrial Relations
provincial departments of labour the situation is being pretty well taken care of at this time. I suggest that we proceed with extreme caution in respect of this question because it could lead us into a serious problem involving enforcement and result in unfairness across Canada that we do not wish to see. I know there are others who wish to speak to this matter so with those remarks I shall conclude.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul Mariineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, this bill, in so far as it is designed to improve the lot of the working classes in Canada, should no doubt be welcomed by hon. members. However, I fail to see how, in its present form, it can help achieve the purpose contemplated by its mover.
In the first place, as I already said, it applies only to a very small category of employees, those under the federal government jurisdiction, about 400,000 in number. Now, more than half and perhaps even two-thirds or three-quarters of those 400,000 employees, are under various collective bargaining agreements. As for the others, they are mostly casual workers paid at prevailing rates.
Therefore, as regards employees directly covered by this bill, this legislation would offer them no substantial improvement, since their working conditions are already fairly good, if not better than those proposed.
It has been said that this legislation could serve as a model for the other provinces. How can anyone make such a claim, when nine of ten provinces have already adopted adequate minimum salary legislations for the particular conditions of their area. So much for the purpose of the bill.
Then again, the way it is worded, I do not think its application would be very practical. As a matter of fact, one of the employers-and the employer, in this case, will be either the government, the corporations, or the agencies or commissions coming under them-would have to pay a minimum of $1 an hour to all its employees; I even believe that it is $1.25, although, as I have already pointed out, the bill itself refers in section 4 to $1 an hour. Therefore, any time economic conditions changed, we would have to amend the bill or have it amended by parliament. Furthermore, there is no distinction being made between employees who could be paid not only by the hour, but also by the week,

by the month, by the year, by contract or by the job. There is no provision for such cases. The case of apprentices is not provided for either. Apprentices, that is those who are in training, are not getting that minimum salary of $1.25 an hour.
Nor is any distinction made between Canada's various economic regions. It has been said time and again in this house-I believe it is a well-known fact-that Canada is a federation of various regions each with its particular economic problems and that, therefore, wage levels fluctuate tremendously between provinces. For instance, Mr. Speaker, you need only refer to the minimum wage act of the province of Quebec. The provincial minimum wage board has had to establish three regions or areas with varying wage levels. So if it is necessary in one province to make a distinction between wage levels in different areas, it is even more so in a vast country such as this, where economic conditions, according to all economists in the country and all people, differ widely. Of course, a minimum wage applied, for instance, in cities with a metropolitan area, like Toronto and Montreal, could not be applicable in remote rural areas.
Moreover, no consideration has been given to the good of the industry itself. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), who introduced this bill, quoted certain figures showing that salaries are higher in some industries than in others. There is a very obvious reason for this difference which, in my view does not imply unfairness. On the contrary, it is a practical application of the principle of different pay for different work. In some industries, there are light jobs that can easily be performed by students, by youths or even by part time women workers. By using such labour, those industries are able to produce goods and sell them at a reasonable price allowing for a profit.
Subjecting all those industries to a standard rate of salary higher than present salaries would place them in a position where they could no longer compete with other similar industries in Canada and, perhaps more important, with other industries abroad. What would happen then? Surely there would be another unemployment crisis, because such action would restrict Canada's economic activity.
For all those reasons, I feel that this bill is not appropriate. In my view, parliament should not legislate or enact laws that cannot

be enforced because of the constitutional problems involved and also because of present economic conditions.
However, if I may be allowed to put forward a proposal in connection with minimum wages, I would suggest not in the form of an amendment, but merely as a suggestion- that legislation be passed to make it possible to enforce the minimum wage provisions that are now in the statute books in nine of the ten provinces with regard to employees under federal jurisdiction. This would take into account the variety of economic factors across the country, and at the same time, it would assert the principle that apparently the hon. member for Timiskaming has in mind, namely that every man's labour should receive a fair and equitable reward and that the federal government should give leadership in this regard.
(Text):


Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I see by the clock there are only two minutes left. I should like to agree with most of those who have gone before me in approving the principle of this bill, but I find that a practical application of that principle would be another matter.
Much mention has been made of the Bennett legislation of 1935. Of course, there is a vast difference between that legislation and what we have before us today in the fact that that legislation applied not only to the people under federal jurisdiction but to all employees of the country. When we look back to the supreme court decision which was given at that time we find it interesting to note that the legislation was rejected by only three judges to two. It might be well to have another look to see if it would not be within the competence of the federal government to undertake such
Business of the House
legislation as was passed by the Bennett government in 1935, because I feel it would be of a great deal more value to the country than the proposed bill.
I would note that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) pointed out that one of the reasons why the Bennett legislation was passed was to provide for the ratifying of the convention of the international labour organization. That certainly is a very important question facing the workmen of Canada today because one of the things that we have to do to protect our position is to try to bring up the standards in the other countries so that the wage levels in those countries will get up to a base similar to our own-



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Since it is Friday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the house leader will tell us what we may expect for the latter part of next week. I understand that a supply motion will take up Monday and Tuesday.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday we shall take item No. 4 on today's order paper, the second reading of a bill to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act; then item No. 5, a bill to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act; then the two bills introduced today by the Minister of Veterans Affairs; then, the resolution concerning parliamentary secretaries; and the resolution concerning the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Agreements Act. We may have to vary the order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will that be the same program for Thursday?


Howard Charles Green: I am not sure of that as yet.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
1486
[Stage Direction]
Questions