1960-03-11

Mr. Paul Martineau (Parliameniary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege, yesterday the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Leduc) made a speech in this house. He referred in particular to the constituency of Pontiac-Temis-camingue, which I represent, and to one polling division in that constituency where he stated that a large number of Indian voters who were on the 1958 voters' list had not exercised their right of franchise. He stated that the reason they had not done so was that on election day they were in no condition to vote due to the fact-to use the hon. member's own words-that they had been plied with liquor. This is reported at page 1934 of yesterday's Hansard.
Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a reflection on certain constituents in my riding and is also clearly a reflection on my honour as a member of this house. I wish to state in unequivocal terms that the words used by the hon. member for Gatineau do not represent the facts as they are known to me. I therefore deny that I or any of my agents or anybody for whom I may have had any responsibility ever did prevent, through liquor or by any other means, anybody in my constituency from exercising their franchise.
It is true that there were a large number of voters on the list who did not vote. The reason was that when the enumeration was taken there were a number of bush workers who did not live at Forbes Depot but who happened to be there and whose names were included on the voters' list. When election time came many of them had left that neighbourhood because the bush operations were terminated, and they probably voted elsewhere in my constituency or in neighbouring constituencies.
I wish to repeat with emphasis that never did I prevent anyone from voting. Everyone was encouraged to vote. That was our set policy, and if there were voters who did not vote it did not spring from any act on my part. Moreover, I resent the implication made on my constituents.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the hon. member is satisfied with having made his explanation, and that he was not in the house at the time the statement was made or he would have made his explanation at that time. I was in the chair and heard the statement, but I did not take from what was said any identification of the parliamentary secretary with what was said by the hon. member for Gatineau. However, if he understood that there was an insinuation against himself, he has now made his explanation and perhaps the hon. member whose statement is complained of wishes to say something before the matter is closed.
(Translation):


Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard what the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) has just said. I have not sought to accuse either the elected member or the defeated candidate. I simply noted the fact that, as I said, the Indians were served intoxicating beverages and that many of them were unable to vote because they were in no condition to get to the polls. That is what I said.
I said nothing against the member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue. There were two candidates in that election. I did not say it was the member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, nor did I say that it was the defeated candidate, who supplied the liquor. The fact remains however, that a few days before the elections, the Indians started drinking liquor that was surely supplied by someone.
(Text):


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed a word in this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question before the house for debate. The hon. member has made his position clear. Unless the hon. member wishes to pursue the matter by moving some resolution I think the matter might be dropped at this point.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a point of order, in the statement by my hon. friend from Gatineau there was referred to two candidates. He asked a question, "Did the Liberals vote?" and he replied, "No". Therefore the implication becomes clear, and that is why I take exception to it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member raising another matter of privilege, or is he referring to yesterday's statement?
1S68

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am still referring to yesterday's statement.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
March 9-The Prime Minister-The following proposed motion:-That the report of the Canada council for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1959, laid before the house on July 10, 1959, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts in order to provide for a review thereof pursuant to section 23 of the Canada Council Act.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
Canada's petition
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen the statement by the mayor of the city of Montreal that if Canada's petition to the bureau of international exhibitions had been properly prepared, Canada and Montreal would have had the fair? Has he any comment to make thereon?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make on the statement made by Senator Fournier except to say this, and it is not by way of comment; that the presentation of Canada's request for this exhibition was made by representatives of the department and, I am informed, was made as fully and completely as could have been done under all the circumstances.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the Prime Minister then explain why the mayor was excluded from the briefing session of Canadian delegates held the day before the petition was submitted to the bureau?


John George Diefenbaker: I have no information that he was excluded, but I certainly read in the press of that having taken place and I am going to have the matter looked into for the purpose of ascertaining why such a course should have taken place.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the Prime Minister because, as he knows, the mayor, both in

the statement and again on television last night, said that he was treated very discourteously.


John George Diefenbaker: I can only say that I do not like discourteous treatment at any time.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the great need for industrial development in the maritime provinces and the vast possibilities that would flow from the Chignecto canal development, including the announcement by Mr. K. C. Irving that he would invest $100 million in industries in that area, would the government consider an immediate, full scale, on the spot engineering study to confirm the cost of the canal, its irrigational details and exact location.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question, but as far as the rest of the speech is concerned I cannot be expected to deal with that. In so far as this matter is concerned, it is receiving and has received consideration. Investigations are taking place. It is a matter that has been before the maritime provinces for many years, and like many others that deserved attention by the former federal government, that attention was not given to it. However, this government is having the matter looked into to see if anything can be done to benefit the maritime provinces and provide the people there with opportunities equal to those afforded to people in other parts of Canada, which policy, of course, is being followed by the government with respect to all matters.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the Prime Minister tell the house when the study will be completed, and whether or not an interview has been arranged with Premier Flemming to discuss this question?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot anticipate when the investigation will be completed, but Premier Flemming has on more than one occasion brought this matter to my attention, and it is a subject in which he has a great interest.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Make your campaign speech for the provincial election in New Brunswick.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I never know what that babble over there means.


Mr. Pearson:: The meaning is clear.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Shades of Mackenzie King.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall be seeing Premier Flemming on Saturday, and I am sure that once again he will bring this matter to my attention.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: I wonder whether the Prime Minister, in view of the statement he made in answer to the first question, could tell us when this study began?


Mr. Brooks:: The last government turned thumbs down absolutely on it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister told my friend the hon. member for Laurier that he always disliked discourtesy. I addressed a question to the Prime Minister, and I think my question was factual and polite. I am asking the Prime Minister for an answer which is equally factual and polite.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman always gets factual and polite answers. The investigations and the considerations in connection with this matter have received the attention of the appropriate departments since this government came into power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Prime Minister again when the investigation began. The Prime Minister said it was not done by the previous government. When did this government start it?


Mr. Speaker:: As I understood the answer, the Prime Minister took the matter back as far as the commencement of the responsibility of the present government. I do not know that he can be asked to answer for what transpired prior to that time. It seems to me that is a matter for debate.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister any knowledge of a survey having been undertaken by the former administration in any way connected with the Chignecto canal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could explain the urgency of the matter.


Thomas Miller Bell: There is the same urgency with respect to this supplementary that there was about the other supplementary questions which were asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Mr. Speaker:: This question appears to me to be one of those argumentative questions which should not be answered.
79951-0-124
Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



SUGGESTED RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION TO SERVE NEW MINERAL DEPOSIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Martel (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister's attention been drawn to reports in yesterday's and this morning's Montreal papers of the official announcement of a $50 million mining project for the development of a rich ore deposit and the building of a zinc refinery, the work being spread over a period of 3 to 5 years in the lake Mattagami district, about a hundred miles north of the Amos-Barraute-Senneterre district, in my riding?
If so, could he inform the house if Canadian National Railways officials are considering the possibility of building a branch-line into this new mining district, from the present railway line linking our area and Chi-bougamau, as the initial step in the construction of a railway as far as James Bay?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman given notice of this question? If not, I suggest that he put it on the order paper.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. On Wednesday night members of parliament and senators saw a very fine demonstration of survival operations and the vital role that the Canadian army plays in the present plans for civil defence. Because of the excellence of the demonstration and the great amount of effort that has been put into organizing it, can the minister inform this house whether it would be possible to arrange for showings in other parts of Canada?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I am sure the army will appreciate the complimentary remarks made by the hon. member. A study is now under way as to the practicability of having similar demonstrations in other parts of Canada.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
a supplementary question in view of the reply made by the minister and the suggestion involved in the question? Is the minister in a position to comment on a statement by Mr. 1970	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Gardiner, the head of the metropolitan government in Toronto, with regard to the lack of direction in the matter of civil defence that seems to be stifling the organization in that area?


George Randolph Pearkes: Very definite leadership has been given by this government in the matter of civil defence and survival operations.


Lionel Chevrier: The same leadership as in the Bomarc matter?


George Randolph Pearkes: And also in the Bomarc matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister how he reconciles that statement with the resignation of Major General Hatton a few months ago?


George Randolph Pearkes: Major General Hatton has every right to resign and take up another occupation. Major General Hatton has left this country and returned to the United Kingdom.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence, who is always so ready to reply unequivocally to questions. Would he have any comment to make on a statement by Mr. Gardiner, the head of the metropolitan government in Toronto, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star of Wednesday, March 9, as follows:
Metro's civil defence organization is ''travelling along in a suspended state of animation waiting for some direction" from the senior governments-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that the hon. member is entitled to read lengthy statements by other public figures and ask for comment. It is a practice which it seems to me should not be encouraged on the orders of the day, because the administration is not responsible for the statements of the gentleman in question. If the hon. member can frame a question arising out of what has been said, I will consider it in order if it relates to a matter of urgent public importance, but just to ask for comment on what another public figure has said I consider to be an unauthorized procedure.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for pointing out the error of my ways. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he has any comment to make on the allegation that has been made by Mr. Gardiner with regard to the lack of plans on the part of the federal government in the matter of evacuation, which lack is leading-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has reframed his question, but it seems to me it is exactly the same sort of question.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: On
Wednesday last I asked the Prime Minister the following question:
Has the Prime Minister received a resolution from the Fort William-Port Arthur and district labour council urging the government to give consideration to an adjustment of salaries and bargaining rights for postal employees? If so, has the Prime Minister any statement to make to the house on this matter?
The Prime Minister replied as follows:
-having had no notice of this question, I shall have to check on the matter.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister has the answer this morning.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman asked me the question, and after I returned to my office the communication in question came to hand. It was dated March 7 and was signed by Mr. H. M. Boreski, general secretary of the Fort William-Port Arthur and district labour council.
As to the second part of the question, I have no statement to make with respect thereto. The matter has been discussed on a number of occasions. If there is any further statement to be made in the future on this matter, it will be made in the house.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the statement made in the house recently by the minister during the discussion on aviation, is the minister aware that according to the dominion bureau of statistics figures, Canadian air carriers suffered operating losses of $716,000 last October as compared with October, 1958?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I read that statement. I should like to ask the hon. member what hay he is trying to make out of that.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will not accept the invitation to make hay.


Lionel Chevrier: No, but I should like to ask a supplementary question and put it this way. In view of the statement by the minister that the policies of the present government were such that Canadian air carriers were doing much better than before, I put this question to him. In light of the dominion bureau of statistics figures showing that there have been losses otf $716,000 in one month, what comment has he to make?


George Harris Hees: I do not remember the actual statement, but I should think it would probably be that under the policies of this government the aviation industry would prosper much more than under the restrictive policies of the previous government, which favoured monopoly and vested interests.


Mr. Benidickson:: The D.B.S. report shows the very opposite.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has received a report and recommendation from the unemployment insurance advisory committee regarding regulations 172 and 173. If he has, would he indicate what the recommendation is and what actions are contemplated?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: The recommendation of the unemployment insurance advisory committee will be made to the unemployment insurance commission. So far I have not been advised by the commission that such a recommendation or report has been tabled with that commission.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I should like to make a correction in Hansard of March 9, 1960 at page 1886. The third part of question No. 56 by Mr. Pickersgill is obviously in error; I would gather that it is a printer's error, and I ask that it should be changed. It now reads:
3. Of those admitted as non-immigrants, how many received medical or health care at immigrants?
It should have read:
3. Of those admitted as non-immigrants, how many have since they arrived been landed as immigrants?
79951-0-124J
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the hon. lady if she will seek permission to have the corrected answer to the whole question printed at the back of Hansard of today for the information of hon. members. I think both the minister and myself are in agreement that it is very desirable to have this information correctly available to the public.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If that is possible I am in agreement, because I think the way it stands now it is very misleading.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister suggesting that the corrected answer be printed as though it were a written answer in an appendix to Hansard today?
Is that agreeable to the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For corrected question and answer referred to above, see "Answers to Questions" at end of today's Hansard.]



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Might I ask the Minister of National Revenue whether he is now in a position to answer the question I put to him yesterday concerning the sales tax on snapshot printing?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I hope to be in a position to answer that question on Monday.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the statement made by the premier of Quebec regarding the urgent need for the co-operation of the federal government with the province in the proposal for the building of a bridge at the east end of Montreal? If so, would the minister inform us with regard to this matter.


George Harris Hees: I should like to take that question as notice.

Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul Tardif (Russell):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the minister receive a brief this week drawing to his attention the condition existing in his department, where it is claimed that out of 217 members of his staff in Ottawa 26 only speak two languages, 10 speak three languages-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Tardif: -and that 75 per cent of the Canadian diplomats abroad speak only one language?


Mr. Speaker:: With all respect to the hon. member, it seems to me he is asking a question which cannot be answered on the spur of the moment. I suggest he should put the question on the order paper.


Paul Tardif: All I wanted was to hear the comments of the minister.
(Translation):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State? This morning there was a prolonged traffic snarl on the Interprovincial bridge as a result of an automobile accident. Could the minister indicate whether he will get in touch with the civil service commission in order that employees who were unduly delayed by that accident will not be penalized by salary deductions?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Aciing Secretary of State):: I shall be pleased, Mr. Speaker, to forward the hon. member's request to civil service commission officials.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has there been, or is there planned for the immediate future, a drastic reorganization in the Canadian militia reducing its training force, and if so, what is the purpose of this?
[Mr. Hees.l


George Randolph Pearkes: There is no such drastic change contemplated.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of Canada's interest in preventing any further rise of nazism in the world and the necessity of maintaining access to allied records of nazi crimes against humanity, would the Canadian government consider protesting the reported United States decision to grant the Bonn government the right to veto access to these records, as well as the report that they may soon be handed over to the Bonn government, thus making it possible for this government to destroy them?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: At the moment the department has no knowledge of the existence of these records to which reference is made, but I am having further inquiries made.



COLOMBO PLAN


[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Secretary of State whether he consulted his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, before recently stating in Montreal that the $281 million spent as Canada's contribution to the Colombo plan has done much more for world peace than the billions provided by Canada for national and international peace?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I did not consult my colleague, but I still say that our $281 million contribution to the Colombo plan has done much more for world peace than the billions which we have had to spend on defence.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the Solicitor General care to say when he changed his view in this respect, and why?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize an imputation there to which the minister may wish to reply, but the question is not one that may be properly asked.

(Translation):


Léon Balcer: I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) has repeatedly indicated to the house that I have changed my mind in this respect. Besides, I think he has implied that in the past there have been people in the province of Quebec who were against financial assistance under the Colombo plan, claiming that instead of sending money to assist starving Asiatics, we had better look after the aged in Canada who were getting starvation pensions-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I think- (Translation):


Léon Balcer: Since then, we have increased old age security pensions, and the people no longer object-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister is going much too far. I gave him an opportunity to reply to the imputation but I have held that the question is out of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the Minister of National Defence agrees with the defence policy just laid down by his colleague?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, all members of this government agree with the statements made by another hon. member of the government.



RECOGNITION OF ACHIEVEMENTS BY CANADIANS AT OLYMPIC GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government given any consideration to expressing its appreciation to our lady of the snows in a tangible way, in addition to the presence and very fine words of the Prime Minister at the dinner last night?


John George Diefenbaker: The young lady in question was one of three Canadians who earned gold medals at Squaw Valley. In addition, Canadian participants won a silver medal for hockey, and a bronze medal as well. So far as all are concerned, I am sure we extend congratulations to the winners, as well as appreciation to the losers for the fine way in which they contributed to international good will, and also to the knowledge and appreciation of Canadian sportsmanship.
Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



DEFENCE ESTIMATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to ensure that the defence estimates are introduced in the house at the earliest possible date, so we may have a discussion of defence policy?


John George Diefenbaker: I am most desirous of seeing these matters advanced, but as a matter of fact there are a number of legislative items on the order paper which have to receive the attention of parliament at the earliest possible date.
At the moment what we are trying to do is clear up these matters of legislation, to the end that the discussion which the hon. gentleman has in mind, and other matters, may be dealt with. At this time I do not intend to say more than this; that over the years I have been strongly opposed to holding two sittings a year, and I hope we shall be able to advance this legislative program. Otherwise-and there is no criticism in this whatsoever-at the rate progress is being made I would think my views expressed in the past against two sittings a year may have to be changed. I point that out simply for the record, because after all we are now in our forty-second day and the order paper does not seem to be diminishing at any great rate of speed. I hope that after a number of matters are dealt with in the legislative program the subject of defence may receive early attention in committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I note from the legislative program that the government has given priority over defence to the question of the retirement of judges at 75. Does the Prime Minister not feel that this could be put back a bit, and that we might be given a chance to discuss defence policy?


George Harris Hees: Hon. members opposite are filibustering.


Lionel Chevrier: The filibustering is all being done on that side of the house.


George Harris Hees: An eight-day filibuster on unemployment.


Lionel Chevrier: How many speakers on that side of the house spoke in that debate?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Laurier asking a supplementary question?


Lionel Chevrier: No, sir.

Inquiries of the Ministry



BILL OF RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and ask if he could give any indication to the house as to when we might expect the introduction of the proposed bill of rights.


An hon. Member:: As soon as you stop talking.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter I am most anxious to have proceeded with at the earliest possible date, but for some reason we are not making the progress that would permit introduction of this important measure.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been drawn to a dispatch which appeared in last night's Toronto Daily Star to the effect that someone was operating a "come over now, pay me later" policy with respect to immigration and that some of the victims of this policy were seeking an interview with the minister. If so, could the minister say whether this matter is being investigated?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I did see the article, but I cannot make any investigation because there are no names disclosed and no one has approached me about it at all. I noticed that the article said they were seeking an interview, but no request of this nature has yet been received in my office. Inasmuch as there is no information in the article I can do nothing until I receive information.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. F. Jones (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the plans of certain cities, including the city of Saskatoon in my constituency, to encourage home owners to instal gas-fired incinerators for garbage disposal, and in view of the fact that few such cities have


the facilities to determine whether disposal of this type constitutes a danger of serious air pollution, could the minister advise whether in his view such dangers exist, and what assistance his department is prepared to offer the province and municipalities to investigate such schemes?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member
would give notice of the question.


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I will take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 10, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Walker-Mr. Flynn in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954 to increase the aggregate amount of all loans in respect of which insurance policies may he issued under the act from four billion dollars to six billion dollars; and to increase from one billion dollars to one and a half billion dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purposes specified in subsection 1 of section 22 of the said act.
Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with my remarks I must take this first opportunity to congratulate the minister on his appointment, and wish him all success in everything he undertakes to the general advantage of the people of this country. I certainly hope he proves to be the ministerial David who will slay the Goliath of short credit for housing.
We socialists believe the virtue of any nation is nourished by good homes. Satisfactory housing is essential for our people. Sometimes when I listen to hon. members of the opposition and have private discussions with them I realize that they have misconceptions as to the purposes and objectives of the socialist philosophy, and what the purpose of a socialist is with respect to giving expression to that philosophy. As a matter of fact some of them get an appalling idea of what socialist objectives are. They appear to think we are aiming to bring about a state of affairs where multitudes of warm bodies and full bellies will be living in a bliss of togetherness singing "I'm forever blowing bubbles", or something of that sort. We as socialists believe in the sanctity and the dignity of the individual. This is one reason we are concerned about housing and good homes. In our opinion, socialism is not all a question of bread and butter. It

is not a question of material things. Material things are only a step toward a better life for all our people.
In my opinion socialism is a search for truth, a worship of beauty-and beauty in all its forms-for the purpose of creating an environment where goodness will generally prevail. As socialists we believe that good homes are the foundation for that ideal. I am one of those people who believe that a man's home is his castle and a place where character, virtue, ideals and loyalty are fostered to the advantage of the public welfare. It is for this reason that our people are particularly interested in housing.
Now, Mr. Chairman, other members of our group have dealt at some length with the financial aspects of this problem. I am not going to take the time of the committee to repeat what they have had to say, except to emphasize that in my opinion there are two things that should be given particular consideration when it comes to credit. In my opinion, in agriculture and housing, if their needs are to be met in both instances, there should be opportunity for long term low interest loans. That type of credit is so important that even if it requires a measure of subsidization from the federal and the provincial governments-and in some cases it is justified on the municipal basis-it should be forthcoming.
I am pleased to note that the inquiry recently carried on by the royal architectural institute of Canada was made possible by a grant of $30,000 from the government. That was a very good investment indeed. It gives the officers and members of this organization an opportunity to make a study of this problem across the country, which they have been doing, and to get the opinions of wide sections of the people, both professional, those interested in the building of houses, and also those interested in obtaining houses, town planning, and so on. I am sure all of us will look forward to the report that will result from the investigation.
I want to say a word or two on the question of community planning, because we see such shocking need for it across the whole country. We can understand the lack of planning prior to the second world war particularly. Ideas had not developed along those lines to any great extent in a large portion of this country, but it is almost incomprehensible to me to see the lack of community planning that has existed since the second world war and the mistakes that have been made particularly in some of the larger centres, in connection with housing developments. In my opinion it is not only a question of this government's action, but there
National Housing Act
has to be co-operation among the federal, provincial and municipal governments to give effect to satisfactory programs for community planning. A lot of education has to be done in that line; there has to be an appreciation of the need for community planning on the part of a larger number of people; there has to be a larger number of people who are offended by the ugliness or the lack of planning that exists in this country today.
There are quite a number of agencies other than government which can play an effective role in this respect. In this connection I do urge that the minister, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and others use their opportunities to as great an extent as possible to give guidance, information and direction along those lines. Naturally I realize they are limited to some extent in so far as provincial and municipal authorities are concerned, but I think they can do a great deal more to promote the understanding of the necessity for community planning in Canada at this time.
We have seen a terrific increase in the cost of housing, with a great increase in the cost of land resulting from the greed of speculators, and in some cases not from greed but just from the natural increase in values because of the pressures of population and that sort of thing. I understand that in some instances Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have purchased land in various places in anticipation of development; in some instances to advantage and, I understand, in some instances the choice has not proven wise. I understand private builders are possibly going to purchase some of these properties for their own building projects. However, this is something we must keep in mind. A great deal more planning and assessment of future needs must be undertaken if we are to have community planning and the space for development in the future without ugliness, without dreariness, without shabbiness and all the things that go with them.
I must say a word or two about low rental housing, because this is one of the primary needs in housing in Canada, particularly for older people. "While a great deal has been done to date, there is a great deal more required if we are to build the low rental housing required by workers because of the mobility of their employment, and things of that sort, and also provide for the needs of our older people.
I am very pleased at this time to say that there has been co-operation by the federal and provincial governments with the municipality of Trail in connection with urban redevelopment. There is a good illustration

National Housing Act
of the ugliness that has developed over the years in a community that has produced millions in profits. No one person is responsible; it just grew like Topsy. I am glad to know that the survey was made possible as the result of the grant of the federal government, that both the provincial government and municipal authorities are co-operating and that a satisfactory report has been made as a result of the survey.
When you come to redevelop areas within cities, as in this case, that are the result of years of haphazard growth and development, it is a very expensive thing. While there is a will on all sides to change the situation, it is going to be very expensive indeed. I hope the answer to redevelopment in Trail will come soon. These problems surely should be lessons for us at this time not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
I want to say a word about small communities, because I am a country man and have lived in the country all my life. I was born in London, but that was only because my mother was there on that day. I have always enjoyed country life, and I think we fail to appreciate the contribution toward the settlement of many of these problems that the small communities can make. I am looking forward to the decentralization of industry instead of it being hived up in a small space as it is in that ever-expanding city of Toronto, and in other cities in Canada. Let us make greater use of the small communities. With improved transportation facilities, particularly improved highways, I am sure a great deal more can be done to dencentralize secondary industry.
As I said before, I think opportunities have been overlooked in the small communities for the provision of homes for the retired, the elderly. I have done a bit of promotion in that regard myself. I go about beating the drum for the small communities in my own constituency There are beautiful communities in ideal locations that I am sure most members of the house would envy. Yet if there is not something done, if there is not some guidance, if there is not some prodding, then in many cases people will retire from industry and continue to live their lives under somewhat squalid circumstances that are not always occasioned by lack of funds and things of that sort.
I have been able to get a good number of people to move to smaller places, villages of 500, 1,000, 250 or in some cases with a population of 150. Pensioners can build their own homes much more cheaply under these circumstances, and enjoy the type of life provided there. Today most of these communities have electric light and power, facilities that did not exist years ago. I suggest
[Mr. Herridge.l
to the minister that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could do more in that respect. Private lenders are a bit shy when it comes to these small communities, and while I do not criticize the officials of the corporation generally, because I think they have done a great job through the years under very difficult circumstances, I think there has been a tendency on the part of the corporation not to fully recognize this need, and plan for the future.
I urge that special consideration be given to assessing the opportunities in small communities all across Canada, in order to see what can be done to enable retired and elderly people particularly to build houses in these communities so they may live to better advantage and to the advantage and development of the communities concerned. It is going to take a bit of guidance on the part of the government, the corporation and the provincial and municipal authorities, and certainly some promotion.
I have gone to a man and said, "Look here, where do you intend to retire", and he has said, "I am going to stay here". I have said, "Come up to our part of the country and I will take you around and show you some cheap lots that you can get from the government for $50." They did not know those lots were there. You can get lumber for $30 a thousand, because third grade lumber is just as good as first grade for certain uses. People can build small homes there and live satisfactory lives. They can cut their own wood for fuel and spend their summer days fishing and gardening. But all this takes guidance and information. There are abundant opportunities in the smaller places if only they were brought to the attention of those who would be very pleased to retire and live under such circumstances.
There is one other matter I should like to mention. I have been very impressed with the good work that is being done under the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act. I think it has been our outstanding housing program in Canada. To start with it was not intended as a housing program but as a sort of subsistence farming arrangement. That is not how it works out, but that does not make any difference. It does provide an opportunity for men to build their own homes, to cultivate their half acre of ground, to get the pleasure that comes from association with mother earth, nature and so on, and to reduce their cost of living in that way.
I think the minister should give consideration to the development of a program something like the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act, with particular application to the smaller communities throughout

the country. When you have the type of person, the type of character and personality who delights in going into a small community and enjoys that sort of thing, then I say that nine times out of ten you have a very stable person. You are not dealing with someone who is going to assume an obligation today and forget about it tomorrow. I suggest that consideration should be given to a program somewhat along the line of the small holdings section of the Veterans' Land Act whereby suitable people would have the opportunity to build their own homes by being their own contractors.
There has been a tremendous change in housing in the last 50 or 75 years. What a difference. It makes me conscious of the problem that faces many young families today as compared with 50, 75 or 100 years ago. I grew up as a boy in a district where you could build your house out of the natural products around you. I know a person in my constituency who within the last 25 years has built a beautiful log home out of the forest, a log home with 4,000 feet of floor space. Everything that went into the home, stone, gravel, logs, lumber, beautiful flooring of different species in the different rooms, came off the property, and all this at a cost of less than $7,000. It is a poem in wood and local stone for less than $7,000, and with 4,000 feet of floor space. That shows you what can be done if you live under such circumstances.
But the majority of our people do not live under these circumstances, and for that reason I realize that we have a particular responsibility to those who, not living under these circumstances, must build their houses under much more expensive and artificial conditions. Yet I must say in passing that I think we overlook the opportunities in that respect in some parts of Canada. I am just speaking from experience. I happen to know a young man who was very interested in settling in the country. He was going to send away for lumber, asphalt shingles and so on. I took him and showed him what could be done with logs and local materials. He has built a beautiful home with a shake roof at a fraction of the cost, and it is a much more artistic and solidly built home than he could have built from imported products. I think something can be done in that direction. I do not say this can be done on a large scale, but there are opportunities for that type of construction and I suggest that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should have a few plans showing how to build a satisfactory log home.
I want to say a word or two about materials, because I find there is a great deal of ignorance in that regard. People generally are buying wallboard, gyproc, lumber and 79951-0-125
National Housing Act
other things without much knowledge of what they are purchasing. I suggest that something further could be done to create an interest in Canadian products. I do not want to appear to be touting the lumber business because I happen to be associated with a microscopic lumber company, but I think something should be done with respect to informing people as to the uses of lumber and what can be done with low grade lumber. We have No. 1 common, No. 2 common, No. 3, culls and so on. When it comes to building a home there is no need for a man to buy No. 1 common lumber for the walls when he is going to put gyproc on top. Generally speaking you can buy No. 3 lumber and in some cases culls at a fraction of the cost and have an equally satisfactory structure. All that is required is to cut out some of the knotholes and possibly cut off six inches of waste here and there, and so on. A great deal can be done to inform people of the uses of lumber and what can be done with certain grades. Then there is the question of variety in housing. I am a bit of an individualist. I suppose I could be called a socialist individualist.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is worse than Progressive Conservative.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I believe in individual design, but we seem to be living in an age of mass production. I think we should give some consideration to the esthetic value when it comes to housing, because there is no question but that a good home surrounded by lawns and gardens has an effect on character so far as children are concerned. The younger generation get their ideas as far as beauty is concerned, whether in music, art, housing or public buildings, from the things they hear and see. I feel we have a responsibility to indicate that we have some interest in developing the beautiful as well as building the useful.
I do suggest that there could be a greater variety of plans. You can go into so many houses and find that while they are warm and comfortable, they are very much alike. It may happen that the dining room is on the left side of the front door instead of the right; the roof may be green instead of blue, but fundamentally they are very much alike. You may find the same chrome furniture, which I dislike because I am very fond of the grain and colour of wooden things. I do believe something can be done to develop variety in housing. Variety results in a sense of pride because your house is different from the other chap's. This is a deep-seated instinct in human nature. As I said before, only the socialists realize that the bread and butter issues are only foundations on which we build.

National Housing Act
Now we come to the question of price. I think something could be done, given an understanding of the opportunities in the various materials, the variety of materials and the grades that are necessary, to reduce the price of housing to many people.
I have spoken, Mr. Chairman, in rather general terms because I did not want to repeat what has been said by previous speakers in this group. I do think if we give consideration to some of the things I have suggested we will improve the housing program in Canada. We can do something to lower the cost, even under present conditions. We can introduce a variety which will bring a greater degree of beauty into our housing developments, and by doing that not only will we be building houses but we will be providing homes that are the basis for a sound society.


Mr. Macdonnell:: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member, and I want to ask him a question. He has spoken about guidance, and I was very interested in that point. I want to ask him just how he thinks this guidance can be provided, and by whom. Central mortgage is primarily a lending institution. I would be interested, and I am sure the minister would, if the hon. member could indicate from where he thinks this guidance should come; because I am sure we all think it is highly desirable and something we would like to see furnished if possible.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: X am glad to attempt to answer the hon. member's question. We look upon Central Mortgage and Housing as more than a lending institution. It is the people of Canada's institution responsible for providing housing and, consequently, homes in Canada. I think it has recognized its responsibility as more than a lending institution by the character of the booklets it has published and the plans it has circulated.
When it comes to guidance, I always think you can work through local organizations. I am talking about the small community, possibly in some cases not incorporated. I am thinking of one in particular. I feel that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or other appropriate government agencies, either federal or provincial, could work in co-operation with local organizations. I find that women's institutes and women's organizations are particularly effective in that respect. They will meet together and get some literature for a series of studies. I know that women's institutes have undertaken a good deal in that direction in the smaller places where the women are not distracted by a multitude of engagements such as cocktail parties and that sort of activity. There is

a good deal that could be done without imposing any instructions from a higher authority. As I said before, we should give some guidance to people who are anxious to act but who are not well enough informed to be able to act until they get some guidance and information.
(Translation):


Mr. Bissonnelle:: Mr. Chairman, I consider it my duty to say a few words in support of this motion, introduced in committee of the whole house by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), and to congratulate and thank our government, on behalf of my electors, for its interest in housing and unemployment problems, and for the assistance it is offering to solve those problems.
I have the honour to represent Quebec West, a constituency peopled almost exclusively by workers in all sorts of trades and by labourers. Some of them work in small and medium industries, in particular the shoe industry, but most of them are construction workers, that is to say carpenters, plumbers, electricians, painters, etc.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, wintertime is a particularly difficult and hard period in my constituency, especially for construction workers and labourers. The index of building activity seems to be slightly down compared to last year. Individual money lenders are fewer and more demanding in the way of collateral, terms and interest rates.
It is well known that banks and credit unions have also had to restrict credit and loans in order to curb inflation. Like my hon. friend and colleague from the constituency of Levis (Mr. Bourget), I wish to pay special tribute to our credit unions, our caisses populates for the great services they have rendered in the past years in the field of construction, by granting loans at reasonable rates and at conditions that could be met by the borrowers.
It is therefore, with great satisfaction, Mr. Chairman, that I support this resolution raising from $1 billion to $1J billion the total amount which may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, so that the C.M.H.C. can guarantee building loans for low rental or family units.
I have been a practitioner for more than 38 years among those good working people that I know so well for their honesty and thrift.
Forty or more years ago, in spite of low wages and seasonal unemployment, many of those workers, who, at the time, did not have to contend with taxes of all kinds which have burdened them for many years now, managed to lay money aside and build themselves small homes. But due to the demands of today's economy, they cannot always make

ends meet. In many cases they can meet their obligations only by selling their small house and lot.
What they must do, therefore, is to find low rental accommodation. Thus the building of those multi-unit homes renting at prices they can afford to pay, is a boon to them.
In my riding, Quebec West, a building project for 700 such housing units, the Duberge Patios, was partially completed last year for 168 families of small wage earners whose individual revenue was under $2,500 a year. Those housing units are carefully built under the close supervision of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and so planned as to promote health and outdoor activities, each family having a yard and access to community playgrounds and recreation facilities.
A mixed school is now under construction to provide for the needs of that budding parish. I therefore would ask the Minister of Public Works to be so kind as to authorize the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to grant out of the $500 million mentioned in this resolution, a further loan for another 150 housing units, so as to carry on the fine project launched by the Duberge Patios. The demand for low rental housing still being very strong, those units will be rented as soon as they are completed. The promoters of the project have already laid plans for a shopping centre. They are also considering building a church in order to complete the project by creating a new parish of comfortably housed workers who will be perfectly organized in every respect.
This building activity will, at the same time, create jobs for all those good workers in my riding who would rather earn their bread than beg for it, or eat it thinly sliced out of their unemployment insurance benefits.
In those few remarks, I referred only to low rental housing. I also would like to suggest that loans be granted for small single family units, for people whose incomes vary between $3,000 and $5,000 and which would constitute a class of small owners. For some time, new and cheaper materials are available and simplified building procedures have cut down the cost of putting up a dwelling.
With longer terms granted for payment and with the 3 per cent refund which the government of the province of Quebec will extend, as from this year, on C.M.H.C. loans, it would be possible, it seems to me, to extend to our people more generous and flexible loans.
79951-0-125J
National Housing Act
I should like, at this time, to call the attention of hon. members of the house, and in particular of the Minister of Public Works, to what appears to me to be a deficiency in the legislation governing the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In fact, according to that legislation, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation protects only the general contractor who builds the house whose construction costs it guarantees, but it completely overlooks the subcontractors. If the general contractor is honest and solvent, there is no problem, but it is not always so. Subcontractors in plumbing, wiring, sash and doors, painting or landscaping have told me they have lost one, two or even three thousand dollars to some dishonest or financially unreliable general contractor.
Some of my colleagues in the house have told me of similar complaints they have received. Unable as they were to take out liens to protect themselves, those subcontractors have lost their claims. This legislation should therefore be amended, if necessary, so as to allow and even oblige Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to require from the general contractor, before he is paid in full, that he show receipts proving that the subcontractors have been paid in full or, at least, guaranteed payment of their share.
The housing shortage for large families has developed into a very serious problem. I am not against a sound immigration policy, but, before drawing people from Europe to fill Canada, I think we might appropriately start with settling our own people.
Families of seven, eight or more children are hard put to find suitable accommodation, yet such families supply us with some of our best citizens.
It is in large families that the virtues of sacrifice and generosity are best honoured and best observed. Those families are therefore the best source to draw from to populate the country. My suggestion, therefore, is that loan regulations be made more flexible, and even more generous, so as to help large families organize their home.
May I add, Mr. Chairman, that not only will this $500 million that is being made available for housing help relieve unemployment but will give real impetus to Canadian economy in general.
In all countries, construction is considered a vital industry, one that keeps alive the whole range of related industries and of all kinds of commercial enterprises.

National Housing Act
Especially does the housing industry provide individuals and families with prosperity and comfort and also with physical and mental health. Is this not a source of wealth for a country?
In civilized countries, or in countries that we seek to develop, we should eliminate improper shelter for animals, and, all the more so, improper housing for humans.
So, I congratulate the Minister of Public Works for the resolution he is introducing in order to help solve the thorny problem of housing, a resolution which is perfectly in accord with the progressive policies of our government in all fields.
I conclude with these words from a well known and very realistic French song: "When the building trade flourishes, everything flourishes."
Once again, I heartily support the resolution of the Minister of Public Works. I congratulate him and thank him for proposing it to us, thus giving me an opportunity to make my modest contribution.
(Text):


Mr. Granger:: While this resolution is under discussion I welcome the opportunity to mention some of the housing needs in my district, and I should like to call attention to the Goose Bay area in Labrador. Originally when the airport at Goose Bay was under construction many workers went there with a view to obtaining temporary employment, but as time went on they began to settle there. The result is that a large community has grown up within a few miles of the Goose Bay airport. This is the community of Happy Valley. The large numbers of personnel employed in various phases of the Goose Bay airport operation and the number of people who have settled in its proximity make it desirable to examine carefully the housing problem in this area.
I should like to call the attention of the minister to this problem and invite him to give it his sympathetic study and find out what has been done toward making provision for a housing development in the Goose Bay-Happy Valley area.
Further south in my constituency, in the mining area at Tilt Cove in Green Bay, Newfoundland, a road has been built between Tilt Cove and the town of La Scie just a few miles away. Room for housing is restricted at Tilt Cove, where the mine is located, and
[Mr. Bissonnette.l
a development at the town of La Scie would appear to be the answer. I should like to ask the minister what progress, if any, has been made toward a housing development at La Scie. A new mining development is also under way at Little Bay in Green Bay.


Mr. Walker:: May I ask the hon. member how that name is spelled? Will he give me that name again?


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: The last one?


David James Walker: Yes.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Little Bay. This is a new development, and the problem of housing there should be borne in mind. I should also like to mention the need for further housing developments in St. John's and ask what activity in this line may be expected there in the near future.
There is another problem which sooner or later must be faced, and that is the problem of housing developments in fishing settlements. Over the recent past there has been an industrialization of the fisheries. The result is that there has been a tendency to centralize population around those fishing ports which have had the benefit of fish plants and industrialization. The changing character of the fisheries has led to an influx of new families into those settlements, and the need for the adoption of a type of house within reach of the incomes of fishermen is acute. I would ask the minister to give this request his sympathetic and careful consideration, and ascertain what may have been done and what may be done toward housing developments designed to meet the needs of the fishing communities of Newfoundland.


Mr. Morton:: I wish to make a few remarks, particularly in respect to housing needs in the Toronto area.
First of all I wish to congratulate the minister on his appointment as Minister of Public Works. I know that from his own experience in Toronto he understands the housing needs of that city as well as I do, if not better. At the same time there are a few things I should like to put on record, because one sometimes feels that there are those who underestimate the continuing need for housing, especially when they see certain houses being built without buyers found for them.
I think we should congratulate the government on the assistance it has given to hous-

ing to date. I know that during the two years in which the present government has been in power it has done nine times more than the former administration did to encourage housing under the type of assistance provided by the resolution now under discussion.
In the city of Toronto an official plan of the metropolitan area has been prepared setting out what are considered to be housing needs until 1980. Officials have estimated that because of the rise in incomes, more families and more single persons, or groups of single persons, will be in a position to establish their own households. In 1958, on an average, 1,000 persons occupied 257 dwelling units. In 1980 it is estimated that the same number of people will require 278 dwelling units. In addition, new dwelling units will be required to replace those lost by demolition and deconversion, and it is estimated that to deal with the situation the housing stock will grow from 417,000 units in 1958 to 791,000 units in 1980, an increase of 89 per cent. About 40,000 dwelling units will be demolished, but 20,000 will be added by conversion. About 395,000 units, or half of all the dwelling units existing in 1980, will be new structures. Because of this development it is expected that in 1980 there will be 177,200 apartments containing six or more suites. Apartments will account for 22 per cent as compared with 14 per cent of all dwelling units in the planning area at the present time.
In spite of the expected rise in the level of real family income there will be large sections of the population unable to buy or rent the new units-elderly persons and those whose income standards are low, for example-and to meet this most urgent need the plan proposes that a public housing program involving at least 1,000 family units and 500 units for elderly persons should be carried out annually.
I have brought this to the attention of the committee in order to set out some of the anticipated needs in the Toronto area. In addition one has to take into consideration the need for maintaining or redeveloping the older sections in the city of Toronto, and this makes it imperative to continue a program of conservation and rehabilitation.
I would be remiss if I did not state that in the city of Toronto we feel that our civic authorities have been leaders in the field of housing redevelopment. In the minister's
National Housing Act
own riding the Regent Park development has been one of the first to be carried out since the end of the second world war, and has been a success. Other areas are being developed. The Lawrence Heights area development has been completed. In addition, housing for elderly persons has been given great encouragement. One of the largest units is West Lodge, now named after Alderman May Robinson. Mrs. Robinson, who has done a great deal for elderly persons in the city of Toronto, well merits that these units should be named after her. These are examples of what can be done, but there is still need for a great deal of further progress.
I should just like to say, for the record, that since the establishment of the metropolitan housing authority 13,500 inquiries have been received regarding housing, as a result of which 9,400 applications have been filed. Of these 9,400 applicants, 2,000 have been housed. The authority has about 3,200 applications on file at the present time from persons who qualify because of their need and, their income levels. This shows that an outstanding need still exists for housing units in the Toronto area.
I should like to emphasize that the provision of decent housing is not just a socialist aim. I think it is realized that if our citizens have satisfactory homes which they own themselves they will have a greater stake in our community and in our country, and thereby become better and more satisfied citizens.
I should like to point out, too, that there are many young people who want homes but cannot acquire them because of the size of the down payment which is now required. Many hon. members who have already spoken in this debate have brought this question to the attention of the government. I think it is clear that many young couples who are now renting homes are paying as much in rent as it would cost them to carry the payments on a house if they could raise the down payment. In fact many of them are borrowing money through second mortgages for that purpose. It is true that under the provisions of the National Housing Act they are not supposed to take out second mortgages; nevertheless it is a fact that second mortgages have been registered to cover loans which have been made to enable citizens to obtain these houses in the first place, sometimes at interest rates which are higher than they would be if such loans could be obtained through the government.
I would join with other speakers in asking the government to give consideration to assisting these people to obtain homes. The fact that there are new homes vacant does not

National Housing Act
mean there is no market for them, but suggests instead that there are people who want homes but cannot meet the present requirements. The hon. member for Fort William in his remarks last evening gave an example drawn from his own area.
We must take cognizance of the fact that today many young couples are spending more of their income for accommodation than is normally considered desirable. On the basis of sound financing it is usually considered that one should spend only one quarter of his monthly income to pay for housing accommodation. Many couples are spending more than that. This has resulted in many wives having to go out to work in order to supplement the family income. Sometimes this has an adverse effect on family life, in that the children are not given all the care they require because their parents have to be away from home during the day. This is but one of the side problems arising from this situation.
As shown in the statistics to which reference has been made, in spite of the programs that are in effect we cannot build enough new housing units in all these areas to take care of the need. Consideration must be given to the redevelopment of older areas. I would urge the government to again study means of assisting people in financing older homes. I know this presents a problem because of the condition in which some of these homes may be, but I believe it is a matter that should be looked into once more.
With some trepidation I venture to suggest that consideration be given to another scheme that may help in the financing of homes and over a long period of time assist young couples to buy their own dwellings. I am thinking of a system similar to that which obtains in England. At an early age people put money into housing societies. That money is used for loans for housing, and interest accumulates. I wonder if Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could devise a scheme whereby young Canadians could deposit money with them. C.M.H.C. could lend that money, and an appropriate interest rate could apply to the benefit of the person who deposited the money. Young couples could deposit money to their credit from time to time and over a period of years save up a down payment for a home which they could purchase through the national housing scheme. The same principle employed by credit unions could apply, but on a national scale. I think this would give assistance to those who really want to buy homes.
I close by expressing the hope that the government will continue its good work in

this important field. Although we recognize and appreciate the great assistance the government has given in this realm within the last two years, I hope it will not close its mind to new ideas but will implement other methods that may increase the opportunities for Canadians to purchase homes. I hope the government will continue to give consideration to means of providing adequate accommodation for elderly citizens, and providing rental units for those who do not wish to buy their own homes.


Mr. McGee:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by following the example of those hon. members who have preceded me in offering my sincere and hearty congratulations to the minister on his assumption of the portfolio of Minister of Public Works. Hon. members may not be aware that in Toronto the minister is affectionately known as the cabbage town kid. His background in his riding, his knowledge of the serious social problems posed by housing conditions in certain sections thereof, and of course his familiarity with the Regent Park housing project I believe probably equip him to assume his present duties in a way that few hon. members in this committee are equipped.
I should like to offer some general suggestions and observations concerning this measure, commencing with a discussion of the relationship of housing to the current and increasing problem of seasonal unemployment. It seems to me that the effect of the expenditure of this money can be to contribute to a solution of this problem. An effort should be made to adopt countercyclical measures through housing activity on an annual basis. I have said before in this committee that it seems to me the economy of Canada goes through a recession of sorts every winter. In the allotment and planning of the expenditure of this money we should attempt to have the maximum effect achieved at that time of year when seasonal unemployment reaches its height. Recently in Canada we have adopted proven techniques in winter construction that have permitted building construction to go forward at less cost and greater rapidity than has been possible heretofore.
I should like to offer the suggestion as well that in the allocation of these funds not a rigid but a general priority system might obtain, starting first in the areas with the greatest need in urban redevelopment and slum clearance, and then moving along to low cost and low rental housing, then to limited dividend projects and finally to housing for the lower income groups. In my constituency at the present time there are



I960

[Stage Direction]
a large number of unsold houses. They have not been sold for many reasons. I am of the opinion that we are reaching a surplus in this important area of housing, and there is now an opportunity to apply priority rating to these other housing needs.
I wish to deal for a moment with a most interesting and controversial development which has taken place in my constituency. It involves the use of some land assembly property owned jointly by the federal and provincial governments. A few years ago an extremely interesting social experiment was proposed. It was suggested that the available land be apportioned in the following way. Four hundred houses would be built. One hundred of those houses scattered through the subdivision would be on a subsidized low rental basis available to comparatively large families with low incomes.
This met with unusually strenuous objection from persons in the immediate area who felt they had been misled as to the future use of this land. I have no doubt that some of the real estate salesmen indicated to prospective buyers in adjacent areas that the land would be used for a country club, golf course or something of that nature. I suggested last year that federal-provincial land assembly property should be clearly and definitely labelled so that unscrupulous real estate dealers cannot engage in this kind of activity in the future. In any event it was announced in Toronto that the metropolitan Toronto council has approved this project, and it is now going ahead. I suggest to the committee that this is a most interesting and enlightened experiment. I am confident that within a very few years the success of this project will be demonstrated, and that my constituency will share the credit for having made an important step forward in this field.
There have been rumours and questions in the house concerning the sale of the land assembly units around Toronto, with a view to using the proceeds from the sale of that land for other purposes. I noticed the minister denied this statement when the question was raised, and I would hope he would sustain that position. It seems to me that the concept of land assembly is a sound one, and where possible it should be extended and expanded, particularly in constituencies such as mine.
One other general thought, Mr. Chairman, concerning a matter which has been raised and mentioned by other hon. members, having to do with senior citizens' housing. It seems to me that while the large unit carries with it many advantages, the needs and future of those senior citizens might better be served
National Housing Act
by investigating the possibilities of having more and smaller units, interspersed particularly among suburban areas. It seems to me not a desirable thing that such projects should be so large that the districts around become identified with them. My thought is that in suburbs and in townships such as North York and Scarborough, part of which I represent, it would be a wonderful thing to bring the senior citizens out from the centre of the city and put them in contact with younger families and, in some cases, relatives. Certainly there are occupations they can fill and a need for their counsel and advice. These are some of the functions they can perform. It is fundamental in any approach to geriatrics that a sense of being needed is an essential ingredient in the treatment of older people.
I have one other general suggestion. In dealing with senior citizens and limited dividend projects I would like to offer this for consideration in connection with apartment units. I am wondering whether there cannot be some way by which a series of senior citizens' units could be incorporated into large apartment units, on the ground floor with access to street levels and some sort of garden or common area, where the older people would be with groups in the same buildings, among them young parents with large families who have need for such people to provide such services as baby sitting and care of one kind and another. I know this presents a terribly complicated problem in terms of mortgages, but if some way could be found so that encouragement would be given to the builders of those apartment units, some advantage as far as mortgages are concerned, it might produce a beneficial result.
I just wanted to make a few comments of a general nature at this time, and I conclude by again congratulating the minister and wishing him the very best of luck in his new appointment.
Paul Tardif: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to add my voice to those who have preceded me in congratulating the minister. I hope his tenure of office will be a profitable one both for himself and for Canada.
There is no need for me, Mr. Chairman, to explain the necessity of housing in a country like Canada, but it is very difficult for me to give some of the opinions that I personally have without emphasizing the necessity of housing to Canadian citizens. It is an accepted fact that the citizen has a right to a standard of living that will be adequate for the health and well-being of his family, which includes food, clothing and housing. In a prosperous country like

National Housing Act
Canada every citizen has a right to a certain economic security, one that is at least sufficient for reasonable stability, the independence of the family and the type of housing that is adapted to the needs and functions of a normal family life.
While the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act facilitated the construction of housing in Canada, and was adequate and entirely satisfactory some years ago, it is only reasonable to believe now that it should have been streamlined to meet the needs of the Canadian public today. Some few years ago it was possible for the individual to buy a house at a reasonable rate of interest, with a reasonable down payment. That condition does not exist today. Conditions have changed considerably since that time.
I am afraid that the present condition is due to the deficit financing which has increased the cost of housing so much that it is not easy for any ordinary purchaser in the lower income bracket to be eligible for a loan, even from the government-established housing institution. To qualify the ordinary individual would need to have a much larger income than is ordinarily given to the average employee at this time. It is my opinion that the National Housing Act, which until the advent of the unadmitted tight money policy was entirely satisfactory to the Canadian public, is now antiquated. It was the duty of this government to streamline it to make it satisfactory and workable for today's conditions.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Paul Tardif: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying at one o'clock it is my opinion that it is the duty of the government to streamline the present housing policy to make it workable for today's conditions. While it may not have been the government's intention to capitulate to the lending institutions of Canada who were anxious for a higher interest rate, the conversion loan method accomplished exactly that for the housing industry, which is one of the most important industries in Canada. It is now suffering from the government's action in their conversion loan policy which has automatically created a tight money policy. This has made it impossible to make the proper contribution to the Canadian people and to the housing industry which, as I said before, is one of Canada's most important industries, under our present system of deficit financing until such time as the 
government establishes methods to stabilize a policy of homebuilding to enable the contractor to formulate a program that he will be able to keep up over a 12-month period.
The present instability in the supply of mortgage funds to finance housing at a reasonable rate of interest is creating havoc for the building industry. It is recognized that housebuilding more than any other industry depends on the ready availability of credit. A ready supply of mortgage funds has a marked effect on the rate of housebuilding. This situation does not only affect the housebuilder but it also affects the producer of building materials and also creates a fear in the industry which discourages the development and the introduction of cost reducing methods in both the housebuilding and materials industries. Unfortunately, due to this condition very little research and practically no new building methods have been introduced in the industry in the past two years. This tends to make our present methods partially obsolete and very often defective. The present constantly changing application of our building policy has a disruptive effect and creates a disorderly market.
It is estimated that in 1958 a great number of units remained unsold or unrented. While I did not look up the figures for 1959, I want to quote from an article in the Globe and Mail for Wednesday, January 27, 1960 which refers to 1,000 bungalows which have been left unsold in the Scarborough district. It reads in part as follows:
There are 1,000 houses in Scarborough which should not have been built. They are the wrong size, on the wrong lots, at the wrong time.
The 1,000 houses referred to in the article were built two years ago and $15 million of our tax money was invested in them. The article continues:
They are empty monuments to the folly of a well-meaning, unrealistic policy of central government.
I am told that in fact there are 3,000 to 4,000 additional houses in this project that are not sold. They are not considered as finished houses because in some cases there is a door or a piece of moulding or a sink missing and they are not counted in the 1,000 houses that are unsold. I do not know what the latest figures are in that regard but I am told that is fairly reliable. It is also stated in the article:
Many C.M.H.C. officials are not satisfied with the scheme. They fear that if buyers are found, their incomes will not be sufficient to maintain the homes up to a reasonable standard.
The government should not use the building industry for the purpose of balancing its economy in some sections of the country rather than for the supplying of houses where

houses are needed and where a ready sale can be found for them. This policy will endanger the immediate future of a very important industry whose position at this particular moment is far from being bright. I would repeat that the conversion loan policy of 1957 was an outstanding example of the spur of the moment planning of the present government, even if one were tempted to overlook the $150 million of additional interest that it will cost the Canadian public. (Translation):


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. Could we not get back to the point?


Paul Tardif: Get back to what, Mr. Chairman?


David James Walker: To the point.
(Text):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On the point of order, does the minister say that the blunder of the conversion loan has nothing to do with it?


David James Walker: I am delighted to have these suggestions. I am writing them down one by one, but when my friend talks about the conversion loan of 1957 you can appreciate that you are making my task a little difficult. Would the hon. member be good enough to confine himself to the housing issue?


Paul Tardif: I agree. The only thing is that while the minister was speaking in French he referred to a lamb and I would say that in this case the taxpayer was the lamb, or did I misunderstand? I may not be able to say that the conversion loan had an absolutely detrimental effect on the building industry in Canada but I am at a loss to understand how a prospective home buyer will be able to purchase a house if he is an ordinary worker with an ordinary income. In that regard I should like to quote from the Gazette of Friday, February 12, 1960, where I find the following:
The brief said it takes an annual income of $7,800 for the first five years and $6,000 for the next twenty to buy even a modest home under the National Housing Act. Yet bureau of statistics figures showed the average industrial wage, assuming 52 weeks full employment at only $3,984.
We all realize that the homebuilder, who is after all recognized as an important part of private enterprise in Canada and is entitled to a legitimate profit, cannot, under these conditions, produce a home that the average worker with a low income can buy. Conditions such as those which exist in Scarborough could be reproduced in many places in Canada. It should be possible for a man with a reasonable or modest salary to buy a home under our present housing act.
It is recognized by all welfare associations and all family service organizations that one
National Housing Act
of the most important requisites for the proper upbringing of a Canadian family is proper housing. This condition, which is recognized by all as a necessary requisite, can only be achieved if the government's policies and actions in the housing field are reasonable and make it possible for the employee with a low salary to purchase a home containing the facilities necessary for the proper upbringing of a family.
The present government should not be guilty of using Canada's biggest single industry as a convenient faucet by which to turn on or off Canada's economy, as the trend suggests has been the case. In 1957 the Minister of Public Works announced a multimillion dollar program. However, I am afraid that the conditions attached to the system of direct loans to builders was most unrealistic. Under this program only 25 loans per builder were permitted and these loans applied only to houses of a certain type, with a great number of limitations as to size and the number of bedrooms.
In 1959 a considerable amount of money was made available under a new policy which called for 15 loans to each builder and the restrictions as to the size of house and number of bedrooms still applied. This policy applied to the builder who was able to build 10, 15 or 20 houses and it applied also to builders who were ready and able to build 500 or 600 houses. In order to circumvent these regulations I am informed a great many builders formed a number of different companies so that they could take advantage of as many loans as possible.
Builders generally do not believe that the present restriction on size should apply. They feel it should be changed. It is a recognized fact that the small matchbox type of unit is actually more costly to build than a reasonable sized house. It is for this reason I suggest that housing policy be reviewed so that it can be made to conform with existing conditions, especially with the present cost of land. With the present cost of land, if you put a small house of 1,050 square feet on a 50-foot lot you will eventually end up with a $16,000 house and this is not within the realm of possibility for the average worker in Canada. Looking at it from this standpoint, it is not economic to buy the small type of house and that is probably one of the reasons why a great number of them remain unsold in the urban centres. While this policy may have had the effect, temporarily, of balancing the economy in certain sections, I would suggest that the results are only temporary and are far from being satisfactory.
Direct lending by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was sharply reduced in

National Housing Act
1959, and this affected the policy of the approved lenders who found conditions less attractive and therefore curtailed their activities. May I suggest that the Minister of Public Works immediately make a study of present conditions and face up to the problem in a realistic manner so that some of the following improvements may be made:
1.	The amount of the loan should be increased to enable the down payment to be reduced, and thus have a more realistic relationship to the average income of the average citizen.
2.	The period of the mortgage should be lengthened in order to eliminate second mortgages, along with the fantastic costs of obtaining and carrying them.
3.	Grants should be given to municipalities toward part of the cost of the essential services for housing development.
4.	The policy of charging insurance on the mortgage should be eliminated or changed. I quote a press clipping from the Winnipeg Tribune of January 25, 1960, in which it is stated:
-C.M.H.A. in five years has amassed $60 million from the mortgage insurance system, a scheme designed to protect the lender.
If we have amassed $60 million in five years, then that seems to indicate that this policy is unnecessary. It is also stated in this article that there has been very little in the way of losses. If this fee were eliminated the cost of a house might be reduced by $300 or $400 and this would make a considerable difference. The home owner not only has to pay an unnecessary fee but he has to pay interest on it. Over the life of his mortgage, now 30 years, the cost of the insurance will amount to something like $600. If this fee were eliminated or even partially eliminated we could save between $300 and $600 on the cost of a house.
The minister should give consideration to amending the National Housing Act to enable lower income families to buy houses under terms which would be similar to those pertaining to limited dividend housing companies. The loans available to house builders should be increased, the terms revamped and extended. If all these suggestions were put into effect I feel quite sure that many things would be accomplished. First of all, the housing industry and the house supply industry, which is equally important, would be working on a 12-month period instead of working for part of the year. There would be a lot of interest created amongst the youth in rural areas and they would remain on the farm if these mortgages were extended in rural communities. It is a well known fact that the residents of rural communities are

good credit risks and they should be extended the same advantages as people who live in urban areas.
If the Minister of Public Works will include these suggestions in studies designed to streamline loans to the building industry, then I know the Canadian public can benefit, not only through the effect of these changes on our economy but through the provision for all sections of Canada of the type of housing which I am sure the minister agrees the Canadian people deserve. If the minister will consult a publication issued by his own party at the time of the election I am sure he will find many of the suggestions that I have made are therein contained as Conservative promises. I could quote from the Winnipeg Free Press an article which outlines many of the promises made by the present government in connection with housing. May I suggest that the Minister of Public Works review those promises, make the necessary alterations to our present act, and I am sure every member of the house and every Canadian citizen who will benefit thereby will be very deeply indebted to him.


Mr. Payne:: Mr. Chairman, at this time I welcome the opportunity of entering the discussion on the proposed amendments to the National Housing Act. In doing so, I should like to join with others who have congratulated the Minister of Public Works. I am sure that under his guidance the National Housing Act will serve the public in the best possible manner. I trust also that in certain fields this act will receive his review and reconsideration, and out of this will come an act which will even better serve the communities of this nation and all those who make their homes in N.H.A. structures.
During the past two years an extensive amount of public money has been made available under the National Housing Act, the greatest amount of which has been advanced on the basis now known as agency loans. These are loans which are provided under the terminology of the National Housing Act for essential homes; they are minimum structures. On the average, as we all know, they have a square footage of approximately 1,050. It is in connection with these that my few remarks are going to be made today.
The program to supply this highly essential low cost housing has been extremely worth while. It has served well in the communities of Canada and it has likewise created a great number of jobs. However-and this is something I would ask the minister to consider-it has influenced to a large degree the areas of growth widely known as suburbia. In these developments a number of factors

have become apparent. It is my hope that these problems will be reviewed in the months ahead.
Suburban growth throws great new areas into our metropolitan communities. It throws on them the burden of the extension of services such as water, sewers, roads, sidewalks, hospitals and also, perhaps above all, the cost of education. With suburbia other factors have developed, based upon our essential housing, by providing the only low cost and low down payment accommodation for many of our young couples. They have moved from the centres of large metropolitan areas. They have moved from that situation, which kept them close to their work, out into suburbia with all the wonders it has to offer but also with all its difficulties.
Amongst these difficulties is the arrival of the first child which immediately brings in the need of the family's purchase of a secondhand car or a used car of some type because the little lady has been divorced from her shopping communities. She has been divorced from access to doctors; she has been divorced from access to all the normal functions and services which previously were available to her family living in their older area or older part of the community. All of these problems have been created with the spread of suburbia.
As far as the municipalities are concerned, great problems have also developed. Within the family life, and social practices of the new family units of Canada, part of the responsibility, I feel must be assumed by this House of Commons in the policies which we are now following. How much better would it be for the factory worker to buy an older home in a more developed, more centralized area closer to his work than to move out to a little dreamhouse, a cottage which, although it looks so attractive and is so modern, yet so poorly serves the family needs that he must support and sustain within the limits of his income. I would recommend to the minister that a very thorough study and review be given to this great need. It is growing rapidly in all metropolitan areas of Canada. If possible, amendments should be made in the future to the act to serve this great and urgent housing requirement.
It was only about a year ago that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation requested the lower mainland regional planning board to make reviews of just such matters as I am now discussing and to report to the C.M.H.C. regional office at Vancouver. Most of what I have said was found to be definitely true in connection with their inquiry. Their report to C.M.H.C.-and I read from the Vancouver Province of January 18, 1960- states in part as follows:
National Housing Act
Many potential home buyers find National Housing Act qualifications too strict for their incomes, says the lower mainland regional planning board.
This puts dangerous strains on family life and adds to the civic problems of slums and illegal conversions-
It goes on further to report that in our great metropolitan area in the year 1971 the population of greater Vancouver will be over one million people, a jump of some 40 per cent from the 1961 level. It states:
With this tremendous expansion there is a need for a definite housing study on a metropolitan basis-
That study should be on a continuing level. I will not pursue this matter at too great length because there are many other hon. members who may wish to make a few remarks. However, I hope that our new minister will put this very acute social problem -that is what it is; it is not only a housing problem-on the agenda of matters for review and revision possibly in the future for the National Housing Act.
I should like to pay special attention to certain operations under section 16 of the National Housing Act as it is today in connection with limited dividend housing. Under this and the other programs of land assembly I would commend to the minister a review and if possible an adjustment of the act, particularly with reference to the metropolitan areas. These are both programs which will serve a tremendous need of our Canadian public in metropolitan areas but which today are receiving little attention or indeed in many cases are little known of by civic and municipal authorities. They are programs which aid the housing of our aged people.
Commendable though certain parts of the program of limited housing may be, it is most distressing to us on the Pacific coast, confined as we are between mountains, as our population expansion has created a pressure resulting in higher land costs. Today the picture is that a minimum house under our regulations providing three-bedroom accommodation must rent for $72.50, based on the program set forth under the act. This limits the cost of that property or that home, land and building, to $7,950. The net result is that we do not see growing or being built today housing to supply this requirement.
Some review and some revision is necessary to put this on a more realistic level. I cannot speak of other areas but I can certainly speak of the Vancouver area as my relationship with housing there is very intimate, although perhaps it is more divorced these days when I am serving in the House of Commons. But the last time I had occasion to review the figures I found it would cost

National Housing Act a minimum of $11,000 to provide the accommodation required under the act to make such housing available to people requiring low cost rental propositions. Land assembly is part of an essential program. It could be a means of clearing slum areas and, vacant lands which the local authorities cannot afford to plan for use on a basis which fits in properly with a community program. I again recommend to the minister that he should examine this question because the administration of the National Housing Act is doing too little to carry out this splendid program of land assembly.
I also urge that further effort be devoted to the establishment of low cost rental housing for senior citizens. We have three new units in my own riding, all of them constructed under this plan. They represent a most worthy undertaking and, to give credit where it is due, in addition to advice being provided by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and provision of an adequate mortgage structure, assistance is given in our province to the extent of 20 per cent by a capital cost grant which I can assure hon. members is doing a great deal of good for the aged and those who must live on fixed incomes. I would urge definitely that the minister consider the promotion of this idea -an educational program, if he likes-among service clubs, municipal groups and senior citizen groups in order to bring into being more of this low cost rental accommodation which is so essential.
On mortgage matters generally, I would express the hope that the new interest rate charged under the National Housing Act will result in a more extensive part being played in this field by the conventional mortgage lenders. I know that the minister shares this view. I should be happy to know that a large part of the moneys we are now voting would be diverted particularly to the special types of housing, and I hope our standard mortgage companies will again enter the national housing program in a real way and that a high percentage of the loans made under this act for single family units will be provided by them.
There is a point which must be mentioned while we are discussing conventional mortgage companies, and it has to do with the need to assist young families settling in an older area, in older homes. Today we find that the conventional mortgage companies are completely abandoning this field of lending. A few of the companies do enter the market at a very high rate of interest, but the amount of money they are prepared to lend is restricted to such at pitiful sum that the young family man who decides he must live


near his work and spend within his income finds it almost impossible to acquire one of these older homes. Possibly he could buy one of these homes at $8,900. Through conventional mortgage channels he is able to raise about $3,000, leaving him with a balance of $5,900. His savings are probably no greater than those of a man who has decided to move out to suburbia. He is a sound individual, and let us assume he has only $2,200 in his bank account to pay down. That would leave $3,700 still to be raised, and it can thus be seen that a serious situation confronts this young family. The necessity for a second mortgage arises, and in a growing number of cases unfortunately, even for a third mortgage, on which a discount of up to 35 per cent may be paid. Often, too, there is a five-year call term which completely cancels out the value of any amortization program which the owner may have.
I am not being critical of any one in this house, but I say that by virtue of the fact that we are not reviewing the situation we are forcing the more sensible and the sounder types of our young wage earners into an extremely difficult position. We have to take care that these things which so directly affect our young families are on a basis more sensible than the 10 and 15-year programs which today are the maximum amortized periods a borrower can now get under conventional mortgages.
While I am on this side of the subject, may I say that I have a feeling, which I think is increasingly shared by those whose profession is the real estate business, namely that conventional mortgage lenders generally should consider amortizing their conventional loans on something closer to national housing mortgages, certainly over a period much longer than the 10 and 15 years that is the practice today. It appears to me that it is time consideration was given to altering the statutes governing mortgage and loan companies so that they may be permitted to advance a mortgage on something closer to 80 per cent of the proper appraised value of a property. I think with the security which a mortgage company takes, and based on a proper long range amortization program, there is little reason why the mortgage companies should not be prepared to assume such risks.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not intend to make a speech now, but I should very much like to commend the hon. member for Coast-Capilano on one of the best speeches I have heard on this or any other subject for some time. Since we are in committee, there is no reason why the minister should not reply

to some of the points which the hon. member raised without waiting until the debate comes to an end.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, may I just say a few words on this matter, and very strongly urge the National House Builders Association of Canada, in co-operation with the Canadian government, to set up a central mortgage bank. Such a bank would enable small investors to share in the financing of construction, while at the same time receiving higher interest rates.
A fully guaranteed mortgage is one of the safest forms of investment.
It is only through a central organization that mortgages could be converted into bonds of various denominations, which could be purchased by anyone.
However, such bonds should be guaranteed by the government.
The idea is not to change the procedures of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation; it is rather to create a new independent organization which would operate in every province.
Funds for the central bank would be provided by the sale of bonds issued and guaranteed by the government on the basis of actual mortgages. In that way, inactive savings would contribute to the expansion of housing in Canada.
The central mortgage bank would provide very attractive investment opportunities to small investors. Those who get a return of only 3 or 4 per cent from banks or trust companies could get up to 6 per cent.
Mortgage rates might be around 6f per cent.
Collectively, small depositors across the country own a tremendous capital of about $7i billion in banks and trust companies.
The scheme would have a dual purpose: first, to provide needed funds to the home construction industry; second, to provide more profitable investment opportunities to small investors.
The purpose of the central mortgage bank would not be to make high profits, but rather to help taxpayers, because the profits would be strictly limited.
Mr. Chairman, I very strongly urge the city of Joliette to avail itself of the benefits offered by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for slum clearance.
National Housing Act
I know, because I have received a brief to the effect that the syndicats catholiques nationaux de Joliette fully endorsed this suggestion, because slum clearance in any city serves:
1.	To increase the city's assets;
2.	To reduce fire hazards;
3.	To lower interest rates;
4.	To reduce the cost of public relief, and
5.	To provide winter employment to the building trades, so long as demolition work is carried, out on a planned basis.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to point to a drawback in the present C.M.H.C. act concerning slum clearance. This drawback does not apply in large cities where apartment houses and accommodation are always available; but in small centres like Joliette, Sherbrooke or others, municipal authorities seem a bit reluctant to undertake slum clearance since the act provides that displaced families must temporarily be housed by the municipality which is covered by the C.M.H.C. act.
I know that this problem does not arise in cities like Montreal or Toronto, but in towns like Joliette and others, there is no surplus accommodation, there are no apartment houses. It is then extremely difficult to house displaced families.
Therefore, I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) to consider the possibility of including a clause in the act enabling localities with a population of at least 100,000, for instance, to benefit from a special advantage in order to meet the cost of temporarily putting up those displaced families, pending the construction of new accommodation.
Mr. Chairman, I join with all my colleagues in the house in commending the splendid work done by credit unions in the province of Quebec. Much of the housing development that is taking place in cities, and especially in small centres, is due to credit unions.
Before closing, Mr. Chairman, may I mention in this house the benefits derived from the Quebec family housing service which, under the act, promotes housing construction and enables the ordinary Canadian to become a home owner. The government of the province of Quebec, as everyone knows, pays back 3 per cent interest to the buyer. This is a great encouragement to young couples to buy a house. I would have liked very much to hear the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) mention the benefits provided by that act of the province of Quebec. I think it could be cited as an example for all the provinces of this country.

National Housing Act


Mr. Bourgel:: Would the hon. member permit a question?
Could he tell me why the Quebec government has not granted this 3 per cent refund since the federal law has been enforced?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I may answer the hon. member that this provincial legislation has enabled refunds at certain conditions. It applied only to companies with headquarters in the province of Quebec, and to credit unions. Its purpose was to encourage companies whose head office is located within the province. At that time, there was plenty of money available for loans whereas today there is a shortage of funds and the provincial government amended its legislation so that people who want to come under the act may recover 3 per cent interest.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member allow another question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, may I finish my remarks?


Maurice Bourget: No? If you do not wish to answer my question, I have no objection.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I did answer your question.


Maurice Bourget: You did not answer, because-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, before closing my remarks, I would like to repeat that the Quebec government has set an example for all other provinces in this country, in offering those advantages to people who want to build a home. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency in certain quarters to discriminate against the province of Quebec, as is being done by some members of the opposition, and to rant against the province, but, in the homebuilding field, and with this interest refund, the province of Quebec sets an example for other provinces to follow.
Moreover, the province of Quebec passed three bills: one to improve housing conditions; another authorizing employers to grant loans to employees; and I wonder whether the federal government might not adopt the same policy with regard to some crown companies. Under that legislation, the lender supplies the funds. The main advantage of this type of loan is that companies operating outside larger centres, because they know their employees' wages, the degree of permanency of their jobs, etc., may grant a higher loan in proportion to the cost of the house, apart from the fact that such loans

would generally be granted in localities where loan companies are not always interested in lending, beacuse of the distance, inspection needs, and so on.
Another provincial legislation conferring special powers to the municipalities has also been passed by the provincial government.
Mr. Chairman, before closing, allow me to say that the province of Quebec has made available upwards of $76 million to help people who wish to build themselves a house. The average age of borrowers is thirty two.
According to the figures showing the number of loans made by companies and caisses populaires in the province of Quebec, the amount of those loans is as follows:
Number
of loans Amount of loans
Companies	24,048	$181,636,787.81Caisses populaires	14,394	$ 75,653,683.44
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out those facts to the house and, in closing, I would once again urge the national builders association to consider the possibility of setting up a mortgage bank.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to say a word only, because, a moment ago, I asked the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm whether he would kindly reply to a question. He tried to evade the question, because he found it rather difficult to give an answer.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, I answered it.


Maurice Bourget: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm stated that the province of Quebec made a certain refund to citizens who borrowed from companies having their head office in the province of Quebec.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Pardon me, to borrowers who borrow from companies having their head office in the province of Quebec.


Maurice Bourget: That's it. So, would he claim that the Prudential Insurance Company of America has its head office in the province of Quebec? Would he claim that the Prudential Insurance Company of England has its head office in the province of Quebec? Why then, for so many years, has the provincial government prevented our fellow citizens from taking advantage of the federal legislation, a legislation adopted by our government, our Canadian government? That is the question I was asking, and that is the one he did not answer.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, allow me, in reply to the question asked by the hon. member, to say this: the former government, when it passed that legislation, did not fully consider the requirements of the average Canadian, while the provincial government legislation is more within reach of large Quebec families.


Maurice Bourget: Nothing is changed in the act. What is changed in the act? Give me an example. Nothing is changed in the act. If you are unable to reply, ask the minister to do so for you.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: At present, anyone living in the province of Quebec who borrows money is entitled to a 3 per cent refund under the legislation which has just been adopted.


Maurice Bourget: Why was it not adopted before?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The rate of interest has gone up since-


The Chairman:: Order.


Maurice Bourget: All the more reason for doing so. Then why did they not take advantage of it?


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, the National Housing Act, perhaps one of the best pieces of social legislation passed by the former Liberal government, was designed to help people in the moderate and low income brackets to have their own home.
Any member who represents as I do a working constituency can fully appreciate the importance of that act. When you give a worker an opportunity to own his own house, you make him more conscious of his duties as a citizen, thus enhancing his contribution to the community. That was the primary objective of the act. This objective was not easy to fully achieve from the start, but up to 1957, there was evidence of direct progress towards the proposed target.
Unfortunately, the government, particularly in the past, appears to have completely lost sight of the primary objective of the act.
We are getting farther away from it from year to year. While the National Housing Act has social implications, it must be realized that it is totally dependent on the country's economy. No other act, I think, is more exposed to contingencies resulting from poor
National Housing Act
administration. And with credit restrictions, high interest rates, generally rising costs of labour and materials and sky-high speculation on land, it is no longer possible to say that we are satisfied with present conditions.
This is another field, apparently, where the government has missed the boat, because today, whether we like it or not, we have to admit that high mortgage rates and present costs of residential construction are far beyond the financial capacity of most Canadian families.
That, in my view, is the result of the muddled policies of the government, which has been forced, by circumstances of its own making, to raise from 6 to 6f per cent the rate on mortgages granted under the National Housing Act. Nor can the government lay the blame on the Bank of Canada or on chartered banks, because the decision was made by the government itself; and the necessity for that decision arose out of the government's tight money policy.
The result is that small investors will find it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to face the obligations involved in purchasing a house at this time, and the very people who should benefit from the act will be deprived of such benefits in the future.
I have read many reports from builders associations containing comments on their activities for 1959 and their estimates for 1960. The minister will forgive me, but as far as objectivity is concerned, I much prefer their views than the speech he made when he introduced his resolution. If I read that report correctly, the year 1959 was not as good as the year 1958 in the field of construction and, according to estimates based on actual figures, the year 1960 will not be as good as was 1959.
I shall quote now from an article in the Citizen of January 28, 1960, where, under the title "Fewer new Homes in 1960", we find a report concerning the city of Ottawa:
(Text):
A 25 per cent reduction in proposed new home construction in Ottawa during 1960 was forecast last night by D. Roy Wymark, retiring president of the Ottawa real estate board.
(Translation):
The forecast is that, in certain regions, the proportion of the decrease in housing construction will reach 30, 35 and even 40 per cent.

National Housing Act
I have here an editorial from La Presse for December 29, 1959, which clearly states the present difficulties. This is what it says: Contractors rightly wish to maintain their industry in full activity. But this industry has been so active in the last 15 years that large sums of money have been tied up in buildings erected at a record rate. Funds available for mortgage loans are becoming scarce. They have also become scarce for another reason; because billions of dollars have gone into government borrowings, either to make up for its heavy deficits or for its famous conversion operation of two years ago.
Mr. Chairman, with the help of all this information gathered here and there, from builders or from those who study these questions, we can conclude that the year 1960 is starting under the sign of anxiety, because the government has not given to the application of this National Housing Act what it needs most, that is stability. It is all very well to put considerable funds at the disposal of future buyers, but what will happen when those sources are exhausted? It is the government's duty to find an answer, in providing this act with the stability it needs.
Residential construction should be able to rely on a regular flow of funds to acquire the stability which is vital to its operation.
I agree with the suggestion made in certain quarters-the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) also mentioned it earlier-that is the establishment of a mortgage bank. Such a bank would make mortgages negotiable for small investors who, otherwise, keep their money dormant in bank accounts, without any benefit to the community.
Such a bank would be established to release capital already invested so it could be reinvested in construction.
I hope the minister and the government will see the advisability of considering this project. The establishment of this mortgage bank might provide the stability resulting from funds that are regularly available to the buyer.
Of course, the National Housing Act plays an extremely important role in our economy. It can help stabilize related industries, as well as the labour market. It is too bad that the government deliberately restricted credit and by its detrimental money and fiscal policy, opposed the very purpose of the National Housing Act.
Those are the general remarks I wanted to make at this stage of the resolution; I

may have other questions to raise at other stages of this bill.
Before concluding I would like to ask two questions of the minister, and to have his comments on them.
I have noticed that, according to a report issued by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, of all the loans made both by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and other lenders, 20 per cent were made in the metropolitan area of Toronto, while only 7 per cent have been made in the metropolitan area of Montreal.
I would like to know how the minister can explain that in 1958-I do not have the figures for 1959-the metropolitan area of Toronto, with 1,400,000 people, has obtained 20.2 per cent of the housing loans, while the metropolitan area of Montreal, with its half a million people more, obtained 7.2 per cent of those loans.
These proportions, given in a breakdown made by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, show that aggregate loans made in Toronto amount to $179,534,000 and that loans made in Montreal amount to $63,714,000.
I would like to have some comments from the minister on this matter and I ask him to explain this disproportion between loans made in Toronto and in Montreal.
(Text):
I understand that the minister may not be an expert on housing but after all he is surrounded by experts in his department and I would be much interested in having his comments on the disproportion of loans between the metropolitan regions of Toronto and Montreal.
The second point I want to raise and on which I should also like to have a few comments from the minister has to do with the choice of the notary in the province of Quebec when a citizen wants to borrow from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. According to reliable information I have received, I understand that when a prospective borrower applies to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation a notary is designated by the Minister of Justice. For the present, I have no criticism whatsoever to make with respect to the choice of the notary but I want to inquire about this point. When a borrower is effecting 15 loans, do 15 notaries have to be appointed to study the titles and make the individual loans with

the result that costs and fees are increased? If so, I think there is some ground here for criticism. If the minister does not have the information at hand I should like him to inquire and answer later. If the situation is as I have outlined it surely something should be done to avoid the unnecessary multiplication of costs and fees.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, every speech made in this debate has been of great benefit to me and I am sure to the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It has been a great experience to see that at least in this part of my duties the debates have been non-political. First of all I want to pay my tribute to the hon. member for Nipissing and the hon. member for Levis who over the years have manifested a great interest in housing. I have derived much benefit from their observations.
Rather than repeat what I said in opening when I made a 40 minute speech outlining the reasons why the government is taking this action I am going to confine myself this afternoon, in order that we may proceed as far as possible and complete the resolution and the bill, I hope, to answering the questions that have been asked and to do so very briefly. The hon. member for Nipissing suggested that parliament was being asked for $500 million so that there would be funds available to take us through the next election. All I can say to the hon. member is that in 1954 the former government had an amount of $250 million voted and by the time the election rolled around in 1957 it had only spent $100 million. I think the hon. member for Levis, who understands something about housing, knows how embarrassing it is to have a certain sum of money voted and then to run out in a certain month of the year before parliament convenes again to make further funds available.
The hon. member also asked whether the government would announce its direct loan policy now, and I think that we can pretty well do that. It is a question, of course, for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to work out the allotment of our funds. We are going to be very much restricted this year in comparison with previous years but the main purpose of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is to help the man in the low income bracket as much as possible. To this end, when a person goes for a loan to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation he will
National Housing Act
first be asked to look at the 82,000 homes that are still in the process of being built, at the end of the year, and he will be asked to look at these and see if there is not a house about ready to come on the market that will suit him as a prospective home owner.
Second, the prospective homebuilder will be asked to go to one of the approved lenders under the National Housing Act and, if possible, get a loan at per cent. Then, failing that, the prospective homebuilder comes to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for a direct loan, and whatever we can do for him will be done.
If we are going to be inundated with a tremendous number of applications-there is no indication at the present time we are and if the money has to be allocated-this is all subject to further research during the course of which I would be glad to have the assistance of my hon. friends from all parts of the house-we would then want to ensure that the person who could least afford the extra money should get the loan from Central Mortgage. This would mean people with an income of $5,000 or less would have a preference at Central Mortgage. The other people, with higher incomes, can better afford to get a loan from the approved lenders and those with larger incomes still may get loans very readily, of course, at increased interest rates from the conventional lenders.
We hope, in some way, to allocate the money across Canada, and this will be done as fairly as possible having in mind the fact that ever since we came into office this government's policy has been to protect and to help those in the lower income bracket.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the minister, before he moves on to another subject, could say how much of this $500 million it is expected will be lent this year?


David James Walker: It is a difficult thing to prognosticate at the present time. Last year we lent between $330 million and $340 million. This time we would hope to lend about half of that amount, in other words between $150 million and with limited dividend projects added, up to $175 million.


John Richard Garland: Is that owner-builder, that sort of application and the direct field as well?


David James Walker: The hon. member asks about builders; as I indicated in my opening remarks we are, as in former years, making direct loans only to prospective home owners. There will be, at this time, no builders' loans, nor have there ever been at the beginning of any year. We do not pretend to be in the

National Housing Act
business of making loans to builders. During the last three winters we have made loans to builders in order to give winter employment a boost. We do not know whether or not that will be done again this fall or whether it will be necessary. It certainly has had a great effect on employment in this country over the past few years. At the present time we have no intention of making any loans to the builders, and that is the policy we have followed in each of the past three years. When the fall comes, if the situation warrants it, that matter may be reconsidered.


John Richard Garland: The amount of those loans, then, would be in addition to the $150 million or $175 million to which you have referred?


David James Walker: Our hope was that this year the total money expended by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would be between $150 million and $175 million.


John Richard Garland: Does that include direct loans that may or may not be made?


David James Walker: It includes everything. Another suggestion in which many hon. members joined was that the federal government should participate in slum clearance by increasing its contribution from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. Do hon. members not think the federal government has gone a long way in raising it to 50 per cent? It is 50 per cent at the present time. Some of the provinces participate in these projects by giving 25 per cent, and that is certainly the case in Ontario. If the federal government were to increase its contribution for what has been described as slum clearance-I do not like that word-[DOT] to 75 per cent then that would take away the initiative, responsibility and good judgment of the municipality. We must depend on the municipality to use its best judgment and direction in connection with slum clearance. If the federal government put up 75 per cent of the money and they had to put up only 25 per cent one could not expect a great deal of consideration to be given about where slum clearance took place. The difficulty would be that private interests, running up against the municipality, might be given a preference. In any event, we have a 75 per cent contribution from the dominion and the province in the province of Ontario.


John Richard Garland: Is the minister not aware of the fact that the municipalities, mayors and reeves, have asked for this degree of assistance?


David James Walker: Yes, we are aware that a great many municipalities have asked for a great many things. We are very sympathetic to all the requests. The trouble we have, as most hon. members will appreciate, is in finding enough money to go around to grant all

these requests. At the present time, rather than increase our percentages we should like to find some way of at least holding the line.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked the question, what are you doing for the lower third of the income group. Let me just stress briefly the history of the National Housing Act in this connection. N.H.A. loans to people with annual incomes of less than $5,000 have increased from 11,900 in 1957 to 17,558 in 1958 and to 24,200 in 1959. Since we have come into office we have more than doubled the amount of loans to people in the low income bracket, that is below $5,000.
So far as limited dividend projects are concerned, since we took power we have completed over 10,000 limited dividend projects. As all bon. members of the house know, and this will answer a great many of the questions, limited dividend projects will serve almost any of these special groups to whom reference has been made, that is the elderly, the young and the man on the small income. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano made some very searching remarks in this connection. Any group of wealthy citizens or public group of citizens who wants to get 10 per cent of the necessary money together could start a limited dividend project and the government would lend 90 per cent of the cost of that project. The rents are very low indeed. They are limited and checked by inspectors from Central Mortgage. In my opinion this is a very excellent way of helping people in the lower income bracket.
As a matter of fact, under ordinary circumstances-and this holds true across Canada-one cannot get into a limited dividend project if your income is in excess of $3,600. If your income goes up to $4,500 during the period you are there, you will be asked to get a house elsewhere. You are considered able to afford something better than a low dividend project. But we are building these projects as fast as we can. We have many others under way and we encourage people to make applications for loans. Of course, in this coming year or in the present year we shall have a limited amount for this purpose. We trust that the good work along this line may be continued.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister explain that statement? He says he has a limited amount. What does he mean? Does he mean that he is going to deny loans below what he could probably do last year in this field of limited dividend corporation application?


David James Walker: I think this year we expect to make loans of somewhere about $25 million which would be about the same as we spent in the year 1959.
The hon. member for Coast-Capilano also suggested-I think it was an excellent suggestion and many other hon. members made the same suggestion, including the hon. member for Davenport, the hon. member for Scarborough, and several others; if I have omitted any names I must be excused- that it would be an excellent thing if the government could make Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans to renovate old homes. That would be a good idea. But, as I say, the government's lending facilities are limited. Is it not better that we should create new housing units rather than improve old ones? It is new housing units that we require and more a multiplicity of housing units. I should point out to hon. members that if one wants to improve an old house and the newly wedded couple needs this, it is possible to get loans from the banks. In this connection may I say that many millions of dollars have been lent-I think the total is about $162 million-for what are called home improvement loans. They are loans up to $4,000 to improve old houses.
I appreciate, as do other hon. members that it would be very nice to have enough money available in order to build all the new homes we want and to improve all the old ones. But at the present time with the shortage of money to build as many new homes as we should like to build, do you not think it would be better not to divert any of that money to improving old homes, particularly when the home improvement loans are available?
I have also been asked-I think it was by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam- whether or not the government intended to wait to see what the approved lenders will do before making direct loans available. I can say that if this bill is passed today, government loans will be made available tomorrow. I had hoped, since this resolution was introduced on February 4 last, that we would have been making loans at least three weeks ago.


John Richard Garland: I wonder whether the minister would just permit me to make the observation that last night again-for the fourth time-when we were inquiring from this side of the house what the business was going to be for the next day, members on this side have suggested that the housing legislation be given priority. I can think of the occasion last evening. I can think of the occasion on March 7. I can think of the occasion on March 1 and I go back again
National Housing Act
to February 26. I therefore hope there is no attempt to leave any impressions that members on this side of the house have prevented this housing legislation from being brought down shortly after parliament began its session on January 14 last.
Mr. Pallet!: Your actions are different from your words.


David James Walker: I am making no suggestion that anyone is responsible for it. I am simply answering a question. However, the first suggestion I heard that this housing bill which is so dear to my heart should be proceeded with was made by the Leader of the Opposition three days ago or perhaps it was four days ago.


John Richard Garland: Perhaps I can help the minister by putting into the record other dates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I asked three
weeks ago.
Mr. Pallet!: And then proceeded to talk for two or three weeks.


David James Walker: An hon. member asked many interesting questions and one of them was about the increase in the interest rate. I do not know whether or not he is now satisfied that the interest had to be increased. I was shocked as I read the figures last year to find out how the volume of loans from approved lenders just went down and down so that by the time I became Minister of Public Works the approved lenders on whom we count for so much of our money for national housing loans practically stopped lending at all. It was a very sad situation. It was a difficult thing to arrange a rate of 6f per cent. We wanted to make the little man see he would have to pay as little as possible by way of interest charges and yet we had to raise the rate to a figure which would attract back into this market of N.H.A. loans the approved lenders, and it was a very difficult thing to arrive at a rate. All I can say is that we took the best advice we could get. We have a magnificent organization in Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We canvassed the situation outside and we arrived at the rate of 6J per cent. We have confidence that this rate will attract the approved lenders back into the field.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister permit a question?


David James Walker: Certainly.


William Moore Benidickson: I did not want to interrupt him. He is doing very well. However, he changed the rate. What was the date of the change of the rate? Was it November or December?


David James Walker: It was December 17.

National Housing Act


William Moore Benidickson: As a result of the change in the rate, what increase in loans under the approved lenders' scheme has been demonstrated in relation to last year, so that we can see the result.


David James Walker: As my hon. friend knows, if he has seen the figures, the response up to date has been minimal. There is no question about that fact. It has been minimal for several reasons. In the first place, after they have been out of the market for about six months it is a very difficult thing to convince these approved lenders that the time is now ripe to come back in again. We also know this fact. At the present time mortgage companies, insurance companies and the loan companies are for this current year 1960 making their allocations. In other years we had higher returns at the present time because the allocations were made in- the fall. It takes two or three months to get the thing rolling.
Although the figures were very disappointing in the month of January-one would almost feel that the rate of 6f per cent was not as attractive as it should be-the figures, hon. members will be glad to learn when they are published, and I will bring them to the attention of the house, were very much better. In the last week or so they are even better still. As a matter of fact, we are somewhat relieved and pleased to see that the approved lenders are again back into the market. There are other reasons, of course, why they might be inclined to hold back. There are 82,000 houses in the course of completion. They must be disposed of. We have had a very hard winter and the prospective home owners are not busy certainly around our place. It is hard to get out of the house much less than go and look at some new prospect. There are many reasons why the market in approved loans has been somewhat slow in getting started. Does that answer the hon. member's question?


John Richard Garland: Would the minister mind putting the figures on the record now? I refer to the loans that have been made by approved lenders in January and in February, as compared with last year.


David James Walker: Yes. I will send up for them. I am sure I have them here. I will put those on the record before the debate is through. I shall be delighted to do so.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister asked
whether or not that answered my question. I think another pertinent question related to our present discussion is that among the approved lenders we can assume, can we not,

that the chartered banks are no longer in the scheme of things. Is that so in relation to, say, a year ago?


David James Walker: Compared with a year ago, the hon. member is quite right. The banks are among the approved lenders. As the hon. gentleman knows, the banks have many calls on them for money and the National Housing Act is only one of them. The banks are guided as to their loans and the percentage they can charge by the Bank Act, and that act confines them to charging a rate of 6 per cent. This has been government policy, and it has been so declared. It is a matter which transcends the duties of the humble Minister of Public Works. The Bank Act is reconsidered every ten years. I think the hon. gentleman was a member of the government, or at least a parliamentary secretary, when it was last revised.
The Bank Act fixes the rate at 6 per cent and, it is very interesting to note the government has received no request from the banks to increase the permitted rate to 6;j per cent so that they could lend money under the National Housing Act. Even if such a request were made, it would be beyond my duties as Minister of Public Works to deal with it. That would be a matter of government policy. I would think a careful second look would be necessary before one would interfere, since to raise the bank rate above 6 per cent in the isolated case of N.H.A. loans would be to encourage other branches of the banks' activities to seek increases in their permitted rates. I think the hon. gentleman is right in his understanding that the banks will not be participating except at 6 per cent, and there are loans going through at 6 per cent to regular customers.
As to the figures, last year the loan and trust companies made 579 loans during the month of December. This year they made 117 loans. In January of last year they made 516 loans. This year they made 140. In February of last year they made 1,043 loans and this year, 550. During the week ending March 4-and these are the latest figures I have-319 loans were made. Last year there were 116. So they are finally taking an interest in this sort of thing.


William Moore Benidickson: That is the group outside the chartered banks.


David James Walker: Quite so. On the other hand, last year the banks made very substantial loans up to this time, but this year they have been negligible.


John Richard Garland: Would the minister give the figures for the bank loans in January and February of this year?


David James Walker: In December, 17 loans; in January, 11 loans, and in February six loans.


William Moore Benidickson: That is compared with what, a year ago?


David James Walker: Compared with 900 in December, 670 in January and 883 in February.


John Richard Garland: Would the minister mind telling me how he reconciles the figures he has just given, which show that the banks are doing practically nothing, with the statement he made some minutes ago that the banks are performing their function of making loans to their regular customers?


David James Walker: I did not say any such thing. If I did, I should be taken to task. What I said was that in spite of the fact that the banks are only getting 6 per cent they are making some loans to regular customers. As can be seen, the number of those loans is very small indeed and the regular customers, as I understand the position, are turning to other approved lenders to get loans formerly made by the banks.
I want to tell the hon. member for Levis that I agree with his contention that the caisse populaire at Desjardins has done a good job. I wish we had more co-operative institutions like that. They are very practical in their outlook and show an interest in the mortgage market which contributes to the social welfare of the people. They take particular interest in the small wage earner, and in that way their efforts are co-operative and along the same lines as those of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
In this connection I suggest that it is the government's hope that in the coming years a secondary mortgage market will be developed. There is a great opportunity now for a secondary mortgage market. For a long while there was not enough difference between bond interest rates and mortgage rates to make worth while the establishment of a secondary mortgage market. Now there is sufficient difference with the 6J per cent that the companies can get on N.H.A. loans, to warrant a company selling bonds to the public with insured loans security. I trust a lot of encouragement will be given to any such ventures.


John Richard Garland: Does the government intend to extend any such encouragement?


David James Walker: Central Mortgage and Housing is answering all inquiries and giving all the assistance it can by way of advice. We do not intend to guarantee any such companies. We have our hands full making our own direct loans and insuring the approved lenders' loans.
National Housing Act
The hon. member for Fort William complained, quite properly, about the large down payments that are sometimes necessary. He will be glad to know that the average down payment on direct loans through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is $2,500. The average down payment in the case of approved lenders is higher, however, and, of course, on conventional mortgages the down payment is substantially higher still.
The hon. member for Fort William and many other members suggested that we should drop the insurance program. The hon. member suggested that this amounted to $300 on a loan. It is hardly that. It is 2 per cent, which would amount to roughly $260 on a maximum loan of $12,800. I would point out to the hon. member for Fort William, who has always taken a sympathetic interest in housing, that if we did this we would be cutting off our funds established to deal with defaults. We now have an insurance fund amounting to $61 million. That is not a very large fund in relation to more than $3 billion worth of loans insured by the government. We might consider that the United States government, which has been carrying on a housing plan-though not one as good as ours-for a much longer time has been charging double this premium until recently, when the rate was cut. After 20 years they are still adding to their insurance fund, and in my respectful submission it would be bad economics all around to cut out the 2 per cent insurance premium which has to be paid here.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the minister would let us have the number of defaults in the past five years.


David James Walker: So far defaults have been very small indeed. We do not expect to have any defaults as long as this government is in power because we shall always have a situation where the country will be fairly prosperous, and we are now entering upon what may be the most prosperous year in our history.


William Moore Benidickson: With 800,000 unemployed?


John Richard Garland: How many defaults have there been in the last five years?


David James Walker: I will send for the figure. There have been surprisingly few.
The hon. member for Kootenay West who lives in baronial style on his great estate out in Kootenay, and who perhaps could be referred to as the squire of the House of Commons, does take a genuine interest in the Canadian people and I admire him for that. He has suggested that greater attention

National Housing Act
should be paid to the small man, the little man, the humble man, the man of low income. I would respectfully suggest to the hon. member that if he will go over our figures and read my opening remarks and the remarks I have made today he will find that that is exactly what we are endeavouring to do, take care of the man of low income.
The hon. member for Quebec West made an interesting contribution to the debate and also suggested that we take steps to assist the man of low income. In the hon. member's constituency of Quebec West which I have visited we have a magnificent example of a limited dividend project and, provided we can work it out, we would like additions made to it.
The hon. member for Kootenay West and others, including hon. members on this side of the chamber, suggested we should make our houses more attractive and offer a wider variety of designs. We do not have at the moment any designs for the log cabin style of house in which the hon. member for Kootenay West seems to be interested but we have obtained at considerable expense and great trouble 97 small home designs. Most of them are published and set out in booklet form. The housewife and prospective home owner can examine this booklet and order any design. All the plans for the house selected will be sold for the modest sum of $10. Great interest has been shown in these designs and thousands of the plans have been distributed throughout the country.
The corporation conducts competitions, belongs to many organizations and conducts research with a view to learning how we can improve the small home and so far we have been very successful.
Several hon. members on the government side have asked if Canadians could build their own homes. Of course they could. Anybody can build his own home if he meets the minimum standards established by the national building code of the national research council.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, not long ago I asked for a copy of the plans for the so-called lowest cost approved home from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In its reply the department gave me information about the lowest cost home but there was no indication what the approximate cost of construction would be in any specific location. Could the minister give me that information?


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: I regret to inform the committee that the minister's time has expired unless the committee gives

unanimous consent for him to continue. Is it the pleasure of the committee to give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have one question to ask but I do not want to interrupt the minister if he wishes to continue to develop the theme he is dealing with now. My question is unrelated to it and could be deferred. I do not want to interfere with what the minister has planned.


David James Walker: I will just complete what I was saying, if I may. I have in my hand a pamphlet describing the minimum house costing $5,000. The pamphlet gives all the details. This unit was carefully planned and at one time was called the fisherman's house. It is a complete house without a cellar, of course, and without certain plumbing facilities. We have plans for homes in every price range and suitable for every locality. The problem is that in the large urban centres the cost of a lot is so high that it becomes impractical to build a cheap house on such an expensive lot.


William Moore Benidickson: I can see immediately, Mr. Chairman, that the minister in referring to the pamphlet he has in his hand is referring to something that was not sent to me in the mail. I received a large booklet. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to identify the pamphlet relating to the $5,000 home so I could obtain one later.


David James Walker: This is C.M.H.C. No. 1247. It is called the National Housing Act minimum house. I will see to it that my hon. friend gets all the material he can handle, and then some.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont asked about housing starts in Toronto and Montreal. Montreal has done a marvelous job in housing during the last few years and in the year 1959 forged ahead of Toronto. In 1958 there were 26,198 housing starts in Montreal and 24,301 in Toronto. In 1959 housing starts in Montreal were 20,939 but in Toronto they had fallen to 18,774.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Perhaps the minister would permit an observation. I did not have in mind loans under the C.M.H.C. but the overall funds available for construction in Toronto which has always been so much ahead of Montreal. Could the minister give us an explanation?


David James Walker: The reason Montreal and Quebec have lagged behind Toronto has been

because the caisse populaire has made substantial loans outside the N.H.A. The provincial interest rebate has not been available tor N.H.A. loans in Quebec and Montreal.
I wish to commend hon. members from Toronto ridings for the keen interest they are showing in this matter. I would like to do all the things they suggest. I would like to help young couples and old couples obtain better housing more easily, provide better homes and bigger loans and all that sort of thing, but we have to help first those who need the help most. We have to make our money go as far as we can and at the present time we cannot enter the field of making loans available for the mortgaging of older homes.
Before taking my seat I want to thank hon. members for granting me this extra time. Let me say that the winter housing program has been tremendous this year. As I said 82,000 homes were in process of being built at the turn of the year. We know what the unemployment figures are but they would have been so much worse without this construction activity which provided employment to 250,000 men. By that I mean
150.000	men were employed on the sites and in taking material to the sites and
100.000	were employed in factories and warehouses producing materials for these homes.
By the end of October of last year 19,000 loan applications had been received by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the winter program which required us to stop taking applications. This winter's program has afforded work for 52,000 men, of whom 35,000 were employed on site. Thirty five thousand were producing materials, making a total of 80,000 who obtained winter employment.
As the minister, let me say this. In Central Mortgage we have done an extraordinary thing in housing. We have risen from $100 million in loans, the amount lent when we took office in 1957, to $1 billion at the present time. We have as well provided over 10,000 limited dividend units, very low rentals; we have as well 5,000 subsidized housing units where people who cannot afford to pay the rental are helped by the federal government paying a subsidy of 75 per cent and the provincial government 25 per cent.
We are very happy to say that since we came into power 400,000 houses have been built in Canada. It is not an exaggeration to say that there are tens of thousands of people, young families, middle-aged families and old families living in their own houses, modern in every way, who would not have been able to afford houses had it not been for the advent of the new policy of the Diefenbaker government.
National Housing Act


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister an aspect of this matter of housing administration that seemingly has not been discussed as yet. The minister may recall that on January 19 he made a reply to certain questions I asked him. These questions were:
Has the federal government received representations from any municipal body or city council, requesting the federal government to include a no discrimination provision in all National Housing Act transactions and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans, to prevent discrimination against such persons because of race, colour or creed?
If so, from whom were such representations received, and what reply was made to the representations?
The minister replied and acknowledged that there had been representations, and observed that they came from the Windsor city council. In reply to the request involved in the question the minister incorporated in his reply the letter which he addressed to Mr. J. B. Adamac, office of the clerk, city hall, Windsor, Ontario. I do not propose to read all of the reply of the minister, except to comment on one or two paragraphs. In the fifth complete paragraph, toward the middle, the minister wrote:
As the corporation is not a party to transactions between builders and purchasers it does not exercise control over the terms and conditions of sale which might be prescribed by a builder.
Certainly I would not quarrel with this statement, but it seems to me it does not really touch the heart of the problem. The minister goes on to observe:
Any attempts to take such action by the corporation, might be construed as violating normal property and civil rights; the corporation will be placed in the position of attempting to dictate the conditions by which a builder may sell his housing units.
On the recital of the facts as set out in the words of the minister which I have just quoted and his interpretation of the effect of the property and civil rights clause of section 92 of the British North America Act may be correct. But that is not, I think, addressing oneself to the complaint. The minister points out in the third paragraph:
The corporation-
When I use the word "corporation", of course, I am referring to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I continue:
The corporation includes in its construction contracts a clause providing that the contractor shall not refuse employment to anyone on the grounds of race, national origin, colour or religion.
That is, of course, the fact, and it is satisfying to know the origin and the date of the legislation providing for that particular provision; but it seems to me this very provision serves as a precedent for the minister to really

National Housing Act
try and deal with this question of discrimination, which in a number of instances which have been brought to my attention, and which I know have been brought to the attention of the minister, present a situation which is not theoretical but actual. Then, in the fourth paragraph of the letter to Mr. Adamac the minister says:
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in insuring loans made by lending institutions under part I of the National Housing Act, or making direct loans available, does not discriminate. It is primarily concerned with the ability of purchasers to meet their mortgage payments.
It is true, as the minister says, that the corporation does not, in the making of direct loans, discriminate; that is clear, but that, too, if I might suggest to the minister, is not evidence that the minister really addressed himself to all aspects of the complaint involved in the representations which have been made by the city of Windsor.
On March 1, as I understand it, the national committee on human rights of the Canadian Labour Congress made representations to the minister on the broad aspects of discrimination. They point out in this brief, a copy of which I have had sent to me, that the federal government did in 1953 enact a fair employment practice act and that six provinces have enacted fair employment practices acts; that in addition four provinces have enacted fair accommodation practices acts, which provide a prohibition against racial discrimination in public accommodations. The fact that they have provided prohibition against discrimination in public accommodations is not an argument in favour of the position that the federal government has no means of acting in respect of a matter which I am sure concerns the minister, just as it does any other hon. member in this house. It is because I believe that is his view that I am seeking today to persuade him to give further consideration to the reply be made to the clerk of the city of Windsor and which, I presume, he made to the committee on human rights of the Canadian Labour Congress.
This committee points out further in its brief to the minister that the bill of rights, which was introduced last session by the Prime Minister-and presumably the bill of rights to be introduced this session will be in the same terms-provides for the right of the citizen to the protection of the law without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex. I refer to part I, clause (2) (b) of the bill introduced by the Prime Minister in the last session of parliament.
It seems to me, if we are determined to provide in a bill of rights against any violation of human rights, that in so far as this

parliament can in respect of matters over which it has in any way some element of control, attachment or jurisdiction, we should seek in related legislation to take steps consistent with the general concepts and purposes which are proposed to be embodied in the bill of rights. But altogether apart from whether we are to have a bill of rights it seems to me that we must take steps to avoid discrimination against anyone by withdrawal of the benefit of an act of this parliament even though the other consequential benefits may result from contractual arrangements made by one individual with another, altogether apart from the legislative embrace.
I would not have mentioned the case by name but since this has now been done in these representations made to the minister on March 1, I would direct his attention to the fact that in the submission reference is made to the Watkins case, as it is called in Windsor, arising out of a situation which took place there in July, 1959. There a respected citizen of Windsor, Mr. Lloyd Watkins, a young Negro draftsman, was refused the opportunity to purchase an N.H.A. guaranteed home because of his colour. This case was referred directly to the minister's department not only by the complainant himself but also by the city council of my city. The representations in part are as follows:
We assume the facts of the case are known to you. It should also be mentioned that the city council of Windsor has requested appropriate action under the National Housing Act to ban discrimination in publicly guaranteed housing.
Then, on pages 3, 4 and 5 a number of other cases of discrimination all over the country are listed, cases arising out of circumstances in principle not different from those in the Watkins case. The committee on human rights of the Canadian Labour Congress made a proposal to the minister and this is found on page 7 of their representations. They say:
We propose that an. amendment be inserted in the National Housing Act prohibiting racial discrimination in respect of any property which is processed under the act. The amendment could contain a provision similar to that found in the fair employment practices and fair accommodation practices acts. It should stipulate that no one enjoying rights and privileges conferred by the National Housing Act may discriminate in the sale and rental of buildings and self-contained residential units in multiple dwellings erected thereunder, on the grounds of race, colour, creed and place of origin.
Then they point out that violation on the part of anyone should result in a denial of future benefits to the offender. It is suggested that the minister should be empowered to communicate the names of offenders to the



[Stage Direction]
lending institutions involved with instructions that they be declared ineligible for further loans and benefits under the act.
It is argued there, and I will be very interested in listening to what the minister or the law officers of the crown have to say, that the authority of the federal government to act in the area of housing does not arise from any legislative power inherent or directly given in the British North America Act but rather arises out of its ownership of money and its corresponding right to spend this money as any other institution with its resources may. The right to refuse to deal with racial discriminators, it is suggested, is just as constitutionally valid as the right to refuse to deal with delinquent builders.
These are the arguments presented. I wonder whether the minister is prepared now to deal with this situation in a way that will satisfy hon. members of the house that every step has been taken to avoid discrimination along the lines suggested and if that is not the case perhaps we could hear from the minister as to what steps he proposes to take. In any event, it seems to me that at a time when we are discussing and talking about human rights it will be difficult to convince the Canadian people that this parliament has not the authority in respect of a matter over which it has an interest and which, if exercised, could avoid the discriminations about which complaint has been made.
I bring this before the minister at this time because of the deep feeling over this situation in my city, one where we have a spirit of tolerance between racial groups, between white and coloured people, on a scale which I think is emulated in no other community in Canada. I hope the minister will be able to give me a reply that will satisfy my own concerns in the matter and those of thousands of other people in the country.
David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I should like to be able to control acts of discrimination across Canada. My field is pretty well confined to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and national housing and I can say with pride that to my knowledge there has been no example of racial discrimination at any time since we took office on any of our projects or any venture undertaken by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We are very proud of that. As a matter of fact, we are also proud that the president of one of our federal-provincial projects is a negro, and I can assure you that he is a very good president. May I also say that we have 79951-0-126
National Housing Act
taken the most strenuous and rigid means to stamp out any possibility of racial discrimination.
On our insured loans anybody can get a loan. When we consider approved purchasers anyone, regardless of race, colour or religion, can get a loan. On our limited dividend projects there can be no exclusion of anyone for any of these reasons. With respect to federal-provincial projects, in my own riding, for example, I think we have most of the races represented in the federal-provincial project in Regent park. We have a wonderful group and a great spirit there. In our slum clearance developments we are bound to see that people whose places are acquired are re-established, and they are reestablished regardless of their colour. There is no discrimination in our department.
I should like to go further and extend our power. We make approved loans and we make direct loans. A contractor who is building for us cannot discriminate when he builds because we have a clause in the contract and if he discriminates for reasons of race, colour or religion, we cut off his contract. But when an approved lender makes a mortgage loan and we insure it or when we make a direct loan the question is how far we can go in checking up and policing the builder or owner as to discrimination when selling on the ground of race, colour, language or religion. It is a very difficult thing to do, and as my friend points out, under section 92 of the British North America Act we have no control dominion-wise over property and civil rights.
In the last six months I have been endeavouring to find a clause to put in the mortgage that we could make stand up and that would provide that as long as money was owing on the mortgage we could see to it that there was no discrimination. As a matter of fact, I have asked the Department of Justice to give the matter further consideration to see if we can avoid what my friend describes as having happened. Fortunately, it has not happened, except I think on one occasion, in so far as any national housing loan is concerned. If we could even stop that one occasion, we would be glad to do so.
I want to assure my friend that the labour congress made a very telling representation. I was very delighted to see them, and to assure them that the matter was under constant consideration. If I could find some clause to put in the mortgage that would hold water -my hon. friend from Essex East, who is a good lawyer, knows what I mean by that -I would do so. It would be a fatuous thing

National Housing Act
to put in a clause merely for the sake of putting it in, without it being valid. If I could find a valid clause to put in to control these builders, buyers and sellers, then I would be glad to include it.


John Richard Garland: Could the minister give me an answer to my question as to how many defaults there have been on N.H.A. mortgages in the past five years?


David James Walker: Since 1954 there have been 55 claims totalling approximately $552,591, and for 1959, the past year, $375,424, on 36 claims. If my friend so wished, I could give him the details of those claims.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Several hon. members have congratulated the minister upon his appointment to his office. I will not go that far yet. I hope that perhaps a year from now I will be able to do likewise. I was interested in listening very closely to the minister's reports, especially in the last few minutes. I share with him the congratulations to the previous minister upon the very vigorous action he took and I also share with the minister the sorrow which I believe he expressed over the situation since he has taken office. This is no reflection upon the minister at all, but I would say it is a reflection upon the Minister of Finance and the policies which, unfortunately, he has forced upon too many departments in this government.
There are many aspects of this particular housing problem, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to confine my remarks today to one particular aspect and that is the need for slum clearance which is so evident in our urban areas. I am very pleased to notice that both the government and the opposition-I mean the official opposition-are recognizing that slum clearance is a problem for which the government should take some responsibility. I recall that back in the 20's the popular thing to do was to ignore the fact we had such a thing as slums. We believed we should shut our eyes to them and refuse to believe they were there. They felt that unfortunately the slums, like the poor, will always be with us. Finally, we realized that we could not just close our eyes and believe everything was rosy because, no matter how tight we shut our eyes, the slums were not only there but tended to spread. We began to realize that unless some vigorous action was taken they would spread like a blight right across our cities.
There have been sporadic attempts in the past by various private enterprise organizations to try to meet this problem, but they have been nothing more than drops in the sea of blight. I think one of the biggest dangers

resulting from these attempts has been the creation of this picture that this problem was being met when quite the contrary was true. Even the stepped-up activity we saw in this Department of Public Works during the last couple of years under the direction of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs has not resulted in any rapid rate of slum clearance. The slums are still gaining on us.
I think that possibly one of the first wrong impressions we should clear from our minds is one to which possibly the minister made a reference when he said that the government should not or could not under present circumstances, with the tight money situation as it is, take up mortgages for improvements on old buildings. He felt they must concentrate on new buildings. Old structures, as such, are not the cause of this blight; they are only the effects. There are many old homes which are just as comfortable as any of the new homes that are built today. I think anyone who studies this problem thoroughly can find the underlying cause for these slums which blight our cities, and I refer to improper use of land and improper planning for the future of the city. This is the underlying cause of our slums.
Whenever we think about tackling this problem we always think about the terrific cost. The minister has said today, we would like to do this, we would like to build more homes, we would like to clear up these slums, but think of the terrible cost. I wonder if we have ever associated the cost of these things with the many other costs of our civilization which we are accepting day by day. I should like to just tally up some of the subsidies we are now paying in connection with these slums, federally, provincially and municipally. Have we ever stopped to tally up the amount of money that is paid into these welfare or service organizations; into our fire departments and police departments, whose major use is in connection with these slums; have we stopped to tally up the cost of fire insurance rates which are raised to abnormal heights because of these fire-traps, and which add to the cost of everyone who insures his property? Have we ever stopped to think of the costs involved in thefts and burglaries which are committed by people who have been raised in these slums? Do we think of the cost of maintaining our penitentiaries which have to be built to house and maintain the products of these slums? We have been neglecting, for far too long I would say, the fact that the cost of trying to correct this problem, staggering as it may seem, is nothing compared to the cost we are now paying to maintain these slum areas.

If I may I should like to deal for a moment with these costs which frighten us when we consider tackling this problem. How can we lower these costs? I have here a book entitled "Urban Renewal", by Reuel Hem-dahl. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in this problem. Here, on page 33, he says:
In order to provide housing for people who need it, at least five alternatives are available:
1.	Reduce land and building standards, so as to lower housing costs to the price level of the low-income groups.
2.	By voluntary methods, reduce the profits, if any, of subdividers and builders.
3.	Introduce efficiencies into the home construction industry.
4.	Increase the purchasing power of the low-income groups.
5.	Provide housing with government subsidy.
Just for a moment let us examine the five alternatives he offered here. I can say in all honesty that he is not suggesting these alternatives, he is merely pointing out that these are the only alternatives by which we are going to get cheaper housing. The first one is to reduce standards. 1 do not think that is a desirable thing. The minister mentioned today one area at least where something could be done along this line. He mentioned that, even with the present low cost house the greatest difficulty they meet is that of finding a lot in any of our cities on which to build. In most of our cities the cost of the lot alone would be in excess of that of the house that is going to go on it. Surely, having regard to the standards of our homes and our houses in this country, before we embark on a policy of reducing those standards we want to make sure that at least if they are going to be reduced from the present level they are not reduced beyond the point which allows for the creation of a proper home or we might be in fact adding to the blight which exists already in far too many cases.
The second alternative to which he refers is that of reducing profits voluntarily. I do not think that is a very realistic one. I do not think you would drum up much support across this country in any endeavour to embark upon a voluntary plan that is going to reduce profits or wages in the building industry.
The third possible plan has some merit. It refers to the introduction of efficiencies into the home construction industry. One way in which it can be done is by larger scale organization, the standardization of parts and attendant factors. That is something that has always been ignored in the past. Less than 7 per cent of our houses today are built from prefabricated materials. I think possibly this is one field that could 79951-0-126J
National Housing Act
be explored to a much greater extent. As far as our housing field is concerned, we have always insisted on having custom-made homes. Something that is custom-made in any other field of manufacture is considered to be a luxury item. There are not too many ordinary people who go out and buy a custom-made car. They do not buy custom-made clothes unless they are like me and are of a size which compels them to do so because they cannot get a suit of their size in the regular field. Housing is the only place where we still insist on having something custom-made. One building can have as many as 50 different special trades and special contracts. All that is accomplished is to build up a whole group of little vested interests, each one of which is more interested in maintaining its position than it is in the over-all welfare of the Canadian people having regard to their housing.
The fourth alternative is to increase purchasing power. That is something that is possibly outside the ambit of the subject before the committee at the present time. It also is a desirable end and is something the government should keep in mind as an objective at all times.
The fifth one is to provide a subsidy. This is something that has been done by governments, both this one and the ones we have had previously. But I wonder whether they have applied it in the proper way. In looking at the record today, I wonder whether they have not, in far too many cases, failed to help the situation but rather have confounded it or in other words done just the exact opposite of what they set out to do. It is not going to help too much to have one little job done here and one little job done there if cesspools of slums are allowed to grow up all around them and finally to envelop them.
I see that my time is just about up, Mr. Chairman and I shall be obliged to curtail my remarks today. If this government just want to play at this thing, they can keep on in the way we have been going in the past and they will obtain just about the same results, and we shall never meet the situation and make any attempt to conquer it. But if they want to cure this situation, the government is going to have to take a much longer range view than we have ever taken in the past. They are going to have to go into this problem in all its aspects much more closely than we have ever done previously.


Mr. Churchill:: I wonder whether I might ask the committee to consider passing this resolution now and take some time during the next hour, in lieu of the private members' hour, to continue with second reading? The

National Housing Act
bills are printed and are ready to be distributed once we get through this resolution stage. We had hoped to complete this business this week. We have made fairly good progress this week. If we could finish this item up it would be a great help.


Murdo William Martin: I can speak only for myself, but I should like to have something to say on the financial end of the matter.


Lionel Chevrier: As far as we on this side of the house are concerned, we are perfectly happy to meet with the house leader's suggestion. We will do everything we can to facilitate the passing of this measure.


Jacques Flynn: I understood that the hon. member for Timmins had completed his speech. Is that not the case? Did the hon. member call it five o'clock?


Murdo William Martin: I should like to call it five o'clock.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think the hon. member understood the suggestion made by the house leader.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What I was suggesting was that if we passed the resolution now, the debate could be resumed on second reading and the bills would be distributed immediately; but coincident with that course would go the giving up of the hour from five to six o'clock for private members' business and the devoting of it to the discussion of this highly important item which will assist employment throughout the country.


Frank Howard: I wonder whether I might make a comment about this matter? It is my understanding that at the resolution stage preceding the introduction of a bill, part of the principle inherent in that procedure is that the expressions of opinion of hon. members at the resolution stage should have an effect on the government with respect to alterations it may want to make to the bill when it presents it to the house. I know that my friend the hon. member for Timmins, as he has indicated, wants to make some reference to the financial arrangements. I myself should like to make a few comments at the resolution stage. I do not know whether we would be averse to proceeding in the private members' hour on the resolution stage itself but I think probably what might be the proper course is to follow the rules of the house as they are normally followed, and that we go into the private members' hour and perhaps take up the resolution stage the next time it comes up for discussion.


David James Walker: Would the hon. member consent to this procedure? It will not take any

time from the private members' hour. Will he consent at least to passing the resolution now? Then we can put the bill through at the next sitting of the house on Tuesday.


Lionel Chevrier: We are satisfied with that procedure.


Jacques Flynn: The application can be made while the Speaker is in the chair. It being five o'clock I must rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, might I respectfully suggest that it will not take more than a few minutes from the time of the private members if we could at least pass the resolution tonight.


Murdo William Martin: As the hon. member for Skeena pointed out, my understanding of the practice is that as a result of the advice and suggestions made during the consideration of the resolution today, the subject matter of the bill itself may be changed. If I understand the minister correctly, no consideration whatsoever is to be given to the remarks made so far by hon. members. He is saying: let us get through with this day, and get on with the bill because it will make no difference whatsoever.


David James Walker: I am not suggesting anything of the kind. I have had great benefit from the suggestions which have been made by hon. members. I am suggesting that the resolution stage should be passed tonight, that is all.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want in any way to interfere with what hon. members in the group to my right have to say, but it would seem to me that if the resolution were passed we would have the bill in our hands, and I think we could make suggestions or amendments just as strongly on Tuesday, when the bill is due to come up again, as we could on this stage. It seems to me that this suggestion is one which will enable us to get on with this important piece of legislation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We discussed this for a minute or two here, and I was told that at least three of our members wish to speak on the resolution stage. If it could be understood that there would be reasonable latitude allowed on the first item we would be willing to allow the resolution to go through now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the unanimous wish of the house that we waive the hour

reserved for private members' bills and that the house should go back into committee for the purpose of considering the resolution further?


David James Walker: No, Mr. Speaker. The suggestion was that the private members should have their hour but that we should pass the resolution, and that is the end of it.


Lionel Chevrier: Also that when we do move into the second reading, latitude should be given to every hon. member in order that all aspects of the question may be discussed.


David James Walker: All the latitude they want.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is my understanding, but in order to adopt the resolution we shall have to go back into committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee of the whole to consider the following resolution-Mr. Walker -Mr. Flynn in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954 to increase the aggregate amount of all loans in respect of which insurance policies may be issued under the act from four billion dollars to six billion dollars; and to increase from one billion dollars to one and a half billion dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purposes specified in subsection 1 of section 22 of the said act.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Walker thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-53, to amend the National Housing Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Lionel Chevrier: Next sitting of the house.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-19 for the relief of Janet McMillan Sim Sinclair Kerr-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Jacques Flynn: Is it agreed that all the 73 divorce bills listed under order No. 71 be taken at once?


Frank Howard: I do not think so, Mr. Chairman. With regard to Bill No. SD-19, which is the one listed first, my participation in this particular bill in this particular matter is occasioned by the invitation I received from
Private Bills-Divorce
the Minister of Public Works at a previous sitting to engage myself in discussing these particular questions and applying ourselves to understanding what is contained within them and just what the committee, at this stage, and parliament, later on, is being asked to do.
Unfortunately, I am not a member of the committee of the house which considers this particular type of bills and accordingly I have not had an opportunity of seeing what went on and how extensively the committee considered all the questions before us now and that were dealt with in the private bills committee. However, as I read the evidence in this particular instance it would indicate that this is one of those types of cases that I have heard referred to as open and shut. That is, no private investigators are involved. No private detectives are involved in any of the investigation processes prior to determining whether or not there is a case for the granting of divorce. It indicates that there is an admission by the respondent in this case and by the corespondent that they were living together as man and wife and consequently in the course of that living together they had committed an act of adultery which lays the ground for a divorce being granted.
There are apparent a few inconsistencies in the different parts of the evidence submitted, and so far as the evidence that I have from the Senate subcommittee on divorce is concerned it does not clear up those inconsistencies. I would like to refer to them and ask the sponsor of the bill whether the committee which undertook to consider this matter thought they were of importance in this particular case or whether no attention was given to them.
In the prayer with the petition-not in the prayer itself-it is indicated on page 5 that the respondent-I will read the sentence-a Mr. Kerr, now residing in Montreal is employed as a foreman. The relevant part is his employment as a foreman.
Further on in the evidence the question is put to the respondent who indicates that his occupation is that of salesman. I suppose it is possible to be both at the same time. During the interval between the middle of June 1959 when the petition was signed and the end of January 1960 when the respondent appeared before the committee I suppose there may have been a change of occupation.
There are three daughters in the present case, aged 21, 11 and 9. It may be that the eldest is married or about to be married. The father made fairly substantial contributions toward their support. At page 10 of

Private Bills-Divorce
the evidence the petitioner is questioned by her counsel, Mr. Cohen, as follows:
Q. Does your husband support these children?
A. Yes, he gives me $100 a month.
Q. Has he made any other contribution to the family?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell this committee what it is?
A. Approximately $5,000.
Q. Has he paid any of the medical bills for the children?
A. Yes, at one point $500.
This is substantiated by the respondent who when being questioned by Mr. Cohen used the same figures. I assume the payments were made for the period of time the husband and wife were not living together. I could find no reference to any financial arrangements to apply after the divorce is granted as I assume it will be. It would be difficult for a woman to raise two or three children on the general salary she could command. Would the sponsor of the bill tell us what, if any, financial arrangements were made for the continued support of the children?


Jacques Flynn: Before the hon. member replies, I would like to know if we have an agreement to consider all the divorce bills together or are we discussing only Bill No. SD-19?


Frank Howard: I am discussing only Bill No. SD-19 at this stage. I propose to ask questions with respect to other bills. We could deal with them one at a time if that is the normal procedure.


Mr. Peters:: I object to their being taken en bloc. I thought it was understood that they would be taken individually as has been the practice.


Jacques Flynn: Very well. We will discuss Bill No. SD-19. Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Skeena raised two questions. He asked first about the fact that the wife described her husband's occupation as salesman and he referred to it as foreman. This is not an extraordinary event and perhaps the easiest way to explain it would be to say that a husband may describe himself as a sanitary engineer and his wife refer to him as a garbage collector.
The other question concerning arrangements for financial support after the granting of the divorce is one that is outside the jurisdiction of the committee. Members of the committee of the other place were sat upon when they attempted to raise questions about financial arrangements for the wife and children. These are matters for provincial jurisdictions and court procedures are available to people in this position in the provinces.


Frank Howard: May I point out that the minister reversed the description of the occupations in referring to them.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the hon member has threshed that straw a little more fully than I had.


Frank Howard: I was merely attempting to assist the minister, taking the advice of the Minister of Public Works who is not in the chamber. I was helping him get the facts correct.
It seems odd that divorce for Quebec and Newfoundland is within the jurisdiction of this parliament but that an important condition relating to the granting of the divorce, financial arrangements for the support of wives and children, should be considered outside the jurisdiction of parliament. If such is the case, then we should certainly take the next step and remove divorce from this house. If we are not going to do that, then we should not deal with one-


Robert Jardine McCleave: I have to raise a point of order. We are clearly not discussing a particular provision of Bill No. SD-19; we are entering into a very general debate on divorce. There are bills on the order paper which will be coming up for second reading and also one resolution, I believe, and certain private bills. I am sure the house can arrange to have a long debate on divorce, but in committee we are confined to the facts with relation to a particular bill.


Jacques Flynn: I agree that the hon. member was not discussing the bill before the committee; he was replying to some observations. I thought he would come back to the bill; I was going to rise and call him to order but I am sure he wants to be relevant now.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I apologize if what I said was not relevant to the bill. I was dealing with this particular bill and with the evidence as I read it before on pages 10 and 11, answers to questions asked of the plaintiff and of the respondent. These questions and answers relate to financial support of the children. In this particular case, where reference is made in the evidence to support of the children up to this particular time, it would seem to me that we should concern ourselves with the support of those children following this time. Here are two children-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think the objection raised by the hon. member for Halifax to discussion of the financial responsibility of the children or of the wife is well taken. This comes within provincial jurisdiction. Even if we wanted to enter into this question

it would be outside the power of this house; therefore, I do not see the utility of discussing these matters.


Frank Howard: With all due respect, sir- and I certainly do not want to run foul of your rulings or of your ideas or of the objections of the hon. member for Halifax-in this bill we are asked to dissolve this marriage and say that henceforth it shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever. As we have done in other cases, I think we are entitled to wonder about the results of our actions. We are being petitioned and asked to nullify a marriage and to grant a divorce. As you say, sir, after the divorce takes place the financial matters are within the jurisdiction of the province itself. But we should have some conscience and we should wonder about what we are being asked to do and what possibly will be the result thereof. It was in that light that I was dealing with the question of the financial arrangements and financial support for the children, following the passage of this particular bill and the granting of the divorce itself.
If those financial arrangements were in effect prior to the request for divorce, or prior to the petition being granted, if we have no right to discuss, to speculate and to suggest that this should be considered, I can only hope that the father will be somewhat more generous in the future toward the children than he has been in the past. I think we all agree that the people who are affected to the greatest degree by this action which is asked of us are the children in the family. These are the ones who may be subjected to the most serious consequences in so far as our action is concerned.
I have no more particular comments to make, Mr. Chairman, although I repeat that in this particular case, if because of divided jurisdiction, we are forbidden to speculate upon what financial arrangements may be made for the children, following the granting of the divorce, then we should take steps either not to grant the divorce or to take the whole question out of the hands of this house and put it in the hands of the provinces where they have ample jurisdiction already.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to say something in support of what the hon. member for Skeena has said. It would seem to me that in this particular case we are again being asked to grant a divorce. It is a divorce that would lend itself to speculation that an arrangement had been made and that collusion may have been entered into. We can come to that conclusion without too much stretching of the imagination, and I think that
Private Bills-Divorce
is borne out by the evidence we have. This evidence was taken in the main by nonprofessional men in a committee that is not constituted as a law court or has not the ability or the resources of particular law courts.
The bill is numbered SD-19, and is No. 28 of the Senate. I am wondering what has happened to the reports in between SD-19 and No. 28 of the Senate.
In this particular case the man obviously has allowed the woman to do the petitioning, and the husband has done the honourable thing in making it possible for her to obtain this divorce on the only grounds that the Senate committee will allow as grounds for a dissolution of marriage.
It has been pointed out that in this particular case a settlement has been made. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the settlement of $5,000 is not sufficient to take care of the children. There were three girls of this marriage. One of them is of marriageable age and probably is married by now. The settlement of $5,000 would indicate to me, Mr. Chairman, that there had been some discussion about the termination of this particular marriage, and this is borne out by the facts in the evidence. If this is true, Mr. Chairman, if there is any doubt in any hon. member's mind that this divorce is not as it appears in the evidence taken by the committee of the Senate, then obviously we should not endorse any action that would indicate that legalities have not been complied with, and arrangements have been made to obtain this divorce. If we do not believe that, then we should object to these arrangements being made. I think we have an obligation to see that these arrangements are not made and we should pass legislation that will prohibit the making of unnecessary arrangements that were not made known in this particular bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Again I must raise a point of order, not to quarrel with some of the statements that have been made, although they are obviously at variance with the evidence, but simply that the hon. member for Timiskaming is dragging this debate down that well-known C.C.F. garden path, and I do object. Last week the chairman told us that we were to confine ourselves to discussion of the marital offence which could lead to divorce. He said that was the sole matter of debate, and I must protest and raise a point of order this afternoon.


Erhart Regier: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I can recall very vividly the former prime minister of Canada, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, explaining to us the whole basis on which these petitions come before us. He put it very briefly and yet very effectively

Private Bills-Divorce
when he said that the individual citizen was exercising his prerogative to appeal to the toot of the throne for legislation to supply a measure of relief. If that statement of the former prime minister is in essence what is taking place, then I humbly submit that this committee has every responsibility to consider all the implications of what it is being asked to do. It behooves the committee not only to consider whether or not adultery has been committed but also to consider all implications of the action it is about to take. That includes the future welfare of the family who will in effect no longer have either a father or a mother, as the case may be.


William Arnold Peters: Further to the point of order, it is my opinion that we cannot separate these bills from any other bills brought before the house. If this bill concerned a telephone company there would be wide latitude given in the discussion of the bill itself. Hon. members would want to know where the telephone line started and where it went to and how the company was financed. These facts would all be pertinent to the bill. I suggest that these bills are just as important to the people concerned as a telephone company bill, an oil company bill or any other bill that is brought before the house. I think the house is going to have to make a decision before long. If the house is not going to treat these bills as regular bills then a decision will have to be made as to their presentation in a different manner.


Jacques Flynn: I think the point of order is a very important one. I place some value on the comments made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, but if any other hon. member would care to comment on this point before I make a ruling I would certainly appreciate it. It may be that it would not be relevant and proper to discuss the legal consequences of the divorce because this is a matter which comes under provincial authority but at the moment I cannot see that it is not relevant to examine all the factual circumstances of each case. I would be obliged to rule to that effect unless I have more assistance from those who oppose this view.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I speak again to the point of order? There is a committee set up to deal with divorce cases known as the miscellaneous private bills committee. Two members of the C.C.F. party belong to that committee. One of them has taken part in the debate this afternoon and the other one has made a sudden foray on the scene. I suggest to Your Honour that there is full opportunity to discuss the matter of the occupation of the husband or wife, which has been dealt 
with here this afternoon, the ages of the children, which has been dealt with this afternoon, and whether the paying of $5,000 in medical bills on behalf of the children constitutes collusion, which one member of the C.C.F. says it does and another member says no. All these things have been dealt with this afternoon.
When anybody comes to the foot of the throne as it were and asks for relief they should be accorded the utmost respect and their problem solved if possible but I do not think anybody should come to the foot of the throne and then have a large foot planted in their backside from the corner of the house from which all these questions have been raised this afternoon. There is a time and place for everything. As long as I have been here the practice of this chamber has been to stay away from other matters apart from the direct question of adultery and the proof that is adduced in support of it. It is our duty to examine that proof and decide one way or the other and unfortunately we do discuss these matters here before the public. People's names are mentioned which is perhaps one of the unfortunate things in our process.
But we do have a system whereby we can look into these divorce cases. The public can attend meetings of the standing committee if they desire. The C.C.F. members can attend those meetings too if they want to and bring up the questions that they are now trying to bring before us.


Mr. McPhillips:: On the point of order, these bills are in no sense petitions to the foot of the throne. The fact of the matter is that under section 91 of the British North America Act legislation regarding marriage and divorce is given to the government of Canada. It is true that before confederation some provinces had divorce jurisdiction and their jurisdiction was recognized. For instance, in the case of the province of Ontario the parliament of Canada granted the right to deal with divorces. But our rights stop with marriage and divorce. The parliament of Canada can annul or dissolve a marriage but the parliament of Canada has no jurisdiction whatever to deal with the children of marriages, even much less than to deal with what may happen to the wife. The parliament of Canada has nothing to do with that.
My submission on the point of order is that all these remarks with regard to deals made with respect to children or deals made for maintenance of the wife are completely irrelevant and have no place in this debate whatsoever.


Frank Howard: I should like to comment on the point of order and some of the references made by the hon. member for Halifax. I am not sure whether he was referring to the remarks I made or the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming or whether he was referring to the remarks of each of us and got them mixed up. He made some comment about a $5,000 payment for medical bills being some sort of payment resulting in collusion. In the first place, the medical bills were $500, not $5,000 and I made no such reference to $5,000 in medical bills. If he was referring to the hon. member for Timiskaming, he did not make any reference to $5,000 in medical bills either. He made reference to a $5,000 payment which was referred to in the evidence.
But the hon. member did raise a question which I think is extremely important for us to consider. As I understood his suggestion, he said that these matters are referred to the miscellaneous private bills committee, that that is where they are dealt with and considered and that is the only place they should be considered. In fact what he is suggesting is completely contrary to the rules of the house as they apply to legislation, whether public bills or private bills, of which this is one.
The rules, which apply to all committees, provide that if we refer bills or special matters to committees it is for the purpose of the committee being able to consider the matter in an informal manner, to have witnesses appear and so on. But invariably it is not the exclusive right of any committee of the house to make decisions. Committees are only an extension of parliament in a smaller form with a smaller number of members participating and in all cases committees must report to parliament upon their activities and at the same time make any recommendations they may wish to make. That is the case with divorce bills.
Certainly the miscellaneous private bills committee has considered and dealt with these questions and now, following the rules of this house which have been in effect for many years, is reporting back on a particular bill and is, in fact, recommending that certain action be taken. This committee of the whole has every right, I think, to go into the evidence which has been considered on some of these questions by the miscellaneous private bills committee, and also has the right to go into questions which the miscellaneous private bills committee might not have gone into.


Jacques Flynn: I must say that some of the statements made by the member for Skeena were out of order, but I am not convinced 79951-0-127
Private Bills-Divorce
that a discussion of the particular facts connected with each bill is not permissible. Before I reach a final decision on this I would have to examine the matter further to be sure that I would not deprive any hon. member of his right to discuss the bill as completely as he wished. I think I would rule in order any discussion of the special circumstances of each case.


William Arnold Peters: Thank you for your ruling and your consideration, Mr. Chairman. As I say, in this particular case we have the proposition put to the committee that there had been an amount of $100 paid toward the support of the wife and additional medical expenses had been paid by the husband from time to time. It does not say that this was done as the result of a court order, but by agreement. On page 10 of the evidence we find these questions and answers:
Q. Does your husband support these children?
A. Yes, he gives me $100 a month.
Q. Has he made any other contribution to the family?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you tell this committee what it is?
A. Approximately $5,000.
Then to make sure that this was not confused with the money paid for medical bills, a further question was asked:
Q. Has he paid any of the medical bills for the children?
A. Yes, at one point $500.
I am suggesting to this committee that there is an indication there has been an agreement by these parties to the obtaining of this divorce. If that is true-I do not disagree that it should be done, I do not disagree that these people should be divorced- I am just thinking of the legal requirements with which one must comply in obtaining a divorce-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does he say that if a couple have been separated over a period of years and the husband is paying toward the wife's support when divorce proceedings are taken, that is collusion? Does he know what collusion is?


William Arnold Peters: I am not a lawyer. I would appreciate it if the hon. member told me what collusion was in legal terms. I do not know, but it is my understanding that collusion exists where arrangements have been made between two parties to do something that is not necessarily in keeping with the law in order to obtain something that is

Private Bills-Divorce
legal and which, if it were done by arrangement, would prohibit them from obtaining it. This is my interpretation.
In many of these cases-I cannot find it in this one and probably that is an oversight on the part of counsel-a question is asked, have you lived with your husband, and if you have not, have you had any relationship. This question is asked, then, has there been any agreement in the obtaining of this divorce. If the answer were yes, and the lawyer always tells them to make sure there has been no agreement, I would suggest that this would be collusion. If the case were tried in a court, the court would have to throw it out. Now the other committee did not necessarily have to do this, but in so far as my understanding goes, it would constitute collusion. It does not come within the legal definition of it, I suppose, but in my opinion it is an indication of it. I would suggest that these people have had a fairly close relationship and when the trouble, in the form of medical expenses arose, the husband was quite willing to make a contribution of $500 toward meeting those expenses. Now he is making a contribution of $5,000, which would prompt us to think there has been a settlement in this case.
The members of this committee who belong to the legal profession may disagree or they may not, but I would suggest that this is an indication of collusion. In other words, the question usually asked is, has there been any arrangement in the obtaining of this divorce. In this case, the question was not asked, but if it were and if an honest answer were given, I suggest it would have had to be yes, that there was some form of collusion. This situation has been developing over some period of time.
One of the faults with this particular procedure is our inability, in discussing the matter at various stages, to refer it to such organizations as are available to outside courts-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I said before I would not accept general statements on the discussion of a bill. Discussion must be strictly relevant to each particular case, otherwise I think the hon. member is out of order.


William Arnold Peters: I might explain the deviation came about as a result of answering a question from the hon. member for Halifax concerning my interpretation of the legal term "collusion". I am suggesting that if in this particular case we were sitting as a court we would be able to send these people to a welfare agency or some other agency for the 
purpose of finding out if a reconciliation could be effected. It seems to me that when children are involved-


Jacques Flynn: Order. Again, the hon. member is discussing the system. As I said before, it may be that the hon. member can discuss the special circumstances of each case in order to decide whether he should vote for or against the bill. However, I feel that his opinion concerning what should be done or what the law should be are not strictly relevant to the bill and therefore should not be uttered.


William Arnold Peters: Probably because of my complete ignorance as to what the legal terms are, this discussion arose as a result of a question that was asked. The question was, is there any hope of reconciliation, and the answer was, absolutely none. This question was of concern to the Senate committee and I would suggest, therefore, it is of concern to us in discussing this bill. I am only suggesting that courts have other methods of dealing with this particular question. A question is asked, is there any hope of reconciliation, and I would suggest that in every case that comes before a court in the province of Ontario in which this question is asked the court will refer the people to the welfare agencies that have been established in the province for that purpose.
I do not think it is sufficient for us only to ask the question. I think we should also give some guidance and some assistance through welfare agencies in our procedures to see whether we cannot make a success of this marriage rather than grant a divorce.


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member is not following the rule. As I indicated, if the hon. member's remarks are not strictly relevant to the matter before the committee I shall be compelled to ask him to resume his seat.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I should not like to remain on the record, which could be read by people who do read Hansard, some remarks indicating that there was any collusive factor in this case. The fact is that the respondent's husband has been living with another woman as man and wife. That is not a strict legal term; it should be concubine and paramour or something like that, but we call it man and wife. He has been doing that for over two years. He has in the past looked after his family even though he has not lived in the common domicile or the common home and there is every indication that he will do so in the future.
My hon. friend pleads ignorance of the law and I know he would be the first to recognize that he is probably guilty of that

ignorance. When you use words such as "settlement" or "collusion" or terms like that, you use terms that can mean only one thing. In this way the whole type of debate tends to put blots on people who are almost helpless to protect themselves against this thing which we have been going through here during the last three private members' hours.


William Arnold Peters: Before the hon. member sits down may I ask him a question? Granting the fact that the one party to this action was living with another woman for two years, if the husband had made an arrangement with his wife and paid a cash settlement of $5,000, what is the situation in legal terms? I am asking the question in a legal sense. Would collusion not have taken place no matter whether there was adultery?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The answer is obvious. If there was an arrangement between the parties that he would pay her money only on condition that she sue him for divorce, that would obviously be entering into adultery on the consideration of divorce. But that is not the case here. For some time the husband had been looking after his family while living with and supporting another woman. That sort of thing is not collusion.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member answered only part of the question. I should like to ask him this question. Is it not collusion in a case where there is an arrangement?


Robert Jardine McCleave: This is outside this case entirely. There is no suggestion here of any arrangement whatsoever.


William Arnold Peters: I am suggesting there is an arrangement for $5,000. In not answering the question directly I think the hon. member is agreeing that if this is my contention I would be right in saying there was collusion.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I cannot allow that statement to pass without comment. When I get up on my feet here to state my mind on the affairs of these unfortunate people I give my honest opinion and I am never going to deviate from that course in this House of Commons. I think that is an unfair allegation to make, namely to suggest that I agree with the hon. member to say something entirely different.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in this particular case the hon. member has pointed out that the question was not collusion but is whether the divorce should be granted on other grounds entirely? If this is the situation, I do not disagree with him. But I think we should not temper our desires for the end result. After reading this case 79951-0-127i
Private Bills-Divorce
I agree that these people should have a divorce. I am not in a position to suggest that reconciliation would work because I am not in that field either. But I am pointing out that this divorce procedure in this particular case has an indication that an arrangement has been made by both parties, who have been fairly agreeable to each other, although they have been separated for some time, in such matters as support of children and moneys being paid in support of the wife. If that is the case, I would suggest that this divorce bill should be passed by the House of Commons with an amendment that there was not adultery in this case but that we give relief to the people because they are no longer living together.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Jacques Flynn: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jacques Flynn: The next bill is Bill SD-20.


Frank Howard: This is a different type of bill.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could call it six o'clock now. If there is the least word said on these other bills they fall to the bottom of the order paper. I hope the records of the house will show that we just passed Bill No. SD-19 and that it was then called six o'clock.


Frank Howard: If that is agreeable to other hon. members. I do not want to upset the desires of my hon. friend. The orders are set down in the order paper.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am trying to look after innocent people. That is more than the hon. member's group can say.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not fair.


Jacques Flynn: Is the committee unanimous in considering that it is six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Frank Howard: Before you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask my hon. friend to retract his allegation that we are not concerned about the people who are petitioning the house for this particular relief. That was his statement. Upon reflection I think he will realize that he made an unfair statement.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I would change that, Mr. Chairman, to "the lengthy concern of the group".


Frank Howard: That is extremely kind of the hon. gentleman.

Business of the House


Jacques Flynn: It being six o'clock, shall I rise, report a certain bill and request leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Robert Jardine McCleave: the third reading of Bill No. SD-19, for the relief of Janet McMillan Sim Sinclair Kerr.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: I think it may be said that we have made some progress today in connection with the business of the house. With that thought in mind, perhaps I could ask the house leader what he intends doing on Monday and as much of next week as he can indicate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The proposed agenda for next week will run in this way. Monday will be private members' day. Then I have seven items of business here which we shall try to take up in the order in which I give them, subject of course to change with due notice. On Tuesday we will start off with the report of the Canada Council to be referred to the public accounts committee, followed immediately by the public accounts and the Auditor General's report to be referred to the public accounts committee. Those are routine proceedings and last year they occupied the time of the house for only about, I would say, five minutes. Then we will go on with second reading of the bill to amend the National Housing Act which we were on today followed by the setting up of the committee on defence expenditures. The next item after that would be the federal-provincial tax-sharing arrangements bill in the name of the Minister of Finance. If we get through those items, then we have the resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works concerning the trans-Canada highway and the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport concerning the amendment to the Railway Act. Some of these items may be altered during the course of the week, but those are the matters we should like to deal with, and in the order which 1 have outlined.


Hazen Robert Argue: Might I ask whether the government has given any further consideration to the action it intends to ask the house to take on the capital punishment bill? This question is now in a state of suspended animation, but there are reports going around that the government has dropped the idea of proceeding with it. The opposition has been very co-operative, and I think I am asking a fair question. In the meantime, in the absence of action from this house, two persons have been hanged, and I would like the leader of the house to indicate how he would like the house to proceed with the debate on capital punishment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It would appear to me that the question is not proper at this time, because the leader of the house has just given the program for the coming week. This is a question which it would be more appropriate to ask on the orders of the day. However, if the leader of the house wishes to reply-


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order which you have raised, it is a practice of long standing that the leader of either of the opposition parties has the right to put questions when business is announced by the leader of the house. That is very much in order. I have put the question to the hon. gentleman and I think he owes it to the house to give some reply with regard to this matter of public interest which is very much in the minds of the people of this country.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The matter is under consideration, but I know the house is anxious to press on with some of the legislation that is on the order paper. This will not prevent subsequent consideration of the debate on capital punishment at a later date.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the minister mean there will be a request for further consideration at a later date? I would hope so.


Lionel Chevrier: I would remind the leader of the house that it was his intention at one time to have a discussion with the party leaders before it was decided when the debate should take place.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, there will be consultation in the usual manner.


Hazen Robert Argue: When?


An hon. Member:: Never.
It being five minutes past six o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Fort William office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation hired any private legal advice since January 1, 1958?
Name of solicitor
Harold G. Blanchard, Q.C.
204 Arthur street,
Port Arthur.
Murray W. Babe, Q.C.,
106 Cuthbertson block,
Fort William.
Clarence B. Devlin,
106 Cuthbertson block,	....
Fort William.	$25.00
Arthur Kajander, Q.C.,	....
11-14 Ruttan block,	___
Port Arthur.
R. Lloyd Seaman, Q.C.,	....
609-610 Public Utilities bldg.,
Port Arthur.
W. J. Weiler, Q.C.,
Twin City gas bldg.,
Fort William.
James F. W. Ross, Q.C.,
7-9 Ruttani block,
Port Arthur.
J. C. Smith,
217 Scott street,
Fort Frances,
G.L. Racicot,
Geraldton.
With respect to loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the National Housing Act, 1954, the above listed solicitors carried out work consisting of title search and preparation of mortgages. The corporation follows the customary mortgage practice under which legal fees are paid by the borrower. The corporation has no record of the amount of these fees.
3.	The choice of lawyers was made, not by senior officials of the corporation, but in accordance with general government practice.


C.N.R. TIE PURCHASES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 257
John Whitney Pickersgill: 1.	Has the Canadian National Railways abandoned the policy of purchasing railway ties locally in
Questions
2.	If so, what are the names, addresses, fees paid, and scope of work, of those who gave such advice in this period?
3.	What was the basis for the choices made in lawyers during this period; and more particularly, was a list, including those to be chosen, provided by senior officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or by the minister of public works?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	January 1, 1958-December 31, 1959
57 NHA 1954, section 40 loans 1 NHA 1954, section 16 loan Execution of painting contract for Port Arthur and Fort William rental houses.
64 NHA 1954, section 40 loans 1 NHA 1954, section 16 loan
90 NHA 1954, section 40 loans
the Atlantic provinces and substituted the practice of importing ties from elsewhere in Canada?
2.	If so, what is the reason for such change in policy?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


SEMI-MONTHLY STAMPS, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Does the unemployment insurance commission make available semi-monthly stamps in all denominations for use of employers?
Scope of work (Mainly title search and Fees paid	preparation of mortgages.)
....	8 NHA 1954, section 40 loans
5 NHA 1954, section 40 loans
....	124 NHA 1954, section 40 loans
1 NHA 1954, section 16 loan
....	3 NHA 1954, section 40 loans
....	3 NHA 1954, section 40 loans
$19.50 Proceedings against illegal tenant.

Questions
2.	If not, for what reason and in what denominations are no such stamps available?
3.	Does the absence of such stamps increase the cost to employers and employees making contributions on the basis of monthly wages?
4.	Have any representations been received by the unemployment insurance commission requesting that stamps be made available in such denominations?
5.	If so, what reply has been made?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister
of Labour):
1.	No. There are 11 weekly denominations and four semi-monthly equivalent denominations leaving seven weekly denominations for which there are no semi-monthly equivalents.
2.	When a claim for unemployment insurance benefit is made, semi-monthly stamps have to be translated into weeks-first to determine if a claimant is eligible for benefit, next to determine his weekly rate of benefit and lastly to arrive at the number of weeks' duration to which he is entitled.
In making these calculations the unemployment insurance commission found that in numerous instances the employer had affixed the semi-monthly stamps in the employee's insurance book improperly. This required frequent references back to the employer to ascertain the correct pattern of the insured person's employment; and in other cases, where the error was not detected at the time of calculation, subsequent adjustments had to be made as the result of complaints lodged by claimants who had been paid at lower rates or for lesser periods than those to which they were entitled.
Moreover, the four denominations that were withdrawn represented less than 5 per cent of the total annual sales of stamps, whereas the weekly equivalent denominations amounted to 40 per cent of the total annual stamp sales.
The withdrawal of semi-monthly stamps in the lower denominations has enabled the commission to dispose of claims promptly in a situation where time is of the essence.
3.	Yes, slightly when at termination of employment the last day worked is other than a Saturday. This in turn might slightly increase a claimant's weekly benefit rate.
4.	Yes, some representations have been received from employers.
5.	Substantially as given in item 2 above.
[Corrected question; see p. 1971 of Hansard today.]


HUNGARIAN REFUGEES
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	How many Hungarian refugees have entered Canada since the movement began in 1956?
2.	Of this number, how many were admitted as non-immigrants because they could not satisfy the health requirements of the Immigration Act?
3.	Of those admitted as non-immigrants, how many have, since they arrived been landed as immigrants?
4.	Of those admitted as non-immigrants (a) how many received medical or other health care at the expense of the federal government; (b) how many are still receiving such care?
5.	Are any Hungarian refugees still receiving assistance from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and, if so, how many?
6.	What is the estimated number of Hungarian refugees who have left Canada, and how many of them have been assisted financially by the government to return to Europe?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the several parts of this question are as follows:
1.	37,727.
2.	1,380 were allowed entry as non-immigrants or entered without status either because they could not comply with the medical requirements or because they were members of the families of those who could not meet medical standards.
3.	847.
4.	(a) of the number shown in 2, we have no statistical breakdown of those refugees who required or were provided with medical or other health care.
(b) 17.
5.	Six Hungarian refugees are now receiving non-medical assistance from the department.
6.	The total number of Hungarian refugees who may have left Canada cannot be estimated because the department does not maintain emigration statistics. There were 483 Hungarian refugees who were assisted financially by the department to return to Europe.

Monday, March 14, 1960