1960-11-25

INDUSTRY


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have great satisfaction in announcing that new and fully adequate export financing facilities are being established. These export financing facilities are being made possible due to the joint initiative of the government and the Canadian chartered banks. Canadian exporters of capital goods will thus be enabled to meet credit competition from foreign suppliers.
For their part, the Canadian chartered banks will operate a new company expressly to provide financing for export transactions on credit terms extending up to five years. Export credits insurance will continue to be made available in support of these operations.
On the government side, support will be given to the financing of export transactions involving credit terms of over five years. The government is prepared to provide guarantees for these extended credit term transactions under section 21A of the Export Credits Insurance Act and, in addition, to purchase the guaranteed foreign obligations from the new financing company or other lenders.
Canadian exporters can now seek orders for capital equipment, confident that these new arrangements remove financing impediments that may have deterred them in the past from seeking or obtaining orders abroad. The remaining challenge to Canadian exporters of capital equipment is to be competitive and to find creditworthy buyers.
The complementary facilities to be established by the Canadian chartered banks and the Canadian government is a fine example of effective co-operation between private enterprise and government for the national benefit. Through this important co-operative arrangement, Canadian industry is being given full support to help increase Canadian exports and to stimulate employment in the many key industries that should benefit.
The chartered banks have answered a real need in this unique venture to establish an assured pool of financial resources for export transactions, involving credit to foreign buyers of up to five years. Exporters who have
felt uncertain about the availability of financing in the past and have hesitated to seek foreign business, now have the assured support they need. The Canadian banks have shown this initiative because of a desire to assist Canadian business and help stimulate increasing exports and rising prosperity.
The government's arrangements to permit exporters of capital goods to meet the credit competition of the industrial world are backed by the $200 million already authorized under sections 21 and 21A of the Export Credits Insurance Act. It is now a task for exporters to utilize the tools that have been forged for them. Exporters, for their part, must respond with energy and effort to produce goods and equipment of such high quality, and at such competitive prices, that they will sell in the ever enlarging but intensely competitive markets of the world.
It is the sincere hope and expectation of the government that this announcement will be received enthusiastically by both business and labour in Canada, as we know it will be by the Canadian government trade commissioners who are gathering here next week. The trade commissioners are tireless in seeking trade opportunities and in trying to sell Canadian goods. They will welcome these new financial aids that will open new horizons. Business will profit from increasing export orders, not only the contracting exporters but the many dependent suppliers of parts and materials that enter into large capital goods. Labour throughout will benefit from increasing employment in all the industries and regions that profit from rising industrial exports.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement the minister has just made is, I understand, the result of a meeting which took place yesterday between representatives of various institutions in Canada and about which the Minister of Finance seemed to know absolutely nothing. The Minister of Trade and Commerce at least knew that there was such a meeting, because in his usual frankness he admitted in the questions that were asked later that a meeting of some sort was taking place. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce finds himself in difficulty and with his back to the wall, as he was in the census matter last week-


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh.

Export Financing Facilities


Mr. Graffiey:: You are away out in left field now.


Lionel Chevrier: -he immediately resuscitates a meeting with someone which took place in the Rideau club. It seems that that will not serve him in good stead today.
However, sir, it is quite clear from what has been said by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that two ministers of the government once again are at cross purposes, one who knew that something was going on and the other who knew nothing about it at all. Let me deal with the merits of the case.


George Harris Hees: On a question of privilege, may I just straighten out this misunderstanding?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no question of privilege at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister is rising on a question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member for Laurier has implied that both the Minister of Finance and myself misled him and the house in our answers yesterday. We did that in no way at all, because the meeting he is referring to was a meeting which neither the Minister of Finance nor myself attended. That was a private meeting held by the bankers who came down here preparatory to our meeting, and our meeting was held in my office from 3.30 to 5.30 yesterday afternoon, with the Minister of Finance and myself present. I might say that the co-operative spirit shown there was one of the finest things ever witnessed in my experience in parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think there was any accusation; it was purely a misunderstanding.


George Harris Hees: I just wanted to clear the air.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have something to say on the question of privilege as well. Statements have been made by the hon. member for Laurier just now which have no relevancy to the statement made by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and have no basis whatever in fact. May I draw the attention of the house, Mr. Speaker, to what was said yesterday afternoon-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister is rising on a question of privilege. First he must state what privilege is involved before proceeding to deal with the facts, because I have not yet seen any question of privilege either in what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said or what the hon. member for Laurier has said.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are two grievous misstatements that have just come from the mouth of the hon. member for Laurier.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister will agree with me, I think, that misstatements do not always raise questions of privilege, and if the minister has a question of privilege I think he ought to deal with it rather than with misstatements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The question of privilege arises out of grievous misstatements that the hon. member has made. First, he said I was unaware of a meeting that was to be held yesterday afternoon and, second, that there was some difference between my colleague and myself. The record will show that the hon. member for Laurier asked me this question yesterday afternoon, as found at page 143 of Hansard. He said:
May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the Minister seen the report appearing in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that the government would introduce legislation to establish a mortgage bank in Canada if existing institutions fail to provide sufficient building funds under the National Housing Act, and has he any comment to make thereon?
To which I replied, "No, Mr. Speaker". Then the hon. member for Laurier went on to say:
Will the Minister of Finance, then, indicate to the house what is the purpose of the meeting now taking place in the Rideau club to which representatives of the banking institutions of Canada have been invited at his request and that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce?
To that I replied as follows:
I was not aware that anybody was gathered at the Rideau club today, or if they were, that they were under observation by the official opposition. My colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I have occasion to have contact with representatives of the chartered banks about various matters, and I hope the meeting that may take place soon will have the usual constructive results.
The meeting that I was referring to took place a few minutes later and with the constructive results which have been announced. I make it quite clear to the house that my colleague and I attended this meeting. The meeting which had been planned had nothing to do to our knowledge with any meeting at the Rideau club, and my colleague and I are in perfect accord in commending this matter to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The house has listened to what are really explanations rather than questions of privilege. Perhaps I was in error in allowing the hon. member for Laurier to deviate from the substance of the statement in the first place to discuss events of yesterday, but I hope the matter is now sufficiently clear to all members of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is. As you have allowed the two hon. gentlemen to interrupt the statement which I intended to make, I think I should at least be allowed to reply to what they have said



I960

[Stage Direction]
because, on the question of privilege, there is not the slightest doubt that the Minister of Finance quite clearly indicated to the house yesterday that no such meeting as that about which I asked was contemplated.
['Mr. Speaker, this is a question that should more properly be addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I can say, however, that no decision has been taken which would result in unilateral action on the part of Canada to extend our territorial waters.']
Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Lionel Chevrier: That was his reply to my question. Then, sir, the genial Minister of Trade and Commerce with his wide smile rises and says that I attempted to mislead the house.


George Harris Hees: You suggested I had.


Lionel Chevrier: On the contrary, I simply asked a question. The Minister of Trade and Commerce at least answered the question honestly, but the Minister of Finance unquestionably tried to do exactly what the Minister of Trade and Commerce had in mind was intended to be done by myself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This unfortunate dispute arises out of matters which are clearly set forth in Hansard, and every member has an opportunity to form his own conclusions with respect to what was said. I trust that the hon. member will proceed with his statement.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what I would have done a long time ago if I had not been interrupted. I should like to deal now, sir, with the merits of the announcement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What I should like to say is that the provision of export credit facilities for capital goods which has been indicated through this announcement is certainly most desirable at this time, particularly when Canadian exporters find it more and more difficult to compete in world markets. Whether it is the intention of the government, by means of this and other measures, to give assistance to secondary industries will remain to be seen as time goes by.
However, in proposing these additional facilities, I want to say that the government is just implementing another suggestion made from this side of the house by the Leader of the Opposition. This suggestion was made during the debate on an amendment to the motion to go into supply on March 21, 1960 when the Leader of the Opposition, dealing in a broad way with matters affecting trade and commerce had this to say, as reported at page 2264 of Hansard for March 21, 1960:
More than ever in this country an expanding volume of exports must be the main objective of Canadian trade policy.
Then he went on to say that the government was to be criticized for the attitude it was taking with reference to export trade, and he referred to the fact that we would be
Export Financing Facilities asked what we had in the way of suggestions. The Leader of the Opposition said we had many suggestions to make, and he went on to make several. I shall refer to two short ones in order not to delay the discussion. At the top of page 2265 he said:
Second, we must adopt a more aggressive export trade promotion policy. The government foreign trade services should be enlarged and improved and we should start sending selling missions to the world instead of the type of buying mission which we sent in 1957. We must be more effective and aggressive in our trade negotiations.
Then later he said:
Then we have to improve our competitive position by expanding our export credit facilities.
Now, could anything be clearer than that statement by the Leader of the Opposition? But, sir, as usual the government implements suggestions made by the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made his point, and I think it is fair comment, that the idea was put forward by the opposition. However, may I remind him that this is not a period of debate. The statement was quite lengthy and I have allowed him to go this far. I think he has sufficiently commented upon the statement, and that we might pass on to other business.


Lionel Chevrier: I was about to complete the statement by saying that, as usual, the government puts these suggestions of ours-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: -into effect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I thought that was the tenor of the continuing statement the hon. member was making, and I suggested he had gone far enough.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a point of order?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I am rising on a point of order. I am bringing to your attention the fact that the opposition has, of course, the right to comment on a statement made by a minister of the government. I was interrupted on three occasions by hon. members on the other side of the house when I attempted to make my statement. Notwithstanding those interruptions Your Honour now, because you feel that I am not abiding by the rules of the house, has not allowed me to complete my statement. I say, sir, that notwithstanding the comments that have come from this side of the house and from those who sit on my extreme left, I should be allowed to make my concluding statement which has absolutely nothing to do-

Export Financing Facilities


George Harris Hees: With the subject.


Lionel Chevrier: -with the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition which I just read. I ask to be allowed to complete my statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Because the original statement was, in my view, a statement of mixed fact and opinion, I have allowed more latitude to the hon. member for Laurier than would be in accord with our practice as to the extent to which comment is permitted on announcements of policy. I am definitely of the opinion that the hon. member for Laurier, in much of what he said, was really debating the matter rather than commenting on the factual substance of the statement. If I have prevented him from making some further concise comment on the substance of the policy announcement, I should be glad to give him the opportunity to finish. However, in my opinion the course he was following was not warranted under our practice.


Lionel Chevrier: I simply wanted to say that the procedure followed in this instance was similar to that which was followed in the national housing legislation now before us and in the small loans legislation also now before us, in that this policy was one of advancing money to others and implementing in that fashion policies that it seemed to us were not the kind that were requisite to meet the emergency at this time.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: The announcement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is one that I think was necessary and, when implemented, should fill an important need. I think hon. members have been aware that Canadian exporters often have been at a disadvantage in comparison with exporters of other nations in that they could not make sales on a credit basis and have available facilities by means of which to cash their commercial paper. As I understand it, provision will now be made for an exporter who sells on a somewhat deferred payment basis to get his money now so that next morning he can go out looking for new business.
I think this move was necessary. I think it is a good move, and I think it was necessary to supplement export credit insurance because I know of instances where sales have been underwritten and guaranteed under the Export Credits Insurance Act and still the money was not available for the completion of the transaction.
We will, of course, study the measure in greater detail when more information is available. However, we think, somewhat


along the line of thinking of the hon. member for Laurier, that we have been promoting this kind of general action when we have advocated an export credit corporation. We think the minister's announcement is worth while and that this provision will be of assistance to Canadian exporters to put them on an equal basis with exporters of other countries.

On the orders of the day:


Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, following the announcement he made earlier on motions, and ask him whether it will be necessary to introduce legislation in order to implement the program he has announced.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker, that will not be necessary.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of its importance to the fishing industry and the need for an early decision, can the minister advise the house whether serious consideration is being given to a unilateral decision to extend Canada's fishing limits from the present three miles to twelve miles?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that should more properly be addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I can say, however, that no decision has been taken which would result in unilateral action on the part of Canada to extend our territorial waters.



COMMUNIST CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. It is based on an article which appears in today's Globe and Mail having to do with some remarks made by the Prime Minister in a speech he delivered yesterday. The statement reads:
We cannot afford indefinitely to exclude almost one quarter of the human race from the areas of major political settlement.
The article deals with the relationship of other countries and of Canada, presumably, with the Chinese peoples' republic. My question is, are any steps being taken to discuss with the peoples' republic of China the question of mutual diplomatic recognition?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The statement I made yesterday was:
The aggressive declarations of the leaders of mainland China in tone and content cast a frightening shadow of fear over mankind. Their views are threatening and the necessity of a realistic review of the situation becomes necessary and mandatory... So vast and almost numberless a people cannot be ignored. The world is too interlocked with its common dangers to exclude almost one quarter of the human race from the areas of major political settlement.
That is the statement I made. In so far as the actual question is concerned, the answer is in the negative.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillingale):: Will the Prime Minister permit a supplementary question? Can the Prime Minister say in what context the statement was made, and whether the full statement is available?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not follow the course that some other hon. gentlemen have followed on occasion in providing expurgated editions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, since my question was a perfectly courteous one, perhaps the Prime Minister would tell us where the statement was made. I saw some reference to it in the press this morning, but there was no indication in the press article I saw as to where the statement had been made. I should like very much to be able to read the full statement made by the Prime Minister in this important speech.


John George Diefenbaker: I understand the hon. gentleman was at a different function yesterday. It was the Canadian club of Ottawa.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. M. Creaghan (Westmorland):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is there anything that can be said at this time about the discussions concerning the impending railway strike in this country?


John George Diefenbaker: As the house knows, two meetings took place a week ago tomorrow between the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Transport and the Postmaster General, and Mr. Hall, the chairman of the negotiating committee of the unions representing the nonoperative railway workers, and other labour officials and representatives.
As a result of that meeting a message was received from Mr. Hall to the effect that the request made by the ministers that in all the circumstances the strike date should
90205-6-134
Inquiries of the Ministry be postponed from December 3 was not acceptable to the union. It was pointed out by representatives of the government that a freeze had been placed upon freight rates and that the report of the royal commission on transportation was expected. That commission will report, according to the latest information we have received, on or before March 31.
That request having been made, and it having been turned down, further consideration has been given to the matter. In view of the catastrophic results that would follow from any strike action-I am speaking of the national interest as a whole-and to the end that further discussions may take place, communications have been directed to Mr. Hall and to the presidents of the railway companies to bring about further discussions. A meeting will take place at 1 p.m. between Mr. Hall and other representatives of the unions and the three ministers to whom I have already referred, at which meeting I shall be present and in which I will participate. At 2 p.m. there will be a meeting between the same representatives of the government and the railway presidents or their representatives.
I think that is as far as I can go at this time.



WESTERN GRAIN HANDLERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question about another strike. If the grain handlers' strike should not be settled over the week end I wonder if the Prime Minister himself would consider stepping into the negotiations, as he has said he would do in connection with the railway negotiations, inviting both parties to meet with him in order that the prestige of his office together with his own knowledge of the grain industry might be brought to bear in the hope that an early settlement may be reached.


John George Diefenbaker: As has been pointed out by the Minister of Labour, there is no authority for the federal government to intervene in connection with the strike in Vancouver, and I have no power or authority in that regard. However, might I suggest to the hon. member that with his knowledge of the grain trade and his close relations with farmers and labour, his services might be of value.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would enjoy going there with the Prime Minister, but I ask the right hon. gentleman this question. Does he refuse to

Inquiries of the Ministry invite the two parties to the dispute to talk with him about the possibility of a settlement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is repeating in another form a question which the Prime Minister has already answered.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to put my question in another way, if I may. Even though the government has no jurisdiction to settle the dispute, would the Prime Minister consider meeting with the two parties concerned?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: I should just like to bring this to the attention of the hon. member for Assiniboia; I realize his great concern about the settlement of this strike. If he would just be patient and not interfere with what is going on, and give an opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Labour has not been asked a question, and he is not at liberty to rise and make a statement in the house without leave.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received any recent communication from the Alberta wheat pool and the Saskatchewan wheat pool regarding the grain handlers' strike, which has interrupted grain shipments from their Pacific elevator terminals?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the dispute now is at a critical stage. I certainly would not want to make any comments that would have any effect upon the settlement of that dispute at this time.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. Martel (Chapleau):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Would the minister report to the house any recent developments which have taken place in connection with the proposal to build the Grand replenishment and northern development canal, to be called Grand canal, to connect Hudson bay with Georgian bay and lake Superior by diverting waters of the James bay watershed to the Harricanaw river, thence to the Ottawa river, Trout lake, lake Nipissing and through the Georgian bay system into lake Superior?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I am grateful to the hon. member for having given me


notice of his intention to ask this question because, as I think hon. members will realize, this involves a complex subject.
The hon. member will recall that this question was studied at some length by the standing committee on mines, forests and waters last year. At that time witnesses for the proposed Harricanaw development were heard at some length. The resulting view of the committee, which was reported to the house last June, was that there had been insufficient basic engineering evidence presented for any conclusion on this matter to be reached.


Jean-Jacques Martel: A supplementary question. In view of what the minister has just told the house; in view of the fact that this project would open up a great area to the north, and since water resources come under the jurisdiction both of his department and of the provincial authorities directly concerned; furthermore, having in mind that if it materialized from blue print to reality it would create additional job opportunities in the northern regions of Canada, would the minister ask his officials to initiate immediately an over-all survey of this very important project?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As I understand the situation from a study of the report made last year, this is more of a power problem than anything else. The project would require the water to be pumped vertically for about one thousand feet before it could flow southward, and this would call for about 200 million horsepower of energy on a continuous basis. I also understand that this would use up the only available power in the vicinity. Power, as the hon. member knows, is a resource which belongs to the provincial government, and there is no indication that the province would wish to use its hydro resources in the manner contemplated by the promoters of the Grand canal scheme.


Mr. D. R. Mitchell (Sudbury):: May I ask a
supplementary question. Is the minister aware that United States interests have already made a cursory survey of this same area which the hon. member mentioned in his question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that the subject has been under discussion since as far back as 1930.


Mr. Garland:: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the matter is not one of such urgency that it should be pursued by further supplementaries.



BORDEN-TORMENTINE  CONTINUATION OF FERRY SERVICE IN EVENT OF RAIL STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Macdonald (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the

Minister of Transport. In the event of a railway strike and the consequent serious results which might be caused by the suspension of service to the province of Prince Edward Island, has the government received any assurance that the Borden-Tormentine ferries, now operated by the C.N.R., will continue to function?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, assurance has been received from Mr. W. J. Smith, executive secretary of the railway brotherhood, that the union and the railway have come to an agreement to keep this service going in the event of a strike.
(Translation):



THREATENED RAIL STRIKE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer). Did he meet yesterday with the delegation of the truckers association of the province of Quebec who came here to submit to him a brief of which we all received a copy.
This brief contains a suggestion to the effect that the association is against the payment of subsidies to the railroads in order to prevent the rail strike.
Did the minister express any opinion concerning that part of the brief?
I am sure that in his answer he will be much less belligerent than his colleague-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking a question on policy which I am sure he does not expect the government to declare, in answer to a question.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Policy with respect to payment of subsidies to the railways to avoid a strike, as I understood his question.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question was whether the minister had received a delegation, and whether in the memorandum there was a clause complaining about the payment of subsidies. I asked the minister what his reaction was to that, because I take it that he did have some reaction to this, one of the many representations put before him by the association. Surely the question is quite regular.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, then, I misunderstood the hon. member. If he wants to ask a question of fact, as to what was the minister's reaction to the delegation, all right.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I thought you were objecting to the last part of the question, which compared the pugnacity of the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Finance with the calmness of the Minister of Transport.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And the misleadingness of the hon. member for Laurier.
(Translation):


Léon Balcer: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting yesterday afternoon an important delegation of the truckers association of the province of Quebec who submitted to me a highly interesting brief. That brief contained several suggestions giving, in their estimation, a true picture of the trucking situation in the province of Quebec. Many suggestions are also made to the government in this brief.
I wish to give the house the assurance that each one of those suggestions will be studied very carefully, and should the government decide to act in a definite way on any one of these suggestions, I am sure such action will meet the approval of the house.
(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Mr. Farley Mowat, a well-known Canadian author, stated emphatically on a C.B.C. television program last evening that nuclear bombs are being kept in Newfoundland, would the Prime Minister care to reassure the Canadian people that there are no nuclear weapons being kept on bases leased by the United States or anywhere else within the confines of the province of Newfoundland?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance.



RESTRICTIONS ON STRATEGIC EXPORTS TO COMMUNIST COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister inform the house whether there are now any restrictions on the export to communist countries of strategic goods other than arms and munitions?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister has had notice of this question he might have been able to prepare an answer, but it seems to

Inquiries of the Ministry me that the question might take a little research and would be better placed on the order paper.



CUBA-CONFISCATION OF CANADIAN FIRMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he could tell the house whether any Canadian-owned firms have been seized or confiscated by the government of Cuba?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have no information. I asked some general questions about this matter the other day to ascertain the position of affairs-and I was informed that there had been no action then taken by the Cuban government against Canadian firms.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister assure the house that no such action was taken against Moore Business Forms and Exquisite Form Foundations, as was reported in the press?


John George Diefenbaker: As I said I made an inquiry to ascertain what the position then was, and I have heard nothing since that would alter the answer I gave a moment ago.



ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT  REQUEST FOR STATE- MENT ON PURPOSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could either minister comment on the press report that western diplomats have now completed the framework of an economic organization to be known as the organization for economic co-operation and development? Could the minister tell the house what the purposes of this organization are to be?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I made a full report to the house last January following the attendance of my colleague, the former minister of trade and commerce, and myself at the meeting in Paris that month.
I outlined the purpose of the meeting which grew out of United States initiative, with a view to enlarging the functions of the old O.E.E.C. of which Canada and the United States have for the past decade been associate members, and reorganizing the institution so that Canada and the United

States might become full participating members and the functions of the organization might be enlarged as well. There was a further meeting in July which I attended on behalf of the government and on which I made a report to the house. It marked a further stage in the discussions with a view to bringing about the reorganization.
The meeting that is to be held in Paris early next month is designed to bring the reorganization to a finality in order that the former O.E.E.C. may become the new O.E.-C.D. It is the intention of the Canadian government that Canada shall be a full participating member of the new O.E.C.D., with its enlarged functions.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question.
Within the framework of this new organization, is it the intention to embark upon a reduction in tariffs, thereby bringing about a general free trade area in this large trade association?


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as trade matters are concerned, of course, questions of interest to the 20 members of the organization can be discussed within the O.E.C.D., which will serve as a forum for that purpose. As to larger trade questions, however, it is intended that under the provisions of GATT the forum offered by GATT for discussions shall be fully employed for that purpose. This organization is not in any sense intended to override or supplant GATT.


Lionel Chevrier: Are you going to increase tariffs, as you said you would?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have been asked -it is hardly a question but an observation by the seated member for Laurier-a question in which he asked "Are you going to increase tariffs, as you said you would?"


Lionel Chevrier: At Ste. Adele.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That calls for some comment, even though the hon. member did not choose to adhere to the rules of the house in asking the question. What I did, Mr. Speaker, is to draw the attention of the Canadian public-and I am glad it has attracted some attention from hon. members opposite- to the fact that we are carrying on negotiations at Geneva at the present time. It is the periodic GATT tariff negotiating conference. Canada is represented there. We have a changed situation there, in that whereas at previous conferences the six members of the European economic community negotiated as separate countries, now they are negotiating as a community, and the situation is thus changed.
I have made it clear-and I think it is a fair position that should be taken in the interests

Inquiries of the Ministry
of the Canadian public and in fairness to all parties who are engaged in the negotiations at Geneva at the present time-that if the Six are proposing to withdraw concessions which have been of use to Canadian exporters, they cannot expect Canada to go on offering them the same concessions they have enjoyed in the Canadian market if they are going to withdraw concessions which were given to us previously as part of a bargain and exchange.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of Finance whether he recalls the last occasion on which the leader of a government of this country threatened to blast his way into the markets of the world?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I recall the last time a member of the opposition said something perfectly silly and misleading and which had no reference to fact, and that is what the hon. member has said now.


Lionel Chevrier: Are you going to increase the tariffs?



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister please advise if his department could have a bell, a buzzer or even a siren installed in the west block which could be used to notify hon. members whose offices are located there When they are required in the house?
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, at the request of the hon. member I put in a light yesterday that he might see. I may now put in a bell that he might be awakened.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and ask if she has had an opportunity to assess the relationship between immigration officials in London and Strothers Travel Service Limited regarding the false and misleading advertising for certain workmen to come to Canada. If so, could she indicate what action, if any, is contemplated?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the advertisements which are inserted in
United Kingdom newspapers by travel agencies are placed there on their own responsibility. My department has no jurisdiction over them. Our offices overseas operate under a directive from the department to at all times give proper and factual information to intending immigrants to Canada.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not think that the association of officers of her department with that type of misleading advertising is in poor taste? Can the government not take steps to ensure that such references to immigration officials are excluded from advertisements of this kind?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. We are anxious to give these people proper information, and that is the purpose of the attendance of our immigration officers at the specific points. It must be recognized that we have relatively few immigration offices in the British Isles and that inquiries come from many points other than those at which we have offices. Naturally our officers overseas are available for consultation wherever it is required.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question to the hon. lady, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give a progress report on the efforts being made by her department to restrict English immigration as announced by the Secretary of State?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has misconceived this question as a supplementary.
(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Pit Lessard (St. Henry):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister able to tell us whether the building of the Champlain bridge will be delayed to the point that the opening date will have to be postponed until 1963 instead of 1962? If so, how long will the delay be?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I cannot give any accurate date at this time. Senior officers of the national harbours board have often met with the various contractors in charge of the work, which has been delayed by the strike at the Dominion Bridge Company. Dates which had been set a few months
198	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry ago must unfortunately be revised. However I shall be in a position to say within a week when the building of the bridge will be finished.


Lionel Chevrier: You ought to put the question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce; he does not let the grass grow under his feet.


Mr. Pigeon:: He is more active than you are. (Text):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS NEWFOUNDLAND  INQUIRY AS TO RECENT PUBLICATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has had an opportunity of seeing the magnificent publication now circulating in Ottawa put out by the Newfoundland government, which seems to present the case of Newfoundland against Canada? I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he is planning to take any steps to provide members of parliament with a comparable counter to this beautifully produced document.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know it is not proper, but I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would be more in a position than I to answer a question concerning the situation with respect to Newfoundland in that connection.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister comment on a press report that the United States customs bureau has increased in an arbitrary way the valuation for duty purposes of Canadian goods in contravention of the 1956 agreement on firm valuations, and that the Canadian case has been presented too ineffectually and with too little authority?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the newspaper report but I will be very glad to look into the matter.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice
[Mr. Balcer.l

whether he is now in a position to reply to the question which in his absence I directed to his parliamentary secretary on Wednesday?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received the full report I asked for, but I am in a position to assure the hon. member and the house that there was no rioting or anything approaching rioting at Dorchester penitentiary.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The press reports are not correct?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not in their references to rioting.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the orders of the day are called I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the statement made last night by the leader of the house I should like to ask the minister whether it is his intention to give notice of motion shortly for the setting up of the committee on broadcasting. If so, will he consider framing the motion in such fashion as to carry out the undertaking he gave to the house when the bill was before the house, that the operations of the act would be given priority in such an investigation?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, that will be done in the immediate future, and I think the terms of reference will be wide enough to include all matters concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would the minister consider not making the terms so wide that priority is not given to the carrying out of the undertaking?


An hon. Member:: What do you want?



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
PERIOD; TO INCREASE AGGREGATE AMOUNT;

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-42, to amend the National Housing Act -Mr. Walker-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1.
John Richard Garland: 
Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a very brief statement which 1 suppose I might describe, in a sense, as collateral to the specific points which are being discussed.
I observed that more than one member of the opposition, in the course of his remarks, referred, as if it were an obvious matter that we all accepted, to the fact that economic conditions are bad. I wish to challenge that suggestion.

National Housing Act
I should like, first of all, to quote some remarks of the hon. member for Nipissing and, second, to quote some remarks of the hon. member for Trinity. These hon. members are, of course, just following some of the very extreme statements made by the Leader of the Opposition to which I shall refer in a moment. The hon. member for Nipissing, just in passing, used these words:
But surely this is not the situation nor the purpose of government policy at the present time, when we are in a recession and when we suffer from a lack of growth momentum.
The hon. member for Trinity went further and said that selling houses was going to be difficult for two reasons. One was interest rates and the other, he said, was because the little man is the man who is most concerned and most upset about the uncertainty in the Canadian economy at the present time.
I have two comments to make about that. I am sorry the hon. member for Trinity is not here. It seems to me that is the kind of statement which is made at random without any real basis for it. I am utterly skeptical about it. I would add: If it were a true picture which I do not believe it is, it would be due to the fact that irresponsible statements are being made by the very people who ought to speak responsibly, including members of parliament. I wanted to refer to these two statements because they were made on the floor of the house. I should like to go on and say that they are following most extraordinary statements made by the Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have great respect, usually speaks with moderation and even with almost a certain gentleness in his tone. I can only say, as I have said before in the house, that occasionally the Leader of the Opposition seems to me like a strong temperance man who has taken one drink too many, and then he is away to the races; he does not care what he does. That is the only way I can explain the extraordinary statements made by the Leader of the Opposition the other day at a meeting of the Ontario women's Liberal association. I am quoting from an article in the Globe and Mail which is entitled "Glooming and Gloating".


John Whitney Pickersgill: An editorial?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes. It comments on the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition at a meeting of the Ontario women's Liberal association. I might interject here, in case I should forget later, that there were some much more moderate and much wiser remarks made by the new lady member from

whom we have not heard as yet. However, that is by the way. I turn now to the Globe and Mail, which says:
Again, Mr. Pearson said that unemployment was one of two problems-the other being dominion-provincial fiscal relations-that were pulling down the Diefenbaker government. He said, with obvious relish: "Collapse is not too strong a word." With equal relish, he went on to declare that no government had ever gone down so fast and so far. Even in the dust and heat of party politics, such statements are far-fetched-and unworthy of a man like Mr. Pearson.
I feel that myself. I should like to quote further from the editorial:
Does the Liberal leader really want Canadians to think, does he want the outside world to think, that the Canadian government is reeling on the edge of the abyss?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why not?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I continue:
Nonsense! The Diefenbaker government has its faults-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Its days are counted.


The Chairman:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -failings, follies; but it is quite as sound as the St. Laurent government in which Mr. Pearson distinguished himself. The Liberal leader has a perfect right to seek power for his own party, but he should not do it by selling Canada short, by making it appear that the country is poorly governed by a crumbling regime.
While bemoaning the present unemployment in Canada, Mr. Pearson offered no remedies for it; he simply said it was a bad thing, and blamed it upon the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question at this point?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman seriously think that the Leader of the Opposition is selling the country short by criticizing the government of this country in any terms he likes?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, I do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that the hon. gentleman read Mr. Drew's speeches.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am talking about the Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have great respect and who generally speaks with a sense of responsibility. I suggest, as the Globe suggests, that this remark sounds like a man without any sense of responsibility, and therefore I see fit to criticize it. I am sorry to do so when the Leader of the Opposition is out of the house.
As I said, I intend to make my remarks very brief, and should like to put forward one or two indications of realism. I refer the committee to an article in the Winnipeg Free Press, a newspaper which is not noted

for its tenderness toward this government. However, with regard to unemployment, it does use words to the effect that, although unemployment is serious in some places, it exists in the midst of national prosperity. I believe it is desirable to put that on the record because of these remarks which have been made and which obviously, if they are allowed to go unchallenged, might seem to be admitted.
I should like also to quote briefly from a speech made about two weeks ago by an economist for whom I have great respect, Mr. J. R. Petrie, who used to be with the Canada tax foundation but who now is a consulting economist. He reviews the situation since the end of the war and points out that we have had several recessions and booms. Then he says this:
Although the tempo of activity has obviously slowed down, nevertheless we are operating on a very high plateau of over-all activity. This situation, which in my view is still satisfactory, makes one wonder why there is so much discussion about impending disaster. It might be well to have a quick look at the scoreboard so far this year.
At the beginning of the year, economists were predicting a 5 to 6 per cent gain in gross national product. The revenue forecasts made last spring by the Minister of Finance were predicated upon such a rise. Seasonally adjusted GNP was $35.6 billion during the first quarter, up 1 per cent from the preceding quarter. In the second quarter, GNP was $35.0 billion, the first quarter to quarter decline since 1957. It looks now as though GNP for the year might increase by only 1 or 2 per cent. But I ask you-is this disaster? Exports are still strong. In nine months of this year the total has been 8 per cent ahead of the corresponding period last year. The rate of increase in retail sales generally has levelled off, showing only a fractional gain in eight months. Department store sales show a similar pattern. Chain store sales, however, have continued to be strong and are up 5 per cent to this point.
Then he goes on to housing construction. He is very frank about that matter.
Housing construction has been a soft spot, but then this was to be expected. Housing starts this year are down 25 per cent from the same period of 1959.
Of course at the present moment we are taking steps to try to meet that situation which he frankly points out.
I wish to put that statement on record. I suggest quite seriously, notwithstanding the question of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, that we are responsible people. I hope that in the remarks which are made there will be a sense of responsibility on both sides.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2.


Lionel Chevrier: While the minister may not agree, this clause seems to be long and complicated. In relation to the explanatory note opposite page 1, can the minister in a few
90205-6-14J
National Housing Act words just explain to the committee what is the purport of this particular amendment?


Mr. Walker:: I shall be glad to do so, Mr. Chairman. Clause 2 simply raises the loan ratio from 90 per cent to 95 per cent in all the different elements in which loans are made, and to 85 per cent instead of 80 per cent on loans for rental housing. In other words, that goes for clause 2, subclauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 which deal with rental housing for home ownership. Subclause 1 dealt with loans to defence workers. They are also eligible for loans for home ownership or for the purchase of semi-detached or duplex houses. Clause 5 enables such owners to receive an increase in such loans similar to that described in subclause 1 for the owner occupied unit and in subclause 4 for the rented unit. I might say, however, that there are very few such loans going through at this time. That stage seems to be pretty well over for the defence workers.
In subclause 6 loans to co-operative housing associations are dealt with. That is something we do not hear a great deal about, but there are co-operative housing associations carrying on, not on too large a scale. The loan amounts available are the same as other loans for home ownership. The increase from 90 per cent to 95 per cent will decrease the down payment by a further $600.
Then under subclause 7 loans to co-operative housing associations are available on semi-detached houses and duplexes when they are for home ownership. This subclause, however, will enable the co-operative housing associations and the eventual owners to secure the benefit of the increased loan ratio on half the lending value, which will decrease the down payment.
Subclause 8 permits the rental unit also to take advantage of the increase in ratio on rental loans from 80 per cent to 85 per cent. This higher ratio would be applied against the remaining half of the lending value, contributing also to a reduction in the down payment. In other words, a person who lives in his own home can get a loan ratio that is increased from 90 per cent to 95 per cent. On rental homes the increase is from 80 per cent to 85 per cent.
Then under subclause 9 of the new legislation the ratios to co-operative housing associations have also been increased by 5 per cent, which is what this subclause really implies. Down payment will be reduced and construction financing probably will be eased.
Then subclause 10 refers to rental housing financed through approved lenders and constructed by entrepreneurs. The increase in loan ratio from 80 per cent to 85 per cent

National Housing Act of lending value is designed to encourage greater participation in the provision of rental housing units under this section of the act. It will also maintain relationship of loan ratio for home ownership similar to that which has been in existence heretofore. Does that answer my hon. friend's question?


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you.


Hazen Robert Argue: As I understand the provisions here, the case the minister gave was that a person purchasing a certain house now would be obliged to put up only 5 per cent of the down payment rather than 10 per cent. He gave as an illustration in that given case that the payment would be $600 instead of $1,200. In this case to which the minister referred, can he inform the committee what is the total payment a person will have to make on the $600 that is granted to him now by C.M.H.C. rather than having to pay it himself? He pays $600 less today when he purchases the house. How much does that $600 advance cost him to finance?


David James Walker: That is a good question. I shall be happy to work that figure out. In other words, when he buys a $10,000 house he gets a loan of $9,500, which means that he must advance $500 less than he is required to advance at the present time. My hon. friend now wants to know, over a period of 25 years, 30 years or 35 years, what the extra carrying charges would be on that $500?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is right.


David James Walker: In other words, it would be $500 per year at 6-J per cent. We will work that figure out.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 2 carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: I take it that the minister is going to provide this information at a later stage?


David James Walker: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: That procedure would be satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4.
John Richard Garland: I want to ask a question with regard to clauses 4 and 5. They have to do only with the announcement that was made in October. Is that right?


David James Walker: I beg the hon. member's pardon?


John Richard Garland: This particular clause and the next one have to do only with the change in the legislation that the minister announced in October?


David James Walker: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Corporation may undertake projects jointly with provinces.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I am not too sure whether the brief suggestion I am going to make will apply to clause 6. However, I understand that yesterday the hon. member for Carleton asked the members on this side of the house whether we had any suggestions to make on this bill. What I have in mind is this. I understand that under the present regulations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation there are provisions for the construction of apartments for old people with low incomes. From the information I have, the restrictions or requirements of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are so severe, and make buildings so costly, that religious or charitable organizations are unable to take advantage of this provision.
According to the present regulations, the apartments must have separate kitchen facilities, and this adds to the cost of the buildings. We have religious or charitable organizations in this country which are in a position to provide special services to look after old people who have moderate incomes or minor physical handicaps. What I suggest is required is the type of apartment which will provide good rooms with running water and even bathroom facilities, but I think such apartments should have community kitchens and community dining rooms; they could be buildings of a motel or hotel type, more or less.
I suggest to the minister that in order to make these provisions practicable the present restrictions should be lifted, and if this is done I am sure there will be many applications presented to C.M.H.C. in connection with accommodation for aged people.


David James Walker: I shall be very happy to give further consideration to that suggestion from the hon. member for Gloucester. However, clause 6 makes no reference to the subject which the hon. member is discussing at the present time. The clause deals with subsidized housing, while the hon. member is talking about limited dividend projects.
I am glad he did so, however, because I should like to take the opportunity of publicly inviting service clubs throughout Canada to take up the interests of the poor people, the elderly people and the blind people and, as special enterprises, to take upon themselves the building of limited dividend projects. This will not cost the clubs a cent in the long run. All they have to do is to

put up 10 per cent of the cost from the funds they have in hand. We shall put up the other 90 per cent.
As a result of the changes we made, and which I announced some time ago, the interest rate has been reduced from 5J per cent to 5J per cent, which is just one eighth of one per cent more than the rate at which we borrow from the consolidated fund. This is repayable over a period of 40 years, and we shall make it 50 years if necessary. Thus the service club concerned does not really lose anything. It gets back its 10 per cent and when the loan is repaid over, say, 50 years, it has the building for itself. In the meantime it creates for the members of the club a worth-while hobby, a charitable occupation through which the members are helping the poor and employing their extra energies to advantage. I cannot but advocate that every service club across Canada should take upon itself the building of a limited dividend project for poor, aged or blind people who are not as fortunate as are the members of the service clubs themselves.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I appreciate the attitude which the minister has taken on this question. I wish to remind him that in my own constituency I know of two organizations which are prepared to proceed with such construction. The objection is that the present requirements are too stiff and would make the proposed buildings too costly because, as I said, according to the present regulations each apartment would have to have a separate kitchenette or kitchen facilities, which is not practical in the case of the elderly people I have in mind.
These people have to be looked after, and there are no organizations better able to do this than the religious or charitable orders. I have in mind something in the nature of a community home where these people could have the benefit of a community dining room and a community kitchen. Many of these people are not in a position to cook their own meals and look after themselves.


David James Walker: I appreciate the point which the hon. member for Gloucester is making. It may be that our restrictions do present certain difficulties at this time and tend to create units which are, perhaps, better than some people can afford. But we do not want to get down to having communal places where people sleep in dormitories, so we insisted that the apartments should be self-contained units. However, I shall be happy to consider the suggestion which has been made.
May I take this opportunity to pay my tribute to the father of the hon. member for
National Housing Act Vancouver East, who was a pioneer in this field. I understand the son is carrying on the tradition.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the minister could say, of clause 6, that paragraphs (a) and (b) are already included in the legislation and that the only real addition is paragraph (c).


David James Walker: The hon. member for Nipis-sing is correct. The only change is paragraph (c), and the purpose is to extend the government loan to 75 per cent not only for building new units but for rehabilitating older units. Of course this will cost the government and the municipalities much less than building new units. That is the whole purport of the change.


John Richard Garland: In the same vein, I wonder if we could clear up the relationship between urban redevelopment and urban renewal. Urban redevelopment, as I understand it, involves tearing down existing units and replacing them with new. In that respect the present legislation calls for a contribution by the federal government of 50 per cent toward acquiring the land and property where the redevelopment is to take place. We on this side believe that this process should be further encouraged, and our remarks on this subject yesterday and on previous occasions in other sessions have clearly reflected our thinking on this subject, namely that the contribution of the federal government should be increased from the present 50 per cent to 75 per cent.
I appeal to the minister and through him to the government to give this earnest consideration. I know we cannot move an amendment at this point, for obvious reasons, but we should like to see the figure for the federal contribution increased to 75 per cent.
In connection with the acquisition of existing accommodation, may I say that the provision is a good one and that we support it. However, if slum clearance is not encouraged to the extent I have mentioned there might well be a tendency to renew an area which is really a slum. It is a splendid thing to make greater use of existing stocks of accommodation, but we do not want to create a situation wherein we are encouraging the renewal or protracted use of accommodation that is already in slum condition.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member for Lambton West.


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


John Richard Garland: I have one other point to raise, if I may, in connection with the amount of assistance extended in this legislation in

National Housing Act
respect to properties acquired for new construction in slum areas that are being cleared. It is our contention that the legislation at the present time does not go far enough. We would like to see it broadened in scope to include a 75 per cent contribution to sewers, water and streets for these developments. Here again, while it is impossible for us to move an amendment in that regard, we urge the minister to give cosideration to this further degree of assistance, broadening the scope of the government's aid to include these additional services.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I am in order in raising my questions under this clause, but I do not know under what other clause they could be raised, and if I am not in order Your Honour will draw it to my attention. With respect to the solution to this problem we are facing, may I ask the minister whether it is under regulations or legislation that speculative loans are not available now.
I wish to make reference to a land assembly project in Sarnia to which I referred the other day. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation made available two lots per builder for the purpose of constructing homes commencing this fall. Unfortunately for us there were only 40 lots available in that section. I was wondering whether the minister would consider making this arrangement applicable to the rest of the builders who would like to avail themselves of the opportunity of securing two lots for the purpose of construction beginning this autumn if they could purchase those properties somewhere within the residential area from which people commute to Sarnia for employment.
I think it is important that the government be made aware that today housing accommodation is required not only by people in the city but by people living from 10 to 20 miles away who commute to their employment in the city. I raise this point because a regulation was introduced some months ago to the effect that no building would be permitted in the urban areas where there are no sewage disposal facilities. The effective date of that regulation was postponed to January 1 next. I suggest to the minister that he give serious consideration to postponing the effective date of that regulation for at least another six months after the first of next year.
I have had some correspondence with the minister on this subject. These regulations naturally become effective overnight, and it would not be proper to have it otherwise. In my own area, where I am familiar with the situation, of course, I know that some of the builders purchased property at a high

price. The property was not serviced by sewers. They were, of course, hoping to build on the property, and found themselves with a great deal of land upon which they could not construct homes. Some were actually faced with bankruptcy. They were relieved to a certain extent by the postponement of that regulation. I urge the minister to seriously consider a further postponement after January 1, 1961. I personally know that some of those who have made a great contribution to our area would be under a terrific financial handicap if they were unable to make use of the property which they purchased at a high price.
Turning now to an area outside the city which could be classified as part urban and part rural, I am wondering where the dividing line is drawn with respect to the requirement for sewage disposal. In my correspondence with the minister I indicated that there are many areas in my riding where there never will be sewage disposal plants, and where as a matter of fact the soil is such that they will not be required because there is a gravel strip-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I think perhaps the hon. member's present remarks could be more properly dealt with under clause 36(e), and I would ask him to defer them until we reach consideration of that clause.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was just about finished anyway. I do not need to outline my point at greater length, except to say that I think consideration must be given to those areas outside a municipality- a city in this case-where such disposal plants will never be built, probably a strip half a mile wide and a few miles long, where the departmental engineers would ascertain to their own satisfaction that there is ample drainage for septic tanks.
Under this clause may I be permitted to ask the minister whether he would consider the feasibility of making loans available under this legislation to the owners of older homes with four or five bedrooms in order that they could acquire smaller homes. It is very difficult to resell homes of that type, especially when they are practically paid for and no mortgage is available. Could consideration be given to amending the act so these people could obtain mortgages and put their homes up for sale. The purchaser would be able to finance the deal under those conditions, and he is unable to do so on any other basis. The vendor could then acquire a new, smaller home. I suggest this is a sound idea to which consideration should be given.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I always value the suggestions of my friend the hon. member

for Lambton West, and I shall be very glad to take his suggestions under consideration.


Mr. Bourgel:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to inquire about the new subclause (c) being inserted in section 36 of the existing legislation. The subclause reads as follows:
(c) the acquisition, improvement and conversion for housing purposes of existing buildings situated in an area specified in an agreement between the province, a municipality in that province and the corporation as an urban renewal area.
Take a specified area on which there is an agreement. If there are historical sites with houses or buildings in it, is the improvement of those houses going to be covered by this section?


David James Walker: The hon. member's question is a very searching one. As he knows, we are primarily interested in providing houses for the poor. However, in redeveloping an area rather than acquiring it, demolishing the buildings and redeveloping it, under paragraph (c) of section 36, we have in mind that if there are any historical houses or monuments in the area we certainly will do nothing to interfere with them. That is particularly true of the province of Quebec. Some have suggested, however, that with respect to lower town and upper town in Quebec there are certain historical parts which are still used for housing. If the city of Quebec in its wisdom came to an agreement with C.M.H.C. to develop and rehabilitate those areas, provided those buildings were used for housing there would be no objection that I can see to their participating in the benefit of this addition to the act.


Maurice Bourget: The minister understood the purpose of my question. I was thinking particularly of the city of Quebec. It may happen that if an agreement is entered into between the province and the municipality and the federal government, there may be historical sites in this area that the city of Quebec would like to keep. If we are improving or renovating this area, I think it would be a good idea also to have those historical sites covered by the act.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, you come from Toronto and have a most interesting constituency, but the minister himself has perhaps the most unique constituency in the city of Toronto, ranging as it does from the high class area of Rosedale with all the wealth and prestige it represents down to the heart of cabbagetown, which I suppose is one of the areas that already has some urban renewal planning and where there has been much doing.
Can the minister not illustrate the changes involved in this clause as they would apply in
National Housing Act that particular region? I cannot find, either in his original speech or in any subsequent comments, any clear indication of the scope that is opened up by this addition to the act. Is there a tremendous demand for this urban renewal? Have we a specific example in Toronto which the minister can point out? Would this have anything to do with the Moss park project? I would appreciate the minister's explanation. I know he likes to talk about something which gives him the opportunity to play up Rosedale.


David James Walker: The hon. member for Port Arthur, who as a student at the university used to deliver beer down in my riding and knows the area well, has a very real point. For instance, in Moss park we have acquired and cleared the land, taken down everything in that area. It was necessary there, as my hon. friend will recall, because if there ever was an area which was what we call blighted it was that area and it needed to be thoroughly demolished, although if it were in Quebec we would not want to have to do that because there are historic spots there which can now be left under this paragraph (c).
In answer to my friend, Moss park was a proper site to acquire and clear out, demolish everything on it, and then start from scratch. But a little further east, in Alexander park, because of the introduction of this legislation, they have been considering the building of a limited dividend project. Now, because of the fact that it is not thoroughly blighted and many parts of it are still very good and blight has only partially set in, it is contemplated, once this becomes law, to rehabilitate some of the old and blighted houses there, probably razing others. Does that give an illustration to my hon. friend?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes. The other point I wanted to deal with is this. As the minister has probably heard-I do not think it affects his constituency-Toronto has a termite problem to a certain degree which conceivably, judging by the increasing interest, would indicate that the district would be a prime area for urban renewal. I just wonder whether these alterations would enable the government to step in and work with the municipality and the province in a substantial way in the area along the Danforth from Coxwell where you have this problem, which may be sectionally controlled in one part and not controlled in another part. In other words, my question is how big a scope is envisaged by this method?


David James Walker: It cannot be a slap-dash job, where we can go along and dab a little here and a little there. The street to which the

National Housing Act hon. member refers is a high class street, and perhaps that would not be the one to use as an example. Let us take Queen street. There are parts of it in the centre of Toronto where we are not suggesting that we just come along and rehabilitate an odd house. This happens to be an area which is badly run down, but not sufficiently to raze it entirely, where you can take the whole area and have an urban renewal program carried on by the rehabilitation of already existing houses as distinct from what we have had to do in urban renewal projects by acquiring the land, razing the buildings and erecting new buildings. It has to be a substantial area.


Maurice Bourget: Would the minister care to indicate exactly the old sites he was talking about that would be covered by the act?


David James Walker: If the old sites such as my hon. friend has described in the province of Quebec and which I can visualize, having spent some time there as a student, fulfil the qualifications of the regulations and the act and are situated in an area which is sufficiently run down to necessitate the city of Quebec, in conjunction with the dominion government and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, redeveloping it on the basis of rehabilitation rather than razing and then building anew, then such areas would certainly be considered. But I doubt whether there is anything in the act to permit us to make any grants for the preservation of monuments. My hon. friend will appreciate that there are other sources of funds for that purpose.
We are interested purely in housing, but there may be housing, as my hon. friend knows, in Quebec, very historical houses also, which could be rehabilitated and continued in use as housing. I am not referring to Montcalm's house because that is being used at the present time as a store, but take that as an example. If Montcalm's house were being used for housing at the present time I would think it would be an excellent example. If that area were being used as an urban redevelopment project it would be an excellent example of what we can do under the act. Does that answer my friend?


Maurice Bourget: Yes.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a final question on clause 
6. Is it right that if houses which are considered as historic sites are not used for housing purposes they will not be included under subclause (c)?


David James Walker: That is quite right and they also would not be included if they were used as houses unless they were in an area where an urban redevelopment project had been started.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister inform me if clause 6 provides any further benefits toward the solution of the Trail and district urban redevelopment scheme?


David James Walker: As I understand it, Trail has a blighted area and has had an urban study made. However, Trail has not yet made application for urban redevelopment. When it does consideration can then be given to the two programs, whether under the old act the properties should be first acquired and then the whole area razed and cleared or whether under the new subclause (c) the buildings that are already there should be rehabilitated.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I understand there has been a rather unusual delay in this matter owing to the difficulty in getting the Canadian Pacific railway to assume a reasonable percentage or possibly the total percentage of the cost of removing their tracks. Would this new legislation provide some assistance in such circumstances?


David James Walker: I can assure the hon. member we will certainly not be making any contribution to the C.P.R. for the removal of their tracks.


Mr. Carter:: Would the minister be good enough to inform the committee what the present position is regarding the land assembly project at St. John's?


David James Walker: I do not know whether the study there has been completed. St. John's has a very wonderful mayor in Mayor Mews and he is very interested in this matter. The study is in the process of being made at the present time and I think it is almost completed. When the study is completed St. John's will have the same opportunity as Trail to consider which of the two proposals would be most acceptable. Does that answer the question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will recall that last year he tabled some correspondence about this matter and there were some exchanges in the house about it. At that time the minister made some rather extravagant claims about this project and I should like to read what the minister said as found on page 2141 of Hansard for March 16 last:
I am glad the hon. member-

Referring to the hon. member tor Burin-Burgeo.
-asked his second question. I think very highly of Mayor Mews of St. John's. It is true that we have two law suits pending with the province of Newfoundland, one of them concerning Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I have arranged with Mayor Mews-[DOT]
Note these words.
-to have the Royal bank guarante th paymnt for which the province is responsible and, as well, the city of St. John's has made itself responsible so we are no longer dependent on a provincial government upon which we have not been able to depend in the past. We are going ahead at a cost of 75 per cent to ourselves to investigate a very important land assembly project in connection with St. John's where there is a great dearth of housing at the present time.
Those were the minister's own words last March. The minister had personally arranged the financing with the Royal bank, according to his own statement. He recognized there was a great dearth of housing and this thing was going ahead in a great hurry last March. The minister does not seem to know now what is the situation. Perhaps he can enlighten us.


David James Walker: You know, Mr. Chairman, this is another example of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate talking off the top of his head. He is not even talking about the same project.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege is that I was not expressing my own words at all. I was reading words that were uttered in this house by the minister and then asking him to account for his own words. I have no doubt whatsoever that the minister was talking off the top of his head when he uttered those words but when the minister comes in here and on his responsibility as a minister of the crown tells this house-*


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, what is the question of privilege? My friend is still wrong. He is talking about the wrong thing.


Charles Edward Rea: I should like to hear what is the question of privilege.


David James Walker: The speechmaking at the banquet is over.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question of privilege is that the minister was, in a fashion which has now become habitual with him, deliberately misrepresenting something said by someone else in the house.


David James Walker: If I may tell the Chair why the hon. member is talking off the top of his head, I would point out that he is talking about a land assembly project. He probably does not know the difference between a land assembly project and an urban renewal
National Housing Act development. The land assembly project is not affected by the bill before us today and has nothing to do with the bill. It is something separate. However, for the information of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who knows more about yachts than he does about houses, may I tell him that a land assembly project is one in which a municipality, in this instance St. John's, applies to the federal government for assistance in making an investigation to see whether a certain area designated by them is a proper one for a land assembly project. We subscribe 75 per cent of the cost of that investigation. I appreciate this is the first time my friend has ever heard of it but perhaps I might carry on and explain to him a further distinction between that and an urban redevelopment project.
In so far as an urban redevelopment project is concerned, you take a blighted area and you decide whether it will be acquired, cleared and then built upon or, as under paragraph (c), it will be acquired and then rehabilitated. A land assembly area is designed to be built upon. I hope that the hon. member, perhaps for the first time, appreciates the distinction between the two. Does he? If so I will go on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister having asked me a question, I will answer it. I am most grateful to him for his lecture on the elementary principles of the act, which was not what I was asking about at all and in which I was not particularly interested. The point at issue here is that there is a project under the National Housing Act about which the minister gave certain information and which involved an agreement with the provincial government or an agency of the province. This is the kind of agreement with which this clause deals. The minister gave out certain information about this last March. We want to have that information brought up to date. It is not necessary for the minister to start a diversion about whether it is one kind of development or another kind of development. It is one of those developments which involve an agreement with the province or an agency designated by the province.
Of course the minister did, as all hon. members are well aware, misinform us about one aspect of the matter. In replying to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo last March he said that the city had been designated as an agency of the province when it had not been. However, that was corrected at the last session of the legislature and the city was subsequently designated. I do not use the minister's expression, but he obviously did not know what he was talking about in that respect. He also told the house that he personally had arranged the financing of this
208	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
with the Royal bank. When the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo asked to have the correspondence on the agreement tabled, it was quite apparent from the returns, which can be examined by any hon. member, that there was no arrangement with the Royal bank made by the minister, nor was there any kind of agreement with the city.
My hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo, and on one or two occasions other hon. members, asked subsequently during the session about this development which had to do, as the minister himself pointed out, with providing housing in a city where the minister said there was a dearth of housing at that time, that is last March. Now when we ask what progress has been made in this matter the minister attempts to divert attention by giving lectures on the act itself. I suggest the minister would do well to address himself to the point before the committee.


David James Walker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, patience is a virtue. My hon. friend has been talking about land assembly projects, and I was talking about a land assembly project last March. My hon. friend has cited from Hansard the words I used at that time in connection with the land assembly project. All I said then was correct and all I have said now is still correct. My friend is talking about a land assembly project, and today we should be talking about something entirely different, urban redevelopment.
May I again say to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that the land assembly project is still under way in the city of St. John's. Of course, he does not know because he does not keep in touch with Newfoundland the way he should. They are already making a test with 50 acres to determine whether they can buy that property or expropriate it at a price which would justify government money being invested and the land development program being proceeded with, which would enable the citizens of St. John's to purchase lots at a price they could afford. That is going on at the present time. I think they are doing an excellent job. I expressed the belief that it was my fear the people who owned that land may really do themselves out of a deal by asking too much for it.
As I said, a test is being made at the present time on 50 acres to ascertain whether it is worth while proceeding with the plan or whether it is going to be too expensive. Perhaps if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would some day come down to my office I could go over housing with him for an hour so that he may know what he is talking about. It is embarrassing for me to have to come before the committee and point out to him the difference between a land assembly


project and urban renewal development. There is no similarity between the two. If I have answered, and if the hon. member persists in talking about this land assembly scheme about which he apparently has not heard since last March, then, Mr. Chairman, you should make a ruling to confine the lectures he gives here to matters which are relevant to this bill.


Mr.   Carier@: May I ask the minister if the land about which he is talking with regard to the development project is included in the land assembly project or is it a separate parcel of land altogether?


David James Walker: Oh, yes, if the project is proceeded with it will comprise more than 50 acres. This particular 50 acres is included in what will be the land assembly project if it should be proceeded with.
May I also say to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that we have a letter from the province of Newfoundland, in answer to his contention that I was misleading the committee, appointing the city of St. John's to act as its agent in this land assembly project. I can only rely on the word of the mayor, which has been confirmed by the Royal bank, that in this connection finances have been arranged with the Royal Bank of Canada. Of course, that was necessary under the circumstances since the province of Newfoundland, through no fault of its own but through the instrumentality of Premier Smallwood, has been owing Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation more than $400,000 for a period in excess of a year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister say whether the investigation to which he referred at the time this exchange took place in March has been completed, that is the investigation toward which the federal government has contributed 75 per cent of the cost?


David James Walker: It not only has been completed, but as a result of its completion, as I said a moment earlier, the city of St. John's is testing the market on that 50 acres to see if they can go further and commence the land assembly project.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The city has not yet asked the federal government to enter into any agreement?


David James Walker: Pending confirmation of the price of the land and a decision upon whether the matter can be proceeded with, quite naturally the city of St. John's has not proposed signing an agreement when there can be no agreement without a decision on the very important question of the price of the land. Does that answer the hon. member?



I960

John Whitney Pickersgill: That is an answer to that question, but I have another question. Can the minister assure the committee that the federal government has the necessary legal power under the existing legislation or that it will have it under this legislation and, if so, in what section, to enter into such an agreement with the city of St. John's, if it desires to do so? We are at the present time making some rather fundamental amendments to this statute, and it seems to me that we should be assured that the necessary legal power has been given to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or to the government to enter into an agreement if they desire to do so. Of course I am not pressing the government to enter into an agreement unless the city wants it.


David James Walker: This discussion is all totally irrelevant to the bill and the amendments to the act. Have I or have I not, Mr. Chairman, your permission to answer? It is completely irrelevant. I know this is a powerful member of the opposition; at least, he thinks so. Shall I or shall I not answer? This matter is completely irrelevant to the bill but I am willing to answer if I have your permission.


Jacques Flynn: Of course the committee is considering clause 6 of the amending bill.
I would say that discussion of the application of the act as it is, when considering the amendment, would not be relevant. But I must say that I have not been able to distinguish between the last question put by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the previous one. Of course, the minister is at liberty to answer if he wishes to do so.


David James Walker: May I do so? That is fine.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister-


David James Walker: I will write the hon. member a letter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the minister raises the point, perhaps I might be permitted to draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the terms of the new section 36 which clause 6 of this bill purports to put in the act or recommends should be put in the act. It reads as follows:
36. (1) The corporation may, pursuant to agreements made between the government of Canada and the government of any province, undertake jointly with the government of the province or any agency thereof projects for
(a) the acquisition and development of land for housing purposes;-
I myself would have thought that those words meant a land assembly project and that what we are doing in this clause is to repeal the present clause 31 and put a new clause 31 in the act just for the precise purpose which the minister in his first lectures
National Housing Act
to me said this clause had nothing to do with. It seems to me that not only does this clause have everything to do with it but there is nothing else anywhere in the act that has anything to do with it. This is the section of the act which in the past has been the existing law. My friend the hon. member for Nipissing, who knows far more about this subject than I pretend to know-


David James Walker: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -agrees with me. I would think that my friend the hon. member for Nipissing also has a considerable advantage over the minister in this regard, judging from the performance we have had from the minister up to now. But it appears that what we are being asked by the government to do in this bill is to re-enact the existing clause and to add a third proviso to it and that therefore the whole clause is before the committee, before we are asked to repeal the existing section 36 and to put a new section 36 in its place. I am sure the Chair would never for a moment consider restricting our discussion of any part of the new section now being asked to be put in the place of the old one.
The new section refers to the acquisition and development of land for housing purposes, that is to say in land assembly projects. It refers to the construction of housing projects for sale or for rent which I presume is the kind of thing that the hon. member for Port Arthur, I think it was, said had gone on in the constituency of the hon. member for Rosedale before the present hon. member for Rosedale occupied his seat in this house and which it is now proposed-and this is the only new part of it-to extend to the acquisition of secondhand houses which may be improved instead of being torn down and replaced.
The questions I am directing are to the first part of this new section 31 which was to take the place of the existing section 31. It has to do with a land assembly project. I am asking the minister if either the existing section 31 or the new section 31 that he proposes to put in its place cloak with power the government or the corporation or both or either, as far as that is concerned, although it would appear to be both, having regard to the language used:
36. (1) The corporation may, pursuant to agreements made between the government of Canada and the government of any province, undertake jointly with the government of the province or any agency thereof-
Is the minister satisfied that when this clause has been enacted and this bill has been enacted by parliament, if it is enacted by parliament, the government will have the

National Housing Act
necessary power to make an agreement with St. John's if it wishes to do so or whether some additional power will be required for that purpose.


David James Walker: I would have thought that the banquet last night would have made my friends the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate feel a little bit better than he appears to feel today. In connection with the section to which he was referring, namely section 31, may I say that section 31 of the act has nothing to do with this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to correct the minister. I at no time referred to section 31. I referred to section 36. I referred to section 36, part 1. If the minister would look at his bill, he will find it is in front of us.


David James Walker: Tomorrow morning Hansard will differ if my hon. friend does not change it in the meantime. Nine times he referred to section 31. Since my friend is taking his law degree by remote control from Newfoundland and visits that province only long enough in the summer to sail his yacht, may I go over with him section 36 which was enacted when he was a minister of the crown in 1956. The first part of this section 36 was enacted at that time and has not been changed since that time and is not being changed today. May I go over it with him just so he will be able to follow it. If he will just stop making little remarks and will concentrate, if he can, just for 30 seconds, perhaps he will be able to see this. The section reads as follows:
36. (1) The corporation may,-
That is the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
-pursuant to agreements made between the government of Canada and the government of any province, undertake jointly with the government of the province or any agency thereof projects for-
My hon. friend is now smiling. He sees it. That is fine. He sees that the provision is "with the government of the province or any agency thereof". The agency is the city of St. John's. The authority has already been given by letter from the minister that the city of St. John's may act as his agent, all under section 36 which was enacted by the government of which my hon. friend was a member. That section, however, makes provision for a land assembly project among other things. But today we are not discussing land assembly projects either at St. John's or any other place. We are discussing urban redevelopment or urban rehabilitation. I will not make any further remarks lest I invite my hon. friend to get on his feet again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister, instead of making remarks, would simply

answer the question and thus save himself and the committee a great deal of time. All I am asking the minister is this; and whatever the minister may say, Mr. Chairman, we are discussing whatever may be in these sections. The minister does not make the rules for the House of Commons as to what is to be discussed. The rules are in the rules book. When the government ask us to re-enact a section that is now in the statute, that section is open for discussion in the committee, even though the minister may prefer to have the addition to it discussed. When we are reenacting a bill, any part of the bill is open for discussion. I am not saying any part of the act that is not here is open for discussion. I am saying any part of the bill is open for discussion. This clause reads as follows:
6. Subsection (1) of section 36 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor.
I am asking the minister again whether he is quite satisfied that the new section 36, section 1, part (a), will give to the government the necessary power to enter into this agreement. I must say that it would appear from the language that it would do so but I have not the advantage of the advice of the law officers of the crown as has the minister. I am merely asking whether he is satisfied and the government is satisfied that the necessary power will be there if they wish to enter into that agreement.


David James Walker: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Peters:: I sympathize with the minister in regard to this problem. I am not sure whether he understands it completely or whether the hon. member who asked the question understands it. I do not altogether understand it either. Has any consideration been given in connection with the assembly of land to eliminating the abuses which have taken place in the past? I am referring to some of the things which have happened in Toronto and, certainly, to what happened in Sarnia. Every time the government shows any interest in redeveloping an area, speculation becomes rife. Has any consideration been given to solving this problem, either by taxation or other means, whether the renovation of old houses or land assembly programs are concerned?


David James Walker: I would point out that paragraph (a) of section 36(1) deals with land assembly; the acquisition and development of land for housing purposes. Paragraph (c), which is the only new part, deals with the acquisition and conversion of housing that already exists. The hon. member for Timis-kaming has raised a very real and important point. As the great development in housing has gone on over the last three years there

Is no question but that a lot of land developers and speculators have grabbed large tracts of land and put up the prices, making it more difficult for the little man to build a house because of the high price he has to pay for a lot. It is with the object of remedying this situation as far as possible that the government has taken advantage of the land assembly part of section 36. At the present time there is a land assembly project under way in the county of Carleton where Borden's farm was some years ago. The property is being bought up, sewers are being put in, and the land divided into lots which are then sold to the public at cost. The difficulty about this is that it can only be carried on on a limited scale and our experience has shown that people line up to buy such lots. Who do you pick? It is only possible to satisfy a certain number of the applicants, and unless such land assembly projects are carried on on a tremendous scale people who are just as entitled to get lots have to be left out.
It is very difficult for us to do anything about land speculation, as the hon. member will appreciate, because once a person has paid money for land he can hold it if he wishes in order to get a bigger price. It is a very difficult thing to deal with, but I would be very happy at any time to hear any suggestions from the hon. member designed to provide the little man with a lot at a reasonable price.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the minister one question on this. Does he see any possibility that this new addition, paragraph (c), is a step along the way toward the position where the National Housing Act and C.M.H.C. will be much more actively engaged in the field of supplying mortgages in respect of the older, used houses? This legislation now seems to open up this prospect in connection with urban renewal plans. If it is good enough for urban renewal, is it good enough for individual renewal of old property?


David James Walker: Individual renewal of property such as this depends on the home improvement section of the act. Individuals may go to the bank and get a loan of up to $4,000. Paragraph (c) does not refer to the matter at all and does not deal with mortgages, but I can assure the hon. member that the government does not contemplate going into the mortgage market or entering it as a lender, or insuring approved loans in respect of older houses, because we have all we can do to keep up with the progress of the new housing.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am disappointed to hear that. I took it from the tone of a letter I had from the minister a few months ago that he
National Housing Act was interested in this prospect of loosening up the market for housing by permitting mortgage support for older houses. The fact remains that for a great many people it would be much better if they moved into an older house as their first owned home, because the valuations do tend to be lower than those on new homes. However, as the minister knows, the down payment runs to a minimum of half the value of the house. It seems to me that the suggestion I have made would be one way of loosening up the whole market for homes and getting them interchanged. I had hoped this was an indication that perhaps the next step would be to give the same opportunity to those interested in older types of houses.


David James Walker: The hon. member for Port Arthur knows that I personally am intensely interested in anything we can do to make house purchasing easier for the little man. It is a matter of funds. An enormous amount of funds is required-one third of a billion dollars last year, for example-which indicates the interest taken in housing by the dominion government.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-"University housing project" defined.


Mr. Regnier:: I should like to have some information in connection with the definition of university housing projects. The clause reads in part as follows:
"University housing project" means a project undertaken by a university to provide dormitory accommodation for students resident at that university.
I should like to know whether that would include affiliated colleges. In Manitoba we have five or six colleges which give instructions leading to university degrees and these colleges are affiliated with the University of Manitoba. In my constituency we have two colleges, St. Boniface college for boys and St. Joseph's college for girls, and these institutions do have a definite need of borrowing facilities. I should like to know whether they are included in this provision for obtaining loans.


David James Walker: I want to thank the hon. member for St. Boniface for his inquiry. We should like to do everything, we should like to lend money to everybody in this field if we could afford it. Once again, however, it is the taxpayers who have to put up the money for these things, or we have to go to the public market to borrow the money, and there is a limit to the amount we can borrow in order to lend money to the universities. After consultation on this question and having talked the matter over with the

National Housing Act authorities over a long period of time we have reached the decision that we can only deal at this time with the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges- their denfinition of a university and the list they have, which, I think, numbers 37. Any member of the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges is eligible for a loan, provided, of course, that they fulfil the other terms. The hon. member for Port Arthur, for instance, has a college in his constituency. I might ask the hon. gentleman the name of it?


Douglas Mason Fisher: The Lakehead college of arts and sciences.


David James Walker: I know the hon. member is anxious that it should be eligible for a loan to build residences and dormitories. The college has an attendance of 71. He did not tell me how many dormitories he would like built for the 71 students which include men and women. We also have colleges in some of the western provinces with five, seven, 14 students, and so on. It seems a difficult thing to include any school of learning with the name college so we have been forced to accept the definition of the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges and to use their list. I would be very happy to let my friend the hon. member for St. Boniface see the list at any time.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the minister could clear up another point for us with respect to this clause. The submission of the university foundation to the Prime Minister last month included a request for legislation such as this for the purpose of constructing residences for students and housing for married students. Is it the intention of the government to have this legislation provide residences and married quarters?


David James Walker: No, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On the question of universities I appreciate having the comments of the hon. member for St. Boniface. I do not think the minister has been quite fair in his answer in this regard. I intend to move an amendment to this clause of the bill but before doing so wish to make this point.
With respect to Canada Council grants and other kinds of grants for universities the whole situation is to the advantage of the established institutions and yet this is the very time when spokesmen are crying out for the development of new institutions.
I do not know where the minister got the attendance figure of 71 with respect to the Lakehead college. It is higher than that. All these schools are manoeuvring to burst through to university or full college status.


The point is that now is the time they need to set up their facilities and get going. With respect to university grants and Canada Council grants it is a case of "them that has gets". They do not help the new institutions.
I am aware that we have a proliferation of institutions of higher education in Canada. I am also aware that the definition of "university" is a very vague thing; even vaguer is the definition of the word "college". I think it is generally agreed that we know what is an institution of higher education. We know this legislation is designed to help institutions of higher education. For that reason I wish to move;
That clause 7 be amended by inserting after the word "university" in lines 4, 40 and 41, page 3, and line 5, page 4, the phrase "or college of higher education".


Jacques Flynn: Before I formally put the amendment I should like to hear from hon. members of the committee concerning the validity of this amendment.


Lionel Chevrier: May we first be provided with a copy of the amendment? I have two different versions here.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just wrote it out.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I know, but there are two different wordings here. We would like to see the copy the chairman has.


Jacques Flynn: Surely.


Mr. Brunsden:: Mr. Chairman, the question of the validity of the amendment, it seems to me, would rest on the interpretation the minister might give us with respect to certain specific situations. If you grant me permission I should like to cite the case of Alberta. The University of Alberta is located in the wrong city. It is in Edmonton and it should have been located in Calgary, in the first place, but we also now have in Calgary the University of Alberta, Calgary branch, and frankly I am confused as to the status of the Calgary institution. I know it is affiliated with the parent university but it is not a degree-granting institution. It attracts hundreds of students who otherwise would be crowded into the parent organization in the northern city. I should like to hear from the minister as to whether or not the Calgary branch of the University of Alberta would be eligible for this assistance.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that those remarks have nothing to do with the validity of the amendment. I think we are agreed that the amendment is valid and in order. It is an attempt on our part to amend the bill. I rise to support the amendment which proposes to extend these loans.


Jacques Flynn: Would the hon. member permit me to interrupt to ascertain the view of the committee on the validity of the amendment? It seems to me in some respects that it could be taken as an initiative by a private hon. member to extend treasury expenditure. In this respect I should like to have the views of the committee. Of course, the rule is clear: initiative may come only from a minister of the crown.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I say a word with respect to the point that Your Honour has raised. It occurs to me, as I am sure it has to other hon. members, that all we are doing here and all the government is asking us to do here is to empower the government to make loans. We do not instruct the government to make loans. The government retains the discretion; it has no obligation whatsoever. All we are doing here is to define the categories of persons and I use the word "persons" in its legal sense. In one way or another what we are doing is to define the category of persons to whom these loans can be made. It does not seem to me, therefore, that this amendment could in any possible way impose any additional charge.
All this amendment seeks to do is to give the government and the corporation a somewhat wider discretion as to the persons to whom these loans can be made. If on the other hand we were allotting a certain sum of money for these loans and the hon. member for Port Arthur had moved an amendment to increase that sum of money I think that would have been beyond his competence or that of any private hon. member, but as long as the government retains its discretion and is asked to lend money to categories of persons other than those included in the bill as it would seem to be provided for in the original wording it would not seem to me to be open to the objection about which Your Honour raises a question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, when I referred to the validity of this amendment I based my statement on the wording of the next clause, "The corporation may with the approval of the governor in council make a loan." All we are doing is giving wider powers of discretion as was mentioned by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, may I say this. In my humble opinion you are right in your interpretation of this matter. It is a matter introduced by a private member by way of an amendment which affects very much indeed the amount to be expended under this bill. If this extra class were included it would increase very greatly the amount of the expenditures and, of course, this money
National Housing Act has to be raised either by loans raised in the public market or by extra taxation. Therefore, I would think that your suggestion would bring an end to the suggested amendment.
In respect of this matter, I say, without at the moment dealing with the important feature which makes it out of order-out of courtesy to the hon. member for Port Arthur -if we added "or college of higher education", what would be the interpretation of that class? Perhaps a group of us could get together tomorrow with the definition we have here and establish a college of higher education.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Will the minister define a university for me?


David James Walker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat asked for a definition of university. May I say that by "university" we understand an institution of higher learning holding this status by provincial statute or royal charter, having the power to confer degrees. In this instance we, as a rule of thumb, are taking cognizance of a list of universities recognized by the national council of Canadian universities.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I put a question to the minister purely for information. The minister is aware of course because he is a distinguished graduate of the University of Toronto-


David James Walker: Thank you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -that that university and several others are composed of a number of colleges. It happens that in the case of the University of Toronto most of those colleges are also universities. But in the case of the University of Manitoba, to which I belong, most of those colleges, including St. Boniface college, which was mentioned by the hon. member for St. Boniface, are not universities. If the restricted interpretation given by the minister to this phrasing were to be followed it would mean that only residences erected by the corporations of degree-granting universities, and not those erected by their affiliated colleges, would be eligible for those loans. I cannot believe that that is the intention of the government. I am not seeking to be the least contentious here; I am trying to And out what the real facts are. I would have thought that the purpose of the government in proposing this was to do two things. If I understood the minister's original speech, one was to meet the real need for those additional residences, and the other was to provide as quickly as possible the maximum amount of employment.

National Housing Act
The addition to St. Boniface college, of which I saw the illustration in a newspaper I think only this morning, will provide, for its size, just as much employment as if it had been built by the University of Manitoba. It seems to me, from the point of view the government really has in mind, the minister would not wish-of course, I recognize that definition is not in the act; the minister was just trying to provide us with a convenient definition-to have it restricted in this way.
I admit I am also a little troubled, as the minister was, by the definition that would be given to "college of higher education". But, as I pointed out when we were discussing the point of order, all that this would do, if parliament enacted it in whichever form, would be to give the government the faculty of making those loans. It would not oblige the government to give any loan unless the government, the corporation, or whoever has the final decision in this matter, decided that the institution was a proper subject for the loan. Therefore, it seems to me that, considering that the government is also taking the power that it is asking for under the proposed new section 36D, it will be open to the governor in council, when it is put into the act, to define precisely what kind of institutions will be qualified under this legislation. In a sense, therefore, it might perhaps seem that the hon. gentleman's amendment would be unnecessary. But I think, in order to indicate that parliament really wants-and I am sure the government does, too-these loans to be made to affiliated colleges as well as to the university corporations themselves, if the government could adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Port Arthur, or something perhaps like it or slightly different that would meet the point even more precisely, I think it would better express what we unanimously really want to accomplish in this provision.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, in the first place I think the point of order is well taken. I suggest that a ruling in that connection would dispose of this matter; for if there were to be inherent in the rights of hon. members the right to extend the ambit of expenditures, then indeed the whole basis of constitutional government would end.
However, aside from that question, I should like to refer to the brief that was submitted by the Canadian universities foundation. I am going to start by saying that the opening words are these:
Submission concerning federal grants to Canadian universities and colleges submitted to the Prime Minister of Canada.

Then, it goes on to say in the first paragraph:
The experience of the past 10 years has shown beyond cavil or contradiction the beneficial effects of federal assistance to Canadian universities and colleges.
Further, when it comes to the recommendations, we find on page 10:
That an amendment be introduced to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation legislation and regulations to allow the corporation to lend money on 30-year mortgages to the universities at a rate of interest no higher than that paid by the government on its own long term obligations, to permit the universities to construct residences for students and housing for married students.
Further on in the presentation the following appears on page 16:
The construction of student residences has been greatly aided by The Canada Council, but since these grants are available only on a matching basis, it has been difficult to proceed as rapidly as is necessary with the construction of residences. Our fourth request, then,-
That is the one I just read.
-would provide capital for that portion of residence costs not covered by The Canada Council.
The construction of additional student residences is a matter to which the universities are giving serious attention, believing that the advantages of life in residence are no small part of the educational process. For the institutions in small centres of population, more residences are essential if any expansion of numbers at all is to take place. For those in large cities, the only alternative to becoming "commuters' colleges" is to augment the existing residences.
And so it goes.
The average accommodation now available, as reported from 26 Canadian universities and colleges, is only 19 per cent of their student enrolment: barely enough, in other words, for the students from outside the province if they left out those from their own province altogether.
And so it proceeds. We are endeavouring by this particular amendment to answer the request that was made to the extent that it should cover Canadian universities. With respect to the distinctions raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I would say that each one of the colleges to which he makes reference as a college is indeed within the definition of a university. I suggest that there be no alteration made in this clause in the event that you, Mr. Chairman, hold that the amendment is within the authority of a private member. I submit first that it is not and, if you hold to the contrary, that the expansion and extension asked for in the amendment would bring about a condition of affairs in the interpretation of the word "college" which was never intended to be effective and which would mean a tremendous increase in expenditure without the corresponding benefit that all of us desire.

(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, following
the statement which has just 'been made by the Prime Minister, I should like to say a word or two on the subject of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). The point which has been raised and which the Prime Minister has just dealt with is whether the words which have been added, namely "or colleges of higher education" are of such a nature as to increase the expenditures of the crown, as under the rules of the house, an amendment involving additional expenditures cannot be moved by a private member.
Still on the point of order, it seems to me that in introducing this bill it was the government's intention to include not only universities as such, but also affiliated colleges, such as a great many classical colleges across Canada, not to mention only those existing in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, the mari-times and even in the western provinces.
There is a whole class of colleges to which I think the act should apply. Now the hon. member who has just moved the amendment apparently had some doubts and therefore wanted to clarify the meaning of the word "university". I am no authority on the matter, but I note that the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion) is in his seat, and knowing he has dealt in the past with the matter of universities and their definition, I think perhaps he might enlighten the house as to whether or not the word "university" also includes classical colleges across Canada.
If the government's intention was to include in this definition colleges affiliated to universities, then I think the amendment is in order, because it does not increase the expenditures to be incurred by the crown.
I therefore suggest, contrary to the point made by the Prime Minister, that the amendment is in order unless you, Mr. Chairman, or the Secretary of State, can say to the house that the act as it stands includes classical colleges or colleges affiliated to universities.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Order. I have permitted the discussion to go beyond the strict question of the validity of the amendment because I think the comments on the merits of the amendment have been helpful to me in judging the bearing of the amendment in relation to the general rule that no private member can propose a motion involving the expenditure of public money. That principle, of course, is not under discussion.
National Housing Act
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has put forward the view that section 36B only gives authority to the governor in council to make a loan and that therefore the amendment does not in itself increase the amount. I can hardly accept that view because it seems to me that simply the possibility of an increase in the amount would be sufficient to rule the amendment out of order. There is, of course, an obligation on the governor in council to retain some discretion as to the amount of money to be lent for university dormitories and it seems to me that just the possibility of an increase in the amount is sufficient to rule the amendment out of order.
On the other hand, the hon. member for Laurier has explained that in his view the word "university" includes colleges. If it does, the amendment would add nothing and therefore would be out of order for that reason. If, on the other hand, it does add something it seems clear to me that the Chair must take the view that the amendment is out of order because of the principal I have just outlined.
I would refer the committee to paragraph 3 of citation 246, page 207 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, which reads in part as follows:
In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
Therefore if there is any possibility that the amendment enlarges the scope of the terms used in the bill I would think that the Chair has to rule the amendment out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to say one word on the ruling you have made? You have indicated that if the word "university" has the meaning which has been suggested by the member for Laurier then the amendment is not necessary. However, we have a definition which has been given to us by the minister and according to my understanding at least it does not include colleges that are affiliated or are otherwise known as classical colleges. What is the true meaning of the word? I am unable to say and I have asked the Secretary of State if he would not help us. He has not replied. I wonder whether the Chair could not give us the meaning so as to indicate whether or not affiliated colleges are covered. If they are, that ends the matter; if they are not, I am certainly going to support the amendment.


Jacques Flynn: I think I took this argument into consideration when I gave my ruling because I explained I did not consider the definition given by the minister. I said that if the word "university" includes colleges, as
216	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act suggested by the hon. member for Laurier, then the amendment is useless and should be ruled out of order on that ground but that if it does add to the term then I certainly must rule that only the crown can take the initiative in asking the house to spend the money of the treasury. Therefore, whatever the view of the hon. member for Laurier is as to the definition which can be given to the term "university" the amendment has to be ruled out of order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have here the dominion bureau of statistics publication and reference papers, Canadian institutions of higher education, and how one could clearly put forward the idea that this means it is to be restricted to universities under the definition given by the Minister of Public Works is beyond me. It is far too narrow. I believe the Prime Minister indicated that it was the smaller places that needed the residences, yet this definition plays right into the hands of the largest universities. If the minister would check this publication he would find there are a great number of institutions of higher education in Canada, in terms of numbers not in terms of students, that are not universities.
I cannot, for the life of me, see that the actual word "university" means much. What we want to do is help in developing institutions of higher learning, whether they are in Calgary or St. Boniface or Brandon or, for example, Waterloo college. So far as I know this college does not have university status at this time, yet it has one of the fastest developing engineering schools in the province. It is going to be one of the great colleges in the future. If we are going to have a definition and interpretation which means that the Canadian universities foundation says this is a university, then we are not going to get anywhere. This will be fine for Toronto, McGill and Queen's, but what about these small places that are on the move. I would think that cities such as Regina, Calgary, Port Arthur, Fort William and Sudbury, could get little comfort from this definition. Lord knows, the problem in Quebec is even more severe where they have only two universities.
I should like to point out also that the question of whether a college is degree granting does not mean too much. There are a number of colleges in Canada that have the authority to grant degrees that have not been granting them in recent years. There are others which may have affiliation with older, established universities and which train students for two or three years in university courses, but those students may take their degrees in another place. The importance of residences in these smaller places is just as
[The Chairman.]

great as it is for the big, fat cats of universities. It seems to me we should be very interested to note this move. This means that the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William cannot count on getting any help from this source until they get the provincial government to declare their college a university.
It seems to me that some of the members from Quebec and the maritimes, where there are a lot of colleges and not so many universities, should be disturbed by the limitation in this bill as it has been interpreted by the minister. If the junior colleges are as important as the late secretary of state for external affairs said, then residences for these places are just as valuable, perhaps even more valuable because the students are younger than, on the average, in university courses. There is no sensible reason at all for this limitation unless the minister says the government has not enough money. This seems to be the only answer, that the government has not enough money.
If this program is just going to pump money into the old, established universities I would have thought the older, established universities such as Queen's, which has been building residences on its own for a long period of time, would be in a much better position financially to continue with a program for additional residences than some of the new places that are trying to get going. These are the ones that really need the loans rather than universities. The minister's argument seems to be that it is the old, established institutions that the government can afford to give money to at the present time, and not the newer ones that are getting under way developing.
I should like to point out to the minister, speaking of home territory, that the Lake-head college of arts, science and technology has qualified for a grant from The Canada Council and yet, under the minister's definition, does not qualify under this measure. If The Canada Council is willing to give them a grant toward the building of a fairly elaborate library structure, then it seems nonsensical to me that the government is not willing to lend them some money-it is not giving, it is lending-so that they can consider starting on a most important part of any college or university. I am most disappointed in this interpretation of this section which we have had today. I will be extremely surprised if there are not members in this house from all parties, and especially from Quebec, who are not disappointed at the limitations about which we have learned this afternoon.


Mr. Chambers:: The hon. member who has just taken his seat has said that there are

only two universities in the province of Quebec. I have two in my constituency alone, and I can think of about six.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I was thinking of the two French speaking universities.


Lionel Chevrier: There is another matter that arises, I think, out of this and to which I have given some thought while the discussion has been going on. My remarks are in elaboration of what has been said by the hon. member for Port Arthur. We in this house have on many previous occasions been given a definition of university in connection with other matters. For instance, colleges starting from junior matriculation are included in the definition of university for the purpose of federal grants. Surely it would not be the intention of the government to make a distinction, let alone cause discrimination, between colleges as defined for the purpose of federal grants and colleges or universities as defined by this bill. If there is to be a distinction between those who may apply under this section and those who are entitled to grants under the legislation approved by this parliament earlier, then there is discrimination against the classical colleges; there is discrimination against those institutions of higher learning that are affiliated with universities but are not universities in themselves. I ask the minister and the government to take cognizance of that situation, which is certainly an abnormal one, and which I am sure they would not for one moment want to condone.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to point out that if I understood the Prime Minister and the minister correctly-I am not sure that I did because it seemed to me they were extremely obscure and almost contradictory -I can illustrate my point very easily. In the University of Manitoba there is an institution called United College which has not the power to grant degrees and is not a university. In the University of Toronto the United Church has a college which is called Victoria College and which is part of Victoria University. It has the right to grant degrees, although it does not grant them. If I understand the minister correctly, Victoria College can get loans for its residences and United College in Winnipeg cannot. If that is the intention of the government, then I am against it. I am sure everybody from Manitoba will be against it. I am sure everybody from any other university which is placed in the same situation as Manitoba and has an affiliated college which cannot grant degreees will be against it.
If we misunderstood the minister and he really means to take the definition used for
National Housing Act the purpose of university grants, which includes all those affiliated colleges, then surely we should make that clear in the legislation. We should not leave it to section 36D under which the governor in council may make some order in council that may not appear for a month and, indeed, may not even be passed for months because they will overlook it as they have overlooked the transfer of the various branches of agriculture and northern affairs to the forestry department.
What we should do is to make this bill clear, make clear what we really mean by "university". If we mean university as it is defined in the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act-that is not the place for it incidentally but that is where it is now -or if we want to define "university" as it is defined there, it seems to me that it would fairly well cover what the hon. member for Port Arthur had in mind, what those of us on this side of the house had in mind and what I thought the government had in mind but what I was really quite astonished to discover they apparently did not have in mind. But I do not think this situation should be left obscure. If the minister can clear it up I shall be very happy.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want briefly to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Arthur and others with respect to this proposal. I cannot see the objection from the point of view of the government. The total amount of loans that may be made under this bill is limited to $50 million. All we are asking is that these smaller institutions- and we have a number of them in British Columbia other than the University of British Columbia-which would not be eligible under the bill as it now stands but which are providing a necessary service to outlying parts of the province. We in this group believe in diversification of opportunity for country people as well as for those who live in the larger centres. I wholeheartedly support the amendment that was ruled out of order and the remarks made by those who have spoken previously on this question.


Mr. Lambert:: There is one thing here that bothers me in the spirit of what hon. members opposite are attempting to do and it is this. The stated purpose has been for university residences and there is where the great crying need has been. If we get into the realm of colleges, you are going to have to have a book to define what are colleges.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You have it already.


Norman Platt Lambert: Colleges exist under varying guises in various provinces. There are colleges which are, I may say frankly, no more or

National Housing Act
no less than partly junior high schools and high schools. Is that the purpose of the legislation?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Norman Platt Lambert: You would have them under the interpretation of colleges of higher learning or higher education. I know some in my own province that go down as low as grade 8, where they take 13-year old students. That is not the purpose of these loans. What we are looking for and it has always been stated and it is certainly in the brief put forward to the government recently, is assistance for universities. Surely we must stick to that assistance. Otherwise we are going to get into trouble. In Alberta we have on the statute books legislation for many junior colleges. Are they to be encompassed in this legislation, or are we going to leave the defining of what are to be covered by this act to some other legislative body? I would suggest to the members of this committee that we stick to what is the definition of a university in the university grants act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what we are asking for.


Norman Platt Lambert: There are bodies called colleges. I am a graduate of Oxford University; but the degrees which I received were from a college of that university.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Norman Platt Lambert: I beg to differ with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. It was not the university which granted me my degree.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member had better read it again.


Norman Platt Lambert: I will put it to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of this committee that it is quite clearly understood what are universities and that these loans should be limited to universities.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just wanted to point out that St. Patrick's College in Ottawa is listed in the d.b.s. reference paper as providing degree courses in arts and science including honours, commerce and social science, professional school of social work leading to masters degree and social work institute and social action. This is a constituent college of the University of Ottawa retaining autonomy of faculty and administration. Could you say that St. Patrick's College is eligible for residences? Does it need them?
I should like to refer the minister to Waterloo college and associate colleges. In one of the seminaries there are several three-year courses leading to a Bachelor of Divinity degree. The other colleges have degree courses 
in arts including honours. The degrees are granted' by the University of Western Ontario with which the college is affiliated and so on. We have all kinds of these arrangements. As a matter of fact in the university college world in Canada we have a fantastic number of different arrangements and affiliations and degree-granting situations.
I followed fairly well the argument of the hon. member who just spoke. It seems to me that it is this. The funds that are available are going to be limited just to universities or what we know as universities. This seems to me to be a great boon for the University of Toronto, Queen's University, Western university or even the new university at Sudbury. However, it is quite likely to mean that a great number of colleges in Canada are going to be running around getting their names changed through provincial charter to universities because actually the name "university" does not mean too much specifically. Traditionally it used to mean an association of colleges or faculties which, I think you will agree, taught a spectrum of knowledge. But today Victoria University, for example, as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate mentioned, teaches no spectrum of knowledge. It counts on getting the training in science and history and so many other subjects from the university proper. Yet it holds itself out as a university. There is hence a very indistinct line or distinction as to what is a university.
The minister seems to put forward the idea that it is whoever is a member of the Canadian universities foundation. I wonder whether that is exact enough or good enough. For these reasons I wish to suggest to the minister that if he thinks this legislation is going to take until five o'clock he might consider letting this particular clause go and come back to it with perhaps a more concrete or exact definition of just how his officials project the definition and what colleges or universities in Canada would be eligible for this kind of assistance. I know that I want to vote for this part of the bill.
I think it is great. However, I do not want to support it if it is going to have the narrow interpretation that it seems to be getting.


David James Walker: If the higher education regulation is a narrow interpretation, then we must plead guilty. But this submission has been made by the Canadian universities foundation by the Right Rev. Monsignor Legare, rector of the University of Ottawa and he made it very ably on behalf of the Canadian universities foundation, that an amendment be introduced; and I quote:
That an amendment be introduced to the Central Mortgage and Housing legislation and regulation to allow the corporation to lend money on 30-year

mortgages to universities at a rate of interest no higher than that paid by the government on its long term obligations to permit the universities to construct residences for students and housing for married students.
With the tremendous call on us for loans of this kind, which the monsignor estimated would be in the neighbourhood of $73 million, we are setting up a fund of $50 million in order to start to try to take care of it. After all, there is a limit to what the taxpayers of Canada can afford. There is no discrimination here. All we are trying to do is this: we are thinking of educating the son of the lady on the back concession. It does not matter what university he attends, as long as it is a university where a high degree of education is given, and all we can do, because we are limited in the funds we have, is to back those universities in connection with which there is no question as to their standards. It is not any closed corporation. It is a question of whether those universities qualify to be included in the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges. The United College of Winnipeg, Manitoba, about which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has spoken, is, of course.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should just like to ask the
minister one question-


David James Walker: One moment. I should like to finish the answer I am giving. The hon. member has not been entirely quiet. Those institutions qualified to receive assistance would be institutions of higher learning holding this status by provincial statute or royal charter and having the power to confer degrees.
The hon. member for Edmonton West in his able address indicated that there are all kinds of colleges across Canada. Many of them deal with students who enter after the eighth grade, and that is high school standard. If the hon. member for Port Arthur had his way, every institution, provided it wanted to call itself a college, would get a loan.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is not true.


David James Walker: We only have $50 million here and the Right Rev. Monsignor Legare-


Lionel Chevrier: The Very Reverend.


David James Walker: The Very Reverend? The rector, let me call him, then, of the University of Ottawa, has pointed out that if this request were granted for these universities of higher education $73 million would be required. Now we have $50 million at the present time, and to be frank with the hon. member for Port Arthur, who seizes on every opportunity to make political
National Housing Act hay-and I do not blame him for doing so -we cannot go any farther at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But how far is the minister going? That is precisely what we are trying to find out. The minister has contradicted himself. He gave a definition of a university just now-it was an institution incorporated by royal or provincial charter and qualified to grant degrees.


An hon. Member:: Provincial statute.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very well, incorporated by provincial statute or by royal charter. That includes the University of Manitoba but it does not include United College. On the other hand, he said that in the Ust he had of the national conference United College was included. I have no authority to speak for the hon. member for Port Arthur, but I think he and I are driving at the same thing. Could we be assured that the minister means every institution belonging to the national conference of universities and colleges; that is what we are concerned about. They are the same institutions that get the federal grants. If that is what the government means, why not say so in the act? We do not want high schools to be included in this or, at least, I do not believe anybody does, but we do not want any discrimination against St. John's College or the United College of Winnipeg. I take my own university-


David James Walker: The United College is included.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not a university according to the definition the hon. gentleman gave of a university, and when the minister can confuse himself so much in giving an explanation surely we should have the legislation made clear so that the minister may not confuse his colleagues when he comes to make the regulations in the secrecy of the cabinet.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The college in my constituency in which I am particularly interested is affiliated with the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges but it is not a university; at the present time it is not granting degrees. I wanted specifically to see this bill made more specific. It is not a matter of trying to subsidize every high school that wishes to set up some kind of residence. My attempt at amending the definition was not an attempt to get more money spent, particularly. It was to open the way for colleges of higher education.
Having heard the minister's explanation I insist that we are still up in the air regarding which institutions are affected by this bill and we can only fear the worst if the minister bases his argument most of the time on the

National Housing Act
Canadian universities foundation. I have nothing against the foundation, but it is a pressure group, a lobby group formed by the larger Canadian universities to assist them in putting forward their case. That is fine, but it does not cover all the colleges which belong to the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges. They are not identical at all. We find the minister talking about the national conference one minute and about the Canadian universities foundation the next.
I feel the minister has himself been confused about just how far this measure goes. I should like to be able to say to the people in a place such as the lakehead: here is an example of government legislation which you may use if you want it. According to one of the standards here, that is, the national conference, they are affiliated and they will be all right. But if you go by the Canadian universities foundation, the other definition used by the minister, they are out on a limb. Let us have it cleared up.


David James Walker: The hon. member for Port Arthur is always eloquent though not always logical. The national conference of Canadian universities and colleges includes the affiliates of those universities, for instance, the University of Manitoba, of which the United College is an affiliate. The United College is, of course, included. Then there is the University of Toronto, of which the hon. member for Port Arthur is a graduate and it is included in this list of the national conference of Canadian universities with its affiliated colleges-St. Michael's college, Trinity college, Victoria college and so on. There does not seem to be any confusion here.
The national conference of Canadian universities and colleges is made up of universities which pass the test of the definition which we are adopting. I do not see how I can make it any simpler than that. That does include the affiliates where those affiliates are within the purview of the definition I have given. There has already been a ruling on this, Mr. Chairman, and no matter how much I may keep on talking here this is the issue. This is the request we have had. We are complying with the request and we are going as far as we can to satisfy the demands of undergraduates for accommodation in order that they may obtain the best possible education.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to move on to another aspect of this discussion and I make reference now to section 36B, although we are still on clause 7.


Charles Edward Rea: I understand we are discussing the individual sections. Perhaps you might continue.


Lionel Chevrier: We are on clause 7.


Charles Edward Rea: Yes, but we are on
section 36A. We are going by sections, I understand.


Lionel Chevrier: What I wish to discuss has to do with section 36B and I will reserve my comments until later.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is one example I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. I have here the third annual report of The Canada Council which deals among other things with its university capital grants fund. The council is an institution not directly under the government but it is sponsored by the government and it reports annually to the House of Commons. On page 7 of the report it is indicated that the council may make grants from the university capital grants fund in accordance with the principle and regulations already established and that further consultations with the universities have been held through the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges and the Canadian universities foundation.
On the next page are listed the grants made. One grant was made to Notre Dame College of Nelson, British Columbia, in the amount of $32,700. The Canada Council thought that was a college deserving of a grant of that size which is a large size grant when you consider the size of the institution.
When you examine the register of British Columbia colleges of higher education some information is given about Notre Dame College. It indicates that it offers a two-year course in liberal arts and science from British Columbia junior matriculation. It is affiliated with a college in Spokane, Washington. My question to the minister is this. Notre Dame College qualified and received money. Obviously it was approved by the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges but would it qualify for a loan for residences under this clause?


David James Walker: No, I would not think so.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied with the explanation of the minister to the effect that St. Boniface college is included. It was one of the first colleges affiliated with the University of Manitoba, I believe in 1873. There are four or five colleges in greater Winnipeg on the same basis. If United College is included I am satisfied that they will all be included now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I had not understood at anytime that there was any agreement in the committee that we were going to adopt these proposed new sections of the act separately because they are all

part of a single scheme and they are all comprehended in a single clause of the bill. I did not think there was any agreement to that effect in the committee and I do not think it is desirable under the circumstances. This problem of the definition of a university occurs in 36A and again in 36B. It seems to me we cannot by adopting 36A imply that we are satisfied with it and then seek to do something about 36B. I do not feel the committee should be asked to approve until we have discussed all the new sections and then we should be asked to approve the whole clause.


Charles Edward Rea: The Deputy Speaker indicated to me that that is what was suggested. However, it does not make any difference to the Chair. I am agreeable to whatever the committee wishes to do.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a situation which I feel is abnormal and which I am sure he would not want to have occur. I will cite the following example. At the college of Rimouski a residence is currently being built for the students of the two last years of the B.A. course. Ostensibly under this legislation this college would not be covered and they could not apply for a loan for the purpose of assistance in that construction. I understand, on the other hand, that the same thing is going on at McGill University and unquestionably that construction would be covered. That is why I say the situation is anomalous. With that end in view, I propose to move an amendment to section 36B, namely:
That section 36(b) be amended as follows:
That after the word "university" in line 5 thereof, there be added the words "as defined for the purposes of federal university grants".


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier is seeking to do what the hon. member for Port Arthur attempted to do earlier by his amendment. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur sought to add the words "or college of higher education" and therefore would have had the effect of extending the limits of the grants. The chairman found that this would have the effect of increasing the amount of money to be spent and ruled against it. The hon. member for Laurier now seeks to do the same thing by changing the words in the draft bill and substituting therefor "as defined for the purposes of federal university grants" which would also have the effect of extending the purview of the grants and would therefore be a matter in which money was involved. The amendment is therefore clearly out of order particularly since my friend the hon. member for Laurier is still in the opposition.
National Housing Act


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, there are two points I should like to make in answer to what the minister says. This amendment will not in any way increase the amount of money expended because that is already taken care of by another portion of the bill which says that the maximum amount which may be loaned is $50 million, so that it would be a question of apportioning the amount under the various clauses. The explanatory note opposite page 3 reads:
The total amount of loans that may be made under this part is limited to $50 million.
The other point I wish to make is this. I understood the minister earlier to say that in giving a definition of "university" what was intended was to follow the list of universities and colleges as defined for federal university grants. The minister will correct me if I am wrong but I understood him to say that a little earlier. If that is the case there can be no objection to this amendment.
In any event I submit with deference that the amendment would not have the effect of increasing the expenditure of the crown in any way. On the contrary, the expenditure of the crown is limited by the $50 million limitation mentioned in the explanatory note opposite page 3.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I said no such thing. The hon. member for Laurier in his amendment is dealing with some 95 institutions. He would broaden the base of this from 37, as is proposed in the government bill, to 95. It is in connection with this that a member of the opposition, dealing with a money bill, is extending the base on which that money is to be spent, and he knows very well himself that he is out of order. This is a good bill but he would do anything to muddy the waters. He would bring in all these matters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some observations on the point of order. Since the minister has told us that the institutions he intends to have covered by this bill are all the institutions that belong to the national conference of universities and colleges it so happens these are also the institutions which receive federal grants. If the minister meant what he said, that those institutions were covered by this bill, then all that the amendment my hon. friend from Laurier is moving is doing is to put that in express words in the bill.
When we move this amendment the minister gets up and says that the hon. member for Laurier is seeking to extend the scope of the bill. Do we believe the minister before the amendment was moved or do we believe him after it was moved, because the one position is the exact opposite of the other?

National Housing Act
He says this amendment extends the number of institutions from 38 to 95. If the minister really means that every institution that is eligible for grants, every institution that is a member of the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges, is to be included in this legislation, then this amendment does not increase the scope of the definition at all. If, on the other hand, the government is trying by some kind of subterfuge to cut down the number from 95 to 38, then the government is not being candid. I say that the minister should resolve this point at once.
I admit right off that if in fact the government is seeking to restrict this to 38 institutions and the amendment covers many more institutions, then there is no doubt that the hon. member for Laurier is moving an amendment which would change the purport of the bill, though I still do not think it would be out of order.
If we are to believe the minister, if the minister meant what he said when he said that all the institutions covered by the national conference of universities and colleges are covered, then the amendment of my hon. friend from Laurier precisely defines that, and the government should be glad to be rescued from the ambiguity into which the minister has placed it.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, we are not in an ambiguous position. The efforts of my hon. friend, the superb politician, and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would make it appear that way, that is all. The hon. member for Laurier, of course, was not in the chamber for part of this debate. At no time did I suggest-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, the Minister of Public Works in the debate last night as well as now acts like one of the smallest ministers on the other side of the house, small and cheap in every sense of the word. I rise, sir, on a question of privilege-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member will take his seat, since these are remarks which the Chair cannot allow.


Lionel Chevrier: They were in reply to similar remarks made by the Minister of Public Works. I rise on a question of privilege to deny what the minister has said. I have been in my seat in this house ever since parliament opened on Thursday of last week. I have left the house from time to time to go down to my office. It is most unfair on the part of the Minister of Public Works to insinuate that I am not interested in this debate, or that I am not following what is going on. On the contrary, I am and the minister should be

attending to his chores in the house rather than attacking other people, as he has been doing during the whole course of this debate.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, the member for Laurier was good enough to put in my mouth words which I never used. He said that the universities-


Mr. Caron:: Blabbermouth.


David James Walker: You are a loud mouth.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I am not as dirty as you are.


David James Walker: It is a question of definition.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Dirty mouth.


David James Walker: It is a question of definition. If the cap fits, then you wear it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Put it on your own head; you are dirty.


David James Walker: Perhaps it was inadvertence on the part of the hon. member for Laurier, but I never suggested at any time that the universities which we include in this bill included all those to whom the government gave grants. At no time did I ever mention that and Hansard will, of course, confirm it. There is no ambiguity in this. I have read the definition used by the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges. It is very simple, very plain. Here is the list of universities and colleges included in it. There can be no ambiguity.
To extend the matter in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would be to go outside this definition and to include in the total number of 38, which we have at the present time, which is really more than the $50 million will accommodate, the number of 95. That is it very simply. There is no ambiguity about anything.
I know the hon. member for Laurier would like to annoy me by making those unparliamentary remarks about me. I always consider the source and, after all, one cannot expect very much from the hon. member for Laurier whose whole career as a member for Stormont made it necessary for him to seek election in Laurier where they did not know him.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the cheapest remark this session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To come back to the measure before us, I think the minister could save a lot of the time of parliament by accepting the suggestion I am now going to make to him. In this bill he is asking parliament to allow the government and the corporation to lend up to $50 million. I think even this minister will realize that it is parliament and not the government that has

the control of the funds of the taxpayers and that what he is here is a suppliant minister before parliament. At any rate, if he does not understand that the Prime Minister does and will explain it to him.
Now, sir, we are entitled-even those of us who are in the minority were also elected to this house-to know precisely to which institutions at the present time this would be applicable. Therefore, I suggest that the minister rise in his place and without any preliminaries, or anything else simply read the list of the institutions which are covered by the word "university" as the government understands it in the legislation before the house.


David James Walker: Have I the permission of the committee to do this? I do not know.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could I suggest that the minister read that list and then table the long list of the ones which are not eligible because I want to have some evidence to show, and I think this would be it. After the minister refers to the list of 38 which he has been asked to read, I would be interested in hearing those which he regards as an extension to 95. He must know the 95 institutions which might possibly claim, which he does not want to claim. Can he table that list after he reads this one?


David James Walker: No, I have not the list of the 95; I have only the list of the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges. I did not raise the question of 95; the hon. member for Laurier did that.


Lionel Chevrier: No, on a question of privilege-


David James Walker: Somebody did on the other side.


Lionel Chevrier: -I took down the words of the minister.


David James Walker: Just a moment. If the hon. member for Laurier did not, whoever it was who did-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Hansard will show.


David James Walker: Hansard will show. I would not put words in the hon. member's mouth.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just bring this fact to the attention of the minister? In reply to the amendment which was made by myself the minister said that the scope would be enlarged by the amendment because the number of colleges would be increased from 38 to 95, so that it was the minister who made the statement and not I.


David James Walker: Fine. The amendment called for adding "as defined for the purposes of university grants", and as I understand it 90205-6-15
National Housing Act there are 95 colleges that receive university grants. Have I the permission of the committee to read the list?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


David James Walker: The list is as follows: Acadia University, University of Alberta, Assumption University of Windsor, Bishop's University, Brandon college, University of British Columbia, Carleton University, Dalhousie University, college Jean-de-Brebeuf, University of King's College, Laval University, Loyola college, University of Manitoba, McGill University, McMaster University, Memorial University of Newfoundland, University of Montreal, Mount Allison University, Mount Saint Vincent College, University of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia Agriculture College, Nova Scotia Technical College, Ontario Agricultural College, University of Ottawa, Queen's University, Royal Military College of Canada, St. Dunstan's University of Charlottetown, St. Francis Xavier University, St. Joseph's University, Saint Mary's University, university of St. Michael's college, University of Saskatchewan, university of Sherbrooke, Sir George Williams University, University of Toronto, university of Trinity college, United College of Winnipeg, Victoria University and University of Western Ontario.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I understand the minister that list does not include St. Boniface and St. John's colleges in Winnipeg.


David James Walker: I have only purported to read those in the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges. That is what I was asked for.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not what the minister was asked for. I asked the minister to read to us the list of the institutions which the government understood would be covered by this legislation. I did not ask him to read any other list. I assumed that the government knew its own mind before it came into the house and knew those institutions with respect to which it wanted to have the power to lend this money. I asked the minister to give us a list of all those institutions to which the government felt it would be entitled to make loans under this definition. If I heard the list read by the minister correctly, and if I did not I would be glad to be corrected, it did not include St. Boniface college and did not include St. John's College although their relationship to the University of Manitoba is in every respect precisely the same as that of United College.


David James Walker: This list is the list which the government proposes shall be included under this legislation in the light of the interpretation of "university". The government got the

National Housing Act list by including all the universities and colleges included in the national conference of Canadian universities and colleges. I have already read into the record the definition respecting their inclusion in this national organization but I will do so again. By "university" we mean an institution of higher learning holding this status by provincial statute or royal charter and having the power to confer degrees.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. As the
Minister of Public Works has indicated that the amendment would increase the number of institutions that would participate under this legislation from 38 to 95, I feel in order to be consistent with the ruling made by the chairman, that I have no alternative other than to rule the amendment out of order. Shall clause 7 carry? Carried. Shall the title carry? Carried. Shall the bill carry? Carried. Shall I report the bill?


Maurice Bourget: What about part VI B?


Charles Edward Rea: Hon. members said that they wanted to talk on the first clause and this is why I suggested earlier that we might take these up individually.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I misled the committee. I did so inadvertently but I apologize just the same. What I meant to say and what I should have said was that I thought we would have to take all the sections relating to universities together, and I apologize if I have caused any inconvenience to the committee.


Charles Edward Rea: So there will be no misunderstanding, may we then say that part VI A of clause 7 is carried?


John Richard Garland: No, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Rea: I am referring to part VI A of clause 7.


John Richard Garland: We are dealing with part VI A.


David James Walker: Part VI B.


Charles Edward Rea: Then may I take it that part VI A of clause 7 is carried and that we will now discuss VI B, loans for municipal sewage treatment projects.


John Richard Garland: Before you come to that, Mr. Chairman, I have one question I wish to ask under part VI A, and I do not wish to delay the committee at all. This legislation is designed, of course, to create employment. Can the minister say what consideration was given to this particular aspect in connection with university dormitories compared with the government's attitude with respect to the construction of sewage projects? What I am referring to is the aspect of a rebate that gives a sense of urgency to these projects.


Was any consideration given to providing the same degree of rebate, 25 per cent, on construction undertaken by universities as is provided in the next part having to do with sewage treatment projects?


David James Walker: No.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall part VI A of clause 7 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall we discuss part VI B of clause 7?


John Richard Garland: In that connection, Mr. Chairman, we are concerned about section 36E which reads in part as follows:
In this part,
(a) "municipal sewerage corporation" means a corporation established for the purpose of constructing and operating facilities for the collection and treatment of sewage from one or more municipalities.
It seems to me that the description of a corporation is not clear enough. As I see it, it could be interpreted to mean that the government would lend money to private corporations or private individuals for this purpose, and I am sure that is not the intention of the government. With that in mind I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Levis:
that the words "publicly owned" be inserted between the word "a" and the word "corporation" in line one, subsection (a), section 36E.
The subsection will then read-


David James Walker: Just a moment. Is my friend not interested in the interpretation of this before moving an amendment?


John Richard Garland: I would be very glad to listen.


Lionel Chevrier: Go ahead and finish your speech. He cannot interrupt you in this way.


David James Walker: I heard my hon. friend say, "Don't pay any attention. Go ahead with your speech. Don't be interrupted in this way."


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


David James Walker: Surely we are here to hear the explanation.


Lionel Chevrier: I am rising on a point of
order.


David James Walker: Would you sit down and not interrupt? You have no right to be on your feet at all.


Charles Edward Rea: At the moment the hon. member for Nipissing has the floor.


Lionel Chevrier: I was rising on a point of order to answer the minister. The minister has said that I used certain words which I

did not say. What I did say to the hon. member was, the minister has no right to interrupt you; continue with your speech. I did not say, don't pay any attention to him, which is a different thing altogether.


David James Walker: I am asking the hon. member a question. Does he prefer to move an amendment, which will take time but which we are very glad to have if he feels it is necessary, rather than have an explanation of this clause?


John Richard Garland: I should be glad to hear the minister's explanation, but normally one is privileged to say a few words. I do not usually take up too much of the time of the committee.


David James Walker: The hon. member is moving an amendment. Does he wish to move the amendment before hearing my explanation?


Lionel Chevrier: Why not sit down and let him go ahead?


David James Walker: Oh, I know you are a fierce tempered member. Please control your temper.


Lionel Chevrier: You are a mean tempered member.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William Arnold Peters: Sit down, you are rocking the boat. You will upset yourself one of these days.


Charles Edward Rea: Order; the hon.
member for Nipissing has the floor.


John Richard Garland: There has been a lot of time wasted. My remarks would have been completed by now. I was simply reading the clause as amended, which we feel would be desirable. It would read:
(a) "municipal sewerage corporation" means a publicly owned corporation established for the purpose of constructing and operating facilities for the collection and treatment of sewage from one or more municipalities;
We believe it surely is not the intention of the government to make funds available to private corporations for these purposes as would appear to be the case under this legislation.
Amendment (Mr. Garland) negatived: Yeas, 13; nays, 42.


John Richard Garland: I wonder if the minister would care to comment on this section.


David James Walker: You see how stupid the hon. member for Laurier is. Now the hon. member for Nipissing asks me to comment after moving an amendment without asking that the matter be explained. It shows how futile and insidious the hon. member for Laurier is. This hon. member was willing to wait for an
90205-6-15J
National Housing Act
explanation until the hon. member for Laurier had to butt in. Now, I will make an explanation.


Charles Edward Rea: Order; I will ask the minister if he will come back to the bill in question.


Lionel Chevrier: No one could be more stupid than my hon. friend.


David James Walker: That was a clever remark; you are an authority on this.


Lionel Chevrier: You are the most stupid minister in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lionel Chevrier: Would you repeat that? I invite the minister to repeat the statement which he made a moment ago.


David James Walker: This clause says that a municipal sewage corporation-


Lionel Chevrier: You are ashamed of yourself.


David James Walker: No, nobody has ever accused me of being that. I have been ashamed of you on occasions, but I am not ashamed of myself.


Charles Edward Rea: Order; I must ask the minister to come back to the bill.


David James Walker: I am trying to do so, if the rude member for Laurier will permit me.


Lionel Chevrier: You have asked for it.


David James Walker: May I reply, with the permission of the hon. member for Laurier. This is the part to which we had an amendment, and it reads:
(a) "municipal sewerage corporation" means a corporation established for the purpose of constructing and operating facilities for the collection and treatment of sewage from one or more municipalities;
I can assure the hon. member that that is what it means, and that is what it says. Under no circumstances would there be any private corporation which could possibly be a municipal sewerage corporation. I can assure him that there will be no grants made by us to any private corporations. These grants will be made to municipalities or to municipal sewerage corporations created by municipalities. This is a very good question but I would have preferred to have the hon. member ask it rather than take the time of the house with an unnecessary amendment.


John Richard Garland: Does the minister not think it would be better to include those words that we have requested, "publicly owned" or words of similar meaning in order to give the clause a clearer definition?


David James Walker: We have already voted on that, 42 to 13 against.

National Housing Act


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to ask the minister a perfectly legitimate question. In my constituency we have some unincorporated villages which have incorporated corporations for the installation of water systems. Some of these are quite extensive and supply water for a radius of six miles. One of these waterworks corporations in one of these unincorporated villages ma,y decide to install a sewerage system, could they come within the terms of this legislation?


David James Walker: This is a very good question, and we would be glad1 to consider it. We intend to ask that these schemes receive the approval of the province, and if such a scheme as the hon. member describes received such approval, I would think it would qualify for a loan. When the time comes that the regulations are to be drafted we will be glad to keep in mind what the hon. member has submitted.


Maurice Bourget: The minister will recall that when he made his introductory remarks on November 22 I asked him a question. I wanted to know if Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the government would be ready to make loans or give subsidies for the construction of main sewers or trunk sewers. The minister in his answer told me that provided a sewage disposal plant is being installed. As I read the definition here of a sewage treatment project it means a project consisting of a trunk sewage collecting system or a central treatment plant or both, In French it reads as follows:
(Translation):
"Sewage treatment project" means a project consisting of a trunk sewage collector system, a central treatment plant or both-
(Text):
I am asking the minister whether I am right in understanding that you can build either a trunk sewer or a main sewer without building a sewage treatment plant.


David James Walker: If there is a plant there to take care of it; yes.


Maurice Bourget: But no subsidy will be given for the construction of the sewer, the main collector itself, without a plant to treat the sewage?


David James Walker: No. As my hon. friend will appreciate, what we are trying to do is to eliminate pollution. We intend to make no loans unless there is a sewage disposal plant of some kind; and only if there is such a plant will trunk collector sewers be included.


Maurice Bourget: I understand that the purpose of this act, as it is set out, is to control water pollution and soil pollution. I also understand that the act is to assist with the

construction of houses. I know by experience -and some of the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will remember some cases-of instances in which some cities were prevented from undertaking needed construction of houses in some parts of the city because they had no main sewers. The minister will also recall that this morning the hon. member for Lambton West made the same plea as did the hon. member for Vancouver East. I am therefore asking the minister whether he will not consider also the construction of main sewers without there being an obligation to build a sewage treatment plant.


David James Walker: The answer is no.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Is there not in this legislation a certain conflict with the winter works program? If a city or municipality borrows $100,000 under the winter works program, the cost of labour will amount to about $10,000. Fifty per cent will be paid by the government for that labour. That means $5,000. If instead of doing that, they come and take advantage of the loan for a project, they can borrow up to two thirds of the amount which will make it $65,000. A quarter of that amount, which is included in the explanatory notes on page 5, will amount to $16,500. If we put in a quarter of the interest, it will be $500. That would mean $17,000 less $5,000. That means that it would cost only $12,000 to the municipality instead of $5,000. In that case it would be advantageous to the municipality to come and borrow for a municipal sewage treatment plant instead of using the winter works program but it would be only for sewage treatment. Then they could go on with the winter works and fire prevention services under the winter works program. Is there not a certain conflict between the two programs?


David James Walker: In reply to the hon. member for Hull, may I say that I am no authority on the winter works program. However, the loans made under this section of the act will be for two thirds of the actual cost to the municipality less other federal grants. Those federal grants will include, of course, the grants under the winter works program.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am just going to ask the minister a question and I might say that I have no point of view on this matter as I did in connection with the previous objection I was making about the universities. I should just like to know the relation, say in Ontario, of the department of municipal affairs or the Ontario municipal board to the arrangement or the agreement that may be entered into between the federal government or the department, let us say, and the municipal sewerage corporations. Must they all be

cleared first by the Ontario municipal board? Is it a party to the agreement?


David James Walker: That is a question of provincial control. It seems to me-and this is a gratuitous answer; it has nothing to do with me or our department-all these matters must be cleared in Ontario, at any rate, by the Ontario municipal board.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just wanted to raise this matter because I made the point the other day in preliminary remarks that it would be possible since sewage disposal facilities are considered to be local improvements, usually you have money bylaws for them within the municipality. You could create an inequity for the total taxpayers of the municipal corporation if the funds, particularly the rebate half which I am thinking about, went to help a number of people who were paying taxes for local improvements in the section of the city. I would ask the minister this question. From the fact that the Ontario municipal board will have to approve all these projects can we take it that they would be looking after, will I say, the fair position of the ordinary taxpayer in a community as against any advantage that might come to the particular taxpayers?


David James Walker: The answer is no.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Does the minister mean that he sees no possibility of any inequity to certain taxpayers under this legislation?


David James Walker: No.


Charles Edward Rea: I recognize the hon. member for Nipissing.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should just like to ask the minister this question. I am probably not getting my point across very well. I can see it is going to be an issue in my own constituency. He said the answer is no-


David James Walker: I was not agreeing with your presumption or assumption.


Douglas Mason Fisher: You mean you cannot see that it will be taking place?


David James Walker: As a matter of fact, I am trying to put through this bill and am trying to interpret the clauses of the bill and I find it hard to do so. I know my hon. friend is a theorist of great knowledge, a university man and all that. However, I find it hard to follow his argument. If he will ask me something with regard to sewage disposal, perhaps I will be able to answer him. I am unwilling to answer these hypothetical questions because there is usually a little twist in them somewhere. With my primitive mind I sometimes might not get the subtle meaning behind the question.
National Housing Act


Douglas Mason Fisher: I did not insinuate that the minister had a primitive mind. If he cares to do so, that is all right. I certainly did not do so. Let me put the situation in this way.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15 to report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of public and private bills, the former having precedence pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


John Angus MacLean: My understanding is that the house might be agreeable to give unanimous consent to continue with government business until six o'clock. If that procedure would be agreeable, that course might be followed.


Lionel Chevrier: So far as we are concerned on this side of the house we are perfectly agreeable to that procedure.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As far as we are concerned we agree to this and we are disagreeable about it.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it, then, that we have a qualified unanimous consent. That being so the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT

[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENTS TO EXTEND LOAN REPAYMENT PERIOD; TO INCREASE AGGREGATE AMOUNT;

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-42, to amend the National Housing Act-Mr. Walker-Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 7.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a question to ask the minister and perhaps, since he is a gentleman of the legal profession he will be able to answer it.


David James Walker: Pardon me, I was addressing a few pleasantries to the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: How nice of you. I can
hardly believe it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I did want to ask the minister this question. Section 36G mentions that a corporation may "forgive payment by the municipality or municipal sewerage corporation". What is the reason for the use of the

National Housing Act word "forgive" which is usually used in respect to personal relationships where one pardons somebody for what is, perhaps, an offence. Why is that word used in this impersonal relationship?


David James Walker: I am just the Minister of Public Works. Perhaps I should submit that question to the Minister of Justice. But this is a common legal term, and the hon. gentleman must have seen it often in wills-under the terms of a will a debt is forgiven or wiped out. It is a legal word as well as a word in common use and it has come down to us through the ancestors of the hon. gentleman since a thousand years ago.


John Richard Garland: As we said the other day, we are of course, in favour of this legislation in respect to sewage treatment projects but we believe there is a great additional need among the municipalities for long term financing.
With this in mind we proposed back in 1958 a municipal loan fund. Since that time, of course, we have seen greatly increased evidence of the need among municipalities for assistance in long term financing and I hope the minister may give some consideration to this. I know we do not have the ability here to move an amendment designed to increase the charge against the crown, but the need is very great among the municipalities and I hope that further consideration can be given to making more funds available for general purposes in respect of the general projects undertaken by our municipalities.


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


David James Walker: The answer to the last question is, yes. Expansion is included. The answer to the first question is this: under section 36F the project may consist of new systems, the expansion of existing systems or the replacement of existing systems. Does that answer the hon. member?


Joseph Warner Murphy: Does it apply to a project in being? Suppose a municipality began a project, say, a few months ago?


David James Walker: Most definitely no, Mr. Chairman.
[Mr. Herridge.l


Joseph Warner Murphy: Supposing there are, say, three municipalities surrounding a town. These municipalities are not able to build a project on their own. Would it be possible under this bill for a project to be undertaken by the three municipalities in combination with the town?


David James Walker: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: How does the corporation supervise the administration of the loans? How does it ascertain that the municipality or other bodies concerned has complied with the terms of the act? Is there a provision for inspection, or audit?


David James Walker: There will be both inspection and auditing and a similar system has been worked out to that in force in connection with housing, apartments, limited dividend projects and building of that kind.


Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: I am a little uncertain on the matter of storm sewers. From reading the bill I would assume that a combination of storm and sanitary sewers would come within the terms of the measure. However, it would appear that a storm sewer which would run into a river or lake, perhaps would not. I am afraid this would encourage the building of combination sewers which would not be good because you could never have complete sewage treatment from a combined storm and sanitary sewer, which only takes care of about twice the dry water flow; the rest goes into the creek or lake, or whatever it might be. I presume the measure would apply to a combined storm and sanitary sewer which, I think, is a menace, and that it would not apply to storm water sewers which are sewers that take the surplus water away from streets, roofs and so on.


David James Walker: We like to go as far as we can, but in reply to the hon. member for Lincoln, the former mayor of St. Catharines, may I say that we would not pay for any storm sewers. Further, in connection with sewage disposal plants which a municipality might build in combination with storm water sewers, we would only pay for that part of the construction which could be attributed to sewage disposal. Otherwise there would be no limit to the extent of our investment in projects of this kind.


Mr. Pugh:: Will there be any priority given to municipalities? I imagine there will be a rush of applications under this measure and I was wondering how the department intends to treat the various applications which come in. In the event that there are not sufficient funds to carry out all the loans, are there to be any priorities set?


David James Walker: No, we have no priorities in matters of this kind. In housing it is first come first served. Of course, as my hon. friend knows, all these things are subject to the judgment and wisdom of the directors of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. To my mind they have proved themselves to be one of the ablest bodies on the continent ini matters of housing and I hope they will continue to use their good judgment in matters connected with sewage disposal plants.
As my hon. friend will appreciate, they already have some knowledge from their activities in connection with loans for houses in new areas in which sewage disposal plants are being built. First come first served is the rule but there are always circumstances where that might be altered.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is this a kind of revolving fund in the sense that the money coming back is put back into use again for the same purpose? The fund has a limit of $100 million. We can see the $25 million of it will go as a grant and through rebate $75 million will come back over a period of time. Who does it come back to?


David James Walker: I remember a question was asked a year ago about the money for mortgages under C.M.H.C. Just so no crown corporation can become all powerful and oblivious to the dictates of parliament elected by the people, ever since Charles I, British parliaments have made a point of not giving these crown corporations too much power. In this instance, as with loans for houses, the moneys come back to the consolidated revenue fund. It is not a revolving fund. Does that answer the question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes. That is not the same as with the insurance fund, is it? C.M.H.C. does retain that, does it not?


David James Walker: The insurance fund is simply a fund where C.M.H.C. acts as trustee for the beneficiaries under the fund. Perhaps I should have mentioned that yesterday. Out of approximately $3 billion worth of loans, we have in the insurance fund only $70 million which has been collected in premiums. This is a very small sum to be set aside as an insurance fund against such a tremendous investment in mortgages.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Because of the public nature of universities and municipal sewage disposal plants affected by this legislation was it thought unnecessary to have any kind of insurance provision?


David James Walker: We are dealing here with municipalities, not citizens. We have not felt it necessary to have an insurance fund
National Housing Act in this instance. A sewage disposal plant cannot burn down and a municipality has to continue to exist. Does my hon. friend suggest that we should set up an insurance fund?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not know. I was asking just for information.


David James Walker: In that case the answer is no.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister knows that municipalities have different ratings on the investment market. Also their ratings with investment dealers and in various sources I have checked run up and down the scale. I just make the point that you do not have equal risk in terms of municipalities. The minister is aware that some municipalities have been taken over by the provinces in the past. I thought the minister's answer would be that there is no need for insurance because the provinces have a responsibility.
Clause 7 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
David James Walker: the third reading of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is carried I would like to express, first of all, my great surprise that there were no amendments made by the government. The minister will recall that in response to a question of mine at the resolution stage of the bill he said that the supporters of the government who had filibustered this resolution for the best part of two days had made many valuable suggestions which would be reflected in amendments to the bill. Without going any further I should like to draw attention to the fact that the bill as it was printed before that debate took place is the bill that is now coming out of the committee. I point that out just so we may have the facts rather than the propaganda before the public.
My second point is of much more importance and I do not think I would have bothered to speak about the first one were it not for my strong feelings about this other. I think before many days or weeks have passed, unless something happens in another place, the government and everyone else whose votes helped to reject the suggestions for amendments to the university residences clauses of this bill will have great cause to regret what they have done.
The minister read to us a list of the universities which would be covered by this measure, which were the only universities he said, to which the government would be prepared to make loans under the legislation.

National Housing Act
I do not have that list in front of me and I speak only from memory but I can say that in the province of Manitoba alone, if I heard it aright, it did not include Brandon college; I wonder if the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dins-dale) was informed that Brandon college would not be eligible for one of these loans. The list does not include St. Boniface college, the oldest university institution, west of the great lakes. It did not include St. John's College or St. Paul's College in the University of Manitoba. If I heard the minister aright it did not include Assumption University at Windsor, although I speak only from recollection.
There are no doubt many other institutions that because they have not the power to grant degrees are not included in this measure unless in an exceptional way, as United College seems to have been for some reason I do not understand, because it does not have power to grant degrees except in theology. I do not understand how it happened to be included and the others excluded.
What the government is proposing to do is the rankest kind of discrimination. I personally think it proceeds out of a lack of reflection and an ignorance of the real facts and that is pretty deplorable on the part of a government that has had the time this government has had and that presumably had this measure ready as early as September 21 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) was boasting that these measures were all ready then to present in detail to parliament. I say it is ill-considered legislation in this particular, ill-digested and ill-understood.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Stand up and vote against it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member invites me to stand up and vote against it. Of course I am not going to vote against the bill. As my friend the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) pointed out at the beginning and as has been our position throughout the bill in the main contains some provisions which we think in large part will be helpful. As a matter of fact many of them were suggested by the hon. member for Nipissing, but I am not going to enter into that. I am not going to take any responsibility for holding up loans to the University of Toronto because loans will not be made to St. Boniface college. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources would have more personal grievances against the minister than I would have because of the way in which the institutions in which they are particularly interested are treated.

I do think that the government has made a deplorable error in this matter and I do not think that third reading should be allowed to pass without having that error underlined.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the comments of the previous speaker to a degree dovetail with those of our party. We very much welcome this bill. One section in the university part of it seems to me most discriminatory.
I was amused to And out that on the minister's list were St. Dunstan's University, which I believe is the one in Charlottetown, and the Nova Scotia Agricultural College. I have nothing but respect for those two institutions, but I know something about the qualifications which are required and the lengths to which those institutions go. It is just a laugh to have those institutions on the list and some of the others which actually teach much further up the scale toward advanced degrees and everything else outside the list.
It has been suggested that the government with its attitude and its exclusiveness in this particular matter is going to raise more problems for itself than for anyone else. If the government and its members are prepared to set up a discriminatory type of loan fund to this particular degree, then there is nothing we can really do about it except underline it because the responsibility after all lies with them and they certainly will be held responsible and I know of several places in the country where that responsibility will be called to their attention.


Mr. Jones:: It is much better than you have been able to do.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I heard an interruption over there. If the hon. member would like to express it more boldly I would be glad to comment upon it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: We in the C.C.F. party are very pleased to support this measure. We particularly like the parts on the housing and on the municipal sewage projects being proposed, but we expressly regret this far too narrow interpretation, or an unwillingness to give us an exact interpretation of the loan funds available to universities.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker,-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but the Minister of Public Works has already spoken in moving the third reading of this bill.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few words before the bill passes. I for one appreciate the criticisms made by some hon. members of

what they call the narrow interpretation of the bill. I do not question their motives; in other words, I think their motives were of the highest order, but it boils down to a question of having to draw a line of demarcation, and no matter where that line is drawn there would be some institutions that would fall just on one side of it and others on the other side. However, the basic principle is that these loans will be given to degree granting institutions.
In this connection, the last member who spoke cast some reflection on-


Douglas Mason Fisher: No reflection at all.


John Angus MacLean: He said it was a laugh that this bill should apply to St. Dunstan's University and Nova Scotia Agricultural College-at least that is what I understood him to say.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister ought to be fair to me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order.


John Angus MacLean: I do not want to be unfair to him. If I misinterpreted what he said I should like him to correct me.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I said it was a laugh that those institutions should be included and others left out, if one looked at the qualifications and the standards as compared with some of the others. If you look at their standards and compare them with some of the others which are outside you find that they just do not match. I have the information here to show the minister, if he is interested.


John Angus MacLean: My understanding of the bill is that if there are any institutions whose standards are as high as the agricultural college of Nova Scotia and St. Dunstan's University and whose authority goes so far as to grant degrees, they will qualify.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word in view of some of the comments that have been made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate (Mr. Pickersgill) and the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). They tried to leave the impression in the house that some sort of discrimination has been going on in this matter. For the first time we are getting loans to universities to erect residences. This is something new and $50 million of federal funds is being made available for that purpose. Hon. members rise in their places and they quibble; they quibble about this great advance which is being made, which is being welcomed across this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Vocational Training
The hon. member for Port Arthur sets himself up as an authority over the national council of Canadian universities, which is a collection of universities in this country which above all do express university opinion. My goodness, Mr. Speaker, are we to turn down or deny the consideration that those people have given to this request and have pressed for action such as this for years simply because it cannot provide residences for every college in this country?
In bringing forth this legislation the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) has given fair and square the suggestions of the national conference of Canadian universities, and I myself have read in the papers, as I am sure every hon. member has, comments of commendation and approval from coast to coast in this country on this great piece of legislation whereby the young people of this country can be provided with adequate housing so that they may attend university. I applaud this legislation and I urge that we all vote for it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


Michael Starr: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with provincial governments for the encouragement of technical and vocational training and to authorize the making of contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs of technical and vocational training undertaken under provincial authority, including contributions toward the cost of capital expenditures on training facilities connected with such programs; to authorize the Minister of Labour to undertake programs of technical and vocational training for specified categories of persons; to provide for the establishment and operation of an advisory council and the appointment of its members and staff and to define its duties; and to provide for other related and incidental matters.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, this resolution introduces legislation to stimulate technical and vocational training and broaden its scope throughout Canada. It is designed to undergird the government's program to increase employment and foster national development.
Canada has never trained enough manpower to meet the needs of its industry. This fact has been underlined again and again in recent studies which my department has been making of changing manpower requirements

Vocational Training
and supplies and their implications for training. To meet our trained manpower needs we have in the past relied on immigration and on the informal acquisition of skill through on the job experience.
Recently we interviewed a cross-section of tradesmen in five skilled occupations and found that about 35 per cent of them had received the greater part of their training outside of Canada. In other words, in five skilled occupations more than one out of every three workers had been trained in another country. Moreover, the more highly skilled the trade or occupation the greater was the dependence on immigration as a source of competent workers. We welcome these newcomers to our country and we appreciate the contribution of their talents and skill. We cannot, however, expect to continue to obtain highly trained people in such numbers.
The second important way in which we have met our trained manpower needs in the past is through informal on the job experience. The process of picking up skill and knowledge informally through job experience has been a factor in the training of Canadians. The study of tradesmen in five key occupations, to which I referred a moment ago showed this very clearly.
I have been talking about the past. The present and the future, I believe, are and will be very different. We are now moving into a situation where we shall have to train, through formally organized programs, a much higher proportion of our manpower than ever before. There are at least three reasons for this. In the first place, during the past decade population in the 15 to 19 years age group rose by a quarter of a million. Yet this is but the beginning of the bulge resulting from the high birth rate of the war and post-war years. In the next five years half a million additional young people will be coming forward for education and training. The further growth during the last half of the sixties will be even greater.
Second, the demand for skilled and technical workers is increasing far more rapidly than employment generally. The fastest growing occupations are those that require high levels of training. These are the occupations that are being pushed to the fore by rapid technological changes. They require a sound fundamental education as a basis for understanding the theory of a particular field of technology. Informal on the job training may adequately supply the techniques required for a specific job but in today's world the skills of workers can rapidly become obsolescent. This is especially serious if the worker's only asset is a knowledge of particular production techniques. It is increasingly necessary for workers to have some understanding

of the field of knowledge basic to their jobs and such knowledge can be acquired only through organized trade and technical training programs.
The third reason why we must train many more people than in the past is that we cannot expect to benefit nearly so much in future from the immigration of skilled and technical workers. Industrial technology is increasing in the countries from which most of these people come with the result that their need is growing as rapidly as ours. Big changes are needed, therefore, in both thought and deed as far as technical and vocational training are concerned.
There are two kinds of training jobs to be done. We must train those already in the labour market who have left the regular school system, particularly the unemployed. We must provide more training for those now in school so that the ranks of the unemployed will not be further increased in the future.
Let me say a word about these two objectives. Our research has shown that there is tremendous diversity in the ways in which people acquire occupational skills. However, formal channels of training leading to recognized levels of achievement are more limited in Canada than in many other countries. In contrast we find that most European countries have well established formal paths which young people can follow to acquire occupational skills. These include arrangements by which people, after leaving school, and I wish to emphasize this point, can improve their education and training in relation to generally recognized standards. Further development of such arrangements is needed in this country.
We need more carefully developed training programs whereby people, after leaving school, could receive sound preparation for careers. If these were available there would not be the same compelling reasons for retaining potential drop-outs within the regular school system at all costs. The development of such arrangements is one of the objectives of this legislation.
The need for more training facilities for those who have left the regular school system is further substantiated by the facts of the present unemployment situation. It has been a cause of deep concern to the government that large numbers of the men and women currently unemployed lack the essential skills to fill jobs that are available. In October, 1960 the rate of unemployment among unskilled workers was almost 15 per cent. This was virtually three times the rate among the rest of the labour force. In other words, the risk of unemployment today for an unskilled person is about three times that for all other

workers. The provision of much more training for these is another objective of this legislation. Already the government has moved in this direction by announcing early last summer that it would meet 75 per cent of the costs of such training when the number of trainees reached an established minimum level.
Technological changes now taking place in industry are putting a premium on highly skilled tradesmen and technical and other specialists. They are some of the key groups on which our industrial efficiency depends. Yet at present about 5 per cent of all young people enrolled in our secondary schools are taking a technical course program. In post-high school technical courses the number of persons enrolled, although increasing considerably, is still only about 8,000. It is another objective of this legislation to expand training facilities for such people.
The success of any vocational or technical training programs depends upon a supply of qualified instructors. It would be a great waste of public funds to provide extensive buildings without providing also for the training of the instruction personnel.
In any expanded program, the training of teachers should be undertaken concurrently with the development of technical training facilities. This means that in Canada a much expanded vocational teacher training program will be necessary. This again is one of the objectives of this legislation.
I have several times referred to the findings of a number of studies which have been made of manpower training needs in this country. Such research provides the basic facts about how the working world is changing. As I have indicated, this research has shown clearly that a large expansion in vocational and technical training must take place in this country. It has also given us important clues as to the kinds of training that need emphasis. We intend to carry on this research through our economics and research branch and our vocational training branch. As in the past, these continuing studies will be under the general direction of the Canadian vocational training advisory council, on which the provincial authorities and others are represented.
As members of the committee know, this council is composed of representatives of employers and organized labour and the provincial governments. Its overview of programs of technical and vocational education in Canada has been an important factor in developments in this field over the years. Moreover, the recommendations of the council support the views of the government as outlined in this legislation.
90205-6-161
Vocational Training
The government has already announced its desire to establish a national productivity council to stimulate industrial efficiency. Greatly expanded training and retraining programs are an essential complement to this action. Since industrial efficiency depends to a great degree upon the skills and technical know-how of our working force, these two proposals stand together. The objectives which it is sought to implement under the authority of this legislation and the financial proposals which will be put forward to the provinces thereunder with parliament's approval constitutes a challenge to us all. In large measure, its success will depend on the vigorous cooperation of the provincial governments.
Through the years we have received excellent co-operation from the provinces in this training field. We now look forward to a much livelier and, we hope, increasingly effective partnership. The adoption of this bill will involve a substantial increase in the federal contribution to the provinces for technical and vocational training. These increases will be reflected in the estimates of the department. The particulars about the provisions of the act and the agreements proposed will be made available at the time of the second reading of this bill.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if I could ask the minister a question. I should like to know if the proposals outlined in the resolution preceding the bill have been discussed with the various provincial governments?


Michael Starr: There has been communication by my department charged with this with the various provinces. The vocational advisory council has representatives of the provincial governments and these various aspects have been discussed with them at times.


Lionel Chevrier: But there has been no discussion between the minister or the deputy minister and their opposites in the provincial governments? What I have in mind now is the dominion-provincial conference which took place in October. Could the minister say whether there was any discussion of this subject then, and has there been any viva voce discussion between the minister and the various provincial governments since that time?


Michael Starr: No.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, after the experience we have had for two days we were very happy to listen to the serene way in which the Minister of Labour explained his program of vocational training. Because of the unfortunate unemployment situation we will not, at this stage, take the time of the committee by making speeches approving these measures. We want more action for the

Vocational Training
benefit of the unemployed, and less words. The Leader of the Official Opposition stated our intention to adopt this course in the debate on the throne speech. He had given public notice of our intention to do so when he spoke on "The Nation's Business" on November 16, 1960, when he said:
So I propose that we abandon this procedure at this time, in these emergency circumstances; that once the Prime Minister and the two other party leaders have made their policy speeches we stop this general debate, we bring it to an end so that the government can bring down at once its legislative program, including those plans to deal with unemployment, which the Prime Minister said weeks ago he had ready for submission in detail. Surely, any delay in dealing with this problem as we are approaching winter is inexcusable. The time now is for action and not for words.
We do, therefore, approve in principle the present legislation. In the past Liberal governments have always helped the provinces with the construction and maintenance of their technical schools and have helped with vocational training. I know it is the intention of the government to intensify the scope of their action to help to solve the unfortunate problem of unemployment which is growing worse month by month. If we can recall to the Prime Minister his promise that as long as he is Prime Minister nobody will suffer from unemployment, then we have to admit that for the first time the government admits the dangerous situation created by the ever increasing problem. The speech from the throne made no reference to this problem, but this resolution is certainly a step in the right direction because of the great number of young men who are capable of working but who are forced to be idle because of our unstable economy.
When I was in Vancouver about a month ago I was astonished by a press release from the city social service staff which appeared in the Vancouver Sun for Wednesday, October 19. This is what they had to say, and remember this is not the Liberal party, the C.C.F. party or the Social Credit party speaking, but a body completely outside the political field.
Vancouver social service cannot cope with a record flood of single jobless men applying for assistance.
An average of 85 single jobless men line up every day for interviews.
Some wait from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the basement corridors of the city health and welfare building only to be turned away.
As a result they miss out on soup line food at skid road hostels and missions.
The present resolution will certainly help the young workers prepare for the future, and this is good. I remember that at the last session I urged the government to make an agreement with the provinces so that we could use some of the facilities of the technical

schools, the arts and trades schools, to give those under 30 years of age receiving unemployment benefits a couple of hours of training every morning. This year the minister brings before us a concrete plan to prepare those workers who have been displaced by automation for other employment.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, when on May 8, 1959, we met in committee of supply to examine the estimates of the Department of Labour, the member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) spoke at length about automation and the necessity of retraining our young people so as to prepare them to take the jobs available to them provided they have been properly trained for them. Several members took part in the debate on that occasion. Let me mention only a few names in addition to that of the member for Trinity, that is the member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), the member for Vegreville (Mr. Fane), the member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), the member for Welland (Mr. McMillan), the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome), the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai).
Going back to page 3470 of Hansard, I note that at that time the minister was far from thinking that the matter was as important as he now claims it to be; he made only a short reference to it, saying "three months and six weeks", during the speech of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot.
There you have proof that, on the one hand the government was only recently converted to the idea of more adequate training for our young people who are about to start on their own and, on the other hand, that those who are already out of school or college have to undergo further training the better to serve society and to benefit therefrom.
This seemed new, but ever since 1957, day after day and session after session, we have been repeating to the Minister of Labour and to the government that something special had to be done to keep the economic recession from taking alarming proportions. Every time we were called crepe hangers with no other purpose in mind than frightening people. Nevertheless, at the last session, members of the opposition repeatedly asked for a more complete effort aimed at giving Canadian citizens a chance to fit into jobs that they could fill if they had had a chance to qualify for them. Not until the 23rd and

28th of July did the minister decide to deal with the question of technical training for our young people. From the very start of the last session until July 28, everything was new and commendable. Nothing was required to be done, nothing had to be changed, everything was all right. According to the forecast of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), the future held no danger. Prospects were rosy, and we had only hopefully to wait for the days to come. Everything was fine at the time the minister spoke. Yet, shortly after-hardly four months ago-the minister told us that everything was working beautifully and that, in the field of technical training, we should thank those who were working with such devotion in this country. The minister said "Everything is perfect, there is nothing to change, all we have to do is continue".
Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the change is rather abrupt. This year an amendment is being introduced to give a little more scope to the training scheme of our young people who are preparing to enter the labour market and for those who, though already employed, need to improve their skill in order to be more useful to society and to be better treated by society.
I know, however, from the way things have been put to us since the beginning of the session, that the party in power is trying to give the impression that it has created everything, that nothing existed before.
Yet this resolution, as drafted, is almost identical in every respect to the one which has been in the statutes since 1952, when the Liberal party passed the original act and made the first amendments. Only the last few lines are different, and I quote:
... to provide for the establishment and operation of an advisory council and the appointment of its members and staff and to define its duties; and to provide for other related and Incidental matters.
That is the only difference. The government's intention, apparently, is only to give additional power to a commission or to provide for the establishment and operation of an advisory council. We fully approve of that, because we think the government needs advice from important personalities. We entirely agree with the government on that score.
But let no one say that this Is something new, because it is merely a continuation and an improvement-I recognize it-of an existing statute passed by the Liberal party.
I wonder, as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) wondered a moment ago,
Business of the House whether the government has had the wisdom to consult with the provinces about this, because even if we were to adopt the legislation, if the provinces find serious objections to it, it would be ineffective.
We admit that education is exclusively a provincial matter. It is only with the agreement of the provinces that we can make the necessary changes.
I wish Quebec members who so loudly protested against Liberal intervention in the field of education stated clearly whether they approve of federal government intervention in the field of education.
We Liberals approve of it provided the provinces agree. We approve of what the government is doing now, as we approved of what the Liberal party did in the past.
(Text):
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Before I ask the acting house leader for the business of the house, perhaps I could be allowed to correct a misstatement which was made by the house leader last night, involuntarily I am sure. As reported at page 187 of Hansard he said as follows:
On Tuesday, in response to the request of the Leader of the Opposition for an early opportunity to discuss international affairs, supported by the member for Vancouver East-who suggested that there should be the earliest possible opportunity for discussing this matter-I am suggesting that we have a debate on external affairs.
I was not here for the orders of the day on Wednesday. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) at no time asked for a debate on external affairs, I am informed by his office, and as I find after looking over Hansard for that day. The request was made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). Having said that, I would ask the acting house leader what the business is.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Laurier was in the house when the Leader of the Opposition spoke. As reported at page 34 of Hansard, in his opening speech he used these words:
I hope that soon we will have an opportunity to discuss international affairs. During that time X may have some criticism to make about some aspects of our diplomacy at the United Nations and in NATO-
Then, of course, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) subsequently directed this question to me on November 23:
In view of the paramount importance of issues which are now before the fifteenth session of the general assembly of the United Nations, and the international picture, is consideration being given to the earliest possible opportunity for a discussion on the Congo and international policy matters?

Business of the House
To which I replied:
I entirely agree with the hon. gentleman as to the need of a full discussion on the international situation at the earliest possible date. There are many problems which face us today on which it would be most helpful to have the views of parliament.
So the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) suggested it, and it is for that reason, together with the need of a discussion taking place, that we are asking that it should take place on Tuesday.


Lionel Chevrier: It is true I was in the house when that statement was made, but the Leader of the Opposition made it quite clear that he was asking that the proper priorities be given to the legislation. He felt all along, and he said so, that the legislation which the government had to deal with the emergency should be brought forward at once.


John George Diefenbaker: After all, that is what we are doing, but the government wishes on Tuesday to hear the views of parliament on these very important international problems which face us today. It is very necessary, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his opening speech, that the discussion should take place at an early date. Then, when the request was subsequently made by the hon. member for Vancouver East we naturally fell into line and it is our intention to proceed.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no fault to find with what the Prime Minister has said. It is the responsibility of the government to determine the course of business notwithstanding the fact that we on this side feel that we should get on with the important legislation first.
Having said that, may I ask what the business is to be for Monday? Perhaps the acting leader of the house will also indicate the business for Tuesday.


John Angus MacLean: Monday, due to the
amended rule, will be a government day and we shall commence with item 2 of today's order paper, Bill No. C-40 respecting loans to proprietors of small business enterprises. We shall continue with item 6 on today's order paper, the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Labour with regard to the encouragement of technical and vocational training. After that we shall deal with item No. 5 on today's order paper, the house in committee of the whole on a resolution regarding the establishment and operation of a national productivity council.
On Tuesday the hope expressed by the Leader of the Opposition will come true and the day will be set aside for a debate on external affairs.


[Stage Direction]
It being six minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Were any additional payments or monetary considerations made or offered to the Indian band members of the Sarnia band on December 19, 1958?
2.	If so, whiat was the nature and amount of such payments or considerations?
3.	On what date and in what form was notice given by the minister of the meeting held on December 19, 1958 to consider the surrender of Indian land on the Sarnia reserve?
4.	What official or officials of the department attended the said meeting?
5.	Was a part of the sale price of the Sarnia band lands set aside in order to establish non-locatees in the new village?
Question
6.	If so, (a) how much and (b) on what date and in what manner was this action approved by the band council?
Answer by:	Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1. and 2. An advance of $100 on the purchase price previously agreed upon by each Indian locatee was requested by the Indians and was made on December 20, 1958, the day following surrender of the land for sale.
3.	The meeting was called by the Sarnia band council pursuant to section 39 (1) (b) (i) of the Indian Act and no notice by the minister was required.
4.	Mr. Ward L. Leroy, superintendent, Sarnia Indian agency.
5.	Yes.
6.	(a). $100,000. (b) this was one of the conditions of the surrender and approval by the band council was not required.

Monday, November 28, 1960