1965-05-13

FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that at least two companies using the solution process in potash operations have indicated that they would not likely locate in Saskatchewan because they cannot compete with shaft mines, will the Government place the solution potash operations on the same basis as shaft mines with regard to tax write-off provisions.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I would be delighted to answer the question, Mr. Speaker, but the right hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned two companies and did not name them, which leaves me at a slight disadvantage.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Minister say he has not had any word from the Government of Saskatchewan, from the Premier of that Province, advising of two companies in that position?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, I will try to answer the question without the information I thought I might receive. This is a matter which has engaged the attention of the Government for some considerable time. A decision was reached, and I would be glad to go into it in more detail when the income tax bill is before the House.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister say, has a decision been arrived at that such equality in write-offs will not be allowed?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I thought I made it reasonably clear that this is a matter which has been under consideration for quite some time. Obviously, at least I think it is obvious, there are two sides to this matter. It is a very difficult dividing line. I think everybody knows there has been a tremendous expan-
22620- 80J
sion in potash mining in Saskatchewan, something which the Government has welcomed. This particular point is a difficult one and to do what has been suggested would create difficulties of another kind. After considerable consideration the Government came to the conclusion that the course it is taking is the right one.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforf-Tis-dale):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has a presentation been made by Alwinsal Potash Mine, which is starting to sink a shaft at Lanigan?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to look into that.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay Wesl):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister inform the House when he expects the Industrial Relations Committee to commence its hearings; and when it does, will the opposition to the present S.I.U. regime have an opportunity to present their evidence?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: As the House knows there is a resolution on the Order Paper proposing the restructuring of committees. I would hope, following that restructuring, it would be possible to have the estimates of the Department of Labour sent to a committee and dealt with in any way that committee would wish.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, has the Minister given any consideration to the terms of reference of that committee? Will they be the same as they were when the matter was before the committee in the first instance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, without
making a final conclusion it seems to me that the procedure would be to send the estimates of the Department of Labour to a new, reconstructed committee, and the committee would deal with the estimates in the way it decided.

May 13, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry


Erik Nielsen: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the Government to resubmit to the committee an examination of the Maritime Trustees?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No such decision has been taken as yet, Mr. Speaker.



TORONTO-U.S. INTERFERENCE IN STRIKE SETTLEMENT BY MAILERS' UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is likewise for the Minister of Labour. Does he have any information for the House about the agreement worked out last week between the Toronto Mailers' Union and the three Toronto daily papers, which has since been repudiated in a direct threat against these three newspapers by the International Typographical Union headquarters in Colorado Springs, U.S.A.? And does the Minister agree with this gross interference in the affairs of Canadian workers and union members by an American international union?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, this particular labour question is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour in the province of Ontario.


Robert Norman Thompson: I was aware of that when I asked the question, but because of the international implications I thought the Minister might have some information about it for the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into the matter from the point of view suggested by the hon. Member.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice
if he can make today the statement he was supposed to have made yesterday concerning the legality of the operations of some companies who use rain-making machines in the districts of Saguenay, Lake St. John and Abitibi.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think that at the time I would have asked the hon. member to put his question on the order paper, but today I can give

him the following information. Provincial and federal laws do not seem to have any provisions dealing with artificial rainmaking; furthermore, the department has received no complaint to the effect that a federal law would have been violated. Consequently, the matter is not under consideration at the present time.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the minister's intention to conduct an inquiry in order to find out whether it is legal to use such machines which have an effect on neighbouring properties?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the legal character of a series of facts and dates depends on their exact nature and can only be identified or judged when the facts are clearly and accurately set forth. In other words, it is difficult to give a legal opinion on the consequences of certain facts or actions unless one has full knowledge of them. If the hon. member will be so kind as to hand me a brief on this matter, I shall have a study made and, should the matter come under my authority, I shall naturally report on it.



GEORGES LEMAY-ISSUE OF PASSPORT-VISIT TO MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: May I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in connection with a press report appearing in today's papers regarding Georges Lemay and a report that the police at Vancouver are trying to trace the 1963 movements of this man because of a possible connection with the departure of Lucien Rivard. Has this matter been drawn to the attention of the Minister? Was a passport issued to Lemay in the name of Joseph Rene Roy, and did that passport have on it a picture of the much wanted Lemay or of someone else? This press report, as the Minister knows, is in the papers today and these circumstances require a clear and careful answer from the Minister.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: My attention has been drawn to this press article because I happen to have read the article this morning just after breakfast. I wish first to say that the responsibility for issuing passports is not that of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I am sure that Members of the House know that while "most wanted" lists are published and distributed in many
May 13, 1965

police stations, the Immigration Department is an immigration service; it performs this service at border points. We do not do police work. If our help is requested by the police any assistance we can give in the identification or spotting of wanted persons is readily given. Having seen the article in the papers this morning I have caused inquiries to be made, and I will make a fuller report tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the Minister for his answer, which is in line with the frank answers he usually gives on all occasions. While apparently he says there is no cooperation between departments unless assistance is asked for, I would ask the hon. gentleman whether he has looked into the question whether Georges Lemay, a man so much wanted by the police, arrived in Canada and went through immigration formalities on April 23 and then, after a short stay in Canada, returned to the United States, and all this at a time when he was so much wanted by the Department of Justice.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I would agree with the right hon. gentleman that as far as the police lists are concerned Lemay has been in the most wanted category at least since the end of July last year. But I will give a more complete report when my investigations have been completed, and what has been done, to the House tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that immigration authorities do not worry about these individuals unless asked, would the Minister say, at the same time, whether in his opinion it might not be a good idea for the Department of Justice to make available to the Department of Immigration particulars of these much wanted people, so they would not be able to cross the border with such impunity?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I will deal with that matter in my statement tomorrow.


Guy Favreau: On a question of privilege, it seems obvious that three and a half years ago the Department of Justice, when the right hon. gentleman was Prime Minister, failed to give the Department of Immigration-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is an interesting question period, but perhaps we should return to questions and answers in the way we began a few minutes ago.
Inquiries of the Ministry



LUCIEN RIVARD-FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN INVESTIGATION INTO ESCAPE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberi C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. To what degree is the Federal
Government involved in the investigation being carried out by the Government of the Province of Quebec with regard to Lucien Rivard's escape from Bordeaux jail, and when may we expect a report from the Provincial Government in this regard?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must say I have inquired very recently from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and I can say that the investigation is being carried on actively.


Robert Carman Coates: Would the Minister of Justice answer the first part of my question? What involvement does the Federal Government have in the inquiry? To what degree is the Minister's department involved?


Guy Favreau: I must repeat that the situation is the same in that all police forces are co-operating in pursuing the investigation, and the involvement of the Federal Government remains the same.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice which is less onerous than those with which he has had to deal in the last few days. I wonder if he can tell us when the report on juvenile delinquency might become available.


Guy Favreau: I understand the report is completed and will be signed any day now.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Has it been decided whether it will be made available to everybody in a public way?


Guy Favreau: I have already answered, Mr. Speaker, that I shall have to take cognizance of the report first and make that decision.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.

May 13, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry
A few days ago I asked him if it was true that the centennial commission was going through a crisis. Since then the minister made a statement in Regina which, Mr. Fisher, through some references to the chief commissioner, indicated that this was so. Can the minister tell us if at a recent meeting with him Mr. Fisher tendered his resignation?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I met Mr. Fisher at a meeting of the national conference on the centennial in Regina and nothing was said in any of our conversations about a particular difficulty that might exist within the centennial commission.
However, a newspaperman told me, yesterday afternoon, that certain problems might exist there, and when Mr. Fisher comes back to Ottawa I intend to see him to find out if such is the case.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Is it true the Secretary of State said in Regina that Mr. Fisher was not a very good administrator?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State in order to clear up the answer he gave a few moments ago.
Could he tell the house whether it is true that Mr. John Fisher dissociated himself from the administration of the centennial commission? Could he also tell the house which journalist called his attention to the crisis the commission is or was going through?
In addition, could he tell us whether it is true he informed Mr. Greg Connolly, of the Ottawa Citizen, of the reasons which prompted him to change his mind about the existence of such a crisis?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I am of the
opinion that the hon. member knows the name of the reporter concerned, since he has just mentioned the name of Mr. Greg Connolly.
As to the new distribution of responsibilities within the centennial commission, that was done following the appointment of Mr. Georges Gauthier as associate commissioner of the centennial commission, and it was made by Mr. Fisher himself and Mr. Gauthier.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister tell us when we may expect the legislation we have been promised to control private pension plans which come under Federal jurisdiction?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I cannot give an exact date. This is one of the matters which will be taken up as soon as we can get to it, having regard to a number of other pieces of important legislation which will be before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will this legislation be brought down in time so that companies and employees affected by it will know what its provisions are and will have the benefit of those provisions during the period when they are negotiating any integration between private plans and the Canada Pension Plan?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I hope it will be brought down very soon, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Eloise Jones (Saskaioon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the introduction of the medical services insurance act in the Ontario Legislature, is the Minister contemplating a meeting with the Governments of the Provinces earlier than anticipated in the Throne Speech, for discussion of a comprehensive national health service for Canada; and if so, when?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it takes a long time to set up dominion-provincial meetings, and the question of health services is not the only one intended for inclusion in the agenda of the next meeting. I should like to thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of the question, but there is no intention on my part to request the Prime Minister to call the Premiers at an earlier date than already contemplated.
May 13, 1965



Mrs, Jones: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, does she not consider this is a question which should receive top priority in Canada at the present time?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is receiving that priority, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In a Liberal way.



INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST SMOKING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Is the Government sponsoring a no smoking campaign?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Acting Prime Minister):: Not to my knowledge, Sir.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Acting Prime Minister take the opportunity to deny television news reports to the effect that a no smoking campaign is being sponsored by the Government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Acting Prime Minister does not wish to take the opportunity to deny what is being said in respect of Government sponsored programs, would he not consider this another way of bilking the public by allowing such statements to be made on television news reports which the Government has no intention of backing up?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as has not
infrequently been the case I did not understand the hon. gentleman's question, if it was a question.


Mr. Starr:: Nobody can understand your answers either.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister to consider his answers with a realization of how hard it is for me to understand them.



YOUTH CONFERENCE ON SMOKING-SELECTION OF DELEGATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and concerns the Canadian Youth Conference on Smoking and Health which is now being held in Ottawa. I hope
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister will not take my question as a criticism of this conference, but it may be helpful in case future conferences are held. I wonder if the hon. lady could advise the House why the Ontario delegates to this Canadian Youth Conference on Smoking and Health were selected only from the Ottawa and Cornwall regions? Why were the tobacco regions of Ontario and Quebec not given an opportunity to have students appointed as delegates?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I met these extremely cordial people for the first time, some of whom were cigarette smokers and some of whom had seen the light and were non-smokers. I noticed myself that many of the delegates from Ontario appeared to be from Eastern Ontario. I am afraid that for the answer to this question I shall have to direct the hon. Member to Queen's Park, since in each case the Provincial Government nominated those who were here.



CONSUMPTION OF BREAD UNDER CANADA FOOD GUIDE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious and important question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In a recent publication of the Department of National Health and Welfare entitled "Healthful Eating" there is this statement:
Bread and cereals are especially important in the diet as cheap sources of calories. According to the quantities eaten, these foods may also provide one quarter to one third of our dietary protein. Whole grain cereals and whole wheat-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. What is the
question?


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to emphasize the importance of eating bread. In view of the continuing publicity being given to a diet in which it is stated that you must not eat bread or anything containing flour, will the Minister endorse the statements contained in her department's booklet, and will she agree that the information on eating bread is based on a carefully prepared chart entitled "Canada's Food Guide"?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, certainly the information to which my hon. friend has referred has been issued over the signature of the Department of National Health and

May 13, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry Welfare and as Minister of that department I am very happy to stand behind it.


An hon. Member:: Don't stand in front of it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My hon. friend has only to look at me to know that though bread may be full of calories I eat it.



FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Forestry a question, in view of the fact that he gave an indication to an audience at Richmond Hill last night, in relation to the move of the forest laboratory facilities from there to Sault Ste. Marie, that this was under reconsideration. How much time is it likely to take before a permanent decision is taken, and would he consider referring this whole matter for study to the Committee of the House that is indicated for this area of Government responsibility?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, we had a very fruitful meeting last night, and I hope to be able to render a decision in two or three weeks.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I want to ask the Minister when he expects to commence the war on poverty in the Atlantic Provinces, in view of the fact that the unemployment rate for April of this year was 12.8 per cent, and having regard to the fact that in March it was 12.5 per cent, and 12.3 per cent in April of last year.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate, of course, in the Atlantic Provinces is too high. It is much less than it was under the administration supported by my hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Increasing all the time.


Michael Starr: What have you done about it?


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seemed to the Chair that the last question was more a political argument than a real question, important as the matter may be. If the supplementary question is just to continue an argument, I think the hon. Member should refer to the section of our Standing Orders dealing with the form and drafting of questions.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I realize that we are restricted in asking questions with respect to unemployment, but I would call Your Honour's attention and the attention of the whole House to the fact that the question was not political, only the answer.



REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF DESIGNATED AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Mullally (Kings):: I should like to ask the Minister of Industry if he can advise us when the Government will announce new designated areas for special economic assistance, as well as changes in the types of incentive that will be provided.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: I think all hon. Members will be interested in this question. The House is fully aware of the intensive drive being made by the Government to provide adequate opportunity for some of the less favoured areas of Canada. A new scheme for designated areas changing the incentives is being co-ordinated now with a general program. It would be my hope that in the near future an announcement could be made.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: May I ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I must take one at a time. At the moment there are at least four hon. Members pressing supplementary questions. The first supplementary should go to the Whip of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Grey-Bruce.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should like to ask the Minister if he will keep in mind my suggestion of some weeks ago that he considered the entire Georgian Bay area as a designated area. I should like him to take this into consideration when the new terms are made public.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Muir: May I ask the Minister, in answer to the many requests he has undoubtedly
May 13. 1965

received and the items he has read, if it is the Government's intention to designate the whole of the Atlantic Provinces.


Howard Russell MacEwan: May I
ask the Minister of Industry if it is the intention of the Government to provide capital grants of 25 per cent in the Atlantic area?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think one should appropriately await the announcement of the program rather than to anticipate it.



HAMILTON FALLS-FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN PROVINCIAL DISCUSSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister of which I sent him notice, but he is not here today and I am not quite sure who I should look at as the Acting Prime Minister when I ask my question.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Pickersgill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Acting Prime Minister will be particularly interested and particularly competent to answer this question.
In view of the threatened boundary dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland, and in view of the fact that under section 92(10)(a) of the British North America Act any development of Hamilton Falls extending beyond the Province of Newfoundland would clearly fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether the Government has intervened or proposes to intervene to bring about a settlement of this dispute?


Robert Muir: He will have to check with Joey.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Acting Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that so eminent a lawyer as the hon. gentleman would ask a question of that kind, particularly as I am sure the hon. gentleman well knows that the development of power in any province is a matter which falls entirely with the jurisdiction of the province.
As far as any dispute about the boundary is concerned, I understand there has been some dissatisfaction expressed regarding the 1927 decision of the Privy Council, but I am sure the hon. gentleman would not expect me to express any views about that dissatisfaction.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Miller Bell: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister is travelling east tomorrow and will want to make the most favourable impression possible, will he consider referring to the Atlantic Development Board, or some other agency, the possibility of Federal subsidies in respect of communication lines through the Maritime Provinces in order to end this stalemate over the Churchill Falls development?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should consider subsidies until we find out whether something can be done without them. Reports indicate this project would be economically feasible.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the Minister think he is going to create a favourable impression when he arrives in the east as a result of his-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly, Sir; I am quite sure that the Minister's arrival in Fredericton tomorrow to open the airport will create a very favourable impression.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct
a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice in this regard.
Can he tell us whether during his discussions with Mr. Lesage during the week end the matter of free power transmission between Quebec and Labrador came up? If that subject was discussed, can he tell the house what was the nature of those discussions?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, since the right hon. Prime Minister has already reported to the house on the discussions which took place between him and the premier of Quebec, other ministers being present, I think that in all fairness I should take this question as notice.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Press reports which we have received from London during the past two hours indicate that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has gained a measure of support
1244

May 13, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry from the NATO council in respect of peace keeping operations on the Island of Cyprus. I should like to ask the Minister whether this means that Canada will be partially relieved of her disproportionately high contribution to this peace keeping operation.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to comment on that suggestion. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made a very important contribution to the Council of Ministers and that he has assisted in the reconciliation of views in respect of the Island of Cyprus. I will have to await his return and discussions with him before I will have any information in respect of the question asked by my hon. friend.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have a supplementary question. When is the Secretary of State for External Affairs expected to be back in the House?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think he is due back tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, but I am not certain of that.



SENNETERRE, QUE-CONTINUANCE OF RADAR BASE OPERATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Could the minister tell us whether there is any foundation to the rumour that the radar station in Senneterre is to be closed?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the question but I presume it was whether the rumour is correct that the radar station will be closed. If that was the question the answer is no, not to my knowledge; there are no plans in that direction.



EFFECT OF STRIKE AT CANADAIR PLANT. MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence arising out of the strike situation at the Canadair plant at Montreal, which I understand has now extended over some five weeks. I should like to ask the Minister if this strike situation has affected the production of aircraft or aircraft parts for our defence forces. If so, what action has the

Government taken or does it contemplate taking to bring about a satisfactory conclusion to this unsatisfactory situation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It has, of course, had some effect on Government contracts, but not those of a critical nature. Consequently there has been no necessity for the Government to intervene.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister give the House some indication as to how long it will be before the effect is of a critical nature, if this unhappy strike situation continues?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Well, I think it could go on for some time without affecting our Department of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. I think the area of concern is the effect it might have on export business if the strike were to last for any prolonged period.



EXPO '67 ENCOURAGEMENT TO U.S. COMPANIES TO PARTICIPATE-INVITATION TO RED CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Could he tell us whether he intends to make representations to the U.S. trade department so that American companies established in Canada will be incited to participate more than they do now in Expo '67?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, Expo '67 is obtaining a good deal of support from the business communities of both Canada and the United States. On a number of occasions I have met with Canadian businessmen, and last week I was in New York entertaining a group of leading United States businessmen in order to acquaint them with the great opportunity that lies ahead for them to participate with Canadians in the celebration of our centenary. I intend to continue this kind of effort.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Is he aware of the inquiry conducted by a Montreal newspaper and which is reported
May 13, 1965



to show that the United States parent companies of concerns operating in Canada were forbidding their Canadian branches to take part in Expo '67?
Does the minister intend to do something in that case?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have had considerable experience in discussing this matter with both Canadian companies and their United States parents. I do not think that is a fair representation of the position United States parent companies are taking. I am quite confident that when Expo '67 opens in Montreal in April of 1967 there will be a good representation of Canadian companies, whether they are owned in Canada or elsewhere.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he has reconsidered inviting the People's Republic of China to take part in the 1967 World Fair.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, very careful consideration was given to this matter some time ago. I reported at that time on the considerations that led both Expo and the Government to believe that this would be contrary to the practice followed in these matters, and that it would be very difficult indeed for Canada to invite to participate in Expo the government of a country that we do not at present recognize.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce received any objection from individual countries against extending an invitation to the Republic of China, which buys $150 million of our wheat each year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I know of one country that has accepted an invitation to participate which would object very strongly indeed, and I hardly need mention it here. But I can assure my hon. friend that this matter was given the most careful and serious consideration, and the decision which was made was in accordance with the practices followed in universal and international expositions of the kind we are holding in Montreal in 1967.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of an invitation, would the Expo authorities look favourably on an application 22620-81J
Inquiries of the Ministry from the government of mainland China to exhibit at this fair?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there has been no application. I think it is not customary to answer hypothetical questions of this kind, but if the hon. gentleman will look at the answers I have given in the past and the answers that have been given by Expo '67 he will see that, as I have already said, it would not be in accordance with the practice of exhibitions of this kind for Canada to invite a country which we do not recognize internationally.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I read in Le Droit of the day before yesterday that an exhibition of foodstuffs is taking place. The article is headed "Open House for English Speaking Canadians". Apparently the exhibition is only for English speaking Canadians because the signs are not in French and English. Is this a fact, and has anything been done to correct the situation?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my personal regret over the fact that only one of our official languages was used on the display signs at our food research open house. I noticed this when I went to the official opening, and I have instructed the responsible officials of my department to correct the situation.



INQUIRY AS TO SITTING ON MONDAY, MAY 24

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Government House Leader. So far as sittings of the House are concerned, what are the plans for Monday, May 24?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, under the Standing Orders as amended last session Monday, May 24 is a holiday for the House. Therefore the House will not sit on that day unless some order is made that it should sit. We do not propose bringing forward any such order for the consideration of the House.

May 13, 1965
National Housing Act BROADCASTING



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF FOWLER COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Can he inform the House when the Government expects to receive the long awaited report of the advisory committee on broadcasting?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I said the other day that I expected the report in June.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. According to an interpretation in an article in Monday's Gazette the current formula for constitutional amendment has been embalmed by the Government of Quebec. Does the Minister not agree that if this formula is not dead it is sleeping?



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 27, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Nicholson-Mr. Batten in the Chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to increase-
(a)	from two and one-half billion dollars to three and one-quarter billion dollars the amount the Minister of Finance may advance to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purpose of making direct loans to borrowers to assist in the construction of houses and housing projects;
(b)	from one hundred million dollars to three hundred million dollars the amount the Minister of Finance may advance or pay to the Corporation to make loans and grants relating to urban renewal schemes and to meet obligations incurred under urban redevelopment agreements;
(c)	from fifty million dollars to one hundred and fifty million dollars the amount in the special account established in the Consolidated Revenue Fund out of which advances may be made toward public housing projects developed jointly by the Corporation and a province or any agency thereof;
(d)	from one hundred and fifty million dollars to two hundred million dollars the maximum amount the Minister may advance to the Corporation for the purpose of making loans for university housing projects; and
(e)	from six billion dollars to eight and one-half billion dollars the maximum amount of all loans in respect of which insurance policies may be issued under the Act.
Mr. Grafftey:: Mr. Chairman, since the Minister and the Government introduced this resolution certain very basic and important developments have taken place in the housing field. They not only relate to the Government's record and intentions in the housing field but touch upon a much more fundamental question, namely the question of Federal-Provincial relations. Since the Minister introduced the resolution into this House the Minister for Municipal Affairs in the Province of Quebec, Mr. Pierre Laporte, has said the Government of that Province intends to move into the area of housing. In fact he simply said the Government of Quebec intends to set up an authority for housing.
I want to underline the importance of this debate at this stage, Mr. Chairman. I am going to ask the Government certain questions, and every member of the opposition will expect detailed answers; because we have a right to know whether co-operative federalism is being practised in the true sense of the word. I asked the Minister in the House four days ago, and I did not get any answer whatever, whether Mr. Laporte or the Province of Quebec consulted the Federal Government before this announcement was made. Since the announcement was made many days ago, I should like the Minister to tell us whether anybody in the Federal Government has consulted with the Province of Quebec in order to determine exactly what is meant by that Province moving into the housing field, and the degree of moving in. In other words this is one instance where, as a member of the opposition, I demand to know whether cooperative federalism is being practised in the true sense of the word.
This Government's record in Federal-Provincial relations has been appalling. One week it is a jurisdictional dispute with the Province of Quebec over treaties; the next week it is over banks, then it is job placement and now it is housing. We want to know what is going on in this regard. We want to know because the right hon. Prime Minister and his Cabinet stumble from crisis to crisis in the field of Federal-Provincial relations.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The Prime Minister of this country, no matter what party he heads, has the singular obligation of defining and defending the federal cause; but the present Prime Minister, instead of defending the federal cause, negotiates it. He hastily summons summit meetings with provincial premiers when it is too late, when the damage is done; and national unity suffers. I choose to ask for
May 13. 1S65

specific, not vague, answers from the Minister in this regard. He owes it to the nation, he owes it to the spirit of co-operative federalism, he owes it to us all to tell us exactly what it will mean when Quebec establishes a housing authority, not tomorrow or next week but at this stage of the housing resolution that is before the committee. As the Government stumbles from crisis to crisis in the field of Federal-Provincial relations, much damage is done.

And now, I and, I am sure, all the other members of the opposition, insist upon an answer from the minister concerning the intentions of the province of Quebec.

Sir, in this regard I realize the difficulties involved. As a responsible member of the House I realize that in the field of constitutional problems and in the field of Federal-Provincial relations we are traversing some very difficult and delicate ground at the present time, but this does not exonerate the Government from the blame. This does not exonerate the Minister from getting up and making a clear statement about what is going on in this regard, because if he does not, and if the Official Opposition recommendation relating to these problems are not taken up by the Government, I ask what will soon be the next problem.
It will be a crisis in another area of conjoint jurisdiction, another hastily summoned summit conference meeting with some premier or other. Federal-Provincial relations will be weakened and so will national unity. I say to the Government that the sooner it accepts the recommendations of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, in a bipar-isan way, and establishes a national conference for amending and studying our constitution, the better it will be in order that we might have a modern constitution suited to modern times, a made in Canada constitution. The sooner this is done the better. Every day the Government waits in this regard is a wasted day.
I do not want to look pompously into a crystal ball, but the Minister is only one of many Ministers who will be in this kind of difficulty until the Government accepts, in a bipartisan way, the recommendations of the Leader of the Opposition in the field of Federal-Provincial relations and in the field of modernizing our constitution.
We have no disagreement with the general purport of the resolution. Conservatives have
National Housing Act
always believed in the principle of an ownership democracy. We only need to look at the record of our government between 1958 and 1962 to see how we underlined the notion that government should help people to help themselves. Sir, this principle is often underlined by the expediting of self help, self liquidating loans such as housing loans and other loans of this nature that give people an ownership stake in our country. As a government we recognized that it was a good thing to have good farmers on good farms, good independent businessmen owning good independent businesses, and families owning their own homes.
So, Sir, as we go into this housing legislation we can only hope that in some sense, in some real way, the Government is going to begin its war on poverty. Certainly it did not begin the war on poverty in the Budget, a budget that showed itself little concerned with the problems of inflation and how it affects the poor man in this country, a Budget that gave high income people a $600 reduction and the low salaried person an exemption equivalent to two cups of coffee a week.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I have
allowed the hon. Member to make his preliminary remarks, and I would now hope he would proceed to confine himself more closely to the resolution before the committee.


William Heward Grafftey: Well, Mr. Chairman, I only hope that in this housing legislation the Government will show itself sincere and serious about beginning a war on poverty. For example, I would like to know from the Minister, and with good reason, how many urban renewal projects have been undertaken based on the amendments of June, 1964; because we know, Sir, we have now located urban poverty in the centre of our urban metropolitan areas.
Here we find the sick, the aged, the unemployed and many displaced people in our society, living in the run-down centres of our metropolitan areas, and we understand that the resolution before the committee, if it is expedited, can in a very real way go far toward rectifying urban poverty in the middle of our metropolitan areas. It is for this reason I would like to ask the Minister how many urban renewal projects have been undertaken based on the amendments of June, 1964.
What about rural housing, Mr. Chairman? It is my belief that in the future one of the ways we are really going to combat rural poverty is by making sure more people own their own homes in rural areas. I would like

May 13, 1965
National Housing Act
to take this opportunity to congratulate the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the great help they have always accorded me in bringing about what I would like to think in the last few years has been a record in the construction of houses in the area I represent, Brome-Missisquoi.
At the same time I would like to point out that not enough new houses are being built in rural areas. Very often people who should and could benefit from C.M.H.C. legislation do not, because they are not familiar enough with C.M.H.C. regulations and laws. I would urge officials of C.M.H.C. to spread the good news about the corporation in rural areas so that many more rural people will take advantage of their regulations and housing loans in general.
I am sure many hon. Members who represent rural areas have often had the experience I have had of young married people starting out in life paying over $70 a month rent for very run-down quarters, while for the same amount or perhaps a little more they could actually pay for the capital and interest charges on a new home financed by C.M.H.C. Though I congratulate the officials of the corporation for a job well done in the past, I urge them to spread the good news to rural areas so that more rural people will own their own homes.
I speak for myself, and perhaps for many other Members in the Opposition, when I say that in order to encourage home ownership I think it would be a very good thing if the Federal Government granted federal income tax exemption on municipal taxes paid for houses or dwelling units. All these ideas, Sir, are based on my party's deep concern with the desirability for Canadians to have an ownership stake in the community.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I should like to underline one other thing. It relates to the changes which we imagine are to be made in banking legislation, whereby the chartered banks will be able to extend their mortgage business. I have found, as one who represents many rural electors, that the large finance, mortgage and insurance companies have been loath to enter the rural areas and grant mortgages to rural people. I recognize the administrative difficulties. This situation should be considered together with the fact that many rural people, as I pointed out earlier, are not aware of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation regulations and the means of obtaining loans from that body. The net result is that insufficient new houses are

being built in rural areas. I hope the changes to be made in the banking legislation will mean that the banks can and will extend more mortgages in the rural areas than has been the case in the past.
To return to my main point, while I have outlined my support for the general purport of this resolution; while I have outlined what I consider to be the deep concern of the Conservative Party about giving people a private ownership stake in their country, I am even more concerned at the present time about building a united Canada. I know that the Minister, who is certainly one of the most forthright members of the Government, is caught in an area of Government policy regarding Federal-Provincial relations which is not a very happy one. But I believe he is one Minister who can get up and defend the Federal position with regard to housing and tell us what Mr. Laporte's intentions are. I hope he will lend his voice in Cabinet to plans for bringing about a national conference as soon as possible to modernize our constitution.
With these final thoughts I bring my remarks to a close. I look forward with much anticipation and much optimism to a clarifying declaration from the Minister at this time.


Mr. Macaluso:: I wish to begin by thanking the Minister for his kind reference to the City of Hamilton's challenging, well planned, well constructed and well conceived urban renewal schemes which are under way at the present time. There is no doubt that the City of Hamilton is pioneering the modern concept of urban renewal in this country, and we hope not only that we shall be successful in this regard but that we shall be in a position to invite officials from across this country to view what is being done under the urban renewal legislation which was passed in 1964.
I wish to compliment the Minister also on the work he has done as the Minister responsible for housing and urban renewal, and to extend my compliments to the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. During my time in this house I have had occasion to work closely with them, and I have nothing but the highest regard for the officials of that body and for its President.
Today I wish to deal mainly with paragraph (b) of the resolution having to do with urban renewal. It is my intention to quote from staff study No. 4 prepared for the Eco-
May 13, 1965

nomic Council of Canada as a background paper and entitled "Housing Demand to 1970".
The study states on page 30:
With respect to urban renewal, municipalities made use of a total of only $3.2 million in 1963 for the purpose of acquiring and clearing blighted or substandard areas under the Federal cost-sharing arrangements. The principal barriers against more extensive use of these programs appear to have been institutional ones, particularly at the municipal level. But recently a few developments have emerged which may point to an accelerated pace of action. These are found in new legislation, in the streamlining of Government machinery, and also in certain apparent changes in attitudes. A number of legislative changes designed to improve such responses were introduced in June 1964.
This refers to the amendment in that year of the National Housing Act of 1954. It goes on:
These legislative changes would appear to offer increased scope and incentives for action in this field by provincial and municipal governments.
From this same technical study it appears that population growth is expected to be much more rapid in urban areas, particularly in the larger cities. Estimates suggest that by 1970 over 68 per cent of the population is expected to live in urban centres with populations of 5,000 or over. By 1970 it is estimated that between 85 per cent and 90 per cent of all new residential construction will be in urban centres having populations of more than 5,000.
Having made these remarks I should like to turn to the speech made by the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle, who has now set himself up as not only an agricultural expert but as the Conservative Party's expert on city affairs. As reported in Hansard for April 27 at page 664, the hon. Member referred to gaps in this legislation with respect to urban renewal. He said:
I know that when we were In office we put in the sections which provided money for cities to look at the problem, study it and begin to work out a plan. We also got ready to move the amendments which the Minister had the honour to move last year, so there is no question of not being willing to move with the times.
Let us look at the record to see whether they were willing to move with the times when they were in office. I say to the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle that he is completely wrong in his statement that they were ready to move such amendments. Such amendments were never on the order paper. Let us examine the record with regard to the National Housing Act.
A chronological review of urban renewal legislation gives a picture of its status before
National Housing Act
and after the amendments introduced by this Government in June, 1964. Federal assistance for urban renewal activity in Canada was first provided through a 1949 amendment to the National Housing Act. Under these initial provisions financial contributions equal to half the costs involved in the acquisition and clearance of blighted areas were made available to municipalities. Grants were subject to the requirement that areas cleared would be replaced with new residential developments catering to low income families. This restriction on the re-use of cleared land was amended slightly in 1954 when the National Housing Act was revised to authorize the utilization of these areas for other public purposes as well as housing. It still had to be substantially residential development.
In 1956 a further change permitted Federal assistance where a substantial portion of the area-either before or after redevelopment- was devoted to residential purposes. Thus it became possible for land to be cleared and displaced families rehoused elsewhere, freeing the area for redevelopment for the most appropriate purpose as determined by the municipality. It was still clearance of substantially residential areas for substantially residential development.
During the period from 1957 to 1963, when the Conservative Government was in office, the Government in which the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle was a Member, the only amendment to the National Housing Act for urban renewal purposes was an increase in the statutory limitation from $25 million to $50 million, a paltry $25 million for this great scheme of urban renewal. When this Government took office, after months of study with the provinces and the C.M.H.C., substantial amendments to the National Housing Act were introduced in Parliament and passed last June. They amounted to far reaching and flexible legislation providing additional incentives for urban renewal; contributions equal to half the costs incurred in preparing urban renewal schemes; contributions to meet half the costs of acquisition and clearance; contributions to meet half the costs involved -and this was a new and far reaching amendment-in the installation or improvement of municipal services and facilities in urban renewal areas; loans of up to two thirds of the Provincial or Municipal share of the cost of implementing a renewal scheme; loans for existing housing in urban renewal areas; and more important, Mr. Chairman, removal of the restriction that Federal assistance be

May 13, 1965
National Housing Act
available only in areas with a housing content before or after clearance.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Those amendments also allowed the statutory limitation to be increased from $50 million to $100 million. Also, Mr. Chairman, there will be coming before us a bill which seeks the approval of this House to a further increase in the funds available for urban renewal to $300 million, an increase of $200 million. Passage of this bill will ensure that Canada's urban renewal program, booming away, will not be restricted for lack of Federal funds.
In this connection we should look at the experience in the United States. I compliment the Government for asking for these additional funds. We must never get into a position such as that in the U.S.A., where the urban renewal administration has run out of capital grant funds and has been unable to continue these programs, thus creating serious problems for the cities. These additional funds are a reconfirmation of this Government's support in regard to financial assistance to cities in their efforts to utilize their central business districts, which provide jobs and the taxes for services required in the residential areas.
If 1 may, Mr. Chairman, I would again refer to the City of Hamilton for a moment. Let us remember that only $3.2 million was used for urban renewal in 1963. The City of Hamilton has already benefited, through the amendments to the National Housing Act made by this Government, by commitments by the Federal Government of more than $4,756,000 specifically for urban renewal in the north end renewal project in that city. This would not have been possible had it not been for the amendments that were before the House last June.
Again, referring to the history the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle was mentioning, the first Federal contribution for an urban renewal study was made in June, 1955 to the City of Toronto. This study became the pilot project in what has become an important part of our urban renewal experience. Mr. Chairman, this took place two years before the change in Government. The hon. Member for Qu'Appelle also made reference to his Government's readiness to move an amendment which we moved last year, which I think is a lot of rot, Mr. Chairman. On December 2, 1960 Royal Assent was given to an amendment under which the statutory limit on contributions out of the Consolidated

Revenue Fund to assist in urban redevelopment, as I stated earlier, was raised by the Conservative regime from $25 million to $50 million. I notice that all the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle does is to speak in generalities and not in specifics of the proposals he makes. Again referring to the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle's statement, he refers to metropolitan planning and says:
The day is over when any city thinks it can set up a parks board to plan parks; that a city can set up a transportation committee to plan transportation in the city; that it can set up a body to deal with education and plan for new schools-
Those are very interesting remarks by a party that is so concerned with provincial rights. With respect to metropolitan planning, the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle suggested that urban renewal should be undertaken as part of the over-all planning of the municipality concerned. Certainly it has been abundantly clear to me and to others that the 1964 amendments to the National Housing Act provide that an urban renewal scheme must be prepared before an urban renewal project can be implemented. An urban renewal scheme is, of course, the municipal plan for dealing with the situation, an over-all plan with which the Province is in agreement. Certainly Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is authorized to assist the Provinces and the Municipalities to redevelop and rehabilitate urban renewal areas in accordance with an official plan.
Any urban renewal scheme will specify the buildings and the works that are affected, will detail where acquisition and clearance are required, and will make provision for replacing displaced families and individuals. As the hon. Minister stated earlier, "The heart and soul of the neighbourhood involved is examined by municipal architects, economists and planners". Certainly I disagree with the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle that there is no over-all planning and that there is such a gap in the present National Housing Act legislation. We in Canada cannot afford either to mark time or to fall short of our highest potentials in a field as important as housing and urban development.
I have certain suggestions and recommendations to make to the Minister, Mr. Chairman. One of these deals with relocation assistance in urban renewal areas. Families have to be relocated because of an urban renewal scheme passed by the municipality, passed by the Provincial Government and approved by the Federal Government, and have to find other
May 13. 1965

housing. I suggest that the Federal Government should allow modest payments to assist displaced families and individuals in reestablishing themselves at their new locations. This payment should be made to any displaced individual or family to meet their reasonable and necessary removal expenses. I include legal expenses in this, Mr. Chairman, for if a family or individual is moved because the city expropriates the land, legal expenses are incurred. When they sell a house and move, they must pay legal fees; and when they are rehoused in another area they must pay legal fees. I think some consideration must be given by the Federal Government, in consultation with the Provincial Governments and Municipalities, to reimbursing these people at least for the legal fees which must be paid out of their pockets and which otherwise would not be necessary.
I am one of those also, Mr. Chairman, who believe that the Federal Government should set up a Department of Housing and Urban Development. I have believed this for many years. I believe that a full time Minister-not that I am criticizing the present Minister's work in this regard-should be appointed, and all the functions of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation could be transferred intact to this Department. I do not know if the Minister will agree with me, but the President of C.M.H.C. could become the Deputy Minister of that new department. Our urban problems are of a scope and magnitude that demand representation at the highest level of Government, and I suggest that the responsibilities of this department would be to advise the Government on urban affairs and to develop and recommend policies for fostering the orderly development of our urban areas. It could exercise leadership in co-ordinating urban activities at the Federal level and provide assistance and information to the Provincial and Municipal Governments. It could encourage comprehensive planning at all levels of Government. This department could also conduct continuing studies on housing and urban development problems.
We must recognize that housing and community development in Canada are in a period of transition, and that the pattern of organization at the Federal, Provincial and Municipal levels will be undergoing change for some period of time to come. Cities everywhere are looking for a better administrative pattern under which to mesh the many functions of Government that relate to community rebuilding. I feel that the Federal Government can and should give the lead here.
National Housing Act
I certainly feel that the Federal Government should also consider the establishment of an Institute of Urban Development. This institute should be used to plan for the growth and development of an entire metropolitan area, and would require trained personnel. We in Canada do not have the vital human resources required for metropolitan planning. We are in short supply, and they are inaccessible to many of our local governments.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
To help meet this need for trained personnel the Federal Government could establish, as part of the new Department of Housing, or perhaps even in one of the universities of Canada, a government-supported training scheme similar to that which we have in the Labour College. An institute of urban development would help to train local officers in a wide range of administrative proposals dealing with urban affairs.
We realize that whatever the scale of this program, the Federal Government would only be able to do a small part of what is required. The vast bulk of resources, energy, talent and work would have to come from provincial and municipal governments, and in particular from municipal governments. The initiative in respect of urban renewal as well as public housing must come from the municipal and local levels. The Federal Government does have a responsibility, and it must help to meet the most urgent part of the needs for housing and urban renewal. It must also be sure that its efforts serve as a catalyst or lever to help guide provincial and municipal governments in meeting their housing and urban renewal needs.
I should like to quote from Aristotle who said:
Men come together in cities in order to live. They remain together in order to live the good life.
The modern city can be, I suggest, a most ruthless enemy of the good life, or it can be its servant. The choice is up to us Canadians, to take it or to leave it. I suggest that we have now grasped the situation and are moving ahead. I do not think we in Canada will ever look backwards.
As I stated earlier, Mr. Chairman, I must compliment the Government for coming to this House, so soon after passing important amendments in June, 1964, to ask for additional financial assistance. At the time of the amendments the Minister stated that if more money was needed to do the job, he would come before this House and ask for more

May 13, 1965
National Housing Act
money. I congratulate him and the Government in this regard.
I should like to refer to one other matter dealt with by the hon. Member for Qu'Ap-pelle and the hon. Member for Brome-Missis-quoi. Those hon. Members made a big thing about how their party seemed to be the only party which was concerned with home ownership by Canadian citizens. I am sure that every one of us is concerned with Canadian citizen home ownership. The proof of anything is to be found in the fact. This Government has done more to promote individual home ownership than any preceding Government. In this regard one need only look at the recent amendments which increased to $13,000, from $12,000, the amount of lending to which the 95 per cent factor is applied in calculating loans to individuals. The amount now available has been raised to $18,000, resulting in greatly reduced down payments.
Mr. Chairman, I gather my time is about to run out, but I should like to say-


The Chairman:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. Member to inform him that his time has expired.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: -no Government has done more for urban renewal.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, I wish I could be as happy and as pleased as the hon. Member for Hamilton West about the legislation which has been introduced. I must say that I feel a little different about it than he does.
In the past, before we even heard of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans, I tried to assist communities in my area that had expressed the intention of building senior citizens homes, and like projects. This is not possible any more. I am pleased to note the proposal in this resolution to increase the money available for C.M.H.C. loans from $6 billion to $8J billion. But I do not need even a million dollars to help in this regard: All I want is a few thousand dollars to assist in the construction of a senior citizens home in the Province of Saskatchewan, to be located in Star City. Two years ago a similar project was built in this area in another town, and there was no difficulty in obtaining a loan from C.M.H.C. However, now that more money is available, it seems that this Corporation is able to find more excuses for disallowing applications for loans. I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who is responsible for the administration of the IMr. Macaluso.]
National Housing Act, the fact that the application for a loan has been refused. This is an unjust and unfair decision. The reason for refusal as stated by C.M.H.C. is that the provincial government was not in a position to supply the funds necessary to construct this senior citizens home in Star City. This decision was taken, in spite of the fact that Star City indicated its willingness to underwrite the loss. Another reason given related to the fact that there was no hospital in this community. However, may I point out that there is a hospital at Tisdale, within 10 or 12 minutes drive from Star City.
The doctor resident in Star City has the same privileges at that hospital as any other doctor who lives in Tisdale, including admitting privileges.
I find it very difficult to understand why this loan was rejected. The C.M.H.C. also stated that it could not approve the loan for this project because there are senior citizens homes located in the same district, namely at Melfort and Tisdale. However, Star City does not have admitting privileges at these homes.
I do not intend to refer to other matters of this kind at this time in the House, in view of the fact that I have already referred them to officials of the department and discussed them with the Minister. However, I do want to point out that, apparently once a decision has been made in respect of an application, new circumstances, representations or evidence will not be considered.
It is my belief that if Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation continues to take the attitude that these small communities are not eligible for loans to build senior citizens homes of this kind, then it will be catering only to the larger cities and towns. These small communities are not financially able to provide their residents with the benefits which can be derived from homes of this kind, and other projects. It is because of the lack of these facilities that the smaller communities are rapidly disappearing. I suggest that when the population begins to decrease, the railways will begin to abandon their service, and I state emphatically that this is taking place to an increasing degree in small communities in the West. The result is that many of these communities are disappearing and the people are moving into larger cities and towns.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The smaller communities in Canada are the communities which have a greater need
May 13, 1965

for C.M.H.C. loans. The officials of the Corporation seem to adopt the attitude that the people in these small communities should avail themselves of the facilities in the larger districts, rather than establish their own. I should like the Minister to keep in mind the fact that our towns and rural municipalities are underwriting these losses. I should also like to emphasize again that the Saskatchewan Provincial Government's supervisor of low rental housing was of the opinion that there would be no objection on their part to a senior citizens home being built in this particular locality. I do not want to belabour this matter much more because I am sure the Minister is aware of this problem. Now that there is to be an increase in the maximum amount of all loans from $6 billion to $8J billion I trust that the Minister will find it possible to approve this loan.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister knows I was very happy to sit in on the housing symposium held in Vancouver last January. I was as pleased as I know he was to see the active interest of many of the municipal leaders in the Province of British Columbia in that symposium. The more recent proposals with respect to urban renewal have certainly sparked a great deal of interest not only in large metropolitan centres but also in some of the smaller urban communities in British Columbia and, I gather, in many other parts of Canada.
I felt I should like to participate briefly in the discussion of the resolution and to suggest that the housing picture in Canada presents an ever changing and ever challenging problem. I am not going to quarrel with the assertion made a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Hamilton West that no Government has done more than the present one to encourage home ownership by Canadians. I would simply point out, however, that his loud assertion does not really prove anything, because he did not support it with any comparisons or any suggestion as to how much any Government had done in this field.
In spite of what has been done and in spite of the proposals in the resolution to provide additional funds, the fact still remains that for the average Canadian family the provision of adequate housing remains one of the most difficult, expensive and at times distressing problems faced by such families. I am quite happy to say that I support the proposals in the resolution for the provision of increased funds but I would expect that not even the Minister will claim that the contents of the
National Housing Act
resolution will solve the problems of all Canadians in respect of the provision of adequate housing.
A good many Members who have participated in the discussion of this resolution, and in other discussions on housing we have had in recent months, have been concerned about the problem of urban housing, particularly in the large metropolitan areas. I for one am glad to welcome any action taken in this regard and to support the efforts of any Members of the House which will have the result of eliminating or improving upon the unsightly conditions of blight in respect of housing that are all too evident to any of us who travel throughout Canada.
The matter I should like to bring forward is one of current interest and concern in my own province, but before I launch into it I should like to refer briefly to a situation which came to my attention during a visit I paid some time ago to the City of Moncton, when a certain event was taking place in that area of the Province of New Brunswick. While I was there I happened to notice in the press that the Minister was going to appear within a day or so to open officially a public housing project in the City of Moncton. I raise this point because reference is made in the resolution to a considerable increase in the allocation of funds for public housing programs.
I do not know what the Minister's reaction was when he saw this housing project in the City of Moncton, but I only hope he was as shocked by it as I was. Quite frankly, I do not recall ever seeing a more ugly housing development in my life, and I felt that if this was the best we could do in the field of developing public housing in Canada the situation was a sorry one indeed. I know that quite a number of people who had already built homes in the adjacent area expressed concern to me about the depressing effect this particular project was going to have upon the value of their properties. Whatever may be the explanation, it was quite obvious to me that somebody had been entirely too tightfisted with respect to this particular public housing program, and that what we were doing was creating something that certainly could be a slum tomorrow, if not a slum today.
I looked at some of these houses with three or four bedrooms where undoubtedly large families would live. The bedrooms were little boxes. The houses were crowded into such

May 13, 1965
National Housing Act
a small area that there was entirely inadequate provision for grass and trees around them, and with the number of children who obviously would be making use of these small areas the project was nothing more than a slum in the making. I mention this, Mr. Chairman, because I hope that one of the results of this resolution will be that we will undertake no more public housing projects which will be so obviously short of funds as this one must have been.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The matter I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister and the House has to do with the need for housing in other than urban areas. I do so because certainly in my part of British Columbia, and I believe increasingly in other parts of Canada, there are going to come into being what are known as instant towns, to use a phrase now popular on the British Columbia coast. These instant towns are towns in which there is usually one but sometimes more large industrial plants, and living facilities and amenities are required for the people who work in these plants. They are coming into being in what have heretofore been almost unoccupied, semi-isolated areas. From some of the representations that have been made to me, the schemes under which they are being developed make the problems of individual Canadians, especially of home ownership, far from easy.
I am sure we all agree that the cost of the removal of old buildings in the degenerate areas of a city is a fairly heavy one. The provision made for Federal assistance in a case of this kind of development is something that is quite necessary. 1 hardly need to remind the present Minister who is responsible for housing that when it comes to bringing into instant being a community in some of the rugged parts of British Columbia, the cost of creating an area of landscape on which to build a house and the ancillary facilities is also very expensive. As we look to the development of some of the undeveloped areas of Canada, as we look into the northern regions of Canada, as we increase our exploitation of our mineral resources of this country as well as our forest resources, the problems of providing communities of this kind are something which more and more should receive the attention of those who are interested in the provision of proper housing for Canadians.
In the Province of British Columbia we have had for a long time what were known

as company towns. I had some experience during part of my boyhood of living in one of these communities. I have had plenty of opportunity for observing at first hand some of the problems, some of the limitations of the basic human rights and freedoms that have existed in the past as a result of this type of community. Certainly I, for one, welcome the fact that most of the industrial corporations who are now concerned with the development and processing of our natural resources appear more and more to be trying to get away from this idea of building company towns, where the company owns everything lock, stock and barrel and where the provision of the amenities of a community are dependant upon the whims or fancies or temporary good will of the management of the company. This is a development I welcome.
On the other hand, I think we should not be unaware of the dangers inherent in this situation, which basically is a good one. It is that some of these industrial companies may show an inclination to simply shuck off all of the social and community responsibilities with respect to their employees, which in earlier years they felt necessary to assume. It is with this type of problem that I feel we should perhaps be more concerned than we have been up to the present time. It is a problem that, so far as I can see, while we are making an allocation of an increased amount of money in other directions in this resolution, we are not making any particular appropriation to deal with.
Now, Mr. Chairman, one of the nice little booklets provided to those attending the symposium is entitled, "Federal-Provincial Housing and Land Assembly". This booklet points out that under Section 35A of the National Housing Act and complementary provincial legislation, the Federal Government and the government of a province may enter into a partnership agreement to do a number of things. One of these is the assembling of raw land for development purposes. I feel that this is a part of the Housing Act that requires more attention in this House than the Minister may heretofore have given it. The situation that appears to be developing, and I have here a newspaper clipping that refers to a particular community, seems to bear out what I have felt was the case. The people who are going to be asked to live in these communities, who are going to be asked to take on the responsibility of acquiring home ownership, are going to have to do so almost entirely on their own, with the proviso that
May 13, 1965

some arrangements are being worked out to take advantage of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation money.
I may perhaps put this short quotation on the record of the House. The headline reads, "Work Starts Next Week on B.C. Town". I take it that means the week in which we are now. I quote:
Construction will begin next week on the first 45 new homes at Gold River, a new townsite on Vancouver Island that will provide modern housing, education and commercial facilities for 3,000 persons by June, 1967.
J. V. Christensen, President of Tahsis Co. Ltd., said yesterday that the town will provide residences for new workers at the company's new $60 million pulp mill under construction at the head of Muchalat Inlet, 140 miles northwest of here.
The township will be developed by private contractors and the residents will purchase their own homes, Mr. Christensen said. Cost of construction is estimated at $15 million.
Well, Gold River is not the only one of these instant towns that is coming into being within my own constituency. I will not go beyond its borders for the purpose of illustrating my remarks. The Minister may have heard of the new community that is being built at Port McNeill from the ashes-not exactly from the ashes, but from what was until recently a purely old style British Columbia logging camp. A new townsite is being built and assembled today on Neuroutsos Arm, where the workers of the Port Alice pulp mill of the Rayonnier Corporation will be living. I do not know what might be possible under the terms of the Housing Act to deal with this kind of situation. I do know that individual workers are being faced with the most difficult kind of decision to make in respect of whether they are going to acquire an equity in the ownership of a home in these communities. Under the arrangements that have been worked out so far, the costs are very high so far as the individual worker is concerned, in respect of the purchase of land and that sort of thing.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I am not saying that the profits which may be made by the private contractors referred to in the press release I quoted, or by the private contractors who will be involved in the development of these other communities, will necessarily be exorbitant. What I am saying is that the costs facing Canadians of average incomes are unduly high under the arrangements that are being developed. Some better provision should be worked out under
National Housing Act
the National Housing Act so that these people who go into the resource producing areas of Canada will be able to have adequate and decent housing on similar terms-certainly no less favourable-to those enjoyed by those whose occupations are in large metropolitan centres.
One of the things that requires some study, if such study has not already been made in detail, is the matter of the relative cost of raw land assembly for community purposes as compared with knocking down old, decrepit houses in urban centres in order to renew those parts of our cities. As the Minister knows, some of the stumps we have in B.C. are almost as big as houses in downtown parts of cities, and are probably as costly to remove and make the land suitable for housing.
From the information I have been able to gather I am happy to say that those who are responsible for the development of these new instant towns in my own area, which I have referred to for the purposes of illustration, have gone to some pains to try to develop communities that will be modern, that will be pleasing in their style of architecture, and that will have adequate town services in the up-to-date sense of that term. Nevertheless, I feel that the costs involved make it exceedingly difficult for individuals to take the plunge that they necessarily must, if they are going to decide to become residents of some of these communities. I am sure the Minister appreciates that this situation is further aggravated so far as average citizens are concerned because in most cases their livelihood-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. Member as his time has expired.


Mr. Ryan:: Mr. Chairman, the National Housing Act of 1954, as amended over the succeeding years, has proven to be a great boon for Canada. Its provisions have certainly been responsible for the improvement in both quality and quantity of Canadian homes.
As I took off from Ottawa on a flight to Toronto a couple of weeks ago I sat beside an American from Cincinnati, Ohio. He told me he was a frequent visitor to Canada in connection with his business, and that as such he never failed to be astonished at the great number of new residential subdivisions in Canada, and at the quality of the homes, which he considered to be superior to those built under analogous legislation in his own state. Indeed our conversation on the plane began by his pointing out to me the large

May 13, 1965
National Housing Act
number of new homes on either side of the Queensway as we took off for Toronto. I was very pleased to hear the remarks of this visitor to our country, and I am sure that all Members of the House will welcome this compliment to the performance of the officials of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation of Canada.
At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express appreciation to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in his capacity as the Minister responsible for the National Housing Act, for the amendments to the act that he brought into being in the last session, and for the five efficacious and farsighted amendments proposed in broad outline by this resolution.
His enthusiasm and initiative in setting up symposia and personally attending each symposium in eight of the ten provinces of Canada, with the responses that have resulted from them, I would submit are in large measure responsible for the necessity for the Government resolution we have before us today to increase the limits in all five categories of the resolution.
I attended the symposium held in Toronto on December 17 last. It was held, I believe, for the southern and southwestern parts of the Province of Ontario. The ballroom of the King Edward Hotel was crowded with over 600 provincial and municipal representatives, and I am sure many of them had little or no idea, at the beginning, of the full range of benefits that could be obtained under the National Housing Act.
The provinces and the municipalities are, however, jealously the masters in their own jurisdictions as to what they will plan in the way of building and where they will locate it, whether it be new building or clearance, or the rehabilitation of existing housing, industrial or commercial areas.
The Minister spoke to the gathering on that occasion with great clarity and he was careful to point out that the Federal Government was not attempting in any way to dictate to the provinces or municipalities as to either when or where they should initiate their plans and their construction. Rather, he expressly pointed out that initiation of any scheme under the Act was the responsibility primarily of the municipality. Under our constitution, separating as it does areas of sovereignty, the Federal Government could only hold out the carrot and hope that it would be taken.
As an illustration let me quote from the Minister's speech on that occasion:

We know what must be done-we must master our municipal destinies.
This then is the program I submit to you. It is a program of grants and assistance specifically tailored to meet varied urban requirements. It was prepared as a direct result of consultations with every province by my late colleague, Hon. John R. Garland, just prior to his untimely death. Because of the provincial co-operation, new and timely legislation has become reality. I cannot speak too highly of the co-operation that we are receiving from the government of this province in this program.
But let no man be mistaken-the whole act of revitalization of our communities must spring from local initiative. Housing and urban renewal are the particular prerogatives of the provinces and the municipalities themselves-not the Federal Government. The challenge-the ultimate responsibility is entirely local.
I should like now, Mr. Chairman, to refer briefly to the observations of the hon. Member for Timmins at pages 666 and 669 of Hansard, and to say how admirably his words reflect his own state of confusion when it comes to a discussion of housing. I suggest his speech could have been conceived only in the atmosphere of "foggy thinking," of which he unjustly accused the Minister.
Armed with clippings from the Globe and Mail, the hon. Member claimed that the Minister had been guilty of contradictory statements. On the one hand, he is quoted as saying nearly 100,000 Canadian families live in appalling housing conditions; on the other-the next day-he is reported as being opposed to N.H.A. loans for existing housing and as stating that the latter is a function of the private part of the economy.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
What the hon. Member apparently fails to appreciate is that these comments were about two entirely different things. Loans for existing housing are now and always have been a function of private enterprise; the National Housing Act has concerned itself with encouraging an increase in the volume and quality of new housing. But the improvement of properties in designated urban renewal areas is another matter. In this field mortgage loans, either made or insured by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, are being utilized under the amended statute as the third prong of a three-pronged attack on urban blight, that is, redevelopment, rehabilitation and conservation. I feel sure it was in this connection that the Minister referred to provincial responsibility and involvement. As he has said many times, last summer's amendments to the Act were discussed with and accepted by all provincial governments and, while they were enthusiastic about N.H.A.
May 13, 1965

May 13, 1965
National Housing Act
In the first phase of the project, the city will remove 60 deteriorated dwellings in an area of Block A, bounded by Dundas Street West and Grange, Dennison and Spadina Avenues, and replace them with 46 units of terrace housing and possibly some apartments.
The cost of this part of the project, will be $900,000. Rehabilitation of the two-acre site is expected to be completed within nine months.
Alexandra Park, a 72-acre area bounded by Queen Street, Spadina Avenue and Bathurst and Dundas Streets, is expected by the city development department to be rehabilitated within four years. In Block A of the five-stage project, and Block B, south of Grange, the city plans to provide 627 new units.
The two blocks contain about 16 acres of the project area. In the remainder, the city will be doing spot clearance, encouraging neighbourhood rehabilitation, and providing off-street parking.
Of the total cost of the program, 50 per cent will be paid by the Federal Government and 25 per cent by the Provincial Government. The remaining 25 per cent will be paid by either the city or Metropolitan Toronto, depending upon arrangements still to be made.
Mr. Chairman, this excerpt is quite accurate as far as it goes, but it does not mention that Federal loans are available to provincial and municipal Governments to assist them with their share of the cost to the extent of two thirds, or that N.H.A. loans will be available for existing houses that are spared under the scheme, in order to conserve them. There is no doubt that the City of Toronto is pioneering urban development in this country.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Oh, no.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I understand that a smaller area of redevelopment in Spadina, in the vicinity of Angus Place, has also been given priority and is being processed at the present time. This, with the report from Hamilton, should answer the hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi in so far as he wondered what urban redevelopment progress was being made under the present legislation.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. Member permit a question?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Would the hon. Member not agree with me that the City of Toronto is pioneering in slum clearance in Canada, and not in urban redevelopment?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Chairman, I would say that in both respects the City of Toronto was doing the pioneering. Here you have the sledge-hammer already swinging, of course.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, we are considering now a resolution concerning the

Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In the few minutes at my disposal, I wish to draw the attention of the house to the financial report submitted by the minister responsible for that crown agency.
At page 28 of the said report, we read the names of the directors on the corporation's board and it is interesting to note that out of ten directors, only one is French speaking, namely Mr. Louis de G. Giguere, in charge of the corporation's Montreal office.
On the other hand, out of four directors living in Ottawa, not one is a French Canadian.
Page 27 of the same report gives the objectives of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. There is one in which I am especially interested and on which I want to call the attention of the house. I quote:
To build, own and administer housing projects on its own behalf and on behalf of the federal government departments and agencies.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the other objectives of C.M.H.C. are in keeping with the aims and principles put forward when this crown agency was created, but I will never go as far as granting the said corporation the power to "build, own and administer".
Mr. Chairman, this resolution, among other things, is intended to:
-to make loans and grants relating to urban renewal schemes-
Last year Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in co-operation with the authorities of the city of Montreal, carried out in the St. Henry district, a project known as "Habitations Jeanne-Mance". This project was supposed to be a pilot project, in my opinion, with the purpose of promoting urban renewal in the province of Quebec.
According to the figures supplied by the corporation in respect to "Habitations Jeanne-Mance", this project includes 796 units housing 2,697 people. The cost of each unit in this building project, which was to serve as a pilot project for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, will amount, in 50 years, to the very modest sum of $60,000. In the light of this development, I believe that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is not an efficient agency to deal with construction, because that corporation was established primarily to grant loans to individuals and agencies which specially wish to deal with construction.
The Jeanne-Mance project proves beyond doubt that if low rental urban development was intended in such districts as St. Henry
May 13. 1965

and others, in order to benefit the working class, the objective is far from having been reached, because at the end of 50 years each of those 796 housing units in the Jeanne Mance project in Montreal, which is a pilot project, will have cost $60,000.
May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that it is five o'clock?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the Chair so that the House may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private Members' business listed on today's Order Paper, namely private bills; notices of motions, papers; public bills.


Michael Starr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to the fact that there was an understanding with regard to our procedure, namely that if a money resolution was under discussion, it would have a time limit of five hours and would have precedence over private Members' hour. A previous money resolution had the same precedence, and the private Members' hour was set aside.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. MacNaughl:: Mr. Speaker, I think the rule applies only when the resolution is called for the first time immediately after Government Orders are called. In view of the fact that this resolution was called before, this rule does not apply.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The interpretation of the Chair is not exactly the same as that put forward by the Minister. Standing Order 61-A states that there will be precedence when it is the first order called in the first instance. In view of the fact that this is the resumption of the consideration of a resolution, accordingly it does not take precedence over private Members' business.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mrs. Margaret Konanlz (Winnipeg South) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-99, to incorporate the Bank of Western Canada.
She said: Mr. Speaker, before speaking to Bill C-99, I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) on his statement made in this House on May 6 on Bill C-102, the Bank Act. It was of particular interest to us in Western Canada when he said:
Private Bills
The Government hopes that part of the future growth of our banking system will take place on the basis of an increasing number of banks. The revisions which are being made in the Bank Act should encourage such a development. In order to make it easier for applicants to get a bank charter when they can meet all the specific requirements of the Act, it is proposed that a new bank may be incorporated by letters patent, with the House of Commons having the right to annul such letters patent within a stated period of time.
This excellent provision will put new banks on the same basis as other companies. I believe that everyone, including the bankers themselves, welcomes the idea of competition.
Hon. Members may wonder, now that the Bank Act has been introduced, why we are bringing Bill C-99, an Act to incorporate the Bank of Western Canada, forward at this time. The answer is quite simple. We are anxious to proceed under the present law and get it started in business. We have been trying to incorporate our bank for over a year. The proposed amendment in Bill C-102 is not yet law, and may not be for several months, and until it is law the only way in which a bank can be incorporated in Canada is by private act.
I was very interested in the excellent presentation made in respect of Bill C-95 by the hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford), two weeks ago. Bill C-95 is an Act to incorporate the Laurentide Bank of Canada. He posed the question as to whether or not Canada needed more chartered banks. I agree with him that this question should be studied carefully by members of the Banking Committee. That hon. Member reminded us again that a recommendation of the Porter Commission called for increased competition in the banking system. He gave a very vivid picture of banking conditions in Canada today, and he refuted the idea that we should wait until the Bank Act was reviewed or revised. The hon. Member related the story of how his bill had been brought from the other place into this House, and my story regarding this bill to incorporate the Bank of Western Canada is almost identical.
That hon. Member made an earnest appeal to all Members, but particularly to those of British Columbia, to allow his sponsors to be heard by a committee. I endorse that appeal, but I would go further and appeal to all Members to allow our sponsors to be heard and our applications to be dealt with by the Committee.
When Bill S-6, to incorporate the Bank of Western Canada was brought before the other place it was the first application to Parlia-

May 13, 1965
Private Bills
ment for a bank charter since 1953. This Bill was studied very carefully by the Committee on Banking and Commerce of the other place between the months of February and July, 1964. It came to this House in August of 1964 and was before hon. Members here until it, too, died on the Order Paper at the end of the last session, without having been referred to the Banking and Commerce Committee of this House. I too sincerely hope, as did the hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard, that this will not happen to these bills at this session.
Bill C-99 is very similar to Bill S-6; however, there are a few changes. There are 94 new petitioners, 82 of whom are members of the Chamber of Commerce of Manitoba, six from Western Canada other than from Manitoba, and six from Eastern Canada. May I say at this time that the original petitioners are still just as enthusiastic about the prospect of having a Bank of Western Canada with its headquarters in Winnipeg, but I must admit that they are disappointed that this bill never did reach the Committee on Banking and Commerce.
The second change is that the capital has been increased from $10 million to $25 million. There are now 5,500 potential shareholders; 4,720 certificate holders are from the western provinces and 830 are from outside this area. Hon. Members will remember that in Bill S-6 part of the $13 million capital was raised on a trust basis in exchange for certificates issued by the Canada Permanent Trust Company.
A major backer of this bank reported in Winnipeg in April of this year that nearly $10 million of the invested money is from Western Canada and that a large proportion of the public subscription is in small lots. The Bank of Western Canada proposal now faces a deadline, of a kind, in that these certificates can only be held for a two year period. After March of 1968 the agents of the Bank of Western Canada must go back to the investors and ask them if they want to continue holding their certificates or have their money returned, with interest less handling charges. The certificates, as you all know, will be exchangeable for shares as soon as the new bank is incorporated. These certificates have sold continually at a premium, the current price being $16.
The reason for bringing this bill before hon. Members of this House rather than before the other place involves merely a question of time and urgency. I know that the provisional

directors of this bank will do everything in their power to ensure its early incorporation, and I should like to think that we in this House would want to help them keep faith with those who believe that this bank will bring business development and great expansion to western Canada.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
At the 34th annual convention of the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce at Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, on April 8 and 9 of this year the following resolution was passed unanimously and wired to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) as House Leader. I summarize it:
Whereas the incorporation of the Bank of Western Canada is considered by Manitobans to be an important forward step in financial development within this province, and
Whereas the application for incorporation of the bank has been delayed in the House of Commons,
Now therefore be it resolved that the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce in convention assembled urge the Members of Parliament to permit the incorporation of the Bank of Western Canada.
To which the Minister replied:
Government supporters, including myself, have urged Parliament to reach decision.
Once again on behalf of all those who are so interested in this proposed bank I urge all hon. Members to allow this bill to go to the Committee on Banking and Commerce. Let it be thoroughly studied. All questions can be answered by witnesses acting on behalf of this proposed new bank. The citizens of Canada who have so heartily endorsed it are surely worthy of our respect.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, naturally I listened with attentiveness and interest to what the hon. Member for Winnipeg South (Mrs. Konantz) had to say. I did not realize until just a few moments ago that she was as easily seduced by propaganda as is the hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford). At the outset let me say that the reference to increased competition is just a lot of economic nonsense. It is not so. The only competition that exists, as we said earlier, is found in the pleasantness and the smile of the bank manager. That is the extent of it. It does not matter whether you have one extra bank or a number of extra banks. The rigidity with which they operate is controlled, first, by the Bank Act and, second, by the Bankers' Association and the banks themselves. Therefore I consider any reference to increased competition as being merely window dressing which should not
May 13, 1965

be indulged in by anybody representing these banks seeking incorporation.
The position we took last session and again so far this session with respect to the bill now before us to incorporate the Bank of Western Canada, and also with regard to the bill to incorporate the Laurentide Bank of Canada, is related to what has occurred and may occur with regard to the other new bank contemplated within the past year or two, the Bank of British Columbia. Our position has been predicated on the basis of what has occurred and may occur with regard to the application of the Bank of British Columbia.
As is well known, last session the Senate Committee which dealt with this matter decided to play favourites. They made favourable decisions as to the Bank of Western Canada and the Laurentide Bank of Canada, but because of their desire to play favourites and because of the investment interests of some of the Senators they decided to make an unfavourable decision with respect to the Bank of British Columbia. If some of the investors or supporters or promoters of the Bank of Western Canada feel upset or put out by the fact that their bill was not proceeded with last session, they need look no farther than the decision of the Senate Banking Committee to find the reason.
The action of that Committee was followed, of course, by a statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) to the effect that he agreed with the decision of the Senate Banking Committee, and since then the Minister has introduced revisions to the Bank Act which indicate that it is the policy of the Government to prohibit provincial governments from investing in private chartered banks. We still think this is unwarranted interference in the constitutional rights of the provinces. The Province of British Columbia seems to have had the ball tossed back to it in this case and we hope that province will take whatever steps it can in the courts to have this question determined. It may well be that there will be a running battle over this question between the Province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada for the next two or three years.
There is no doubt on whose side I stand. I stand for the right of the Province of British Columbia to invest its money in banks if it so desires, and I say that the decision of the Senate and the Federal Government is nothing short of interference in the rights of
Private Bills
the province in order to protect certain vested interests.
A few weeks ago the bill to incorporate the Laurentide Bank of Canada was before us. On that occasion we made similar comments. We indicated that the deadline for the filing of petitions for private bills was the 17th of May and that because of the intrusion of the Federal Government into the right of the province to invest in banks we should wait until the 17th of May deadline was reached to give the sponsors of the Bank of British Columbia more time to consider the matter and to see whether they would determine that they should file another petition. We felt that if they did file a petition before the deadline, then all three bank bills could be proceeded with at relatively the same time and with relatively the same speed. I say "relatively" because it is not possible to proceed with them at the same time in that two of the bills have been initiated in this House and the other one has been initiated in the Senate. The result is that there will be a variation in the activity with regard to them because the two Houses move at different speeds in the consideration of the business before them.
Just the other day the sponsors of the Bank of British Columbia did present another petition to the Senate. I should like to read from page 44 of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Senate of Canada for Tuesday, May 11, 1965, where the following appears:
The following petitions were severally presented :-
By the Honourable Senator Farris:
Of Harold Barrington Elworthy, William Clark Mearns and John Alfred Griffith Wallace, of the City of Victoria, and others of the City of Vancouver, both in the Province of British Columbia; praying to be incorporated under the name of "Bank of British Columbia", and in French "Banque de la Colombie-Britannique".
The petition of the Bank of British Columbia was filed in the other place just two days ago and there is no need to worry about the sponsors having to meet the deadline of the 17th of May. Because of the decision of the Federal Government to prevent the legitimate desires of the Provincial Government of British Columbia from coming to fruition it is our desire, as it was earlier, to see that no one of the banks now seeking incorporation receives an advantage by being incorporated in advance of the others. Each one of these banks-
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Basford:: May I ask-
12S2

May 13. 1965
Private Bills


Frank Howard: I wonder if the hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard would mind waiting until I conclude my remarks, and then I will be happy to answer any question to the best of my ability?
Because the three banks are all of primary concern to British Columbia, we think that they should be proceeded with and given either favourable or unfavourable consideration at about the same time. We took the position two weeks ago that there should be a delay in the progress of the bill to establish the Laurentide Bank only because that was the one before us at that time. The same remarks would have applied equally to the Bank of Western Canada had it been before us. There should be a delay until the other bills have been presented. We said we should wait to ascertain whether or not the promoters of the Bank of British Columbia wanted to file another petition for the incorporation of that bank. This condition was met the other day, on May 11. It seems reasonable, then, that this Parliament should be able to proceed at a reasonably equal speed in the consideration of the three measures to establish these banks. They should be considered on the basis of their merits at about the same time, so that they all might either be defeated at the same time or might receive endorsation at about the same time.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I wonder if the hon. Member would permit a question? He used, throughout his speech, the word "we". I should like him to identify whom he means by "we".


Frank Howard: I speak for countless thousands of people in British Columbia.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I ask him, then, does he speak for the New Democratic Party?


Frank Howard: I suggest the hon. Member might be able to discover that, if he were to get his colleagues to call for a standing division on the measure. He will see how we vote. There is an old saying that-
You cannot be a Socialist
No matter how you try
Until you think in terms of we
Instead of terms of I.


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: I am not
going to speak very long on this subject, but I should like to say a few words because it seems to me something is going on in this House which is prejudicial to the interests of Canadians. By that I mean that any group of Canadians or any Canadian who brings a petition for a bill into this House should

have that bill considered on its own merits. It should not be used as a tool to put pressure on the Government to accede to some request or desire of another small group who are not representative of the Canadian people as a whole.
In the particular instance of banks, this Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction and therefore a group desiring incorporation have to come to this House for approval. The conditions under which approval is given are very stringent and the group has generally met these conditions. The matter is then one for the scrutiny of this House. I think the Bank of Western Canada, if considered on its own merits, amongst the three banks presently before the House is by far the most worthy of consideration by this House. I think it grossly unfair for any small group of people who are serving a special interest, in this case I think it is their own interest, to attempt to exert pressure in one direction. I think- they are trying to garner a few votes, nothing more and nothing less.


Frank Howard: Just like you are doing.


Joseph Slogan: I feel that a group which tries to speak so strongly for Canadian nationalism, Canadian ownership show here how hypocritical and ambivalent they can be. It just so happens that the group which is promoting this Bank of Western Canada already have a bank charter. If you have read the newspapers recently you will have noticed that the Wellington Bank offered shares on the market of Canada. There is nothing to prevent them from establishing branches across Canada. I believe it would be preferable to have a bank incorporated in Canada by Canadians, and given the right by this House of Commons to follow their business in this country, rather than having a foreign based bank in this country and having all the profits taken out of the country.
What this group in this House is doing, in essence, is forcing the promoters of this bank to take the other course, if the approval of this House is not given. They have advanced some spurious arguments, such as the one that these bank charters should be proceeded with at the same rate. It is obvious that the Bank of Western Canada and the Laurentide Bank have come to the House of Commons rather than the Senate, as they did before, because this is where they experienced their difficulties. The Bank of British Columbia is petitioning in the Senate first, rather than the House of Commons, because they know
May 13. 1965

where they are going to encounter their difficulties. If you want these charters to proceed evenly, you should be prepared to pass these two charters through the House by the time the other one is passed through the Senate. However, that is not their idea at all. The idea of these people is to try to blackmail the Senate-I think that is as good a word as any-by threatening that unless the Bank of British Columbia passes, these other two charters will not be granted.
There are many ways of preventing or supporting the incorporation of a bank and putting pressure on the House to incorporate the Bank of British Columbia. I do not believe the logical way to do it is by preventing the other well intentioned groups who have met all the requirements of the Department of Insurance from getting incorporation. It seems to me that one of the main objections to the Bank of British Columbia, as well as some other banks to which reference has been made, is that the Province of British Columbia wants to invest a sizeable amount of money in this bank. There is no doubt, knowing the personality of the Premier of British Columbia as well as the monetary tenets of the party he represents, that this bank could be manipulated very effectively by the provincial government. I believe that we, as the custodians of monetary policy in Canada, should be on guard against that. I feel this fully justifies the objections to the Bank of British Columbia or any other provincially sponsored bank.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
After all, if the Province of British Columbia wants to do what Alberta has done, it can establish treasury branches. It can take in the savings of the people of British Columbia very easily. Such an organization could be incorporated in their own legislature. There is no need for them to come to the Government of Canada to incorporate a bank, if this is what they want. I think they have enough jurisdiction in the trust and loan company field, in which they can do a great deal of so-called near-banking without getting a charter from this House. I believe we have to be on guard against the provincial takeover of banks, because they can exert a great deal of pressure to manipulate credit in a province, and so forth. I see no justification whatever for the stand taken by the two splinter parties who, as I say, do not speak for the majority of Canadians. I do not think they have any right to stand up in the House and deny a group of well inten-
Private Bills
tioned Canadians, who meet all requirements of the law, a charter for a bank.
I personally do not object to the proposed Bank of British Columbia, but I say to those hon. Members, if you want to promote that bank you can do it in a more positive fashion than what you are doing here. All I am saying is that you are defeating yourself. You stand up and talk about buying Canada back, and deplore the amount of foreign investment in this country. You decry the buccaneers from other countries coming in here and milking the Canadian cow of its profits, but by this action you are forcing some of these people to do exactly that. You are forcing them to bring in foreign based banks, and in so doing you are defeating yourselves. You are inviting people to do this, and I am afraid that might be the end result if you continue this way.
I would therefore ask those hon. Members to support second reading of the bill so that there may be lots of time for it to go to the Banking and Commerce Committee. I do not think any group who come to the Parliament of Canada, as they must do, should be denied the rights they have as Canadians when they have met the regulations set up under the act. Having met those regulations they should not be denied the privilege of going into business by a group of people who without scruple I say have no intention other than that of garnering some votes from this position, and putting pressure on the Government to promote a bank which perhaps has not met all these requirements.


Mr. Orlikow:: Would the hon. Member permit a question?


Joseph Slogan: Certainly.


David Orlikow: I would like to ask the hon. Member in what way under present legislation has the proposed Bank of British Columbia not met all the laws and rules? It may be that under the proposed changes it will not, but when its sponsors applied last year, were there any rules or laws which they did not live up to? Second, I wonder if the hon. Member would like to express any opinion about the propriety of the Senate Banking Committee in its judgment, when four members of that Committee are directors of existing banks, and that Committee turned down the application of the Bank of B.C.?


Joseph Slogan: If four members of the Banking and Commerce Committee of the Senate found it was not in their interest to promote the Bank of B.C., why on earth would they have

May 13. 1965
Private Bills
passed the other two acts concerning the Laurentide Bank which will operate in B.C., and the Bank of Western Canada?


Mr. Peters:: Because they are not competitive.


Joseph Slogan: Obviously that is not an argument that holds any water. So far as the first part of the question is concerned, it seems to me that the Department of Insurance was not entirely satisfied with the manner in which the Bank of B.C. would be run.


David Orlikow: That isn't true at all.


Joseph Slogan: Otherwise I am sure they would have granted the charter; but I think there was some fear on the part of the Government that there could be some provincial interference in the normal working of that bank, and this would not be desirable.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Would the hon. Member permit another question? I was wondering if the hon. Member had any confidence in Mr. Einar Gunderson, the chief fund raiser of Premier Bennett, running the Bank of B.C.


Joseph Slogan: I don't think that requires any comment.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, since I am one of the members of this house who are most in favour of extending private ownership to all Canadians without exception, and since I consider our country as a vast co-operative where all individuals have equal rights, it is logical that I should be highly interested in Bill No. C-99 providing for the establishment of a new commercial or chartered bank whose name would be the Bank of Western Canada.
This is the first opportunity I have of congratulating the sponsors of this banking project who wish to set up in Manitoba the head office of their bank which may eventually expand throughout Canada. That is a legitimate and natural ambition because, after all, as a great French thinker said: "Business is using other people's money."
The promoters of the Bank of Western Canada are quite aware of the unbelievable privileges of commercial banks of being able to multiply credit, as described very precisely by Mr. Marcel Faribault, one of the most prominent intellectuals, thinkers and financiers of French Canada, who is also president of the Canada General Trust, as re-

ported by Le Devoir on March 2 last, quoting the American economist, Mr. Samuelson:
Commercial banks are the only establishments able to create scrip money.
On February 17, 1965, the money supply outside the banks and on deposit in chartered banks amounted to $18 billion, as follows: $229 million in coins and $1,849 million in notes of the Bank of Canada; one can easily see that there was nine times more scrip money in circulation than real money.
Those who believe, as I read once in a Quebec newspaper, that the Bank of Canada is issuing all the new credit, have but to check the balance-sheet of the Bank of Canada and they will find out that is not so, for, as a matter of fact, it is issuing very little credit.
On the other hand, I know that the idea is to hasten the passing of the Bank of Western Canada bill so as to increase banking competition. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) stated on February 16, as can be seen on page 11363 of Hansard:
-that the government would welcome more competition in the banking field and is hopeful that private members' bill proposing the incorporation of two new banks might be dealt with expeditiously?
That is a very good idea, Mr. Speaker. As for me, I am as anxious as the Minister of Finance to see this bill concerning the Bank of Western Canada passed by parliament. But I do not share his opinion when he wants to prevent a province from taking part in the foundation of a bank or acquiring shares in an existing bank. Logically the government cannot allow the setting up of the Bank of Western Canada and forbid the provinces to take measures in this direction. One must bear in mind that the Quebec government entertains hopes in this area since it is already a shareholder in a joint company called General Investment Corporation and that it will soon set up, besides, the Caisse des depots et placements which will become Quebec's most powerful bank, as it is the case in France with the Caisse des depots et consignations.
I am firmly convinced that, even if the government is about to pass Bill No. C-99, it will not be able from now on to prevent a province from setting up its own bank, and get away with it as it did with the proposed Bank of Alberta some 15 or 20 years ago.
I wonder why the federal government is so sensitive with regard to the provinces. It is a sign that it is afraid of the provinces.
May 13. 1965

Mr. Chairman, I received part of my financial training on St. James Street, in Montreal, and I understand the importance of Bill No. C-99 whose object is to incorporate the Bank of Western Canada, with headquarters in Winnipeg because bank ownership must be diversified by increasing the number of banks, and that is why I proposed in this house the establishment of a chartered co-operative bank, the shares of which would be underwritten by the Caisses populaires du Quebec, because we really need such a bank in the province of Quebec. It would be easy to find the necessary capital for this purpose.
In its February 13, 1965 issue, the daily La Presse, in an important article, strongly endorsed this project of a co-operative bank which I submitted to parliament. To justify my support of Bill No. C-99, I will point out that in Canada we must stop banking concentration, and examine what goes on elsewhere.
In the United States, for instance, there are over 14,000 banking businesses with over 27,000 branches whereas in Germany the banking system is extremely decentralized since there are 13,000 credit institutes, including co-operative banks. In addition, the German banks are much more daring than ours when it comes to advancing money to industry and agriculture.
In the circumstances we have every reason to favour the creation of new banks, such as the Bank of Western Canada, because in the last few years commercial banks have been merging and increasing the number of their branches in order to create more scrip money and thus to insure the longest possible survival of the purchasing power they put in circulation, in the form of debts, by keeping it in their own branches.
Due to their omnipresence, commercial
banks constitute a monopoly because they are gradually creeping into various sectors of the economy and, furthermore, they have power of life and death on hundreds of thousands of firms.
I should take this opportunity to say, however, that we are privileged in that the honesty of Canadian bank directors and staff is internationally known, and that is why the transfer of bank shares must be closely controlled by regulations if nothing is to destroy that confidence and if mobsters are to be prevented from taking over control of Canadian banks, as was the case in the United States according to an article which appeared in La Presse on March 1 last.
Private Bills
A study of Bill No. C-99 suggests that in 1867 the provinces obviously committed a serious mistake by leaving complete control of the Canadian monetary system in the hands of the federal government which, in turn, surrendered its powers, for all practical purposes, to the commercial banks.
Bill No. C-99 shows, furthermore, that the federal government should have all regalian rights regarding the issue of credit so that commercial banks would simply become satellites of the Bank of Canada. It is absolutely inconceivable that chartered banks should have more power than the Bank of Canada. If the bill concerning the Bank of Western Canada is passed, that bank will have more power than the Bank of Canada because it will enjoy, as other chartered banks, under the existing act governing commercial banks, the extraordinary prerogative of putting in circulation new means of payment called bank money or scrip money which may be used to pay off debts.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, our group would agree that this bill be referred to the committee on banking and commerce for further study.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: May 13, 1965
Private Bills
submit until the people have their eyes opened.
We are in favour of chartered banks provided they play their part in the private sector of our country's economy. Chartered banks are private institutions and they should never take the place of the state. Nevertheless, this is exactly what happens when chartered banks create new credit out of thin air.
I realize that it is interesting for a bank such as the Bank of Western Canada, with an authorized capital of $25 million to be able to multiply it 12J times and lend to Canadian citizens, school boards, municipalities, provinces and even the federal government up to 12-J times the value of its liquid assets, a value which it does not have but on which, being a favoured bank, it would earn interest.
We submit that if we have to keep for another few years this nonsensical system, this function should at least be entrusted to provincial chartered banks; thus, the provincial governments, more enlightened than the federal government, would allow their people to share in the benefits.
But no, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) even refuses to the provinces the old right they had to acquire 10 per cent of bank shares. The Minister of Finance must be interested indeed in the bank trust to place such severe restrictions on the provinces.
It would be interesting to know how many members of both old-line parties-and they seem to be united on this matter-will support this motion of the Minister of Finance.
Certainly the day has not yet come when members of parliament will realize that only the Bank of Canada is responsible for creating new credit likely to get the economy moving, as it is its responsibility to keep the accounts of the country, so that Canadian citizens may benefit from Canada's financial surpluses.
If it were not legalized by an act of parliament, I would say we are witnessing, without being able to do anything about it, the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the people by a small group of financiers who contribute to the election of members of this house. In my opinion, this is the most abominable act of treachery a member could commit against the people.
I realize that, in the case of many members, they just do not know any better, and that is why I urge them to make a thorough study

of our present banking system, so they can appreciate the pressing need for reform, mainly as regards chartered banks and especially the provision of new credit.
Many imagine that we are the sworn enemies of chartered banks. Nothing is farther from the truth. We feel that chartered banks have a very important part to play in our financial system and we want them to perform their functions to the full, but not to take on those of the Bank of Canada.
Once again, we maintain that the Bank of Canada ought to act in the public field while the chartered banks should limit their activities to the private field.
It is up to the Bank of Canada to control and to issue, not only the legal currency, but also monetary credit. Therefore, we are the greatest protectors of the chartered banks, since we want them to do their own work only and we will not tolerate their intervention in other fields, even if it were for their own good financially.
We agree that chartered banks may lend their depositors and shareholders' money, that they may operate up to 100 per cent of their liquid assets.
I am not asking that chartered banks be subject to the same strict control as credit unions, which only lend 50 per cent of their assets, and this constitutes, besides, discrimination against credit unions which also form an integral part of our financial system.
Why has a small group of millionaires obtained so many favours from the governments at the expense of the working classes who are the shareholders in the credit unions? In my opinion, this is the rankest injustice ever contrived by a monetary system which subdues the people more and more instead of providing them with sensible means of distribution.
This formula was devised by the great minds of international finance in their eagerness to control the people.
Certain rather surprising actions, to say the least, of former and even present ministers show their close connections with financial groups. In view of their concern for financial interests, one wonders whether they were elected to represent the people or the financial interests.
Is it normal for a member of parliament to be a director or even the president of a chartered bank or to have interests in most finance companies? Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is ample proof that such is the case.
Do you think the public is unaware of this little set-up? Thirty or 40 years ago, you
May 13, 1965



could fool the public but people no longer believe in Santa Claus. The web of fairy tales and aura of mystery which was wound around the monetary system until recently, is gradually falling apart, and very soon the parties involved will have to tell the public the truth.
The Canadian people will have to be told that their country is productive and that that production and the wealth it creates should benefit the whole population-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour set
aside for the consideration of private Members' business has expired.

[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in Committee of the following resolution-Mr. Nicholson-Mr. Lamoureux in the Chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to increase-
(a)	from two and one-half billion dollars to three and one-quarter billion dollars the amount the Minister of Finance may advance to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the purpose of making direct loans to borrowers to assist in the construction of houses and housing projects;
(b)	from one hundred million dollars to three hundred million dollars the amount the Minister of Finance may advance or pay to the Corporation to make loans and grants relating to urban renewal schemes and to meet obligations incurred under urban redevelopment agreements;
(c)	from fifty million dollars to one hundred and fifty million dollars the amount in the special account established in the Consolidated Revenue Fund out of which advances may be made towards public housing projects developed jointly by the Corporation and a province or any agency thereof*
(d)	from one hundred and fifty million dollars to two hundred million dollars the maximum amount the Minister may advance to the Corporation for the purpose of making loans for university housing projects; and
u	six bhlion dollars to eight and onehalf billion dollars the maximum amount of all loans in respect of which insurance policies mav be issued under the Act.
At six o clock the Committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The Committee resumed at 8 p.m. [Translation]
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, when the debate was adjourned at five o'clock we were considering resolution No. 5, more precisely paragraph (b) which deals mainly with mak-22620-82
National Housing Act
ing loans and grants relating to urban renewal.
I gave as an example of urban renewal a pilot project carried out in Montreal, namely the "Habitations Jeanne-Mance", under which 796 dwellings were built between Sanguinet street, St. Lawrence boulevard, Ontario and Demontigny streets, which could house 2,697 people at the end of 1963, according to a statement made on March 2, 1964 by the minister responsible for Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation.
The minister also stated at that time that the cost of acquiring land and buildings amounted to $6,883,406, the cost of tearing down slums to $185,918 and the construction costs to $10,667,912, for a total of $17,083,133 to be amortized over a 50-year period.
Besides, it should be noted that those housing units will have to be maintained and there will be 14 people working for the "Habitations Jeanne-Mance", a limited dividend corporation in charge of the project.
In 1963-again according to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-the maintenance costs of those housing units amounted to $128,733. It is expected that the cost will go up in the future, because of salary raises to be granted, no doubt, to the maintenance staff and because of the downgrading or depreciation of the housing units.
To pay for those costs, the Habitations Jeanne-Mance Corporation took in $536,805 in rent during 1963.
The result is that to amortize the capital invested and pay the interests and maintenance costs there was an operating deficit of $421,764 for the year 1963.
If we figure the annual receipts and deficits, we can see that in 1963 the total repayment cost amounted to $958,569. If we multiply this figure by 50, which is the number of years required to repay the total amount, we arrive to the fantastic sum of $47,928,450 for 796 housing units, which represents more than $60,000 for each of those units at the end of 50 years.
During that period, the 796 tenants will have paid, according to the average $50 rent, an amount of $23,880,000, or a total yearly rent of $600 per tenant, or $30,000 during 50 years.
During the same period, supposing that the operation and maintenance costs, together with the compulsory reimbursement of capital and interest charges remain the same, the losses amounting to $421,764 in 1963, the total of those operating deficits will reach $21,088,200 after 50 years.

May 13. 1965
National Housing Act
If we add to that money invested by the federal government, the Quebec government and the city of Montreal for the demolition, clearing of land and purchase of land as well as the rebuilding, amounting to a total of $17,088,133, we find that to $38,161,133 has been spent by the governments. This amounts to a total and final cost of $60,000 per unit, at the end of 50 years being paid by the provincial and federal governments.
It can then be concluded that if the federal government and the city of Montreal, instead of building the "Habitations Jeanne-Mance", had simply advanced the necessary money, without interest, to the families involved, allowing them to build their own homes, it would have been possible to build five units with the same amount instead of only one as in the "Habitations Jeanne-Mance".
With $47 million invested in the Jeanne-Mance housing project, it would have been possible to build 4,000 units instead of 796.
Under the present C.M.H.C. system, which assisted various housing projects, including urban housing projects, it costs the tenants at the end of 60 years an average of $60,000, representing both capital and interest, including also the amounts spent by the federal and provincial governments and the city of Montreal.
In adopting the formula whereby interest-free loans would have been made to tenants in order to have their own homes built, the governments would have lost nothing in extending the repayment period on a $12,000 loan, for instance, over a 30-year period, meaning 360 monthly payments of $33.33, to which, however, taxes and fuel costs would have to be added, of course, bringing the total monthly payment to about $50, which is what tenants in the Jeanne-Mance project are now paying, with this difference however that in 30 years, those families would own their own homes after having paid $12,000 to repay their loan or $18,000 if taxes and fuel are included.
But today after having spent $30,000 in rent for 50 years, those families will still be tenants.
Under our present system, we find that, as in the case of the Habitations Jeanne-Mance, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation spent $60,000 per unit. It means that in his lifetime a tenant will pay the equivalent of five houses since it can be said that a house costs about $12,000 and, at the end of 50 years he will not even own a little bungalow.
There is no solution under our present system. What the Creditistes have always

advocated is this. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should use the banks or other similar institutions to make interest-free loans to those who want to build.
A Creditiste government would solve the housing and slum problem in the following manner: loans for construction of family dwellings to be occupied by the owner would be loans for the social development, for the development of this country's social capital and not for making profits available to individuals.
Social Credit claims that social investment capital should not come from the private sector, which forces borrowers to repay two, three, four and even five times the amount borrowed, but that it should be made up of new credit, that is of new bank credit.
This argument is supported by the director of the Brussels International Superior Institute of Town Planning, Mr. Gaston Bardet, who said:
How can we build the 200,000 houses needed every year? Ask the bankers how they proceed when building for themselves. What does a bank do when it wants to build? It is going over to another bank for a loan? Of course not. The bank opens a current credit account for itself on which, of course, it pays no interest. It buys the site and pays the contractors by cheques guaranteed.. .by the building itself. Then it draws rents and, at the end of 30 years, the money collected is in balance with the credit account opened. The operation is written off, but the bank keeps the building which it now owns without having paid a penny, except perhaps the cost of entering on the ledger the amounts written under assets and liabilities.
So, the bank, thanks to modern credit, using scrip money, in other words the solvency of credit was able to create fictitious money and to convert it into a real building, cheques issued being cancelled at the end of 30 years after the magic operation is over.
According to Social Credit, there is no magic in that. To create then destroy the credit which is, during its existence, just as good as real money, is what banks are actually doing under the authority conferred upon them.
The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or any other similar body should act as a bank for those who want to build their own homes, and provide future owners with the money they need.
The bank would grant the necessary loans to buy the lot and to build the house according to
recognized standards.
After a study of the family's ability to repay, the bank would decide the monthly repayment to be made.
The loans would be interest free and the monthly repayments would be made over a period of 20, 30 or even 40 years, depending on the quality of materials used and the repayment ability.
As a general policy, this monthly rent could be 20 per cent of the monthly income, as it is the case with the "Habitations Jeanne-Mance", for instance.
Thousands of tenant families could become home owners and a stabilizing force in our society, while
May 13, 1965

still being a source of income for the municipalities. Finally, the families would feel more at home and could enjoy a sound affluence and freedom which would allow them to better provide for the maintenance and education of their children.
Mr. Chairman, our construction policy, with the assistance of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, enables people to acquire their own home, but they have to pay five times the cost price.
In an intelligent financial system, the credits of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would be made available to borrowers without interest and the instalments to repay the loan would be kept in line with the depreciation of the property, namely the buildings. If a house is good to last 20 years, according to the figures and the standards of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, repayment could be made over a 20 year basis and then a property would have been paid only once and not five times in financing costs. Nowadays, many home owners must pay for a lifetime, as is the case with the "Habitations Jeanne-Mance". They must pay for their home and after 50 years, they will not even own a house. They are paying because our financial system is not consistent with progress and with the abundance of wealth in the country. They have to pay the equivalent of five properties and after 50 years, they do not even own a home. That is why we, the Creditistes, do not claim that we will give a house to everybody, but we want to set up a financial system to enable every family to buy a house and to pay for it without making every family pay for five houses in financing costs while remaining tenants.


Lucien Lamoureux: I regret to interrupt the hon. Member, but his time has expired.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Mr. Macdonald:: Mr. Chairman, I should not like the occasion of the discussion of this legislation to pass without taking the opportunity to address a few words to the House on the question of urban renewal, and more particularly that aspect of it which provides for subsidized public housing for people of low incomes. This is of particular importance to me because I think there is probably no other constituency in the country with such a high concentration of urban renewal developments of this kind, and which also in the downtown part of it provides such a great challenge from the standpoint of urban renewal.
National Housing Act
Members of the House who have taken some cognizance of the Toronto newspapers in recent days cannot have escaped noticing the attention that has been paid to the difficulties that have arisen in the St. James Town area and more particularly the plight of the unfortunate people in that area who will be ousted from the very substandard housing which is being replaced by apartment developments. The problem of bad housing on St. James and Ontario Streets and on Darling and Rose Avenues has not been solved and will not be solved merely by levelling the existing buildings in the way that many have already been levelled and replacing them with shiny new apartments. The problem really has only been shifted to another locale somewhere else in the downtown area where the St. James Town residents because of limited means, will have to move to find shelter-and very inadequate shelter at that.
Here, Mr. Chairman, I would make it very clear that I am not expressing any criticism of Mr. Bradley or the Toronto Housing Corporation, who I know have been doing their very best to find shelter for these people. Rather, the difficulties of the present administration in Toronto have been created because their hands are tied, because there is not a sufficient stock of adequate housing in the city for people of limited incomes to which the St. James Town residents can be moved.
The root of the problem is an economic one in that the incomes of these families are simply not adequate to meet the expenses involved in living in the centre of the city, expenses which are contributed to a very great extent by the high level of rents in downtown accommodation. Inadequate housing is a cancer in the very heart of a large modem city, a cancer that will just not go away by wishing it would or by turning one's back on it. Like a cancer it spreads and will kill neighbouring areas in increasingly large numbers unless dramatic action is taken to stop it.
The St. James Town situation which has occurred in my riding is not an isolated one in my city. It is not of recent origin and it is not the responsibility of only one or two slum operators. In fact, these people are really only ghouls who are feeding on the dying neighbourhood, but they are not solely responsible for having killed the neighbourhood. Rather it has been the indifference and the shortsightedness of the community as a

May 13, 1965
National Housing Act
whole. It is all of us in that particular community who have been responsible for it, not only the elected representatives but those who have elected us and also, and just as directly those who live in areas remote from areas like St. James Town and who have failed to show the required interest in urban renewal.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
There is opposition, Mr. Speaker, to subsidized public housing, opposition such as that reflected in the remarks of the hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi this afternoon when he observed on behalf of his party that the Conservatives have always believed in the principles of ownership democracy. I point out that ownership democracy leaves little room for people like the people of St. James Town who have not the benefit of economic means of securing ownership in housing, and who are really hard put to provide adequate rental housing. I think that philosophy was obvious with regard to the former government for, as the hon. Member for Hamilton West pointed out this afternoon, that government contributed nothing to the provisions of the National Housing Act in respect of urban renewal, except to increase the lending limit by an amount equivalent to one-eighth of the amount the present Government is asking Parliament to approve in this particular resolution.
Much of that opposition, Mr. Chairman, whether it is opposition by hon. Members opposite or opposition by the community at large, is rooted in misunderstanding of the economics of urban renewal, or the extent to which the participation of senior levels of Government, the very substantial financial assistance senior levels of Government are prepared to make available for urban renewal, extend the municipal tax base and relieve the individual municipal taxpayer from increases in municipal taxes which otherwise would be inevitable. Perhaps I might refer in this connection to the following study made in the Toronto Star for November 22, 1962, which hon. Members will recognize is still very much apropos. I quote:
When you see new offices, apartment blocks and other buildings going up, it means the tax burden on your home is being held down.
One of Toronto's new apartment projects and a new office building illustrate this benefit from redeveloping older areas.
Together they are paying $351,334 in taxes this year. This is more than 15 times the $22,925 in taxes the same two pieces of land produced when private dwellings occupied them.

Hon. Members will recognize at once, and I think people generally recognize at once, the value to the community of new commercial assessment. It is well known. What appears not to be as well recognized is that public housing projects also pay their way in municipal assessment, just as new commercial projects do. Projects such as the Moss Park development, which has recently gone into occupancy in my constituency, contribute just as much to the municipal coffers as do commercial properties. What is more, they replace at the same time run-down, low value areas which in themselves create heavy social costs by way of welfare, fire and police protection.
I should like to refer for a moment, Mr. Chairman, to the potential financial benefits for the City of Toronto from extensive urban renewal, which will become clear when one bears in mind that under the amendments introduced by this Government last year, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is now prepared to lend up to 90 per cent of the cost of the public housing project and to contribute up to 50 per cent of the subsidies necessary to meet the operating deficits of these projects. In the case of Toronto only 7.5 per cent of the operating costs of new projects will now fall upon the city taxpayers. In addition to the 50 per cent contribution of the Federal Government, the Ontario Housing Corporation is now prepared to contribute 42.5 per cent of this subsidy. Through this joint action of the two senior levels of government the municipality, therefore, is being given the opportunity for substantial redevelopment of the older areas at a fraction of the total capital cost.
May I just point out here, and I do not hesitate to do so, that I could not disagree more with the argument of the hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi this afternoon, when in the accents of Cassandra he decried what he described as a lack of federal-provincial co-operation in this field. As the Minister pointed out on the first day on which this subject was debated, the co-operation has been excellent. It has been nowhere more evident than it has been in the Province of Ontario where the Ontario Housing Corporation, under the leadership of Mr. Ken Soble .-and I will give the Provincial Government credit-has substantially followed in that direction, in concert with the initiative which this Government has given under the National Housing Act.
I should like to make reference particularly, Mr. Chairman, to the other areas of
May 13, 1965

my own constituency which have been considered in the City of Toronto Planning Board report entitled, "Improvement Program for Residential Areas", dated February, 1965. In that report it sets out that the most immediate areas for redevelopment are in the neighbourhood of Trefann Street, Sackville Place and Dermott Place, which are in the constituency of Rosedale, and Napier Place, which is in the constituency of Broadview. I think, further, I should cite the cost figures estimated for this development which will give hon. Members some idea just how much the Federal contribution is to these projects. It has been estimated by the City of Toronto Planning Board that the total cost would be $13,265,250. Of this amount, $9,793,125 would be contributed by the Federal Government and $2,340,163 by the Provincial Government. The balance, being somewhat in the neighbourhood of $2 million would be contributed by the two municipal levels of government, Metro Toronto and the City of Toronto. I think it is evident from that example that there is a terrific opportunity for the municipalities of this country, particularly my own city, to attempt to set right 50 to 70 years of neglect in order that the downtown area, many of the downtown areas such as the part I represent, may be made areas of Canada of which we can be proud, areas of Canada in which a family of limited means can enjoy good shelter.
I would close, Mr. Chairman, after these words of commendation of the Minister, with several remarks of exhortation to him, particularly with regard to a matter which I brought to his attention last year when the amendments to the National Housing Act were before Parliament. I referred at that time to the importance of recreational facilities in any large scale public housing development. As I mentioned, I have a very substantial amount of existing public housing development in my constituency, Regent Park, north and south, being perhaps the best known of the two. Unfortunately, these projects were developed with inadequate recreational facilities for the many thousands of children who are to be found there.
I should like to exhort the Minister not only to follow up his initiative and provide authority under the present legislation for new developments, but also extend the provisions of the National Housing Act so that the Federal Government may make loans to share in the development of recreational facilities to be established in existing devel-
National Housing Act
opments. This is good legislation, Mr. Chairman. This is legislation which will provide the funds with which to carry out the amendments we put through last year. I hope it will receive support from all parts of the House.


Howard Russell MacEwan: In the remarks I have to make on this resolution this evening, I do not intend to get lost in the streets of the City of Toronto. Every time I go there, I get lost. The reason I am speaking is that I come from a constituency which is mixed between rural and urban areas, the urban part being coal mining and heavy steel complexes, and the rural area being mixed fishing and farming. Wherever the National Housing Act is mentioned in this country, I think it can be said it is very important and that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is an important corporation.
I think all parts of the country are interested in this legislation. The hon. Member for Hamilton West spoke this afternoon and said he did not know if the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle should be speaking on matters such as urban housing, and so on. He felt perhaps the hon. Member should limit himself to agriculture. Well, there is no need to defend the hon. Member for Qu'Appelle, except to say he is a man of many capabilities. I think he can speak on various matters in this House. The hon. Member for Hamilton West, both as a city councillor and a Member of this House, I know has done a lot of work in this regard. He is certainly qualified to speak on matters of urban development, but I do not know if he could become an expert in rural matters, except in one case which perhaps I can relate to the resolution. [DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Last week end when I travelled to my constituency I went to the grass roots, in the barn of a farmer at a place called Pleasant Valley. When I knocked at his house his wife told me he was out in the barn, and when I went there I found a good Scotsman shovelling certain material out of the stalls. I think that for the hon. Member for Hamilton West that is one way in which he would qualify in matters of rural development. I say that jovially and I know he will understand.


Mr. Moreau:: Why don't you come down and try it in Toronto?


Howard Russell MacEwan: When I visit Toronto, Mr. Chairman, I do not go to Scarborough. Per-

May 13. 1965
National Housing Act
haps the hon. Member would not want me there anyway.
The hon. Member for Qu'Appelle stated that certain amendments had been made to the National Housing Act during the last few years. He said that during the ten years it has been in existence it has been amended eight times, twice by a Liberal Government and twice by a Conservative Government, and in this connection perhaps I may quote briefly from the hon. Member's speech:
This Act has been used by both parties in the Federal Government to take a part in the economy of Canada which I do not think could be matched by provinces working entirely by themselves. This Act is one of the classic examples of why the initiative in the economic Held should never be lost by the Federal Government, because no act, as I said earlier, has achieved as much as this one.
He was speaking of both parties in this regard. We who come from the Atlantic provinces have stressed in this House and in other places the need for a strong central government, and this is one of the best examples of that need.
I was pleased that the Minister gave us a complete statement of his activities as Minister responsible for this important Corporation. He told us he started his provincial meetings with Nova Scotia down where the East begins, and that he had a very successful meeting with the Premier and Cabinet of Nova Scotia. I am glad this was the case.
I know that in cities such as Halifax various urban renewal projects have been undertaken. I recall visiting there when the former Conservative Government was in power and seeing a low rental project being constructed, known as Mulgrave Park, which cost about $4 million. I went through it with the contractor, who happened to come from my own area, and I am glad to note the Minister is working with officials in that area in an effort to encourage further projects.
During the past year officials from the Minister's office in Halifax have visited Pictou County, my own constituency, and spoken to municipal officials in New Glasgow and Trenton. I do not know if an application has been made for an urban renewal study or survey, but if it has not been made I hope it soon will be. I understand the municipalities in that area are setting up such a survey, which I hope will receive the O.K. from the Federal Government. Several new industries are being developed there and there is a great need for new houses.
Some new houses are being constructed through the normal channels provided by the National Housing Act, and some are being
(Mr. MacEwan.]
built under commercial mortgages. However, I hope this survey is carried out because it is important that it be done before any really large projects are undertaken.
I listened with great interest this afternoon to the hon. Member for Spadina, as he comes from an area in which this legislation is most important. I was glad to note he mentioned a loan had been given to a university in his constituency to assist in the extension of it. All hon. Members will readily recall that this is a policy which was commenced by the former government. In Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces university facilities have been greatly taxed. The universities have taken advantage of a certain provision in the Act, and I am glad this work is being carried on by the Minister and this Government because it means a lot to universities at the present time. We all know universities have other problems, but this policy of assistance has been of great help to them and I hope the Minister will continue it.
The hon. Member for Rosedale mentioned that there had been great co-operation between the Province of Ontario and the Federal Government. In Nova Scotia, the Nova Scotia Housing Commission, which was set up some time ago, and through which co-operative houses are constructed, makes applications to the Federal Government from time to time under the provisions of the National Housing Act.
In my own area a number of people have successfully undertaken these co-operative projects. Persons constructing such homes provide much of the labour themselves, thus cutting down the costs. Under both governments the federal department has cooperated greatly with these people, and I am sure will continue to do so. I know of several housing projects which are presently being submitted for approval and I hope they will receive sanction from the Federal Government at the earliest opportunity.
This afternoon the hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi mentioned that amendments were being proposed to the Bank Act. I do not intend to go into that subject because I know it would be out of order, but I wish to say it may assist housing in Canada. For example, I know of areas in my constituency, such as the mining town of Westville, where commercial mortgage loans are not made, and practically no loans under the National Housing Act.
I recall the very able spokesman for the Liberal Party, when in opposition, on national housing, the late hon. Member for
May 13, 1965

Nipissing, did an excellent job. I remember his putting forward the various viewpoints of his party, and asking the then Minister of Public Works to examine various changes that should be made in the act. Among the changes he advocated was the provision of mortgages for existing homes. This was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Spadina today, and I do not intend to deal with it fully except to suggest to the Minister that in future he should give consideration to doing something in that regard.
A constitutional argument was advanced by the hon. Member for Spadina who said the provinces and municipalities should O.K. the issuing of mortgages on existing houses. With the spirit of co-operative federalism that is about today, there should not be too much trouble in that proposal.
Another suggestion made by the Liberal opposition of that time was that the interest rates on N.H.A. mortgages should be reduced. Perhaps the Minister might look into that and some time in the future introduce amendments which would give effect to it.
The amendments outlined in the resolution are important. Regardless of what party is in power, this legislation is good. The Minister is proposing necessary amendments; and looking at the whole subject from an objective point of view I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton West, who said this legislation must be flexible. In our changing country of today, and with the great expansion in urban areas, and some also in rural areas, flexibility must be continued in order to provide the housing which our people need. I hope the Minister will bear this in mind and that the legislation will be amended from time to time so as to provide the housing which Canadians deserve, and which is justly owed to them.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to express briefly my support for this resolution. It is another step forward to meet a great and growing need in Canada. In the years that lie ahead the corporation will have a great opportunity to overcome the situation that we face today.
I have always appreciated the attitude taken by a former Minister, the late hon. Member from Nipissing, toward these matters, and all he did while he had the opportunity to promote the development of housing in this country. I am pleased the present Minister is continuing to speak in this House for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It always gives me great pleasure to see a thorough-going supporter of free enterprise responsible for a corporation which has a
National Housing Act
socialist philosophy. At any rate we take comfort from the fact that the Minister has had a good deal of experience in the administration of companies and corporations. He has had a lot of experience in the lumber industry as well as administration in other fields, and I am sure all Members of this group will agree with me when I say we are pleased that the present Minister is responsible to the House for this Corporation.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I support the constructive proposals made by other Members of this group and by some other Members of the House with regard to housing and housing projects, and the great need for urban renewal especially in the larger centres, as well as the need for university housing and so on. I do not intend to repeat what they had to say in this debate. I support wholeheartedly the observations made by my hon. friend from Timmins (Mr. Martin) who has been the leading spokesman on housing for our group since 1958. He does not speak from a swivel chair. He has helped to build houses. He speaks from his experience as a fireman; it was this experience as a fireman which directed his attention to the great need for the improvement of housing in Canada.
I believe there is need for a greater public understanding of this legislation, and the regulations made under it, if we are to promote broader public participation in the administration of these measures. For this reason I suggest the district officers should take every opportunity open to them to address organizations in the districts they administer. I have found that while the officers of the Corporation will go out to speak occasionally to Chambers of Commerce and similar organizations, they do so rather reluctantly and appear somewhat afraid to deal with matters which might come within the ambit of policy as far as housing legislation is concerned. I believe these officers should be given every opportunity to speak to labour organizations, Chambers of Commerce, farmers' organizations, women's organizations and other groups which are interested in taking part in the administration of this legislation. I say this from my own experience of the great development which has taken place in the smaller communities of Kootenay West. In places like Trail and other larger centres it is easy for people to visit the offices of the Corporation and obtain any information they may require. But I do believe it would be a good idea if district officials were to take advantage of the op-

May 13, 1965
National Housing Act
portunity to address groups which wish to be informed about the act, its administration, and so on. As I have mentioned, officials of the Corporation do address meetings from time to time though they appear somewhat reluctant to do so.
I have attended one or two of these meetings and have found them to be rather stiff and formal. The officials were willing to give information, but their remarks were confined strictly to what one might call the legal aspects. Would it not be a good idea if the Minister could set out some guidelines indicating what information could safely be given to public bodies, reported in the press and so on. Indeed I also believe it would be a good idea if the President of the Corporation were to address some of these organizations. I am sure he would have a wonderful time if he came to my constituency to address the organizations there which are very interested in this legislation. He might even learn something from the style of houses which are built in the area. At any rate, we invite him to visit Kootenay West at this time. Then again, the senior officials of the Corporation could listen to the recommendations made by district officials based on their experience of the tremendous variety of local situations we have in Canada. The type of architecture which may suit the prairies is not the type of architecture which suits a mountainous country, for instance, or a community in Ontario. There is a great opportunity to take advantage of the experience of district officials with respect to architecture, design and materials.
Nowadays the provision of homes for elderly people is attracting the attention of a growing number of organizations. Various groups are sponsoring housing projects for the aged and I think particular attention should be paid to this aspect of the legislation. Many older people do not wish to leave the communities in which they have lived for many years. They would like to continue to live close to their neighbours. I suggest that greater consideration be given to providing suitable housing in these smaller communities wherever there are sufficient people to occupy them effectively.
In addition it might be a good idea for the Corporation to issue a brochure for distribution to the public generally dealing with the various aspects of the administration of this act, whether university housing, homes for the elderly, housing or housing renewal projects. I would suggest that this information should be written in layman's language. I

find it difficult to understand legal language. Not long ago my attention was called in this House-I believe it was by the hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters)-to a case where it was necessary to use 242 words of legal language to express an idea which an ordinary mortal would have expressed in two dozen.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
In conclusion may I say there is a tremendous opportunity for the application of this legislation in the riding which I have the honour to represent. Incidentally, I have something in common with the Minister, though on a very much lower economic scale -a lower plane, almost. But I have been associated with sawing and supplying the lumber which has built more than 100,000 homes in Canada and we hope to supply more in the days ahead. There is nothing like good wood to built good houses, whether it goes into siding or into the structure itself. In British Columbia naturally, we are anxious to sell all the lumber we can for housing in Canada. I am sure the Minister coming from British Columbia has the same purpose at heart. We have this opportunity for university housing in Nelson. There is soon to be an opportunity for college housing around Castlegar, and there is a large expansion in housing at Trail, Rossland, Nelson and many other communities in the district. I am certain that the people in our district are willing to co-operate with the administration, to the advantage of the community in which they live and to the more effective administration of this Act.


Mr. Ethier:: Mr. Chairman, I would like at this point to make a few remarks in the debate; but first of all I would like to congratulate the Minister for what has been done by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, under his leadership, to improve loans under the National Housing Act for different spheres of our society. We are asked today to accept some amendments in respect of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and to make more money available to them out of public funds.
We are asked in item (a) to approve an increase of three quarters of a billion dollars to help back loans for new houses and housing projects. Under item (b) of the resolution we are asked to increase the money available to the Corporation by $200 million, to help the Corporation make loans for urban renewal schemes and to meet obligations incurred under the urban development agree-
May 13, 1965

ments. Under item (c) we are asked to approve an amendment to the Act to boost from $50 million to $150 million the amount available to the corporation to help projects developed jointly by the Corporation and a province or any agency thereof. Under item (d) we are asked to increase from $150 million to $200 million the maximum amount the Minister may advance to the Corporation for university housing projects. In item (e) we are asked to accept an amendment to raise the maximum from $6 billion to $8J billion for all loans in respect of which insurance policies may be issued under the Act.
I would not be the one to try to hold up this legislation, Mr. Chairman, although there are a few gaps that exist at the moment, and I would like to bring them to the attention of the Minister. I agree with the hon. Member for Timmins that a heavy burden is put upon the Minister's shoulders, especially since he was transferred from the office of the Postmaster General to the more extensive office of Immigration. To have also the responsibility of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation I believe makes this a great task and, I would imagine, a great strain for one man. I would think that a new department should be created and an additional Minister appointed with only the responsibility for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This would give him more time to study and analyse more extensively applications to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which are rejected.
We had very good explanations from the Minister about his meeting with the officials of eight of the ten provinces, and the representatives of many municipalities. But it seems that all previous speakers, including the Minister, have omitted to mention the smaller communities which do not have sewer facilities. It is very nice to talk about urban projects, but I do not think the main goal of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was to help urban centres and urban people only; because after all, every cent that we vote in this Government comes from all citizens of Canada regardless of where they live; and I am sure that all hon. Members including the Minister, know that many of the tax dollars we are voting also come from rural communities and rural people.
According to my experience during the last three years in this House, Mr. Chairman, many of the people who want to build outside large towns have had their applications rejected by the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation because of the 22620-83
National Housing Act
absence of sewers. It seems that the way the Act is written now, it is just about impossible to get loans for subdivisions in a small community. This being so, it is impossible for these smaller centres to grow big enough to have an adequate assessment which would make them qualify, under the Municipal Loans Board, to borrow the funds necessary to instal sewers. The way the law is written now, it prevents these small centres foreseeing the day when they will be able to qualify for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans.
So I would recommend and urge the Minister to include a clause under this Act so as to make it more flexible and give these smaller rural communities their right to qualify for such loans. Maybe it would require more investigation by the department, but I think surveys could be made by civil service engineers, who could make land tests to see if the subdivisions are located on ground where there would not be any danger, even with septic tanks, of polluting the ground and the wells of the surrounding area.
I fully agree that some of these subdivisions were opened in areas where the land is very poorly drained and, this being so, could not qualify; but I do not think it is proper or justified to class all these subdivisions in the same category, which is being done under this Act, because some of the subdivisions are very well drained, and they are still being rejected for loans. I believe that at the moment to qualify for any loan with which to build a private home, in Ontario anyway, one must have a lot of at least 15,000 square feet. If, for security measures where pollution is concerned, bigger lots were required, I would suggest that the lots be divided into 25,000 to 30,000 square feet, thereby giving more draining facilities to the septic tanks and eliminating the problem of pollution. With the recommendation of the engineers I believe that, with these changes in the specifications, the large majority of these subdivisions could be divided so they would qualify for a loan under this Act.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I do not see why the rural people should be discriminated against because the subdivision on which they wish to build is not large enough to instal sewers. I believe that if a clause were included in this Act which would rectify the injustice which exists toward the rural communities, then and only then could we justify voting the kind of money which the Minister is asking us to approve. Only when this is

May 13. 1965
National Housing Act
done can we say that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is really doing the job it was first intended to do, and that was to help every Canadian own his own residence.
Mr. Chairman, this is all I have to say at this time. I shall have a few more remarks to make when the Bill is before the House.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak at any length this evening, but the measure which is now before us enables me to make a few remarks that were suggested to me by some people in my riding and which might be of benefit to the minister responsible for the implementation of this measure.
First of all, I should like to say that I am in favour of the amendments to this legislation and I hope that they will become effective at the earliest possible moment. For any member representing working classes and average citizens, this is a fine opportunity to say to the minister that it is a desirable objective to wish that each family should have its own home. However, there is a long way to go before this goal can be reached.
I am glad to point out that I belong to a party which, when it was in power, did much to ensure that a great number of people could acquire their own homes.
I should also point out that the Conservative party need not take any lessons from those who today sit in the front benches because since 1957, when we came into office, we faced that problem and we did our best to facilitate the purchase, according to their means, by those who wished to acquire their own homes.
For instance, we all remember that Hon. Howard Greene, who was responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, many times asked the house to approve the appropriations required to develop that part of our economy.
It was under our administration, for example, that the first steps were taken to make things easier for people who had to find housing and who wished to improve their education, for instance, in our universities.
Mr. Chairman, each town, no matter how small, has too large a share of slums. The city of St. Hyacinthe has a number of slums that the municipal authorities want to eliminate. But in these days, because of the obligations facing the municipal authorities, it has become quite difficult to meet those obligations without help.
[Mr. Ethler.l
In my opinion, it is high time we should bend every effort in order to solve the slum problem. One has only to meet the people who have no financial means and must live in slums in order to realize how necessary it is to synchronize all efforts to provide this class of our population with decent housing where human dignity might flower.
It is well to see that the minister and, undoubtedly, all the authorities concerned are ready to do something to eliminate this social evil. Only, I wonder if there has not been too much time spent on the consideration of the physical problem only, and if the social and family aspects, which must of course be taken into account, have not been ignored. If our people are to develop normally and our children, in small towns and large cities as well, are to be able to become mature as we wish them to be, it is necessary to create for young girls and boys an atmosphere which will enable them to develop normally.
Unless the minister and the officials of the various branches of his department deal with this problem, it is doubtful that it will automatically be solved. It is perhaps also important-others have said it before me-that a special and necessary assistance be given to rural areas. Slums are not only found in towns and cities, but also in rural areas, and unless special attention is given to that part of the problem, I fear that everything will not have been done to provide a specific solution to the problem.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want my remarks to be interpreted as a criticism against the C.M.H.C. officials, as I merely want to repeat to the minister some complaints brought to my attention on several occasions.
During the winter, more especially, some delays occurred concerning the buildings coming under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and several contractors complained about the slow pace of inspection on the construction sites. I recall in particular a group of buildings where, it seems to me, according to the information I have, all the requirements of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation were met and where the first cheque is still to come.
Certainly, the minister knows better than I do that inspections are carried out at different stages; after the foundation has been inspected a cheque is supposed to be sent, and after the roof has been inspected, another cheque should be sent, and so on.
The minister is aware of the difficulties caused by delays when these inspections are made. I know, for instance, that, for the two
May 13, 1365

buildings I just referred to, construction was nearly over and not one cheque had been received by the owner concerned after the inspections had been approved. The result is that this man had to resort to short-term loans; he had to spend money in interest which he would not have had to spend otherwise.
This causes a great deal of annoyance to these contractors and owners who wonder whether, because of the delay in the mailing of these cheques, they would not be forced to find a second borrower.
Those are the remarks I wanted to make, and I am sure the minister will agree with them and will correct certain gaps, certain anomalies encountered sometimes by contractors.
As I said, 1 did not make these remarks from a negative but rather from a constructive point of view, so as to give the minister a complete picture of some situations faced by contractors. Because when contractors or owners have to borrow money while awaiting their cheques, they suffer heavy losses. I know that it will suffice to bring those facts to the attention of the minister to have the situation corrected and I am sure he will give due consideration to that problem.
0	(9:10 p.m.)


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks on the resolution will be very brief because
1	know full well that the Minister would like to have the resolution stage completed as soon as possible this evening, and I also know full well there will be other opportunities to speak in more depth on the matter when we come to second reading of the bill. The fact is that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is a recognized part of the Canadian scene. I think that without exception all speakers today have been very objective in their remarks. All speakers have emphasized the work that is being done by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and more than one has commented on the geniality and co-operativeness of the Minister in charge of this very important segment of our economy.
I do not say this with any smugness, but I come from a riding that has been very fortunate in that, so far at least, no particular area of my community is ready for the type of mass slum clearance programs now going on across the nation in other progressive centres. However, I also believe that there has been a crying need in the Province
National Housing Act
of Quebec for urban redevelopment in general embracing not only commercial but residential areas. In my view it is only fair to say that the Province of Quebec has lagged very badly in taking advantage of the Federal legislation that has been at its disposal. There have been indications lately that the Provincial Government is taking a very close look at the whole subject of slum clearance and redevelopment, perhaps too close a look for many of us because there are indications that in its enthusiasm Quebec may try to set up an organization, parallel to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in many aspects, and that Quebec may bypass the experience and facilities developed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation over the years of dedicated service that this Corporation has rendered to Canada and its people.
The very articulate Member from the Kootenays touched briefly on a point that has impressed me. It is something 1 have advocated for some time. I refer to the need for extending the facilities of the Corporation a little more forcibly, perhaps a little more tangibly, with regard to the provision of housing for our senior citizens. We spend much of our time, devote much of our energy and allocate much of our money and taxes to alleviating poverty and hardship among our senior citizens. I think this is logical, but it is ironic that, while we have raised our pension plan ceiling, have increased the benefits progressively to $75 a month and have made provision for payment to people 65 and over, in many parts of the nation nothing is being done to make low cost housing a reality for these very same people. In many parts of the nation, the rather modest increases that we have been able to afford in our pension schemes have been more than wiped out or neutralized by the inevitable increase in the cost of housing, particularly in those areas where housing is at a premium, and especially the type of housing required to make it possible for our senior citizens to live out their final days in dignity and peace.
I know I am generalizing and that there are exceptions to what I have said. I know that in certain parts of the country full advantage has been taken of the availability of easy money at very interesting interest rates by those non-profit organizations that are dedicated to the cause of housing for our senior citizens. But those who live in the Montreal area as I do must admit that projects of this type are few and very far be-

May 13, 1965
National Housing Act
tween. Those of us who at one time or another have been closely connected with the municipal field have had to listen to many tales of woe and many pathetic pleas by senior citizens that we use our good offices and so-called influence to find them some housing, some space, if one wants to use that word cynically, where they can live within the modest incomes at their disposal.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Therefore I think it is being penny wise and pound foolish for this Government or any other Government of the future to forget the necessity for increasing the number of projects of the type that will enable our senior citizens to live out their remaining years in dignity and peace. We have so much to learn from the wonderful housing developments of this nature that exist in the Scandinavian countries. I refer particularly to Denmark where, under similar schemes, such homes have been built by government interests, not by private interests. Houses have been built to meet the needs, for instance, of paraplegics. We do have the odd exception in this nation but not in so far as my own city is concerned. When I first came into this House two years ago I had hoped to be able to do something tangible for the senior citizens of Verdun. It has been a battle of red tape because when I approached Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation I was impressed and enthused about the legislation available in this particular field. The scheme seemed very simple. All you had to do was go out and find a service club or non-profit organization, or set up a non-profit organization in order to meet the criteria established by the Corporation, and you could build a housing project of the type that you and I envisage for our senior citizens.
However, nobody has time any more in private industry; nobody has that time in the community. Too many of our service clubs are nothing more than the medium of exchange for big business interests. It is not an easy problem, therefore, Mr. Minister, to find organizations of this type that are dedicated to the community to the extent they will sit down and do something tangible for the senior citizens of Canada. I often stand here and pass the odd critical remark about my Socialist friends in the corner. However, if private industry, if private groups, if service clubs cannot get together to provide housing for our senior citizens under this legislation, then the Government itself will have little choice but to do something about it.
[Mr. Mackasey.l
If we sit here sanctimoniously and raise pensions from $60 to $75 per month, if we periodically reduce the age at which this $75 per month becomes available to our senior citizens and if we do nothing at all that is going to make it possible for these people to live in comfort because housing is not available, then we are not doing our duty to this important segment of Canadian life. I would suggest to the Minister, therefore, that all of these particular items from A to E are of benefit to the nation. We are in favour of increased allowances to the fund available to university housing projects and so forth. However, I see nothing in the resolution that will help the senior citizens of this nation directly. Perhaps a challenge should be thrown out once again to our communities, to our cities and provinces to get into this particular field directly. Certain speakers today, particularly the hon. Member for Rose-dale, pointed out quite factually that it is in the selfish interests of the community to embark on this type of scheme because inevitably such schemes attract other projects, other types of housing, and beneficial results inevitably come back to the municipality in the form of increased direct taxes.
At times I feel rather hypocritical as I write letters to our senior citizens praising my party and this Government, for example, for raising the pension to $75 per month. Then, the next week I send them a polite letter saying, I am sorry but it is impossible for me to find you a decent home in my constituency which you can rent for $42 or $45 per month. These senior citizens point out so pathetically to all of us that there is little good in raising their pension by $10 per month when the housing available to them is raised $10 or $15 per month. I think if this nation has a conscience it must do something about this problem. I think we have a conscience. We can learn something from the Scandinavian countries and the European nations, which obviously have a conscience, and are willing to do something for their senior citizens.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the discussion on this resolution is to close in a very few minutes. I do, however, wish to speak on this resolution because it is a subject of the very greatest practical importance to my constituents. I should like to call the attention of the Committee to an experiment which I believe will be of interest to some of the other Members. As the Members of the Committee know, the amendments
May 13, 1965

May 13. 1965
Bank of Canada Act
I shall conclude my remarks by saying once again that I think the Minister has excellent plans. He has made a good start, but if we are going to get the full scale co-operation of the people of Canada, plus full scale co-operation at every level of government, we have to organize not only the larger conferences of the type he has been attending, and which have done an excellent job, but we also need smaller groups of elected members at every level to come together, without publicity and fanfare, but with the assistance of the experts, to look into the actual problems which exist in their respective areas, and then tell the public what is available in the form of legislation.
This is a co-operative effort that is required, and I believe the sort of conference with which the Minister co-operated so well and to which he sent his officials, is the sort of conference at which I for one learned more than I did at many other conferences and discussions on housing. I commend this practical community project.
It can be done in fairly small groups of homogeneous ridings, and I commend the project to the Minister and Members of the committee. We got excellent co-operation from every level of government, and as a result I think all the elected members in the area, whether they be municipal, provincial or federal, are now better informed and better able to express to the public what the aims in housing are, what the practical legislation is, better than we were able to previously. That is why I commend this-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Since the five-hour limitation provided for the consideration of this proposed resolution, in accordance with Provisional Standing Order 61A, has now expired, it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Nicholson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-104, to amend the National Housing Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BANK OF CANADA ACT


Walter Lockhart Gordon: the second reading of Bill No. C-101, to amend the Bank of Canada Act.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words at this stage about the more important of the amendments to the Bank of Canada Act which are being proposed in this bill. It is, of course the intention that the bill be sent to the Banking and Commerce Committee as soon as it has received second reading so that hon. Members may have an opportunity to go into its various provisions in detail.
I should like to refer first of all to the proposed new section of the Act defining the relationship between the Government and the Bank of Canada in regard to monetary policy. It makes clear that there must be, as there is now, continuous consultation on monetary policy between the Government and the bank. It also provides a formal procedure whereby in the event of a disagreement between the Government and the bank which cannot be resolved, the Government may issue a directive to the bank as to the monetary policy that it is to follow.
It is proposed that any such directive should be in writing, should be in specific terms and applicable for a specified period, should be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette, and should be tabled in Parliament within 15 days. It is also proposed to eliminate the power which the Governor now has, but which has never been used, to veto any action or decision of the Board of Directors or of the Executive Committee of the bank.
The general objective of the proposed new section, which follows the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Banking and Finance, is to remove any doubt which may ever have existed about the responsibilities of the Government and the bank for monetary policy. As this bill is drafted, the Government can never shirk its ultimate responsibility for the monetary policy which is followed any more than it can for any field of national policy. The new section makes explicit this ultimate responsibility of the Government and specifies a statutory form of procedure under which it may be discharged.
If the Government exercises its right to insist on a change in monetary policy, it will be required to do so in a way which brings the issues to the attention of Parliament and the public. On the other hand, the directive power which is proposed in no way relieves the bank and the Governor of their responsibility for monetary policy and its execution. If the Government of the day ever issued a directive to the Governor to execute a mone-
May 13, 1965

tary policy which he felt was contrary to the public interest it can be presumed he would resign rather than accept such a responsibility.
Hon. Members may recall that the present Governor of the bank at the time of his appointment issued a statement setting forth views similar to those I have expressed today concerning the responsibilities of the bank and of the Government with regard to monetary policy. The existing relationship between bank and Government is based on these general principles and has worked very well in practice. The intent of the proposed amendment is not to change the basis of the existing relationship but rather to give it clear legislative recognition.
If I may add a personal word, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say how very fortunate we are to have Mr. Louis Rasminsky as Governor of the Bank of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: He is highly respected in international banking circles and he enjoys the confidence of the Canadian financial and business community for his sound judgment and good common sense. My own relations with Mr. Rasminsky have always been cordial and his advice and counsel to me since I became Minister of Finance have been most valuable and very much appreciated.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
1 come now to the proposal to empower the Bank of Canada to impose and vary a minimum secondary reserve requirement applicable to the chartered banks in replacement of its existing power to vary the minimum cash reserve requirement. Hon. Members will already be aware of the related changes which are being proposed in the bill to amend the Bank Act. Briefly, there are three proposed amendments, two to the Bank Act and one to the Bank of Canada Act, which would affect the reserve requirements of the chartered banks. The minimum average cash reserve requirement applicable to the chartered banks would be lowered gradually from 8 per cent of their Canadian dollar deposit liabilities to 7 per cent; the period over which daily cash reserves are averaged for the purpose of meeting the requirement would be reduced from one month to half a month; and the power of the Bank of Canada to vary the minimum cash ratio would be removed and replaced by a stand-by power, within certain limits and subject to certain notice requirements, to impose and vary a
Bank of Canada Act
minimum secondary reserve requirement, the secondary reserves to consist of cash reserves in excess of the statutory 7 per cent together with treasury bills and day-to-day loans. Should the Bank of Canada find it necessary to invoke the power to impose and vary the secondary reserve requirement, the bank could not set the initial requirement at more than 6 per cent of the chartered banks' Canadian dollar deposit liabilities and could not increase it by more than 1 per cent per month. In no case could the required ratio exceed 12 per cent. At the present time, by agreement with the Bank of Canada, the chartered banks maintain a secondary reserve of at least 7 per cent, in conjunction with an 8 per cent cash reserve.
The effect of these proposals would be to strengthen the instruments of monetary policy available to the Bank of Canada without adversely affecting the position of the chartered banks as compared with that of other financial institutions.
The proposed stand-by power would provide a means of impounding or releasing chartered bank liquidity-and thus influencing bank lending policies-which was supplementary to the more usual technique of changing the amount of cash reserves available to the banks in relation to the required level. The raising or lowering of secondary reserve requirements can exert this influence with less impact on interest rates and hence on international capital flows-a consideration which could be important in some circumstances. Such a stand-by power is not an unusual one for a central bank. In the United Kingdom the Bank of England has the power to call up special deposits, which is equivalent to raising secondary reserve requirements, and in the United States the Federal Reserve Board has the power to vary cash reserve requirements of commercial banks.
It is proposed to eliminate several sections which have been in the Act since 1934 but which have long been inoperative and which the Royal Commission recommended for removal. One of these covers the power of the Bank of Canada to act as banker or fiscal agent of the government of a province; this power has never been used and it would be difficult to exercise in a manner consistent with the bank's statutory responsibility in the field of monetary policy and as fiscal agent of the Government of Canada. Another section which it is proposed to remove is that which requires the bank to maintain a reserve

May 13. 1965
Bank of Canada Act
of gold and foreign exchange against its note and deposit liabilities and to redeem its notes in gold on demand; it ceased to have any practical meaning after the bank's holdings of gold and its holdings of foreign exchange, other than working balances, were transferred to the Government's Exchange Fund in 1940. A related amendment is proposed in respect of notes of the Bank of Canada to remove the description "payable to bearer on demand". Since these notes are themselves legal tender and have never, in fact, been convertible into gold, the present wording is unnecessary and in some quarters liable to misinterpretation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Perhaps I should have put that into the singular and said "in one quarter".
The bill contains several provisions which affect the existing arrangements regarding directors and management of the Bank of Canada. Partners, officers or employees of firms of investment dealers which act as primary distributors of Government of Canada securities would be added to the list of those ineligible for appointment to the Bank's Board of Directors, on the ground that their business activities involve direct dealings with the central bank. The membership of the bank's executive committee would be enlarged by the appointment of an additional director, and the aggregate annual amount of directors' fees would be raised in order to permit more frequent meetings of the full board. It is also proposed that certain pension provisions relating to the Governor and Deputy Governor be made subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, as their appointment and salary now are. These features of the bill are in accord with the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
The remaining provisions of the bill involve a number of relatively minor technical matters which I do not propose to go into at this time. Hon. Members will, of course, have the opportunity of considering them in detail in committee along with the other matters dealt with in the bill.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: The Minister has studiously read a highly technical statement.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Not technical at all.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In the circumstances I think I should reserve my comments both as to the principles and as to the details until there

has been an opportunity to study the content of the hon. gentleman's speech.
The bill itself, as the Minister has told us, touches upon a goodly number of minor matters. I should like to consider with care the implications of a gradual reduction from 8 per cent to 7 per cent of the cash reserve requirements before commenting further.
I am glad to learn that the Government intends to refer this bill to the Committee on Banking and Commerce. But before this can be done there is, of course, one thing which must happen. The Government must move expeditiously to have this committee set up, and at the moment there is no inkling of when this will be done. Perhaps the Minister would consult with the leader of the House and tell us just when that committee will be established. Have we to wait for the discussion of the proposals which the Government has put forward for amending the rules, and the possible adoption of those proposals either as they now stand or in an amended form? As a matter of fact, I think it might be better if the Government went right ahead and set up the Banking and Commerce Committee and let us get on with this type of work and with the Bank Act, because otherwise I think the Minister is going to find himself waiting for some time, because there may be some complications with regard to some of the changes in procedure which may not meet the acceptance of all sectors of the House. Therefore I would strongly recommend to the Minister that he have a talk with his colleague, the Government House Leader, in order to have this Committee set up and let us get on with it.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I am not going to rehash some of the difficulties that arose some years ago in the relationship with the then Governor of the Bank of Canada and the government of the day. All I can say is that I participated somewhat extensively in the debate and retract nothing I said at that time. I think, for the good of all, the air has been cleared, and this is the result of a course of conduct on the part of the Governor of the day that is quite unacceptable.
There is provision that the directors' fees may be doubled, and of course we know there are some changes with regard to the executive committee. I am not going to say anything about the implications of the consultation, the directive and the publication of a report, because I think the position of a Governor who has to receive orders in writing is already difficult. I think the Governor of
May 13. 1965

the bank is in the same position, shall we say, as a Deputy Minister with his Minister, and if it comes to pass in the relationship between the Minister and his Deputy Minister that the Deputy Minister has to insist to the Minister that a directive be put in writing, then the relationship is not as good as it should be.
I think that when the day comes that the Governor of the bank shall have to receive a written directive from the Minister on behalf of the Government, it will be rather a sorry one, and I do not know just how that position could be tolerated. In any event, it will make for a very interesting examination when that directive is tabled in Parliament and we get into the background as to why a written directive had to be issued.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I will limit my remarks to that point on this occasion. We will undoubtedly have a chance to discuss this question further. My colleague, the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), will be back by the time we get into a further discussion of this bill, and undoubtedly he will have some comments to make.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have about two or three minutes and I am not going to attempt to deal very exhaustively with this subject, beyond expressing my satisfaction that we have a Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) now who is prepared to forgo the luxury that I noted three of his predecessors seized upon, which was the luxury of hiding behind the actual, written text of the Bank of Canada Act and pretending that they had no control over or responsibility for monetary policy. The position is now clear, and we know where we have to fire the bullets if ever the occasion arises. I am very glad to see this. It was always rather frustrating before, when one wished to criticize our monetary policy, to have the Minister of Finance say, well, perhaps he agreed with it, but after all, he had nothing whatsoever to do with it because it was entirely up to the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
I think, as the hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has pointed out, if the occasion ever arose where these powers had to be exercised, the situation would already be extremely bad and I think it is very, very unlikely that the Minister is going to have to issue directives to the Governor of the Bank of Canada. In fact, it may be an instance where we are finally sort of tidying
Business of the House
up and putting into definite words a situation that was resolved during the unhappy period to which the hon. Member for Edmonton West referred a little while ago. As I say, Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable satisfaction that I see the Minister is now prepared to take full responsibility in this regard.
There is one other point with which I should like to deal at the present time. This is, that I notice we are also getting rid of another myth and and are finally pushing gold out of the picture, I presume on the understanding that the Canadian people are now sufficiently sophisticated to realize that in a modern currency gold plays no rational part. This brings me to another point, and I hope the Minister is listening. I hope he will not block, before the Banking and Commerce Committee, any attempt to have discussed what is, I think, another very serious thing with which we will simply have to deal before long. This is the whole question of international liquidity, which I think ties in with the fact that we have now heaved gold finally out of the picture with regard to the domestic situation.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Are you complaining?


Colin Cameron: No, I am not complaining at all; I think it is a very sound idea. I think we are facing a very similar situation, or will be
before very long, in the international field, and I would hope that at the hearings of the Banking and Commerce Committee there might be an opportunity for that Committee to hear various experts on international monetary problems dealing with this question of the new developments which must take place within that area. It seems to me this is a place in which Canada could play a very important role.
I can understand the Minister's, perhaps, reluctance to provide a forum. I do not know whether he might feel it would cramp his style. I hope he will not, but will instead feel this will arm him in dealing with his fellow Ministers of Finance in the rest of the world and pressing for developments in the international field to bring the international monetary system into line with the modern managed monetary system that we have in the advanced countries.
May I call it ten o'clock, sir?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Watson MacNaught: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the second reading of

May 13. 1965
House of Commons
the Bill which is under discussion at the present time. Then we will take up the second reading of an Act to amend the National Housing Act; and after that, the second reading of an Act to make provision for the retirement of Members of the Senate.



PROCEDURAL RESOLUTIONS-CORRECTIONS IN ORDER PAPER AND BROCHURE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might make a correction in the Orders of the Day. In Order No. 15 on today's Order Paper, which appears at page 12, following the words "the mile" in the eighth line of Standing Order 99, some words were omitted in recopying the present Order. It is a mere recopying error of the present Standing Order. The words that were omitted are "showing the location upon which it is intended to construct the proposed work and". It is a purely typographical error, because it will be seen that the proposed new Standing Order is merely a recopying of the old Standing Order, with a change in the name of the Committee involved.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
In the brochure which was distributed to hon. Members today there is also an omission in the English version. The words "the expiry of" were omitted, and should appear in the proposed Standing Order 15A, at page 4, in line 33 immediately preceding the words "the time provided for Government business".
I might add that the French version in both cases is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the 36 days referred to in Government Order No. 14 is also a typographical error.


George James McIlraith: I may say that it should have been 26 days, but I do not propose that we make that correction concerning the number of days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps a correction will
be made when the matter is debated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are the corrections suggested by the President of the Privy Council agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At ten o'clock the House adjourned, without
question put, pursuant to standing order.

Friday, May 14, 1965