May 26, 1939

LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

No, Mr. Speaker, even that is not correct.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

That is all right, but it is not in the bill, nevertheless. I wonder whether there will not be means to satisfy the greed of some civil servants who are never satisfied with w'hat they have.

What I strongly object to also is that the board will be entitled to pass by-laws-by-laws to provide that we shall not know, any more than we know the by-laws that are passed by the office of comptroller of the treasury for that office. It is a substitution of those people for parliament and even for the privy council. It is a blank cheque that is given to them.

Now look at section 8. It is very interesting. No one who is employed in any capacity in the public service of Canada or any province of Canada or any office or position for which any salary is payable out of the public moneys

of Canada shall be appointed a director. The governor of the Bank of Canada, the deputy governor, the deputy minister of finance are not in the civil service, if we interpret the act strictly, but they are in the dominion's pay. There is a fine distinction there in respect of those who already are fatly paid by the dominion government, although strictly speaking they are not in the civil service.

The governor shall be the chairman of the board of directors. There again I object. I object to that as I did under my own name in the local paper of my constituency against the president of the Canadian National Railways being appointed chairman of the board.

Then the central mortgage bank may enter into agreement or agreements with the Bank of Canada for providing such service as the executive committee may deem advisable for carrying on the business of the central mortgage bank. It reminds me of a character of that great writer, Moliere. Maitre Jacques was one servant who could accomplish dual roles. When he had a topper he was the coachman, and when he had an apron he was the valet. It is the same thing with the Bank of Canada and the central mortgage bank.

There will be an issue of $10,000,000 from the consolidated revenue fund, another issue to the public, not exceeding $200,000,000. Let me ask one question of the Minister of Finance-I am sure he does not know, because I tried years ago to get it from the proper sources, the provincial secretary of each province, and I was never successful in getting it. The question is this: What is the amount and number of the mortgages in force in each province at the present time? Some years ago I wrote the provincial secretary of each province and did not get a satisfactory answer from any except from Mr. David, the then provincial secretary of Quebec, covering one year only. If one wants to know the indebtedness and the assets of those who live in a certain community one should know the amount and number of mortgages held within that district. Why is there secrecy under this bill, when any man can go to any registry office and get complete information, which is public, as to the mortgage on any property? It is public information. By paying thirty-five cents anyone can see what mortgages, if any, are against any lot; why should these people shift their responsibility and use that secrecy in order to escape blame? I am strongly opposed to that. The Minister of Finance seems to be in a happy mood to-day following the celebration of yesterday, on which I congratulate him. I ask him if he has that

Central Mortgage Bank

information. It will surprise me greatly if he has, because I tried to get it from coast to coast and was unsuccessful, though it should have been available.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

If my hon. friend will permit me, he is quite right in saying that accurate information with respect to the number of mortgages in each province is not available from the provincial governments. I have only figures respecting the amount of mortgages held by different classes of companies, gathered from the corporate records of these companies in the office of the superintendent of insurance, who deals with trust companies, loan companies and insurance companies. The hon. member is quite right in saying that the information is not complete and cannot 'be complete, and in any event it does not deal with the number of mortgages but only with dollars. An approximation of what is involved in the legislation can be gathered., however, from the figures I have before me, which are long and detailed and which I hope to place before the committee.

Before I sit down would my hon. friend permit me to again ask him to retract his statement that the deputy minister will receive a salary of $19,000 or that he can be paid anything under this legislation by order in council. I direct his attention specifically to section 9, which states:

The directors, other than the governor, the deputy governor and the deputy minister of finance, shall be entitled to receive-

There is in this bill absolutely no authority to pay the deputy minister of finance, the governor or the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada anything for their services. I hope my hon. friend will take that back.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the only thing a member of the House of Commons is required to withdraw is language that is not parliamentary. When an hon. member makes a statement that is not accepted by another hon. member, there are the two affirmations and members of the house may decide between them.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

I did not ask for a ruling; I merely appealed to my hon. friend's generosity.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I want the proper procedure to be followed in this house, as you do follow it, Mr. Speaker. I do not see why I should withdraw any words that are not unparliamentary. I made a statement in good faith; and if at times I direct a few words at any particular section of the bill it is because it is drafted so badly and in such bad English.

What I very strongly complain about, sir, is that we had a great deal of correspondence with regard to farm loans. I do not know how many letters I have written on behalf of farmers of my constituency in an effort to get money from the dominion farm loan board, and it is very seldom that I have been successful, because there is too much red tape. I had to spend days and nights writing those letters and receiving people to whom I had to say, "Unfortunately we have received an unfavourable reply." This legislation will be like other legislation we have passed; horn, members will be showered with letters from all parts of their constituencies where people owe money, asking that advantage be taken of the mortgage bank, and probably they will receive just such answers as we have received from the farm loan board. It will be useless correspondence; there will be deceit and we will get nowhere.

I thank the minister for the information he has given with regard to insurance companies. He knows very well that only the insurance companies will benefit from this legislation. The debtors will not benefit. The minister also knows very well that no one in my province will be able to take advantage of this scheme. This legislation will give more influence to people who already have too much.

Now, sir, it is time for me to tell you something I feel very strongly in my heart. I do not wish to be offensive to anyone; I do not wish to go to great trouble to kill a fly, but when it is in the public interest I have to inform hon. members of what I know. I am going to ask them to look at the Parliamentary Guide and read the history of the deputy minister of finance. They will find a gap of seven years between 1923 and 1930.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

On a question of order, Mr. Speaker, it has long been a tradition of this house that personal attacks on civil servants cannot be made in the manner in which my hon. friend is now proceeding.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB

Walter Edward Foster (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I think the hon. member should not refer to members of the civil service who cannot defend themselves on the floor of the house.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

Well, sir, perhaps I may be permitted to read a letter I wrote to my right hon. leader in regard to the very same question, under date of March 16, 1939:

My dear Chief:

Referring to your remarks at page 1862 of Hansard of March 14, you stated that you did feel that, as leader of the House of Commons, it was part of your duty to see that members

Central Mortgage Bank

of the public service "who are not in a position to speak for themselves during the course of debates which take place in this house, should be protected against any remarks in the nature of a reflection upon themselves."

The suggestion that the wrongdoings of public servants cannot be discussed in the house was at first an invention of the Ottawa papers which cater to the public service and it was brought to the house in the first place by the members of the C.C.F. party to prevent any exposure of their own friends in the service.

I submit respectfully that according to British parliamentary practice, every civil servant is represented in the house by the head of his department. Therefore, as you stated that you were the last person in the house who would wish to curtail in any way my freedom of discussion, I have the unquestionable right of expressing my opinion about any civil servant who cannot sit in the house and be present there because he receives an emolument from the crown. The minister is there to take cognizance of and answer any complaint made by any member of parliament. If the minister is familiar with the matter, he may answer at once; if not, he shall take note of what has been said and give an answer in due course.

Some ministers assume that they always have to take the side of all civil servants in their departments, even when some things have been done against their own instructions or outside of their own knowledge. It seems all wrong because it is an incitement to civil servants to do worse, as they can rely upon their minister's continuous defence to consider themselves unimpeachable, except perhaps when they have been found guilty of a criminal offence.

You went further in objecting to the "references to their personal history such as the hon. member I gather was about to make."

It is pretty hard on a member to object on a guess on what he is going to say. For your information, I must tell you that what I intended to show was the record of experience of the deputy minister of finance, to which your predecessor had vaguely referred but which he, himself, had conspicuously hidden.

I had reference to the statement of Mr. Bennett, which is on record.

I agree with you that "members of the public service have to look to the administration for protection in the discharge of their duties," but, on the other hand-

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB

Walter Edward Foster (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. The hon. member has exhausted his time.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

May I finish reading the letter?

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB

Walter Edward Foster (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Only with the unanimous consent of the house. Do I understand that the hon. member has unanimous consent?

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Finish the letter.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

The letter continues:

I agree with you that "members of the public service have to look to the administration for protection in the discharge of their duties," but on the other hand, it is the duty of members of parliament to inform the government

on everything they find wrong in the civil service, in order to secure a possible improvement.

For the above mentioned reasons, I regret to have to disagree with your statement that "if deputy ministers or leading public officials or any members of the public service are to be attacked here, in justice to them they should have the right to make reply on their own behalf from wherever they may happen to be." They are entitled to no right of reply to what is said by members of parliament, but it is the duty of the minister concerned to reply, in his capacity as head of the department.

Again for the above mentioned reasons, if the method which you have suggested "were to be adopted with regard to the conduct of our public affairs I am afraid the public service of the country could not be carried on in the manner in which the country has a right to expect it will be carried on." I want you to understand clearly that I did not intend to bring "personal matters" in the debate; my intention was solely to tell the house about the record of experience of a man who is mainly responsible for the blind and bold dictatorship of the Finance Department in dominion government.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB-PRO

Joseph Thorarinn Thorson

Liberal Progressive

Mr. THORSON:

How many more pages in

the letter?

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

One. It continues: Standing order No. 41, speaks for itself:

"No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty, nor of any of the royal family; nor of the governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof."

It makes no mention of any one in the civil service.

My intention was not at all to attack you nor your colleague of the finance department, but to inform both of you on matters of public interest which are purposely kept in the dark by those concerned.

The first duty of a member of parliament is to inform the government on what he considers of public importance, and it is only after he has done so that he may be justified in attacking the ministers concerned, in case no action is taken to redress the wrong which was complained of.

I would not feel myself "justified" of "attacking" any cabinet minister for anything done outside of his knowledge by anyone in his department, unless such minister were previously informed about the facts and where is it to be done elsewhere than in the house?

Then you said I was "quite within (my) his rights in bringing to the house anything at all in connection with the attitude of individual civil servants," etc.

The competence and qualification of any civil servant are even more important than his attitude and how can they be rated if their record of experience is to be left outside the picture?

I am just reading the wonderful biography of your illustrious grandfather who was a champion of free speech and I hope that all the sacrifices that he made during his lifetime

Central Mortgage Bank

for the freedom of speech in the legislative assembly were not made in vain and that we have not regressed a century backwards, to the time of the "family compact." Otherwise, it would be just as well to suppress parliament.

Faithfully yours,

Jean-Fransois Pouliot.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB

John Mouat Turner

Liberal

Mr. J. M. TURNER (Springfield):

Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) upon the high honour conferred upon him yesterday by McGill university. As I have pointed out many times and in many places, in my judgment the Minister of Finance is about the ablest man in the House of Commons, and the honour he has justly received serves only to deepen my conviction in that regard.

It is said in many quarters that once in a while the minister has forgotten the small man, the worker and the farmer. I never believed that for a moment. But to those who have harboured that thought I would say that I have no doubt they will find in this measure the very help they have been seeking. In my opinion this bill when passed will be the salvation of many people in the dominion. They will save their homes and their farms, and their small holdings they have struggled so long and so hard to retain.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
CON

Thomas Langton Church

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to some of the provisions of the bill which affect the industrial workers, many of whom have been driven in recent years into apartment houses, as a result of the depression and the very heavy burden of taxation placed upon real estate. I am sorry that with this bill to incorporate the central mortgage bank the minister has not seen fit to introduce also a complementary bill to help relieve the holders of real estate of some of the impossible burdens which are placed upon them, thus encouraging industry to proceed with a large building and housing and reconstruction program.

There was a long debate in the house on a motion I introduced in 1935 on reconstruction, housing and youth program and mortgage rates, and I believe the arguments I advanced at that time might be made with equal force on the second reading of this bill. I believe what I said with respect to the so-called shark loan companies would be equally applicable. I give the minister credit for having done some hard work and having made an effort to study this whole mortgage structure question since 1935, so as to bring about if possible some relief to the mortgagors in Canada who have been carrying a heavy burden.

I have in my hand the report of the assessment commissioner of Toronto, who has given careful study to this problem. While the bill is not complete, at least it starts something, namely to give people on the farms and in the cities the benefit of the use of the Bank of Canada to help solve our domestic problems through a mortgage bank. I believe the primary purpose of the Bank of Canada should be that of providing assistance in loosening up money now tied up in farm and urban property.

There is no doubt whatever that some people will benefit from this bill, but they are to be found chiefly on the prairie farms. Loan, mortgage, trust and insurance companies who care to associate themselves with the mortgage bank may benefit. Farmers or urban dwellers with mortgages of $7,000 or under, who owe money on mortgages to these companies, would come under the measure if the companies qualify. A farmer would benefit if he owed a mortgage to a company which associates itself with the central mortgage bank. First of all an appraisal would be made of the value of the farm, and a reduction would be made on the amount of the mortgage. That is all very good, as far as it goes. We know that on the prairies some of the older companies, including the Canada Permanent, and their predecessors, the Western Canada Loan, did advance large sums of money on prairie holdings. If they accept the terms of the scheme they will benefit, as will the mortgagors directly.

But what about the city man? We have devoted weeks and weeks to a discussion of wheat. We have talked almost a week on fish, but we have had very little time in parliament, so far, to give relief to that fifty per cent engaged in industrial work largely in the two central provinces, many of whom are suffering untold hardships I could not adequately describe here.

The report of the assessment commissioner for the city of Toronto is the report of conditions in a city of 600,000 people, sixty-four per cent of whom used to own their own homes. Toronto was known as a city of homes. Against thirty-six per cent of those homes were mortgages, the large majority of which were held by individual builders who had been responsible for a great deal of the housing development of the city. Let us, for instance, speak about one of these districts. now represented by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton), that part of the city west of Bathurst and from Queen to College street. Some years ago the land was vacant, but after protection came in 1878

Central Mortgage Bank

that part of the city was built up for the industrial workers by individual builders who built whole streets of houses. Some of those men were carpenters, and some were engaged in the lumber and other trades in the building industry. They bought lumber and built on the property. They were the persons who lent the money-such people as these are classed as individuals-and I fail to see how a bill of this kind would benefit them.

However there is much to be said on the other side of the question. There is no doubt that this is a step in the right direction; it is an attempt to curb, reduce, regulate and control the high mortgage rates charged by the old companies, who if they come under the act, will benefit. Only a short time ago I referred to their action, in the debate on one of the shark loan company bills. Some of those old companies were and are now the worst offenders and usurers, and they forced foreclosures. I could name them, but I shall not take time. The other night I mentioned the case of one person who in nine or ten years had paid $4,000 for the use of $6,000. I know of another man who paid one of these older companies $6,000 in interest charges during the last nine or ten years on a loan of $9,000. This bill is a step in the right direction, because it utilizes the powers and functions of the Bank of Canada to help sections of the people. If it only went further and allowed a board to be set up to bring in the individuals to qualify, it surely would do good.

I am a supporter of the party system of government, but our party system ought to do something to remedy these high charges of all kinds. I have referred to this matter during the present session and in many previous sessions. We have high interest rates, high mortgage rates, high insurance rates, high telephone rates, high rates for domestic essentials, a high cost of living and high rates of all kinds for the toilers and workers with no relief.

As far as it goes this bill is a step in the right direction. The other day I asked if this would apply to city homes and the homes of individual industrial workers, and the answer was that it would. However, it will be necessary for an individual mortgagee to link up with one of the companies in order to come under the bill. If that indivdual mortgagee is not willing to come under this scheme by qualifying through a company which enters, then there is no change so far as the individual is concerned. He cannot come under the bill unless he can arrange to

have the mortgage transferred to one of these companies. There is no doubt that there is discrimination.

While the bill does not go as far as I should like to see it go, I think the minister is making a sincere effort, handicapped as he is by conditions, to find ways and means to solve this complex and intricate question. The loan companies have a good deal of influence in this house. I can remember in 1934 or 1935 when a bill was introduced by Mr. Coote, a member of the Cooperative Commonwealth party, to limit the interest charged by loan companies of all kinds, foreign, British and domestic, to five per cent. That bill, which I strongly supported, was not placed on the statute book. If it had been, it would have proved of great benefit to the individual mortgagor. I am sorry the minister has limited the provisions of this bill to $7,000. Some properties mortgaged for $7,000 are not worth $3,500 to-day. In some of the northern districts in the part of the country in which I live, hundreds of homes have been taken over by the mortgagees owing to the high taxes, unemployment and the depression. Had it not been for the wise action of the province in enacting the moratorium legislation, hundreds of industrial workers in Toronto would have lost their homes forever. This bill will not benefit them much. For a few years this moratorium legislation acted as a safety valve to tide the industrial worker over that particular time. Some relief is being provided by this bill for the holders of individual mortgages in amounts under $7,000 who can qualify, but all should qualify through a board such as operated under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The bill should be tried out for a year and then perhaps additions or amendments may be made to have the individual mortgagees link themselves together to qualify under the bill through a board before whom later they may appear and qualify.

The industrial worker is not getting much protection from parliament in the curbing of these high charges. The report of the assessment commissioner of Toronto gives the number of vacant houses, tax arrear sales, vacant lots, tax appeals, apartment houses, duplexes, apartments over stores, triplexes and all that kind of thing. The unofficial figures given a year or two ago by construction evidence before our housing committee here showed that

60,000 industrial workers had been driven out of their small homes in Toronto and into apartments as a result of the depression. Because of high charges, the cities of Canada are more or less now becoming apartment

Central Mortgage Bank

cities, whereas in the past, sixty-four per cent of the population of Toronto owned their own small homes. During the recess the minister should try to help work out a policy of reform with the provinces and municipalities, something by which there would ibe fewer apartments built and more small homes, as in the eastern section of east and1 west Hamilton. That would be a step in the right direction. Sales of real estate for taxes have never before been so high in many cities. This burden should be shifted from the municipalities. I am sorry the minister is not also giving the municipalities the benefit of the protection which could be given by, through and with the aid of the Bank of Canada. There should be a complementary bill to this one to relieve real estate and to give the municipalities part of the taxes, income and others, collected by the federal government which they appropriated in 1917-1918.

The one feature of the bill that I do not like is that there is no allowance for proper depreciation. Some properties cannot be sold for the amount of the mortgage. Some have depreciated fifty per cent. Reference is made in the annual report of the assessment commissioner of the city of Toronto to general and local improvement taxes. I can say that owing to real estate being so burdened, on some small homes the taxes amount virtually to a rent. I should like to see some means provided to bring the individual mortgagee under this scheme through a board. Sections should be added to the bill which would wind up an individual mortgagee if he did not succeed in getting a company to come under the scheme. There should be a mandatory section to force the individual mortgagee who is now outside the bill to come under its provision. There should be some provision to transfer the individual mortgagee who charges such high rates to a general scheme, and some way to check such usury.

If this bill were properly fortified I venture to say that you would see the end of a lot of these loan shark companies and of usury by individuals. That is what would happen if the suggestions I have just made were carried out. I think the limit should be raised to $9,000 or $10,000. When allowance is made for depreciation, many properties which were worth $10,000 in the olden days can be sold now for no more than $4,500 or $5,000. I live in a district where real estate has depreciated fifty per cent. North Toronto was built up largely because the city took over the light and power and transportation services and provided good roads and local improve-

ments. I think the minister might well amend the bill to include that class of mortgagor who is suffering so much or give him some better assistance.

The minister does not allow for the fact that some of the worst sharks are not loan companies, but unpatriotic individuals who are exacting six and one-half to seven per cent and more, when, as the minister said this session, he can borrow money for Canada to-day for two-thirds of one per cent. While the bill is not perfect, it is a start in the right direction. I am not one of those who is willing to listen to the agents of these loan companies who are around this parliament every session and who have had generations of high rates. They have been here every session before our committee since I first came to this house. We see the agents and lobbyists of these companies down here this session trying to have legislation passed in their favour, whereas there is no representation for the people on the other side of this question except a few members of the house.

I think the minister should be given credit for having introduced this bill. I agree to its general principles. It will start something to give the workers of Canada at least a chance to qualify under and through the functions of the Bank of Canada. I hope he will also consider the suggestions I have made and enlarge the scope to a little above $7,000.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

The legislation now before us is to be welcomed because of the principle which is involved. I listened with a great deal of interest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) when he was introducing the resolution which foreshadowed this bill, and I was glad to hear him outline the object he had in view. Legislation for the drastic adjustment or removal of debt and the lowering of interest rates on mortgages has been long overdue. Apart from the fact that home owners are heavily mortgaged and are now being invited through the companies which own the mortgage to come under this bill, the debt burden of the agricultural producer, the farmer, has become very largely impossible. Thousands of our farmers across Canada in every province have accumulated debts which often are greater than the equities in the lands they occupy. The immediate outlook for agriculture offers little hope, it seems to me, of an automatic adjustment. Seventy-cent wheat in the west and increasing surpluses of butter and other farm produce in the east can give us little encouragement that the condition of the farmer, and therefore of the people who

Central Mortgage Bank

depend upon him, will improve sufficiently to meet the obligations he undertook in far more prosperous times.

The problem of agricultural debt is not entirely a western problem. The census of 1931 revealed that at that time 40-8 per cent of the fully-owned Ontario farms were mortgaged to 44-8 per cent of their appraised value, and since then we have had all across the country a substantial reduction in the value of farm lands. In the west we have had almost ten years of crop failures and disastrously low prices for farm products all across the country. So I say that the ailment is no longer acute; it is chronic, and like other chronic diseases it requires a major surgical operation rather than another dose of ointment. My first criticism of the bill is that it does not perform the necessary operation.

I am going to say what I think is involved in the bill. I may not have entirely appreciated its provisions; we shall know more about it when it is discussed clause 'by clause and word by word in committee, or, as I hope, in either the banking and commerce committee or a special committee appointed by the house to consider its provisions and examine its implications.

First, the bill sets up a central mortgage bank with a capital of $10,000,000, and with power to guarantee up to some $200,000,000 more. Its officers are to be the present officers of the Bank of Canada, with three additional directors. The question arises, first, whether we are not placing too much responsibility, too much power, and too much work financially in a comparatively few hands when we obligate officers of the bank and the deputy minister of finance to do this work. I am not expressing any lack of confidence in either of these gentlemen. I have had the privilege recently of hearing the governor of the Bank of Canada and the deputy minister of finance before the banking and commerce committee, and though I may not agree with their point of view I recognize their ability in advancing it. There are, of course, advantages in appointing these gentlemen to the board, but we should be very careful, I think, not to overload a few officials with too much work or too much responsibility or, perhaps what is even more serious, too much power.

The principle of the bill, as I see it, is to be found in section 17, dealing with appraisals; because I believe that upon the appraisals made much of the success or failure of the measure will rest. As I understand it, any mortgage, loan, trust or insurance company operating in Canada, whether under federal or under provincial charter, may by agreement and its own consent come under the act.

No provision is made-this has been mentioned already by several who have spoken-to enable individual mortgagees to come under it, unless, as the Minister of Finance noted, they are prepared to form some cooperative body which will bring them under the act. I may as well say now, because it is a point I should like cleared up before we vote on the second reading of the bill, that in the eastern provinces, in Ontario and Quebec particularly, the majority of the mortgages, I understand, are owned by individuals.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

Oh, no.

Topic:   PROVISION FOR INCORPORATION, PURCHASE OF SHARES, ETC.-CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION FOR SECOND READING
Permalink

May 26, 1939