1959-02-25

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement in connection with the 1957-58 pool account for wheat. The Canadian wheat board has submitted a report dealing with the financial position of this account, indicating it to be in a surplus position at the present time. The board has advised that it is possible to make an interim payment to producers and the government has, accordingly, authorized a payment of 10 cents per bushel on all grades of wheat except the top grades of durum, upon which the interim payment will be 15 cents per bushel.
Producers delivered a total of 376.9 million bushels of wheat to the 1957-58 pool. Taking into consideration the higher interim payment rate for the top grades of durum wheat, the payment will provide for the distribution of $38.8 million to western producers. The distribution of cheques will be commenced by the board within the next two or three weeks.
A special word may be required with regard to durum. There is a limited export market for durum wheat, at the present time confined largely to Switzerland and Germany, and the very large production increase experienced in recent years has resulted in a surplus position of durum in western Canada. This surplus has developed at a time when world demand for durum has decreased in relative terms because of improved production in consuming countries as well as increased production by other exporters. As a result the premium price commanded by durum has steadily declined in the past two years.
Up until the present crop year special delivery privileges were granted for durum wheat, but since the beginning of August, 1958, marketings of durum have been under regular specified acreage quotas. In addition, the initial payment rates for durum wheat are now at the same level as the initial payment for the corresponding grades of hard spring wheat. Both these factors reflect the marked change which has taken
place in the past two years in the marketing potential for this type of grain.
Producers are aware of the changed conditions, and in 1958 reduced durum acreage by over 50 per cent. In spite of this, production last year was in excess of a year's commercial requirements and added to some extent to the existing surplus. The higher rate of interim payment being made for the top grades of durum, therefore, reflects marketing conditions in the past rather than the outlook for the future.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will welcome the announcement made by the minister, coming as it does at this season of the year. I believe it is well in advance of some other years, and certainly the payment is up to average. At a later time perhaps we might be able to hear from the minister as to the progress that is being made in th.e utilization of the increasing surplus of storage facilities that I believe has become available over the winter months, so the quota restrictions will not be as severe as those in force in other years.
The distribution of this amount of money will, of course, be welcomed in western Canada. The minister indicated that the wheat board would be able to commence to process payment within two or three weeks. Has he any indication as to just how long it will take to complete the job?


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: This is an announcement that has been made for a great many years, namely the provision for an interim payment on wheat. In very recent years the interim payment has been of the same amount as has been announced, namely 10 cents per bushel. This is just half the 20 cents interim payment that had become the pattern for a great many years after the war. No matter what the size of this payment, it can be said, Mr. Speaker, that prairie grain producers support the Canadian wheat board system of marketing their wheat, oats and barley.
There may be a feeling, there is a feeling, that this payment should have been supplemented by a deficiency payment, and by means of a deficiency payment made substantially larger, but that does not constitute a quarrel amongst prairie grain producers with the wheat board system of marketing grain. I express the hope that it may be possible to

Starred Questions
close out the account at an early date and make final payment as quickly as possible. This payment will be welcomed now particularly because western grain producers are hard pressed for cash, and they will be looking forward to government action in this field subsequent to the mass delegation coming to Ottawa.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If I may answer the question asked by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, I think the cheques will all be received by the farmers within three weeks' time.



STARRED QUESTIONS


ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENERGY


Mr. Forgie: What has been the cost of the royal commission on energy, including travelling expenses, up to the latest date for which figures are available?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Renfrew North is that the cost of the royal commission, including travelling expenses, from November, 1957, to March 31, 1958, was $83,387.48, and from April 1, 1958, to January 31, 1959, $233,737.04.



SECONDARY TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, CAMPBELLTON-MONCTON, N.B.

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Did the government receive from the province of New Brunswick or from other sources, a request for a secondary trans-Canada highway from Camp-bellton to Moncton?
2.	If so, what action has been taken?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: The answer to the first question is that representations were received through Mr. Van Horne, M.P., from the Chatham bridge committee that the federal government declare the highway from Campbellton to Moncton a secondary trans-Canada highway.
The answer to the second question is that no action has been taken, as the route was not designated by the province as the route of the trans-Canada highway and there is no provision in the legislation for a secondary route.



PAINTING &quot;LANDSCAPE WITH CHRIST APPEARING TO THE APOSTLES&quot;

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Did the director of the national gallery receive authorization from the government or any member of the government or anyone authorized to speak for a minister, either in writing or orally, to make an offer for the purchase of the painting "Landscape with Christ appearing to the Apostles" by Breughel?
2.	Was any offer made by the director of the national gallery to any agent acting for the owner Baron G. von Polnitz to purchase this painting?


Hon. Ellen L. Fair dough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The answer to part 1 of the question is that the board of trustees of the national gallery had asked for "authorization to negotiate for the purchase of the Breughel owned by Baron von Polnitz". At the same time the trustees asserted that the necessary funds had been appropriated and were available for the purchase. This statement was confirmed by the director of the gallery. Acting on this information, which later proved to be erroneous, the cabinet on May 2 authorized the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to give permission to the director to proceed accordingly.
During the ensuing week end it was found that the assumption of funds available in the purchase account was incorrect, and accordingly on May 7 the acting minister instructed the director to suspend negotiations immediately and advise the parties accordingly. This was done on May 8 and confirmed by letter from the director to the owner on May 12.
The answer to part 2 of the question is that the director of the national gallery did telephone to an agent of Baron von Polnitz on May 2 and asked him in effect whether he would find out if the baron would sell the painting for $350,000. The director then advised the agent that funds for the purchase would have to be approved by treasury board and provided by parliament.
It is clear that no authority existed to make a firm offer or enter into a contract for this purchase by the national gallery or the government of Canada or anyone on its or their behalf. The Financial Administration Act specifically requires that there be an appropriation provided by parliament for the purpose before a contract can be made.
It is reiterated that the authority asked for was to negotiate. Although granted in the first instance this was immediately revoked as soon as the lack of appropriation was revealed.



SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN DAM


Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	On what basis are wage rates for employees on the South Saskatchewan dam project established?
2.	Are they lower, higher, or the same as rates for similar work under collective agreement in the province of Saskatchewan?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: The answers to the questions asked by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) are as follows:
1.	The rates of pay are established under the authority of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which prescribes fair wages;

that is, such wages as are generally accepted as current for competent workmen in the district in which the work is being performed, but shall in all cases be such wages as are fair and reasonable. The contractors are required to pay not less than the fair wages prescribed on this basis and set forth in the schedule of labour conditions applicable to each contract.
2.	Eight contract wage schedules were issued between July 10 and November 4, 1958, on this work. With respect to all eight wage schedules, the rates used for three classifications are the collective agreement rates used on government contract work in any part of Saskatchewan. In the absence of collective agreements in the area the wage rates used for the other classifications were established by surveys.



HEATH STEELE MINES LIMITED, NEWCASTLE, N.B.

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Is the Heath Steele Mines Limited, Newcastle, New Brunswick, making regular payments under the guaranteed minimum annual freight revenue, to the Canadian National Railways or the federal government, during their shut-down period, for the Canadian National Railways branch line from Bar-tibog, New Brunswick, to the site of the company's mine at Little River, Northumberland county, New Brunswick?
2.	What is the total amount of money paid to date under this guarantee?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, when the bill
authorizing the branch line in question was before the house, and also the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, in 1956, a general explanation was given to the effect that Heath Steele Mines Limited had agreed to the movement of 450,000 tons of concentrates within the first six-year period of operation, with the stipulation that if there was a deficiency under 75,000 tons of ore in any year, the railway would debit the mining company with the amount of the deficiency, subject to adjustment if in the aggregate 450,000 tons are delivered to the railway over the six-year period.
The settlement for the traffic deficiency for the first year of operation is in progress. I should say, however, that when the bill was before the standing committee in 1956 it was agreed by the committee that all the details of the agreement between the mining company and the railway should not be included in the proceedings, as it was felt that it was not in the interests of the development of the Canadian National Railways to disclose the details of these guaranty agreements.
Starred Questions



PROPOSED CAUSEWAY, NEW BRUNSWICK-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has a survey of the New Brunswick-Prince Edward Island proposed causeway been undertaken?
2.	If so, has enough data been compiled to determine the feasibility of this project?


Howard Charles Green: The answers to the questions asked by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	No.



VISIT TO YUKON BY LAMBTON WEST MEMBER

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Was the member for Lambton West authorized to make a visit to the Yukon and Northwest Territories, during the month of September, 1958?
2.	If so, on what authority was this visit authorized?
3.	Were other members of parliament invited to take part on this trip?
4.	What were the names and official capacity of other persons, if any, participating in this trip?
5.	What was the total amount of expenses involved and for whom were expenses paid?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to this question here, but in view of its length I would request that it be made an order for return.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of questions being starred is in order to get the information required from time to time. I think the house is entitled to have this information.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Will you not get
it through an order for return?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the hon.
member wants it immediately I could ask for the unanimous permission of the house to have it printed in Hansard.


Lionel Chevrier: That is quite satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister asking leave of the house for that purpose?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister the consent of the house to have this answer printed as an appendix to Hansard of today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Speaker; I thought the understanding was that it be printed in Hansard in the usual way, not as an appendix.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to having the answer printed at this point in Hansard?

Starred Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Editor's note: The answers referred to above are as follows:)
1.	Yes. In his capacity as chairman of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters the hon. member for Lambton West was requested to represent the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources for a speech to the board of trade in Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, and in opening the new school and hostel at Fort McPherson, Northwest Territories.
2.	Treasury board.
3.	Yes. The hon. member for Yukon was invited to be present for the engagement in Whitehorse and to accompany the trip in the examination of the route for the proposed road from Dawson to Eagle Plain in the Yukon Territory. The member of parliament for Mackenzie River was invited to be present for the opening of the hostel and school at Fort McPherson but declined because of a commitment in New York.
4.	The persons who participated in the entire trip were:
J. W. Murphy, member of parliament for Lambton West; R. G. Robertson, deputy minister of northern affairs and national resources; G. B. Williams, chief engineer, development engineering branch, Department of Public Works.
For the portion of the trip in the Yukon also present were: Erik Nielsen, member of parliament for the Yukon, F. H. Collins, commissioner of the Yukon Territory, K. Baker, chief engineer, Yukon Territory, N. Gritzuk, in charge of transportation for Western Minerals in Eagle Plain oil explorations.
Present for the portion of the trip from Whitehorse to Yellowknife were: V. Bull and Miss E. Neiszner of station CKCK-TV, Regina, Saskatchewan, who at a cost to the department of only $160 for two prints made the film "Northern Giant" which was shown to members of the committee on mines, forests and waters on February 17 last.
Present for the portion of the trip from Fort McPherson to Yellowknife were: C. Merrill, district administrator, Mackenzie district, W. G. Booth, chief superintendent of schools for the Mackenzie district.
5.	The total expenses by the government for aircraft chartered for the trip were $2,515.82.
Mr. Gritzuk, on behalf of Western Minerals, chartered the aircraft which carried him on the entire part of the trip he was on. It also carried Mr. Robertson and Mr. Williams for the actual route examination,

and carried Messrs. Nielsen, Collins and Baker on the return portion of the trip from Fort McPherson to Whitehorse.
Personal expenses paid by the government
were:
Mr. Murphy	$406.50
Mr. Robertson	 967.56
Mr. Williams	 556.10
Mr. Merrill	 146.95
Mr. Booth	 15.40
(Note: Expenses for Mr. Robertson and Mr. Williams include additional expenses for a road inspection trip in Banff and Jasper national parks and, in the case of Mr. Robertson, further expenses for visits to Fort Smith and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. Mr. Merrill's expenses include transportation from Fort Smith to Yellowknife and return in order to join the party. Mr. Booth had no expenses for transportation.)
No personal expenses were paid by the government of Canada for any other person present on the trip.



MCKIM ADVERTISING LIMITED

Mr. Godin: 1.	How many contracts, if any, by government departments, were awarded to the advertising firm of McKim Advertising Limited since June 1, 1957?
2.	What was the amount of each?
3.	Who were the directors of this company (a) for the year 1957; (b) for the year 1958?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, since the reply to this question must be tabled and in fact involves more than one department of the government, I wonder if the hon. member would agree to it being made an order for return.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think the same objection I made a moment ago applies to this question. While it is true, as the hon. lady has said, that the answer to this question must also come from other departments, I think she should obtain the answers, table them, and give the totals asked. That is, as I understand it, the object of starred questions, so that we can have in Hansard a complete answer to the question asked.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct Your Honour's attention to paragraph 5 of standing order No. 39, which states:
(5) If a question is of such a nature that, in the opinion of the minister who is to furnish the reply, such reply should be in the form of a return, and, during the question period on Wednesday, the minister states that he has no objection to laying such return upon the table of the house, his statement shall, unless otherwise ordered by the

house, be deemed an order of the house to that effect and the same shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings as such.
This is the type of question where the custom always is to put it in the form of an order for return, and that is the only proper way in which the matter can be dealt with since every department of the government is involved; and I submit it is not the type of question which was contemplated when the provision for starred questions was made.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry, but I must disagree with the interpretation placed upon that rule by the Minister of Justice. I think the Minister of Justice is correct providing his application of the rule deals with questions which are on the order paper. But this is not an ordinary question on the order paper; it is a starred question. My submission to you, sir, is that the decision of the minister applies to questions that are of an ordinary nature and which have not been starred by the member. If the questions have been starred by the member I submit the information should be given to the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to point out that although the question is distinguished by an asterisk it is still a question, and it is on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. My understanding of the rules and practice is that if in the minister's opinion the reply should be in the form of an order for return, the minister has the right to state that fact, and the effect is to make it an order for return automatically under the rule. In the previous case the minister was willing to waive his right.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, in view of your decision may I ask the minister if she would not now consent, as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has, to the submission of all the information required in Hansard?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is an entirely different type of question. I submit that sufficient reason has not been shown why this matter should not be made an order for return, and I ask the consent of the house should now be obtained in this connection.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered, then, that this question be made an order for return. Consent of the house is not necessary. In fact the procedure we followed before can be followed only by unanimous consent of all members.
Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


INTERNATIONAL RAPIDS


Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Did the international joint commission in its order of approval of October 29, 1952, provide for the regulation of water through the international rapids section in accordance with method of regulation No. 5 as prepared by the Department of Transport in September, 1940?
2.	Was this method followed and at any time put into operation? If so, what are the details? If not, was rule 5 amended or altered in any manner whatsoever, and by what method or plan, giving details?
3.	Was the plan mentioned in 2 still further amended? If so, what are the details?
4.	What plan is now in operation and with what result?
5.	What plan will be followed with the opening of navigation in 1959?



MCKIM ADVERTISING LIMITED

Mr. Godin: 1.	How many contracts, if any, by government departments, were awarded to the advertising firm of McKim Advertising Limited since June 1, 1957?
2.	What was the amount of each?
3.	Who were the directors of this company (a) for the year 1957; (b) for the year 1958?



RETAINING WALLS, QUEBEC PROVINCE

Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Since June, 1957, has the government undertaken work on retaining walls or made grants for such work, within the limits of the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, at what places and for what amounts?



c. D. HOWE COMPANY LIMITED

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the government engaged the services of C.D. Howe Company Limited for any work since July 1, 1957?
2.	If so, what type of work for what departments, to what value, and on what dates?
3.	In any such engagements, were the services obtained through tender or negotiation?



FEDERAL AGENCY DIRECTORS

Mr. Argue: 1.	Who are the directors of each of the following government agencies, what are their duties, and what administrative powers does each hold: (a) the national research council; (b) the public archives; (c) the defence research board; (d) the national film board; (e) the national library; (f) the national museum?
2.	What rank in the government service does each of these directors hold, and what are his qualifications for the position he holds?



WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, QUEBEC

Mr. Bourgei: 1.	What was the nature of the projects approved, with amounts and locations, under the winter works program with the province of Quebec?
2.	How many persons were employed directly under this program in the province of Quebec on the 1st of February, 1959, and where were they employed?

Motions for Papers MOTIONS FOR PAPERS



LA HAVE, N. S. POSTMISTRESS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47
Mr. McWilliam:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Postmaster General and/or any of his officials or any other person, concerning the termination of services of the postmistress at La Have, Nova Scotia, and the appointment of a successor.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 48-Mr. Eudes:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between Canadian Breweries Limited and Western Canada Breweries Limited or counsel on their behalf, and the Minister of Justice and the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act, or any other person in the Department of Justice, from November 6, 1957 to December 31, 1958, relating to the inquiry into the brewing industry and the prosecution thereof.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Breweries Limited has now been charged with an offence under the Combines Investigation Act and the case has been set down for trial. The correspondence asked for relates directly to this matter. I must therefore oppose production on the ground that it would be improper to produce such correspondence dealing with a case sub judice. I should add that once the case is disposed of I would have no objection to producing this correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the answer given by the minister does the hon. member consent to this motion being withdrawn subject, of course, to the right of restoring it to the order paper?
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



NATIONAL MUSEUM


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and other documents exchanged between any cabinet minister or any of his or her deputies, the civil service commission, and any person or persons, since January 1, 1956, relating to the administration and working conditions of the human history branch and the natural history branch of the national museum of Canada.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In so far as
the motion refers to correspondence or other documents between ministers, or ministers and officials, or between officials and the civil service commission, or between any other categories of persons in the government service, it relates to material that is privileged in character and would not normally be returnable.

In so far as the motion refers to correspondence or other documents between ministers or persons within the public service and persons outside the public service, there is, I may say, a good deal to table. Much of it contains allegations about employees in the public service, and all these were included in the investigation to which I referred in the house on January 20. To table the documents would involve the risk of giving publicity to allegations which have, in some cases, been found to be unsubstantiated, and in others to be incapable of proof or disproof. Their publication would involve the risk of causing unjustifiable injury to personal and professional reputations. I am not prepared, Mr. Speaker, to be responsible for causing such injury.


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind the minister that this is not a debatable motion. He may rise and say he objects or consents to the motion, but I do not think I can permit him to read a lengthy statement.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am simply stating that it is not in the public interest to accept this motion.



NATIONAL MUSEUM-PHYSICAL CONDITION OF BUILDING, EXHIBITS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 50-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports or other documents exchanged between any cabinet minister or any of his or her deputies, or any department or agency of the federal government, and any person or persons, since January 1, 1955, relating to the physical condition of the national museum building, the exhibits contained therein, and the scientific collections and specimens owned and on loan to the national museum.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I can accept this motion subject to the reservation with respect to those items which are privileged.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the reservation expressed by the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 51-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and other documents exchanged between any cabinet minister or any of his or her deputies, or any department or agency of the federal government, and any person or persons, from September 1, 1954 to December 31, 1956, relating to the appointment of Dr. Jacques Rousseau as a director of the national museum of Canada.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I can accept this motion subject to the usual reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the reservation expressed by the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 52-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and other documents exchanged between any cabinet minister or any of his or her deputies, and any persons, since January 1, 1955, relating to the annexation of the Montreal botanical garden by the national museum of Canada as the national botanical garden.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I can accept this motion and say now that the return is nil.


Hazen Robert Argue: Thank you.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 54-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports by inspectors, agreements, contracts, and other documents exchanged between the St. Lawrence seaway authority, the Department of Transport or any other government department, and any person or persons, since January 1, 1955, relating to any work to be done on the Merrier bridge at Montreal, Quebec.
George Harris Hees: I understand the hon. member is willing to allow the motion to stand until he decides exactly what it is he does want.


Hazen Robert Argue: I know exactly what I want, but I have had a request to amend it and I am willing to consider the request.
Motion stands.



NATIONAL MUSEUM ADMINISTRATION, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 55-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and other documents exchanged between any cabinet minister or any of his or her deputies, the civil service commission, and any person or persons, since January 1, 1945 to December 31, 1955, relating to the administration, working conditions, scientific collections and specimens, publication of studies and problems facing the national museum of Canada.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am glad to accept this motion, with the usual reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion, subject to the limitations expressed by the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister has anything he can report to the house following the meetings with A. V. Roe and union officials?


John George Diefenbaker: This morning, Mr. Speaker, several of my colleagues and myself had a meeting with Mr. Jodoin and also with leaders of the international association of machinists. Yesterday, and again this afternoon, there will be meetings with representatives of the A. V. Roe corporation. The meeting this afternoon is at 5 p.m. I have nothing to report other than that discussions are continuing.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As a supplementary question, may I ask if the Prime Minister has put forward, on behalf of the government, any new proposals to the company?


John George Diefenbaker: The earlier answer still stands, that while consideration is being given and discussions are taking place there is nothing I have to report at the present time.


Mr. Alexander Best (Halfon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Are any steps being taken by the government to explore the possibility of utilizing any number of highly skilled members of the Avro staff in some aspects of the government's various scientific projects under the defence research board?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; this problem is being explored by the defence research board.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Percy Vivian (Durham):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister care to comment upon the section of the auditor general's report which mentions a $50,000 contribution made in late June, 1957, to the United States Red Cross society to help cope with the devastation in the United States caused by hurricane Audrey?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have grave doubts that this is the proper place to introduce a subject of that age.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Prime Minister if he can confirm or deny a story which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star, and which alleges the government was warned 15 months ago that Canada's aircraft industry was in serious jeopardy because of lack of government policy, and that this warning was given to the Prime Minister in a report submitted to him confidentially on December 2, 1957, by the air industries and transport association of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of question the hon. member knows is not proper for the orders of the day. It comprises some statements which it would be improper for me to confirm or deny, and which endeavour to leave the impression that certain things have taken place. I am not going to be placed in the position of confirming oi

denying a speculative article of that kind. I am sure the hon. gentleman will agree that such questions are most improper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not agree with the point of order taken by the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am rising on a point of order. I do not agree with the interpretation given by the Prime Minister, but in order to avoid an argument and elicit information I put to the Prime Minister directly this question: Did he receive such a confidential report on December 2, 1957, submitted to him by the air industries and transport association of Canada?


John George Diefenbaker: If ever a question contravened the rules of the house, this question does. The hon. member says the report, allegedly confidential, contained certain information. I am not going to be drawn into a discussion of a hypothetical question such as that, designed to leave the impression that there is certain information of that type.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The point has been taken that both questions are out of order. If the hon. member wishes to contest that view I will hear him briefly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am rising on a point of order. In the first question I stated that in the Toronto Star there was a report that the Prime Minister had been furnished with a confidential document submitted to him by the air industries-


Mr. Harkness:: What is your point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and I have asked the Prime Minister whether or not such a report was received by him.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend kindly contain himself? We are not now discussing agriculture. Under the rules of the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am endeavouring to hear the hon. member's point that his question is in order. I would, however, suggest that he confine himself to the point of order rather than to an elaboration of the question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With great confidence and respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that nothing I have said would in any way warrant the interpretation which is now made by Your Honour. Under the rules of this house-
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: A reflection on the Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some hon. member says that we are reflecting on the Speaker. I want the hon. gentleman to know there is nobody in this house who has a higher regard for this Speaker than the hon. member who is now speaking.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You should show it, then.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under the rules of the house, if a question is put to a minister that minister may refuse to answer. But if he does refuse to answer he should indicate he does not propose to answer the question. This is not the stand taken by the Prime Minister. A question was put to him and he indulged in certain irrelevancies-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member is going in a direction which could lead to a debate. I am concerned only about the point of order. The Prime Minister took exception to the question as being beyond the rules of the house, and I consider that is his right. The hon. member has the right to assert the contrary, and I will try to decide as between the two views which is correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the point of order-


Lionel Chevrier: May I be
allowed-


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member for Laurier would speak to the point of order?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I should like to discuss the point of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If you do you will be the first one on your side who ever has.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Justice gave a good example of that the other day. However, I should like to discuss the point of order. If I understood it correctly it is this, whether or not a member has the right to ask a question of a minister concerning a private or confidential document or a private or confidential report. This was the purport of the question and the Prime Minister, if I understood him correctly, replied that the question was not in order.
I was under the impression, sir, that we had decided that point by your ruling last year, and certainly during the course of this year, concerning another confidential report. It was made quite clear to everyone that it was a confidential report afterwards made a public document, so my submission to you is that the question framed by the hon. member for Essex East is in order because it simply asks whether or not the minister received a confidential document.
1372	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edmund Davie Fulton: On
the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. You will recall that the first question asked by the hon. member for Essex East sought information as to whether a report contained in the press that the Prime Minister had received a document was true. His second question asked merely whether the Prime Minister had received a document in December, 1957. I would refer Your Honour to citation 171 in Beauchesne's fourth edition. Subparagraph (e) points out that a question must not-
(e) Inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are true.
Hence the first question asked by the hon. gentleman was out of order. Subparagraph (l) states that a question must not-
(l) seek, for purposes of argument, information on matters of past history.
The confidential document alleged to have been received would obviously have been received, if received, in December, 1957.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know what the hon. gentleman's definition of past history is, but to our mind on this side of the house December of 1957 is past history. Perhaps my hon. friend's party does not move that quickly. Both questions were clearly out of order and are not of the type of question which is in order raising matters of immediacy or matters of today. It is surely not in order under the rules to ask a question on orders of the day whether somebody received a document nearly a year and one-half ago.


Mr. Speaker:: As considerable point has been made about this particular question I think it would be preferable if I see the question in Hansard and deal with it tomorrow rather than attempt to do so now. No harm will be done if the matter is deferred.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government did in fact receive representations on behalf of the aircraft industry during the month of December, 1957.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: As I understood the hon. member's question, it seemed to be a fairly broad one which had already been asked.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should narrow it to December 2, Mr. Speaker, with your permission.


Edmund Davie Fulton: 



Of 1957.

Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will recall that on Monday we spent a day discussing this matter. To inquire into matters of as little urgency as the one which the hon.
[Mr. Chevrier.l

member now raises seems to me to be repeating a discussion which has already taken place.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I address myself to the observations which Your Honour has just made. We have accepted the suggestion Your Honour made with regard to the questions I had put to the Prime Minister. But the hon. member for Trinity has put a question to which no serious objection can be taken, I would submit, under our rules. At the present time important conferences are taking place between the Prime Minister and other representatives of the government and representatives of the aircraft industry. This is a matter of great interest in view of the thousands of men who have been put out of work.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely, Mr. Speaker, on account of the attending circumstances under our rules the question put by the hon. member for Trinity must either be answered by the Prime Minister or he must take the position that he does not propose to answer it. I would submit to Your Honour that that is the position now facing the house.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the question is substantially the one which was asked earlier by the hon. member. It relates to the same matter. I would ask that this matter be left over so I can give a more considered view of the question of regularity as to which so much has been said.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address to the Prime Minister a question which I am confident is in order and will satisfy the sensitive ears of the Minister of Justice. In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain in the House of Commons at Westminster on December 18 last to the effect that, with the concurrence of the other commonwealth governments, it is proposed to forthwith change the name of Empire day to Commonwealth day, does the government propose to introduce legislation this session that would change the name Victoria day to Commonwealth day?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as to the question which was asked of me may I say this. It

is of interest to know, of course, that Empire day is the day before Victoria day.


Mr. Pickersgill:: The Friday before Victoria day.


John George Diefenbaker: That has been the date set for Empire day throughout the years. Hence, whatever the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had to say about Empire day, it has no application to Victoria day.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a supplementary
question. The Prime Minister of Great Britain said that the proposal was being made with the concurrence of other members of the commonwealth. Are we going to have a Victoria day and a Commonwealth day or a Victoria day only? Are we going to fall in line with other members of the commonwealth in this respect?


John George Diefenbaker: The point I was making
a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, was that Empire day is May 23 and Victoria day is May 24 but a change was made in 1952, I believe, to provide that wherever May 24 falls on a certain day of the week, it shall be celebrated the following Monday. As to whether or not we intend to make a change in the name of either day, that of course is another question. It is a matter for consideration of the government, and if any decision is made the house will be made aware of it in due course.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul Mariineau (Ponliac-Temiscamin-gue):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house if the board of transport commissioners for Canada has received an application from the Canadian Pacific Railway for suspension of its passenger service on the Waltham-Ottawa subdivision? If so, what consideration has the board given to such application? What objections has the board received to the proposed discontinuance of this service? Finally, will the minister order a public hearing so that all interested parties may be heard before this application is disposed of?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question, as I heard it, relates to something before the board of transport commissioners. It does not seem to me that this is the proper place to inquire as to what is going on before the board of transport commissioners.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a relatively simple
answer.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Put it on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: If the question is out of
order I think it follows that it would be irregular to answer it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Prime Minister a question arising out of a story in this morning's Globe and Mail. Can the Prime Minister comment on the statement that negotiations are now being conducted with the United States with a view to the relaxation of "buy American" legislation, which imposes a burden of up to 12 per cent on Canadian firms bidding for defence orders? Can the Prime Minister say what progress is being made in any such negotiations?


John George Diefenbaker: As has been said on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, continuing representations have been made to the United States with respect to defence production orders. Those negotiations have continued and are continuing. I can add no more to what I said the other evening when I spoke at length in the debate in this regard.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister say whether the question of the 12 per cent penalty is a matter of negotiation?


John George Diefenbaker: Every phase of the matter is a matter of consideration.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON FUTURE ROLE OF R.C.A.F.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. The minister must recognize that the government's decision announced last Friday-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Richard Garland: -has understandably had a demoralizing effect on the R.C.A.F.-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member began by making an assertion. If he has a question, perhaps he will ask it.


John Richard Garland: I am wondering whether, in view of the present situation, the minister will make a statement either now or at the

Inquiries of the Ministry earliest opportunity in order to restore confidence among the personnel of the R.C.A.F. with regard to their future role in Canada's defence?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am not aware that the personnel of the R.C.A.F. have lost any confidence, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I address my question to the minister as the New Brunswick representative in the cabinet. Has the minister received a telegram from the Saint John Telegraph Journal in connection with the 37,000 persons out of work in New Brunswick, asking for positive action by the government to meet the unemployment situation in the province? If so, what action, if any, has been taken by the minister in this regard?


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yes; I have received such a telegram. I might inform the hon. member that action has been taken over the last two or three months in this regard by the Minister of Labour and other members of the government.


George Roy McWilliam: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister advise the house if any immediate steps are being taken by the government to assure an early start on possible major works projects in New Brunswick, such as the Chignecto canal, to help reduce unemployment?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have been asleep during the last few months. A great many projects have been going on in New Brunswick. Also a great deal of housing has been going on in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia. However, I am glad to see that he has wakened up at last.


George Roy McWilliam: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, if anyone is asleep it is the Minister of Public Works and his government. There is no sign of any project in New Brunswick.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that the remark he made was not a question of privilege.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would ask Your Honour-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Roy McWilliam: May I ask Your Honour, was the Minister of Public Works privileged to make the remark he made?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have an important point of order arising out of this matter. I have the fourth edition of Beau-chesne open at page 147 because of the reference earlier in the day to certain questions and answers. It is very interesting to note that the putting of a question is governed by certain rules, and the answer is presumably governed by the same rules. I think that is clear. It is also clear that a member asking a question must phrase it in such a way as not to contain or imply charges of a personal character. The Minister of Public Works very clearly this afternoon implied charges of a personal character against the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi. Since there have been so many-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the point is perfectly properly taken. The Minister of Public Works was out of order in making the statement he did. The same thing applies on both sides of the house. It would be impossible to prevent all of the inferences and, shall I say, aspersions which are attached to questions and answers, and I do not think hon. members would expect me to try to do that.


George James McIlraith: I would like to pursue my point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I accept the hon. member's point of order as being well taken.


George James McIlraith: Again on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I have made my ruling. If the hon. member has another point of order I will hear it.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, my second point of order is simply this. The necessary consequence of ruling that a charge of a personal character made in answer to a question is out of order is that the minister, having made such charge of a personal character against a member, must withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the hon. member misunderstood my ruling. I did not rule that a charge of a personal character had been made. I simply said that in my view the reply which the minister had given was not in accordance with the procedure of the house. Whether it is a matter which should be withdrawn is quite a different question, of course.



BELL ISLAND, NPLD.    ASSISTANCE TO UNEMPLOYED MINERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked me about the situation at Bell island, Newfoundland, and more specifically whether it was the intention of the unemployment insurance commission to establish a branch office there. I can assure him there is no immediate intention of taking such action.
With regard to the present situation at Bell island, I understand it is as follows. It was announced by the Dominion Wabana Ore Company, a division of Dosco, that on March 21 a lay-off of some 550 men would take place. This results from the shutting down of one mine. Below capacity operation has been carried on there since last June.
While there would be no reason for opening a branch office at Bell island, which is only 12 miles from St. John's, the unemployment insurance commission will be sending a team of officers to Bell island to assist those laid off in filling out claims and registering for employment.
Both the hon. member for St. John's West and the hon. member for St. John's East have expressed a continuing interest in this situation, and I should like to inform them as well as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that I understand there is a very good possibility of a new iron ore development in Labrador which should get under way in the near future and provide jobs for some of those now being laid off.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Will every effort be made by the Department of Labour to see that if further employment is to be made available in Labrador, preference is given to those miners who are now being laid off in the same province?


Michael Starr: I can assure the hon. member of that.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I did not contact his office, but perhaps he would take this as notice. Since the strontium 90 content of wheat grown in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota in 1958 has been reported as being 50 per cent over the safe maximum, would the minister say something about this concentration of strontium 90
Inquiries of the Ministry in the wheat grown in western Canada, because of health and economic implications? Also I wonder if the minister in replying would give the latest report on the strontium 90 contamination of milk in western Canada.


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I would like to take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker. I have seen the report, but would like to study it closely before replying.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of reports and statements in the press to the effect that T.C.A. intends to suspend its service from Vancouver to Victoria. Would the minister inform the house whether T.C.A. has applied to the air transport board for such suspension, and whether or not any other air company has applied for the same service-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: This question is quite in order, I think. Will the minister reassure the house that there is no such intention on the part of T.C.A. to suspend its services between those two points?


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for Laurier for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. Trans-Canada Air Lines has not submitted any application to the air transport board in this connection. However, Pacific Western Airlines has submitted an application to the air transport board for authority to take over this route. In accordance with the requirements of the Aeronautics Act this matter must be dealt with by the air transport board, which has now given public notice of this application.
I do not believe I should comment further at this stage, since the matter is presently before the board, other than to point out that all interested parties will have ample opportunity to make their views known in connection with the public hearing which I expect the board will have to arrange in this connection.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Minister

Inquiries of the Ministry of Veterans Affairs. I address it in the identical language used by the minister on another occasion under somewhat different circumstances. Has the government received a brief from the dominion executive of the Canadian Legion asking for a general increase in rates of veterans pensions and allowances, as well as an increase in the ceiling on permissible income under the War Veterans' Allowance Act? If so what action, if any, is being taken by the federal government or the Department of Veterans Affairs on this request?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I would say in reply, yes; the dominion executive of the Canadian Legion presented a brief to the government on October 8, 1958. It contained certain resolutions dealing with pensions and war veterans allowances. The resolutions contained the representations as mentioned in the hon. member's question. These representations are being studied.
(Translation):



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Noel Dorion (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Could the Minister of Justice inform the house of the progress made in regard to the penal procedures initiated under the Combines Investigation Act, against various paper companies charged with infringing the provisions of that act in securing their supplies from pulpwood producers in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada?
Could the minister supply us, at the same time, with the list of the companies concerned?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member is no doubt referring to the prosecution arising out of last year's report of the restrictive trade practices commission, concerning the purchase of pulpwood in certain areas of eastern Canada.
The preliminary inquiry in connection with that prosecution, which was held in the Montreal court of sessions of the peace has now been adjourned to March 9. The charge is to the effect that there has been conspiracy to prevent or unduly restrict competition in the purchase of pulpwood in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.
Seventeen companies are involved and I shall give the list of them to the hon. member.
[Mr. Herridge.l
(Text):



COMMUNIST CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to comment on a statement attributed to Mr. B. F. Errington of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited on his return from a trip to China that Chinese officials are of the opinion that Canada's trade with China could be increased? Is the minister in a position to say what further steps are now being taken to increase our trade with China?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I regret I cannot offer my thanks to the hon. member for having given me adequate notice of this question, because I learned about it at 25 minutes past 2, only a few minutes before I entered the chamber. I will therefore have to take the hon. member's question as notice.



AMENDMENT OF LEGISLATION TO INCREASE FUNDS FOR LOANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, notice of which I sent to his office this morning.
As the amount available for loans under the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act is now only $2,899.33, and as an application for a further loan of over $6 million has been made by the Dominion Coal Company, could the minister advise the house if it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation during the present session to make further amounts available under the Maritime Coal Production Assistance Act?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I thank the hon. member for Gloucester for having given me notice of this question. I will say in answer that this is a matter of government policy, and that if it is decided to take any action a resolution will be introduced in the house in due course.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question. Can the minister give the house any indication as to when we may expect a decision on the request now before the government on behalf of the coal miners of Nova Scotia?


Paul Comtois: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered that question.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Levis asked me whether it was true, as the press had reported, that the Department of Public Works was proceeding with the demolition of the Hospice Saint Charles in Quebec city without having obtained a permit from the city authorities. I said I doubted very much whether those reports were accurate, and I can now advise him that departmental officials in Quebec state that a permit was obtained with regard to this demolition work.


Mr. Bourget:: Could the minister tell me when the permit was issued?


Howard Charles Green: I believe it was before the work commenced.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-26, to amend the Northwest Territories Act-Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle)-Mr. Rea in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Lionel Chevrier: Next sitting of the house, please.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: It is not by
leave?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think it depends upon what the members of the government wish to do. If the government wishes to have third reading-


Howard Charles Green: I think the rules are perfectly clear. It cannot be given third reading now without consent.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member who is in charge of the bill on this side of the house is unavoidably absent at the moment. Perhaps the government will allow third reading to stand over on this account.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That will be acceptable to us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Do I understand that the government agrees?
National Defence Act


Howard Charles Green: We cannot do anything else. We cannot go on without unanimous consent, and that consent has not been given.


Hazen Robert Argue: My understanding is that it has been in committee of the whole; that second reading was given on a prior day. I may be mistaken. If I am in error, then the Minister of Public Works is correct, but if second reading was given on a prior day then the house, if it wishes, can give third reading to the bill.


Howard Charles Green: The house seems to be all snarled up in rules today. This is second reading. I may be wrong, but I think this is part of second reading, and if second reading takes place on one day we cannot take third reading on the same day without consent.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The government can resolve this by allowing it to stand over.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: If an hon. member wishes, he can ask that third reading be stood over. I understood the minister to say he would defer third reading. Was I correct in that?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What I said was that if the opposition requested a postponement of third reading until the hon. member for Mackenzie River (Mr. Hardie) was here, I should be glad to accede to the request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: When shall the bill be read the third time? Next sitting of the house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT


George Randolph Pearkes: the second reading of Bill No. C-27, to amend the National Defence Act.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, like previous bills of the Department of National Defence, the subject matter of this bill involves a number of principles, the first one being the principle of continued unification of the armed forces. I think the position of this party has been made very clear. We support the orderly and continual integration of those services which can be integrated in order to improve the efficiency of the armed forces and to save the taxpayer's money.
With respect to the proposal to substitute a court martial appeal court for the court martial appeal board, I believe that probably

National Defence Act this proposal put forward by the government is a good one and that it will take care of some of the obvious difficulties which were encountered in the previous court martial appeal board. We hope that under the new proposed system there will not be the delays which have been experienced in the past. Perhaps we can ask the minister for his assurance in this regard when we are discussing the matter in committee of the whole house.
With reference to the proposed change in name, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that as far as I am personally concerned I like the present French name for the Royal Canadian Air Force and I do not really feel that it should be changed. We would like to have further explanation from the minister as to why this is necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Establishment of organizations.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I want to say just a word or two with respect to an omission in the bill. Since the act is up for revision, and in view of the discussions we had in the estimates committee, it occurs to me that we might have found something in this bill that is not there. I think the members of the estimates committee were all quite surprised to find that this, the largest spending department of the government, was not under this act obligated to submit annually to parliament an annual report. We were surprised about this. We had a look at the record and found that for a great number of years, despite the absence of obligation, an annual report was provided and for most of those years in addition a white paper outlining defence policy, was provided to the house. This white paper was usually provided shortly before the debate on the estimates of the department. We found last summer that for a year and a half we had neither a white paper nor an annual report. I am pleased to know that the minister has already given assurances to the house that this session, prior to discussing the estimates of the department, we will receive a white paper.
We all, of course, want to be economy minded, but I think there would be general agreement in all parties of the house that if perhaps we do not need both documents annually, certainly we should not go through the period that we found we had gone through, namely a year and a half, without getting either. In view of the importance of this department in our budgetary arrangements, I think that information of that kind is well
[Mr. Hellyer.l



worth the expenditure involved. I am pleased that we are getting a white paper but I really do think that, despite the expenditure involved, this of all departments should not be one which, because it is not mandatory under the statute, should avoid presenting to the house, to the country and to the great number of people interested, an annual report.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister give us some indication of what further branches of the armed forces he hopes to unify in the near future?


George Randolph Pearkes: This amendment will give legal authority for the unification of any of the branches of the forces which at any time in the future may be considered desirable. All this amendment does is to ask for that legal authority. We are reviewing from time to time the advisability of carrying out such integration or unification as may be required in the various different services.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister does not have anything in mind for immediate presentation at this time?


George Randolph Pearkes: Steps are being taken continually but I do not think there is any further information which I can give at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Rules of evidence.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister give us any further explanation of clause 3?


George Randolph Pearkes: New rules of evidence are
being prepared which will cover all aspects of the laws of evidence which normally arise in connection with courts martial. As the hon. member realizes, the rules of evidence in the various provinces are not all uniform. Therefore, it is considered desirable, as the service personnel move from one province to another, to have a uniform code of evidence and that will be published and circulated to all concerned.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On which province would the rules of evidence be based? Does the minister have information on this?


George Randolph Pearkes: We are preparing a codification of the laws of evidence. It will be applicable to all service personnel no matter where they are serving, whether in a province of Canada or overseas.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Does the minister not think that these laws of evidence should have been included in the bill so that we could have had a chance to look at them?


Mr, Pearkes:: No, I do not think they could have been included in the bill but I will be very pleased to table them as soon as they are printed if the hon. member is interested.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will be pleased to receive a copy.


Mr. Nielsen:: Can the minister explain the reason for the change from the rules of evidence formerly applicable at courts martial to what amounts to rules of evidence to be legislated? Will the minister also explain how changes and additions in the rules of evidence brought about by precedents laid down in the courts from time to time will be included in these rules of evidence?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am informed there is no uniform code of rules of evidence which applies in all the provinces. The code will be tabled. When amendments are made to the rules of evidence any changes required in the code will be made by way of amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Regulations respecting execution of punishment of death.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understand that the reason for this clause is to set out in detail the manner in which an execution is to be carried out. Does the minister have any further explanation beyond his statement of the other evening?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. If a court martial sentences a serviceman to the death penalty the sentence, if approved by the convening officer, is referred to the governor in council. The governor in council would then be advised by the minister submitting the recommendation as to the place where and manner in which the execution should be carried out and also as to the date. In an ordinary civil court the judge, at the time he pronounces sentence, announces the place where, the manner in which and the date when the sentence will be carried out. That is not possible, of course, when dealing with sentences imposed by a court martial. The sentence might be pronounced in some far distant country overseas. It would have to be submitted to the governor in council and the recommendation with respect to whether the execution should be carried out by hanging or whether it should be carried out by a firing squad would then have to be considered by the governor in council.


Erik Nielsen: I have two questions on this clause. Under the present National Defence Act what offences call for the punishment of death? Second, is the sentence of death appealable to the court martial appeal board,
National Defence Act to be called by another name under the next clause in the bill, regardless of whether or not the individual found guilty is on active service?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. All findings of courts martial can be appealed to the appeal board or appeal court as it will be called if the bill carries. There are a number of crimes which one might describe as being of a traitorous nature for which the death sentence may be imposed if the crimes are committed in the face of an enemy.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder whether the minister would permit one question on the previous clause. At the top of page 2 it says that when the decision of the court martial is not unanimous that court is to be dissolved and the accused may be tried again. How many times can an accused be tried on the same count? Is there any limit?


George Randolph Pearkes: This is similar to a case where a jury would disagree in an ordinary court. There is no limit put on the number of times that an accused may be tried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Preliminary disposition of appeals.
Erik Nielsen: Would the minister explain what the purpose is in changing the name of the court martial appeal board and setting up this court under the jurisdiction of superior court judges rather than the body in existence under the present legislation?


George Randolph Pearkes: The reason for recommending that the court martial appeal board be replaced by a court of appeal is to give servicemen the same opportunity of appealing to a superior court that an ordinary civilian would have. It is really raising the status of the appeal body from that of a board to that of a court composed of judges either of the exchequer court or of the superior court of the province.


Erik Nielsen: Before the clause carries, may I say that I think it is a tremendous advantage to the serviceman to have such a facility available to him. Will the minister explain further whether under the National Defence Act the serviceman may obtain the assistance of counsel to advise him as to whether or not he should appeal? If the decision is made to appeal can he obtain the assistance of civilian counsel for the purpose of appealing to the court? These rights are available, of course, to accused persons in civil life and I feel that they should be available to the serviceman.


George Randolph Pearkes: There is provision for them to have counsel.

National Defence Act


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister give us a little more information about the new section 189 found in clause 6? Does the chief of staff, upon the recommendation of the judge advocate general, have the right under any circumstances to withhold an appeal?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, the chief of staff has no right to withhold an appeal. It is a privilege of the man who has been convicted to enter an appeal.


Erik Nielsen: Would I be right in saying that the right of appeal of a serviceman under this legislation is the same as the right of a civilian to appeal before an ordinary court?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am informed that an accused appearing before a court martial does not have the same right of appeal to the court martial appeal board as a person convicted by a civil court has to appeal to a provincial court of appeal. The person convicted by a court martial has a wider right in that no leave to appeal is required in any case, but his right is narrower in that he may only appeal to the court martial appeal board against the legality of the finding and sentence.
He may appeal against the severity of the sentence, but such an appeal is considered by the appropriate chief of staff and not by the court. It is considered that it would be inappropriate for a non-military tribunal to deal with the question of the severity of sentence as the sentence is based primarily upon military considerations. Of course, there is the other opportunity of appeal from the severity of the sentence by the submission of a grievance which is forwarded to the minister or the governor in council.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister explain a little more about section 189 (2) of the act which relates to the appeal against the legality of the findings. It says that the appeal shall be referred by the judge advocate general to the court martial appeal court unless the appropriate chief of staff, acting on the certificate of the judge advocate general quashes such findings.


George Randolph Pearkes: If on the recommendation of the judge advocate general the finding has been quashed, that ends the whole proceedings. There is no need for an appeal, then.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then he does have, in effect, the power of veto.


George Randolph Pearkes: He has the right to quash any finding, and then there is no appeal necessary. The case is finished.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is the point I was trying to make. Then, there is no right of appeal.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is the same as if the man were acquitted.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 6
carry?


George Randolph Pearkes: May I make a brief statement before that clause is actually carried? I should like to make some reference to the work of the court martial appeal board before the clause passes.
Following its establishment in 1951, 762 courts martial have been held in the three services, and this has resulted in hearings by the board of 52 appeals. Of these, the board disallowed 29, ordered new trials in 14 cases and allowed six without ordering a new trial. The decisions are still pending on three appeals. It is evident from these figures, and also from the care taken in the preparation of its judgments, that the court martial appeal board has made a very substantial contribution toward ensuring that military justice is administered in a fair and impartial manner.
The members of the court martial appeal board are hon. Mr. Justice Cameron of the exchequer court, His Honour A. G. Mac-Dougall, senior judge of the county court of Carleton, and the following members of the bar; Mr. Bernard M. Alexandor, Leonard W. Brockington, M. B. K. Gordon, George Addy, L. Plant, L. C. Audette and R. J. Orde. May I, on behalf of the government and the members of the armed forces, thank these gentlemen for the very fine work they have done. This work, and the experience the services have acquired in connection with appeal procedure, will facilitate greatly the establishment of a duly constituted court of appeal which this clause seeks to do.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the minister satisfied that this new procedure will expedite the hearing of these appeals?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, that is one of the main reasons for introducing this amendment, in order to expedite the appeals. There has been, at times, a serious backlog owing to the volume of work that these gentlemen whom I have just mentioned had to carry out in addition to their ordinary legal business.


William Moore Benidickson: Has that backlog been analysed statistically? Is there any information on that?


George Randolph Pearkes: I have just given the number of cases.


William Moore Benidickson: I mean the delays.


George Randolph Pearkes: The delays have been in the main due to the pressure of other work, the

ordinary work connected with the legal businesses of these gentlemen who were named to the board.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Section 193 of the act, the bottom line, says that the court may disallow an appeal if there has been no substantial miscarriage of justice. Is that the same phraseology as there is at the present time?


George Randolph Pearkes: I believe that is exactly the same phraseology.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-French name of R.C.A.F. changed.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question which I put to the minister at the resolution stage? I asked him a question with reference to the word "Royal". It may be that I was misunderstood or perhaps did not make myself clear, but the point is this: the name of the Royal Canadian Air Force is being translated now by the words Forces aeriennes royales du Canada. My question
is,	why should the department not leave the translation that has been known over the years and which is Aviation royale du Canada. It is far simpler, and it is far more descriptive.
The word "forces" is a translation of the English word "forces" and certainly does not convey the same meaning as does Aviation royale du Canada. My submission to the minister is that perhaps it would be better if the translation which has been accepted over the years of the Royal Canadian Air Force name, Aviation royale du Canada, were to remain.


George Randolph Pearkes: I have made inquiries into this matter since the hon. gentleman raised it during the discussion at the resolution stage. I am informed that the suggested name is preferable in the French language to any other change that might be made. Furthermore, it conforms to the title which is used in connection with the triservice college at St. Jean, Quebec. The official title of that establishment is College militaire royal de St-Jean.
The name Aviation royale du Canada, which has been suggested because it would appear to conform with the French names of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police which are Marine royale du Canada and Gendarmerie royale du Canada, is not appropriate because the word "aviation" relates to all flying activities and not specifically to military flying.


Lionel Chevrier: I certainly do not want to get into an argument with the minister over
it.	He has put on the record what his advice
1381
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act is, and I am not going to object. However, I would prefer the other translation which seems to me to be simpler and more in keeping with what we have been doing. I am sure the minister and his officials have given careful consideration to it, and I am willing to leave it at that.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should only like to add that the title Forces aeriennes royales du Canada is a correct translation of Royal Canadian Air Force and conforms with the current European military usage. At supreme headquarters allied forces in Europe the phrase "Forces aeriennes" with the name of the country concerned is used when referring to the air force of all countries. The request for the change came from the air force personnel who are stationed in Europe. It is being introduced in order to conform with the practice followed by other European nations.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no doubt that it is a correct translation. However, as the minister knows, there is more than one correct translation of certain names. The question is as to which one is the more appropriate. I thought it was the one that I suggested. The minister thinks it is the other one, as do his officers. I am therefore not prepared to pursue the matter further.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister assure the committee that all existing stocks of stationery and the like will be used up before new stocks are ordered? Otherwise, this point should have been mentioned in the resolution.


George Randolph Pearkes: I think that would be normal practice in the interest of the economy.


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

George Harris Hees: the second reading of Bill C-25, to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I have just one or two brief comments to make on the second reading of this bill. At the resolution stage an ample amount of discussion was entered into by members on both sides of the house with respect to things which had taken place in the past on the construction of the seaway. From the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Campbell)

St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act and the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small) we heard particular reference to the suggestion that there had been a great amount of inefficiency, mismanagement, miscalculation and general bungling, if I may put it in that way, with respect to the work which was done on the seaway during the past few years.
We in the C.C.F. do not desire to enter into these controversies or to raise the matters again. However, we want to ensure, as far as it is humanly possible to do so, that the expenditure of the additional amount of money being sought or asked for by this particular bill will be used to the greatest possible advantage in the work on the seaway and in such a fashion that charges of inefficiency, bungling, gross miscalculations and things of that nature may not be made in the future with respect to the work which will be done as a consequence of the provision of the additional amount of money being asked for. We think this objective can be achieved in a better fashion if the bill is referred to and is dealt with by one of the standing committees rather than in the committee of the whole. With this thought in mind, and wanting as we do to ensure that this money is spent to the greatest possible advantage of the people of Canada or the taxpayers and feeling that this assurance can be given to the greatest possible degree by referring the bill to a standing committee, I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters):
That this bill be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I speak not on the subject matter of the resolution but on the point of order. I suggest that if Mr. Speaker looks at the rules he will find that if this resolution carries, the bill is killed. My understanding of the rules of the house is that if a bill be not now read a second time but be referred to a committee in the language used by the hon. member for Skeena, the bill is automatically killed and does not go to the committee mentioned in the motion. I may be in error in that matter. I have not the rules before me. However, that is my recollection of that rule.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: That is for the house to decide but the motion is in order. Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 386 reads as follows:
On the second reading of a bill, the house may decide to refer the subject thereof to a commission although the bill could not be referred to a committee of the house before its second reading.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: The question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa,
February 25, 1959
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency The Governor-General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 25th February, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Guy Robillard for Lionel Massey Secretary to the Governor-General
66968-9-88i
National Housing Act



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY ACT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE LIMIT ON AMOUNT TO BE BORROWED

George Harris Hees: that the house go into committee to consider bill No. C-25 to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.


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


Howard Charles Green: the second reading of Bill No. C-28, to amend the National Housing Act. 1954.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when the resolution preceding this bill was under discussion I dealt with the situation at some length and it is not my purpose to repeat the explanations this afternoon. No doubt there will be questions asked when the bill is in the committee stage, and I shall try to go into the answers then in some detail.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has said there was a full discussion of the general subject of housing on the resolution stage and it is not my intention to speak at any great length today.
An examination of Bill C-28 would indicate that it contains three broad principles: One, it enables Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to buy and sell insured loans more readily than can now be done under the act; two, there is the removal of the deduction of two per cent which is provided in the National Housing Act as an incident in the "insurance settlement" and, three, there is the amendment to increase from $750 million to $1,000 million the amount which may be advanced out of the consolidated revenue fund to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As we indicated at the resolution stage, the official opposition will support this legislation. Improved housing for our people has always stood high on the priority list of Liberal policy and Liberal action, and the record construction since the last war is ample proof.
Speaking directly to the bill, and in particular to the first principle that enables the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation

National Housing Act
to buy and sell insured loans more readily than is now possible, I believe every one welcomes this change. The mortgage, as an investment, has never enjoyed, at least in Canada, the same degree of popularity as the bond, for the obvious reason that it was both more difficult and more expensive to negotiate and consequently the mortgage as an investment has always been able to command a higher rate of interest than the bond. There are, of course, other reasons for the greater popularity of the bond as against the mortgage, namely that as far as the bond is concerned the only responsibility imposed on the holder is to clip his coupons from time to time, deposit them in the bank, which is not too arduous a task, and to present the bond for payment when it matures.
The mortgage, on the other hand, requires much more careful administration. The mortgagee, or someone on his behalf, must see that the debtor pays his taxes, keeps up his fire insurance and meets payments of principal and interest, to say nothing about maintaining the security itself.
The proposition contemplated in Bill No. C-28 is that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will have the authority to sell the insured loans and, provided that the administration of the loan remains with the corporation, any person can become a buyer of the mortgage. This will undoubtedly permit more investors to make use of the mortgage than has been the case up to the present, and it should be made well known that the buyer will not be faced with the necessity of undertaking the administration of the mortgage. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or any approved lender may undertake this task.
The Liberal party has always had in mind efforts to popularize the mortgage as an investment and it was for that reason that in our resolution on housing we came out in favour of measures to make it easier for Canadians to own their own homes by further increasing the supply of mortgage money, reducing the down payment and lengthening the term of the mortgage.
The proposed amendments undoubtedly will have the effect of increasing the supply _ of funds for investment and thereby increasing the number of lenders in this important field. I would point out that the smaller pension funds and estates and trusts are not always able to set up the machinery for the administration of a mortgage loan. The technique contemplated by the act does away with the necessity for administrative machinery, because Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or an approved lender, can undertake this' function. Some remuneration will be payable but this cannot be an objection.
IMr. Garland.]
At this point I should like to make the suggestion that some effort should be made to enable the small investor to participate in housing loans. There are many potential investors in this field and I am thinking particularly of a large group that have small amounts to invest. It would seem that some methods should be found to channel this type of investment into mortgage funds. Many investors with funds available varying from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars have found it understandably difficult, indeed almost impossible, to buy a portion of a larger mortgage. In earlier days, several small investors would participate in a larger mortgage and while this is done to some extent today, it is no longer an important factor in the mortgage field.
Recently some consideration has been given to the formation of a company which would buy National Housing Act guaranteed mortgages from banks, life insurance companies and now probably from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation itself. It is proposed that they would finance the purchase of those mortgages by selling bonds to individual as well as to corporate investors. Its main purpose is to clear some existing mortgages out of the portfolios of the big lenders and enable them to pour more money into the mortgage lending stream, and it would also in my opinion have the effect of tapping a brand new source of investment into the mortgage field, to which I referred a moment ago, namely the small investor. I am told that most banks and a few of the life insurance companies favour such a plan. I am wondering what attitude the government takes on this subject and I would hope that the minister would comment on this subject when he speaks later.
The second purpose of the bill deals with the so-called insurance settlement which at present provides that when the holder of an insured mortgage conveys title of his property to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the corporation is to pay to the holder the aggregate amount owing for principal, borrower's charges, interest and so forth, plus an acquisition fee, but there is to be deducted two per cent of the principal and of the interest. The amendment contained in Bill No. C-28 eliminates the "less two per cent" feature, so that in future where a conveyance is made to the corporation the holder of the insured loan will receive the full amount of principal, interest and so forth without the two per cent deductions. This is indeed a new principle in that it provides 100 per cent insurance against loss with respect to insured loans. No doubt the minister will have considerable to say on this aspect of the legislation and he will

probably indicate that there are many foreign lenders who cannot make loans if they are exposed to a loss of a part of the principal and that, by increasing the coverage from 98 per cent to 100 per cent, additional funds will be made available for mortgage lending that would not otherwise be available. I think it is reasonable to say that the wisdom of extending this coverage must, for the present at least, be a matter of opinion. We will have to live with it before its true worth will be apparent.
Subclause 2 of clause 3 makes it clear that this change in coverage applies only to loans made after the coming into force of the proposed amendment. This would seem, therefore, to divide insured loans into two categories, those covered for 98 per cent and those covered for 100 per cent. I would hope that the establishment of this second class with 100 per cent coverage will not mean the cutting down of the amount lent on the security. Again, we can only be sure after the legislation has been in force. Lenders have always been conservative in their lending under the National Housing Act. One of the most persistent difficulties since the very beginning of the National Housing Act has been the tendency not to make a realistic valuation of the security. Lenders have consistently placed lower valuations on the land than the price currently paid and they have tended to value the buildings at less than their actual cost. Practically every borrower in Canada will bear out this contention. I will have more to say on this aspect later.
I can fully appreciate the desire for caution but there has always been a consistent tendency to be conservative. An examination of the statistics published by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation shows that only rarely does the loan made reach the limit prescribed by the act. May I emphasize that this is not a new development. In my opinion it has always been one of the great weaknesses of national housing legislation, the unwillingness of the lender to take chances of any kind. An examination of the records will show that lenders have preferred to lend less than the act permitted rather than to go the full limit.
I would hope that the 100 per cent insurance will not have the effect of increasing the degree of caution that has prevailed up to the present time. On the other hand, the proposed change may well have the opposite effect and make lenders more generous. Without in any way opposing the change, may I suggest that this might well have been achieved without a change in the act if Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would encourage lenders to make more realistic valuations of the security.
National Housing Act
The third principle involved in the bill is the increase in the amount which may be advanced to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation out of the consolidated revenue fund. This is a serious matter involving not only the $250 million by which we are increasing the fund in this legislation but also the purposes for which these funds may be used in the future. In this context we are considering not only the $250 million but the purposes for which $1 billion of public money may be used.
However, at the resolution stage we had an interesting discussion on housing and it is not my intention to speak at any length on this particular aspect. Certain aspects demand the attention of the government. Despite the large number of starts in 1958 the government's own figures prove that the current program is not meeting the housing needs of the lower half of the income scale. These are the people who should be benefiting from our housing legislation. I am sure the minister will agree with that.
Means must be found to narrow the gap between the amount of the loan and the cost of the dwelling. I think the whole story can be found in a table on page 16 of the report of the corporation. Taking the second quarter of 1958 we see that the average amount of loans was $11,609 against an average cost of dwellings of $14,985. In the third quarter of 1958 the average amount of loans was $11,545 and the average cost of dwellings was $14,937.
The same thing is true to a lesser extent in the small home loans category. I shall not detain the house to give those figures but there is the proof that this gap must be narrowed. I think that the government should try to narrow that gap rather than cheapen the construction of houses.
Means must be found to counteract the ever-rising cost of housing through the use of new materials and new technical knowhow. The best brains in the construction industry should be enlisted for this purpose, and I think the government can show great leadership in this type of study and research.
The ever-rising cost of serviced land should receive the most serious attention by the government as this continues to be the most serious contributing factor to the ever-rising cost of housing.
There is another matter I should like to say a word about before I finish. I think the time has arrived when consideration should be given to the lengthening of the amortization period and I believe that consideration should be given at this time for several reasons. There is the obvious effect that it would have in making houses available to more people. In addition, in view of the
1386	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
fact that better houses are being built and greater care is being taken of them the life expectancy, if I may use that term, of a house is much longer today than in the past.
Through the years the former administration showed interest in this subject, gave leadership and was able through the corporation to lengthen the amortization period. That, of course, was in earlier days, but as I say I think the time has come when another look should be taken at this aspect. It is not my intention to further delay the procedure of this legislation. I know that other members will undoubtedly have something to say respecting other features of the bill.
(Translation):


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Meganiic):: Mr. Speaker, I would not have taken part in this debate, had it not been for certain statements made in the house by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Yalade) on February 4 last, at the resolution stage.
The hon. member for St. Mary said at the time that housing credits had been frozen by the previous administration and then unfrozen by the Conservatives. Later on he added that the previous administration had neutralized those credits. Now, if I am not mistaken, when the act was first adopted in 1954, parliament voted $250 million and, in 1957, according to data given out in the Minister of Public Works' first report, $100 million had already been used, while the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation still had $150 million on hand.
It is true that the present government did launch a new plan which the minister refers to as the "small home loan policy". He must be commended for this because it helped create jobs throughout the country.
The original purpose of the National Housing Act was to enable more Canadians to become home owners. And when the present government took over, the problem was stitl there and more homes still had to be provided. In fact the Minister of Public Works stated as much, as recorded on page 683 of the official record:
(Text):
At the time about $100 million had already been used, and in view of the rapidly diminishing number of houses then being started and of the great need for homes for Canadians of moderate income, and also to help the housebuilding industry and to provide employment, we decided to use the remaining $150 million then available primarily for the support of a new policy which we described as a small home loan policy.


(Translation):
But, towards the end of the debate on the resolution, the minister shifts his ground and admits, or seems to admit, that the prime purpose of the government program now is to provide jobs. I quote a statement he made on February 20, 1959, as recorded on page 1243 of Hansard.
(Text):
The government went into the home financing field to such a large extent in the last two years for one reason, to provide employment. This was done deliberately as the very best means of creating jobs.
(Translation):
I am not at all blaming the present government or the Minister of Public Works for that statement because it is the truth, but before going on with my remarks I would like to examine the situation in the light of the statistics.
I have here the Canadian Housing Statistics published by the C.M.H.C. for the third quarter of 1958. If I refer to it, I find that as more public funds are being made available in the form of more C.M.H.C. loans, it seems that lending institutions are lending less. There is something odd about this and I think that the government and the C.M.H.C. should examine that aspect of the problem and find why less money is being loaned by individuals, by insurance companies, trust and loan companies and even banks, as more public funds are made available to the population.
According to table 17 of the statistical document I referred to a moment ago, in 1956 the insurance companies granted 21,756 loans for housing construction while the C.M.H.C. granted only 2,565 loans for the same period.
In 1957, insurance companies granted 8,905 loans while the C.M.H.C. granted 25,304; according to the report the situation is the same for the year 1958. In fact, whereas insurance companies-and not trust companies -granted loans for building of 1,762 houses during the first quarter, the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation granted loans for 10,971 houses. For the second quarter, there is a discrepancy. At that time the picture changed, 6,371 loans being granted by insurance companies and only 5,157 by the C.M.H.C. But in the third quarter of 1958 conditions returned to normal, insurance companies granting 4,881 loans and the C.M.H.C. 11,112.

Mr. Speaker, there must be a reason why private investors, insurance companies, trust companies and even banks are cutting down on housing loans at the present time, particularly in the past year, while the C.M.H.C. is stepping up its lending policy.
I am quite pleased that the C.M.H.C. has put all this money in the hands of prospective home owners, but there seems to be a significant drop in investments, and I believe the Minister of Public Works and the government should consider the problem.
I shall now deal with another aspect of the matter Mr. Speaker, and again referring to the same statistical tables, I find that loans granted by insurance companies, trust companies, banks or even the C.M.H.C. are channelled mainly to the cities.
Table 9, page 10 of the same publication, shows in metropolitan constituencies, for the ten months ending in October 1957, a total of 51,933 houses were built, while for the ten months ending in October 1958, the total was 81,224.
In territories described as major urban areas, 8,794 houses were built during a 10 month period ending in October 1957, while 12,721 houses had been built during the corresponding period of 1958.
In all other areas, including those with a population of 5,000 and over, 41,470 houses were built during the 10-month period ending in October 1957, as compared to 46,824 during the same period of 1958.
If we add the figures for this same 10-month period ending in October 1958, namely 81,000 and 12,000, in round figures we get a total of 93,000 houses, or perhaps of 94,000 in actual figures in metropolitan and major urban areas, while, for the same period, we have a total of only 46,000 houses-again in round figures-for all other territories, including towns of 5,000 people and over, also including farming and non-farming rural areas.
Mr. Speaker, those figures show that twice as many houses are built in a limited number of cities or larger centres than in all the rest of the country. This constitutes a very important problem. A moment ago the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) raised a very important point: why is it that money lending institutions, private lenders, insurance companies, trust companies and banks do not lend money for housing purposes in rural areas in smaller centres and even in centres
National Housing Act
of 5,000 people and over? I think the reason is that municipal assessment in cities and towns is too low and that lending institutions, as well as private lenders, do not lend money because the municipal assessment of houses in those centres is not based on a real assessment or on actual value. I submit that this point deserves consideration and I think that in those cases, especially where private lenders and lending institutions do not want to lend, the C.M.H.C. should take care of those who want to build houses for themselves in those towns.
It is obvious that from a municipal point of view-those things happen quite frequently- a piece of land may be assessed at $100 when in fact it is worth $600 or $700. The same goes for house assessment. In fact, it may be that a house built in a small municipality worth $8,000 to $9,000 is assessed at $1,000, $1,200 or $1,500.
This raises a problem for the C.M.H.C. I therefore feel it my duty to point out- because in most areas of the country, and I am not referring only to the province of Quebec-that country people are the ones who find it hardest to secure housing loans.
Those were, Mr. Speaker, the few remarks I wished to make in connection with this bill.
I repeat that the Minister of Public Works should be commended for the solicitude he has shown towards all Canadians who wish to build homes of their own under this bill, in using the money which parliament has put at the disposal of the C.M.H.C. In addition to providing jobs, this legislation will help people build homes of their own. And that is what had to be done in the circumstances. We, on this side of the house, who have introduced this housing program, will gladly support this measure both in principle and in practice.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the Chair.
On clause 1-Sale of loan.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the speeches made by the hon. member for Nipissing and the hon. member for Megantic have been very helpful. We shall certainly keep their suggestions in mind. The latter hon. member mentioned that the banks and the lending institutions had been diminishing the amounts

National Housing Act
put into mortgages on homes. That is not the actual situation. I have here the figures for the amounts lent during each of the years from 1954 to 1958 inclusive. In 1954 the approved lenders provided $433.4 million; in that year C.M.H.C. provided only $20.1 million. In 1955 the approved lenders lent $559 million and C.M.H.C. $16.3 million. In 1956 the approved lenders were down to $387.7 million and C.M.H.C. lent $19.4 million. In 1957 the approved lenders lent only $260.9 million-of course, in the latter part of that year our small home loans plan went into effect-and C.M.H.C. lent $233 million. But last year, 1958, approved lenders provided $512 million. While the amount was not as great as the amount in 1955, it was practically twice as much as they provided in 1957 and was a great deal higher than the amount they provided in 1956 and in 1954. Then in order to complete the picture may I say that C.M.H.C. last year advanced $375 million.
It would therefore be unfair to me to allow the impression to go out that the approved lenders had not been putting large sums of money into mortgages. I would point out that they did this last year in spite of the fact that the returns on various other types of investments were going up while the interest rate on mortgages-and certainly on N.H.A. mortgages-was held at six per cent. I have no doubt that these approved lenders obtained higher rates on their own mortgages which were not connected in any way with the National Housing Act. We have reason to believe that in the year 1959 they will put out approximately the same amount they advanced in 1958, and that will be a substantial amount of money.


Maurice Bourget: Will the minister permit a question? Is it not true that the banks are making their loans in the large centres particularly? Has the minister some figures on that point?


Howard Charles Green: I think it is a fact that many more loans have been made in the larger centres than in the smaller ones. This matter has been worrying officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and myself. The corporation is prepared to lend in the smaller centres, but throughout the policy is to be residual lenders or in other words to lend only where an applicant cannot get the money from one of the lending institutions.


John Richard Garland: I wonder whether the minister would mind my just commenting at

this point. I think the point raised by the hon. member for Megantic was the percentage of money supplied through the normal lending institutions as against that supplied by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I think the minister will agree that there is a marked difference between the figures for say, 1956, with $387 million supplied through the normal lending institutions and $19 million supplied by the corporation and those of last year with $512 million supplied by the lending institutions and $375 million by the corporation.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, yes; that is right. But I do not think we could expect the approved lenders to increase the amount they put into housing in anything like the same proportion that C.M.H.C. increased its loans. In effect, before the small home loans policy was adopted C.M.H.C. was not in the business of making direct loans except in small centres. Now they are in that business. Now we are lending everywhere, but on a residual basis. The picture has changed completely with the adoption of the small home loans policy.


Mr. Badanai:: Can the minister tell the committee whether loans are available for applicants in small communities? I am speaking about villages with a population of a few hundred people. I am told that up to the present time people living in small villages -I mentioned this point previously-are unable to obtain these loans. I should like to get verification of that point because it is a question which concerns several localities in my constituency.


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Chairman; there is no policy against lending in the smaller centres. C.M.H.C. will lend in any centre, no matter what is the size of it. I think hon. members will agree that in these smaller centres there is not the same demand for new houses that there is in the larger ones. The great increase in population-unfortunately or fortunately-is taking place in the metropolitan areas. It is there, of course, that we find the huge demand for new housing. In the smaller centres life is going on much as it has gone on down through the years, and probably on a far more sensible basis than in the metropolitan areas. But in the smaller centres there is not the demand for new homes that we find in the metropolitan areas.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very interested in that point because of the fact there are a number

of small places in my constituency. I am told, for instance, that several people in the village of Nakusp, which the minister knows very well-it is one of the most beautiful villages in Canada, where there is fire protection-have been unable to obtain loans from the C.M.H.C. This village is based on a sound economy, with thriving lumbering development over the years. It certainly has not the insecurity of a small mining village.


Howard Charles Green: Officials of C.M.H.C. inform me that there is no reason at all why loans could not have been obtained just as in any other small settlement.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very glad to hear that.


Howard Charles Green: We will be glad to look into any cases where loans have been refused.


Maurice Bourget: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister, but may I also bring to notice the situation of shipyard workers in my own constituency. Very often they have been refused a loan. I do not know whether it was the insecurity of their jobs, but for one reason or another, even when we were on the other side, they were refused. I was wondering if this question could not be taken into consideration so that special attention could be given to their requests.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I believe the policy is to grant loans to any worthy borrower. In the case the hon. member for Levis has mentioned, there may have been some misunderstanding on the part of the applicants, or the officials who handled the applications may not have realized what is the policy of the corporation. I would be very glad to have any of these cases brought to my attention, because one of our main objectives is to give the benefit of the National Housing Act to people living in the smaller centres of Canada.
The hon. member for Nipissing raised several questions which have to do with making it more attractive for investors to invest money in mortgages, and I shall deal with that in my prepared speech. But before I get on to that I would point out that he said the amortization period should be lengthened and that the former government had lengthened it and I understood the implication to be that the present government had not done so. If he will remember, in our legislation of a year ago-
National Housing Act


John Richard Garland: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt the hon. minister, I was not seeking to make that point at all. Perhaps it was due to a poor choice of language on my part, but what I sought to point out was that the government of the former day, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, had shown a leadership which had been responsible for stretching out the amortization period. I thought I said that took place during an earlier period, but the time has now come when a further stretching out might be considered.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the present government has extended the period from 25 to 30 years. Mind you, the lending institutions make the decision as to how long the term should be for repayment, and I understand that in most cases they will not go beyond 25 years, but under the legislation they can do. The hon. member for Nipissing is aware that we changed the policy in December of 1957 to make a longer period for repayment possible.
One of the aims of these amendments is to make it more attractive to private investors to invest in mortgages. Some lenders whose powers of investment extend to securities guaranteed by the government of Canada have felt that National Housing Act insured loans did not fall into this category since the insurance fund guaranteed 98 and not 100 per cent of the face value of the mortgage. We believe that by eliminating the 2 per cent reduction the National Housing Act will permit trustees of pension funds, executors, trust companies and other private sources of investment to contribute to capital investment in housing. I agree with the hon. member for Nipissing that this change will have to be watched. He said it might react in the wrong way. We do not think it will, but we certainly will be watching the position, and if there needs to be a further change we will make it.
When a private investor decides on the form of his investment, he has to consider two elements, each depending in part on the other. He first looks to the return and security of his investment. Then he looks to his ability to trade or hold the investment. The 1954 act recognized the importance of liquidity of housing mortgages in encouraging investment in this field. The act permits the sale and purchase of insured loans, not only between approved lenders, but also to other corporate investors and to private individuals.
In the past few years a market in insured loans has grown up. Last year alone some $42 million insured loans were sold. Since the 1954 act was passed, mortgage transactions have amounted to nearly $172 million.

National Housing Act
But until now the source of insured mortgages for sale has been limited by the act to approved lenders. A private investor wishing to buy an insured loan has only been able to get one if an approved lender was willing to sell. Experience has shown that some approved lenders have acquired their mortgage portfolios primarily for the purpose of holding them to maturity rather than selling them. This is true particularly of mortgage companies and insurance companies, but not of banks. Other approved lenders have sold mortgages, but only infrequently. So this government feels that more investors might be attracted to insured loans if there was a readily available market for them in which they might be bought and sold at frequent or regular intervals.
It also seems likely that the national growth, together with the accompanying development of Canadian investment sources, have created conditions which promise the establishment of a regular mortgage market. The existing and prospective portfolios both of the approved lenders and of C.M.H.C. itself have created a potential source of sellers. A source of buyers has been created in the development of substantial investment funds by pension funds, trade unions, loans associations and private individuals. Their investment in insured mortgages will augment those of the present approved lenders.
There is also the possibility that new institutions will come into being, institutions that will borrow money from the public, perhaps by debentures, and invest in insured mortgage loans. They would be able to buy mortgages from either the approved lenders or the corporations without having to build up a staff to make or administer loans. I believe this would permit small investors to contribute funds to the housing industry, which is something they have been unable to do in the past. The hon. member for Nipissing raised that point. In this way, the small investors would be able to play a more important role in upholding the general economy of the country.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, because of its extensive direct lending operations during the last 18 months, is developing a substantial mortgage portfolio. These mortgages would be made available for sale to investors who are willing to invest in the housing field but who are unable to make loans themselves. One amendment we propose to the act will permit the C.M.H.C to sell its loans to such private investors. If the investor is not an approved lender equipped to administer the loan, the amendment will permit the corporation to administer the loan for the investor in the same way as if it had kept the loan in its own portfolio.
In short, this amendment to the act will give the corporation the same powers as the approved lenders have. If Canada develops a secondary mortgage market it seems likely that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation may be required both to buy and sell mortgages as the need arises. Probably it would also assist in transferring mortgages from one type of lender to another should economic or other factors adversely affect fluidity within the mortgage market. For this reason we propose removing the $25 million limit on the corporation's power to purchase mortgages.
I will continue this explanation when the bill is under consideration.


Charles Edward Rea: The messenger has arrived from the other place. Shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy-Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1959.

Lionel Chevrier: Pursuant to an understanding, I take it that tomorrow we shall discuss external affairs. Can the house leader indicate what the business will be on Friday?


Howard Charles Green: On Friday we shall take third reading of the bill to amend the Northwest Territories Act; then complete the amendments to the National Housing Act and then take the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent the house will proceed tomorrow with a one-day debate on external affairs?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Your Honour. It is on a motion that the estimates of the department be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.


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