1959-02-04

Mr. Antoine Frechette (Temiscouata) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-21, to amend the Representation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain. (Translation):


Antoine Fréchette: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that the name of the electoral district of Temiscouata be changed to Riviere du Loup-Temiscouata.
(Text):
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has a study been carried on by the government into fiscal policy, in so far as it relates to forest industries, and particularly, the pulp and paper industry, since May, 1958?
2.	If so, what departments and sections of the government were involved?
3.	Were any consultations carried on with, or were any representations received from, provincial authorities, corporations or associations?
4.	If so, which ones?
5.	Has a report on such a study been received?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, no specific study has been made with respect to this particular industry any more than to any other within the scope of fiscal policy. The answers to parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 follow accordingly.


NATIONAL PARKS, MAN.  EMPLOYMENT PROCEDURES
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Are employment procedures for the national parks in Manitoba different to those in effect in other provinces?
2.	If so, what are the differences, how long are they to be in effect, and what provisions are there to prevent discriminations?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that the former member for the Marquette constituency was also the Manitoba minister in the Liberal 66968-9-43
government. Under that government, prevailing rates employees for Riding Mountain park were hired through local advisers rather than through the national employment service, the normal practice followed in other parks. During the first year in office the present government followed a similar procedure. However, this fall, in view of the vigorous winter work campaign, my office contacted the members for Marquette, Brandon-Souris and Dauphin, suggesting that every effort should be made to ensure that the most needy cases should be given first consideration in the national park area, irrespective of party affiliations. In this regard we were especially cognizant of the fact that many farmers live on submarginal land and had a complete crop failure in 1958. This also included farm labourers, who during the winter season are unemployed and do not come under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Last fall the hon. member for Brandon-Souris was in touch with me following a meeting of the winter work committee for western Manitoba, suggesting that the hiring for national park projects should be done through the national employment offices adjacent to the park. Arrangements were made at that time to have the names of all the men seeking winter employment at the park registered in the Brandon national employment service office. Since the members have returned to Ottawa for the present session a meeting has been held with the Minister of Labour and the officials of the national employment service to regularize these procedures.



HOSPITAL INSURANCE


Mr. Martin (Essex East): Has a request been made by the government of Ontario during the past six months, asking the federal government to share in depreciation costs under the hospital insurance program?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In accordance with the agreement with the government of Ontario under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, and pursuant to the option permitted under the law to adopt the depreciation method of financing the purchase of furniture and equipment, the federal government is now sharing with the government of Ontario the costs of depreciation in this regard.

Questions
With regard to depreciation on the value of land, buildings or physical plant, the answer is no.



MALTON AIRPORT PROPERTY EXPROPRIATION

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the crown engage an independent evaluator in order to appraise any properties being expropriated by the crown in connection with the extension of Malton airport in the past three years?
2.	If so, when and by what official were the services engaged; what was the evaluator's name; when did he make his report; what were the properties, their values, and their owners?
3.	Have the evaluator's recommendations been received and acted upon? If so, in what manner?
4.	Has the evaluator been paid? If so, how much?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member has agreed to let this question stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Question stands.



HIGHWAY NO. 11, N.B.  FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Has the federal government any responsibility for New Brunswick highway No. 11, adjacent to the Chatham, New Brunswick, R.C.A.F. station, of which the proposed highway bridge at Chatham, New Brunswick, would form a part?
2.	If so, is this responsibility a cost-sharing one for the erection of a highway bridge on New Brunswick highway No. 11 across the Miramichi river, near the R.C.A.F. station?


Hon. Henri Couriemanche (Secreiary of State):: The answer is as follows:
1.	No responsibility in respect of New Brunswick highway No. 11. Should a bridge be constructed, however, there would be the normal approval required under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
2.	Not applicable.



&quot;CANADIAN ECONOMIC OUTLOOK, 1958&quot;

Mr. Pickersgill: 1. How many copies of the Canadian Economic Outlook, 1958, were produced by the Department of Trade and Commerce or any other agency of government?
2.	How many were circulated and to whom?
3.	Where are the remaining copies, if any?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Stand.


Mr. Pickersgill:: On a point of order, sir, is there any reason why these questions should stand, since the answers to them must be both ancient and obvious?


Mr. Fulton:: Then why are you asking the questions?


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Question stands.



FRED ANSELL

Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has Fred Ansell, a lightkeeper along the St. Clair river near Sarnia, Ontario, been relieved of his duties during the month of December?
2.	Has he been replaced by one Lorne Johnson on the recommendation of a member of parliament?
3.	Why was Mr. Ansell dismissed from his employment?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the answer to parts 1 and 2 is yes. The answer to part 3 is that following receipt of a complaint that Mr. Ansell actively participated in politics the charges were investigated by the department, and Mr. Ansell admitted active participation in politics. On completion of the navigation season his services were discontinued.


An hon. Member:: Was he a Conservative?



CONVERTED VICTORY BONDS


Mr. McMillan: 1.	What is the amount of the increased annual interest now payable on the converted victory loan bonds?
2.	What is the average coupon rate on the new bonds?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the change in annual interest charges to the government resulting from the Canada conversion loan cannot be calculated since it necessitates a comparison of known interest charges on conversion loan and unconverted victory loan issues with unknown interest charges arising in connection with refundings of maturing victory loan issues from time to time in the future. There is no way of predetermining the interest rates at which the victory loan issues would have had to be refunded either at final maturity or at various call dates, in the absence of the conversion loan. Estimated per annum interest of the new conversion loan issues plus unmatured and unconverted victory loan issues for the calendar year 1959 is $250,888,250. Per annum interest on victory loan issues in 1958, assuming that no issue had been refunded prior to maturity, would have been $192,476,410.50.
These figures when compared do not jibe with the figures that were used on a previous occasion and about which the hon. member for Welland asked me a question a few days ago. May I say that the figures I am giving today are later than those figures, but the principal difference is accounted for by the fact that the senior official of the Department of Finance who prepared the earlier figures has found a mistake in them-


Mr. Benidickson:: Ten million dollars.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and these figures I am giving the house today are the correct and up to date figures. I very much regret the error to which I have referred.
The answer to part 2 of the question is 4 per cent.



C.B.C. BOARD OF DIRECTORS  RADIO INTERESTS

Mr. Caron: Is any member of the executive committee of the board of directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at present engaged in the business of broadcasting or has any pecuniary or proprietary interest, as owner, shareholder, director, officer, partner or otherwise, in a broadcasting station or in the manufacture or distribution of radio apparatus?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would allow this matter to stand for today.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Question stands.



T.V. NETWORK, N.B.  COST OF EXTENSION

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has any estimate been prepared by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to establish the cost of extending the English T.V. network from any point in the Moncton area to: (a) Newcastle; (b) Bathurst; (c) Campbellton, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what is the estimated cost in each case?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is that I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the corporation has made a general survey of the matter of extending the English television network to the points mentioned in the question, namely Newcastle, Bathurst, Campbellton and the general area. A study is still being carried out so as to arrange for the inauguration of such a service, but there is no detailed breakdown as to estimate of cost with regard to the specific points mentioned.



GREY HAMILTON

Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Is Mr. Grey Hamilton employed in the Department of Finance?
2.	If so, (a) at what salary; (b) what are his duties?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer is as follows:
1. Yes.
2(a). $10,000 per annum.
2(b). Information officer and assistant to the minister.


Mr. Robichaud:: Is he getting results?
669G8-9-43J
Orders for Returns



KENORA-MINAKI ROAD  FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION

Mr. Benidickson: 1.	Has the government of Ontario asked the federal government to make a contribution to the construction of a road between Kenora and Minaki?
2.	If so, what contribution has been made, and what is the present state of understanding between the governments respecting completion of the road?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer to the first part is yes, and the answer to the second part is that no contributions have been made. I might say that I have submitted a draft agreement to the province of Ontario on the very fine program they have presented on roads to resources. I hope the provincial government will see fit, in the very near future, to sign that agreement.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


PRIME MINISTER'S TOUR


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Have any reimbursements been made to the crown for expenses, travelling or otherwise, by persons accompanying the Prime Minister on his world and commonwealth tour in November and December, 1958?
2.	If so, by what persons, in what amounts, for what specific charges or services?



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY    APPORTIONMENT OF CAPITAL COST

Mr. Chevrier: 1.	What portion of the total capital cost of the St. Lawrence seaway, fixed at $340 million in the report of the tolls committee of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, dated June 12, 1958, is attributable to each of the six sections of the seaway?
2.	What portion of the said total capital cost is attributable to each construction classification, including excavation, dredging, locks, bridges, approaches to bridges, roads, construction facilities and equipment, models, etc.?



SOYA BEANS


Mr. Murphy: 1.	What was the amount of production of soya beans in Canada during the years 1950 to 1958 inclusive?
2.	Were soya beans imported into Canada during these years?
3.	If so, from what countries?
4.	What amounts from each country?
5.	What duty, if any, is paid on soya beans imported into Canada?
6.	What is the duty on soya beans imported by the United States from Canada?



MUNICIPAL WINTER WORKS PROJECTS

Mr. Houck: 1.	How many winter works projects under the municipal incentive plan have been approved for each of the provinces?
2.	In what municipalities in each province and how many will be employed?
676	HOUSE OF
Unemployment-Motion for Adjournment LABOUR CONDITIONS



UNEMPLOYMENT


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order No. 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the most serious situation caused by unemployment and the lack of any major and immediate action being taken to alleviate the problem.
On the matter of urgency, Mr. Speaker, I may say that there are tens of thousands of unemployed who are not eligible to receive unemployment insurance payments, and of those there are many thousands who are not even entitled to receive social welfare payments. In the speech from the throne, and in the addresses given in the debate by members of the government since January 15, we have not noticed any intention on the part of the government to present to this parliament any substantial measures to handle the situation.
In the light of the present needs of our fellow citizens, in the light of the fact that nothing except minor legislation is expected, and in the light of the promise that no one in Canada will suffer because of unemployment, it is my hope that this house will agree to the need for a debate at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: If any hon. member wishes to address himself to the question of the urgency of debate the matter proposed, I shall be glad to hear him.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that there was an amendment before this house for a period of nine days dealing with this very question, and the members of the C.C.F. as well as the members of the official opposition had ample opportunity to debate the question without limitation. They had practically no suggestions to make. This amendment was dealt with on Thursday last, and I suggest it was never the intention of the rules of the house that an hon. member could come in and have a second try at a question of this kind by moving the adjournment of the house within a matter of six days after such a vote.
Furthermore, I point out to your honour that the business before the house today is something having to do with this whole question of unemployment. I do submit that the motion is completely out of order.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: It is true that the subject of employment was discussed during the debate on the address, Mr. Speaker, but the very character of that particular


procedure is one that lends itself to the discussion of a wide variety of subjects. The hon. gentleman who now complains about the motion moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was among those who resisted any suggestions that a full discussion on unemployment at that time was in the interests of the country.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says oh, oh, but he and the Prime Minister were among those who said a discussion of the subject was not calculated to relieve the problem. What the hon. member has sought to do today is to focus our attention on unemployment, and not only on unemployment but on the fact that thousands of individuals are not capable of qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits or for seasonal benefits.
Since the government has not brought forward its legislation in this particular it would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, in the light of the acknowledged fact that this is one of the foremost problems now confronting our country, that parliament ought to be given the opportunity, through the specific form of this motion, to deal with this urgent national question.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to say a word on this matter. We feel that this is a matter of urgency, and that it is urgent today. The fact that a motion was dealt with at some previous time has nothing to do with the cold, hard fact that hundreds of thousands of people in this country are unemployed, and it has nothing to do with the declaration we have put forward to the effect that the government should announce its policies to deal with this extremely urgent matter.
Another reason we advance in contending that it is urgent is the fact that we are receiving statements from the province of British Columbia-from the British Columbia federation of labour and other interested organizations and people in that province- pointing out that there is a real unemployment crisis. As to the urgency of this subject, Mr. Speaker, I might remind hon. members that there was a march on the legislative buildings in Victoria just the other day in order to impress upon the authorities the urgency of this extremely important problem.
We submit, Mr. Speaker, that the government should welcome a debate in parliament at this time on this urgent matter, and that they should welcome the opportunity to present their policy at this time.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to add anything to what the house leader has brought before you except to say that nothing has been indicated by anything said in support of the urgency of this application that in any way answers the fact that this matter received full consideration during the recent debate-though hon. gentlemen opposite, having the opportunity to make suggestions, made none.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to say a word?


Mr. Speaker:: Very briefly; I think the matter has been fairly well dealt with.


Lionel Chevrier: I will be as brief as I can under the circumstances. What I should like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it has been the practice, according to the rule as laid down by this house and as you have decided on more than one occasion, that a distinction should be made as between urgency of the subject and urgency of debate. From what both the Prime Minister and the house leader have said, I think there is no doubt that there is urgency of the subject. But the question that I think both hon. gentlemen on the other side oppose is the urgency of debate. In view of what has happened since the throne speech took place-


Howard Charles Green: What?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; what?


Lionel Chevrier: All right; I will answer that question. I refer to the fact that the government have been asked to bring down their legislation on several occasions and they did not bring it down. That is the fact.


Howard Charles Green: How are we going to bring it down?


Lionel Chevrier: There is also the fact that in certain parts of Canada the situation has worsened since the time the speech from the throne was voted upon.


An hon. Member:: It is better in other parts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the discussion is getting rather off the point. May I ask the house leader whether he has announced, as I seem to recall, that there will be a supply motion on Monday?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course it is not my function to decide questions of policy. My function is only to enforce the rules. I remind hon. members of the house that the rule is one which permits the interruption of our
Motions for Papers
ordinary course of proceedings for the purpose of a debate, not for coming to a decision, because the motion is to adjourn the house and it obviously settles or decides nothing. All it does is give hon. members the opportunity to debate a matter of urgent public importance.
Therefore I think the important consideration in dealing with motions of this kind is the urgency of debate. I do not propose to deal with the urgency of the unemployment problem. It is obviously a problem which has concerned this house throughout this session and the past session, and I daresay will be of continuing concern; it is a continuing problem.
But the question of the urgency of debate, which is referred to as a test of whether this motion should be permitted, is dealt with in Beauchesne's 4th edition, citation 100, paragraph 3, where he uses these words:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate", when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I refer Your Honour
to subparagraph 5.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that all hon.
members recall that we spent some days debating the unemployment problem in this country in the course of the throne speech debate. As was pointed out by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green), there was a specific amendment which opened the debate on that very question referring the house to the question of unemployment. Furthermore, there will be an opportunity for a general debate on a subject of the choice of the opposition on Monday. In my view we should not interrupt our proceedings at this time for the purpose stated by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all correspondence, since June 15, 1958, between the federal government and the Dominion Marine Association, on pilotage and associated matters.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the
hon. member, and it is my understanding that his motion deals with pilotage. With that understanding there is no objection to passing the motion.


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]
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the federal government and officials of the United States concerning pilotage and the regulation of pilotage on the St. Lawrence-great lakes waterway, since June 1, 1958.
Edmund Davie Fulton: On
behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs may I ask the hon. gentleman if he will be willing to let the motion stand.


Mr. Fisher:: Stand.
Motion stands.



RADIO AND TELEVISION COMPANIES


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all correspondence between the federal government and officials of the United States concerning the action in the United States courts against certain companies producing radio and television equipment, since November 15, 1958.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I would like to say that there is no objection on the part of the government to accepting this motion, subject to the usual understanding that we will approach the United States government to see if they have any objection to the production requested.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged by the federal government and officials of the United States, concerning the Consolidated Premium Iron Ore Company, the Premium Iron Ore Company, Cyrus Eaton, and F. Daley, from June 1, 1958.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to the passing of this order subject to the usual reservation that with respect to any communications passing between this government, or any member thereof, and the United States government, there will of course have to be some consultation and their permission obtained before the tabling is done.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitations expressed by the minister is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 10-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all correspondence since January 1, 1958, exchanged between the federal government and any persons in Port Arthur constituency, concerning the carrying out of work on the breakwater protecting the government wharf at Silver Islet.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Fisher:
For a copy of all representations and correspondence received by the government, and the government's replies thereto, concerning section 5, subsection 2, of the Income Tax Act, since 20th December, 1957.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the hon. gentleman might allow this matter to stand until I have the opportunity of consulting with him with a view to finding out exactly what he has in mind. A request of this kind involves the search of hundreds of files. I am sure the hon. gentleman has in mind something more definite than is contained in this motion. I have no objection to production, but I suggest that he and I should engage in consultation with a view to pinpointing the matters he has in mind.
Motion stands.



C.B.C. LABOUR DISPUTE, MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 24-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any of Its departments and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; and between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and any other person, organization, agency or government, since January 1, 1959, and having relationship to the present dispute between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and some of its employees.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the first part of this return would be nil because there have been no messages, correspondence or documents of any kind exchanged between the government or any department thereof and the C.B.C. The second part can pass subject to the reservation governing the production of confidential and privileged documents between the corporation and its officials.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the minister accepts the motion subject to the usual reservation?


George Clyde Nowlan: Subject to the reservation governing the production of confidential or privileged documents exchanged between the corporation and any of its officials.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and each of the provincial governments since January 1, 1958, concerning amendments to the Pipe Lines Act (Canada) and/or pipe line acts in force in the provinces.
Gordon Minto Churchill: This is satisfactory, Mr. Speaker, subject to the usual limitation.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation
expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave of the house to revert to motions?
Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in asking leave to revert to motions is to inform the house that it is my intention to table at the opening of tomorrow's session the estimates for the fiscal year 1959-60.



REQUEST FOR FILING OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may ask the Minister of Labour if, in view of the urgency of the matter, he will file today the resolution regarding the unemployment insurance amendments so that it will appear in tomorrow's Votes and Proceedings and on the order paper on Friday.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it not ready?


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are not
ready. It is the opposition that is not ready.


Michael Starr: You do not know what the resolution is about.



CANADIAN RADIO PATENTS LIMITED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question which
Inquiries of the Ministry I had hoped to ask him last Friday when he was absent from the house on business. The question was put on Hansard for me by my friend the hon. member for Essex East, and it appears at page 552 in these words:
In view of the present conflict of jurisdiction between Canada and the United States, caused by the United States antitrust laws being extended to affect Canadian incorporated companies doing business in Canada, is not the minister of the opinion that self-restraint on the part of the government of the United States in this matter has proven to be insufficient and that, at the very least, a formal bilateral agreement on this specific question is essential to protect our international and domestic legal and business position?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. gentleman's question I can only refer him to a fact which I am sure he will realize on a moment's reflection governs the matter, and that is that the exact course of conduct to be pursued by the United States government has not yet been determined. It may be that as a result of the conversations held in Washington on Thursday last there will be some change in policy or attitude on the part of the United States government; and until we have an opportunity to study developments in the matter and determine just what course they are going to follow it would not be possible or proper for me to answer the hon. member's question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement that at the earliest feasible opportunity a day would be set aside for a discussion of international affairs, and in view of the desire of all hon. members to be fully informed prior to this discussion, will the Prime Minister advise the house whether he is prepared to file with this house the report of the Canadian delegation which met in Geneva for seven weeks commencing November 10 of last year under a committee heading of "Conference of experts for the study of possible measures which might be helpful preventing a surprise attack and for the preparation of a report thereon to the governments".


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the bare answer would be no, because of the fact that it has never been customary to table such documents. It would not be proper to publish confidential reports of discussions in which other friendly governments participated.

Inquiries of the Ministry However, if the house so wishes I could table the report of the conference itself as distinct from the report of the Canadian delegation. The report of the conference is a United Nations document and is already in the public domain. If the hon. gentleman feels it would be beneficial to have a complete summary of what took place in so far as it is contained within that report I would be prepared, with the leave of the house, to table two copies.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, notice of which I sent to his office shortly before the house opened today. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the following statement made by the minister of trade and industry of the government of Jamaica, Hon. Wills O. Isaacs, at a banquet on January 17 tendered by the Jamaica chamber of commerce in honour of the visiting Canadian trade mission when he said, speaking about Canadian salt fish:
We have come to a definite agreement and understanding, so in future there will be no more cause for complaints and hardship. The arrangements which we have entered into had better remain at the moment between government and government.
If so, would the minister comment on this statement?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sending me notice of his intention to ask this question. Had he given me longer notice I would have had an opportunity to prepare an appropriate answer for this occasion. However, I received the notice just before I came down to the house. I was not present at the banquet on January 17 and my attention has not been drawn to the statement made by Mr. Isaacs. I am checking with my associate deputy minister, who was there, and I shall have a report for the hon. member tomorrow.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In his reply would the minister also advise the house if there is any possibility of doing away with the price ceiling on salt fish in that market in the immediate future?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall take that question as notice.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Following the announcement of the increase of 5j cents a bushel in the price of wheat at the lakehead, could the minister explain how this increase affects the price the farmer receives for his wheat at the point of delivery?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question, which concerns a matter that is of some importance to all farmers in western Canada. I have received communications from the wheat board indicating this change in the price of wheat at the lakehead. I believe it would be in the best interests of the house and all concerned if I were to make a complete statement on this subject tomorrow, which I shall undertake to do.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to remind the house that the functions of this department also include horticulture.
In view of the annual convention of the Canadian fruit wholesalers association being held in Montreal from February 8 to February 11; in view of the fact that the association's members distribute about 90 per cent of all fresh fruit and vegetables consumed in Canada, and in view of the importance of this convention to the producers of fruit and vegetables in Canada, will any senior officials of the minister's department attend as observers at this convention?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisier of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, officials of the department will be present at the meeting.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Chown (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether the recent report of the Auditor

General will be referred to the public accounts committee for study and remedial action.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I hope that when the public accounts committee is set up by the house the committee will address itself to a study of the report of the Auditor General. I think that is a highly desirable course.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Will he assure the house that his friends on the committee will be asked to review the latest public accounts and not engage in historical research?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I hope all the members of that committee are my friends.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All the members of the house are your friends.



PIPE LINES


[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 arising out of the submission made to him the other day by the Saskatchewan resources minister, Mr. Brockelbank, with regard to certain proposals made in the preliminary report of the Borden royal commission.
Can the minister say what consideration has been given to the request of the Saskatchewan government for the calling of a federal-provincial conference to determine what amendments should be made to the Pipe Lines Act and pipe lines acts in the various provinces so as to define the authority of various governments in this field?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I met with the resources minister, Mr. Brockelbank, of the Saskatchewan government some time ago, and he presented various proposals to us in connection with the oil and gas industry. We have under consideration all the proposals that he presented in the representations and in the brief which was handed to us in June of last year. There will be ample opportunity to discuss all the problems with which he and others are concerned when the legislation concerning the proposed energy board is before the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Can the minister answer that part of my question which asked whether consideration was being
Inquiries of the Ministry given to a federal-provincial conference to deal with the general question of jurisdiction?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did say, Mr. Speaker, that every consideration is being given to the proposals put forward by Mr. Brockelbank.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Triniiy):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the metropolitan Toronto resolution to liquidate its civil defence organization unless it received direction from Ottawa, will the minister make a statement to the house some time this week?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I have intimated that I intend to make a statement to the house in a comparatively short time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; within a few days?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I would not like to pinpoint the exact date, Mr. Speaker.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice; I notice he is in his seat. Can the minister inform the house what is the current position with respect to the prosecution being instituted against Canadian Breweries Limited for alleged infractions of the combines laws?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his notice of this question. I really have nothing which I am in a position to give to the house by way of information at this time in addition to what I have said on previous occasions. I can only confirm that an indictment is being prepared for presentation to the grand jury.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct that those proceedings are being entered into with the feeling that the crown does not expect to win the case but rather-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member does not expect an answer to his question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. gentleman knew his question was out of order, but of course it requires an answer because of the way he put it. I can only assure the hon. gentleman that his suspicions are exactly the kind of suspicions I would expect a member of the C.C.F. party to entertain.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) asked whether I had received a telegram from Mr. O'Neil, secretary treasurer of the British Columbia federation of labour, regarding the unemployment situation in British Columbia. At that time I said I did not have any information on the subject because it was delivered to my office, apparently, just prior to the opening of the house. On my return to the office I found that such a telegram had been received. I think I should point out to the hon. gentleman that in this matter, as in others, this government has already undertaken the action which is being recommended in the telegram.
Last July, through the initiative of the Minister of Labour, such a conference of municipal and provincial governments was held, bringing together in Ottawa provincial ministers of labour, representatives of municipalities across Canada and labour leaders in the leading labour organizations. Later at the federal-municipal conference the question of unemployment was again discussed and dealt with. One of the several results of these conferences was the municipal incentive program, which is now before the house in the form of a supplementary estimate.
The Minister of Labour has indicated the success of this program, which has already involved direct employment for some 20,000 men across Canada and indirect employment for many thousands of others. Moreover, the figures relating to registrations for employment in British Columbia are some 12,800 below last year, another indication of the success of his efforts in that direction.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) repeated the question he had asked

me on January 23. I have in the meantime inquired within the department. I find that no representations such as those he described have been made to the department.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources if any change has been made since the end of last session in the employment procedures in Terra Nova national park. If so, what is the nature of that change?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Order paper.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, no changes have been made to my knowledge in the procedures adopted in Terra Nova park. I would like to thank the hon. member for making representations to me to see that certain people he knows got employment there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to ask the minister whether the department is in fact carrying out the undertaking which was given by the previous government, and which he repeated to the provincial government, with respect to employment in the Terra Nova national park?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in the last session I made it very clear to the hon. member that we had repudiated entirely the callous and somewhat brutal policy of the previous administration for the hiring of people in the national parks. In relation to Terra Nova park I have received no complaints from that district. The needs of all people, regardless of politics, are being given fair consideration in getting that employment.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to allow the railway companies to levy demurrage on box cars of grain at terminal elevators, in the light of the fact that delays in unloading are often due to the action of the railways rather than any failure of grain company unloading facilities, and in view of the consequent further serious reduction in the price of grain to producers as a result of

this action, has the government given consideration to an amendment to the Railway Act or other appropriate means to prevent such a charge being levied?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. This is one of the many problems relating to railway rates and the position of the railways generally which is receiving the active attention of the government.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Howard Charles Green: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to increase from $750 million to $1 billion the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act, and to remove the limitation on the amount thereof that may be advanced to the corporation for the purposes of subsection 1 of section 11 of the said act, and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this is a resolution preceding a bill to amend the National Housing Act. Hon. members will notice that the resolution covers a proposed increase from $750 million to $1 billion in the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act. It also provides for the removal of the limitation on the amount that can be advanced to the corporation for the purposes of subsection 1 of section 11 of the act, and in addition provides for certain other changes in connection with the administration of the act. I propose today to deal first with the increase in the money available under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act.
It will be remembered that when we took office in the summer of 1957 subsection 1 of section 22 made provision for an amount of $250 million. 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 house-building 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.
I do not need to go into all the details of that plan today. We set a limit on the size of 66968-9-44J
National Housing Act
house on which a loan could be made, that limit being 1,050 square feet for a house with three bedrooms. Furthermore, the method of making these loans was to have them handled through the various lending institutions. In other words it was in reality an agency plan.
As a result there was a great increase in the construction of small homes in Canada, and in December, 1957, we asked for an additional $150 million, bringing the total available under subsection 1 of section 22 to $400 million. In May of 1958 the house voted an additional $350 million, and that is how we arrived at the total sum of $750 million now available under the act. Mind you, this money was not all drawn for small home loans, because under this section we also finance limited dividend rental housing projects, and the section also provides for housing assistance in connection with primary industries.
As of January 30, 1959, a total of $677,956,248 had been committed. That means that as of approximately a week ago there remained in the fund $72,043,752.
It is interesting to note that under the agency plan there was a total of approximately $280 million used. This, of course, is all for the small homes. We dropped the agency plan, by the way, last May and then adopted the policy of lending direct from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for these small homes. In addition, throughout the whole period, this crown corporation has been lending direct in the smaller centres in Canada, and many of these loans came out of the amounts I have mentioned. The total for direct loans by the corporation is $213,817,292. Perhaps I should give the exact figure for the agency loans, and it is $279,117,169.
The total figure for the limited dividend fund is $117,912,742, and of that $52,169,054 has been committed since January, 1958. Hon. members will notice that there is a further amount under that limited dividend plan, some of which was committed before we took office. Actually, the amount since January, 1958, is $52,169,054. Then for primary industry housing the total is $6,343,519. We have not been making use of this primary industry plan at all. There may have been one or two advances when we first took over, but since then we have not been using money for this purpose.
Hon. members might be interested in noting that during the calendar year 1958 Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation committed $388 million for housing, and in the same period of time the private lending institutions, including the banks, committed $520 million. The result of the policy has

National Housing Act
been that in 1958 there has been a tremendous increase in the number of housing starts. About a year ago I forecast with some trepidation that there might be 140,000. This, of course, would have been a record because the highest year before that was 1955 when there were 138,276. However, things have gone very well and I now have the final figures for 1958. They are even better than the announcement made last week or the week before in the house. The total number of starts was 164,632, and this is about 42,000 more than in the calendar year 1957. As hon. members will see, it is more than 26,000 above the record of 1955.
Completions for 1958 numbered 146,686. This again is a record and above the highest figure before, which was in 1956, namely 135,700. At the end of the year, there were under construction 88,162 houses. This, again, is a record, the previous high being 79,339. As I pointed out, one of the main objectives was to help create employment by this housing policy. There can be no doubt but that house-building in 1958 has set the pace for all activities in Canada. It has been in the forefront of the economic activity in Canada. We estimate that during the year there were probably 200,000 man-years of employment provided by on-site construction alone. This means about 400,000 jobs because it takes about six months to build a home.
Then, in addition, there have been all the jobs more remotely involved in the construction of housing units of various kinds. For example, there is the ground servicing of the land, the production, handling and transportation of building materials, bringing the total to about 400,000 man-year jobs. There are, as well, the men employed in getting out the logs, lumbering, the making of furniture and the equipment which goes into a home. By the way, I noticed that the vice-president of Simpson-Sears Limited, Mr. Morgan Reid, is quoted as saying a few days ago that these new homes represent a potential demand for furnishings and equipment estimated at $1,700 to $2,000 per house. Hon. members can calculate for themselves just what house-building has meant to Canada during the last year. I do not think anyone will quarrel with my submission that the government's housing policy has been largely responsible for this result which has been so beneficial to our nation.
In the United States there was also an increase in housing activity during last year. But in the United States they were much below their previous record which was made in 1955 just as the previous record in Canada had been in 1955. In 1955 they had 1,328,900 houses started and in 1958 it was estimated they had 1,170,000.
There has been some suggestion that too many houses were being built and that they would become a glut on the market. I have read that comment in some of the papers. This is a factor which we have had very much in mind during the whole of 1958. There would not have been much point in rushing the construction of small homes if there were going to be too many of them, thereby causing the whole market to be broken.
The figures for completed and unoccupied dwellings are as follows: December, 1958, 3,212. I may say this is for the whole of Canada and I would ask hon. members to keep in mind that this is after this record number of houses had been completed. In 1957 that figure was 2,764 or only about 450 more at the end of 1958 than at the end of 1957. In some centres there are actually less. For example, in the Toronto metropolitan area there was more housing going on in that year than in any other part of Canada. In December, 1958 there were 970 of these completed and unoccupied houses in the Toronto metropolitan area whereas in 1957 there were 1,146.
Then we have tried hard to increase the home building in the smaller centres of Canada. I would point out that the great demand is in the metropolitan areas. However, we have gone out deliberately to increase construction in the smaller centres. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials wrote to every municipality with a population of 1,500 and over pointing out what could be done, the facilities available in obtaining loans and offering to send an official to that municipality for the purpose of discussing the position with those holding office. We have had considerable success with that program as a result.
Of the housing starts in 1958 there were 56,673 in centres with populations under 30,000 compared with 49,673 in 1957, an increase of 13.78 per cent. Of the number of units approved under the National Housing Act in 1958, 19,471 were approved in centres with under 30,000 population compared with 13,488 in 1958, an increase of 44.4 per cent. In addition, the corporation got out special plans for very modest homes. A great many of those have been called for and a large number of these very cheap homes are now being constructed across the country.


Mr. Bourgei:: Has the minister the figure with respect to the small homes or cheap homes, as he calls them?


Howard Charles Green: For example, in 1958, 500 units built under the N.H.A.-there might be others not under the N.H.A.-were sold complete with land for $10,000 or under. Then the

report C.M.H.C. officials have goes on to point out that minimum houses are being constructed in various locations. For example, in Saint John, New Brunswick, a house complete with full basement, plumbing, heating and electrical wiring is to sell for $9,050, including $1,030 for land. This is expected to be the first of several such houses in that area.
At Chicoutimi one builder is erecting 25 houses for sale to be sold for $8,000, with $800 down and an N.H.A. mortgage of $7,200. Carrying charges are $57 per month including taxes. Serviced land is included in the $8,000 price at $800. This house includes a full basement, plumbing, electrical installations but no heating other than a space heater.
At Sault Ste. Marie a pilot house of this like price type is being constructed.
At Peterborough the Peterborough Lumber Company is selling a prefabricated housing package for $3,495. The plan resembles the C.M.H.C. plan and it is expected that the total cost of the house will run in the $8,000 to $9,000 range.
At Prince George and Dawson Creek in British Columbia 30 units are being built to C.M.H.C. design. The selling price is $9,500 including $1,000 for the lot and with plumbing, heating and electrical installations, and a full foundation.
Then negotiations are proceeding with other builders across the country for minimum houses.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Will the minister tell us the size of the house to which he refers?


Howard Charles Green: That is 848 square feet.
Then in Moncton, New Brunswick, one builder has for some years been building houses in a price range of under $10,000. In 1958 he completed 100 houses with prices ranging from $8,500 to $9,900, down payments from $650 to $900. While these houses bear no relationship to the C.M.H.C. plan they are minimum in size and they have complete plumbing, heating and electrical wiring and full basements.
At Saint John, New Brunswick, the same Moncton builder in 1958 completed 50 units to the same plans at slightly increased prices.
At Newcastle, New Brunswick, a builder has 9 houses under way at a cost to the purchaser ranging from $7,900 to $9,200. Land is included at $600. The down payments range from $700 to $1,000. Three of the $7,900 houses are built to a plan similar to the national home builders association budget research house.
I should like to say a few words about the people who have benefited by the small home loan plan. We find that the largest percentage is in the group with income from
National Housing Act
$4,000 to $4,999, the figure being 42.5 per cent. We find that 13.3 per cent are in the income group from $3,000 to $3,999; under $3,000, 0.3 per cent; $5,000 to $5,999, 23.9 per cent; $6,000 to $6,999, 11.1 per cent; $7,000 to $7,999, 4.5 per cent; $8,000 to $8,999, 1.9 per cent. You see that quite a few people with large incomes are building these small homes. Incomes from $9,000 to $9,999, 0.8 per cent; and incomes of $10,000 and over, 1.7 per cent.


Mr. Garland:: I wonder if the minister would mind repeating the percentage in the $3,000 to $3,999 category?


Howard Charles Green: The figure is 13.3 per cent.
The small home loan plan has resulted in a benefit to a group with much lower incomes than are taking advantage of the ordinary N.H.A. insured loans. For example, with the insured loans the average income was $6,115. The average income for people benefiting under the small home loan plan is $5,146. The fact that quite a few people with high incomes are buying small homes keeps the average income up. This is a decrease in the average income as between-


Maurice Bourget: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but would he please explain to the house how a man earning $3,000 a year can qualify? I am at a loss to understand that.


Howard Charles Green: This would depend on the size of the home he built. For example, some of the very small homes which I have mentioned which are being built in various parts of Canada could be purchased by someone with an income much lower than the person would require to buy a house, say, in Toronto.
Then dealing with the average cost of the home, an insured loan is $15,440; under the small home loan plan, $13,462. The average loan under the insured plan-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee):: I must apologize to the hon. minister, but I would remind him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We must not interrupt his speech.


Frank Charles McGee: With the consent of the committee the minister may continue.


Howard Charles Green: Thank you very much. I am giving many figures and it is a little difficult to hurry. I know all members of the house are deeply interested in this topic.
The average loan under the insured plan is $11,557; under the small home plan, $11,094. The average down payment under the insured

National Housing Act
loan-and here is where the biggest difference is-is $3,638, but under the direct loan it is $2,373.
In addition, of course, to the homes, the money which we are asking to be replenished today is used for limited dividend rental units. There activity has been greatly increased during 1958 as well. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in 1958 made loans for nearly 7,000 rental units under the limited dividend section of the act, compared with 4,100 in 1957. These dwellings were built either for families of low incomes or for old people, and were constructed by private developers or non-profit organizations, and they received long term loans at comparatively low rates of interest through C.M.H.C. There are quite a few projects under this limited dividend provision set up by churches and service clubs, and with very beneficial results. This is a very praiseworthy type of activity. Largely elderly people are accommodated in the homes and the rents are very, very low. I think in most cases the provinces give a grant for such developments, and the officials of the corporation and the government are very keen on these projects.
In addition to that there are the limited dividend schemes promoted by individual builders or developers. The rents which they can charge are restricted. They are supposed to be kept within the range of the lowest third of the income groups; that is to say, the group of Canadians in the lowest third bracket of income. Otherwise, an applicant cannot qualify for a limited dividend loan.


Mr. Fraser:: Could the minister say if the plan is available in every province?


Howard Charles Green: The plan is available in every province, but most applications are coming from Toronto and Montreal for some reason or other.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Where the need is greatest.


Howard Charles Green: There are none in Alberta or Prince Edward Island. I suppose the Alberta people are all so wealthy from oil that they do not need them, but in any event that is the picture.


Mr. Broome:: Would the minister have any figures on that breakdown at all in regard to how much percentage-wise would have gone into Ontario and Quebec?


Howard Charles Green: I can get those figures, I have not got them at the moment. Therefore, I think, Mr. Chairman, that we have made out quite a good case for an increase in the funds available. I do not personally know of any better way in which a government can spend its money. Practically all of it is coming back. There are very, very few cases of

foreclosure, just a handful. This policy is enabling young Canadians by the hundreds of thousands to acquire their own homes, and I think it is doing a great deal to strengthen the nation. Mind you, as I pointed out last year during the debates on housing, we are not anxious to get into the position where the government is putting up all the money for housing. This is an impossible position for any government to get into.


Maurice Bourget: You said that last year.


Howard Charles Green: It is still true. In May, when we changed from the agency plan to the direct loan plan by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation we announced that we were going to be residual lenders only. This is the position we are in today, and this is the position we intend to stay in for the rest of the year. Loans will be made to prospective home owners who are unable to obtain loans from the approved lenders. In other words, they have first to go to the approved lenders, either the banks, the insurance companies or mortgage companies, and if they are turned down by two, then they can go to C.M.H.C. and apply for a loan. That loan may not be granted. Of course, there are cases in which an applicant would not be entitled to a loan. But the corporation is in a residual position. During the months of September to December inclusive of last year we also allowed builders to get 25 direct loans. This was done in order to make additional employment during the winter months. The money will also be used for limited dividend corporations and possibly for loans to companies engaged in mining, lumbering, logging or fishing.
One reason why housing has been so good in 1958 has been because of the splendid co-operation given by the lending institutions, the banks, trust companies, insurance companies and mortgage companies. They have all loaned out large amounts of money. Without such loans it would have been impossible to achieve this record. Hon. members will be glad to learn that they intend to put out about the same amount in 1959. Every January the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation call on the senior men in all these institutions to find out what their plans are for the year. The plans as announced for 1959 indicate that money will be available in roughly the same amount as in 1958 so there should be another excellent year in 1959 in the housing field.


Maurice Bourget: Is that your forecast?


John Richard Garland: Mr. Chairman, is the minister prepared to make a forecast again this year?


Maurice Bourget: You are a good prophet.


Howard Charles Green: I am getting a little wiser every month, I hope. I should like to pass the buck to the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but hon. members will notice that he shakes his head.


Maurice Bourget: He is a good man.


Howard Charles Green: There is no doubt of that. That brings up one other thought I should like to express today. This tremendous program has meant a great deal of work for everyone associated with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation from the key men who are before me this afternoon right down to the employee last taken on. They have never before had anything like the amount of work they had last year. There has been practically no change in the number employed. I believe their public relations efforts have been excellent. I very seldom receive a complaint and, mind you, they are in contact with hundreds and thousands of people right across the country. At all times they have been dedicated to trying to help people solve housing problems. I am sure every hon. member will agree that it is not out of place for me to express thanks to the officials and all the employees of this crown corporation. They are doing a splendid job for Canada.
That is a very rough outline of the reasons for which we are asking the committee at this time to provide another $250 million.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question? I did not hear him distinctly but I thought I heard him say that there were no limited dividend projects for the province of Alberta. Did I hear him say that or did I hear him incorrectly?


Howard Charles Green: That is right, Mr. Chairman, but the officials now tell me they were wrong. There are some.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I just wanted the record corrected.


Howard Charles Green: That is one time when the officials slipped.


Maurice Bourget: They have very much work to do.


Howard Charles Green: We believe that housing is of great importance in Canada. I would be very glad to have the suggestions of hon. members of this committee. The officials of the corporation would be very pleased to have hon. members go out to visit the head office and find out for themselves what they wish to know about the work that is being done. Last year I believe there were committees of members from some parties studying housing. We do not pretend to have all
National Housing Act
the answers but this is a vital activity of government and we would appreciate any helpful suggestions.
I should now say a word or two about the other amendments which are proposed. They will be designed to make National Housing Act mortgages as attractive as possible to private investors. Some lenders whose powers of investment extend to securities guaranteed by the government of Canada have felt that N.H.A. insured loans did not fall into this category because the insurance fund guaranteed only 98 per cent and not 100 per cent of the face value of the mortgage. We believe that by eliminating the 2 per cent reduction-it is commonly called the "2 per cent bite", I believe, in the business-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.
Because of its extensive direct lending operations during the last 18 months Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is developing a substantial mortgage portfolio. Under one of the amendments these mortgages would be available for sale to investors who are willing to invest in the housing field but who are unable to make loans themselves. The amendment proposes to permit C.M.H.C. to sell these loans to such private investors. I believe the corporation can now sell these loans to an approved lender such as a bank or mortgage company but it cannot sell the mortgages to any company which is not an approved lender. Under the amendment it will be possible to do that because Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be given the power to administer these particular loans.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation may wish at times to buy more mortgages. Under the present law it can use only the $25 million for that purpose. We are taking out the restriction on the amount of money the corporation can spend in buying mortgages from approved lenders. There is also to be a change which will increase from $125 to $150 the amount allowed in calculating the payment to an approved lender who has made a claim on the insurance fund. The basic purpose of the insurance feature of the act is to protect the mortgagee against loss in such a case. Experience has shown that the legal cost generally exceeds the $120 previously allowed. This change would not, of course, affect the position of the liability of the borrower who has defaulted on his mortgage account.
It would not be in order for me to go into any further details of these amendments at this stage but my remarks will have given hon. members an outline of what is proposed

National Housing Act
by the legislation. Once again I should like to thank the hon. members for giving me the extra time required to make this explanation.


Erhart Regier: I wonder if the minister would answer a question at this time? Did I understand him to say that in the year 1958 Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had committed $388 million and private lenders had committed $520 million? I want to get this accurate. Does the minister have the comparable figures for the year 1957?


Howard Charles Green: In 1955 the approved lenders committed $639 million and the corporation committed $18 million. In 1957, approved lenders committed $278 million and the corporation committed $235 million. I also have the percentages: in 1955, approved lenders, 97.4 per cent; Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2.6 per cent; in 1957, approved lenders, 52.8 per cent; Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 47.2 per cent; 1958, approved lenders, 57.7 per cent; Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 42.3 per cent.


John Richard Garland: First of all, I should like to compliment the minister on the complete and comprehensive statement he has just given the committee and for that we are grateful. I may say that I think most hon. members regardless of where they sit in the house, would share with him in what he has said about the importance of house-building generally. I am very pleased to be able to say that the minister has shown a rather complete knowledge of his subject and we do appreciate the time that he has given us today. I am pleased to have the opportunity of paying this compliment to the minister because, as he may know, or at least I want him to know, he is one of my favourite ministers.
Another point I should like to make is that we appreciate the attitude the minister displayed in his statement to the committee and the absence to a great degree of political references and for that I wish to compliment him.
I should like to say that the Liberals have always-I think this applies, of course, to most parties-favoured more and better housing for our people. I do not think any of us has to take a back seat in that regard. So far as the Liberal party is concerned, we had a particularly proud record during the years we were in office.
I would like to congratulate the government upon its activities in the housing field in direct proportion to the degree to which those actions may have stimulated house construction and the economy in a period of economic slowdown.
There are a few questions that I had hoped we would have the answers to today. One of them, of course, the minister was kind enough to answer, namely how much money was available. I think he said it was something of the order of $72 million. That leads us to the next question. Will the funds that we are discussing today aid employment this winter? At the rate the money is being invested at the present time it seems hardly likely that the funds we are discussing today will have any appreciable effect on unemployment this winter.


Howard Charles Green: In this connection may I point out to the hon. member that it helps in this way. It gives the whole building industry and people generally the realization that it is the intention to maintain a steady supply of mortgage funds. This is a question of keeping the morale high. In that way it is of the utmost importance that the money be made available early in the session so that builders making plans and mortgage companies making theirs, and so on, will realize that this is to be another good year in housing, and therefore there will not be any holdup.


John Richard Garland: I appreciate the remarks the minister has made. The point I was trying to make was that there is a substantial amount of money available at the present time, so that the money we are discussing today, added to that fund, does not in that sense aid projects that might at this moment of time be held up. That is the only point I wanted to make.
There is a third matter with which some of us are concerned, namely precisely how much of the money we are discussing today will be put into low-priced houses and into low-rental houses? Precisely what will be the percentage?
The fourth point is, what plans, if any, does the government have to help counteract the greatest problem in the house-building industry, namely the ever-soaring cost of land? I would have liked to hear the minister say something on that point?
The fifth point I would like to make at this time is that we would have appreciated a forecast from the minister because, in spite of what he might say and the arguments he might advance, the substantial sums of money that we are discussing now that the government through its agency, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is putting into the construction industry mean that they are continuing to take over a larger part of the financing of house-building. A statement in that regard, as to the objective of the government, the number of starts that might be made in 1959, would be helpful.

Before going further, Mr. Chairman, I
should like to take the opportunity that this discussion affords me to offer my congratulations and those of the hon. members on this side of the house to those members of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation who have over these many years done such an excellent job.
At this time I should like to point out that the official opposition supports in the main the government's activities that have a beneficial effect on the number of housing units produced. However, having regard to the large number of starts in 1958, one cannot help wondering how much is due to the fact that the construction industry, in many fields, was depressed; second, that the many millions poured into housing by the government were obviously to bolster our sagging economy. However, I do not wish to minimize the results in any way and I will not pursue this point further at this time.
When we read the resolution before us it is evident that the government has three broad purposes in mind: first, to increase from $750 million to $1 billion the amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act; second, to remove the limitation on the amount that may be advanced to the corporation for the purposes of subsection 1 of section 11 of the said act; and, third, to provide for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
May I say at once that we in the official opposition will at this stage support the resolution which in effect gives the government leave to introduce the bill. We will support the government in all its activities in this important field that will, in our opinion, have the effect of making better housing available to our people. At the same time we will take advantage of the opportunities afforded in this debate to point out some of the danger signs that we see with respect to the situation generally and the government's activities in particular.
Speaking directly to the resolution, I should like to say a few words about part 1, the proposed increase from $750 million to $1 billion. Section 22 was first enacted as part of the National Housing Act in 1954. As originally enacted, section 22 established a limit of $250 million on the amount that might be paid to the corporation out of the consolidated revenue fund. This amount was increased from $250 million to $400 million in December, 1957.
At this point it might be of some interest if I were to refer to two conflicting statements made by the Minister of Finance on
National Housing Act
this subject. The first statement was made at Murray Bay in June, 1958, when he stated:
During 1957, however, the competition for loan funds became less competitive as the year progressed and more important, in August and again in September government funds in a total amount of $300 million were made available to augment loan funds supplied by insurance companies, banks and private lenders.
The second statement of the Minister of Finance to which I should like to refer was made at the Canadian Club early this year, on January 5, I believe. At that time he said, dealing with the same period of time:
In the second half of 1957 the competition for loan funds from other investment outlets became less intense, and over half a billion dollars of government funds were made available to augment housing loans supplied by the private lenders.
An examination of the facts would indicate that in August, 1957-I think the minister confirmed this again today-about $100 million of the $250 million provided for under section 22 of the National Housing Act had been used and the amount was increased by way of an amendment passed in December, 1957. The amount provided for under section 22 was increased from $250 million to $400 million, so that the first statement by the Minister of Finance that $300 million were made available is correct but not the statement made at the Canadian Club. A further increase from $400 million to $750 million was made early in 1958 and the proposed increase now brings the limit to $1 billion.
Section 22 gives the minister the authority, with the approval of the governor in council, out of the consolidated revenue fund, to (a) advance moneys to the corporation for the purpose of making loans under part 2 of the act, which deals with housing for rental purposes and land assembly, and under section 40, which enables the corporation to lend where loans are not available; (b) to reimburse the corporation for loss sustained in respect of loans made under part 2 of the act, that is, houses for rental purposes and land assembly; (c) to advance moneys, to the corporation, not in excess of $25 million, for the purposes of subsection 1 of section 11, which enables the corporation, either out of its reserve fund or out of moneys appropriated by section 22, to purchase all right or interest of a holder of an insured loan, and to make loans to a private lender on the security of an assignment or an agreement to assign an insured loan. Up to the present time the amendments which have been adopted have related only to the increase in the amount that may be made available to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and not to the purpose for which this amount may be used.

National Housing Act
Without in any way minimizing any action that the government may have taken with respect to housing I think it is only fair to point out that in the past year the government has borrowed very substantial sums and that it is obvious that some of this money was provided by investors who might otherwise have used the funds in question for mortgage investment. In a review of Canadian housing statistics, third quarter, 1958, it is stated that the lending institutions in the first nine months of 1958 approved mortgage loans of all kinds amounting to nearly $900 million, more than in any corresponding period of any previous year. I think it is only reasonable to suggest that they might have lent substantially more if they had not been asked to subscribe to the government's bonds, which increased the national debt. Quite obviously, to the extent that the government has borrowed money from institutions which might themselves have used it for mortgage loans, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and through it the government have taken over the function which might have been fulfilled to a larger degree by private and institutional lenders themselves.
Up to the end of the third quarter of 1958 Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had approved mortgages amounting to nearly $700 million so that it was left with this relatively small fund to which the minister referred as being approximately $72 million. Consequently, we believe that we cannot object to increasing the amount at its disposal from $750 million to $1 billion as the corporation should be in a position to speed up or slow down its lending activities, having regard at all times to economic conditions and the desirability of encouraging further new residential construction.
There are two aspects of the problem to which I think it is appropriate that some consideration be given and upon which some comment might be made during this discussion. First, whatever amounts are lent by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in excess of repayments received on loans already made by it represent additional new money which must be raised by the government. In other words, the government's cash requirements will be increased by the amount of any new money which is advanced to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
As a member of the opposition I am in no position, at least at this stage of the session, to know what the over-all cash requirements of the government will be for 1959-60. However, I think it is correct to say that the experience of the government since the beginning of the current fiscal year in raising new money is such that it ought to be particularly

conscious of the dangers inherent in increasing its cash requirements at this time. As we know, since last May the government has borrowed very substantial sums but only a small part of its requirements has been represented by long term loans subscribed to and paid for out of savings.
The government may attempt to point to the success of the last savings bond campaign but this is hardly the type of money that should be borrowed for mortgage financing. Canada savings bonds are demand obligations and not long term bonds. I believe I am correct in saying that of all the large quantity of bonds sold in 1958 only $350 million represent long term bonds. There is a very direct link between the amounts advanced to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for mortgage investment and the cash requirements of the government.
The second aspect in connection with any governmental mortgage program is that the government itself may not be as sensitive to the need or demand for new housing as individual lenders may be. The individual lenders are risking their own money and they have to be right. They cannot afford to be making loans on houses that are not going to sell. I make this comment only to point out that the government's view with regard to mortgage lending may be influenced by purely economic factors, that is, the desirability to keep the industry in high gear in order to provide employment. It should be pointed out that inasmuch as the government itself is a lender, losses resulting from overexpansion of the supply of a certain class of houses will fall not upon the shoulders of the government itself but upon the shoulders of those who build them or buy them.
In other words, there are two important factors to be considered. The first is the desirability of providing employment, and the second is the advisability or inadvisability of constructing a further supply of houses within any given period. The choice of appropriate policies, and the turning on or turning off of lending operations are responsibilities that must rest with the government itself.
During the past six years very substantial progress has been made, and I think it is only fair to say thanks to aggressive Liberal policies, including the adoption of the National Housing Act, 1954, and the introduction of the chartered banks into the mortgage lending field. In that period during which the Liberals were in office very substantial progress was made. I know the Conservative government will be quick to interject that more spectacular progress was made in

1958. However, I would remind the Conservative government that what was accomplished under the Liberal administration was done at a time of intense activity in the field of non-residential construction, when expansion of our natural and manufacturing resources was in most cases overtaxing our productive capacity.
I think it is only fair to say that what was done by the Conservatives in 1958 was done at a time when industrial activity had slackened off. During the six-year period from 1953 to 1958 inclusive net family formations amounted to 513,200, while 724,700 dwelling units were built. The estimated figures for 1958 show approximately 70,000 more homes were built than new families formed. This is a condition which clearly requires careful attention. I think that it must be obvious that conditions in one urban area will not necessarily correspond with those in other areas. I would suggest, for that reason, that mortgage lending activities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation must be carefully watched. I would point out that this is a government responsibility and, as I see it, the responsibility of the opposition should surely not go beyond indicating at this stage the dangers that may be encountered.
The second phase of the resolution calls for the removal of the limitation on the amount that may be advanced to the corporation for the purposes of subsection 1 of section 11 of the act. It is not my intention to deal with this aspect of the proposed legislation at the resolution stage. At the moment, I can see no objection to giving Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation more resources so that it can be more active in buying and selling insured loans, although I think that perhaps we might reasonably question the desirability of such operations being carried out at the present time. I do not think this is a time when the government should be borrowing from investors, or worse still from the Bank of Canada, in order to acquire the mortgage investments of private lenders. However, lest there be any misunderstanding, I hasten to say that we welcome any legislation that would have the effect of making mortgage investments more negotiable. I would say that this is part of Liberal policy. I would refer to page 31 of the "Statement of Liberal Policy, 1958", where we stated that we stood for measures to make it easier for people to own their own homes, and one of the points emphasized reads as follows, "by further increasing the supply of mortgage money".
All of us realize that one of the greatest difficulties in the house-building industry can
National Housing Act
be the lack of a steady flow of mortgage funds which permit longer term planning and a more or less continuous flow of construction. This continuity of construction can mean reductions in builders' overhead and, as a result, would have the effect of lowering the cost to the house-buying public. There are many aspects of housing that I should like to discuss, but there will be other opportunities as this proposed legislation progresses through the house.
I would, perhaps, remind the government of the charges being made in some quarters that the National Housing Act money is being squandered on high priced homes which are a glut on the market. The minister referred to those charges today. Charges are continually popping up in our newspapers that luxury homes are being built with money supplied by the taxpayers. Such charges were made quite recently when the government announced that another $250 million was to be provided.
I mention this only to bring me to my next point. I am sure the government is well aware of the fact that there is an ever increasing need for low priced homes. The Canadian housing statistics report, third quarter, 1958, states on page 16 that the average borrower's income was well over $5,000 in the case of small home loans and nearly $6,000 in the category of other loans. It must be recognized, as I mentioned in this house on an earlier occasion, that the facilities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in spite of the good work it has done, are not meeting the needs of approximately 50 per cent of our people for housing. I am referring now to the 50 per cent of our people on the lower side of the income scale. I had hoped that the government would say more today concerning plans for filling this great need for housing for those people whose income is less than $4,000 per year. After all, the average weekly earnings in Canada today are approximately $70 per week. What greater proof is required to establish the fact that our housing program, despite the large number of starts that have been made over the years, today is not adequately meeting our requirements in the low priced field.
Personally, I would have liked to have seen a substantial portion of this $250 million referred to in the resolution earmarked specifically for low priced homes. I think, too, many Canadians will be disappointed to learn that the government does not propose any lowering of the interest rate on low rental housing projects. Here again is an opportunity to do something constructive toward meeting the need for housing among our lower income groups.

National Housing Act
I should like at this point to refer very briefly to a newspaper article that appeared in today's Montreal Gazette, having to do with a low cost housing project proposed for Cuba. I am not going to delay the house by reading the article, but the meat of the story is that a group of Montreal businessmen propose to invest something of the order of $80 million to $100 million in Cuba in low cost homes. Surely there must be something wrong when in view of the great need that exists today in this country for low cost housing that money is not being put to work in this country. Other members on this side will be dealing with other aspects of the proposed legislation. I will close by saying that we will support the resolution, and do everything possible within the limits of our responsibilities as an opposition, to facilitate its early passage through the house.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: The item before the house at the moment, Mr. Chairman, is certainly one of considerable importance and weight. I think this has been demonstrated by the fact that both the Liberal and C.C.F. parties put up for their first speakers the weightiest men they have in their groups. I should like to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Nipissing in expressing my personal respect and the respect of this group of the minister for the job he has done in the past in the housing field. This is one branch of government activity that has certainly shown a marked improvement in the last year. This improvement has provided benefits in other fields as well, such as the field of employment, the supplementary industries and that sort of thing.
I believe the minister was being a bit modest when he gave credit for this improvement to the government. I feel that quite possibly the minister could take more credit, because had the credit been due to the government I am sure other branches would have shown a similar increase. Unfortunately, they have not done so. I believe, therefore, the minister could claim more credit than he appeared to wish to take at this time.
In spite of the progress and the good things we have heard about the minister and his department in this field, it is the job of the opposition to point out the weaknesses. That is what I intend to do this afternoon. The minister has outlined very well the benefits accruing from this particular project and I think that my duty should be to point out some of its faults and weaknesses. I think that the No. 1 fault with this program is that it does not look far enough ahead. I know that "planning" is a bad word to use in this House of Commons. However, I think it is a good one. When the government have talked so much to the Canadian people in the last

year about this long range planning for this northern vision, I think they should realize that in this field of housing there should be some long range planning as well or else we shall find that the housing situation, as it develops as the years go by, with the problems that we meet with now and will meet at an increased rate in the future, will certainly not fit into that vision that has been painted for the Canadian people.
I also believe that another fault which, if it is not equally important in connection with this program is certainly extremely important is the fact that it is a National Housing Act. However, unfortunately, at some place along the line we seem to have lost sight of the goal and we find that the secondary aspects of this program appear to be coming first in order instead of the way they should be. To back this up I should like to refer you, Mr. Chairman, to the words of the minister uttered just a few moments ago when he said that the prime purpose of this program was to help create employment. It is true that employment is extremely important and that it is badly needed at this time. However, the fact still remains that this is a housing act, not an employment act. I think possibly that has been one of the things wrong with this act which has prevented it from being as great a boon to the Canadian people as it could possibly be. In fact, it appears that to a great many people of this country employment and business interests come ahead of the actual goal of housing itself which certainly should be the goal under this act. This tendency is pointed out in the report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, "Housing and Social Capital", at page two. I should like to read from this report in order to point out this particular point. I read from the bottom paragraph as follows:
Thus, when people want money spent on social capital, they will as often as not attempt to justify the outlay on the grounds of usefulness to industry. University spokesmen, for example, may suggest that a timely industrial donation now will yield good dividends of scientists, engineers and executives in the future.
Then on the next page it goes on to say this:
Indeed, one might argue that it is the industrial component of capital which is ancillary to the social, rather than the other way round. Industry and industrial organization are, after all, primarily a means to an end. But social capital and its associated institutions are both this and more. They relate, in part, to what is meant by civilization in the highest sense: they are worth having in themselves; they justify industry even as they facilitate it.
I think that is one thing that we are possibly losing sight of. I think it is certainly a thing to which we should give more thought. I

think the government should take this matter into consideration and should realize that, after all, this act is basically meant to provide housing for the Canadian people who need it and not necessarily merely to provide industry with a shot in the arm or to relieve unemployment when it reaches alarming proportions.
The realization of this need of planning, this need of long range thinking on this matter, is not something that is confined necessarily to this group. As far back as 1956 we find that the former minister of public works, namely Hon. Robert H. Winters, as reported at page 3301 of Hansard of April 26, 1956; had this to say:
The growth of cities has placed new demands upon the hearts of urban areas, with increasing traffic, growing commerce and a changed pattern of living. But during the last 10 years the prior need to build new suburbs did not permit any concerted action to conserve and replace the existing stock of the nation's housing.
Even then, the former minister realized that there was some definite need of some long range planning and study in connection with the problem of housing in our country. But unfortunately, to recognize something and to do something about it are not necessarily always one and the same thing. The past government and, unfortunately, this government on some occasions have come out and recognized problems but have not proceeded to do much about them. In order to give some further proof that planning is needed I should like to refer again to this report of the royal commission at page 31 where we find the following:
Thus, according to the forecast, the 1980 population of Canada would be 79 per cent urban, compared with 62 per cent in 1951. Montreal and Toronto might have populations of between 2.5 million and 3 million each, and Vancouver might have attained something between 1 million and 1.5 million.
This is where these problems are really going to crop up. We have seen them in the past; we are seeing them today and we are going to see them in the future with increasing frequency unless some far-reaching view is taken of this matter. All that a steady, progressive increase in the money for housing is going to do is to create crisis after crisis in our cities throughout this country as our population swings more and more from rural areas to urban areas. Unless some thought is given to planning for this change we are going to find ourselves in trouble in city after city across the country. This point is clearly brought out in this report of the royal commission to which I have made reference. I should like to quote from the remarks of Mr. Anthony Adamson, as found at page 40 of this report. He says this:
National Housing Act
Now we who live in the suburbs are, in the Canadian ethos, the cream of the crop. We are the worthwhile people. We are the solid Canadian way. In other words, we believe in home-ownership and the single-family detached house. To own a singlefamily detached house with $11,000 on a N.H.A. mortgage requires an income of $3,986 a year. The income of the average worker in a factory is $3,104 a year.
I might say, that he is here referring specifically to the Toronto area. The quotation continues:
So the average worker can't very well be a home-owner and the cream of the crop. He has to live in an old house or part of an old house on Ossington and drive out of Toronto to a factory in Etobicoke to go to work, while a decent homeowner in Etobicoke has to drive in to an office in Toronto to go to work. This sport is called "Rush Hour'' and it gives more people cardio-vascular-renal disease than fluoridation. It is also played on strips of concrete which cost a million dollars a mile to construct.
That points out, Mr. Chairman, some of the problems with which we are continually going to be faced unless some thought is given to this aspect of the policy. The principle is that housing is to help industry rather than industry helping housing. It means that we are using the goal to the road instead of the road to the goal.
Another aspect of this item which I think should receive some criticism is the fact that it creates inequalities for the people of this country. The hon. member for Nipissing dealt with that briefly. It was also shown in the last item I quoted from this report that by far the greatest majority of the working people of this country cannot qualify to make use of this National Housing Act in its past and present terms.
I will grant that the government did in the last session take one little step in the right direction when they introduced the minimum house, but again we had inequalities. For example, in the part of the country which I come from the standards of this minimum house do not meet with the local standards required by the municipalities. In an area of extreme weather temperatures you cannot get away with a house as outlined in this particular phase of the act. In fact we find, in some estimates which I have seen that close to 90 per cent of working people of this country cannot qualify under this particular act, and that only the top 10 per cent of the income bracket can take full advantage of it. As a result, as the hon. minister has pointed out today, reports have come to light that there is alarm in certain quarters that there is going to be a glut on the market with regard to this particular 10 per cent of the income bracket of the people of this country.
I have here a copy of the Montreal Gazette for Wednesday, January 28, and I would like

National Housing Act
to read one paragraph from an article by Mr. John Meyer, the financial editor. He states that:
Towards the end of the year, the number of houses purchased began to decline. A definite surplus was apparent at the year end.
Now as far as that particular item is concerned, I am sure the hon. minister is more familiar with it than I am myself. I merely want to point out that there is a feeling in certain quarters across this country that this particular group who have been able to take full advantage of this act in the past is approaching the position of having a glut on the market, which is all the more reason why the government should look for ways and means to make the housing act available to the lower income bracket people who need accommodation.
Then we also have another aspect of this act which I think leads to inequalities, that is, inequalities as far as participation by various provinces in this country is concerned. To illustrate that I have here a copy of the 12th annual report of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and on page 39 of this report there is a table showing housing units under this act which have been completed by the provinces in 1957. These are, apparently the latest figures which they have to date. I will not read the whole table, but I would like to refer to two particular provinces, the province of Ontario and the province of Newfoundland. We find that in Ontario in that year the housing units started under the act amounted to 25,450; other than under the act, 22,289. This means that in the province of Ontario there were more housing units started under the act than with money provided from other sources. For that same year, in the province of Newfoundland there were only 239 housing units started under the act, while from other sources there was a total of 906. There is a variation in other provinces across the country, and I think there is a very good reason why this is so. I think it can be easily found by a comparison of the wage rates in various provinces across this country. It is borne out in the "Canadian Statistical Review for 1958", where we find that the average wage rate in Ontario is $73.40, while down in the maritimes, for example in the province of Nova Scotia, it is $58.65.
I think that points out very clearly that the act, as presently constituted, is not fair and equal to all Canadians across the country, and I think that before it can be so some further thought, study and action is required in regard to this act before it becomes equally applicable and of equal benefit to all Canadians.

Now there is another aspect, Mr. Chairman, which I think needs some attention. I suggest there has been far too much in the past, particularly in the field of low rental houses, of old-fashioned buck passing between provinces, municipalities and the federal government. One would help the other if the other helped him, and if the other helped him, and so on. It goes round in a merry circle and finally ends up in the lap of the municipalities, and unfortunately most of the municipalities are not in a position to do anything about it. I think the federal government should take a little more lead in this particular field in trying to look after this aspect of the housing problem.
There was another point mentioned by the hon. member for Nipissing and that was the complete lack of, I might even say, recognition of the high cost of land for housing. There was no hint on the part of the government, or in the minister's presentation, that the government was taking any notice whatsoever of land profiteering, the dreadfully high cost of real estate which in many areas is hamstringing, or badly crippling, our housing program and our housing needs. I believe that this is something which is of vital importance. I suggest that the federal government, who of course have to draw their money from the people of Canada, should be particularly careful that grasping and unscrupulous individuals across the country do not take advantage of any projects on which they embark. The federal government has a duty cast upon them to do everything in their power to ensure that the maximum benefit to the maximum number of people is gained from projects such as this.
Now, Mr. Chairman, other members in this group will be dealing with the other particular aspects of this item. There is one more point I should like to make before I conclude my remarks. This again ties in with what I said first about the need of taking a long range view with regard to housing needs and problems in Canada. It relates also to the conservation program which apparently is being pursued with such vigour by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in the north country.
I believe the time has come when we must pay some attention to conservation in the southern regions of Canada as well and I refer particularly to choice gardens and fruit lands in the southern part of our nation which year by year are being eaten away by industrial expansion and by housing and other developments. There are many areas

in this country which cannot produce the fruit and vegetables which will some day be required by our increased population as envisaged and referred to so often by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and it behooves us to take steps to protect the land that is suitable for the purpose of growing fruit and vegetables. It is distressing to see areas like the Niagara peninsula which is a veritable garden being used purely for industrial purposes. Unless some action is taken all the desirable fruit and vegetable growing areas of Canada will be the site of industrial expansion when there are other sections of the country not suitable for growing things where the industries could be located. The great vision of Canada with a population of between 50 and 100 million in the future will never be realized unless some care and planning is undertaken to ensure that we will be able to take advantage of the resources of our country.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, before I make a few observations on this resolution I should like to join with others who have spoken before me in paying tribute not only to the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation who are present with us today but also to their staffs across the country. I have had some dealings with the employees of C.M.H.C. and I have found them to be dedicated people who are doing a tremendous job for the good of this country. Last year it was my privilege to serve on a housing committee. We visited the headquarters of the corporation and were shown their activities. We were given every assistance in understanding their problems. I can assure this committee that the government is indeed fortunate in having people of the calibre it has handling the affairs of C.M.H.C.
I was very much interested in certain figures the minister gave us particularly as they applied to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Nipissing. It appears that in 1955 C.M.H.C. mortgages represented 2.6 per cent of total mortgage monies loaned and in 1958 it increased to 42.3 per cent. The minister told us the total housing starts in 1958 were 164,642. According to my figures this represents an increase of 18 per cent over the previous record year of 1955. It is interesting to compare these figures with comparable figures for the United States. Housing starts there were down 13 per cent in 1958 from 1955.
As I understood his remarks the hon. member for Nipissing attempted to say it is all very well for the government to provide mortgage funds but the greater portion of
National Housing Act
these would have been available from private sources in any event but I believe these figures indicate this is not the case. It has only been the action of this government that has enabled the housing program to contribute to our economy in the way it has.
I recall attending the national home builders convention in Toronto in 1957 which was addressed by the Minister of Public Works. At that time he set a target of 140,000 housing starts for 1958. The projected number of starts for 1958 was 90,000. The builders who were assembled and who had come from one end of Canada to the other, out of deference to the minister, did not state their views as bluntly as perhaps they might have done but the general consensus was, "well, this is impossible." But, as the minister has informed us the actual figure for 1958 was over 164,000 housing starts.
The employment this program has provided in Canada cannot be too strongly emphasized. The construction, supply of materials, and furnishings represented by this program in terms of dollar value has the greatest labour content of any activity one could imagine and not only does it have the greatest labour content per dollar expended but it represents the greatest Canadian content. From every point of view, therefore, the house-building program has been an aid and impetus to the economy of the country not only in terms of providing on-site work in some thousands of municipalities across the country but also in terms of providing a backlog of orders for manufacturing centres in the industrial heart of Canada.
In view of this I can readily sympathize with the opposition in its attempt to find some weakness to attack with a view to offering constructive criticism. As far as I can ascertain hon. members of the opposition are trying to do something that is practically impossible. I suggest that they give whole-hearted support to this measure and have very little more to say so that it may be put through and we may get on to something else where the ground may be somewhat more fruitful for them.
I am indeed pleased that amendments are being introduced to permit an expansion of the activities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation particularly in the mortgage field. They will now be able to buy and sell mortgages. The next step might be to enter the mortgage bond field. They could have a ready market across the country as is the case in the United Kingdom. The present amendments represent a long step forward and should relieve the corporation of some of the difficulties it has encountered in securing sufficient monies from various sources in the country.

National Housing Act
The same type of thinking, of course, was behind the amendment which raises the insurance value from 98 to 100 per cent. However, I am particularly interested in the limited dividend type of housing as handled by the corporation. Total monies spent to date in that field were $117 million of which $52 million have been expended since January 1, 1958, comprising some 7,000 rental units. This was an increase from 4,100 rental units in 1957. As far as I can determine there was little activity in this field prior to the last two years. In my opinion this is a field which should invite development and expansion. I believe the corporation will have extra revenue because of its increased activities. It may well be that the corporation could establish a promotional or developmental section of the organization which could advise service clubs, church groups and others how they could participate in the limited dividend type of housing.
There is a growing need for this type of accommodation. In addition to projects for old age pensioners there is a severe need for housing for low income groups which must be partially subsidized in order to have reasonable housing. This is the field in which there is much yet to be done. I give the corporation full credit for the rather fantastic increase in the number of units which have been completed in the last few years; but I do suggest that it is in this area that a great deal more might be done by pushing the people who can do it. I know that the corporation cannot initiate it. All I am saying is that the corporation can help other people to initiate it.
I was rather struck by the fact that the great proportion of money spent in this field has been spent in the central provinces, where perhaps greater activity has taken place and where they may be closer to a certain amount of persuasion from the head office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Timmins say that the corporation's standards did not meet local building standards. Certain complaints have come to me from builders to the effect that the corporation's standards are too high. This is the first time I have ever had any indication that the corporation's standards were lower than other standards in the country. Frankly, I can hardly credit it. I think there must be some misconception in this regard. The hon. member for Timmins might check up on this point.
I do not want to take up very much time, Mr. Chairman, but I do wish to say how much I appreciate the operations of the corporation, and I am grateful for the way in which the government has stood behind the

corporation and provided the money for this tremendously expanded and increased housing program. It has meant much to the country and it has meant more particularly to my province of British Columbia. I know mill after mill which is totally dependent upon the housing industry, and I am quite sure there are many factories in Ontario making all sorts of equipment used in houses which are also pretty well 100 per cent dependent on this industry. I say that the government has shown great foresight and has planned very well. It is pleasing to know that the money will be spent as advantageously as possible to provide the greatest amount of employment to the end that Canadians will have decent living standards.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, we welcome this legislation as a continuation of a policy which has kept the house-building industry at a very high level, and which has undoubtedly created a great deal of additional employment in many parts of the country at a time when the economy was not as full as it had been previously.
I was glad to hear the minister say today that the policy had been a small home loan policy, because on previous occasions I have heard it referred to as a low-cost loan policy. I think he is correct today when he refers to it as a small home loan policy.
The minister has asked for suggestions and I know that any suggestions that are made will be considered by him. I think the limitation of 1,050 square feet, with which I do not quarrel because they have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere, is too low in some instances. As the minister knows-if he does not know his officials can tell him-the 1,050 square feet in a bungalow may cost $10.50 a square foot to build, whereas the next 100 square feet might cost only $5 per foot to build, and it is the next 100 square feet which is in fact the low-cost part of the house. Therefore, in some areas at least this arbitrary limitation is not working to the benefit of prospective house purchasers. For instance, in Toronto, at the price of lots at the present time, I do not think it is right to put a house as small as 1,050 square feet on a lot as expensive as the ones within the metropolitan area.
The minister indicated that one of the main objectives was maintaining high employment and I think that that objective has been met very well. However, I think caution is necessary, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the possible effects of trying to build too many houses too quickly. I know the minister did not intend it to be so, but this money was, in fact, to many people in our area at least manna from heaven for the speculators.

If we go back to 1956 we find that the price of raw land had dropped about 25 per cent in that area. The price held more or less steady in the following year, 1957, but last year, after the government made its announcement that large sums of money would be made available, the price of raw land in the metropolitan area and in the outskirts of Toronto increased at least 25 per cent in one year. It might also interest the minister to know that last summer the industry was beyond its physical capacity. We had a definite demonstration of that when for a considerable length of time it was impossible to get sufficient plastering crews to complete houses on schedule. The result was that the cost of plastering small houses increased about 20 per cent in a matter of two weeks and for the first time since 1950 crews came on the job or wanted to come on the job, consisting of one plasterer and seven helpers, with a consequent down-grading in quality. Schedules were thrown out and it was not until some months after that the situation again came into equilibrium, when there were sufficient skilled tradesmen available to do the job that had to be done.
In addition, in the city of Toronto last year the price of lots increased by 25 per cent in one year. This is a round figure, but I am sure it is pretty close to the average. Lots in Scarborough, which were selling for $3,800 to $4,000 at the beginning of last year, were selling at the end of the year for $5,000 or $5,200. I noticed in last week's paper a suggestion of a number of the present Scarborough council members that the price this year will be of the order of $5,500. What has happened is that the total cost of small houses in Toronto has gone up by about 10 per cent in the last 12 months. The caution which is needed is that if this continues, or if this is a trend, the objective which the government has in mind will not be accomplished.
I asked for some figures to be sent down in respect to the persons who purchased our houses last year and as an exercise I worked out what would happen if the price of houses and the amount of the mortgage were increased by 10 per cent. The effect would be to reduce the market by 36 per cent and that is really quite a substantial reduction. If that is the trend and if higher prices reduce the total market and the number of qualified purchasers, then ultimately it will result in fewer houses being purchased and less employment, which is the opposite effect to that which the government hopes to achieve.
Undoubtedly part of the problem in the Toronto area at least is not directly attributable to the actions of the government but involves something in which they are very much
National Housing Act
interested. I refer to the relationships between the government and the municipalities. If the government would like to reverse the present trend, and I know they would, I think they could be of considerable assistance by making loans available to the municipalities for the installation of trunk facilities such as trunk sewers and water mains, sewage disposal plants, water filtration plants and so on. I believe this was talked about as part of the government's platform last year and it is an area in which they could be of very great assistance to the house building industry.
If the government would make assistance available on a widespread basis the municipalities would be able to permit the servicing of a great many additional areas of land and the prices of lots would come down because they reflect the law of supply and demand very closely. I am sure that if additional lots were available and the price came down, as I am convinced it would, the market for housing would increase and the government would then be able to accomplish what it has in mind. I am sure they would find no difficulty in working out arrangements with the municipalities to effect such a program, and I hope the government will take that into consideration at a very early date.
Another question which was raised by the hon. member for Nipissing is where the government is going to get the money for its additional program. As the minister said, and I quote him, "Personally I cannot think of a better way for a government to spend its money." I know that the minister realizes that the government has no money of its own but must get it from somewhere, and if it gets it from the banks or other lending institutions which otherwise might invest it in insured housing loans then the total supply of housing is not increased. If, on the other hand, it gets the money from the banking system, through the mechanics of the Bank of Canada, then it is in competition with other government cash requirements. This is something about which the government will certainly have to be somewhat cautious.
With reference to the limited dividend section of the housing act, I think we are all pleased that greater use of this facility is taking place at the present time. I am one who has always thought that the section should be used much more widely than it was and I am very pleased that such now seems to be the case. I sometimes wonder how Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in making its evaluations now gets around its own regulations but undoubtedly it has devised some workable system. I will only say that I would be happier if they would change the regulations so that the invested

National Housing Act
equity of the entrepreneur would be reduced to 5 per cent in order that valuations could be strict and would not have to take into account enhanced land values.
I think the government deserves full marks for its efforts in the housing field but I believe greater discussion should take place on the possibility of getting costs down. In my opinion this is most important. I do not like to seem old-fashioned in worrying about costs but I think the future of the industry and the need to make better housing available for all Canadians require that we give this aspect of the problem greater consideration and more thought. Finally, I think allowances have to be made for a "Green" administration. However, now that the government has been in office 18 months and there are no elections in the immediate offing we expect that this program will continue with greater finesse.


Frank Charles McGee: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the passing of the resolution but I should like to add my words to those of the hon. member for Vancouver South concerning the minister and the officials and staff of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I thought that both the hon. member for Vancouver South and the minister were extremely modest in their remarks. To deal first with the hon. member for Vancouver South, I think that his efforts in providing the stimulus for a housing committee and his energetic activity in promoting interest among members of the house and spreading the word about limited dividend housing should be mentioned so that they will go on the record of the house.
As far as the minister is concerned, his estimate of the number of jobs created by 164,642 houses is at least 100,000 less than the most conservative estimate I have been able to obtain from government sources or from the industry. He referred to 200,000 on-site and 200,000 off-site jobs. The rock bottom figure I have been able to obtain, on the basis of calculation by people in that field, is 500,000. My imagination and ability to project were staggered when the minister mentioned the figure of $1,700 to $2,000 as the cost of services and equipment accompanying the erection of each housing unit. I did some very fast arithmetic and came up with the figure of $329 million. I boggle at the task of having to estimate how many jobs are created in the process of manufacturing the goods to meet this demand.
I was also most pleased, in fact, delighted to note the increase to 7,000 units under the limited dividend section of the act. I should like to think that the amount of housing

activity in my riding during the last year was due perhaps in part at least to the minister's good will toward me, but while he may feel that way I am afraid the real explanation is that virtually the only open land east of Yonge street available for housing in the metropolitan Toronto area is in my riding, and entrepreneurs such as the hon. member for Trinity are very active in that regard.
I should like to refer briefly to the land assembly aspect of housing and to encourage the government to increase its activities in co-operation with the province in this area with a view perhaps to bringing about a reduction in the cost of land, serviced or otherwise, as mentioned by the hon. member for Trinity. I should like to make a specific recommendation to the minister on the matter of land assembly. When in co-operation with the province certain land is assembled and designated for low cost or low rental housing I would recommend that such land be marked by signs clearly visible from the perimeter of the area so that it will be impossible for developers, promoters and sellers of houses in the immediate area surrounding such land to avoid telling purchasers of homes for what purpose the adjacent land is designated.
There have been cases in my riding where, from talking to the occupants of certain homes adjacent to limited dividend or land assembly schemes, it would seem that statements by real estate salesmen have indicated that the land was going to be a park or a green belt or something which would add tremendously to the value of their homes. I repeat that I should like to see action taken to have signs erected, clearly visible from the adjacent areas, indicating the purpose for which it is intended to use the land. Any purchaser of a house will not object to certain situations developing in the neighbourhood so long as he is aware that they will develop in connection with the land adjacent to his home when he purchases his home.
Another problem which I am afraid is beyond the scope of this house or this government relates to the social conscience of those who live in areas adjacent to low cost or low rental land assembly areas. I think it is fair to say that when the provincial and federal governments assemble land on the perimeter of our urban areas the development of that land must await the movement of services out beyond the developed land in the immediate area. I would urge the individuals already occupying or who are going to occupy those areas as a result of government action to endorse and approve the establishment of further low cost units

or senior citizens' units. Unhappily, in this city and the city of Toronto and in other metropolitan areas the actions of ratepayers and others in this regard have been something less than the best demonstration of social conscience.
I should like to refer very briefly before I resume my seat to the remarks of the hon. member for Timmins. He deplored the fact that individuals in the lower income group were not being effectively assisted by this legislation. I did some more fast arithmetic on the basis of the figures the minister gave us and found that over 80 per cent of the loans made went to the group with $5,999 and under annual income and that 56.1 per cent went to the group with $4,999 and under annual income. The hon. member for Trinity if I heard him correctly, made perhaps the most preposterous criticism to come from the other side of this house in this session. If I understood his comments, he was suggesting it was the fault of this government's program because too many jobs had been created in the housing industry. If that is the type of complaint we can expect from an hon. member with long experience in the housing field I think it is fair to say that this government has done a truly remarkable job.


Mr. Badanai:: I wish, first of all, to join with those who preceded me in extending congratulations to the Minister of Public Works for promoting this house-building program. I wish to give the government credit for the introduction of this resolution, the effect of which would be to enable Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to invest an additional $250 million to provide an expanded housing program which is sorely needed in Canada today. This agency, which was first established by the former Liberal government, has a creditable record in the construction of rental housing.
I think we can all agree, in fact every speaker who preceded me has agreed, upon the need for housing today. Housing remains the basic need of communities, especially a community such as Fort William. In the growing and vigorous towns and cities it is almost impossible to find a house for rent, especially if the applicant has a large family. I am a firm believer in a policy of making money available at the lower rate of interest for the construction of homes.
During the throne speech debate in the last session of parliament I had this to say with regard to housing and I believe it is still applicable. I am quoting from page 351 of Hansard for May 22, 1958:
With respect to housing, the speech contained the promise of a vigorous program of house-building.
National Housing Act
However, the legislation adopted in the house last week did not go far enough. My own view is that the government should subsidize interest rates on mortgage loans for houses costing less than $12,000. Anybody who is able to afford a new house costing over $12,000 should be able to meet the going market interest rate. Houses, including site costs, under $12,000 are today in the low cost category and a subsidy of say two per cent would bring the effective rate of interest to about four per cent.
One of the crying needs of the moment is houses for rent. In our municipality we have taken advantage of the former government's housing scheme introduced in 1950 or 1951, and I was pleased to see that the present government is carrying on with the same formula of 75 per cent federal investment and 25 per cent split between the province and the municipality. The only trouble is that the scheme, while good, should provide for an increase in the federal government's share of the cost of acquiring and clearing substandard areas for low rental housing projects.
I am still in favour of that proposal that a lower interest rate should be made available for housing projects for low income groups.
There is another thing I want to bring to the attention of this house, and which I think is very important. I would urge that an investigation be made of the financial capabilities of the people now occupying homes erected under the National Housing Act, to make sure that people who are renting these subsidized homes are not people who can afford to provide their own accommodation. I have reason to believe that there are many who are now in homes subsidized by the three levels of government whose income does not qualify them for consideration for this type of housing, while others with low income and probably with large families cannot find accommodation of any kind. I know of families living in garages, summer cottages, attics and basements, while some with incomes between $4,000 and $6,000 a year are occupying houses which were built to accommodate those who cannot afford to buy or to rent from private enterprise.
The latter constitutes the largest group for which our government should direct Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to build houses, because in spite of the increased housing construction during the past year- for which I wish to compliment the government-a backlog of unfilled housing need still remains. All you have to do is to add up all the marriages taking place in communities. In our community of Fort William there is an average of approximately 600 marriages a year. We never had more than 400 houses built in the best of construction years. There you have the situation. We are not providing sufficient accommodation, irrespective of whatever may be said to the contrary by some people who may find themselves in communities where the housing

National Housing Act
situation may be better. I am speaking for my own community and communities with which I-am familiar.
I should also like to point out that loans for housing purposes should be made available to small communities such as those in my own riding like Kakabeka Falls, Murillo, Hymers, Nolalu and others, with a population of a few hundred and which, to my knowledge, have been unable to get any loan from any quarter. In other words, they have been ignored. There is no question that thousands of our people, in both urban and rural districts, are living today in substandard houses. Many are living in shacks which are hardly fit for human habitation.
I am certainly in favour of funds being made available as called for in this resolution. I urge that they be used for the purpose of stimulating the construction of homes which the low income bracket group can afford to buy or to rent. I agree with the Minister of Public Works when he says that there is no better way in which to spend government money than on housing.


Mr. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that my remarks will be brief, as no hon. member would like to hold up the passing of this resolution. First, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South who stated that the housing industry provides Canadians with the maximum amount of employment and the maximum amount of Canadian products. For that reason alone I think encouragement of the housing industry is extremely important to us.
The minister has made a complete resume of the housing industry and the job that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has done. I should just like to ask a couple of questions in reference to parts of the resolution. Perhaps the minister will answer them when he closes the discussion. There was some question of legislation permitting the sale of mortgages that are held by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I should be greatly interested in learning whether there is any likelihood of a discount proposition being considered. I think this is a pertinent question and one of principle. The second thing I should like to know is whether the corporation has indication that they will be able to dispose of any substantial number of their mortgages in accordance with the plan the minister has outlined.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the debate this afternoon has been extremely helpful. I must say that everyone who has spoken has put forward ideas which will be given careful consideration. In my opinion, this has been one of the best debates we have had in
the house for a long time. I do not intend to try to answer all the points which have been raised during the course of the afternoon. However, there are one or two things which I think should be dealt with.
The hon. member for Nipissing in the course of his thought-provoking speech, asked what percentage of this additional money would go into small homes. Under the policy all of the money would go into small homes or low rental projects under the limited dividend provision except where direct loans are made by the corporation to a person wishing to build a home in a smaller centre. As the hon. member knows, these loans have been handled directly by the corporation for some time. There might be some of these homes which would be over the area of 1,050 square feet.
Mention was also made of the need to keep the cost of housing down. This suggestion came from the hon. member for Trinity. We are always doing whatever is possible in that direction. Each year the Canadian construction association calls a conference to consider the small home problem. At this conference are representatives of the banks and lending institutions, the architects, engineers, municipalities and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. A great deal of thought has been put on ways of keeping down the costs. In view of the fact that there has been a trend of steadily rising prices in every field, I think the cost of houses has been kept down as much as was reasonably possible. In some metropolitan areas, particularly in Toronto, the costs are much higher than they are anywhere else in Canada. It is particularly difficult to meet this situation. At the moment I do not know quite how it is going to be done.
Hon. members might be interested to learn that of the $750 million which has been provided by legislation to date approximately $45 million has been repaid. This particular $750 million is not a revolving fund. The corporation must get authority to commit these funds. However, when it gets cash back it must pay that cash to the Department of Finance and there is no credit against the total authorized expenditure. Hence in effect there is only about $705 million actually outstanding. As time goes on, of course, more and more money will be coming back. This is one of the good features of the plan. We shall have to devise some way for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Minister of Public Works to get some credit for the money that comes back.
The other points which have been made during the course of the debate will be given careful consideration by the officials of the corporation and also by myself.

In regard to the answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Muskoka-Parry Sound, if Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does decide to dispose of mortgages it will be done at the going market price. This would depend, for example, on the interest rate of the particular mortgage and on the demand for mortgages at the time. I am afraid it is impossible to give him any idea as to what extent this power will be exercised. The corporation has had power right along to sell mortgages to approved lenders only. Under the proposed legislation it will be able to sell to other companies which are not approved lenders provided the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation continues to administer the loans. I cannot give the hon. member a more definite answer than that.
(Translation) :


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to take the floor this afternoon, but since all matters pertaining to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are of particular interest to the constituency I represent, I should like to take this opportunity to express my views.
Mr. Chairman, if we consider the purpose of the previous government in setting up the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we realize that it was to provide our citizens with houses and not jobs. The Conservative party has made it a social security measure. The corporation now has a double purpose: that of providing houses as well as jobs.
When the previous administration froze housing credits, the result was an economic disorder from which we are still suffering today. Since the building and housing industry has slowed down, tradesmen have become the first victims. Then there has been a certain recession which has had the effect, as you no doubt know, of creating an alarming unemployment problem.
The consequences of the Conservative party's easing credit facilities in favour of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, have instilled a new activity in industry and trades, and this has contributed, to some extent, to create jobs for Canadian workers.
We would face a sad plight if the Conservative party had not pledged itself to protect the interest of its voters by increasing credit facilities which the previous administration had neutralized through a short-sighted policy.
Mr. Chairman, if there are some disadvantages to the present National Housing Act, it
National Housing Act
certainly provides certain benefits, especially for the working class. I represent a constituency where the majority are working people. Those workers depend on their trade for their living and if construction activity had not been promoted through increased housing credits, our working population would find itself in a very deplorable situation. But if generally speaking the act helps the working class, it has not rectified certain irregularities concerning the workers.


Mr. Deschaielets:: Don't forget to mention that the act was introduced by the Liberal government.


Georges-J. Valade: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did not get the remark of my hon. friend.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Don't forget to mention that the act was introduced by the Liberal government.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, perhaps my hon. friend the member for Maisonneuve was not in the house at the start of my remarks, because he would have heard me mention that point. I also think it is perhaps just as well that he was not in the house at the time, for he would have learned the truth, and he would have had no reason at all to make this remark.
Mr. Chairman, I wish simply to call the government's attention to the fact that the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation allows limited dividend projects.
Mr. Chairman, these limited dividend projects certainly offer many advantages, but I think some improvements could be made. Such projects should be favoured in metropolitan areas too, so as to get rid of slums and replace them by good, clean, houses.
For instance, there are old districts in the city of Montreal which never benefited from those projects; yet, it was the ultimate end sought by the act. I believe we should not allow the construction of limited dividend projects in centres where the construction of single family dwellings or other houses would cause the establishment of a new parish or a new city. However, we notice in certain large cities, that complete districts become small towns made up of limited dividend projects. The government could check this situation by controlling the number of those limited dividend projects in urban centres, so that this legislation will not result, as I said a moment ago, in the establishment of multiple limited dividend projects. It is for this
702	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
reason, Mr. Chairman, that I wanted to rise and ask that the government bring pressure on C.M.H.C. officials, so that great centres like Montreal might become more interested in tearing down slums and replacing them by new houses, at a reasonable price for the wage-earner.
Mr. Chairman, there are in St. Mary, the constituency I have the honour to represent here, certain districts which have already been considered by the authorities of the city of Montreal-
(Text):


The Chairman:: It being six o'clock the committee will now rise and report progress.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think if the hon. member needs only a few seconds more, we on this side of the house would be disposed to let the resolution go through.


Georges-J. Valade: I just have a few words to add.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member for St. Mary be allowed to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I regret that there are still hon. members who wish to speak.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Leader of the house if he would indicate now what business the government proposes to take up on Friday, tomorrow, of course, being private members' day?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow is private members' day, and on Friday we will resume the consideration of the supplementary estimates. Then we will take this resolution and the trans-Canada highway resolution, and if there is any time left we will continue with the three other resolutions to which I referred last night.


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

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

Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Upon what date did the amendment to the Supreme Court Act become effective, which increased from $2,000 to $10,000 the amount of value of a matter in controversy in respect of which an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada lies as of right?
2.	From the said date until the 31st December, 1958, how many applications have been made to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in matters where the amount or value in controversy was between $2,000 and $10,000?
3.	Of these, how many applications (a) have been granted; (b) have been refused; (c) are still pending?
4.	From the said date until the 31st December, 1958, how many applications have been made to provincial courts entitled to grant leave, for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in matters where the amount or value in controversy was between $2,000 and $10,000?
5.	Of these, how many applications (a) have been granted; (b) have been refused; (c) are still pending?
6.	If information enabling an answer to questions 4 and 5 is not in the possession of the government of Canada or the Supreme Court of Canada, how many appeals have been launched to the Supreme Court of Canada between the said dates where leave was granted by a provincial court and the amount or value of the matter in controversy was between $2,000 and $10,000?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of
Justice):
1.	The increase affected all actions commenced in courts of first instance on and after August 14, 1956.
2.	47 (this includes those applications where the amount or value in controversy was less than $2,000, for in certain instances there is no statement as to the amount or value in controversy).
3.	(a) 15. (b) 30. (c) 2 were pending as of December 31, 1958, and not heard at the request of counsel.
4.	No information.
5.	(a) 16. (b) and (c) no information.
6.	See answer to question 5 (a).


AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION, SHERBROOKE, QUE.
Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Has the government agreed to build an airport at Sherbrooke, Quebec?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	Were public tenders called for?
4.	Is the construction of this airport under way or have the works been stopped?
5.	In the event of works having been stopped, what is the reason for stopping them and when will the work be resinned?
Questions
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	Approved in 1957-58 main estimates.
3.	Yes, first stage only.
4 and 5. Work stopped because contractor advised that he was unable to carry on due to lack of finances. Work is to be resumed on satisfactory settlement being made.


SHERBROOKE, QUE. DELEGATION TO TRANSPORT BOARD
Mr. Dupuis: 1.	Was a delegation from Sherbrooke, Quebec received in 1958 by the board of transport commissioners or one of its members or officers?
2.	If so, what requests were made by the delegation?
3.	Who were the persons included in the delegation?
4.	What answers were given to the representations made by the delegation?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	Yes.
2.	Request to approve construction of a subway at Acadia street.
3.	The mayor, the city manager and a few aldermen.
4.	That no grant from the railway grade crossing fund could be made toward the cost of this project because under the present circumstances the provisions of the Railway Act could not permit a grant from the railway grade crossing fund.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Department of External Affairs a rotation policy for employees in posts out of the country?
2.	If so, is there any difference in the policy as it affects foreign service officers and other employees?
3.	What is the policy and when was it introduced?
4.	Have any difficulties impeded the carrying out of this policy?
5.	If so, what are the difficulties and what posts and what job classifications are affected by them?
Answer by: Hon. Sidney E. Smiih (Secretary
of Stale for External Affairs):
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. The tour of duty of foreign service officers is longer at certain posts than for the foreign service administrative personnel i.e. stenographers, clerks, etc. Moreover, employees engaged locally by posts abroad e.g. translators, receptionists, messengers, chauffeurs, char staff, etc., are non-rotational.
3.	(a) Foreign service officers and foreign service administrative employees are fully rotational between Ottawa and abroad and between the different posts abroad. The length of a tour of duty at each post abroad varies

Questions
from 18 months to three and one half-years, according to factors such as climate. Normally a posting abroad is followed by a period of at least two years service in Ottawa, (b) This policy has always existed.
4.	This policy is generally carried out without difficulty, although the Department of External Affairs encounters the usual problems of personnel administration somewhat complicated by the wide dispersal of its personnel in many foreign lands.
5.	See 4 above.


Mr. Fisher: 1.	Was the 17J per cent freight rate increase of December 1958, applied to British Columbia lumber and plywood shipped into Ontario and other eastern Canadian markets?
2.	If not, for what reasons?
3.	What was the increase applied to such shipments?
4.	What increase was applied to shipments of lumber and plywood manufactured in Ontario and Quebec for shipments within those areas?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
Assuming that paragraph 1 of the question means 17 per cent instead of 17J per cent as stated, the answers are as follows:
1.	No, as to the basic rate from Vancouver to eastern Canada, such as to Toronto and Montreal.
2.	The basic rates are the same as the rates in effect from Seattle, Washington.
3.	The same increase as was applied from Seattle, i.e. effective March 11, 1958, for example: Seattle and Vancouver to Toronto: lumber-3 cents per 100 lbs.; plywood-4 cents per 100 lbs.
4.	Seventeen per cent, subject to some exceptions where competitive rates may prevail.


Mr. Murphy: 1.	Did the government purchase property in 1955, or thereabouts, in the then capital of Brazil for a Canadian embassy or residence?
2.	If so, was the property purchase known as the Braga's residence?
3.	What was the amount paid in Canadian dollars?
4.	Was any loss sustained in the payment or transfer of Canadian funds into Brazilian currency? If so, how much?
5.	Was the current rate of exchange used in this transaction?
6.	What was the rent per month paid for the ambassador's residence for a year prior to the purchase of the building?
7.	Was the Auditor General of Canada advised of this transaction?
Answer by: Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):
1.	Yes. The Canadian government purchased a property in March, 1955 for use as an official residence.
2.	Yes.
3.	$339,866. Legal, registration and other related charges amounted to $1,890.
4.	No.
5.	With respect to the purchase price the bill of sale stated: "The grantor hereby sells and conveys to the grantee, in accordance with the best legal practices, the above described property for the definite and agreed price of Cr25,859,75h-[DOT]"
"-the price stipulated in clause 3 corresponds to US$350,000 at the fixed rate of exchange of Cr73.885 per dollar


This, therefore, fixed the price at US$350,000 irrespective of fluctuations in exchange.
6.	Crl20,000, or approximately $2,180 per month.
7.	The Auditor General's representative attached to this department had access as usual to all departmental files in connection with this matter. It is not customary to draw the attention of the Auditor General's representative to specific purchases while they are being negotiated.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl): 1.	Were any surplus military aircraft purchased during the calendar year 1958, by James H. Defuria of the State of New York? If so, how many?
2.	Was any condition laid down by the government of Canada that such planes could not be transshipped from the United States or elsewhere for any military use whatsoever?
Answer by:	Hon. Raymond O'Hurley
(Minister of Defence Production):
1.	Yes.
la. 18 demilitarized aircraft and 9 airframes of the Mustang type, together with 8 engines were sold to James H. Defuria of DeWitt, New York, in 1958.
2.	No-in so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned.

Thursday, February 5, 1959