1960-11-24

FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister seen the report appearing in this morning's Globe and Mail to the effect that the government would introduce legislation to establish a mortgage bank in Canada if existing institutions failed to provide sufficient building funds under the National Housing Act, and has he any comment to make thereon?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question. Will the Minister of Finance, then, indicate to the house what is the purpose of the meeting now taking place in the Rideau club to which representatives of the banking institutions of Canada have been invited at his request and that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was not aware that anybody was gathered at the Rideau club today, or if they were, that they were under observation by the official opposition. My colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I have occasion to have contact with representatives of the chartered banks about various matters, and I hope the meeting that may take place soon will have the usual constructive results.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister be good enough to indicate to the house what is the purpose of the meeting to which I referred earlier that is being held at this time?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker. This government works far more closely with business, commerce, banks and people generally than the previous government did, and we confer with these people very often. We accept a great many suggestions. We do not feel that we know everything, as the hon. member and his government did in former days. The
conference that has been referred to is just one of the many we are having all the time with representatives of agriculture, business, labour and other groups in Canada.



CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the report in the Ottawa Citizen of November 23 to the effect that the Canadian delegation to the NATO parliamentary conference headed by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Kucherepa) have flatly expressed themselves as approving the nuclear arming of the Canadian NATO brigade in 1961, would the minister state whether this is now the policy of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member's question is probably an extension of our practice. It is in order to ask whether a minister has stated a policy of the government, but as I understood his question it related to a private hon. member of parliament at a parliamentary association meeting.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I believe on former occasions when a parliamentary secretary to a cabinet minister has made a statement such questions have been asked in the house. In any event, I believe I would be in order for certain in asking the minister whether any discussion took place with the members of the Canadian delegation on the question of arming Canadian troops with nuclear weapons before the delegation went overseas.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secrelary of Slate for Exiernal Affairs):: Not that I am aware, Mr. Speaker. The government really cannot be responsible for statements made on policy by private members of the house, even though they happen to be in Paris. It might even be that one of my hon. friend's own supporters is on that delegation. I do not know, but sometimes they are.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinily):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of National Defence tells us whether he concurs in General Norstad's proposal to create a pool of atomic weapons? I am sure
144	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the hon. gentleman does not need any coaching from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member through you that I do not need any instructions from him in this regard.
As far as the question is concerned, I do not know what General Norstad's proposition was; therefore I am in no position to comment on it.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport relating to a matter I have raised before concerning the Kettle Valley railroad. In view of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway has refused to provide normal and regular passenger service during the hours of darkness between Penticton and Nelson-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -as requested by Kootenay chambers of commerce, trade unions and many other organizations and persons, because in the opinion of the company under present circumstances it was unsafe to operate passenger trains during the hours of darkness-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must request hon. members to allow the hon. member who has the floor to ask his question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister investigate the reason why the company operated a passenger train or trains during the hours of darkness for the convenience of United States tourists while denying this service to Canadian citizens?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts about the question now that it has been placed before the house. It appears to relate to an event that has passed, and might properly be dealt with by a question on the order paper. If the minister is of a different view and wants to deal with it now I have no objection to his doing so, but it seems to me it is not a current question but rather one about some event in the past. I would suggest that it be put on the order paper.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I will be pleased to respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I could not hear the minister's reply. Would he repeat it?


Mr. Churchill:: Read it in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may enlighten the hon. member, the minister indicated that he would observe the ruling that the question was a proper one for the order paper.



UPPER LAKES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, notice of which was sent to him. I should like to know what precautionary measures the marine services branch of his department is taking to ensure that grain carriers have icebreaking assistance in the upper lakes at the end of the navigation season, the need for which may be vital in view of the turn-around delays at Montreal at this time of year.


Léon Balcer: The Porte Dauphine, our small great lakes research vessel, while not an icebreaker can work in light ice and has been sent up from lake Ontario to the lakehead to assist in this connection. It will remain there as long as possible. The return date of the vessel, however, will require her to leave the lakehead in time to get through the Welland canal before the canal closes, since this vessel is required for winter research in lake Ontario.
In addition the Alexander Henry, the new upper great lakes icebreaker built by the department, will be at the lakehead to assist local movements until the port closes and at that time will be proceeding down the great lakes to Georgian bay where it will be available to help grain carriers at the end of the season as well.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Minister of Labour whether any talks have taken place between himself and his colleagues and the representatives of the non-operating unions and railways in connection with the railway strike announced for December 3?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister expect that talks of this nature will take place during the course of this week or next week?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I feel that any observation or comment at this time on what might be done further in this dispute would not be helpful nor contribute anything to the settlement of this serious problem.



DORVAL AIRPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to report on his investigation into the firing of 17 negro porters by the Murray Hill transport company, which operates the limousine service at Dorval airport?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Following reports of the discharge of a number of porters by the Murray Hill limousine service, which operates at the airport, a very careful investigation was made. The results satisfied me that racial discrimination was not in any way involved in the action of the limousine company, otherwise we would not have tolerated anything of that kind. I am satisfied that the issue is one of employer-employee relationships and, accordingly, one which does not come under my jurisdiction. The matters involved appear to fall within provincial jurisdiction.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister could indicate the nature of the trouble which resulted in the dismissal of these 17 negro employees at one time, if it was not racial discrimination?


Léon Balcer: Yes. We have had a report concerning both sides of the issue, and the report we have is that these porters had formed a company of their own. They were soliciting customers without letting the Murray Hill people, who were their employers, know about their activities. The porters, on the other hand, were blaming the company for underpaying them, and they took some action before the provincial courts. The company sued the porters for breach of contract and the matter is, at the present time, before the provincial courts.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask
a supplementary question. I would inquire of the minister whether, when he made his statement that he was going to have an investigation made, he had seen the reports published by several labour unions to the effect that there had been racial discrimination in the case.


Léon Balcer: Yes. We conducted a very thorough investigation of all the circumstances in the case, Mr. Speaker, and I am satisfied that there was no racial discrimination.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister say how long these porters had been in the employ of the company concessionaire of his department before this discovery was made?


Léon Balcer: I could not say the exact date, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that Christmas and New Year's will fall on a Sunday, is it the government's intention to proclaim December 26, 1960 and January 2, 1961 official holidays, in order that Canadian workers may enjoy the normal yuletide leave?
Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Stale: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Richelieu-Vercheres for his kindness in giving me notice of his question. The reply is as follows: several months ago, the civil service commission drew to the attention of the various departments that as Christmas and New Year's day will fall on a Sunday, federal civil servants will be allowed leave on Monday, December 26, 1960 and Monday, January 2, 1961.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Does the statement made by the Secretary of State mean that those two days will also be considered as holidays for the rest of the Canadian people?


Mr. Dorion:: To the question of the hon. member, I must reply that the legislation as it now stands provides for a substitution of holidays only in accordance with the Bill of Exchange Act.
Apart from that, I have found no other statute which would authorize the government, through a delegation of powers, to proclaim December 26 and January 2 as official holidays.
(Text):



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It is based upon advertisement in the Wallasey News, which is an English paper. I do this to lay a base for the question. The advertisement is by Strothers Travel Service Limited and relates to immigration to Canada, with an indication therein that an immigration officer will be
146	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry in attendance at Strothers travel office. The advertisement goes on to say that certain classifications of workmen are urgently required in Canada, such as bricklayers, joiners and so on.
I wonder whether the attention of the minister has been drawn to these advertisements and, in view of the fact that it is indicated that an immigration officer will be in attendance at Strothers travel service, whether there is any relationship between the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and its staff in London and this particular travel service in advocating the immigration to Canada of certain types of workmen, having in mind the unemployment situation in this country.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the attendance of our officers at these various points is a matter of long established practice. There is no connection whatsoever between their presence there and the advertisement itself. However, our officers in attendance at those offices are in possession of full particulars of the employment situation in Canada and advise prospective immigrants accordingly.


Frank Howard: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a Canadian Press dispatch from Vancouver to the effect that immigration officials in London were instructed to get in touch with Strothers Travel Service Limited to ensure that Canada's Department of Citizenship and Immigration was not connected with this advocacy of people coming to Canada and, if so, would she care to comment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. mem-
(ber is simply asking for verification of a press report, and he very well knows that the time of the house is not taken at this period of the I day to verify statements of that kind.


Frank Howard: With deference, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for verification. I simply wondered whether the minister's attention had been drawn to the press report and whether she would care to comment on it.


Mr. Speaker:: As I see it, the drawing of the minister's attention to a report seems very similar to asking for verification of it.


Frank Howard: This is quite a departure from past practice.



REPORTED INTENTION TO ACCEPT SPANISH IMMIGRANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The newspaper La


Presse on November 23 said that 51 Spanish immigrants will be allowed to come and stay in Canada. I would like to ask the minister whether this is true, and if so, under what selective immigrant rating they fall?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member undoubtedly heard my earlier ruling on the question put by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), which was simply to verify a statement in the press. I am sure all hon. members, if they require information about matters referred to in the press, have the ingenuity to frame questions which will secure the information to which they are entitled.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer part of the hon. member's question. The situation is that where there are vacancies in employment, these people are eligible, in compliance with immigration regulations, to enter Canada. I am sure my hon. friend knows that domestic service is one field in which there are always vacancies.


Azellus Denis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand from what the minister has said that there is nobody unemployed in Canada who could fill those positions that are vacant?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I did not say that, Mr. Speaker; but I get a great many requests in my office, even from members of this house, to provide them with domestic help in their homes.



ELECTRONIC TUBES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. I am sorry I have not sent him a copy, but I do not expect him to answer today. Is the minister aware that since the Japanese government has placed temporary and voluntary embargoes on electronic tubes exported from Japan to Canada, certain Canadian importers of Japanese tubes are negotiating with certain Japanese manufacturers to ship the tubes to San Francisco and Seattle in bond and then transship them to Canada as imports from the United States? I have a letter here from Kobe, Japan-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member is not entitled to read documents.
I understand he has put his question.


John Smith: I just wanted to quote one paragraph.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; it is not in
accordance with the practice.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I will take the question as notice.



SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister any report to make to the house and, indeed, to the country with respect to what his inquiry has produced concerning the existence in Canada of a so-called nazi or similar organization as was revealed recently on a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television program?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have from time to time had drawn to my attention the activities of this or similar so-called nazi or neo-nazi organizations, and I can assure the hon. member and the house that the activities of such organizations are kept under close and careful surveillance.


Leon David Crestohl: I understood that the minister said he would make a report to the house on their activities.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


Leon David Crestohl: If the minister did not make such a statement, then I will accept the statement he has made now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not recall saying at any time that I would report to the house on their activities. I can assure the house again, though, that we keep the activities of all such organizations under very close scrutiny.


Leon David Crestohl: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house now whether he will be able to make a report of his findings as a result of his investigation?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that there are certain limitations upon the practice with respect to reports on these matters. If at the time of consideration of the estimates of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police it was the desire to have a general discussion of the activities of the R.C.M.P. and their surveillance with respect to this sort of thing, it would be open to the house to do so, of course, but it is not the kind of subject that lends itself to making a report, at this stage of the sitting particularly.



INQUIRY AS TO FORCED DISSOLUTION OF COMMUNIST PARTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is it the policy of the Canadian government to force the dissolution of the communist party in Canada and the other NATO nations, as proposed at the conference of NATO members?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will permit me, this question is very similar to another which was asked arising out of the activities of parliamentarians at interparliamentary conferences. I think it would not be in accordance with our practice, nor does it appear to me to be desirable, to ask the government to take the responsibility for statements of individual parliamentarians exercising their responsibility as private members attending interparliamentary meetings. The hon. member is entitled to ask the government about its policy, but I think asking the government to comment on this type of statement would not be in order.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Then perhaps I could reword my question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is still the policy of the government not to force the dissolution of the communist party in Canada and other NATO countries.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as other NATO countries are concerned that, naturally, is not a matter upon which any question can be directed to me.
In so far as the Canadian government is concerned, its policy is that the communist party may operate in Canada as a legal entity. However, it becomes subject to prosecution when its members contravene the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to sedition or treason or, in other words, endeavour to act in such a way as to undermine the government by force or contravene other provisions of the Criminal Code.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS FEDERAL REPRESENTATION AT MEETING OF PROVINCIAL PREMIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister, and ask whether he or a representative of the federal government will attend the meeting of the provincial premiers which is taking place in Quebec next week?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, neither I nor any member of the cabinet will be present. It

Inquiries of the Ministry may be that we will send an unofficial observer in the person of one or more of the administrative officers of the departments.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister report to the house on the procedure followed by the Czechoslovakian government during the trial of a Czech born Canadian citizen, and whether normal international practice was followed in that case?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, Milorad Cop, a Canadian citizen who was born in Prague, was arrested by the Czechoslovak authorities late in July while on a private visit to Czechoslovakia. He was held incommunicado for almost four months and was brought to trial November 9. The result, which was pronounced on November 10, was that he had been found guilty of spying on behalf of a foreign power and was sentenced to seven years in prison. It is understood that Mr. Cop's defence lawyer is lodging an appeal.
The Canadian government has received no information beyond this about the trial or about the specific charges made against Mr. Cop. The Czechoslovak authorities refused to allow the Canadian legation in Prague to be represented at the trial, although an observer was present when the sentence was announced. The Canadian government cannot therefore express any opinion as to whether Mr. Cop was given a fair trial.
In the interval between Mr. Cop's arrest and his trial, repeated efforts were made by the Canadian legation to obtain an interview with Mr. Cop. The Czechoslovak authorities consistently refused to allow such an interview, thus refusing to honour what is normal diplomatic practice in such matters.
At various times between the arrest of Mr. Cop and his trial, the Czech authorities have been made aware of the dissatisfaction of the Canadian government at the refusal to allow the normal consular access to this Canadian citizen. Our views have been made abundantly clear to the Czech authorities by calling in the Czechoslovak minister to Canada and by having the Canadian minister to Czechoslovakia speak at a high level to the foreign ministry in Prague.


HIGHWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether he is in a position to table in the house any information on the location and route of the forest access roads under the roads to resources program, which is now planned and under way.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the hon. member is inquiring about the forest access roads program. I will confer with my colleague the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flemming) and bring in an answer at a later time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. In view of the many unsettled defence problems of mutual concern to Canada and the United States, can the minister say whether a meeting of the Canada-U.S. joint defence committee is scheduled for an early date?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot.


Hazen Robert Argue: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might ask a supplementary question; whether Canada has made any representation to the United States authorities that such a meeting be held.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, there is a regular meeting of this committee scheduled, I think, for July. I do not think any consideration has been given to holding the meeting earlier, but if circumstances pointed to the desirability of doing that I am sure the government would be glad to consider it, as no doubt would the new government of the United States.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENTS TO EXTEND LOAN REPAYMENT PERIOD; TO INCREASE AGGREGATE AMOUNT; TO AUTHORIZE URBAN RENEWAL, ETC.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works) moved: the second reading of Bill C-42, to amend the National Housing Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I outlined in great detail yesterday the effect of this bill. The

amendments to the bill itself should be noncontroversial; they are really technical changes, except for the last two parts, VI A and VI B dealing with sewage disposal plants and the universities. Rather than make another speech at this time, I prefer to answer any questions asked by hon. members.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words on second reading. I am not going to repeat what was said by my colleagues yesterday, except to say that I endorse their comments in respect to the amendments which will facilitate the building of homes for the aged and the provision for the ownership of homes and homes for rental purposes.
I was also very pleased to hear their comments with respect to loans to universities for residences. I was personally very pleased to see that provision included in the bill, because I believe that living in is a worthwhile experience in college. I had that experience I think, possibly, at about the same period in history as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). There are many interesting contacts made in residence, and I think a person who goes to university or college and who fails to live in misses a great deal. I could tell the house a good many interesting experiences I had at that time, but I do not think it would be proper on this occasion. However, I am pleased to see this provision for increasing the housing accommodation at universities providing for a greater number of students to live in, as we used to call it.
I am rising to deal with one aspect of this bill which is of particular interest to me, and which has been of interest to the Prime Minister as indicated by his introduction of a bill to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the pollution of interprovincial rivers. I am very pleased indeed to see the inclusion of a section to the bill which provides for loans to municipalities in respect of sewage treatment projects. I have been interested in the conservation of natural resources ever since I was able to think clearly about such things, and I have been concerned about this question of pollution of water, because our rivers are more than amenities, they are treasures which we should preserve in every way we can. I think it is correct to say that during the last 50 years we have been destroying these treasures wholesale from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and it is because the group which I represent is very pleased to see this provision in the bill that I rise to say a few words this afternoon, though I do not intend to take up the time of the house for very long.
National Housing Act
There has been a growing concern about this problem, as has been indicated by the representations made to both the federal and provincial governments by persons interested in the conservation of natural resources; by health authorities, medical officers, specialists in sanitation and certain groups and persons in Montreal and some other places where the study of the question of sanitation has evolved to a greater degree than it has in some places in western Canada and on the Pacific coast.
These representations show how laggard we have been with regard to this question. I was reading the report of a commission on conservation appointed, I think, in 1909. I read a report of that commission in 1911, and in that report I found a passage dealing with the serious pollution of the Ottawa river and the need for some immediate action to remedy that situation. That was a good many years ago, yet very little has been done that I know of to remedy the serious pollution of the Ottawa river.
I hope that as a result of this measure something will be done by the municipalities directly concerned and affected across Canada. This has been a matter of growing concern to several municipalities in the riding which I have the honour to represent, particularly to the city of Nelson, the district of South Slocan, the village of Castlegar and the village of Kinnaird. These communities are faced with pollution problems, perhaps because of the increase in population since the end of the second world war and growing industrial development. As a result of district concern a conference was held between these various municipalities and communities to see what could be done about this question. I was very glad to see that they took this prompt action before the problem gets entirely out of hand. The conference made representations to the provincial government, and I understand the provincial government intends to form a provincial pollution board which will have some authority to deal effectively with this problem.
In addition, the remarks of various hon. members of all parties during the debate on this measure indicate the growing concern of an increasing number of people in Canada over the increasing pollution of our rivers, and when hon. members speak in this house on this question it is obvious they are reflecting the opinions and concern of the organizations and people they represent. So I was very pleased to see this provision included in the bill. It is something which we in this group have dealt with over the years. We have urged the federal government to take action along these lines, and we are pleased, once again, that this government has finally seen fit to

National Housing Act
adopt in some measure a C.C.F. policy proposed throughout the years. I trust that the Minister of Public Works will continue to walk in the direction we urge and desire.
I have just a few suggestions to make regarding the administration of this part of the bill. I would think, first of all, that if the administration is to be effective there has to be a lot of public education as to what this pollution means at the present time and what it means in both the near and distant future to health and recreation. I think we have to get the support of municipalities and community organizations in the promotion of educational programs. You cannot give effect to legislation like this without understanding and support at the rank and file level. Without such understanding municipalities will not get the support for the bylaws that are required to supplement this legislation.
So I do think the first thing necessary is public education at all levels. Then I believe it is very necessary that we should have extensive research on this problem. There has been some superficial research by some cities and provinces. There has been some research done by one or two companies which are particularly concerned with sewage disposal plants. Beyond that there has been very little research either by the national research council or any other agency of government or by the universities with direct relation to the effect of the pollution of water or air on the health of the nation and the communities directly concerned. So I urge that the government use its influence to promote and stimulate, on both the federal and provincial levels, as a result of co-operation, the research which is necessary if we are to finally understand the problem and thoroughly inform the public as to the situation that we face at this time.
Third, I believe that to supplement this legislation which provides for the financial aspects of the problem from the federal point of view we have to have some federal and provincial control legislation. This is a matter so important that I think there must be some control legislation at federal, provincial and municipal levels. I apologize for using the word "I" so much. I am speaking as a C.C.F. member and for this group, but we in this group do consider that it is necessary to have some such control or regulation in order to give effect to the policies that must be pursued as a result of the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments in giving effect to this legislation.
I think, also, that this is a problem which is not going to decrease, because even though we were to commence immediately and even though we had some gradual success in meeting the problem, it is a growing problem because of the increase in the population, the

development of industry and so on. We urgently require some courses in our universities for persons who are willing to take this up as their life work, and deal with the problem of pollution of water, air, soil and so on in this country, as a crusade for national health and welfare. I suggest that is another aspect of the question to which the government should give consideration.
I do not say that our suggestions this afternoon are the end of all things, but we have given some consideration to the problem. Finally we suggest that to give effect to this legislation, to give effect to research, to give effect to control boards whether federal, provincial or municipal, and to ensure that their policies will be understood and that there will be co-operation, we must promote closer co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, the boards in question authorized to administer any regulations that may spring from this legislation, and the communities and people directly concerned. That is all I have to say on this question.
Again let me say that when it comes to the preservation of our natural resources and doing something to maintain for the Canadian people that great treasure of ours in a pure form-our rivers, lakers and waters-we support such legislation wholeheartedly.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nipis-sing.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I cannot resist saying that I did not ever expect to experience any difficulty in being seen. If I may say so, it is rather refreshing.
Before speaking to the bill itself I should like to clear up some of the loose talk engaged in by the minister at about six o'clock last evening. I know he would not want to leave a wrong impression on the record. We in the official opposition have taken the position that the economic situation is serious, especially as so many of our people are unemployed. We are therefore anxious to cooperate with the government in getting its housing legislation through the house speedily. Proof of our desire to co-operate will be noted at the resolution stage, when only one speech was made by an hon. member of our party. We consider that early passage of this or indeed any legislation that may create work now or in the future should have top priority.
It was disappointing, however, to find the minister at six o'clock last evening attempting to twist or misrepresent our co-operation with respect to the passage of this legislation by indicating that it reflected an indifference or lack of interest on our part.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I point out that there are only 12 Liberals in the house at the present time, and this is second reading.


John Richard Garland: The hon. gentleman would do well to count the number behind him. I believe the minister's efforts last night were an attempt to cover up the fact that 22 speeches had been made by members of his party, which occupied the greater part of the two days of debate on the resolution.
It was equally disappointing to find the minister at six o'clock last evening, just as we were about to rise and with no time left at our disposal to rebut his statements, attempting to suggest that the former administration had done nothing in the field of housing in the period of 22 years. This indicated a complete lack of appreciation of the work that was done in this country in the past 20 years. This was a fine statement from a minister who would say on another occasion, when it perhaps suited him better, that housing should not be discussed in any political vein. This was an interesting observation from the minister, who has had the dubious distinction of presiding over an important department of the government primarily responsible for the greatest year of uncertainty and confusion in the house building industry which resulted from an inaccurate appraisal of the situation and necessitated changes and reversals of policy.
Surely it is hardly necessary to expand on the Liberal record in housing; the record speaks for itself. However, I believe that people are more interested today in the future than they are in the past, and in what this tight money, high interest Tory government is going to do to get this country back on the rails.
I should now like to turn directly to the legislation before us. As I said in this house last Tuesday, the official opposition intends to support this bill. We believe, however, that the proposed legislation comes too late to make a substantial contribution to employment during the coming winter. We also believe that it could be improved in so far as the cost of housing, urban redevelopment and municipal works are concerned. I should like to deal briefly with those points and make concrete suggestions which I feel the government should consider carefully.
This bill is apparently the main measure to be presented by the government to cure mounting unemployment at this time. In so far as Canadians may be willing to buy more houses, and municipalities may decide to increase their debt in order to improve their services, the proposed legislation will eventually stimulate the activity of the construction industry, but it comes too late to produce
National Housing Act
any substantial improvement in employment now or this winter, when such an improvement is badly needed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to interrupt him. I am afraid that hon. members of the house are not able to hear the hon. member, a difficulty he has experienced before. I am sure the house would permit the hon. gentlemen to speak from the seat behind, where he would have a microphone directly over him, if he wished to do so.


John Richard Garland: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Not only am I experiencing difficulty being seen but apparently I am experiencing difficulty being heard. I was just saying that this legislation comes too late to produce any substantial improvement in employment this winter when such improvement is so badly needed. Indeed, this bill should have been presented during the last session. Instead, the government showed very little concern about the depressed conditions which were developing at that time. The government must take full responsibility for this useless delay and for the fact that the proposed legislation will not have its full impact when unemployment is most acute.
This failure of the government to act at the appropriate time is due, of course, to a lack of foresight. The government chose to ignore our repeated warnings from this side of the house and failed to see what was happening. We all remember the rosy economic picture presented by the ministers at the begining of 1960. I referred last Tuesday to the forecast made by the former minister of trade and commerce in his New Year's message when he said that 140,000 housing units would be started in 1960. But the bad forecasting record of the government is not limited to that instance. All the ministers were very optimistic about the immediate economic outlook. None of them, however, was more emphatic than the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr), who on the very eve of another recession, on January 29, 1960, made the following statement in this house:
What about the recession? Everybody knows that the recession is over. Everybody, that is, except those hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Essex East and his group... I can well understand the frustration of hon. members opposite. They do not like this picture which shows that there is buoyancy in our economy and that we are out of the recession that they knew something about but did nothing about.
Those words may be found at page 517 of Hansard of that date. This statement is typical of the attitude taken by the government toward the economic situation in January, 1960 during the debate on the speech

National Housing Act
from the throne, although we were then at the peak of the cycle and another recession was about to begin.
Later on during the session when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) presented his budget he also showed great optimism about the immediate economic future. Here are just a few excerpts from that speech, to be found at pages 2670 and 2674 of Hansard respectively:
The survey oi business intentions released by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce a few weeks ago indicates that this upward trend will continue throughout 1960... I am confident, however, that employment will rise as the coming of spring opens up new job opportunities and as the economy continues its upward trend.-
I expect that the forces of expansion will continue during 1960 and that the rates of increase we have experienced in 1959 should be maintained throughout the year. Within this framework I am basing my forecast of 1960-61 revenues on an increase in the gross national product in 1960 of about 6 per cent, or to a record level between $365 and $37 billion dollars.
At the time we were surprised at the assurance and optimism shown by the Minister of Finance who, we believed, had had the benefit of expert advice on the economic outlook for 1960. We were told only at the end of the session that the famous hidden report had been buried. The government did not only hide the facts; it buried them. Either they knew what was happening then and they did not tell us, or they were not realizing what was happening and if that is so they are not competent to hold office.
In 1958 they blamed us for having failed in March, 1957, to anticipate a recession that would start in the fall of 1957. In March, 1960 they themselves failed to see a recession that had already begun. As far as we were concerned, on the basis of the scanty information then available to us we could not share the rosy and unrealistic optimism of the Minister of Finance. Here, for instance, is what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) had to say on April 12, during the budget debate. I quote from page 3149 of Hansard:
With a normal increase in the labour force this year the average level of unemployment in the current year might well exceed that of 1959, and surely that is a cause for worry and no ground for complacency of any kind.


Mr. Marlineau:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Richard Garland: Yes.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Will the hon. member tell the house whether that is the reason his leader has now declared he is going to bury the Liberal party's past?


John Richard Garland: I attach to that interruption the importance that I am sure other members of the house will, and that is nil. Before the

interruption I was quoting our leader and our attempts on this side of the house to bring the problem to the attention of the government early this year.


Paul Raymond Martineau: So was I.


John Richard Garland: I should like to quote again. On July 29 the Leader of the Opposition renewed his warning. He said:
Throughout the present session we on this side of the chamber have warned the government about the unusual and growing level of unemployment in this country... We have been pressing for immediate, effective and realistic action in order to deal with this problem.
This quotation may be found at page 7226 of Hansard. Again at page 7227, the Leader of the Opposition said:
We on this side at that time, and earlier, warned the government against at least the possibility and perhaps the probability of a slow-down.
Throughout the last session we were accused of being prophets of doom and gloom-you have heard that monotonously, Mr. Speaker -and of misrepresenting the real economic situation for political purposes. Subsequent events, however, have shown that the ministers were those who misrepresented the facts. Experts now agree that the current recession began in March, 1960, but the government failed not only to anticipate it but to see it when it came.
This shows, therefore, that action should have been initiated then to cure mounting unemployment, and that the government could not have been more wrong in its assessment of the economic situation. As a result of its failure to see the facts as they were, the government decided to curtail construction activity and contributed to mounting unemployment instead of trying to prevent it. Several months have been lost, and the government must take full responsibility for the delay. That is why we say that the proposed legislation comes too late, and that it will do very little in the immediate future to alleviate unemployment.
I come now to the second point I want to raise, namely the cost of housing. We say that this legislation does nothing to lower the cost of housing. Conditions in the housing market have shifted radically in the last year. Demand rather than supply has emerged as the predominant factor. The minister now, rather belatedly, gives some indication of a glimmer of recognition of the existing conditions in the housing market. In order to encourage demand he is taking steps to reduce the down payment on National Housing Act houses, but at what a cost.
Here is what this government is willing to do for the little man they talk so much about. They are going to make it possible

National Housing Act
lor him to move into a $15,000 house for only $37,754. Is that not an extraordinary offer? During 1959 the average cost of a National Housing Act house was $15,000. Under the new deal the maximum mortgage will be $13,920, plus a 2 per cent insurance fee, or $14,198.40. The monthly payment at 6| per cent interest will be $87.32. After 35 years the little man will have paid out $36,674 plus his original down payment of $1,080, or $37,754. Of the $36,674 paid in monthly payments, $22,476 will have been paid in interest alone. So the little man will have paid $15,000 for his house, $278 to protect Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and $22,476 in interest.
I use this illustration only to point out that if the minister is really interested in stimulating demand for houses and in helping the little man to acquire a house, he will have to attack the major cost factor in housing today, namely the exorbitant interest rate which has resulted from the financial policies of his government.


David James Walker: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker? The hon. member is now speaking of the little man. Will he give us the figures for a $10,000 house, which would involve a down payment of $500. Let him put them on the record.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister can have his officials do that during the dinner recess.


John Richard Garland: It would not take too long. I do not have the facilities here, the adding machines, the paper and the staff to work that out at the moment, but I am quite sure the minister is well aware of these figures. He himself used figures yesterday; I do not think he should have any objection to my using figures today.


Mr. Pugh:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Richard Garland: No, Mr. Speaker. My time is slipping by. We can have a discussion in committee. Such an abnormal situation could perhaps be justified if we were suffering at present from extreme inflationary pressures and we wanted to discourage construction activity. But surely this is not the situation nor the purpose of government policy at the present time, when we are in a recession and when we suffer from a lack of growth momentum.
What the Canadian economy needs now is an easier and cheaper money policy. The money supply must be increased and interest rate should be reduced. But apparently the opposite is now happening, and the average rate on treasury bills has been going up, I understand, since September.
I should like to quote what the president of the Imperial bank had to say on this just as recently as two days ago. Mr. John S. Proctor, president of the Imperial bank is reported in the press as follows:
Banker John S. Proctor today blamed-high interest rates-for indirectly causing much of our current economic woe.
He urged lower interest rates.
He calls for a return to an easier money policy. This general requirement of our economy applies with even greater justification in the field of housing. Interest rates on housing must be lowered immediately, and I hope the minister will give this suggestion his serious consideration. Those interest rates are now at a record level. Surely this is most undesirable; this is the wrong approach, the wrong policy, if we admit, as we say on this side of the house, that we are going through a recession, or even if we admit, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) said the other day, that we are now experiencing serious economic difficulties.
I should now like to refer to the terms under which partnerships are established between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the provinces for purposes of redevelopment. Here again the bill contains a provision which will represent an improvement but, in my opinion, it does not go to the heart of the problem. The need to provide low rental housing and to counteract urban blight is urgent in Canada. This is one of the most vital tasks to which, as a nation, we should devote ourselves, especially during periods of recession and mounting unemployment. If we really want to make progress in this field we must reduce the financial burden placed on the provinces and municipalities so as to encourage them to initiate more projects.
To achieve this purpose, the degree and scope of financial participation by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in those projects should, we believe, be increased. In February, 1958 the Liberal party put forward a concrete proposal which would certainly have had that result. I should like to renew it in exactly the same terms in which it was presented in 1958, and I now quote:
There is an urgent need to speed up the redevelopment of blighted areas in our cities. In order to promote this redevelopment we propose to amend the existing legislation to provide for a greater participation by the federal government. In particular, we propose to increase federal participation in slum clearance schemes from 50 per cent to 75 per cent and to provide for federal sharing in the cost of water, sewer and street services in the area concerned. Also we would propose to ease the present restrictions on redevelopment for commercial and other purposes as well as housing, where that is advisable.

National Housing Act
We on this side of the house believe that these two specific proposals, namely the increase in federal participation in slum clearance schemes from 50 per cent to 75 per cent and federal sharing in the cost of water, sewer and street services in the areas concerned, have a great deal of merit and should be included in the present bill. If we really want to make more rapid progress in the elimination of slums we will have to do something along those lines. I hope the minister will give those two suggestions some consideration.
The same general comments apply to the provision of the bill dealing with projects for sewage disposal and treatment. It is a step in the right direction but we do not believe it goes far enough. It will certainly be desirable under present circumstances to extend the scope of this provision so it could apply to a broader category of major municipal improvement projects.
In recent years a great number of municipalities in Canada have found it very difficult indeed to borrow at reasonable rates of interest. Indeed, access to the financial market has not been easy for those municipalities, which have found themselves in the same difficult position as small businesses. That is why the Liberal party proposed back in 1958 the creation of a municipal loan fund. Our proposal at that time was as follows:
A Liberal government would establish a municipal loan fund in order to make available additional finance on a long term basis for major municipal improvements. Readier availability of funds would make possible an immediate start on municipal works now awaiting financing and thus quickly provide jobs throughout Canada. It would help greatly to bring about a rapid expansion of urgently needed municipal services which in many cases have been long delayed because of lack of funds.
The exact scope and administrative set-up of this fund would be settled in consultation with representatives of the provinces and municipalities. It would supplement, not replace, existing methods of financing for normal municipal purposes.
A similar proposal has been put forward on several occasions since by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. We believe it is perfectly justified. The present bill will, in fact, discriminate against those municipalities which have neglected other local improvements to put the emphasis on sewage disposal and treatment. That is why we believe that our proposal for a fund to be used for general purposes would be more equitable and would do more to alleviate unemployment. I hope the government will consider accepting this proposal.
I should like to say a word or two with respect to the aid to universities aspect of this legislation. We in the official opposition are pleased with part VI A respecting loans for university housing projects to provide

dormitory accommodation for students. This is one of the several requests made by the Canadian universities in their recent brief to the government. I think all of us are aware of the great need to encourage and assist our Canadian universities. Our university capacity will have to be doubled within the next few years to handle the present rate of enrolment, and anything that can be done to assist is desirable. In addition, a greater effort will have to be made to encourage more of our young people to better equip themselves for the challenging times that lie ahead. Naturally assistance from the federal level must never encroach upon the autonomy of the provinces in this field.
The federal government realized some years ago that it was in the national interest to assist Canadian universities, so in 1951 assistance was made available through grants in aid. These were doubled, I think, in 1956 and were increased again by the present government. You will recall that further assistance to higher education was provided through the establishment of The Canada Council. At that time $100 million was set aside, half of which is being used to provide capital assistance for university expansion. We agree with this further expansion of assistance to our universities. Although it provides only for loans and provides nothing in the way of grants, as was done through The Canada Council, it should have a beneficial effect and we are pleased to support it.
To sum up, our view is that the present bill is a step in the right direction, and that is why we intend to support it. Our main criticism is that it is too little and too late. As I have said earlier, this legislation should have been presented during the last session of parliament in order to reduce the mounting unemployment that we now have. In other words, it will not have its full impact when it will be most needed.
Moreover, the present bill does not go far enough. I hope the government will decide to lower the interest rate on loans as soon as possible. Otherwise the benefits of the proposed legislation may be substantially reduced. Finally, I also hope the government will accept our suggestions with respect to increasing the degree and scope of federal participation in slum clearance and urban redevelopment schemes, and establishing a municipal loan fund.


Mr. John Pratt (Jacques Carlier-Lasalle):: Mr. Speaker, I most certainly welcome this opportunity to thank and congratulate the Minister of Public Works and the government on the excellent measures now proposed in this legislation to assist municipalities and home builders by providing additional money

to encourage many new projects both of a public and a private nature. The municipalities will gain the opportunity to instal long overdue public works and home builders, home purchasers, and home owners will all benefit from the availability of additional money. The general public will not only benefit from the utilitarian improvements achieved but also from the over-all improvement with respect to the problem of unemployment, one improvement which is bound to result from the implementation of the measures now proposed by the minister.
The part of the new program that deals with federal assistance to municipalities to build sewage disposal plants is, of course, the part that will be the most welcome surprise to the cities and towns of my own constituency, Jacques Cartier-Lasalle. I have just received my copy of Bill No. C-42, and I have not had a chance to digest it yet. There are some parts which I think will require clarification, for instance the part that mentions security by debentures. I do not quite follow how this will resolve in low interest, but I will not go into the details at this moment. We can clear this up later in committee.
I understand, however, that this assistance will also be extended to include the expansion of trunk sewer lines to take care of new or even old territory provided that the work is part of a general sewage disposal system. This will indeed be wonderful news to my constituents, who reside in an area which is probably more affected by water pollution than any other in Canada, if only by reason of the tremendous size and growth of its population and the utter lack of any organized efforts so far by the local authorities to solve the problem.
The abolition of water pollution was the number one plank of my own personal campaign in both the 1957 and 1958 elections. Therefore I welcome this opportunity to extend the heartfelt thanks of myself and my constituents to the government for this long awaited and long overdue remedial action. My constituents will also be glad to hear that the many letters they wrote as individuals and groups at my suggestion have helped in a major way to keep this urgent problem constantly before a very busy Prime Minister and cabinet, and I should like to thank them now for their efforts and congratulate them on their success.
The arrangement by which the federal government makes an outright grant of 25 per cent of the loan for work completed on sewage disposal units by April, 1963, is an excellent one, and should result in an early start on this work by many municipalities.
National Housing Act
My own city of Dorval adopted a resolution to take advantage of this offer on the very night the announcement was made in the speech from the throne. Dorval has also been in communication with neighbouring municipalities to see if they would join in a simultaneous effort to clean up the pollution of lake St. Louis and the other waters surrounding the island of Montreal.
It is hoped, in our part of the world, that the province of Quebec will shortly announce its own proposed legislation in this respect. I am sure the municipalities in my riding would be most grateful if the province were to agree to write off the remainder of such a loan in a similar manner to that now proposed by the federal government. This would leave about one third of the cost of sewage disposal plants and trunk sewers to be borne by the municipalities. I feel this would be a very fair distribution in view of the present state of civic finances. It is my understanding that $100 million is to be set aside for this purpose by the federal government. My own riding is certainly in a position right now to accept $2 million or $3 million at the proposed rate of interest over a term of some 50 years.
May I again congratulate the Minister ol Public Works for this very forward step, and assure him that this measure has my complete support.


Mr. H. M. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this bill which is now before the house. First of all I want to say something with regard to the attitude of the Liberal party as it has been expressed so far this session. I do not intend, personally, to give up my responsibility as the member of this house representing Jasper-Edson. I feel that there are a few things I can contribute to the debate on this subject, particularly as it applies to towns of 5,000 and under.
I should like to put on the record, expressly for the benefit of the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland), the Liberal record in connection with housing in small communities. I have here the figures for the years 1954, 1955 and 1956, showing National Housing Act loans all across Canada in the small communities. There were 173 in 1954; 13 in 1955 and 375 in 1956. Now, if that is not a dismal record, I do not know what is.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Yes.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Are those the statistics relating to all National Housing Act loans, including private loans?

National Housing Act


Hugh Macarthur Horner: These are direct loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and if anyone should know you should know that the approved lenders would not go into towns of 5,000 or less. I shall deal with that a little later. I also have something else to say with regard to the housing policy of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer).
Before I was interrupted I was going to say that one of the reasons we are having some recession and some unemployment at this time is that the Liberal party centralized everything in the large centres. They forgot about the rural areas and the small towns and the expansion that could and should be taking place in them. We have a recession now, and we have the Liberal press all across the country still yahooing about gloom and doom. The communications outlets in this country should be the leaders in showing the people of Canada all the opportunities that are available to them at the moment.
There are all kinds of opportunities right across the country. There are all kinds of opportunities in my constituency. There is absolutely no need for anybody in my constituency, because of the developments that are taking place, to be unemployed this winter. You just need to pick up the blue book of imports to see all the things we are importing into this country that we could be making here.
However, all the Liberal press can do is to preach gloom and doom. They should be ashamed of themselves. This fellow Neuman who was on T.V. last night should be ashamed of himself, and I will tell him so personally. He mouthed a lot of rot about things about which he did not know anything. A lot of these people need to take a trip across Canada to see what is happening. I suggest that our friends in the Liberal party ought to get out of Ontario and into the west to see what is happening.


An hon. Member:: The Grey cup.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: They may see that, too, and as a member from northern Alberta I will even suggest who is going to win the Grey cup-the Edmonton Eskimos. However, if I might return to the problem that we have in our smaller towns, I would say that these are areas that are ideal for expansion and development. This government has taken some interest in these areas. I suggest the hon. members for Nipissing and Trinity should look at the direct loans made in small towns during the years 1958 and 1959.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You were in office then.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Yes, and look at the number of loans that were made. The total is up in the thousands as compared to about a miserable 500 in the three preceding years under a Liberal administration. I do not believe the income limitations placed on applicants for these loans should have been applicable to the smaller towns in our country because, as I have said and as I emphasize for the benefit of the hon. member for Trinity, approved lenders will not make loans in these areas.
We are also very appreciative of this reduction in the down payment which will be required under this legislation. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Nipissing that the little man does not have to take a loan for 35 years, nor does he have to take the maximum loan. If we are going to talk about interest rates for a minute, I would refer back to the famous speech on housing made by the hon. member for Trinity during the last session or the one before that. He discussed these interest rates, and what did he want? He wanted a relaxation of the Bank Act so the banks could raise the interest rate and pour money into housing. Now we have the hon. member for Nipissing talking about interest rates.
I know the hon. member for Nipissing was right when he spoke about a change in the housing situation and said that in certain areas it is now a demand situation. It may be true that 20 per cent of the new houses in the Toronto area are unoccupied. I know the market for new houses in the small towns in Canada is a good market. People will go ahead and wherever possible build new houses. This activity in the construction field will provide employment for our western lumber industry, and the employment will be provided immediately. Within the next two weeks lumber operators will be deciding whether or not they are going into the bush. This measure will provide the necessary impetus to get them to start cutting lumber. I hope, too, that some of our smaller centres will give consideration to low cost low rental housing projects, because there is a market in our smaller towns for this type of accommodation.
It is all very well for our friends to get up and talk, but they should at least stick to a few facts and maintain a fairly constant position from one year to the next. I hope when the regulations under this act are drawn up they will be broad enough and will not discriminate against those very communities about which I am talking, because it is vitally important, as I say, to the development of Canada that these communities expand and develop.

I believe that the step forward which has now been taken with regard to dormitories for university residences will be of particular help to all our universities. I am sure that this is the case in western Canada, because I have had representation from the University of Alberta that they would like something like this; they want something and will take advantage of it as soon as possible.
I want now to come to the question of water pollution and sewage disposal. In my constituency we have the start of a great water system coming down off the eastern slopes of the Rockies and flowing to lake Athabaska. We have the northern Saskatchewan river, the Athabaska river, the Brazeau river, the McLeod river, and the Pembina river, and all along those rivers we have natural resources which are just now being developed. There are new towns which have just recently been set up-Drayton Valley, Whitecourt, Swan Hill, Hinton. These are the towns that are developing in western Canada at the moment, and you will hear more of them in the future.
This is the kind of legislation that is going to help these towns to develop. It is going to help us to take the water resources in this great eastern Rockies watershed and make it pure and fit for human consumption in the future. This is the kind of step forward that only a Conservative government would take, a government which is interested in the development of the country and in conserving all the natural resources for the best possible use. The Liberal party would not think of this, because they would not be able to think where to obtain the patronage to carry out this kind of development. We know that the Liberal party could not do it, because in western Canada we waited 22 years for this kind of thing.
Therefore I wish to commend the Minister of Public Works for this legislation. I want to say to him in particular, again, that if at any time he feels it is necessary to encourage private lenders into the market he should remember our smaller towns particularly in western Canada. These approved lenders with head offices in eastern Canada will not go out to our towns, and in this manner we are discriminated against because we cannot obtain N.H.A. loans in these towns. I also want to thank the minister for this step in regard to sewage disposal and in regard to the purification of the water supply. I think it is a wonderful step forward and, as I say, it is a step forward which only the Conservative government would take.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I did not intend to take part in the discussion and deliberation
National Housing Act
today, but since housing is of such vital importance to every member sitting here I could not sit idly by and listen to some of these absurd statements and allegations which have been made this afternoon without taking part.
I listened with a very great deal of interest to the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland), for he has always taken a great deal of interest in this subject; he has always acted more or less as a speaker for the official opposition. I would presume that in his discourse this afternoon he expressed the opinion of the opposition in regard to this particular bill. I could not help noting, however, that there were two outstanding phrases that he put forward in his speech. Those two phrases were, "we, the Liberal party" and, "recession". He used these phrases to such an extent that the two became almost synonymous. I think that is what we are going to find, that the two are synonymous, and my reason for rising this afternoon is to speak on this very point.
The fact is that the official opposition all through its speaking and its press is always working to promote a recession. We find in Kent county that this is having a dire effect on the desire of people to either spend or not spend their money.
I must say that I was very much interested in the building that has taken place in Kent this year. The housing starts were to such a degree that the contractors were finding a great deal of difficulty in keeping up with the starts and there was quite a time lag for any one wishing a new home. I might say, also, that I was very happy that the number of unemployed in this district dropped to such a low figure this summer that it was almost impossible for the agricultural population to obtain the desired number of people to bring in the harvest successfully.
We find now in the terms and provisions of this new bill an extension of these possibilities, so that even more members of this particular riding are placed in the position that they are able to start, complete and eventually pay for their new homes.
I think in our deliberations we must always look to the fact that the people back in the ridings are concerned directly with their pocketbooks and with the way the economic position of the country as a whole affects them. In other words, whatever it is, they take this view, "How much will it cost me, and what does it mean?" With these restrictions now lowered there is the possibility that an ordinary working man will be in position to buy his own home with a $600
1S8	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
down payment. I think this fact will have a great deal to do with the younger generation of today becoming home owners.
We might just as well face the fact that the tenor in the last 20 years has changed radically in all phases of marketing and buying from pay as you go to budget and terms. As a matter of fact, it would have been astonishing 15 years ago to go into a store and have the assistant in the store prefer you to buy on budget and terms rather than pay cash. I think we must realize that the markets today have changed to such a degree that budget plans and buying on this basis is the recognized method.
Since there is only a definite amount of money on the market, and since all phases of industry are competing on this basis for the available money the home owner has to spend, I think it is very fine indeed that the average person today is placed in a position where he can think of a down payment on a car and a down payment on a home. The down payment on the home is so attractive and means so much to him and his family that he can also consider the down payment on a car. For too long under the former administration the down payment on the home was too far out of the reach of the ordinary citizen and so he used the money that he had as the down payment on a car. His hopes of owning a home were far away into the future.
I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken, that it is very hard indeed to follow the policy of the Liberal party. At one time they say the only solution was to lower the interest rate, and we have heard in this discussion and some time ago that the only solution was by raising the interest rate. I think this is generally to be found in most of the policies they have put forward. Therefore I would like to say to the minister that we in Kent county appreciate very much the step taken in the amendments to this bill, because it means so much to the ordinary home owner in the small town. Too often we forget the small towns because the development is so picturesque and can be seen to such a greater degree around the large urban centres. For this reason we tend to forget people in the communities with two, three, four or ten homes who are interested in buying their own homes in order to provide for the future of their families.
Once again, I would say that I am more than happy to support a bill of this kind, because it means so much to the people I represent.


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I take a great deal of pride in rising to take part in this discussion this afternoon, primarily because I am very much


interested in housing and, second, because I am very much interested in the amendments to the National Housing Act that are now before us.
I should be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Public Works and the government upon their interest in housing. This measure will not only put a very important group of our workers back in the field upon which they depend for their livelihood, but it will also be a great boost for an industry which has been in some difficulty for the last little while.
I have two or three points I should like to make this afternoon. I am very pleased with the provisions which would be included in the amendments to the National Housing Act. The one I am pleased with particularly is a proposal to increase from 90 per cent to 95 per cent the appraised lending value of a home. This will have the effect of reducing considerably the down payment on a home, and it will now be easier for a young couple to purchase a home with a valuation of $12,000 for a down payment as low as $600. Previously a home of the same valuation required a down payment of about $1,200. I hope a good many of our young people will take advantage of the opportunity to establish themselves in homes of their own very soon. This is a step in the right direction, and as far as I am concerned this provision will go a long way to assist young people in the lower salary group.
However, I do sincerely hope that the minister will give some thought to lifting the limitations on earnings entirely. I have had brought to my attention cases where doctors, pilots, skilled technical help and executive people wished to build their own homes but could not qualify for a loan because of these limitations. This program was designed to put men and women to work. The limitations have very little effect in practice because comparatively few people come into the wage bracket of which I have been speaking. Because of the intent of this program my humble opinion is that serious consideration should be given to lifting the ceiling entirely.
There is one other point which I have had brought to my attention during the last year and that is the question of direct builders' loans. I hope the minister will give consideration to allowing a limited quantity of builders' loans to each contractor who has in the past built a number of homes or to those who can provide or are in a position to provide the department with proof that they are interested in developing certain areas. I suggest that if a contractor builds as an example five different models of homes he should be allowed at least ten builders loans so that he can then sell or be in a position to offer to sell one model of the ten houses, up to five in

total, for immediate occupancy. I feel this is very important in the west and in Edmonton in particular where people have not shown too much interest in buying homes off a set of plans. This will also help the contractor in the matter of finances and enable him to keep his men employed during a slower selling period. I have a development under way in Edmonton East which could be speeded up considerably and many more men put to work if such loans could be made available to the contractors now.
The second point I wanted to bring to the attention of the house is the question of inspection. I suggest that a much more rigid inspection policy should be adopted. A stricter procedure-if that is what it is-should be set up with respect to the inspection of homes built under the auspices of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I have seen homes in Edmonton which had been passed by the inspectors but which were so badly built and finished that it is evident some means must be adopted to ensure better quality. I inspected one home recently in which the doors and the jambs were not plumb. The casings and trim looked as if they had been installed by a group of amateurs. The plumbing was not satisfactory because of the inferior type of the faucets and taps used. I suggest it is discouraging to make a substantial down payment on a house and then have to spend $100 or $200 replacing inferior taps, lighting fixtures and what not because the specifications did not demand a certain grade. One way of overcoming this problem would be, I suggest, to have the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation specify high grade Canadian materials or their equal.
Another point which has come up on occasion is the question of the lack of rental housing units in our smaller centres. I am aware of a considerable acreage where such houses could suitably be built. The acreage in question is in a working man's area in a small suburb on the outskirts of the city of Edmonton. The reason this acreage has not been developed is because of the lack of loan funds and lack of sewer facilities. Because there are no sewer facilities in that area the approved lenders will not lend. I am very pleased that some steps are now being considered in this regard. I make reference to the town of Beverly specifically, because although Edmonton has grown over 50 per cent in the last ten years Beverly has grown by less than 10 per cent.
Once again I want to commend the minister and the government on their attitude with regard to this question.
National Housing Act


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) heard many words of commendation yesterday for the resolution he introduced regarding proposed changes to the National Housing Act and for the offer of federal financial help to municipalities in respect of sewerage projects. Bill No. C-42 is now before the house and I wish to add to those words of commendation.
I want to congratulate the minister on the very clear way in which he explained the details of the measure we are now considering. I can assure him that the changes in the act which he outlined will be well received in all parts of Canada. As he says, the changes will have the effect of increasing the amount of the loan to home builders and reducing the down payment. This policy, as he pointed out, will go a long way toward helping potential home owners to accumulate the necessary equity and reduce the need for second mortgages. It will stimulate home building and, despite some of the jibes we have heard from opposition members, some of this new home construction will be undertaken this winter.
I believe that the extension of the permissible repayment term to 35 years will be a help for some home builders. The minister pointed out that this longer term for repayment is not compulsory. It will, however, be a help to some young people who want to start their first home and keep their monthly payments as low as possible.
The silence of the usually critical opposition speakers indicates that they, too, realize the benefits of this legislation. As the minister said in his statement these changes in the act and in the regulations are being put forward at this time to support demand along a broad front. I have received suggestions for N.H.A. changes along the lines embodied in this measure. So, I am sure, have other hon. members. Those we represent will see by this bill that their suggestions were well received.
Previous speakers have pointed out that there are six main items embodied in this bill. Many have discussed the encouragement for home building in smaller towns and aid for the building of university residences. It is not my intention to repeat their statements. I should, however, like to deal briefly with the program of federal financial assistance to municipalities for sewage disposal and treatment as outlined in this measure.
The minister explained that parliament will be asked to set aside $100 million for this federal aid in sewage projects. Under C.M.H.C. two thirds of the cost of the proposed work will be loaned by the federal government, only 75 per cent of which will

National Housing Act
have to be repaid by the municipalities over a period of up to 50 years if-and I emphasize the word "if" because this will be up to the municipalities-prompt action is taken by them to start their sewage programs. As the bill points out, one quarter of the federal loan will be cancelled if it is spent on sewage work completed by April 1, 1963. To put it on the record again I should like to read from the explanatory note contained in the bill:
Provision is also made for a grant to a municipality undertaking a project of 25 per cent of the amount of the loan and the interest thereon where the project is completed on or before March 31, 1963. In the case of projects partially completed on March 31, 1963 the grant is proportioned to the amount of expenditures incurred by the municipality as of that date.
The minister stated that he has already received some inquiries concerning the commencement of this federal aid. I have also had inquiries from my own city of Moose Jaw where I hope the federal offer will be taken up as soon as possible. I have received letters from the mayor of Moose Jaw and from the city commissioner on this subject. Perhaps I may be permitted to read one paragraph from the letter of the city commissioner to illustrate the interest shown in this project.
We note by the throne speech that the federal government proposes legislation to correct community water pollution problems. Since the city of Moose Jaw is planning to rebuild its sewage treatment plant because of increasing pollution in the Moose Jaw river, with accompanying unpleasant odors, we are naturally very interested in any legislation which may be passed. Please keep us informed of developments.
I was struck particularly by one statement made by the minister yesterday. He said that any proposed sewage works must be approved by competent provincial health authorities. This is a very necessary precaution. But he made it plain, and these are his words as reported at page 94 of Hansard of November 22:
-it is to be understood that the province will not be the middleman here. We shall be dealing directly with the municipalities; that is to say, the federal people will be dealing directly with the municipalities.
I am glad that the minister made the federal government's position clear in this regard. I have found in the case of some dominion-provincial projects to which the federal government contributed 50 per cent of the cost, and in some cases more, that the provincial government somehow seemed to take all the credit for any benefits to the people. The minister has made it very clear that with respect to federal aid for sewage projects the province will not be the middleman. The minister went further and said, as reported at page 94 of Hansard:
[Mr. Pascoe.l
Whatever the provinces want to do besides this is up to the provinces. We shall be glad to have them make whatever contributions they can make.
That is a direct challenge to the provinces and I hope the premier of Saskatchewan is made aware of this challenge. The minister says he will be glad to have the provinces make contributions to these sewage projects.
I am sure the municipalities in Saskatchewan will be very pleased and very grateful for that assistance if the Saskatchewan government will put up a share of the cost in line with the federal government's offer. I go along with the Minister of Public Works in making this suggestion.
In conclusion I want to agree with the minister that all the programs envisaged in the bill represent a tremendous amount of employment, giving jobs to thousands of workers. It is one more line of attack by the federal government on the problem of unemployment. I am very pleased to support this measure.


Mr. M. L. McFarlane (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my remarks I should like to follow the course adopted by so many hon. members who have participated in this debate in extending my congratulations to the minister for introducing such important amendments to this legislation.
One of the most pressing problems in this vital field is property acquisition. Another is cost. During recent years, especially in the urban and rural areas, property has been bought up and is now selling at a premium. The situation is quite serious. People wishing to build homes find themselves having to build in poor locations where they encounter problems with respect to acquiring practical facilities such as light, heat, water and sewage. The expansion of municipalities has reached the stage where we now have to look ahead, not just to the needs of the next five years but to the needs of the next ten or 20 years.
In the rural areas where certain sections are being set aside for the construction of homes under C.M.H.C. I believe each company should be asked' to survey and set aside blocks, centrally located in the subdivision, for the construction of playgrounds, schools and the other necessary facilities required by expanding small communities. We now have to prepare for the future. There was a time when people looked ahead only two or three years but we now must look a decade or two into the future to the time when our small rural communities will eventually become urban communities and possibly large cities. There is a terrific difficulty, especially when loans are made available in the way they are at the present time. I should like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that loans should

be available to all areas of Canada. There has been a certain amount of congestion of loans because they were being granted only in the larger centres and in the well populated areas. I feel that loans should also be made available to the small rural areas which are expanding faster than we had expected.
I quite believe that residences for students in universities today should be constructed at^an early date. The minister is to be complimented on his efforts in bringing this matter within the confines of the bill. In the construction of residences, we should take into account the newly married couple and also the single man and woman who are taking university courses. The buildings should be planned with small apartments and also apartments for single people so that the students can live in or near the university grounds. I am sure universities in general will welcome this venture on the part of the government and the assistance that has been offered. Accommodation for students in universities at the present time is quite a problem. A good many of them are spending two or three hours a day travelling back and forth from their places of residence to the university grounds.
The increase in the amount of the loan is also a welcome feature. I hope that at some future time all limitations will be taken off the ceiling with respect to the prospective builders of houses. This last year several houses have not been built because the prospective builders were beyond the wage limit that was allowed in the present act.
The sewage problem and water pollution have been brought to the attention of the government on many occasions in the past and little or no action has been taken. In the smaller organized or incorporated communities they have got by with a hit-or-miss sewage proposition. The day has long gone by where a disposal plant is the answer to the problem. So far this will not affect the smaller communities, but the preparation should be made now to build the plants so that this will not be a problem in the future.
I can see that water pollution is becoming a serious problem and will multiply in future years.
There is just one question I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and that is the necessary regulations under the act. When the regulations are drawn up I believe they should be simple and concise so that the average wage earner will well understand what he is signing. Let us do away with a lot of the little jokers in contracts and so forth which are in fine print at the present time.
9020S-6-11J
National Housing Act
Another matter that should be brought to the attention of the minister is the inspection of buildings. Since the war a great many houses have been built in Canada, and a good many of them without any building inspection of any kind. I believe that if a house is being constructed under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation a qualified inspector should be placed in charge of the construction, a man who knows construction and all the various phases in the construction of a house from electrical wiring, plumbing and heating to the construction of the house itself. I have received many complaints from people who have had houses built for them and have found at the end of the job that a good many of the places were built with putty, plastic wood and various other compounds which were used to cover up a multitude of sins.
There is just one other item I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. I believe some assistance should be given to local groups who take on the tremendous job of building homes for the aged. I have one instance in my own area. Interested people banded themselves together to construct a memorial home for the aged and elderly people of my area. We have been endeavouring for quite some time to obtain some assistance in the financing of this project. Incidentally, the project is now completed and we are carrying a heavy debt over our heads. We have been endeavouring to have a refund of the sales tax on material that was supplied for the construction of this home. I believe we would be well advised to give local groups this advantage. After all, those local groups save the government of Canada a great deal of money in constructing homes. They construct them and arrange for financing all the way down the line until the home is finally completed. I understand that funds can be granted to a limited dividend company but that the local groups are debarred by national housing plans from participating in a venture of this kind.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the other members of the Conservative party who are endeavouring to promote the welfare of all Canadian people through amendments to the National Housing Act, and I commend the minister on his forward step in this direction.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietie-L'Assomption-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying to see that the government has amended the National Housing Act in order to promote housing construction and, at the same time, to encourage Canadians to become property owners. Those amendments should have been

National Housing Act
made years ago, especially when, under the previous administration, there were almost
600,000	unemployed in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a brief which was submitted to me by the national Catholic unions of Joliette and I should like to read a couple of paragraphs for the benefit of this house:
The corporation should lend to prospective home owners up to 90 per cent of the money required for the purchase of the land and the construction of a family dwelling planned according to family needs and in accordance with building standards recognized in Canada;
Housing standards set up by the corporation should be made a little more flexible as a means of promoting the construction of a greater number of homes.
Mr. Speaker, that is to a large extent what the present government has just done, and as I indicated a moment ago, I am referring here to a brief from the syndicats catholiques nationaux. Here is what it says in paragraph 7:
Promote the construction of family dwellings.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that according to statistics from every country in the world, Canada has the highest ratio of home owners, that is to say, 65 per cent of existing homes in Canada are occupied by their owners. Nevertheless, 76,000 more homes are needed in Montreal, and 100,000 in the province of Quebec. At this stage in the discussion, X should like to make a suggestion to the authorities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-perhaps it has been made in the past-to the effect that an investigation be conducted across the country, in every province, to determine what type of house the people want. So far, the matter has been left to the architects, engineers, accountants and manufacturers of building materials. Families would buy the houses they were offered, for lack of a better choice, and it would be interesting to know in what type of house fathers and mothers would like to raise their children.
A word of commendation is due to the housing co-operatives and to the caisses populates, which have been largely responsible for the expansion of housing in Quebec.
A case in point is the town of Joliette. A few years ago, the housing co-operative helped solve the housing problem and enabled a large number of workers to own their own home. Great praise is deserved by the housing co-operatives and also by the caisses populates for the great social services they have been rendering to the people of Quebec.

I was also greatly interested in this section of the bill which says:
Loans for municipal sewage treatment projects.
This act should have been amended years ago, to help remedy this situation and solve this problem. There are about 600 sewage disposal plants in Ontario against three or four in the province of Quebec.
The island of Montreal is surrounded by polluted water. There is not even a beach that is adequate for its population.
Water pollution in lake St. Louis is a menace to Montreal's development. I need not refer to the consequences of water pollution on public health and on animal life.
I wonder if a federal-provincial-municipal conference should not be called in the near future to study on a national scale the problem of water pollution?
For instance, in the constituency of Joliette-L'Association-Montcalm, the L'Assomption river is polluted. The water is also polluted in the St. Lawrence river around Repentigny and St. Sulpice, so tourists are kept away.
This is quite a problem to settle. I might add that oil companies in Montreal East should be wiser and contribute to preventing water pollution in the St. Lawrence river. You only have to go on the river in a small craft to see oil films on the water. It is not a very nice sight.
Let me go back to the magazine "Genie-construction" and its issue of October 1958 where one of the leading articles is devoted to the problem of water purification.
It is a question, of life or death in Quebec.
Says the author of the article, Roger Bedard.
A survey made in 1956 by Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation reached the conclusion that 68 per cent of the water in Quebec is a danger to public health.
Now here is a statement by Dr. Prevost, a professor of biology at the University of Montreal.
For a long time, it was thought that the volume of our rivers was sufficient to insure that sewage water would be diluted to the point where pollution would be avoided. It must be realized today that we are up against a gigantic pollution problem in some of our rivers.
Some of the most beautiful waterways in the province have become real open sewers, which are conveying a flood of poison to the majestic St. Lawrence.
That is why we should be paying tribute to the hon. Minister of Public Works, for amending the National Housing Act, so that municipal authorities may benefit from the legislation.

Our world today can no longer allow water pollution. There should be, at all levels, a joint effort to solve the problem.
I want at this point publicly to commend the representative of the riding of Jacques Cartier (Mr. Pratt), who is also mayor of Dorval, a progressive town of the province of Quebec, which took a step that might well serve as an example to all.
The city of Dorval took some action which, if imitated by the neighbouring municipalities, as it hopes it will be, will finally help purify the now polluted waters of lake St. Louis.
The municipal council has, as a matter of fact, passed unanimously on first reading a scheme for settling this issue which provides erection of a sewage disposal plant.
At the present time, Dorval and other municipalities on the shores of lake St. Louis are allowing their sewers to flow into the lake. According to biologists, the waters are so polluted, that from a sanitary point of view every year it is becoming increasingly dangerous to use it for bathing.
The mayor and-
The Dorval council know very well that construction of a sewage disposal plant in their city could not appreciably improve the situation.
Dorval authorities know however, that this legislation is the ideal way of dealing with the situation in so far as it is possible to do so.
In closing, I again congratulate the minister for his amendment. I strongly blame the former administration for its failure to consider this problem, for its shortsighted policy and for its refusal to amend the C.M.H.C. act, thus leaving unsolved the problem of water pollution, a problem of national scope.
(Text):


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable pleasure that I rise today to congratulate the minister and the government for these further extensions of the provisions of the National Housing Act. The amendments in the bill are to be strongly commended. Since coming to power we have established a tradition with regard to national housing and I should like to say a few words about that later. I do not intend to go into the various details of the bill. As we went through the resolution stage yesterday two things were very firmly impressed on my mind. The first was the effect of the amendments on employment and, second, the effect of these amendments on the Liberals.
To deal with employment first, I would say that the changes being made in the act
National Housing Act
with respect to all forms of construction are going to make a tremendous difference to the Canadian economy as it is today from the point of view of providing work for people. First of all, with respect to housing, urban development, university residence and municipal sewage projects we have to look a little further than just thinking about what the changes may mean generally. In every type of construction you have labour and materials involved, and if you think of all the bits and pieces that enter into the construction of a house, wood, wiring, flooring materials, plumbling materials or anything else you care to mention, you will realize the tremendous turnover, not only of labour employed in the actual construction of houses but also of labour in the industries that supply the materials. Think, for instance, of the lumbering industry which supplies lumber for houses and the mining industry which supplies the metals to make other things that go into houses. There is no question that these changes in the act are going to make a great deal of difference so far as employment is concerned throughout the whole Canadian economy.
As I said, two things have impressed themselves upon me as far as the bill is concerned. The first is the effect on employment and the second is the effect on the Liberals. I want to stress this. I wish we could cure the Liberals as easily as we can cure unemployment, but that is not quite so easy.
I should like to make particular reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) because, after praising the bill fully he then went on to make one or two comments which, in my opinion, do not harmonize with the fact that he has set himself up as the housing authority for the Liberal party. He used the words, too little and too late. He said that this was a step in the right direction. When you tie those two things together and then look back over the record of the Liberal party in connection with the National Housing Act you cannot help but wonder why he would make so much fuss at the present time. These Liberals are caught short. They are scared silly of this bill. It is good and, as I say, it is in the good old Conservative tradition. They must see that it will go through. They have to praise it faintly and find the only criticism they can make is these rather vapid utterances. Everything they say really adds up to this: It is a great improvement, but it is not enough.
I should like to refer to certain figures. When you receive criticism naturally you recoil a little bit and then you wonder what

National Housing Act is the basis of the criticism. I ask myself, is the basis of the criticism the Liberal party's handling of national housing up to the date of the election, June 10, 1957? Surely it cannot be that because if you examine the figures you will find that there was a total of $150 million devoted to national housing, of which $100 million had been used up.


Mr. Carter:: No, $250 million.


David Vaughan Pugh: Did I hear someone say $250 million?


Chesley William Carter: Well, there was $150 million after you fellows came in.


David Vaughan Pugh: Certainly, there was only $101 million used up by June 10, 1957, whether or not you are correct in saying that $250 million was authorized. I think if you look at the statistics you will find it was $150 million. However, apart from that, why was the $250 million not used up in all the history of the National Housing Act prior to June 10, 1957? In my opinion there was a very good reason for that. The Liberals called it a credit squeeze, but I like to call it tight money. The reason the Liberals know so much about tight money is that they had a naturally tight money situation prior to June 10, 1957.


Chesley William Carter: And we have had ever since then, too.


David Vaughan Pugh: Good show; keep on cutting in. I do not know how many hon. members went around to their bank managers or the various lending institutions during this time, but if you did you realized how difficult it was to obtain money. There was no possibility at that time of building a home. After the date I have previously mentioned the changeover was complete. This administration said that something must be done and they did something about the National Housing Act.
Again today the hon. member for Nipissing says that they advocated these things in 1958. However, in actual fact during all the time they were in office they did little, if anything. They did not even use the amount of money allocated under this act for national housing. The National Housing Act, in its original inception, was an excellent act. If hon. members will recall they will remember that prior to June 10, 1957 there was very little building activity in their communities. The builders, plumbers, and all suppliers were crying on the Liberal government's neck, but they were not getting anything even though there was a considerable amount of money still unspent in the national housing fund.
When this administration came into office we sold the people of Canada on the fact we were going to help them with national housing. We increased the amount of money

available. We increased it each and every year. As you know, this year we put in $500 million, and what did we do last year? We put in $300 million. The hon. member for Nipissing refers to ineptness, confusion and a failure to look ahead. He says we did not do enough in the national housing field last year. What a ridiculous remark to make in the light of the actual facts. More than $300 million was voted last year, and in addition the balance unspent from 1958 was made available. There was a total of between $330 million and $350 million used, and yet they say that we did not look ahead; that we did not do anything about it.
If you will look at the record with relation to the voting of the $300 million in this house last year you will not find one Liberal voice raised to say, this is not enough, you are going to run out. They said, you are not going to use any of it because Canada is going behind. How wrong they were. It is good to see the fund being used up. The housing fund is now up to $1,500,000,000 and on June 10, 1957 there was $150 million of which $101 million had been used up. At the moment there is well over a billion dollars out in housing loans.
Recall the big words used by the hon. member for Nipissing and when you hear the word "inept" applied to this government just compare the record of the Conservative government with the record of the Liberals in the field of national housing. Where was the confusion here? Where was the ineptness? Certainly there was none in this administration.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the minister, not only for all the various improvements in this act but for the very fact he is carrying out something which was started in 1957 by this administration, something which was started to deal with national housing in Canada and with the employment problem, and he is carrying it out in the best Conservative tradition.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister will forgive me if I do not join in the chorus of congratulations. I may extend them to you, sir, because there is one aspect of this bill which was one of your favourite subjects when you were a member of the house. I recall that you were one of the first members of this house to request loans for university residences. I suppose you are taking a certain amount of interest and pride in the fact that this government has now decided to provide such funds. I think I might say that it is coming late in the day. The federal government of the United States has been doing this for quite some time. At last we have decided to follow their example. Of course, they have

had the same constitutional arguments against the federal state entering such a field as we have had here. But they have been in it longer, and I hope that some day the scale of our contribution in this particular field is as great as theirs. Several years ago-in 1957 I believe-theirs was $257 million loaned for this purpose.
The minister has had an interest in this residence matter. I remember in the public accounts committee two years ago when he was cross-examining-if I can use that phrase-the Hon. Brooke Claxton about it. At that time I felt he had the same viewpoint that I had. That year The Canada Council put 40 per cent, I believe, of its expenditure on the universities' side into residences. The next year, perhaps as a result of some of the protests we made in the committee and the complaints we made about this, it dropped to 7 per cent. The feeling of some of us on the committee was that the money The Canada Council was contributing on residences was really not as vital as its expenditures in other fields; more closely attached to the actual teaching process. It seems to me that this loan fund will remove from The Canada Council much of the onus it felt to provide residence funds.
There is one other problem regarding residences that I wish to mention. I will bring this matter up more particularly when we are going through the bill. I see no definition of "university" in the bill, and it bothers me from a general point of view. We very much need a residence at the lakehead college at Port Arthur, and I am sure that the new college under way at Sudbury will need a residence. This is because colleges in areas such as ours are drawing students from great distances. In many cases we have not the kind of boarding-house possibilities available in cities such as Toronto and Kingston.
I remember the big hullabaloo in Toronto a few years ago when the department of education decided to open a teachers' college on Pape avenue in east York. The prime reason for this decision was that this was an ideal boarding-house area, if nothing else. So this is an important factor for a teachers' college, indeed it is important to any kind of college. It is something that has to be considered, and in a region such as ours, where we draw students from an area about 500 miles long and several hundred miles deep, residence facilities could form a very integral part of the college system, an even more fundamental part than the residence can play at one of the major universities. Yet the lakehead college is not, properly speaking, a university and will not be such for a number of years.
National Housing Act
As I understand the term "university" it is a collation or collection of a number of faculties. There are some so-called universities in Canada that I do not think are properly such. I wonder whether it would not have been better if the minister had written right into this legislation some list-perhaps The Canada Council list-of recognized institutions of higher learning. As it stands at the present time many of the recognized institutions of higher learning could not qualify under the ordinary definition of the word "university", and that word is all I find in the act. I hope the minister will give some serious consideration to an amendment on this particular matter. It is one suggestion I wanted to mention in connection with university housing projects.
The other point I wanted to touch upon is pollution. I believe the Prime Minister was interested a number of years ago in the pollution problem; he was interested enough in this matter that he wanted to increase the penalties for any industries or communities that were creating pollution. In Ontario we have had instituted recently the Ontario water resources commission. This commission is making studies of pollution throughout the province. The Department of Public Works comes into this in the lakehead region in a way that has nothing to do with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or this particular legislation but its reference to that matter is something that should be considered.
We have a pollution problem in the Kam-inistikwia river, the lakehead harbour and many of the surrounding beach areas of lake Superior. This pollution problem stems from the pulp and paper industry. The pollution is in two forms; there is a chemical solution there, of a phenol character, contained in the water. There is also a very high degree of debris and effluent in the Kaministikwia river. Is such debris pollution?
The department spends about $100,000 a year in dredging the Kaministikwia river. Some of the dredging is necessary, I am certain, because of the effluent that comes from one of the large paper mills there. Whose responsibility is it to check this particular type of pollution? The checks I have made would indicate that the Department of Public Works does not accept the responsibility for pollution in that sense, and yet that is the department in charge, as I understand it, of any amelioration in navigable waters; and it foots the bill for its removal.
Here we have a situation from a kind of pollution that I think can affect almost any kind of boreal region community; that is, the waste from a large pulp and paper mill. The alternative is for the provincial or municipal

National Housing Act authority officials, or the officials of the attorney general, to launch prosecutions under the Criminal Code, but this has never been very successful because of the sheer size and economic power of the pulp and paper groups. For this reason it would be a very brave municipality in Canada that would tackle them. Yet in Dryden, Port Arthur, and Fort William, to mention three examples, we have a genuine pollution problem caused by these industrial operations.
I would suggest to the minister that this particular type of pollution requires his attention, and such attention could even be hooked up with this particular bill. The main water pollution problems we have in the lakehead region are definitely, we think, nothing to do with municipal sewage at all; they have to do with industrial sewage from large plants whose effluent does not fall within the scope of municipal sewage at all. Perhaps the legislation could be so set up in a form, without any of this rebate business, that would encourage some of these large industries to instal the proper amount of pollution control or sewage system. I hate to suggest this kind of subsidization of private industry, because I have a hunch that the pulp and paper industry can well afford to handle this problem; but they do not seem ready to do so. The municipalities and the provinces seem to be frightened to tackle them head-on, and for that reason I bring this matter to the attention of the minister. Perhaps the minister could make a provision under this act to ensure loans to clear up this matter. Another way would be to use his authority in connection with navigable waters to actually police this type of pollution from another point of view altogether.
There is one other question which X would like to raise for the attention of the minister in connection with the municipal sewage problem. This, again, is a tendentious matter. In the city of Port Arthur we have a sectional sewage problem; that is, you can look at the city in terms of regions. As I understand our local set-up, if they are going to have a big, main sewer in a certain part of the city it is looked upon as a local improvement, to which the local taxpayers make a contribution; that is, they are assessed so much over a certain number of years until this expenditure is paid off.
It seems to me the way this is set up, without any safety rider, the federal government could be a means of introducing a kind of inequity into the municipal tax structure through this particular legislation. I will put it this way: supposing we have what we call a south end sewer project in the city of Port Arthur, and the people along that project know they are going to have to pay so much

of the cost, but because of this loan contribution plus the ensuing rebate from the federal government the cost would be much lower and the charge to the taxpayer would be much less? I say it is fine for the taxpayers in that particular part of the city, but what in the name of equity about the other taxpayers who have already provided for their sewer facilities, or who are now providing for them through local taxes particular to them and who are not going to be able to take advantage of this?
This is probably a minor point, but I should like to hear an explanation from the minister about it because in most of our larger cities it seems to me the definition of a main sewer does not necessarily mean one that serves an entire community; it could be serving a suburb of that community, and if it is going to affect tax structure in a favourable way for the taxpayers only in that area, what about the tax burden in other parts of the town? I do not want the minister to get the idea that I would like the whole contribution cancelled because of that point, but I should like to know whether he is considering the effect it may have on municipal taxation in this particular regard.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I was talking this week with a Canadian who was up here from a foreign capital. He had been stationed in Ottawa for some years and he said he could not get over the fact that despite this rather exciting speech from the throne and this forecast of a remarkable legislative program there did not seem to be much excitement around Ottawa because of it. Another person present observed that 150 or 200 members in this house were more concerned about whether their constituencies were safe or not than in becoming enthusiastic about the legislative program. However, I must say the number of speeches we have heard from the government benches would indicate that there is some reciprocity between looking at one's constituency to see whether it is safe or not and the making of a contribution to this debate and the fact that these members are supporting and congratulating the government for this legislation. It seems to me this is interesting to note.
The last point I want to make is that I have noticed one tendency which I hope is consistent throughout this session, and which I am sure is pleasing to those who sit on this side and observe the government benches closely. Almost everyone who has got up to congratulate the government has referred to the actions of the Conservative government. This is my fifth year, and at least we have a Conservative government now and not a Diefenbaker government. I rather welcome it as a member of the opposition.


I960
Mr. Georges Valade (Si. Mary):: I welcome the opportunity of contributing to this debate and saying a few words with regard to this Bill No. C-42. I intervened in order to add my thanks to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) and to say that the people of this country will acknowledge the soundness of this law and how much they appreciate the actions of the Conservative government in this regard.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill)- I was tempted to say "Twistingate"-refusing to allow the members of this party to contribute their ideas and suggestions in connection with this bill. I was surprised to hear him suggest that we should stop talking and adopt the measure. I remember that for the last two and a half years the opposition has been saying that the backbenchers who support the government keep silent and no not participate in the discussions of measures put forward by the government. Now that we have decided to take an active part in the discussion of government measures we hear hon. members of the opposition telling us to stop talking.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not what he said.


Georges-J. Valade: That is what I heard, and I am sure the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) will remember that phrase, because we all remember it. I should like, not only supporters of the government to take part in this debate but I should like to hear members of the opposition making their contribution, saying that the government is ready to do something for the unemployed-that after inheriting a very difficult problem from the previous government they have brought in very good laws for the people of our country. We are now bringing in a measure which will certainly help the home owners of Canada as well as the unemployed and the people of the working class. I should like the hon. member for Laurier to ask his colleague the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), who is a builder, to make his contribution and tell the house if he is opposing this bill or if he is in favour of it.
I wanted to get in these few words in my very bad Shakespearian language, and I hope my hon. friends will allow me now to continue in French.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I am glad of this opportunity to speak for a few minutes on the subject of a bill which, I believe, will greatly improve the employment situation in this country. However, I am amazed to hear the Liberals, the hon. members of the opposition, say that this bill will do nothing of the kind. According to them-and they always base their 90205-6-12
National Housing Act arguments on Martin's bureau of statistics figures-unemployment is growing in this country, especially in the province of Quebec and in Montreal.
Well, yesterday's issue of Montreal's La Presse stated in bold headlines that unemployment was falling off since the Liberal party came to power in the province of Quebec. Therefore, on the one hand, federal Liberals are saying that unemployment is going up, and on the other hand, provincial Liberals claim it is growing less. I do wish these gentlemen tuned their fiddles and once and for all, stated the truth on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, indeed everybody knows that the Conservative party is taking positive and vigorous steps to solve the unemployment problem, so as to bring about a significant increase of employment in this country, unlike the Quebec legislature which did not feel it necessary, at the opening of its session, to include in its speech from the throne a single measure directed against unemployment in the province of Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: Order.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I can see that the effect of this bill on employment is relevant, but I do not think that measures adopted by a provincial government would be relevant to the discussion.


Georges-J. Valade: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I was speaking of the effects of this bill in Canada and in the province of Quebec where the Liberals said we did not do anything to alleviate unemployment. I was simply trying to prove that this measure is a positive measure to combat unemployment in the province of Quebec as in the country as a whole.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, instead of interrupting with calls to order which are more or less justified, my colleagues of the opposition had better-


Mr. Habel:: It was Mr. Speaker who called you to order.


Georges-J. Valade: Well, I think-


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker-


Georges-J. Valade: -I shall go on with my remarks.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member just said he wished we would let him go on with his speech, instead of calling him to order. I would point out to him that it was you, Mr. Speaker, who called him to order; we were not the ones.

National Housing Act


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind members of this house of the benefits resulting from this measure, and I want to refer to three aspects in particular.
If hon. members of the opposition would only let us have our say, I should like to take part in this debate and refer to three questions concerning this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Liberal party whip who makes remarks from his seat, should stand up to make his remarks, instead of remaining seated.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks on that part of the bill which has to do with the increase in the loans-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am able to follow only one speaker at a time. I find the crossfire a little disconcerting. I hope hon. members will listen to the hon. gentleman who has the floor.
(Translation):


Georges-J. Valade: On going over the provisions of this bill, I note that our people and our workers will benefit by a significant increase of the funds made available to them by the Conservative government. Those funds are bound to favour municipal expansion, they will stimulate development on the outskirts of the great cities and promote the creation of small municipalities, which, up to now, could not find the necessary funds to improve their services.
I think I have a duty to raise this particular aspect of the problem, and to warn the municipalities that might, through their mode of taxation, prevent these measures from being fully effective.
I note in the bill a provision whereby loans would be available for home improvements; I strongly suspect that the general public will be reluctant to take full advantage of such loans lest they raise their municipal taxes. Such a reaction would reduce the demand for such improvement loans. I had a personal experience in this matter a few years ago. Having decided to make improvements to one of my properties, I had the work done during the winter, to help the employment situation in my area. As a result, my taxes went up in proportion to the improvements made to my property, something I thought was rather discouraging for people who want to improve their homes. That is why I urge the minister to ask municipalities to be reasonable in setting taxes on improvements to rental accommodation. I am sure that, in this way, the owners would
[Mr. Habel.l
take advantage of the loans made available to them in order to create employment and improve the housing situation.
Mr. Speaker, that was one of the main points I wanted to raise but I would also like to take this occasion to point out the enormous expansion that will soon take place in eastern Montreal because of the interest the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) was kind enough to show to this part of the city. And I point out in particular the location, in the near future, of the C.B.C.'s facilities in the eastern part of the city, which will be followed by a sanitary housing project similar to the one called "Les habitations Jeanne-Mance".
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to you that the Jeanne-Mance housing project which now exists in our Canadian metropolis is the result of an initiative taken by an exUnion Nationale representative, and that the Conservative government can take credit for the two projects designed for eastern Montreal. I pay tribute at this time to my colleague, the hon. member for St. Jacques (Mr. Campeau) who kindly agreed to co-operate with me in the designing and planning of those two undertakings.
I also thank all the officers of the public works department, and the minister, too, for the co-operation kindly extended to the businessmen and the various groups who supported those two projects.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, I must say that I greatly appreciate the observations made these last few years by the Liberal members. I now invite them, since they have no iron in the fire in this regard, to tell us what they think of Bill C-42.
(Text):


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker,
the minister by now must be sick of listening to congratulations and he might find it refreshing to listen for a few minutes to some constructive criticism. I do not begrudge the hon. gentleman a little praise, however, because he must feel very badly having presided over the year of the lowest housing activity since 1953.
Many things are wrong with the housing industry in Canada. The most consistent and troublesome is still that of the uneven flow of mortgage funds. There is most of the time either feast or famine, too much or too little. Examples of this were given in this house by my friend the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland). According to the

statistics the number of lending institution loans increased, for example, by 449.6 per cent in September of this year over September of last year and by 883 per cent in October of this year over October of last year. This is indicative of the ridiculous ups and downs, ebbs and flows in the supply of mortgage money in this country under the National Housing Act.


Mr. Brunsden:: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will not continue to read his speech.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In my opinion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unless the hon. member who has the floor yields it is not in order to interrupt.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not yield, Mr. Speaker, and I resent the inference because I am not reading. I have some notes here and if the hon. member wants to examine them he may do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not understand that the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Brunsden) was raising a point of order. If he has a point of order to raise I will be glad to hear him.


Edwin William Brunsden: I raise the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that there is a rule of the house under which an hon. member may not read his speech.


Lionel Chevrier: I, too, should like to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The rule of the house applies to all hon. members of the house. I do not want to single out any hon. member but surely it is not going to be a rule for one side of the house only. There is one hon. member-without mentioning him by name-who read the whole of his speech last night in connection with this matter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I want to continue with my speech. The point of order is irrelevant because I was not reading my speech; I have used notes which I wrote myself, unlike the minister, who still needs a considerable amount of assistance.


David James Walker: Is the hon. member suggesting that I did not write the speech?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is the suggestion the minister might have gathered from what I said.


David James Walker: I ask the hon. member to withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me dispose of the point of order and I will hear the question of privilege which the minister is raising. With the assurance of the hon. member for Trinity that he is observing the rule of the house with 90205-6-121
National Housing Act respect to the reading of speeches-and noting the point of the hon. member for Laurier that the hon. member is really observing the rule in the way that many other members do-it would be in order for him to proceed but I hope he will remember that the verbatim reading of speeches is frowned upon.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, I do not want to delay the debate but in introducing the subject last night the Minister of Public Works said that the matter was of such a serious nature that he felt he should read his speech and he did read the whole of it. I say that with deference to him. Surely, if he did this-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not in order to take note of that at this time. After all, if he objected to the procedure that was going on at that time the proper time to do it was then. I am quite satisfied to allow the hon. member for Trinity to continue but first, I do believe the minister has a question of privilege.


David James Walker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege. I wish the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) would not accuse me of doing what he does himself; in other words, suggest that I did not write my own speech. I should like him to withdraw that.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister raises as a matter of privilege the imputation that he did not write his own speech. The only difficulty I see is the imputation that the minister read his speech. This of course a minister is entitled to do in accordance with our practice in introducing a complex subject. I doubt whether the imputation that the hon. minister did not write his speech is a reflection in any way on his character, and I think it is not a question of privilege.


David James Walker: May I also say that at the opening of my statement I did ask the privilege to read it because there were a great many figures in it. In so far as the other parts are concerned, it will be realized that I improvised as I went along. May I say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister's conduct is not in question and there is no need for him to explain.


David James Walker: We have the rules broken by the hon. member for Trinity at the present time. He has always read his speech; he has never been known to do otherwise.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Trinity has given the assurance that he is following the rules and using only notes.

National Housing Act On that basis he is entitled to proceed. Will the hon. member for Trinity proceed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After this excellent introduction on the part of the minister I would like the permission of the house to proceed.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, does nothing to alleviate this fundamental problem that, for the benefit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), I mentioned a minute or two ago, the unevenness of the flow of mortgage funds at the present time. There are available in most areas of the country at the present time ample funds at the very attractive present rate of 6J per cent. This problem will ultimately have to be faced. This government will leave it, undoubtedly, as it does most problems, until it again becomes a crisis.
The whole first part of the bill is based on the premise, by inference at least, that the problem in the industry at the present time is one of down payments. That is not correct; that is not the problem and I am going to let the minister in on a little secret.


David James Walker: Will the hon. member disclose his interest. I understand he has many unsold houses and that is what he is worried about.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister will please observe the proprieties. Of course, without permission, he has no right to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I feel badly every time the hon. member has to be reprimanded because I really do not think he knows any better. If he will just listen for a moment I will let him in on a little secret. In his area at least, the area of metropolitan Toronto, the problem is not one of down payment. It is a twofold problem; first of all, high interest rates, too high interest rates; and, second, a complete lack of confidence on the part of the average person in the economy of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Lack of confidence in the government.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In this case I think the two are synonymous. I do not say a lower down payment will have no effect. Obviously if the lowering of the down payment is made retroactive it will have some effect; it will help to mop up some of the unsold houses and help to clean up some of the mess the minister and his government have created, but the immediate effect has been dramatically exaggerated. For example, Mr. Speaker, I can tell the house from experience what happened last fall when the minister and his government did not realize soon enough

that the rates existing at that time cut off completely the flow of money into housing act loans.
The company with which I am associated had sold in advance a great number of houses. Some of the people who thought they were going to get houses could not because National Housing Act mortgages were not available, even though the government was building some with direct loans a stone's throw away which could not be sold. Some of them had sold their houses or given up the leases on their apartments and in order to meet what was a critical situation private financing was arranged at a higher interest rate. This was an emergency measure. The mortgages taken back were exactly the same as the National Housing Act mortgages in all respects as far as wording, repayment privileges and so forth were concerned. The difference was only one thing, namely the 1 per cent difference in the rate of interest. The minister, I am sure, would be interested to know that this cut the effective demand for housing by over 50 per cent. That was the dramatic effect the increase of 1 per cent had on the demand for housing.
The minister keeps talking about the little man. When he is talking about the little man I am not sure whether he means midgets or what he means. If he means the ordinary working man, the man who is in need of housing, that little man is the man who is most concerned and the most upset about the uncertainty in the Canadian economy at the present time, and he is the man who is so afraid of losing his job that he will not take on a large commitment at high interest rates which would last for a number of years.
Until these problems are solved, the government is not going to accomplish what it hopes to accomplish and what it has told the house it expects to be accomplished from the first part of this bill. This will mean a negligible number of new or additional starts this winter and an equally small number of new jobs.
The minister tells us that each new house employs five men for six months. He told us two men were on-site, two men off-site and one digging ditches for the sewers and water. If that is true, and I have no reason to doubt the minister's figures in this regard, the failure of the government's 1960 housing plans, which the minister now predicts will result in 110,000 starts instead of the 140,000 forecast by the minister of trade and commerce at the outset of the year, means that 150,000 more Canadians are without jobs. Thirty thousand less houses, 150,000 fewer jobs- those are the minister's own figures.
It certainly indicates that the government's 1960 plans were not sound. They were not

sound, or perhaps I should say they were nothing but sound, nothing but loud noises and soft markets. The government was warned, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Nipissing, the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) and I pointed out to the government that its 1960 plan would not work but the minister would not listen. No, he said it would. Things were going to turn out all right, he would achieve the starts which he predicted, and I think he had reduced his nominal forecast to 125,000 by that time.
When the minister told us that he was cutting back on direct government lending we said that the lending institutions would not take up the difference, particularly without the participation of the chartered banks. He said that this would not be necessary, that the outside institutions engaged in making direct loans were going to come through and were going to undertake 85,000 housing starts. What a disappointed man he must be in view of the fact that these institutions did not make up the difference and the difference is still to be made up.
We told him that the ceiling of $5,000 on income was discriminatory and would not work and he told us that we did not know what we were talking about.


An hon. Member:: He was right.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He has changed it twice since and has had reason to eat his words because, as hon. members know, it did not work. The minister and the government have had thousands and thousands of letters from Tories who were irate and incensed about it and told him to take the ceiling off. If he had listened to us earlier in the year he would not have got into trouble.
We said at that time that the program was hopelessly inadequate and we were told by the minister that we were gloomsters. We were right and the minister was wrong. He is now trying to shore up his collapsing program. He is trying to camouflage it with a new program which is known as the 1961 program. It sounds good but it will not work, not without some further shoring up.


Mr. Ricard:: So you will have to vote against it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The two problems I mentioned earlier still exist. High interest rates are, of course, not a new complaint. I was looking through some of my notes yesterday and today and during the years 1955 to 1957 the Prime Minister and most of his colleagues now on the treasury benches were decrying high interest rates and pleading for the builders and the little man who needed housing, and oh what ruin high interest rates were bringing upon the nation.
National Housing Act
Yet they have had tighter money than ever before in the history of the country and interest rates are higher than they have been since the 1920's since this government has been in office.
Here is one example, Mr. Speaker, of what they were saying in those years. I have here an article from the Toronto Star of May 16, 1957, headed, "Hees Hits Ottawa for Housing Drop" which reads in part as follows:
The federal government's restriction of credit has "cut Canada's housing program by one third, forced many small builders into bankruptcy and has added many thousands to our unemployment rolls," George Hees, P.C. candidate in the Broadview riding said last night at an election meeting in the Woodgreen community centre. Mr. Hees said if the present decrease in house building continues, Canada will be 40,000 houses short of its requirements for this one year alone.
"This serious housing situation," he said, "is one of the many reasons why the government must remove the present credit restrictions and restore the rate of interest to a level where those in business can borrow the money they need at an economic rate."
Those words were repeated time and time again during those three years by many of those now on the front benches of the government side of the house. What did they do about it when they got into office? They put the rates higher than they had ever been and if what they said then was true it has had even more disastrous results causing much of the unemployment which the government is now starting to try to alleviate. The lack of confidence in the economy remains and I would suggest that this is perhaps even more important because it is a psychological factor. When people lose confidence they lose confidence completely to the point where they are not willing to take risks. The only cure for the first of these two problems is to bring down the interest rate, to ease the money situation to the point where the rate can be reduced, and the only cure for the second problem is for the government to resign and call an election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That would scare the life out of you.


Edwin William Brunsden: Are you ready?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If you are ready for the challenge, we welcome it.


Lionel Chevrier: You were not too ready recently. You took a bad trimming recently.


David James Walker: Get back to your reading.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I can tell you something. You will be doing some reading between six and

National Housing Act
eight o'clock and I hope that you read carefully and do not come back into the house and say something silly after the supper recess.


David James Walker: Little boy blue from Trinity.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The bill, Mr. Speaker, will have some beneficial long term effects.


An hon. Member:: Oh, good.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: These will be more evident after the cost of money comes down and the government has been changed. With respect to the other proposals included in the bill, I do not wish to say much at this time. I think the loans for university housing projects are a step in the right direction. As has been pointed out, it was not the universities' choice as the best solution. However, it is one solution. It is at least something and I think all of us on this side of the house welcome it.


Edwin William Brunsden: What is the other solution?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We hope it will not be choked up and hampered by too much red tape. With respect to the redevelopment proposal, Mr. Speaker, with the federal government participating with the provinces and municipalities in redevelopment by purchasing existing housing and rehabilitating it over a period of time and renting it, I think this is an excellent suggestion and I give it my unreserved support.
Finally, may I say that the provisions with respect to municipal sewage treatment projects are a step in the right direction but, as the hon. member for Nipissing pointed out, it is just a step. It is, of course, apeing a Liberal proposal of some years ago. I refer to a widely distributed and much recommended handbook entitled "New Statements of Liberal Policy for a Greater Canada, 1958". If the Prime Minister will turn to page 31, clause 4 he will see it is stipulated there that the Liberals woud introduce a municipal loans assistance act under which the federal government would assist municipalities in the installation of essential services. You will recall that in the ensuing election we spelled out more clearly that this included not only trunk sewers, sewage systems and sewage disposal plants but also water filtration plants and trunk water mains.


Mr. Broome:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Did it include a 25 per cent rebate on money expended?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not recall that it did.


David Vaughan Pugh: Would the hon. member permit another question? Did you say 1958 or 1948?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I said 1958.


An hon. Member:: What happened then?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wish I could recall some of the things that my hon. friend said a few minutes ago because I should like to refer to them.


David James Walker: You will have to stop reading.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This proposal is one which we welcome. We think it will have some beneficial effects.
There are some problems, such as those raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) and some others such as those which arise under section 36 (e), which will be discussed later. It seems to us that under this section a municipal sewerage corporation could be subsidized by the federal government when it is a privately owned corporation. We would like the minister's assurance that this is not so and that the provision is intended to apply only to a publicly owned corporation.


David James Walker: Are you going to vote for it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We will demonstrate that when the time comes.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say we welcome this evidence of a deathbed repentance on the part of the government. They soon will have to seek another mandate from the Canadian people.


An hon. Member:: And they will get it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We can see the reason for this concern. Whereas you will recall that a couple of years ago housing was the only positive thing to which all members of the Conservative government could point with some pride, the record shows that they were most successful in 1958, if you can evaluate success in terms of starts. The year 1959 was less successful because there was a considerable decline and 1960 has been even less successful than that. I am sure the government will want to go to the people before the program collapses altogether.
We welcome this bill, Mr. Speaker, as an improvement in the government's legislation which will have some long term benefits. However, we feel that the minister and his admirers will be bitterly disillusioned if they expect it to have an immediate benefit in providing more jobs for the people who will need them this winter.


Mr. Speakman:: May I ask the hon. member a question before he resumes his seat?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has resumed his seat. If the house is willing to allow him to reopen his speech, he may be asked a question.


Some hon. Members:: No.



Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am at the disposal of the house, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the hon. member a question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bow River.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: should like this afternoon to join with the other members of the Conservative party in congratulating the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) upon the introduction of Bill No. C-42. I believe I can say, without being contentious at all, that all of us appreciate the homes that result from this measure because they give a sense of security to Canadians, and from that sense of security true citizenship grows. If I were to think of a slogan for our party this afternoon, and I might say the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) stimulated my thought, I believe we could say we have proved we are house builders and builders of the nation. When things are to be done and when things are to be built in this nation, the Conservative party will build them. There is plenty of evidence in our history to illustrate that and plenty of evidence to illustrate it so far as this government is concerned.
In my introductory remarks I should like to refer once more to the hon. member for Trinity. He referred to the uncertainty of the economy and the uncertainty of the little man. He talked about the worried ordinary man on a small income. It seems to me, and I am sure most members of parliament will agree, if there is any uncertainty in the economy of Canada that uncertainty does not come from the policies of the government but rather from the prophecies of the Liberal party. As I have said on other occasions when I have been speaking in this house, it is the reliance of one person upon another, the reliance of one business upon another business that creates confidence in this economy and in this country.
I intend to be brief this afternoon, but I should like to refer to something which I feel has been overlooked in so far as the National Housing Act and these amendments are concerned. I refer to the national parks and the tourist industry. As many hon. members are aware, the tourist industry brings in to this country large sums of money. It is the third ranking industry in this country. The National Housing Act has not so far been made applicable to houses which are to be built in national parks or the towns inside park areas or to the building of facilities, such as motels. I suppose one reason for this is the fact that not too much land is held in fee simple in the parks by individuals
National Housing Act
but rather on leases from the federal government. It is most difficult for those people who wish to build homes or build motels in the park areas to obtain mortgage money from independent companies.
It is important to recall that about one million tourists go through the gates of a national park like Banff and a town of about 2,500 people has to supply all the services for these tourists. These people have to spend the greater part, if not all their time in this area and yet it is difficult for them to obtain the money with which to build a home. It is very difficult to obtain the money with which to build a motel or to supply necessarj services for the tourist industry.
I make this suggestion to the Minister of Public Works and trust that he will discuss it with his colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale). Perhaps in the future it will be possible for the people who reside in the park and who wish to build motels, hotels and other facilities, to obtain credit and, in this way assist the tourist industry which is now the third ranking industry in this country. This is particularly important in a province such as Alberta which has two of the largest national parks in Canada.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, just before the supper recess I was dealing with one matter with reference to housing and the tourist industry. I was mentioning that as far as building houses under the national housing scheme and financing motels was concerned with reference to the tourist industry, loans are not forthcoming because of the nature of the security offered. Many of those houses and motels are built on leased land.
I want now to turn to another matter, in answer to the hon. member for Trinity. He mentioned the record, with reference to national housing scheme loans, of the Liberal party between 1953 and 1957. If I understood him correctly, he said that more houses were built during the years under the Liberal regime than have been built under the present government. I think it would be interesting to just review the figures in that regard and let the evidence speak for itself. In 1953 dwelling units started under national housing loans were 7,741.

National Housing Act


David James Walker: Would you just repeat that, please, and tell us what it is about? That is very good.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is with reference to national housing loans made in connection with houses built in Canada from 1953 to 1954.


David James Walker: It is total houses.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have the figure for total houses, if you will bear with me.


An hon. Member:: Did you get this information from the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I might answer the hon. member. This information was dug up by myself, and was not obtained from the minister.


An hon. Member:: How did he obtain it?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know how he obtains his information; I can only speak for myself. In 1954 the figure was 2,957; in 1955 it was 2,156; in 1957 it was 24,949; in 1958 it was 36,453.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In 1959 the figure was 32,228 units. These figures are taken from the dominion bureau of statistics and I submit they speak for themselves. Let us take a look at the total numbers of houses started in Canada under the National Housing Act and outside the Act. What is the total altogether? In 1952 there were 83,246; in 1953 there were 102,409; in 1954, 113,527; in 1956, 127,311; in 1958, 164,632, and in 1959 there were 141,345. Those figures speak for themselves.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that when houses were to be built they would be built by a Conservative government of this country, and I said that when there was going to be development in this country, when anything was going to be built it would be built by a Conservative government of this country. I think-and I say this with the greatest respect for the hon. member for Trinity-he should look at the figures of the dominion bureau of statistics, which speak for themselves.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am quite familiar with them; but the hon. member did not give the figure for 1960.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad the hon. member is familiar with them now, because he will have his facts straight in the future.


An hon. Member:: That will be the first time he ever has.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let us look at what it means. There are two things in particular to which I should like to direct any member

of parliament-and every member of parliament thinks of his own area. I am thinking of the area in Calgary, Forest Lawn, where there are 9,600 new inhabitants since the last election. There are almost 10,000 new inhabitants in the Thorncliffe area of Calgary since the last election. All those people are living in new houses built by this government. I know what the picture was in 1957, because I had the experience of people coming into my office. Most contractors were on the verge of bankruptcy in this country in 1957 because the Liberal government at that time had withdrawn capital from the contractors with which to build houses for the Canadian people, and unemployment was rampant everywhere. That is one of the reasons why the people of these areas voted for the Conservative party and not for the Liberal party at that time.
This act means that contractors will be able to build more and better houses in the urban and city centres, particularly in the urban areas, to fit into the national development program of decentralization which is necessary in order to have good residential accommodation in the small towns in the rural areas of Alberta, because some farmers are retiring from their farms and want to live in the small towns close to where their farms were for many years.
The act provides for the extension of time for payment; it makes the instalments smaller and enables the person who has taken out the loan a greater opportunity to obtain the money with which to repay the loan.
I would now deal with the question of university loans. We have had a great deal of criticism from the Liberals. Let us go back for a moment to the time when some of us attended university. In 1937 and 1938, in Saskatoon where I attended university, students lived in attics and garrets and were paying $15 or $16 for board because there was unemployment and there was a depression at that time. And we had a Liberal government. That was the situation of university students in western Canada. I understand that the situation with regard to university accommodation was not any better in eastern Canada.
This act will allow loans to be made for housing accommodation for university students so they can live with the same type of dignity while they are attending university as they did in the homes from which they came to attend university.
Then last but not least, we see that the act will assist and provide loans to municipalities to develop sewage projects and to prevent the pollution of our rivers. I am particularly interested in this matter, coming from that part of Alberta where the Bow

river flows from the Rockies, through my constituency, to Banff, Calgary and on to the southern boundaries of the constituencies in question. After all, we sportsmen like to fish and we know what happens to the rivers when they are polluted by various cities and towns along the way.
I think a bill of this type shows dymamic leadership on the part of the government today. That is why the Liberals are silent this session; it is because they know this country is getting the dynamic leadership which we said it would get when we were elected to take our places in this house as Conservative members. It does seem to me, looking over the history of the great Liberal party of Canada, that they have always at times of crisis, or when they call them times of crisis, put their own political expediency ahead of the economic welfare and unity of this nation, and when members of the opposition speak on this bill it is no exception. I am quite sure I can prophesy the future as far as this debate or any other debate this session is concerned with respect to legislation brought down; that party will always put political expediency, in time of crisis or no crisis, ahead of the national unity and economic health of this country.
In summary I may say that even at the present time there have been 14,789 new homes started and developed under the national housing scheme this year alone. This means that over six times as many dwelling units have been provided than in the last full year under the Liberals. These figures speak for themselves. When things are built in this country, the Conservative party will build them. The Conservative party will be known as the nation's builders at all times, and I end on the note that the Liberal party will always put political expediency before the nation's needs.


Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roselown-Biggar):: I
should like to join with others in congratulating the minister for bringing in this bill. There are several things in this bill which really interest me. One is the lower payment for housing. I have had several young couples come to me and ask how they could get these loans. I told them to make their application. When they did so they found they were just a few hundred dollars short of the down payment. This bill will take care of that problem both for the low wage earners and the young married people.
I am particularly interested in the provisions in clauses 36(e) and 36(f) designed to check the pollution of our rivers. We have two rivers running through Saskatchewan
National Housing Act
starting with the purest water in Canada- the eastern drainage from the Rocky mountains, which is clear spring water. The North Saskatchewan river was polluted so badly at Prince Albert a few years ago that the water could not be used for drinking for some time. The cause was traced to sewage and drainage which was being dumped into the river. That has been checked, now. The South Saskatchewan river is the river where the South Saskatchewan river dam is located. It starts also with the purest water in Canada, spring water from the eastern Rockies. It is there that the Saskatchewan river dam is going to be built, and with this lake which is going to be created with a 475-mile shoreline, we do not want that to be a sediment pool for all the sewage and other stuff from the cities and small towns along the line.
Many small towns in Saskatchewan today are depending on that river, and they are depending on this lake that will be created for a water supply for domestic purposes. The city of Regina and the city of Moose Jaw are depending on this, and as a result of this bill the stuff will not be dumped into the river to pollute it, so we can depend on pure drinking water for these cities.
Again, I congratulate the minister on this bill. We hope the municipalities will take advantage of it and put in sewage disposal arrangements that will prevent the pollution of our rivers and streams in the west.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to get involved in the debate on second reading of this bill, as I realized that the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) had quite clearly stated the policies which we, on the Liberal side have followed and intend to follow in the future. My reason for rising at this time is that, on the basis of the speeches made this afternoon mainly by hon. members from the province of Quebec, and indeed by the minister when he introduced the resolution, one might wonder whether the National Housing Act has just been passed by this house.
For those who were not in the house in 1946, let me recall that the act which is now before us, and which has been used by the Conservative government since 1957, was passed and voted by the Liberal government. Let me add, for the information of my hon. friends who are complaining that we did nothing in the past to promote housing in Canada, that between 1946 and 1956, over a million houses were built across the country. Moreover, the economy at that time was so buoyant that the federal government had

National Housing Act
no need to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into direct loans because lending institutions, banks and insurance firms were making loans to people who needed them.
I think the records set by the Liberal administration compare favourably with what is being done now. In 1955, for instance, there were 138,176 housing starts, and 127,929 houses completed, while in 1956, the corresponding figures were 127,311 and 135,700 respectively.
I think such a record, at a time when it was not even necessary to resort to government funds to give Canadians an opportunity to build a home for themselves, speaks for itself and shows we have nothing to be ashamed of.
To my hon. friends from Quebec who were contending that for the first time there was an opportunity of helping municipalities or towns, may I say that the legislation in force before the Conservative government came to power provided for low rental projects and limited dividend developments, but the province of Quebec did not always take advantage of those provisions because at that time-and you know it, Mr. Speaker,- it did not have a government that could see the better interests of the province. The fact remains that the legislation enacted by the Liberal federal government contained provisions for joint undertakings which made it possible for municipalities to undertake low rental developments. The provisions were not used in the past and now they would have us believe that the provisions are new. I repeat that the legislation has been in existence since 1946 and that it was really enacted by the Liberal government of that time. What is being done now is only an amendment to an act which already existed. I hear someone laughing.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Maurice Bourget: I would ask my hon. friend to let me finish my remarks; afterwards, he may ask me any question he wants.
Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, I had no intention of taking part in the debate on this bill, because I did not want to delay the passing of an act which might give a job even to a single Canadian who is now unemployed.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Are you in favour of the legislation or not?


Maurice Bourget: I know that the problem is not an easy one to solve. But how can the minister and other members contend that the government is trying to assist the small or average wage earner through this measure?
Mr. Speaker, you probably know that the reason that has prompted the government to submit this bill is to be found in the four recent by-elections. The Conservative party was defeated by the Liberals in two ridings and only won a third by a narrow margin. In fact, the victory there was probably due to the candidate's personality.


Lionel Chevrier: And what about the last Gallup poll?


Maurice Bourget: I think that this bill was brought down because they were compelled to take such action.
I had not planned to raise that question and I am sorry that I had to make those remarks because at no time-the minister himself can go over my speeches-have I tried to play politics with the housing problem.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is what you are doing now.


Maurice Bourget: If I am doing so now, it is because you called the tune; you are the ones who from the very start of this debate have been playing politics with this issue.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker,
1	have a suggestion to make to the minister concerning the mortgage insurance that will have to be paid by those who obtain loans.
The minister is perfectly aware that today the mortgage insurance fund is over $62 million. He knows also that certain builders' associations have asked a reduction of the
2	per cent insurance rate. It seems to me that with a fund of $62 million there is no risk and that it would be more realistic also to reduce the 2 per cent rate that is in force at the present time. Such a reduction could at the same time help the prospective borrower for it would reduce by $100 or $125 the amount of insurance he has to pay.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for making such rambling remarks. I told you at the beginning that I did not intend to take part in this debate, and I rose only because our friends from the province of Quebec and elsewhere have suggested that nothing had been done by the Liberal government in this field. The Liberal party has done much indeed to assist
National Housing Act housing in this country, and I have no hesitation in saying, as I did a few moments ago, that this bill is put forward mainly in order to revive our weakening economy. I will vote for the bill now before us.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for butting in at the last minute in this way. I have only a few brief general remarks to make at this time. My first inclination would be to comment on a statement made this afternoon I believe by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Fleming) who stated, if I remember correctly, that he wished that the government could cure the forebodings of the Liberals as easily as it could cure the unemployment problem. I do not imagine that the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke believed that this particular bill had-


Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I do not dissociate myself from what has been attributed to me but I did not make the statement.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I think the hon. member who spoke


David Vaughan Pugh: Okanagan Boundary.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I apologize. I think the hon. member who spoke stated that it was easier to cure the unemployment problem than to cure the forebodings of the Liberal party.


David Vaughan Pugh: Not forebodings, just the Liberal party.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member was not implying that this particular bill is the solution which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) claimed away back in September would solve the unemployment problem, because surely the hon. member realizes that the unemployment problem could not possibly be solved by legislation such as we have before us.
I might tell the hon. member that the forebodings of the Liberals will be cured when the unemployment problem and the economic instability that exist in the country are cured. Regardless of whether the Prime Minister and members of the government do not particularly like it, we of the opposition will continue to ring the alarm bell for as long as unemployment exists in this country.

National Housing Act
I think it has been quite evident in the past few days that no one seriously disagrees -and no one on this side of the house has disagreed-with the objectives mentioned in the bill before the house. But the mere fact of bringing in a bill, no matter whether there are very many important subjects dealt with in it, does not mean that the objectives sought will be achieved by the bill, nor that the problems for which the bill was brought down will be solved. I cannot help but feel that since the government has come into power it seems to think that the fact of bringing down legislation and the fact of expending money are by themselves sufficient to solve the problems automatically. Of course, in this way the government solves the problem of having something to say at election time. But that is not worth very much if the fundamental causes of the existing problems have not been eliminated and the problems themselves are as acute as ever. I am not at all sure, and neither are the members on this side of the house, that the bill before us will or can eliminate the causes and solve or ameliorate the problems envisaged by the legislation.


Mr. Graffley:: It will help.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: For one thing, never in my recollection have so many extremely important and diversified subjects been crammed into one bill.
On reading the bill one gets the impression that the government, in order to stop justifiable complaints from various sources, decided to jam as much as possible into one piece of confusing legislation thinking that it would "hold them for a while". We on this side of the house have reason to entertain very profound doubts as to whether any serious thought was given by the government to the causes of the problem of each of the several important spheres dealt with in the bill as well as the fundamental causes of the chronic unemployment problem, the elimination of which is the prime purpose of the bill. If the government, in the formulation of this legislation, has not analysed and found the causes of the several social and economic problems involved in this legislation-and I am convinced it has not-then the ceaseless flow of congratulations by members of the government was a bit overdone, because we can at best hope for hodgepodge results from hodgepodge legislation.
I do not intend to repeat the very pertinent and important points made by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) this afternoon, except to say that even though the government may have raised maximum loans, reduced down payments and extended the 
repayment term on housing it still does not alter the fact that with present Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation interest rates the financing of a house costs more than the cost of the house itself, and though the government apparently thinks nothing of this type of financing, I cannot help but believe that the ordinary citizen will think twice before making such an investment at this time and the government's pump priming may not achieve the desired results.
All hon. members will, I feel sure, recall that when the Conservatives were in the opposition, and even as late as the election of 1957-58, they made a very exceptionally strong case for the financial plight of the municipalities to the effect that in the face of increasing municipal obligations municipalities were in an impossible and in an intolerable financial position. Although the government may have changed its tune since that time the financial situation of the municipalities has not changed one iota, and their responsibilities and obligations continue to grow at an alarming rate.
Sewage disposal and slum clearance are most desirable projects, Mr. Speaker, if, of course, the municipalities can afford to participate in them. It is more than a guess to say that the great majority of municipalities in Canada will not be able to afford their share of the projects and the high cost of borrowing money discourages municipalities, and I think rightly so, from participating in very desirable but unjustifiably costly projects.
Though it is admittedly not the complete solution to the municipal problem, and I am convinced that there is no one solution for the municipal problem any more than there is for any of the other economic problems facing the country, surely a municipal grants assistance act designed both in form and in quantity to study and to provide realistic assistance to municipalities to meet their obligations in providing essential services to the municipalities, coupled with a municipal loan fund as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) as far back as 1958, whereby municipalities could borrow their necessary finance on a long term basis at reasonably attractive interest rates, would come far closer to hitting its mark than the do it yourself type of solution contained in this legislation in which, like most do it yourself kits, the one essential piece is missing, in this case, the financial ability of municipalities to participate in these schemes.
If I doubt the effectiveness of this legislation it is because I feel the bill does not touch the heart of the problem. The depth and the complexities of the problems involved cannot and will not be solved by cursory and stopgap thinking, as evidenced in this

bill, but require exhaustive examination and study of the causes of the problems and the application of those measures which are aimed at eliminating the causes of the problems as well as eliminating the problems themselves.
True leadership, which is needed in Canada today more than ever before, will be measured not by the length of the speeches which are made by the members of the government but by the wisdom of the actions taken and the effectiveness of the result. As hon. members know, we have had many long speeches by the Conservatives on the bill but I have, as indeed my colleagues have, serious doubts whether the employment that will be provided by the bill will justify the smugness of the speeches by hon. members on the government side to which we have been forced to listen and whether the government will be successful through this legislation in attaining what are admittedly desirable objectives. There is really only one sure way of finding out whether the legislation is good and that is for the government to stop filibustering its *own bill and to get the legislation into effect as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker-


David James Walker: Who is filibustering now?


Mr. Speaker:: Was the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot rising to speak?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I should recognize him. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo will permit me to defer him.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget), I did not intend to speak on this measure. However, in view of the sadness displayed by our friends in the Liberal opposition, I too have decided to say a few words on this beneficial bill.
From the speeches made a moment ago by the hon. member for Levis and by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), one would think the Liberal party alone, and not the Conservative party, is able to do anything worthwhile.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this bill was welcomed throughout Canada. Every municipality expressed its satisfaction. The difficult problem of water pollution is being settled once and for all; low wage earners are being given the opportunity to house themselves, and that saddens our friends in the opposition.
This is not the first time that the Liberals are seen shedding tears when faced with bene-
National Housing Act
ficial achievements of the Conservative party. Apparently, in order to impress them in the few months we have been in power we would have had to change their own inerta into action. Give us time. The Conservatives have a deep-rooted desire to help the people, and never miss an opportunity to do so.
The Liberal opposition has been talking of by-elections, and even of future elections. Well, do not rejoice too soon, because the elections will come much too early for you, and will give you further grounds for grumbling, as you have been doing ever since we were elected to office.
Contrary to our Liberal friends, we lay no claim to perfection. They think they never make a mistake. That is their basic mistake.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, after sounding out people of various classes of society, that the people welcome the proposed measure.
That, briefly, is what I had to say. Such a measure will contribute to the greatness of this country, to the welfare of the population and to the building up of confidence in the Canadian economy.
In order not to delay the passage of this legislation, I would ask hon. members who will speak after me to be as brief as I was.
(Text):


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) seems to be a very difficult man to please these days. Yesterday he complained that we showed a lack of interest because we only put forward one speaker on the resolution and yet today when we put forward four speakers on second reading he accuses us of filibustering, and that in the face of the numerous speakers on the government side who have taken part in the debate.
The purpose of my intervention in the debate is mainly to reply to some of the statements made earlier by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh). I should like to begin by reminding the hon. member that this bill follows upon the adoption of a resolution which said that it was expedient to introduce this legislation in order to encourage the demand for housing. Why is it necessary to increase the demand for housing? If hon. members will give me the opportunity I will be only too glad to explain in the very greatest detail. Certainly it is not because there are not still many people who need houses. It cannot be because the needs of the people have been taken care of. That cannot be the reason why there is not sufficient demand at this time and why it is

National Housing Act
necessary for the government to take additional measures to encourage the demand. I hope that is clear to my hon. friend.


William Heward Grafftey: No, it is not; it is very confusing.


Chesley William Carter: If there are still plenty of needs to be filled and in the face of all these need's it is necessary to introduce legislation to create a demand, then the main reason must be that private enterprise is not fulfilling its primary and normal function of providing for housing needs.


Mr. Murphy:: Join the C.C.F.


Chesley William Carter: That must be the primary reason. If we pursue that line of thought we must come to the conclusion that we are now in some kind of economic emergency. Following upon the primary reason there is another reason which has been put forward by the minister and other speakers on the government side. According to them the secondary purpose is to provide jobs in order to take care of the unemployment problem.
There is no doubt that one of the most effective ways of creating jobs is to stimulate the construction industry. The construction industry is one of the most important, if not the most important, sectors of our national economy both from the standpoint of capital investment and from the standpoint of the number of people employed. Earlier this session we were told that the estimated capital expenditure of the construction industry this year was something like $7.5 billion which constituted about 25 per cent of our gross national product. In terms of jobs, the construction industry employs about 1.2 million people which is about 20 per cent of the working force. About half of these jobs are provided directly on the construction site, and the other half would be in related industries. It is obvious, therefore, that the injection of money into the construction industry is one of the most effective means of pump priming our economy.
The construction industry has two important divisions. One division is the government building program and the other is residential and institutional building. This bill which we are considering now refers only to the latter. I have gone through the supplementary estimates which were tabled a few days ago, and by making a rapid calculation I find that the estimates provide about $7 million for the acquisition of buildings and sites, which I take it is the government's contribution to this sector of the construction industry which is called the government building program.
This bill poses for all of us the fundamental question as to what should be the basic 
guiding principle of government policy in connection with housing in a free enterprise system. I have always understood that in a free enterprise economy such as we claim to support the primary function of government is to create the kind of climate in which private enterprise can flourish and take care of the needs of the people without too much government assistance or too much government interference. Apart from that, the area of governmental activity related to housing under a free enterprise system should be confined, for the most part, to those areas where free enterprise cannot operate at a profit and that includes such areas as slum clearance, the provision of houses for low income groups and for the still lower income groups who, perhaps, will never be able to acquire a home.
I am glad to see that this bill makes some provision for residential housing for universities because I think that falls within this particular category. Universities themselves are finding it difficult to finance the residential housing they need, and that puts them almost in the same boat as the small wage earner. But if we review the policy of this government since it has taken office there appears to be a radical departure from this traditional policy. It seems now that the primary policy towards housing is to use it as a stopgap, to turn it on and off in order to regulate the economy. It is turned on when jobs are scarce and turned off when jobs become plentiful. This is not the healthy atmosphere that the construction industry needs for its operation.


William Heward Grafftey: It does not happen, either.


Chesley William Carter: My hon. friend says it does not happen, either. I believe my statement is borne out by the changes we have made in the housing act since this government has come to power. I would be only too glad to recapitulate them for him. In 1954 the Liberal government amended section 22 of the National Housing Act to provide public funds for housing up to $250 million. In 1957, when the present government took office, there had been a demand for about $100 million of this amount. The present government on taking office released the remaining $150 million. I give them credit for channelling that money mainly into houses for low income groups. By the end of 1957, however, the whole $250 million had been used up and in December, 1957 we amended section 22 again by raising the amount authorized from $250 million to $400 million; in May, 1958 we raised it from $400 million to $750 million; in March, 1959 we raised it again from $750 million to $1 billion. Last session, I do not recall the exact date, we raised it again from $1 billion

to $1.5 billion. This illustrates the stupendous increase in public funds made available for housing. The amount has risen in three years from $250 million to $1.5 billion. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh) took great credit for this and used these figures to indicate what the present government has done to assist housing. If you look only at the surface it appears to be a valid argument.
However, I should like to point out to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary that it does not matter whether you make available $1.5 million or $15 billion. This money has no effect unless there is a demand for it. I believe, in the present situation, we are conscious that there is no demand for this money which is available and we are trying to work out a sort of arrangement to induce people to make use of it. I want to expose the fallacy of this argument which has been used over and over again by hon. members opposite to create the impression that the Liberal government did nothing for housing and that everything has been done since the Conservatives took office.
I should like to point out that the real criterion is not how much money is available because, as I just said, whether you have $1 billion or $15 billion makes no difference if nobody is going to use it. The real criterion is the number of houses built in a year and that is the point in which we Liberals are interested. What is this legislation going to mean in terms of an actual increase in the number of houses started and completed?
In 1955, under the Liberal government, when there were only $250 million available, 138,276 houses were built. Today, with $1,500 million available, the best the Tories can produce is 100,000 houses. That is the measure; that is the real criteria-not the dollars available, but the number of houses actually built. A better criteria still is how well the economy is functioning. I am not condemning, blaming or criticizing the government for introducing this measure. We are in a situation where something has to be done.


An hon. Member:: We are doing it too.


Chesley William Carter: Yes, and we are quite willing to help you do it. The only blame which attaches to the government is to what extent they themselves have created the situation which has brought this about; the contribution they have made, by mismanagement, poor fiscal policies, tight money and an atmosphere of confusion and uncertainty in which it is impossible for private enterprise to function normally and fill the needs of the people as it should do in a free enterprise economy.
I support very strongly the new features introduced in this bill, the features that deal
National Housing Act
with pollution, with university residential housing and aid to municipalities. But I think the figures I have outlined today should cause free enterprise to just pause and consider what is happening.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself said-and I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) also-the government cannot do everything. I think it behooves private enterprise to examine itself to see whether it is fulfilling and carrying out to the fullest possible extent the responsibilities which devolve upon it in a free enterprise economy. The only alternative to free enterprise is socialism. If free enterprise is not prepared to do everything in its power, if is wants to leave the initiative in everything to the government or if it forces the government into a position where the government has no choice but to take action, then free enterprise will have only itself to blame if some day it finds that we have been transformed into a socialist economy.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question before he resumes his seat?


Chesley William Carter: I have resumed it.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Then perhaps the hon. gentleman will still answer the question. What additional features would he and his party add to the particular bill which is before the house?


Chesley William Carter: We are not wedded to any particular feature of any particular bill. We are wedded to an economic climate that will induce free enterprise to carry out its normal functions, which it has not been able to do since this government took office.


Richard Albert Bell: Does the hon. gentleman have any particular suggestion to make for additions to this bill; any single suggestion? The answer is no.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If you are not capable of governing, resign and let somebody who can.


An hon. Member:: You take over.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I could not help but be pleased to see the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) take part in this debate tonight, because whenever he participates he always does so with a certain amount of sincerity. I was wondering whether, in answer to the question of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), he would go one step further and say where Newfoundland would be in the matter of housing but for the Tory government. With the rapidly increasing, virile population of Newfoundland, where would they be, by the tens of thousands, without the assistance of Central Mortgage

National Housing Act
and Housing Corporation? It is a fact that one of the greatest boons to Newfoundland has been the building, and that building has been done almost 100 per cent by C.M.H.C. either through direct loans or through insured loans.
I am glad that the filibuster is over and to see that there is a change in opposition leadership and policy tonight. After all, it must have become obvious to the Canadian people-and it does not take long for this to have an effect upon hon. members of this house-that the Liberals are getting the worst of this deal. This is one of the greatest pieces of legislation ever entered in the House of Commons. The Canadian people realize it and even the Liberal party realizes it. I do not take the credit for it. I have listened to all the speeches, the thoughtful speeches of the C.C.F. and the rabble-rousing speeches of the Liberals, and in all those speeches, brilliant though they have been there has not been one constructive suggestion. The hon. member for Carleton summed it up very well when he asked what constructive suggestion the Liberal party had to make; what constructive criticism did it have of this bill.
There is one point that interests me. There is no filibuster going on in this house. I think the hon. members we have heard from the government side of this house have made very constructive speeches. I want to just say a word to recall to the members of the house the assistance that the members of the cabinet have received from hon. members on the question of housing, and I am going to read out the constituencies of the members concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
minister a question?


David James Walker: Certainly-this is your first contribution to the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you. I thank the minister for his usual politeness.


David James Walker: That is all right.


Lionel Chevrier: The question is this: does the minister think that 20 speeches made on the resolution by his own followers is not filibustering, when compared with one speech on this side of the house?


David James Walker: Speeches made on this side of the house are a true representation of our numerical standing, as compared to the fewer speeches made on your side. I know the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) is feeling a little badly tonight. He has a pensive look in his eyes. After all, tonight in the city of Windsor the leadership of the Liberal party is at stake. I know if he waits long enough perhaps somebody will organize-or perhaps he can organize one himself-a congratulatory

dinner. Therefore I suppose we must forgive the lack of participation on the part of the Liberals. I think that tonight several of them are honouring the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). But do not feel too badly, hon. member for Laurier; your turn will come- and if nobody else thinks of it, I am going to suggest it. I would like to anticipate this tremendous battle of the century that is now pending in the Liberal party to replace the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson).
This so-called filibuster has been indulged in by members who are authorities on housing, and here they are:	the hon. member for
Jacques Cartier-Lasalle (Mr. Pratt), the mayor of Dorval; the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner)-I got tremendous help from him-the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) (Mr. Danforth); the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko); the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe); the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. McFarlane); the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge); the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Valade); the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams); the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Pugh) and the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard). Every one of these hon. members has taken a great interest in housing and has been a tower of strength to me in my endeavours to work out this great problem. I want to thank every one of them.
May I say it was a delight to hear the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) speak tonight. I tell hon. members that if they want to hear oratory at its best they have to listen to the hon. member for Levis. He is a real barnstormer. I thought I was back on the Quebec hustings, listening to his orations. He cannot be blamed for doing that because he was the parliamentary assistant to the minister of public works in the last government and no one knows better than the hon. member for Levis the dismal failure of the late administration in respect to housing. I think he was forced to his feet as the only official person left in that opposition who can talk about those bad old days and try to make the best of them. Anyway, he did very well in trying to divert the debate. As a matter of fact, he was pointing his finger not at me but at no less a personage than the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). I do not know what was the significance of that, except that it must have been a diversionary tactic.
May I remind the hon. member for Levis that in the days he held sway together with the president of Rio Tinto, who is always a prospect for the leadership of his party- and perhaps the hon. member will support

him for old times sake-the Liberal party did not see fit to make any loans to anybody in any place where the population was more than 55,000. Think of that. Also, in his day there was no such thing as a direct loan from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to builders. None at all. They did not believe in that sort of thing. Does the hon. member follow me? Then there is the question of limited dividend loans. I do not think the hon. member has heard the term "limited dividend" often before. He is an engineer. He was engaged in building bridges and other more important things.


Maurice Bourget: We built a million houses, also.


David James Walker: I am not saying anything deprecatory, but in those days they looked down on such things as limited dividend projects and subsidized housing. They did not even know in those days that there was such a thing in this country as the little man. They spent too much time, and I am sure the hon. member for Levis did, too, with the brass and no time seeking out and listening to the grass.


Maurice Bourget: At that time the people could afford to build their own houses.


David James Walker: That is a lovely explanation. But may I say this? When we came to power in 1957 we found an awful mess in this department. The government of Canada had been running down ever since the death of Mackenzie King. It was not only run down but it was almost stopped, and it has taken us some time to take hold of a government that was almost passed out, to pull the reins together and to get things in shape to wipe out all the-I will not use the word I was anticipating-and really start to get going. Now, after these years of effort in trying to get the government of Canada on its way again, trying to get out of the recession which they dumped us into, we are in a position to go ahead. This is the first of many pieces of legislation this session which will astonish not only the Liberal party but all the Canadian people.
In the days of the future the people of Canada will look back on the good old days of the Tory government which gave modern housing to the Canadian people. We have now, within less than four years, two million people living in new homes built under our regime. If we are in office for 22 years then we shall have all of Canada living in new houses thanks to the Tory government.
Now I should like to examine the words of wisdom uttered by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). Outside the house the hon. member is a pleasant person, and it was
National Housing Act interesting to hear his remarks tonight. I know he does not feel too good, because he is a builder himself. It is true he is no authority on the little man, because he does not build houses for the little man. His houses are too expensive for the little man, but in the houses he builds-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Those houses are the cheapest and best possible under present circumstances.


David James Walker: In the houses he builds even he has relied almost totally on N.H.A. loans insured by the dominion government.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No.


David James Walker: I have had that looked up.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a question of privilege, Your Honour, the minister has just made a statement which could be misconstrued. I want to set the record straight. The company with which I am associated has never had one loan from the dominion government at any time.


An hon. Member:: Take it back.


David James Walker: The loans the hon. gentleman has received are called approved lenders' loans and every one of them is insured by C.M.H.C. The hon. gentleman will not deny that and if he does not call that a dominion government loan I should like to know what is. Does the hon. gentleman deny it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not at all. We paid a 2 per cent fee to insure every one of them. The minister should be ashamed of it.


David James Walker: And with builders like the hon. gentleman we need to have insurance to see that we do not lose on the houses. This is a serious occasion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


An hon. Member:: Insinuations.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. minister will permit me, there seems to be a certain amount of controversy which has very little to do with the bill in question and I suggest that if the minister would return to the bill he might proceed with less difficulty.


David James Walker: 
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


David James Walker: The hon. gentleman was parliamentary assistant to the secretary of state IMr. Walker.]

in the last government. Let me tell him that if he will take the bill home tonight and study it-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member raising a question of privilege?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am. I understand that a minister may have a certain latitude in answering hon. members' arguments in debate but I do not think anyone has any right to impute any kind of motive to another hon. member during the course of debate. The minister indicated that I was not here for the debate. I may say that my attendance in this house in the past two days has certainly been comparable to that of any other hon. member and the minister has no right to make the suggestion he did.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not recall that it is a matter of privilege if an hon. member draws attention to the absence of another hon. gentleman. If an hon. member is in error, of course, it is the privilege of the aggrieved hon. member to correct the error and that is properly done at the conclusion of the speech.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have not used any notes so far in these remarks and perhaps hon. members will bear with me if I now read a few figures. Here it is all summed up in the official reports. The question of housing starts from 1946 on was raised by the hon. member for Trinity. I have figures here relating to housing starts under the National Housing Act. Those for the relevant years were prepared by the last administration. The figures are as follows:
No. of Housing
Year	Starts (N.H.A.)
1946		 11,520
1941		 10,190
1948		 26,236
1949		 29,250
1950		 43,521
1951		 21,439
1952		 34,400
1953		 39,989
1954		 50,373
1955		 65,377
1956		 43,395
1957		 47,468
1958		 81,950
1959		 62,333
I draw attention to the fact that in 1958, the first full year in which this government was in power, there were 81,950 housing starts under the N.H.A. That is the only answer I can make.
I say this with the greatest sincerity. There is no use going over again what the hon. member has called this complicated bill. It is a very simple bill. These amendments could have been incorporated in six bills

Division
but they all relate to, and come under, the National Housing Act. Hon. members will have an opportunity to ask questions about it. No objection has been raised by any hon. member with respect to assistance to sewage disposal plants or with respect to assistance for the construction of university student residences.
As I close the debate I feel we should have a recorded vote to see where hon. members opposite stand with respect to the various items covered by the amendments.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister tell the house what is the maximum rate referred to under section 4, subsection 1?


David James Walker: It is 6 per cent.


Lionel Chevrier: How is that tied up with the rate on long term government bonds?


David James Walker: It is about 1 per cent more.


Lionel Chevrier: The section says that the rate of interest prescribed under subsection 1 shall not exceed the interest rate on long term bonds. The interest rate on long term bonds is not 6 per cent. The minister has said, in reply to my first question, that the maximum rate is 6 per cent.


David James Walker: From what part is my hon. friend reading?


Lionel Chevrier: I am reading from the explanatory notes on clause 1. This clause amends section 4 (c) of the act. Those were the two questions that I directed to the minister.


David James Walker: Yes. If my hon. friend will just read on. I am reading section 4, subsection 2, which says:
The rate of interest prescribed under subsection (1) shall not exceed the interest rate of long term government bonds ...
(c) by more than one half of one per cent in respect of loans made under section 16;
I do not believe my hon. friend was referring to section 16, but I thought he was referring to section 4.

National Housing Act


Lionel Chevrier: I am not quite clear. May I put the question again? Clause 1 repeals paragraph (c) of subsection 2 of section 4. My first question was, what is the maximum rate in the regulations passed by the governor in council and the minister replied, 6 per cent. Then I tried to find out what the relationship was between that interest rate and the interest rate on long term government bonds. Was the minister correct in the first answer he gave?


David James Walker: I was under the impression my hon. friend was referring to section 4 of the draft bill which is on page 2 and deals with home improvement loans. Now, my friend is not referring to that. He is referring to section 4 of the old act, is that correct?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, that is right.


David James Walker: Section 4 of the old act is here, and it has nothing to do with home improvement loans. I will just look it up and deal with it.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the minister? It has to do with this, that section 4 (1) still remains in effect and it is only paragraph (c) of section 4 which is being amended.


David James Walker: Yes, that is quite true. Section 4 in the old act reads, keeping in mind that paragraph (c) is the only one that is amended:
4. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the governor in council may by regulation prescribe the maximum rate of interest payable by a borrower in respect of a loan to be made under this act.
(2) The rate of interest prescribed under subsection (1) shall not exceed the interest rate on long term government bonds .. .
(a)	by more than two and one quarter per cent in respect of loans made under Part I;
(b)	by more than two and one quarter per cent in respect of loans made under section 15;
(c)	by more than one half of one per cent in respect of loans made under section 16;-
That is the limited dividend section. May I explain to the hon. member for Laurier that not only does that apply to loans made under section 16 but also to those made under the new act, Part VI A and VI B, the loans made for sewage disposal plants under VI A and university grants under VI B. Does that explain?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, in part. May I ask is the maximum rate still 6 per cent, in view of what the minister has just said?


David James Walker: I apologize, it is 6 per cent for home improvement loans which are made through the banks. In so far as these other matters are concerned, limited dividend projects, sewage disposal plants and university grants, at the moment the interest rate on those loans is the same as the rate at which we borrowed from the consolidated revenue

fund plus one eighth of one per cent, so it would be 5i per cent. This is the rate we will be charging on university loans and on loans for sewage disposal plants. However, as the hon. member for Laurier knows, the rate is changed every six months.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just clarify the other question which I asked? What is the relationship between the interest rate which the minister has just explained and the interest rate on long term government bonds? What is the present interest rate on long term government bonds, and what is the relationship between the two?


David James Walker: The rate at which we borrow from the government, that is from the consolidated revenue fund, is governed pretty much by the rate on government bonds and that is fixed for us every six months. The present rate on which we are operating under the last fixation is 5 per cent and so we charge one eighth of one per cent more so we will not lose any money on the deal.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is the minister aware that the yield on long term government bonds in today's market is over 5J per cent, which is more than he is charging for these housing loans? In other words, the government is taking a loss on those loans it is now making under this section.


David James Walker: We are working on a six months' rate at the present time. If the rate is changed later on and it goes up we will have to add one eighth of one per cent to that rate.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader what the business is for tomorrow. If I understood him aright last evening, he said he would be prepared to give the business for Monday as well.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will continue with the study of Bill No. C-42 to amend the National Housing Act in committee stage. If completed, we will follow with the resolution dealing with technical and vocational training in the name of the Minister of Labour. If that is completed we will follow with the resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealing with a national productivity council.
On Monday we will have second reading of Bill No. C-40 dealing with small business. If that is completed we will proceed with technical and vocational training at whatever stage it might be, whether in the resolution stage or second reading. Monday, under

Business of the House
the old rule, would normally be a private members' day, but under the amended rules we have the privilege of using that Monday for government business.
The forecast for the rest of the week appears to be as follows. On Tuesday, in response to the request of the Leader of the Opposition for an early opportunity to discuss international affairs, supported by the member for Vancouver East-who suggested that there should be the earliest possible opportunity for discussing this matter-I am suggesting that we have a debate on external affairs.
On Wednesday we will deal with government business. I hope we can then set up the standing committees of the house and various special committees, some of which commenced their work last session and did not complete it, such as the committee on rules and procedure, the committee on research, the Indian affairs committee-which is a joint committee with the other place- and the committee on broadcasting. Thursday of next week would be private members' day.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to ask a question with particular reference to the minister's mention of the one-day debate on external affairs. The point of view of this group is that one day is not sufficient; it is inconclusive; very often it gives no opportunity to members other than the leaders to speak in the debate. We would ask the government to consider a two-day debate on external affairs.


Lionel Chevrier: I would like to point out to the house leader that I have some doubt whether the Leader of the Opposition will be here. I cannot say that he will; I know that he will be away tomorrow and again on
Monday because he has several engagements, and it may well be that he will not arrive in time.


Mr. Fullon:: I thought he wanted to get on with the business of the house.


Mr. Mcllraith:: That is right; he wants to get on with the business of the house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: To meet the unemployment crisis.


Lionel Chevrier: I am trying to be as friendly as I can in this matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So am I.


Lionel Chevrier: I was not going to suggest anything; I was simply bringing it to the attention of the house leader. I am sure that if the Leader of the Opposition is here he will be quite prepared to take part in the debate. But it may well be he will not arrive by 2.30.


Gordon Minto Churchill: As in other sessions, we have tried to make arrangements to suit all parties. I introduced this by saying "the forecast for next week runs pretty much as follows". We may have to make certain adjustments. I think we could perhaps consider this tomorrow through the usual channels.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not asking for any postponement of the debate. I would like to leave it this way, that I will communicate with him tomorrow if I can, and then perhaps I can speak to the house leader.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is fine.
It being six minutes after ten o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Friday, November 25, 1960