1960-02-17

Mr. Howard: 1.	What is the name of each Indian band with which the government (a) has agreements; (b) is in discussion with, regarding participation in municipal winter works incentive program?
2.	With respect to each project to be undertaken by each such band, what is (a) the amount of money to be contributed by the federal government; (b) the amount of money to be contributed by the band?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part, (a), is none; the answer to (b), is as follows. Through arrangements with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Indian affairs branch of that department has recently circularized all Indian bands advising them of the terms of the municipal winter works incentive program and inviting applications. It is anticipated that applications from Indian bands will be received in the near future.
The reply to the second question is: see reply to question 1.


C.B.C.-AUDIENCE REACTION REPORT
Mr. Fisher: 1.	At the meeting of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation board of directors in January at Winnipeg did one of the directors make a statement or a report, verbal or written, on audience reaction to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation programming?
2.	If so. which director and in what form was the report?
3.	Was this report prepared by the director in person or was it prepared in co-operation with officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
4.	If the latter, what officials in which branch of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question, which is in four parts, is as follows. I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that minutes and proceedings of the board of directors of the corporation have always been regarded as confidential, and this has been recognized since the inception of the corporation. Names of individuals involved in the business of the corporation have also been regarded as confidential, a practice reaffirmed by the 1959 parliamentary committee on broadcasting.
Consequently it is not considered in the best interests of the corporation to depart from that practice at this time.


RICHELIEU SEAWAY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Cardin: 1.	Is the investigation of the economic and technical feasibility of constructing the Richelieu seaway that would link the St. Lawrence to the Hudson river being continued by the present government?
2.	If so, what government departments are now engaged in making an economic and technical study of the Richelieu seaway?
3.	What department is in charge of co-ordinating these studies?
4.	When were these studies begun?
5.	Has there been any correspondence with the international joint commission concerning this project since the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway?
6.	Has the government, since 1957, had any correspondence with the authorities of the state of New York and/or Washington on the subject?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: I wonder if the hon. member would allow this question to stand, because it involves information which has to be secured from the United States, and it would inevitably take a little time before a complete answer can be given to this question.
Question stands.


HOLIDAY AND SEVERANCE PAY REGULATIONS
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received representations from Edmonton and district labour council, and Calgary and Regina locals union of carpenters and joiners, relating to the regulations of the unemployment insurance commission on the treatment of holiday and severance pay?
2.	If so, has the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission met to consider this matter?
3.	If the said committee has not yet met, has a date been set for such a meeting?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of this question is, yes; to the second part, no; to the third part, yes.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Robichaud: What was the amount to the credit of the unemployment insurance fund as of January 31, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows. The amount standing to the credit of the fund at January 31, 1955,

Starred Questions
$886,711,147.56; January 31, 1956, $885,542,795.92; January 31, 1957, $916,429,487.77; January 31, 1958, $838,917,440.79; January 31, 1959, $586,990,920.89; January 31, 1960, $445,885,387.32.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPLICATIONS
Mr, Robichaud: What was the total number of registered applicants for unemployment Insurance benefits at the most recent date for which such figures are available to the commission, (a) for all unemployment insurance offices in Canada; (b) for all such offices in the Atlantic provinces; (c) for all offices in the province of New Brunswick?
Hon, Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):
The answer to this question is as follows. The most recent date for which figures are available is January 31, 1960, and the figures for Canada are 782,542; for the Atlantic provinces 125,114, and for New Brunswick 38,424.


CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT, FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Has paragraph (b) of 40 A (7) of the act to amend the Customs Act (1958) dealing with the dumping of fruits and vegetables been proclaimed?
2.	If not, have representations been made to the government requesting that this measure be proclaimed?
3.	If representations have been made, from which organizations and individuals?


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the first question asks whether paragraph (b) of section 40 A (7) of the Customs Act has been proclaimed. The answer is no.
The hon. member also asked, second, whether representations have been made to the government requesting that this measure be proclaimed and, in that case, from which organizations and individuals. There have been numerous representations made to me and to the department by various members of parliament, by the British Columbia tree fruits association and various other growers, including the horticultural council. I do not know what other representations may have been made to other departments of government. In these circumstances I will ask that this be made an order for return so the detailed information may be produced.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Has paragraph (b) of 40 A (7) of the act to amend the Customs Act (1958) dealing with the dumping of fruits and vegetables been proclaimed?

2.	If not, have representations been made to the government requesting that this measure be proclaimed?
3.	If representations have been made, from which organizations and individuals?


BUILDING TECHNIQUE RESEARCH
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Are any agencies of the government committed to research on the development of building techniques for checking or lowering prices of residential construction?
2.	If so, what agencies, under what authority?
3.	What has been the cost of such research in 1959 to the federal government?
4.	Has such research led to any reports or recommendations?
5.	If so, by whom, for whom, and to what general effect?


PURCHASES OF ANTIBIOTICS
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1958, was any (a) nystatin; (b) tyrothricin; (c) neomycin; (d) dihydrostrep. tomycin; (e) streptomycin; (f) tetracycline; (g) oxytetracycline; (h) meprobamate; (i) chlorpro-mazine; (j) chlorothiazide; (k) chlortetracycline; (1) erythromycin; (m) chloramphenicol; (n) penicillin, purchased by (i) the Department of Defence Production; (ii) the Department of Veterans Affairs?
2.	If so, for each month from January 1, 1958 to date, what was (a) the amount of each preparation of each drug purchased by each of these departments; (b) the unit or units by which each purchase was made; (c) the price paid for each such unit or units; (d) the name and address of the supplier; (e) the names and addresses and bid price of each other potential supplier or bidder?


FEDERAL DRUG PURCHASES
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1958, have any drugs or pharmaceuticals been purchased by (a) generic name; (b) brand name, by the (i) Department of Veterans Affairs; (ii) Department of Defence Production?
2.	If so. which such drugs by (a) generic name; (b) brand name, have been purchased by each of the two departments?
3.	If either of the two departments has purchased drugs by their brand name what is the reason in the case of each such purchase?


CABINET TRAVELLING EXPENSES
Mr. Rouleau: What were the travelling expenses for each minister of the crown for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1957 and March 31, 1959, and to which votes were these expenses charged in each particular case?


POST OFFICE THEFTS, 1953-59 AND 1960
Mr. Denis: During each of the fiscal years 1953 to 1959 inclusive, and from the beginning of the present fiscal year to February 1, 1960:
1.	Has there been any theft of money, stamps or other valuable articles in the post offices or post office trucks, in Canada?
2.	If so: (a) how many such thefts have occurred? (b) what was the value of the articles stolen? (c)

how many persons (1) have had complaints laid against them or have been charged; (ii) have been found guilty?
3.	What amounts have been recovered by the government in connection with each of these thefts?


POST OFFICE FLYING SQUADS, MONTREAL
Mr. Denis: 1.	Since July 1957, has the post office department organized, instituted or accepted one or more so-called flying squads of persons to work in Montreal on call, as additional employees?
2.	If so; (a) what are the names of these persons? (b) by whom were they individually recommended? (c) did their names appear on the eligible list established by the civil service commission? (d) under what statute or regulation were the said persons employed?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the grave unemployment situation in the country as revealed in government and press announcements made today, indicating that 504,000 Canadians were without jobs and seeking work on January 10 and that 755,387 Canadians were registered for employment in national employment service offices on January 14.


Mr. Speaker:: Before accepting this motion, perhaps some hon. members might wish to indicate whether the question raised by the hon. member is such as to warrant the interruption of our proceedings under standing order 26 for the purpose of debating this subject matter.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: If I might be allowed to say a few words on my motion-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. gentleman begins, may I direct his remarks to the urgency of debating this matter. That is really the issue which is before the house. It is accepted that the problem of unemployment is an important public issue, but the question of the urgency of debate is the one which requires consideration by the hon. member and by this house.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: There are only two references which I intend to make-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Prime Minister would excuse me. I interrupted the hon. member who had the floor and I will hear what he has to say first.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: My reason for moving the adjournment of the house has definitely to do with the urgency of debating the very
Unemployment Conditions serious unemployment situation which exists throughout the country today, particularly in certain sections of the country including the Atlantic provinces. So little has been done-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: -in order to relieve the situation that we feel an immediate debate should take place.


John George Diefenbaker: The first comment I have to make is that according to the agreement as to the agenda for today, on the conclusion of the particular items referred to the house will then proceed to discuss the estimates of the Department of Labour. If, however, the matter should not come up for discussion today, then on Friday we shall resume the discussion of the Department of Labour estimates. Here and now, lest there be any doubt as to the views of the government in that connection, let me say that if hon. gentlemen wish to discuss unemployment in general an opportunity will be given when the estimates come up on Friday, under the item for the winter works program.


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Winch:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, having to do with the statement of the Prime Minister, he said that the first order of business today was supplementary estimates-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Harold Edward Winch: There are motions to be dealt with before the orders of the day.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman did not hear me. I said that after the conclusion of the items that are to be discussed we would go on with the estimates.


Harold Edward Winch: That is not today for sure.


Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the matter that has been raised is of the utmost importance, and that an immediate discussion is necessary. I am sorry the Liberals were so general in their reference to the subject. I had intended to move this type of motion pointing out the disastrous unemployment in certain areas such as Elliot Lake, Bancroft, Cape Breton, Pictou county, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia. From one coast to the other there are specific areas of unemployment, and I think there are good grounds for arguing that the situation should be discussed at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour has invited the house, I believe, to indicate where there is urgency of debate, and that is what the Prime Minister addressed himself to a moment ago. I just

Unemployment Conditions want to take a few moments to say there is urgency of debate, but I take exception to what the Prime Minister has said in that he has indicated that if discussion of the three items of business announced last night is completed before the end of the day, there will be an opportunity today or again on Friday to discuss the matter of unemployment under the item having to do with the winter works program.
1 want to bring to Your Honour's attention the fact that when this matter was discussed the other day by the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Essex East, the chairman made it quite clear that there was to be no general discussion of unemployment under that head. He made it quite clear to the committee that, as he understood the rules, we could discuss the winter works program and nothing else.
Therefore it seems to me, in view of the position placed on the record by the hon. member for Gloucester, that there is urgency of debate unless, of course, the position taken by the chairman of committees is reversed by the house and by Your Honour.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: On the point of order that has been raised, I believe the matter is of great urgency because of the extent of the figures that have just been issued, and because there seems to be an indication that the situation is likely to get much worse in the near future, particularly in specific areas such as Elliot Lake.
As to the urgency of the situation, I would point out something, Mr. Speaker, that you probably already know; that the Ontario legislature debated a similar but more specific motion yesterday, dealing with unemployment at Elliot Lake and Bancroft because of the decisions taken by the companies concerned, and as a result of that debate I think a similar debate should take place here. That might then be followed by action on the part of both governments.
As to the Prime Minister's suggestion that either later today or on Friday we might have a general debate on unemployment under the item of the estimates concerning the winter works program, I can only say that I am amazed that the Prime Minister should make this suggestion. It leads me to believe that he is of the opinion that procedure in this house is in the hands of the government and does not depend upon decisions by Your Honour or by the Deputy Speaker. In view of the rulings that have already been made I know of only one way whereby we can have a general debate on unemployment under this item, and that is by unanimous consent. I am certain that unanimous consent could be obtained from the house, but I do


not think it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to appear to direct the house as to what our proceedings shall be.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what you listened to a moment ago is just an example of complete irresponsibility. I said that an opportunity would be given to discuss the matter but that naturally it would require the unanimous consent of the house. The hon. member has answered himself by saying there would be no doubt that unanimous consent could be secured.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with those who have urged on Your Honour the urgent importance of the motion now before the house and of its acceptance. The Prime Minister has indicated there can be no doubt that unanimous approval would be given so as to permit a general discussion of this question of unemployment. Unless that were to take place forthwith there would be no answer in the Prime Minister's offer to the motion before the house.
The motion, sir, is predicated on the seriousness of unemployment as revealed in the joint release this morning by the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Labour. The seriousness and the urgency of the problem, however, have been further indicated since we have come into the house today. It is even more serious than indicated in the release, according to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr) in his answer to starred question No. 30. The minister indicated that the number of people in receipt of unemployment insurance, in other words live claimants, has risen from 685,000 to 782,542. This means that this number are in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits. This in itself, sir, indicates, I say to you, the urgency of the matter.
Unless the Prime Minister could initiate, or the house itself could initiate, an immediate discussion of this problem, anything that has been suggested by the Prime Minister thus far would not be an answer to the motion which clearly establishes the question of urgency at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I deal with the matter I may say there is perhaps some ground for the suggestion made by the Prime Minister. I appreciate the fact that the supplementary estimates of the Department of Labour, to which he had reference, are not broad enough in themselves to permit a general debate on unemployment and, as has been pointed out, the chairman in committee has restricted the debate to the matters, under-


Mr. Fullon:: Attempted to but unsuccessfully.


Mr. Speaker:: -item 615. However, if the house desires a debate on this issue at an appointed time and is prepared to give unanimous consent-which it would have to do- that the matter be set for Friday, and that it be agreed that the item, when it is considered in committee, be considered broad enough to cover the unemployment situation generally, that would avoid my dealing with the other issue.


Mr. Regier:: May I have-


Mr. Speaker:: It is a question of whether there is unanimous consent. Is that the proposal which the Prime Minister wishes to make to the house, the one which I have just put forward?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Harold Edward Winch: Why not do it now, then?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, there is a question of clarification. As I understood the proposal of the Prime Minister it was that under the item, winter works program, we could debate the general question of unemployment. I may be mistaken, but I do not believe that carried with it the suggestion it should be a debate of fixed duration rather than a debate such as we could ordinarily have on this item, though we could have a broader discussion of the question of unemployment in this country. When the item for the winter works program passes, then the general debate is over.


Mr. Speaker:: That, as I understood it, is the proposal; that it be called on Friday.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: If the urgency of this matter is such that the Prime Minister is willing to recommend that unanimous consent be given to the alteration of the rules to enable it to be discussed on Friday, surely that urgency is such that it should be discussed today.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to take time unnecessarily in sounding out the house as to whether there is agreement to this proposal. If there is not, I shall proceed to deal with the proposed motion.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: There is a point of order I want to raise. In what position are members who have already spoken to this item and have been limited to the narrow point?


Mr. Graffiey:: Read the rules.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: This so-called urgency of debate is based on certain figures which have been made public today. The same type of
Unemployment Conditions figures are made available at certain stated periods, certainly at no greater interval than every month. I do suggest that because the statement happens to come out today, this does not enable members of the opposition to move a motion to adjourn the house based on those figures.


Lionel Chevrier: Why not?


Howard Charles Green: If that were the case, then they could do the same thing every month. This particular rule was never designed to meet a situation of this kind. The real situation is that there is great urgency on the part of members of the opposition to make big speeches. I am not imputing motives; I am just stating the facts. There have been many days already made available to members of the opposition parties for discussion of this very question. They have taken full advantage of these opportunities. There will be an opportunity for them on Friday. Then there is to be a motion to go into supply on Monday. If they have the courage to introduce an amendment dealing with this question on Monday, then they can have a debate.
However, I do suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this rule was never designed to enable opposition parties to pick up statistics which are issued regularly once a month, or at stated periods, and on them base a motion to adjourn the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I deal with that, is the house prepared to make an order along the lines suggested by the Prime Minister; that is, that the debate on unemployment generally take place on the calling of the supplementary item for the Department of Labour, which will be called on Friday? If there is any disagreement I shall deal with the proposed motion.


Harold Edward Winch: It
depends on your interpretation, Mr. Speaker. This motion is one of urgency. Mention has been made of unemployment, and if it is a discussion on unemployment then that cannot be had on Friday. The urgency results from a situation which is developing and has developed at Elliot Lake, in the mari-times and in Vancouver. There is definite urgency, and on that basis we want a discussion.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Just on the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know how many points of order are possible. I simply want to know whether the house wishes to accept the opportunity, by unanimous agreement, to debate this question on Friday in lieu of this motion, or to have me deal with it as it should be dealt with.

Unemployment Conditions


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The point of order I wanted to raise, if I may be allowed to raise it, was on the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He said we of the opposition are just picking up statistics. We are picking up this unfortunate situation unequalled in Canada's history.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not yet had any
refusal or acceptance by the house of this proposal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We on this side feel that this matter should be debated now. The Secretary of State for External Affairs gave what he called facts which indicated that in his mind the urgency was not such that it required debate today. On our part we feel the facts which have been disclosed today require debate today.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Minister of Justice wishes to speak to the question of urgency I will hear him, but I am prepared to deal with the matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On
the question of urgency, there are two comments I should like to make. First, the degree of urgency for debate of this matter can, I think, be measured at least in part by the comments made a moment ago by the hon. member for Vancouver East, who referred to the situation at Elliot Lake. There is no denying the fact, of course, that the figures produced are serious. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out, however, these figures are issued monthly, and another set of figures is issued weekly. It is surely hardly arguable that the rule can be applied in such a way that you would have a regular interruption of the ordinary business of the house on this alleged matter of urgency each time the statistics came out, especially when you realize that there will be other occasions, and early occasions, when the matter can be discussed.
With respect to Elliot Lake, for instance, the situation has been revealed, but developments there will not take place for a matter of four or six months; and to say that this sort of development makes this matter one of urgency for debate is, it seems to me, to show the inapplicability of the rule to the present situation.
There will be, as has been pointed out, an opportunity to refer to the subject on the supplementary estimates. There will be an opportunity of referring to it on the motion to go into supply, on the six motions to go into supply during the course of this session. If anyone should suggest, sir, that notwithstanding that the house has not been ready to take advantage of the offer made by the

Prime Minister, the opportunity on the supplementary estimates will be limited, I would suggest that they refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Essex East on Friday, February 12, as found at pages 1022, 1023 and following in Hansard, where you will see that notwithstanding any ruling made, the hon. member availed himself to the fullest possible degree of the opportunity to discuss unemployment in Canada.
I suggest to you, sir, that the house will find, if the hon. member for Essex East is here, opportunities and methods of discussing unemployment and the unemployment situation generally on the supplementary estimates, unless the hon. gentlemen in the opposition undergo a very marked change in tactics. It is not realistic to suggest that there will not be opportunities in the immediate future, in accordance with the ordinary procedure of the house, to discuss this matter. One does not for a moment say that the situation is not serious. What we are suggesting is that it does not have that urgency of debate which warrants an interruption of the matters appointed for consideration this day, especially when there will be, within 24, 48 or 72 hours, ample opportunities to discuss the matter, as well as many other opportunities during the course of the session.


Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: In
considering the urgency for a debate on this particular question, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to your attention the fact that if we were to adjourn the house at this time to discuss unemployment we would have to leave the discussion of a resolution in the name of the Minister of Public Works to increase the money available under the National Housing Act, which would provide a good many jobs in this country. We would have to postpone that matter for a useless debate for which there would be plenty of time later. I think we would be much better occupied in passing a measure that will do something to create some employment.


Mr. Hees:: Constructive, not destructive.


Mr. Speaker:: In dealing with this application to interrupt our ordinary proceedings of this day under standing order 26 in order to embark on a discussion of "the grave unemployment situation in the country as revealed in a government press announcement made today," I remind hon. members that this is not a new problem for the Chair. Unfortunately the problem of unemployment is a continuing one and has been a continuing one. As I recall it, motions of this kind have been advanced or attempts have been made to deal with the general problem of unemployment under standing order 26, and I have taken the view in the past that that

is not an appropriate procedure for a continuing general problem which this undoubtedly is.
I have had a good deal of assistance from members on both sides of the house. The argument is that the figures released today have created an urgency of debate which did not exist, for example, when the house met on January 14 or in the intervening time when, as I recall the course of debate not only on the address in reply to the speech from the throne but at other opportunities, a great deal was said about unemployment in general. In fact if the pages of Hansard which deal with this general problem of unemployment were added together I think they would be found to have occupied a fair part of the time of the house to this point.
I do not want to work any hardship on any hon. member who disagrees with me, but in line with the view I have taken in the past I cannot do other than reject this as an appropriate motion to be interposed at this stage under standing order 26.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government nas felt and you have ruled that the urgency of this matter is not such as to justify debate at this time. We, of course, accept your ruling but on the understanding that there will be an opportunity for full debate on the item in the supplementary estimates concerning the winter works program.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


George Harris Hees: You had your chance.


An hon. Member:: You cannot have it both ways.


Mr. Pickersgill:: We have closure now.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not for me to say. There will undoubtedly be opportunities.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that in interpreting standing order 26 Your Honour had in mind the indication given by the Prime Minister that there would be an opportunity to discuss this matter at the earliest possible date. Recognizing the ruling you have given on the question of urgency, the Leader of the Opposition has indicated what I think all of us had in our minds, namely that there was going to be an opportunity for discussion on Friday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The opposition, through the Leader of the Opposition, has acquiesced in Your Honour's ruling on the clear understanding-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Unemployment Conditions


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that we would not be denied the opportunity on Friday, in discussing the winter works program, to discuss this whole problem.


George Harris Hees: You cannot have it both ways.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will permit my intervention, may I say that the question of the disposition of the business of the house will properly arise when we reach the orders of the day, and I suggest that the matter be taken up then.


Erhart Regier: I rise on a point of order. If the Conservatives are going to renege on their pledge-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has his choice. The hon. member has not raised a point of order. What I have indicated is that the question of the business of the house is not properly raised at this time. The next order of procedure is "Notices of motions for production of papers".


Harold Edward Winch: Speaking still to the other matter, Mr. Speaker, in view of what you have said-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Harold Edward Winch: -I will appeal your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has perhaps considered that my decision was on a point of order, but it was not; and there is no appeal from the decision I have just made.


Erhart Regier: In that case I should like to appeal your decision that there is no appeal from your ruling. That is something that has been done before. I refer Your Honour to Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 91, where it is stated:
Mr. Ralston appealed from the "Speaker's refusal to permit an appeal from his decision."


Mr. Speaker:: I refer the hon. member to the Journals of the House of Commons for 1955, page 858, where the same point was dealt with by the Speaker of the day, who said:
In the future, whenever I make a ruling to the effect that the motion should not be accepted because it is not in order or is not of urgent public importance-that is that there is no urgency of debate-I will not grant an appeal from my decision that there is no appeal.
I am following precedent with respect to that matter. The next order of business is "Notices of motions for the production of papers".


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to revert to orders for returns?


Some hon. Members:: No.

Motions for Papers


Léon Balcer: I should like to add-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member leave to revert to the previous business?


Some hon. Members:: No.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
F-104g AIRCRAFT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Hellyer):
For a copy of any invitations or papers in the possession of the Department of Defence Production requesting submissions from aircraft companies in respect to the manufacture in Canada of the F-104G aircraft, and copies of each of the submissions received.
Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, in regard
to this motion I can agree to accept the first part covering invitations and papers requesting submissions from aircraft companies in respect to the manufacture of the F-104G aircraft, or of the CF-104 as it is now known.
With regard to the second part of the motion-that is, for copies of each of the submissions received-these detailed proposals contain considerable classified information as to aircraft specifications, special equipments and delivery schedules of both the Canadian and German versions of the F-104G aircraft, as well as much confidential information regarding capital structure, commercial development plans, production techniques, and future planning of each of the three companies concerned.
I have discussed these aspects with the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), and he has agreed to accept in lieu of the detailed submissions a financial summary of the two lowest cost proposals received, which I am prepared to furnish.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite satisfactory
to the hon. member for Trinity, who asked me to speak on his behalf.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the amendment which has been agreed upon by the mover of this motion, is it the pleasure of the house to accept the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government and each provincial government since June 1, 1957, regarding the forest access roads and trails program.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: When this matter arose on Monday I asked the hon.

member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) if he would consider an offer to look at the files and indicate the documents he wanted, and we would table those. I made this offer in order to save a good deal of work in going over hundreds of documents, and in order to save the taxpayers' money. The hon. member asked that the motion stand. I think he should either accept the offer or reject it; then I will be able to govern myself accordingly.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I reject the offer, because I think it is improper for the minister to place this barrier in the way of the house asking for the production of these papers. These are an exchange of papers between the federal government and the provincial governments. The government can produce the correspondence, as has been done previously, from one provincial government at a time. I think this motion is very much in order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the motion is not debatable. The hon. member is not prepared to accept the limited motion. Therefore I put the question, does the minister wish to make the usual reservations with regard to provincial correspondence?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am quite prepared to accept the motion with the usual reservation, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the government of each province since June 1, 1957, regarding the camp ground and picnic area development program undertaken by the federal-provincial governments.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have no objection to this motion, Mr. Speaker, subject to the usual reservations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between the federal government and each of the provincial governments, since February 3, 1959, concerning a bill of rights.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, subject to the usual reservation regarding obtaining consent of the provinces to the production of such correspondence as there may be, there is no objection to this motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 45-Mr. Chevrier:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the governments of the provinces since June, 1957, with respect to a new procedure of amending the constitution in matters relating to the jurisdiction of both the federal and provincial governments.
Edmund Davie Fulton: This motion is accepted subject to the same reservations as the preceding one.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Robichaud:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the province of New Brunswick, in connection with camp ground and picnic area developments, for the period January 1, 1959 to date.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the house that since motion No. 38 has been accepted, and motion No. 46 is a duplication of that motion,
I think it would help if this motion could be dropped, because the previous motion will satisfy the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed that this motion be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



REACTIVATION OF MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 47-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and any provincial or municipal government requesting the reactivation of the Munic-ipal^toprovements Assistance Act since January
79951-0-73i
Inquiries of the Ministry
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Subject to the usual reservations, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the limitation expressed by the Prime Minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Prime Minister. I would ask him if he does not agree that there should be a full discussion on the subject of unemployment under vote No. 615 of the Department of Labour supplementary estimates dealing with the winter works program, when it is called on Friday?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when I made the offer a while ago, which was informally consented to by the house, members of the opposition resisted the suggestion which was made; they opposed it. This government is ready at any time for a discussion of this subject, and if the Speaker or Deputy Speaker has the matter brought before him on Friday I am sure every consideration will be given to the unanimous acceptance of this suggestion.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. There was no opposition from this side of the house. The suggestion received unanimous consent.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the emergency debate which took place in the Ontario legislature yesterday, the Prime Minister is prepared to consult with the Ontario government as to what joint action may be taken to relieve the serious unemployment situation at Elliot Lake?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when this matter has been determined it will be brought to the attention of the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question arising out of the joint release issued by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Trade and Commerce on unemployment conditions in Canada. Can the minister give us the latest figures of unplaced applicants beyond January 21? The figure which appears on the final page of this particular release, table 1, is as of January 14; 755,000. The minister has already given us the figure of 774,000 as of January 21. Will he give us the latest figure of the number of people who are looking for jobs?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, as of January 28, 1960 the unplaced applicants, not just people looking for jobs-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what they are.


Michael Starr: -were 786,294.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Going up all the time.



SUGGESTED REACTIVATION OF MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS ASSISTANCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question. In regard to the winter works program, does the government^ realize the heavy financial burden that this imposes on the municipalities of Canada and, if so, is the government of Canada giving active consideration to the possibility of reactivating the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act so that full advantage might be taken of the intent of the winter works program?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we have not had any complaints from municipalities along the lines the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam is getting out. Most certainly I think this matter should be discussed when the municipal incentive program is before the house.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister informing the house now that none of the municipalities have complained about their difficulty in raising the necessary capital in order to take the fullest advantage of this scheme?


Michael Starr: I said it was the hon. member for Skeena. I am sorry; it was the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. The answer is, not in respect of this program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Murdo William Martin: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of the astonishing answer he gave to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. Was the minister not present when I spoke on the estimates respecting the winter works program and voiced the complaint of the municipal council of Timmins in regard to this program?


Michael Starr: If the hon. member did that, it most certainly was not brought to my attention by the town of Timmins in any shape, manner or form. That is what I meant when I gave the reply I did.


Murdo William Martin: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the answer given me by the Minister of Labour a few moments ago implies that I am not to be trusted to represent the views of the municipality I represent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is reading more into the answer than there is. I see no question of privilege.


Michael Starr: May I be allowed to say that I certainly did not have any such thought in my mind at all. What I said was that I did not receive personally anything of that nature from the town of Timmins.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Might I ask whether the Minister of Labour is now in a position to table the list of projects under the winter works program, together with an estimate of their cost to the federal government and the number of persons who may be employed in each, so this information can be put on record in Hansard so as to be available for the debate.


Michael Starr: On the urgent request of the hon. gentleman the other day I asked the staff of the department to employ themselves in getting this information. They worked half a day on Sunday and all day Monday, and yesterday they told me they were still working on this and hoped to have the information ready for me today.
BEAUSEJOUR, MAN.-STATEMENT ON CIVILIAN PAY RATES AT U.S. AIR BASE	[DOT]
On the orders of the day:


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to reply

to the supplementary question asked by the hon. member for Skeena in respect to the prevailing rates at the United States military base at Beausejour, Manitoba?
I am informed that we reviewed the prevailing rates at that base at the request of the United States air force.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[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 Veterans Affairs. Can the minister inform the house of the progress to date with respect to plans for the erection of a national memorial and cenotaph on Nepean point to honour our fallen of all conflicts, and to house the world war II, Book of Remembrance?


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The decision to build a national memorial and cenotaph on Nepean point has been confirmed by the government. The architects have submitted, through the Department of Public Works, studies of a proposed design which has been considered by the national capital commission and by the government. Certain modifications to the proposed design have been recommended, and the Department of Public Works has been directed to make further studies of the project.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. L. Houck (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. I am wondering if the minister has any intention this session of bringing down legislation prohibiting duty free warehouses, sometimes commonly called free port stores, along the border which presumably would sell imported luxury goods duty free to United States tourists, and would be in direct competition with established stores which have been in business for years.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is no; but there are implications in the question which cannot very well be answered verbally on orders of the day. If the hon. member would submit a question in writing I would be very happy to supply an answer and clear up, I think, some of the misunderstandings.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



PICTOU COUNTY, N.S.    REQUEST FOR ORDERS FOR LOCAL FIRMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether he has received a telegram from the Pictou county ministerial association, or from union groups of the area, asking for more orders for work for Pictou county industries; and, if so, what positive action is being taken by the government in this regard?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Transport whether the minister is aware that the Canadian National Railways is discontinuing the cafeteria car service on the maritime express, which will cause considerable inconvenience for the travelling public, the loss of a number of jobs in the wintertime, and the dislocation of several families. Could the minister ask the Canadian National Railways if they will reconsider this matter?


George Harris Hees: I was not aware of this fact, Mr. Speaker, but I will bring it to the attention of the management of the Canadian National Railways.



MONCTON, N.B.    FURTHER STATEMENT ON LAY-OFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, the hon. member for Assiniboia yesterday asked if I would make further inquiry as to whether an order went out from the management of the Canadian National Railways to reduce expenditure in the Moncton area by an arbitrary 5 per cent.
The management advises me that there was no set percentage cut. Like any other commercial business, the C.N.R. make a financial budget forecast for the company's operating requirements based on a summary of regional estimates of traffic, necessary maintenance, replacement of obsolescence, capital expenditures and so on, and naturally every effort is

Inquiries of the Ministry made by all concerned to keep within the estimate made. This is, of course, simply one of the ordinary control procedures of prudent management.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a telegram from the chamber of commerce of Flin Flon, Manitoba protesting against the reported action of the C.B.C. in applying for a television licence in Edmonton and suggesting that consideration should first be given to the outlying areas of Canada which would have to help foot the bill; and whether the government would consider making representations in these terms to the C.B.C.?


John George Diefenbaker: The suggestion of the hon. member that the government should make any representations to the C.B.C. is not in keeping with some of the criticisms he has made in the past.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to allow the C.B.C. to dictate to the government what the capital program is to be?



&quot;SWAMP FOX&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to the Minister of National Revenue a question which is based on a lot of very interesting conversations and comments.
In view of the fact that the Toronto Telegram of February 12 reports that the C.B.C. cancelled Walt Disney's play "Swamp Fox", the leading part in which is played by Leslie Nielsen, brother of the hon. member for Yukon, who is reported as saying it was first believed that the C.B.C. cancelled this play because the enemy in the play are called Tories, can the minister inform the house of the circumstances surrounding this recur-sative incident?


George Clyde Nowlan: I think the hon. member's question exhibits the folly of basing questions on rumours and reports. I am not sure whether the report refers to the distinguished actor or to the distinguished member of the House of Commons, and as to

"recursative", I understood it was "recusa-tive". I did not know the meaning of the word but I tried to find it, and I found that a recusant was one who refused to attend a parish church.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: "Recusative" also means the act of denying information to the house.



&quot;BACKGROUND&quot;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: May I address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Last Sunday on "Background", the C.B.C. authorities found three Conservative members of parliament to talk about capital punishment. I should like to know from the Minister of National Revenue why they could not find any more Conservative members to talk about it.


George Clyde Nowlan: I do not know. I have always been told there were so many Liberals on the C.B.C. that I am surprised there was room for three Conservatives.



STATEMENT ON CAPITAL PROGRAM FOR 1960

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: The other day the hon. member for Port Arthur asked me a question relating to a proposed extension of the services of the C.B.C. in respect of new relay coverage, an announcement with regard to which had apparently been issued on behalf of two hon. members of this house. This is a matter concerning which the hon. member for Renfrew South had spoken to me at various times previously.
I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that there are a number of areas not now receiving radio and television service on which active studies are being carried out. C.B.C. instaHations to bring service to some of these areas are contemplated as part of the corporation's capital program for 1960. An official announcement of specific areas and technical installations at this time would be premature pending arrangements for transmitter sites, technical facilities and applications for licences through the Department of Transport and the board of broadcast governors.



INQUIRY AS TO HALIFAX MEETING OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Is the minister in

a position to report to the house on the meeting of the fact finding committee on coal held in Halifax on February 10, which was attended by the chairman of the dominion coal board?


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The chairman of the coal board met the authorities of the provincial government at the end of last week, and I have been informed that progress has been made. However, the information received is not yet complete, and another meeting will be required before a conclusion on the matter may be reached.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General. According to the postal guide, among the franking and free mail privileges mentioned in subsection 291 is included all mailable matter sent by departments of the federal government. I should like to know from the Postmaster General whether this policy is still being followed by the government.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: As the hon. member well knows, this is the type of question which any other member would put on the order paper.


Azellus Denis: A supplementary question.
Would the Postmaster General explain how it is that from the Department of Veterans Affairs we receive letters with 4 cent stamps on them? I should like to know whether the policy has changed in accordance with what the hon. gentleman wished to do when he was in opposition.


William McLean Hamilton: the hon. member would send me the envelope I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Azellus Denis: I shall be glad to send over this envelope, and I hope the minister will do something good with it.



MANITOBA-INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST TO MAKE CORRESPONDENCE PUBLIC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to answer the question I asked yesterday about the correspondence with the government of Manitoba regarding the flood control proposals for the Red river valley.
Department of Justice Act


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. member that I am not. I am sorry.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ACT


Edmund Davie Fulton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Department of Justice Act to provide for the appointment of two associate deputy ministers of justice.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the committee will agree with me that there is no need for a lengthy explanation of this resolution. I should perhaps make a brief statement as to some of the considerations moving the government to introduce the resolution and then would be glad to answer any questions that may be directed to me.
The main consideration which warrants the proposal contained in the resolution is, of course, the increase in the volume of work done by the Department of Justice and the increased importance of the status of that work. With regard to the second part of the proposition, I immediately disclaim any personal responsibility. I am not saying that it depends on the minister. It is a fact, however, that by virtue of the increasing complexity and scope of the government business bringing the government, as it does, into contact with outside organizations in a way that was perhaps not the case in earlier years there has been a change and steady development in the nature and the responsibility of the work undertaken by the Department of Justice for other departments of the government and for the government as a whole in connection with the legal advice, counsel and representation that must be afforded the government in the discharge of that work and in the official relationships on a legal basis that ensue from the nature of that work.
With regard to the first heading of the proposition which I put forward, I think the facts speak for themselves. I have some statistics if hon. members would be interested in them but I do not think it requires much elaboration to emphasize the fact that the size of government is growing with the increase in population, that the volume of government work naturally has grown as a result of and along with the increase in population, the broadening of the nature of the work done by the government and as a result of the increase

Department of Justice Act in the number and the nature of the relationships between governments and the citizens and organizations of the country.
It is as a reflection of these symptoms that the government has felt it appropriate to recommend that there be provision made in the department for the appointment of two associate deputy ministers of justice, into which positions it is intended to move initially the two officers who now occupy the positions of assistant deputy ministers.
I know that these two gentlemen would not wish me to dwell at length upon their qualifications because they are modest civil servants in every sense of the word but I cannot let this opportunity go by without expressing to the committee and through the committee to the country my very real sense of appreciation and that of the government as a whole for the quality of the work and advice given by these two senior officers of my department. I know that those on the other side of the house who have had experience in government will fully agree with what I say when I speak in the highest possible terms of the work of these two officers and the contribution which their work has assisted the Department of Justice to the business of government as a whole over the past number of years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, some members of the committee may recall that in the late spring of 1957 the prime minister of that day, Mr. St. Laurent, announced his intention of asking parliament to approve of the appointment of two associate deputy ministers of justice and if subsequent circumstances had permitted that step would have been taken by him. Therefore the committee will not be surprised if I indicate that we wholeheartedly support the resolution which has just been introduced by the Minister of Justice. Our support for the resolution is all the more wholehearted because of the minister's announcement of the intention of the government, if the resolution and the subsequent bill are carried, to appoint to these new positions the assistant deputy ministers of the department. I agree with him that they have served the government and the country faithfully and well and that they are eminently suited for these posts. If they are appointed to them they will carry, I know, the good will of all members of the house in the new responsibilities which they have earned.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I might add one word. In view of the fact that traditionally the appointment of deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers has been the prerogative of the prime minister, perhaps it

might have been appropriate for a resolution and bill of this kind to come to the house in the name of the Prime Minister, but I am not making any particular point of that question of procedure. In any event we warmly support the resolution and commend the minister on the step he has recommended and particularly on the appointments he proposes to make if the resolution and the bill are carried.


Mr. Cresiohl:: Simply as a matter of clarification, is it the intention to appoint two associate deputy ministers in addition to the present deputy minister? Will there be three associate deputy ministers?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman. If the bill based on the resolution carries there will be one deputy minister as at present, and two associate deputy ministers whose responsibilities will be outlined in the bill to be based on the resolution.


Leon David Crestohl: I think this is really a question of semantics in calling them associate deputy ministers. At the present time they are assistant deputy ministers and the title will be changed to associate deputy ministers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That last sentence is correct, yes. I should like to make one point clear before the resolution carries. I appreciate the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. I was aware, of course, of the announcement made by the former prime minister of his intention and that of his government had they been returned in 1957, and it is obvious of course that I share the views which the former prime minister held. While not in any sense wishing to differ from or criticize what was said on that occasion by the former prime minister, I want to make it perfectly clear that I and the present government have reached this decision on our own. We are recommending this because of our knowledge and experience of the quality of the work done by these two officers and because of our knowledge and experience of the nature of the work required to be done in these positions. Perhaps, therefore, I should really leave it on the basis that members of the former government and the present government have in this matter reached a pleasant harmony of view.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question. When the discussion was taking place on the necessity of this decision, did he And, or was there found, any general over-all principle in relation to this kind of appointment in so far as it would apply to other departments, or was there any tradition in the past, or was it just a decision based almost

wholly upon the problems of the Department of Justice? I might explain that the reason I ask this question has to do with the situation in the Department of Transport, which I think could probably stand several more associate deputy ministers; that is, in terms of the size of the organization. I am wondering whether there is any principle or any past practice that has relation to the Department of Justice and on which the minister could comment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman, at least our decision was not based on that. There have been instances in the past where there have been associate deputy ministers of other departments. I think particularly of the Department of National Defence, where there was provision for the position of associate deputy minister; I think that when the Department of Defence Production was first set up there was also provision for an associate deputy minister; but, I must say, that in the present case the decision has been made on the basis of the nature and quality of the work done and required to be done in the Department of Justice.
The fact of the matter is that, with the possible exception of the Department of Finance, the Department of Justice enters more directly into and has more direct relationships with the work of all the other departments of government than does any other single department. It is the responsibility of this department to advise all other departments, and to draft the legislation of all other departments. All other departments come to us with respect to their legal problems, and these are multitudinous, so that the relationship between the Department of Justice and every other department of government is constant and important and, I am happy to say, very pleasant and cordial.
I think that is one of the prime reasons why it is more appropriate to have associate deputy ministers in the Department of Justice than it would perhaps be in the case of other departments, because of the volume and nature of our relationships with every other department of government and the fact that these relationships are frequently carried on at a relatively high level, the level of relatively senior officers of departments. For these reasons it seems appropriate to confirm -I will not say to improve, because it would be difficult to have more pleasant relationship-an appropriate change to make to introduce positions for two associate deputy ministers in the Department of Justice.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
National Housing Act
Mr. Fulton thereupon moved to introduce Bill No. C-47, to amend the Department of Justice Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: By unanimous consent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Unanimous consent.
Mr. Fulton thereupon moved the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954 to increase the aggregate amount of all loans in respect of which insurance policies may be issued under the Act from four billion dollars to six billion dollars; and to increase from one billion dollars to one and a half billion dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purposes specified in subsection 1 of section 22 of the said act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, this is a resolution preceding the introduction of a bill to amend the National Housing Act. May I first say how pleased I am, after having been interested in low cost housing for 25 years, and having seen the lower part of my riding of Rosedale redeemed so that it is now one of the show places on the continent of low rental housing, to have the opportunity of acting as a minister of the crown reporting to the house on national housing.
May I very briefly review the history of the housing field in the past two and one-half years? When this government came to power in 1957 our economy was headed toward a recession. The general economic situation, and the housing situation in particular, clearly pointed to the need for vigorous action on the part of the government. The housing industry was suffering almost worse than any other industry and had declined ever since the third quarter of 1955. By the first quarter of 1957, the annual rate of housing had reached a 5-year low of
86,000	units.

National Housing Act
Prospective home owners were finding it almost impossible to finance a home. The ordinary citizen, who was in the low third of our income groups, could not finance a home. The rapidly worsening employment situation was aggravated by the falling off of home construction. In spite of this, nothing was done of a serious nature at that time to stimulate the construction industry, long recognized as the bulwark and one of the most important methods of increasing employment.
Under section 22 of the National Housing Act, 1954 the previous government authorized the lending of $250 million. When the Diefen-baker government took office three years later, only $100 million of this amount had been granted for mortgage lending. The policy of the previous government restricted the regulations under which central mortgage could lend to certain selected areas, as the authorities on the other side of the house are so well aware. As a result of this, the need for small homes for families in the lower income group in our great metropolitan areas was sadly neglected. When this government took office we immediately released the additional $150 million then available under the National Housing Act to foster the building of small homes.
Under the new small home loans program we gave careful consideration to the problems of the lower income group. We felt then, and I would say rightly, that loans should only be approved for units that did not exceed a certain size limit. We amended the 1954 act so that National Housing Act loans could be granted for 90 per cent of the first $12,000 and 70 per cent of the balance up to $12,800. This had the effect, generally, of increasing loans and thereby reducing the down payment necessary on a house. The government was more concerned with the requirements, as I say, of borrowers in the low income group who had modest housing intentions than with the requirements of the more fortunate and wealthier people who could afford to do their financing through conventional channels.
The housing situation at the end of 1957, as a result of the new policy of the government and the manner in which it was put into force, stood in dramatic contrast to what we found on coming into power in June. The rate of house-building, for instance, had increased from a first quarter annual rate of
86,000	units to a record rate of 150,000 units in the final quarter so that there were 122,000 starts in 1957. Employment opportunities in the winter of 1957-58 had been greatly brightened by the 14,000 additional housing starts under the small homes loan program in the fall of the year. New opportunities,

for the first time, presented themselves for people of modest means to obtain their own homes. This had a tremendous effect on the morale of tens of thousands of people who wanted to have their own homes. The earlier lacklustre pace of the industry had changed to one of unprecedented activity, and the uncertain midsummer outlook had changed to one of vigorous confidence.
The great success of this, to which I give due credit to the distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs who formerly was the minister reporting to the house on this program, was proven beyond a doubt when before the end of 1957 the remaining $150 million available under the 1954 act had been taken up by builders and home owners. In December of 1957 the government, therefore, increased, with the consent of this house, the total amount of money available under the act from $250 million to $400 million, and in May of 1958 the amount available under the act was raised again to $750 million. I do not need to tell hon. members of the house, because on the opposite side I can see two or three authorities who know this full well, of the great improvement in home construction which resulted from this fillip to the building industry, which helped to provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of Canadians. I think all those on the other side of the house will realize in retrospect that this courageous program was one of the most important factors in the recovery of our economy from the 1958 recession.
May I now report very briefly on 1959, the year which has just passed. As a whole, it was a good year for housing, a very good year, with housing starts numbering 141,000. This is a figure that no one ever heard of before 1957, and is the second highest on record. The completions for the same year amounted to 145,000, higher than ever before. In order to finance this program, and that is what we are here to do, the government again amended section 22 of the National Housing Act on March 20, 1959 and again increased the amount available under the act to $1 billion. Although 1959 was considered a most successful year in housing I feel that I must point out that during the latter part of the year there was a progressive and steady withdrawal of private lenders from insured lending under the act. This resulted in a very serious problem which faced me when I took over this portfolio at the end of August, 1959. As this country recovered from the recession a rise in personal expenditure and the demand for long term funds to finance our increased economic activity caused a considerable drain on the funds available for mortgage lending. This

resulted in a rise in long term interest rates and a diminished attractiveness of the 6 per cent National Housing Act rate.
At the end of 1959-it was an amazing thing to watch-the approved lenders had clearly retired from the insured lending field. For instance, in the year 1959 the number of units on which approved lenders had made loans had dropped from 46,000 in 1958 to
25,000.	In order to offset this decline in insured lending Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation stepped up its direct lending. Hon. members of the house will appreciate that this heavy direct lending program during the latter months of 1959 was justified in order to prevent a precipitous decline and in order to maintain employment or at least make the contribution which the housing industry could make to employment during this winter. This demand for central mortgage and housing direct loans in the fall of 1959 was so great that by the end of October the corporation had sufficient applications on hand to commit essentially the funds available under section 22 of the National Housing Act and they decided they must stop accepting new applications.
I should like to point out at this time it was not because the government ran out of money. It was very much a case of applications for loans being so great that the government felt it was best to parcel out the remaining money to the existing applicants. It was almost like the east-west game, the Grey cup final, where the box office is open for a week but when it is sold out in two days they close the office but the tickets are still there and the game is still to be played. That is the way it was with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As a matter of fact, those loans are still being processed.
I now come to the final development of the policy for 1959 and that is the increase in the maximum interest rate allowable on insured loans under the National Housing Act. I expect and I welcome discussion on this matter from all sides of the house. This rate was raised in December of last year from 6 per cent to 6| per cent in order once more to prompt a greater flow of private money into national housing mortgages during this year 1960.
I do not mind saying-and hon. members will know this-that the government came very reluctantly to the decision to raise the interest rate in order to procure more private money because we have always regarded the protection of the borrower as one of the main purposes of the National Housing Act and we are disappointed at any development that forces additional financial burdens 79951-0-74J
National Housing Act
upon the borrower. But we had the choice in this instance-and you can see it-between virtually no loans whatever under the act from the private lenders at 6 per cent or an appreciable flow-at least we hope it will be an appreciable flow-at 6J per cent. I might say that we had a great deal of difficulty in arriving at the rate of 6J per cent. It had to be attractive enough to get back into the market of the approved lenders and yet we had to hold it down as much as possible in order to protect the borrowers or the would-be home owners.
No doubt many people would have preferred the government to support this housing program by maintaining at the accelerated rate its direct Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation lending at the very high level of the previous two years, if that were possible. But as you can see, for reasons which far transcend the reasons in my own department-for reasons of government-it is not possible to keep on indefinitely lending money in such large amounts. The provision of public money on a large scale for mortgage lending has important fiscal implications which most hon. members of the house realize, adding as it does to the cash requirements of the government and contributing to cash deficits.
At times government cash deficits are appropriate to prevailing economic conditions and we feel that the economic circumstances of 1957, 1958 and, to a lesser extent, 1959 justify the policy of public lending to support house building. We look forward in 1960, however, to a year of comparatively full use of our national economic resources and a year in which the benefits of mortgage lending by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation must be weighed against the broader fiscal difficulties which would be raised by continuing to make the funds available through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the same scale as in the years 1958 and 1959.
We feel too that the present economic outlook for 1960 calls for a substantial decline in C.M.H.C. lending in the hope that by raising the interest rate to 6j per cent we can get a greater percentage participation from the approved lenders.
In the light of this outlook, and in view of the withdrawal of private lenders from insured lending at 6 per cent, we considered it necessary to prompt a higher rate of lending by permitting the private lenders a higher yield on National Housing Act mortgages. Even with this higher interest rate, Mr. Chairman, lending by the private lenders under the act may not be even as high as in 1959 when loans for 25,000 units were approved. There will no doubt be an increase in the

National Housing Act
participation of life insurance companies, mortgage companies and trust companies who approved insured loans for about 11,000 units in 1959. But the position of the banks, who approved loans for 14,000 units in 1959 and who did very little lending in the last few months of the year, is uncertain. It is unlikely that private insured loans in 1960 in any event will be much higher than in 1959 and C.M.H.C. direct loans are likely to be a good deal lower.
While there will be some decline in housing starts in 1960, completions will still be substantial. It will cheer the house to know that there are at the present time, largely owing to the winter program and to other factors, about 80,000 uncompleted units still under construction at the beginning of this year 1960, new housing which will be continuing to come on to the market at a high rate for some time to come. That is good news because they will be absorbed and will act as a cushion to cutting down the amount of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation direct loans.
Although heavy governmental expenditures and government deficits are appropriate in times of recession, I think we will all agree that under normal circumstances government expenditures should be limited to our income. In view of this consideration we felt it necessary to raise the insured lending rate from 6 per cent to 6f per cent in order to attract, as I said before, mortgage funds from private lending and thus relieve the burden on the taxpayer.
There are one or two points that I should like to make on the resolution and then I am looking forward to a great deal of help and assistance and questions from both sides of the house, either in this resolution stage or at the second reading stage, whatever hon. members prefer. But the resolution before us which all hon. members have-and it is to be found at page 10 of the orders of the day-has as its main purpose the increasing of the appropriation under section 22 of the National Housing Act. This appropriation sets the limit on the amount the government may lend to C.M.H.C. to carry out its mortgage lending policy. I have already explained how this appropriation, originally set at $250 million, has now been increased to $1 billion and how that $1 billion was finally all committed by October, 1959. It is now proposed to increase this appropriation by $500 million, from $1,000 to $1,500 million, in order to permit the continuation of mortgage lending by C.M.H.C. for some time to come.
I want to emphasize that this additional sum of $500 million is intended to last for some time. I have already explained to hon. members that present circumstances argue for a

considerable reduction in C.M.H.C. lending in 1960. Last year the corporation committed about $350 million for mortgage lending purposes. That is a very large sum. I wanted to take this opportunity to draw your attention to the difficult problem facing the corporation and to avoid raising the expectation in any quarter that the $500 million increase proposed in the appropriation indicates a readiness on the part of this government to continue mortgage lending through C.M.H.C. on the scale experienced in the last two years, and I believe you can appreciate that.
The second part of the resolution deals with section 13 of the act and the limit of $4 billion now imposed on the amount of mortgages the C.M.H.C. may insure. As lenders are likely to ask the corporation to go beyond this $4 billion mark in the early part of 1960, or at some time in 1960, we are asking parliament for authority-as you see, this resolution is in two parts-to increase the figure to $6 billion. This is not an authority for expenditures, as hon. members of the house will realize; it relates to the amount of mortgage debt that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation may insure, not the amount of mortgage loans it may make.
Having concluded by chronology the past two and a half years, and having spoken briefly on the proposed amendments, I should like to beg your indulgence, if I may, for a little bit longer to comment upon the government's policy from a more topical point of view. Over the past three years the total number of starts in Canada has averaged
143,000	a year, this average being higher than the starts in any single preceding year. We have it as a main objective to maintain over the years an average rate of new building-I ask hon. members of this house to consider this important-in excess of that rate necessary to keep up with the increase and movement of population in the country. Currently it requires something of the order of 125,000 new dwellings in Canada each year to meet the needs arising out of family formations, the increase in other kinds of households, the destruction and loss of dwellings, and the persistent drift of population from rural to urban areas. There is only one way to obtain improvements in the national stock of housing, and that is to build houses somewhat faster than the need for them grows and then to maintain and keep them in good shape. There may be years in which it is difficult to maintain a rate of building that would be considered adequate over the long run if continued. The important thing, however, is to compensate for such periods in other years, and to maintain a satisfactory average rate of building over the years.

Over much of the past decade the demand for mortgage money at N.H.A. borrowing rates has been far in excess of the available supply, but this government has demonstrated its willingness, when other conditions allow, to devote public funds on a very large scale to N.H.A. mortgage lending in all parts of the country. Since the government came to power in 1957 Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has made mortgage loans under the act in an amount close to $900 million.
I may say at this stage how pleased I was on reading over the debates of previous years at the contributions made by hon. members in this house. This housing problem we have tried to keep as much as possible non-political, and we have had a great deal of assistance from both sides of the house in this regard. But there are times, of course, when broader fiscal considerations require a moderation of government mortgage lending, and at such times it may prove necessary, as it has recently, to evoke a greater flow of private and institutional mortgage funds, as I said before.
In the provision of mortgage money out of public funds, however, we have always used methods intended to direct the assistance to the lower income ranges of eligible N.H.A. borrowers. The lower income groups will continue to arouse the greatest concern of this corporation and, of course, of the government, even if these lower income borrowers can only afford housing of a kind that some wealthier critics of the government have said nobody wants. Our concern with the lower income groups has been manifest in the requirement that only modest accommodation will be built with C.M.H.C. loans, in the lowering of down payment requirements and in the authorization of higher ratios of mortgage debt to income at the same time.
In conclusion, may I say just one word on the subject of housing for lower income families. I know that I will be asked questions about this, and I will be delighted to answer them within the scope of my limited ability. It is appropriate for me to draw the attention of hon. members to the activities in urban redevelopment and in public housing that this government has supported under the National Housing Act during the past two and a half years. In the field of urban redevelopment a great deal of interest is being shown and activity has quickened considerably.
Urban redevelopment projects are often preceded by studies which identify those areas of a city which are ripe for clearance and redevelopment. The government aids such studies financially under part V of the National Housing Act, and in the past two and
National Housing Act
a half years 19 cities across Canada have been given financial assistance of this kind. That is a large number of cities. Prior to this period -I am not making any comparison except to point out how this matter has been stepped up

only some half a dozen studies were undertaken.
As a result of these studies, actual redevelopment projects are under way in a number of centres, notably Halifax, Windsor and Toronto. Earlier projects in Toronto, Montreal and St. John's have been completed or are nearing completion. In all these cities the federal government has undertaken to give financial assistance under section 23 of the act up to the extent of 50 per cent of the total cost of the undertaking.
At the present time preliminary investigations are under way in connection with housing projects involving some 2,200 low rental units. In addition projects involving more than 3,600 rental housing units have already been given final approval or are presently under construction. This program is the largest so far undertaken under the well known section 36 of the National Housing Act.
In summarizing the housing measures of this government over the past two and a half years, I would suggest, has had three main features, each of which is new. First, there has been recognition of the basic fact that the total program must be maintained over the long pull at a rate high enough to bring about improvements in the over-all housing situation. Second, in pursuing this aim the government has shown no categorical reluctance to use Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as a major lender when this does not interfere with the adoption of a sound fiscal policy. Finally, in the disposition of government mortgage funds we have always been careful to adopt policies which tend to divert these funds to the use of the lower income families within the range of eligible borrowers.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, before the minister concludes his remarks and the hon. member for Nipissing speaks, I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date with some statistical information which would confirm his claim that more and more money has been going into the lower income groups. Specifically, I would ask him if he could bring me up to date to December 31, 1959 on the medium income curve of those taking advantage of National Housing Act money. I ask this question because I have not been able to find any striking indication that the income level of those taking advantage of N.H.A. mortgages has been dropping.

National Housing Act


David James Walker: I am very much obliged to the hon. member tor asking this question. I know the hon. member tor Port Arthur is particularly interested in the lower income groups, and he will be pleased to know that with regard to the income of N.H.A. borrowers in 1959, of the total number of loans made 52.6 per cent were to people with incomes of less than $5,000. In a moment I will get for him how that compares with the previous year. To continue: those earning less than $6,000 but more than $5,000, 24.9 per cent; those with incomes less than $7,000 and above $6,000, 12.1 per cent; and those earning $7,000 and over, 10.4 per cent. Thus, hon. members can see that this is a small home loans program. Out of 100 per cent of the loans granted, 52.6 per cent were for people with incomes lower than $5,000.
On the other hand, the figures show that the other corporation loans-the loans made throughout the country other than those in the metropolitan areas-were divided as follows: the percentage of those obtaining loans whose incomes are under $5,000 is 51.9 per cent, which is almost the same as the figure I gave a moment ago. The other figures are approximately the same, whereas in the case of the approved lenders, we find' that the percentage of loans going to those with incomes of less than $5,000 is 28.6. Does that answer the hon. member's question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, but I wanted to have some striking evidence of the point the minister made a number of times, namely that there has been a drop in the income level of those who are applying for and receiving N.H.A. money.


David James Walker: The hon. member will appreciate that the problem of making loans available to people in low income brackets was dealt with immediately on the inauguration of this system in 1957, and I would think that we could not improve very much upon what we did in 1957 and 1958. But I am getting the figures, and I hope they will be ready this afternoon.


Mr. Garland:: I should like to take this
opportunity to convey to the new Minister of Public Works our heartiest congratulations and best wishes on the occasion of the new responsibility which has fallen to him. I was able to offer my personal congratulations at the time of his appointment, but this is the first opportunity I have had to say publicly how pleased I am to know that one who is reportedly as close to the Prime Minister as the hon. gentleman is should be in charge of this important portfolio.
Without detracting in any way from the reputation of the many excellent ministers

of public works we have had in the past, perhaps at this time I may refer particularly to the minister's two predecessors who also had the responsibility of reporting to this house on behalf of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 1 am, of course, referring to the present Secretary of State for External Affairs and to the Hon. Robert Winters who were a credit to the department. We wish the new minister an enjoyable tenure of office and-I know he will appreciate the spirit in which we say this-we hope it will not be too prolonged.
The resolution before us divides itself into two distinct parts. First, to increase the aggregate amount of all loans in respect to which insurance policies may be issued under the act from $4 billion to $6 billion and, second, to increase from $1 billion to $1,500 million the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purposes specified in subsection 1 of section 22 of the said act.
One's immediate reaction to this proposed legislation is that the government obviously intends to increase the limit as to insured loans and to increase the lending authority of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to a point in each case where it will not be necessary for the government even to discuss housing policy at the next session of parliament, or indeed for what well may be the duration of this parliament. If one may judge by what has been said in the press- and that seems to be the place to learn of this government's policy-C.M.H.C. loans in 1960 are not likely to exceed $175 million.
Therefore, what we are being asked to approve in this parliament is really a two or two and a half year supply of mortgage loans if this proposed rate of assistance is to be provided. What we are being asked to do is to give this government a blank cheque in this field that they may use at their own discretion between now and the next election. Further, in asking for this blank cheque they seem determined to avoid any debate on this subject between now and the next election. I think this was confirmed by what the minister had to say today. This course of action on the part of the government seems to be a far cry from their utterances when they were in the opposition.
In so far as insured loans are concerned, total N.H.A. loans have never exceeded $908 million-the 1958 total-so that a $2 billion increase as proposed in this legislation will quite obviously leave the government plenty of leeway and make it unnecessary for it to ask for fresh parliamentary authority.

There is certainly nothing in today's housing situation to justify any degree of complacency. I think this government has been far too eager to over-publicize the seasonally adjusted rate of house construction in September and October. The truth of the matter is that housing starts in 1959 are down from 1958, and from the most expert opinion as expressed by the industry across the country housing will be down substantially more in 1960. The degree to which it will be restricted will depend on the actions of this government because, whether they like it or not, they are now in the housing business up to their ears.
I would like to remind the house briefly of the spotty, unplanned, on-and-off course this government has followed in the field of mortgage funds for housing, having in mind that the provision of an adequate and steady flow of mortgage funds to the housebuilding industry is one of the major problems facing that important industry. Practically ever since the time this government took office the housebuilding industry has been in a state of feast or famine in respect to the availability of mortgage funds. This situation has been brought about by lack of planning and, in particular, by the fiscal and monetary policies followed by this government. Let me point out just a few instances.
In the winter of 1957-58, with the worst unemployment situation this country has faced since the depression of the thirties, this government ran out of funds during the election campaign. Promises were made, of course, and money was approved, but not until the following May. In the meantime much of the industry and the people who could have been employed stood idle. Then more millions were poured into it.
Let us, for a moment, look at the situation last summer. Despite several attempts on this side of the house to have the government make its intentions known in respect to direct loans, the matter was held in abeyance by the government until parliament prorogued on July 18. Then, on July 22, the Prime Minister announced resumption of this small loan program which, I point out, had been lying dormant since the previous January. The Prime Minister's statement contained the following and I quote:
This year's quota of 15 loans to qualified builders will be made available from September 1 to December 31
The Prime Minister continued:
Small home loans will be available to builders who were in business on June 1, 1959, and who are unable to obtain the assistance they require under the usual insured mortgage loan arrangements.
National Housing Act
The Prime Minister's announcement went on to say, and I quote:
Re-introduction of the program of direct loans to builders-
I would like to underline the next lines of this quotation:
-will in no way affect the present policy of residual loans by C.M.H.C. to prospective home owners.
Following the Prime Minister's announcement, Canadian housing statistics, published by C.M.H.C., and which reached us on October 29, said with regard to direct loans to builders and I quote:
Such loans are to be available, however, from September 1 to the end of the year. By the end of August, applications have been received for these loans for close to 6,000 dwelling units.
Despite these positive statements-that of the Prime Minister and that of C.M.H.C.- the Minister of Public Works announced on October 30 that new applications from builders, home owners, or limited dividend companies could not be accepted after the close of business that day. The minister's announcement, of which no notice was given, was a complete repudiation of the terms and conditions outlined by the Prime Minister. In view of these firm commitments, it was clear that the sudden shutting off of this important supply of mortgage money took builders generally by surprise and was another indication of the confused and fumbling methods which the government seems to follow.
This sudden closing of the door against new loan applications was detrimental to the individual home owner in smaller centres who, unable to secure mortgage loans under the National Housing Act from a bank or the normal lending institutions, was no longer able to turn to the government agency for a direct loan. These people were then faced with paying higher interest rates for conventional loans or cancelling their plans to build homes altogether.
At that time I pointed out that this untimely mess, and it was untimely just as we headed into a period when we might expect some increase in unemployment, was the direct responsibility of this government. The government, by mismanagement of its own finances, had created a tight money and a high interest situation. This shutting off of mortgage funds was the direct result of the monetary and fiscal policies followed by the government.
It is common knowledge that the large cash deficits of the government started a chain reaction. To obtain the cash it needed the government mopped up funds available for investing, thereby pushing up rates of interest to unprecedented high levels and bringing down the value not only of its own

National Homing Act
securities but of all securities. The setting up of high interest rates for government bonds made it necessary to establish higher rates of interest on other investments so as to make the return they provided competitive with returns from government securities.
Mortgage investments, which are admittedly more costly to administer, have always commanded about 1 per cent higher rate than government securities. This fully explains the high interest rates now being charged on conventional loans. Conventional loans on mortgages are now being made at per cent and 8 per cent and in some cases 8J per cent-I had an example of that in the past week-with discounts on second mortgages running as high as 50 per cent. Imagine the position that puts a wage earner in when he not necessarily loses his job but is faced with the problem of reduced income. The government in these cases has helped to create in many areas of Canada virtual loan sharks' paradise.
Naturally, with interest rates soaring, money was siphoned off from housing, much of it by this government's own borrowings. Then with interest rates climbing an increasing number of house builders had to turn to direct loans. It is little wonder that the tremendous sum of $1 billion voted by parliament was exhausted prematurely. This is simply another example of lack of planning and lack of good judgment by this government stumbling along from crisis to crisis, many of them of their own making.
This turning on and turning off the tap in respect of mortgage funds for house building is further proof of the lack of any sound government policy in respect of housing despite the hundreds of millions that have been provided by parliament and, at the same time, creates confusion in the industry. Erratic outbursts of house building with mortgage funds available at the whim or fancy of a government can only add to the already high cost of housing. I repeat, the house building industry is dependent upon, and I emphasize this, a steady flow of mortgage funds.
Let me refer briefly to the government's policy on interest rates for National Housing Act loans. On May 26, 1959, as recorded at page 4012 of Hansard, the Minister of Public Works assured the commons that the existing interest rate of 6 per cent for National Housing Act mortgage loans would not be increased. He gave that assurance to the house in response to a question by me on that date. May I now move along to October 5, 1959, and a Canadian Press story appearing in the Globe and Mail on October 6, which goes on to say that it appears unlikely there will be any 
increase in the government's mortgage lending rate despite current high interest rates in other fields and a decline in new housing starts to date. The story quotes the Minister of Public Works as saying this:
I certainly know of no government plans to raise the National Housing Act interest rates.
These were his exact words. The next development was the minister's announcement of December 17 that effective immediately the interest rate on National Housing Act loans would be boosted from 6 per cent to 6g per cent. This action, taken by order in council, established the highest rate of interest ever charged since the institution of the National Housing Act.
At that time I pointed out that this latest hike in rates would mean approximately an extra $7.50 per month interest on each $12,800 N.H.A. approved loan. It could also mean another $6 to $8 per month rent for the average sized new apartment. As is usually the case, these extra costs will have to be borne by the people that can least afford it, the lower income groups.
At that time, one week before Christmas, I pointed out that this was a most unwelcome Christmas present and cited it as another example of the results of what has now become so well and so properly known as "Fleming's Folly", the government's financially imprudent but obviously politically necessary conversion loan of 1958.
While we are on the subject of increasing interest rates and their effect on housing, I should like to put on the record the views of no less an authority than the present Minister of Finance to the effect that increasing interest rates can only deter construction. I would refer you to Hansard of April 23, 1956, page 3171, where the minister was referring to an increase in the National Housing Act rate of one quarter of one per cent. The present Minister of Finance had this to say at that time:
I am led by this increase in the rate, by government decision to ask: Is the government seeking to reduce the rate of house construction in Canada?
A little further on, at the bottom of the same page, he made this statement, and I am again quoting:
I am bound to point out that an increase in the interest rate normally has the effect and usually is intended to have the effect of restraining house construction.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask the hon. member the year of that quotation?


John Richard Garland: It is page 3171 of Hansard, 1956. I wonder how the minister would reconcile his position at that time with his government's decision to boost the interest rate on N.H.A. loans, not by the one quarter

of 1 per cent to which he was referring at that time but by three times this rate of increase to 6J per cent as announced by the government a few weeks ago.
I could go on. The Minister of Finance grew stronger in his objection to raising the interest rate because three days later on April 26, 1956, as reported at page 3307 of Hansard, at the second reading stage, the minister had this to say:
The effect of an increase in interest rate necessarily is to make construction more expensive, to increase carrying charges, and to that extent to reduce the volume of home construction that would otherwise be attained.
As I mentioned, the minister made these outbursts against a quarter of one per cent raise in the interest rate on N.H.A. loans. Yet on December 18 he supported an increase of three times as much at a time when other departments were reportedly trying to increase rather than decrease employment opportunities.


David James Walker: I know that the hon. member for Nipissing wants to be fair. Does he not recall that his government in a period of less than 12 months raised the interest rate three quarters of one per cent?


John Richard Garland: I am simply pointing out what the present Minister of Finance said about an increase of one quarter of one per cent and I am relating that to his position taken a few weeks ago with regard to an increase of three times the magnitude.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Consistency is not the main characteristic of the Minister of Finance.


John Richard Garland: Surely there can be no better example, if we can rely on the minister's sincerity, and I am not questioning that, of the inconsistency in the policies of this government; on the one hand claiming to be trying to create winter employment and at the same time, according to the theory of the Minister of Finance, trying to restrict house construction.
It would seem to us, in view of the many uncertainties created in the past two and a half years as to government plans and in view of the substantial portion of mortgage funds supplied by this government, that surely the government owes it to the industry, to the financial community and to the public generally, to reveal now in this debate precisely what their plans are for 1960.
We are prepared to support the government's request for this substantial increase in the hope that making these funds available will remove many of the uncertainties occasioned by the turning on and shutting off the supply of mortgage funds by this government. I would hope the minister will take
National Housing Act
advantage of this debate to spell out in clear, concise terms when the government intends to resume direct lending and the degree of assistance. Such a statement of policy is essential at this time to avoid a further decline in housing starts.
There is another inconsistency which I should like to point out in government policy with respect to housing loans. The government by its action has put the banks out of the mortgage lending field. When one remembers that the banks in this country have supplied a substantial portion of mortgage money since 1954, then one wonders whether this is a further deliberate attempt by the government to curtail house construction. Here again there is need for a clear statement of the government's intention.
It has been clearly indicated, that the decline in residential construction in 1959 has been due to such factors as restricted direct lending by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the tight money condition and high interest rates on government bonds. Therefore, the government is directly responsible for the decline in construction activity in 1959.
A further decline is indicated for 1960 by most industry spokesmen. Government spokesmen seem to toss around the figure of
125,000	starts as an objective. I have been following some of their speeches in the press, and this is the figure they use. The minister used it again today. Unless the government acts promptly and wisely, starts may well be substantially less. We on this side of the house say, surely there is no justification for the house building industry to be singled out for further curtailment in 1960, as a result of the shortcomings of government fiscal policy. We do not believe there is any justification for a government policy of restriction of house construction at this time. It is a well-known fact that house construction provides jobs. With well over 786,000-we received those figures today-of our population seeking employment, there is no justification for the government pursuing policies which can only lessen job opportunities in this country.
Canadian housing statistics, third quarter, at page 18-and I am anxious to add this to the figure supplied by the minister-in a table recording the incomes of applicants under the National Housing Act, show that in the third quarter of 1959 only 8.4 per cent of the total loans were made to people earning under $4,000 a year, or approximately $80 a week. This is a serious state of affairs when we realize that the majority of Canadians in the lower half of the income scale are not benefiting, except in a very limited degree.

National Housing Act
from the provisions of the National Housing Act, the very people this act was intended to assist in securing adequate housing. I realize the government can use statistics and single out certain areas of activity which may make, on the surface, good reading. However, the hard fact remains that the National Housing Act no longer provides the degree of assistance it should to Canadians in the medium and lower income fields.
It is very difficult for us in the opposition to discuss at this stage what the government really intends to do in the field of housing this year until we have seen the bill. We know, of course, that the government intends to provide more money for those who wish and can afford to buy a new house but who do not have the funds required and could not easily secure those funds through the ordinary market mechanism. There is certainly a need for loans guaranteed or made directly by the government in order to meet the situation of this category of people. Such government action, however, provides assistance only for new developments and to those citizens who can afford to own a house. It is therefore very limited indeed, because it does little to meet the serious problem of slums and to help those people who most need government assistance and who cannot afford to own a house.
The existence of slums and of inadequate incomes, together with the difficulties experienced by displaced people as a result of new housing projects constitute the most serious social aspects of the housing problem in our country at the present time. Apparently the bill to be introduced by the government does not contemplate any new action to deal with this most pressing social problem.
Of course, the existing legislation introduced by the former Liberal government contains several specific sections designed to deal with this situation. In particular, section 23 of the act provides contributions up to 50 per cent of the cost to municipalities of acquisition and clearance of blighted or substandard areas. Moreover, section 36 of the act provides for federal contributions of 75 per cent of the capital cost of construction of housing projects for sale or for rent undertaken jointly with provinces or their agencies. However, the construction of main sewers, water mains and streets is not included in the capital cost to be shared by the federal government. Very little has been done under those provisions. Because of the high cost of acquiring and clearing blighted or substandard areas, many municipalities have been unable to take advantage of the enabling provisions of the National Housing Act respecting urban redevelopment and low rental housing.
Even in those municipalities where such projects have been implemented, they have

been on a relatively small scale compared with the need for such projects. While most municipal governments are strongly disposed to undertake redevelopment and re-housing projects, it is felt that the present federal financial aid in such undertakings is inadequate to encourage and facilitate the municipalities in moving forward with redevelopment and low rental housing plans. By assuming a larger share of the costs of acquiring or clearing blighted or substandard areas and low rental housing projects, and by advancing the municipalities' share, to be repayable by the municipalities, a substantial program of such projects throughout Canada could be anticipated.
The Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities recently asked for increased contributions from the federal government in this field. I would like to quote from their submission of February, 1958. This is what they had to say:
Extending the participation of the dominion government in low rental housing and urban redevelopment projects under the National Housing Act by substantially increasing the dominion government's share of the cost of acquiring and clearing blighted or substandard areas; and by advancing the municipalities' share of such costs to be repayable by the municipalities; and by increasing the costs of financing main sewers and water mains in new neighbourhood developments within the framework of the redevelopment provisions of the National Housing Act.
I would like to refer to the plan issued by the leader of the Liberal party at the beginning of the last electoral campaign, which contains specific proposals in this respect. Here is what he said on this matter:
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.
This proposal would have two consequences. First, it would increase the contribution of the federal government provided under section 23 to meet the cost of acquisition and clearance of slum areas from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. Moreover, for construction projects of the type envisaged in section 36, the federal share of 75 per cent would be extended to cover the cost of water, sewer, and street services in the area being redeveloped.
These two concrete proposals, if implemented, would go a long way to meet the most serious social aspect of our housing problem and would put the provinces and

the municipalities in a much better financial position to initiate the projects to meet our human needs in this field. However, the government does not seem to be prepared to move in this direction, and we believe it is most regrettable.


David James Walker: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Is he really serious in these observations? He sat in the house from 1954 to 1957, during which time Canada went through two recessions, and during which time the Liberal machine spent only $100 million by way of loans. In a three-year period we have lent $900 million, nine times as much. Is my hon. friend serious in the observations he is making?


John Richard Garland: Mr. Chairman, the point I was making was in connection with the legislation before us. I pointed out the problem and I have been seeking to prove my point that there is apparently no recognition of a problem that demands a greater degree of assistance. You know, Mr. Chairman, hon. members on the other side of the house think that when they are spending money that the mere spending of the dollars is a substitute for policy.


David James Walker: No, we are lending it, we are not spending it.


John Richard Garland: I should like to take this opportunity to renew a suggestion which I made last year. I believe some effort should be made to encourage the establishment of a secondary market in insured loans that would enable the small investor to participate. It would seem that some method could be found to channel this type of investment into mortgage funds. There are many potential investors with amounts varying from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars who cannot conveniently invest directly in mortgages. Many members of the house will recall that in earlier days small investors would jointly participate in purchasing larger mortgages, but this practice, costly and awkward to administer, has waned in popularity and ceased to be an important feature in the mortgage field.
Proposals have been discussed concerning the forming of a company which would buy N.H.A. guaranteed mortgages from banks, life insurance companies and even from central mortgage itself. It has been proposed that the purchase of these mortgages would be financed by selling bonds to individuals as well as corporate investors. The immediate effect of this proposal would be to clear some existing mortgages from the portfolios of the big lenders and enable them to pour more funds into the mortgage lending stream. It is my opinion that this proposal would be
National Housing Act
most helpful in providing additional mortgage funds by taking advantage of investment potential now in the hands of the small investors who have up to now been unable to participate in this field. I understand that most banks and some life insurance companies endorse this proposal. I would be interested to know what attitude the government takes on this subject, and if anything is being done actively by the government to encourage the implementation of such a proposal.
Housing is indeed an important, complex and interesting subject. It is possible to cover but a few of its aspects in remarks of this kind. We believe there are many areas for improvement in respect to the general subject, and many of these aspects will be dealt with in some detail by my colleagues at this stage and at second reading.
May I close on the same note on which I began, by saying that the Liberal party, with its long record of real achievement in the housing field, stands ready to support this government in this legislation to whatever extent it will have the effect of creating one more job or one more housing unit for our people, especially in the lower income brackets.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, like the member for Nipissing, I want to offer our congratulations to the minister upon his appointment and to wish him a most successful career in office as long as he is minister. I intend, at the outset, to express our support, in general terms, of the intent of the resolution. However, I believe that it is time we began to think about what we are doing with the taxpayers' money when we are voting ever increasing amounts to be made available to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As interest rates continue to rise it is inevitable that a greater and greater percentage of the lower income group of Canadians will not be aided by the provisions of this act. On each and every occasion that we do permit an increase in the interest rate we exclude another group of average or below average income Canadians from obtaining any of the benefits of this act.
In that respect at least the actions of governments over the past number of years have been in direct contradiction to the intent of the act when it was originally introduced into this house. We have no intention of opposing the resolution, and we hope we will not have to oppose the bill when we see it. However, the time may come, if this trend continues whereby more and more of the taxpayers' money is used on behalf of those who really do not need the assistance of the government, when we in this group will have to take another hard look

National Housing Act
at this whole program of using the taxpayers' money to provide housing for a limited number who really do not need the assistance.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: May I
ask the hon. member a question. The hon. member refers to the lower income group. Would he say below what level he considers the lower income group to be?


Erhart Regier: I believe the hon. member is aware of the fact that over half of the people in Canada do not even earn enough to make them eligible for the payment of income tax. These are the people who we feel ought to be aided when the taxpayers' money is being used to supply housing in Canada. However, each time you add to the monthly payment you automatically, according to the formula in vogue, exclude more and more of the average and below average wage earners of the nation.


Mr. Lambert:: On a point of information may I ask the hon. member if he lumps into that group all those single women who are wage earners and therefore would not be considered as being in the category of people about whom we are talking now, that is potential purchasers of homes?


Erhart Regier: I do not want to get involved in the details. I was attempting to enunciate over-all, general principles. I think even the hon. member for Edmonton West will admit that statistics of even a number of years ago revealed that the vast majority of those who received benefits under this act were people purchasing homes who were in the well paid wage earning bracket or above. I do not believe that particular situation has altered very much. I know the government has made some very commendable moves to make lower priced homes available within recent years. However, rising interest rates have largely offset, if not more than offset, the good intentions of the government in this regard. We have not noted an improvement in the number of people supplied with homes who really need public assistance, as we had hoped.
There is another matter I wish to raise and that is the very future of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The government has now raised the interest rate that is permissible to 6.75 per cent. However, when the government itself has to borrow money and has to pay, as it had to pay last September, as high as 6.8 per cent on the money it needs, it is obvious that there is very little, if any, margin left for what might be a very socially desirable and useful public instrument, the corporation known as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The intention announced, I believe as recently as a year ago, was that the government

would not permit this corporation to operate at a deficit and meet the deficit out of general revenues or out of the consolidated revenue fund. This has caused me considerable concern because I fail to see how the government is able to take this stand when that lending agency is lending money at 6.75 per cent and the government has to pay in the neighbourhood of 6 per cent plus for money.
I hope the government recognizes that this is an institution with which we as a modern society cannot dispense and whose activities and influence ought in no way to be curtailed. If the need arises-and it may not yet have arisen-during the fiscal year for the government to be obliged to face up to the problem, I hope the government will realize the extremely important role this institution may play in our national life and that, if necessary, they will be prepared not only to continue its operation but also to assume enough of the financial burden so that its influence may be extended.


David James Walker: My friend the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, like my friend the hon. member for Nipissing, is sincere in his approach to housing and it is entirely different from that of the hon. member for Nipissing. Will my hon. friend tell me-because I am seeking his assistance-whether he is speaking on behalf of his party and whether he is opposed to the government charging 6J per cent interest. Is he suggesting that we should be charging more on our direct loans and that the approved loans should be at a greater rate of interest than 6f per cent?


Erhart Regier: Oh, no, Mr. Chairman; not at all. For those Canadians who do not need the help of the taxpayers in order to provide themselves with homes we are not overly concerned as to what the rate of interest may be that they might be obliged to pay. We would rather see the government operate Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at a loss in order to enable those who really need public assistance in the matter of housing to receive that assistance. In other words, we would endorse a policy of the government's subsidizing interest rates, if necessary, in order to provide housing for those people for whom we want to obtain housing; and the only instrument or vehicle that we can see essential and necessary to implement such a policy is this instrument we now have, namely Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


David James Walker: Does my hon. friend concede that 52.5 per cent of those who have received assistance by way of loans have incomes below $5,000? Do they not come within the category of those who need assistance-not gifts but loans-through this direct channel of government?


Erhart Regier: I would submit to the minister that there are far more people in Canada who are in receipt of less than $300 a month or $3,600 per year than there are whose income is in excess of that figure. I submit that those receiving less than $300 per month are the people who are the responsibility of this House of Commons and who are the concern of the public in the matter of housing needs. People receiving in excess of $300 per month and up to $5,000 per annum and more are people whose need in the matter of housing is not nearly as urgent as is that of the man with a family who is receiving less than $300 a month and who under present conditions is completely unable to take advantage of the intent of this act or of the good intentions the minister and the government may have.
We are realizing that events are leading us into a situation in which the exact opposite of declared government policy in the field of financing housing needs is taking place. The government has, over several years now, announced that its policy with regard to finances for housing needs is to encourage an evergrowing participation in this matter on the part of the private money lenders of Canada. Yet despite all the wishes expressed by ministers in the past we realize that a decreasing percentage of the cost of housing is being financed by the private lending institutions of Canada, and for a very good reason, namely that they can make more money by investing their money elsewhere. In some cases they are not obliged to invest their money or tie up their money for as long a term of years as they do in the case of housing.
I think the time has arrived when the government must face up to this trend and must realize that, unless other actions are taken, it is going to continue; it is inevitable, under our expansion economy in which we live at the present time. As long as higher returns with equal security are available in other fields, the investors of Canada cannot really be expected to share the good intentions of the government in the matter of housing and to go along with the wishes of the government merely because they are the expressed wishes of the government.
There have been continuous announcements that government policy is to encourage greater participation by private lending agencies. Yet the facts are that to an evergrowing degree public financing is replacing private lending agencies as the source for the needed housing mortgage money.
The minister may reply with statistics showing that in this month there was more private money for housing than in a corresponding month, but the minister cannot deny
National Housing Act
the fact that, since the Conservative government has taken office in Canada they have deemed it necessary to resort to an evergrowing degree to the use of public finances in order to meet the housing needs of the people of Canada.
I have no particular fault to find with that course. However, it is a contradiction in that the expressed wish of the government is not being met by conditions as they exist and as we continue to find them. The actions of the government really belie their announced policy in that the actions of the government indicate that-in so far as their actions are at least an indication-more and more the whole matter of housing is becoming a social responsibility within the nation and that it must be assumed by the government acting on behalf of the people as a whole.
I should like to close with a number of questions which to me are vital and which I hope the minister will deem worthy of a reply. I hope the minister can inform this committee that the intentions of the government are as to when direct lending by C.M.H.C. is to be resumed. I know the minister is now making the beginning of the move asking for legislative authority. However, I also notice that in a bulletin entitled "National Home Builders Association Convention Report" dated January 12, 1960, on the last page it stated:
Don't expect direct government lending until later in year, probably in fall to boost winter building.
This was published only a month ago. The quotation continues:
The bill to increase direct lending has been drafted, but the exact amount has not yet been fixed.
We now have that amount in the resolution. The amount has been fixed. The quotation continues:
Best guess:	around $150 million. Walker
emphasizes that government will not go into direct lending until it sees what approved lenders do.
I hope the minister will reply to that because it is of considerable concern to those who are engaged in the construction industry. Is the report that the government is intending to do nothing with this money, even though it may be voted by this House of Commons, correct? Does it intend to sit back, see what private money lenders will do, and then maybe in the fall perhaps utilize the money that this house may be voting? There is concern in all parts of Canada as to how early this year the government is intending to make direct loans in this matter.


David James Walker: I want to thank the hon. member and say that he is under some misapprehension. The magazine he was reading

National Housing Act
from is the N.H.B.A. magazine and they are referring to builders loans. It has not been the policy of our government to make any builders loans except in the winter months of 1958 and 1959. There certainly have never been any builders loans at the beginning of the year and we have no knowledge or thought of making any at the present time.
The home owners loans-that is, the direct loan from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the home owner who would like to build a house-will commence again when this legislation is through. That is one of the reasons why it is far up on our legislative program.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, first of all I thank the minister for his prompt reply, but I regret very much that it is not the intention of the government to make the builders loans available. Because I believe the minister must realize from the statistics which are available to him and from advice he is getting that we are running into a dead end and that action now is needed as it has never been needed before.
Here I come to another matter which I hope he will deal with in his reply, and it has to do with the insured loans referred to in the resolution. What reason has the government to expect that there will be any more private funds available as a result of either this forecasted legislation or the raise in interest rates? I have here a press clipping from one of the newspapers in my province which, upon the announcement of the minister of an increase in the interest rate, had this to say:
N.H.A. rate boost not likely to aid loans.
A boost in N.H.A. interest rates is unlikely to stimulate the new capital hoped for by the federal government, according to Vancouver lending institutions.
In the N.H.B.A. bulletin I referred to before there is a headline which says that this battle for money is to be fierce in 1960. Among other things it says that house build-ders this year face the toughest battle for mortgage money ever fought in Canada. It goes on:
Recent hike in the N.H.A. interest rate (now standing at six and three quarters per cent) won't help as much as the increase three years ago. There's just too much competition for money at more remunerative rates.
That brings to mind an advertisement I saw in the Ottawa Citizen of February 1, an offering by Wood, Gundy and Company Limited, and the headline is: "Over 6 per cent yield from Ontario hydro bonds". I think if the minister compares the value of Ontario hydro bonds with the value of housing paper even he would be unwilling to lend what money he has for purposes of

housing at 6f per cent if he could obtain in excess of a 6 per cent yield from Ontario hydro bonds, with even the possibility of a capital gain should the Minister of Finance continue in office much longer and the bond market continue to deteriorate.
I feel that 6f per cent is unrealistic if it is intended to lure more private money into the housing field. If that is its intention, in order for it to be a realistic rate it ought to be much nearer seven and a half per cent, if not 8 per cent, and heaven forbid that I would support such a move. However, I feel in this respect that the government has its head in the sand, because people can now buy top notch first class mortgages, in the lower mainland of British Columbia at least, and obtain a yield of 8 and 9 per cent.
I am on the board of directors of a cooperative housing association. We have millions of dollars on our books in first mortgages at 8 per cent, and the demand for money from our resources is endless. Six and three quarters per cent is a most unrealistic rate. It is merely an attempt to avoid admitting the inevitable, that lending institutions as presently constituted on the national economic scene cannot be induced to make the necessary funds available for housing at rates of interest that average wage earners are able to afford.
It is no use for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to be clubbing the management of the banks or Canadian investment companies. This situation exists and it has to be faced. In the field of housing I feel that with the unwillingness of the government to take other action the only thing I can recommend is that this Conservative government adopt the attitude that, for those of less than average income, housing has become a social responsibility, and with the Conservatives of today willing to adopt the concept of the welfare state, I do not think my plea should fall on completely deaf ears. I feel that the Conservatives may yet perform many a miracle in order to survive in office; and while the Prime Minister's government is now to the left of the former government, circumstances may make it move much further to the left yet before it ever sets the stage for the next election in Canada, despite the intentions of the hon. member for Essex East and the rest of the Liberal party in this respect. I wish to raise one other matter, and that is that I feel municipalities are most unfortunate in not being able to take the initiative in the matter of housing. Over the years I have heard hon. member after hon. member rise in his place and castigate municipal authorities for not taking advantage of



I960

[Stage Direction]
certain sections of the National Housing Act. In this regard I feel that the municipalities are blameless because I am sure they would love to take advantage of the many portions of the act which are designed for initiative to be taken on their part. However, municipalities, especially the growing ones, have tremendous responsibilities in regard to capital costs. They have to provide new sidewalks, sewers, water mains, schools and hospitals, and they feel that taking the initiative in the matter of low cost housing is beyond the realm of possibility.
This is why I believe that the matter which I raised on orders of the day is so vital. The government should take steps to reactivate, among other things, the Municipal Assistance Improvements Act so that municipalities would have low cost money available to them and be able to take an interest in the act and engage in such projects as land assembly, which would be to the benefit of all potential home owners in Canada and also those people who are interested in the orderly development of housing within the municipalities.
Mr. Van Horne:: In commencing what I have to say on this subject, I certainly wish to congratulate the minister on his appointment. I have no doubt he will succeed in accomplishing the tremendous tasks he has before him and will follow the precedent established by his predecessor who was without doubt the greatest minister of public works this country has ever known. I speak not only of the benefits which have come to my own riding, although this government, through the Department of Public Works, has done more, spent more and accomplished more in my riding in two years than all the other governments since confederation.


An hon. Member:: How about unemployment?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will come to unemployment but we are speaking on housing this afternoon and I should like to discuss one or two of the problems which have arisen in connection with housing as I have come to know them.
Last year I took the trouble to go to England to study the housing system there. I also took the trouble to study the plan which operates in the United States and in other countries. I may say that when you go to buy a house in the United States the first thing that strikes you on entering is that the house comes equipped with up to $2,000 worth of built-in kitchen equipment. This is most important to a family starting out in life. The house comes equipped with a built-in refrigerator, oven, stove, washer and dryer.
National Housing Act
In some cases there are built-in items which we would even regard as luxuries here but which, nevertheless, are included in the total price of the house. The house may cost $14,000, but a man can purchase it for something like $450 down. If he is a veteran, he pays nothing down. This enables a family starting out in life on a low income to acquire a home which is already almost fully equipped. The only further items needed are bedding, furniture and equipment for the dining room and living room. The house, as I say, comes sufficiently equipped to permit a family to start housekeeping for a minimum deposit of something like $400 and, in the case of a veteran, no deposit at all is needed.
I found out that the approach in England is along the same lines. Over there the government has seen to it that houses are financed almost 100 per cent. I was amazed at the complete effectiveness when I began to study the housing situation in England.
Here in Canada, this is what happens, and I know whereof I speak from personal experience, having been concerned with housing developments and in other phases of real estate. Not only does a couple need to make a down payment of $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000- and it usually works out that a family needing a house in Canada has to find something like $3,500-but the house, when purchased contains no built-in equipment to speak of.
I am telling you, Mr. Chairman, that as far as the great majority of our young families in this country are concerned they do not have that kind of money to put down. This is what happens: They get it from the finance companies, or from the oil companies who take a second mortgage on the house. I know that to be a fact. Many of the oil companies will go to a builder and say: let us handle your second mortgage in return for the business of supplying the oil furnace in the basement. The family might succeed in getting $1,000 to put down. The oil company takes a second mortgage, and after a lot of difficult manoeuvring the family succeeds, after obtaining a loan from the finance company, a note from the builder, and a mortgage from the oil company, and the initial loan from the C.M.H.C., in taking possession of a house. What is the result? That family is in hock for the first five years after moving into the house, and this applies to 67 per cent of the people in Canada who-buy houses under the present system.
I feel this is placing too great a burden upon our people. All I am asking is that this government should place as much confidence in the people of Canada as the United

National Housing Act
States government places in the American people. If the United States government can show such confidence, then, surely, we can do the same. Right off the bat, I mention this: I realize that this over-all plan of housing is the usual result of niggardly Liberal thinking which evolved our housing plan in the first place, and I have no doubt that every member of this government is more than sympathetic with regard to the plight of those who cannot purchase a house under the existing system in Canada. In the United States a value of up to 96 per cent is recognized on a house which has already been built, thus insuring that people who have houses not built under the housing plan are protected, and loans of up to 96 per cent of their value are available to them when they want to sell or buy these houses.
I had an experience with regard to one project where there were 104 applicants for 100 houses. This had nothing to do with any personal business of mine. Out of the 104 applicants, only one person was able to make the down payment. However, one oil company was prepared to put up a second mortgage on each of the houses for $1,500 on condition they got the oil business. I remember discussing this problem one day with a very good businessman in Canada, and I was telling him that if only our government could realize that they should have the same confidence in the Canadian people as the United States government has in the American people the situation would work out very well. He said: Mr. Van Horne, you can tell your government one thing more on that score. If the government of Canada had as much confidence in Canada as the United States has in Canada we would be much better off.
Who needs a house? I respectfully submit that it is the young married couple starting out in life who need to have a house built under our plan. Some people may say that it is wrong to buy a house by way of a second mortgage or to carry out secondary financing. But this is exactly what is being done in more than 67 per cent of the cases. The government, if it wishes, can ascertain whether that figure is correct. In a survey which my company carried out on five different projects scattered in five different localities the figure amounted to 67 per cent. What is so wrong with the United States plan of permitting people to enter a house on a minimum payment of $400 or $500, and

what is so wrong with permitting a veteran to purchase a house without a down payment?
If the United States government can do it, as it has done since 1944, do you mean to tell me that this government cannot do it? This problem is not insurmountable.
If it was something that was not of immediate importance not only to the people of my riding but to all people across Canada whose incomes are below $5,000 a year, I would not be pressing as I have been during the four years I have been a member of the house that the government adopt the same system that exists in the United States. It may be said that we are building quite a few houses in Canada. That may be true but let us not forget that under the United States system the people there have been able to acquire their homes years ago whereas under our system housing has not been available to our people because of the high down payments.
What is so wrong about acknowledging the lending value of a house that is already built even though the house was not built under the National Housing Act? If there were not an example right across the border I would not be pressing as I am and have been.
But here is what really discourages a member of parliament. I go down to Mada-waska county in my riding and meet some very fine citizen in the town of St. Leonard, let us say, who lives only 500 feet from the state of Maine. He says to me, "Mr. Van Horne, what is wrong with you people in Ottawa? Why is it that John Jones who lives 500 feet from me across the line can buy a beautiful house for nothing down because he is a veteran and I have to dig up $4,000 which I have not got and cannot get because I am not earning a salary that will ever permit me to save it"? He says, "Why is it that you want to penalize us"? I tell him, of course, that we are still suffering from the influence of the old Liberal regime.


Mr. Rouleau:: You were only in office two years.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I certainly sympathize with these people. It is all very well for this little gentleman over there, this hon. member, to make these remarks, but let me assure him that if he were face to face with the people who need housing and cannot get it he would not interject as he does. I

am going to bring this up on another occasion but in my office I have a collection of probably a hundred pictures of slum dwellings that exist, home dwellings. I have gone to see these families. They could find $700 or $800 to put down on a house but they cannot find $3,500 or $4,000. They are people who work in the woods. They are smart people and all they ask is a chance.
There is no difference between these people who live in Madawaska county and the people who live in Maine. If the people of Maine who are only 350 feet away can have housing available to them for $300 or $400 down and in the case of veterans nothing down, I sincerely suggest and submit to the government for its consideration, and I trust it will consider these things now, that the solution of our housing problem in Canada is not as difficult as far too many of the people in the government wish to make it. We can solve the problem, by adopting lock, stock and barrel the U.S. system. All that is needed is more confidence on the part of this government in the Canadian people.
(Translation):


Mr. Bourgel:: Mr. Chairman, before starting the few remarks I would like to make on this resolution, I want to take this opportunity of tendering my sincere congratulations to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), on the occasion of his appointment to one of the most important federal departments. I also wish him good luck and good health, because I know from experience the numerous and heavy responsibilities which are now resting upon his shoulders.
I also would like to congratulate his new parliamentary secretary (Mr. Tasse) who, like myself, is a former student of the "Ecole polytechnique" in Montreal. The minister will certainly be able to rely on him as a helper in his work. I am sure that, being an engineer, he will be very valuable to the minister, more particularly in a department where technical and engineering problems so frequently come up.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the resolution is to amend the National Housing Act of 1954, and as it says:
-to increase the aggregate amount of all loans in respect of which insurance policies may be issued under the act from four billion dollars to six billion dollars; and to increase from one billion dollars to one and a half billion dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purposes specified in subsection 1 of section 22 of the said act.
National Housing Act
Mr. Chairman, I am convinced, as is the minister, that all hon. members recognize the importance of the housing issue, from an economic as well as from a social point of view. As far as I can remember, since the National Housing Act was adopted, I have always been pleased to note that all hon. members, from all parties represented in the house, and, in spite of divergent views as to the methods of application, always favoured any legislation that would improve the housing position in this country.
During the discussions of this matter in the past, I always expressed the opinion that, in spite of an increase of available funds and some minor amendments, the National Housing Act failed of what was its main objective at the time it was introduced, that is, to provide a decent home for every Canadian.
If I was right on this point in the past,. I am doubly so today, if we consider that the rate of interest which, formerly, or rather before last October, was 6 per cent has now been established at 6| per cent for all insurable loans which, under this act may be granted by private lenders and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Moreover, we must remember that today limited dividend corporations, whose object it is to build low rental housing for our senior citizens and people of low income, will find their task more difficult and costly, because, since October 1, 1959, the interest rate on those loans has been increased from 5| per cent to 5| per cent.
May I say then that the optimism and enthusiasm about housing, which, according to the former minister of public works, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Green), was again noticeable throughout Canada, is more and more on the wane.
This is readily seen in the figures of table 20 in the report for the third quarter of 1959 entitled "Canadian Housing Statistics".
We find, for instance, that the number of mortgage loans authorized under the National Housing Act and made by lending institutions as of the second quarter of 1958, reached 18,901, while it stood at 13,850 only during the second quarter of 1959.
If we look at the figures for the third quarter, the difference is even greater: for the third quarter of 1958, there were 14,345 loans, while in the same quarter for 1959, there were only 5,781.

National Housing Act
And if we refer to table 21 in the same report, we see that for the first eleven months of 1958, there were 44,675 mortgage loans authorized under the National Housing Act by category of lenders, while the number was down to 26,504 for the eleven month period ending in November 1959. On the other hand, C.M.H.C. loans remained practically at the same level.
Table 24 of the same booklet also gives a fair idea of the decreasing amount of loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to limited dividends corporations, since, according to that table, in the third quarter of 1958, loans had been made for 2,927 units, while, in the course of the third quarter of 1959, 457 loans only were made.
Mr. Chairman, it will perhaps be asked what were the reasons for this decrease. Well, in my opinion, they are obvious. It appears that, early in 1959, there was a substantial decrease in the number of direct loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Furthermore, corporations or lending institutions shied away from housing loans, because of the high rates of interest on government bonds.
But in my view, the most important factor in the slowdown of housing was the tight money situation prevailing in 1959, a situation which still exists today. Tight money, of course, was caused by the many deficits of the government since its assumption of power, by the many government loans, and particularly by the famous loan floated in the fall of 1958.
I mentioned early in my remarks that the recent rise from 6 to 6J per cent in the interest rate will cause a reduction in housing. Mr. Chairman, I am not alone in this view. I do not know whether the minister has had an opportunity, since his appointment as Minister of Public Works, to go over the high-sounding speeches made by his friends when they sat on this side of the house; if he did, he would have seen, for instance, what the present Minister of Finance used to think about the increase in the interest rate. Here is something he said on April 23, 1956, as recorded on page 3171 of Hansard:
I am bound to point out that an increase in the interest rate normally has the effect and usually is intended to have the effect-
And this is important. I am not sure the minister will take up this point.

-of restraining house construction.
I wonder, therefore, whether the present government, in raising the interest rate, is striving to slow down construction.
On page 3307 of Hansard for the same year, the Minister of Finance made another statement, and you should have heard how forcefully he expressed himself. I quote:
The effect of an increase in interest rate necessarily is to make construction more expensive, to increase carrying charges, and to that extent to reduce the volume of home construction that would otherwise be attained ... The government cannot escape its responsibility in this respect.
I must point out to the minister that at the time, when the Minister of Finance talked about high interest rates, the rate was only 5J per cent, not 6j per cent as it is today.
Let us see now what the former minister of public works, the predecessor of my hon. friend, thought of the tight money situation and its effects on housing construction. Here is what he said on May 15, 1958, according to page 116 of Hansard:
We had not been in office very long before we found that there was a rapid falling off in housing construction across Canada. Lending institutions were advancing money reluctantly because of the tight money policy then in effect and this tight money policy was hitting the building industry harder than any other industry in the country. It was fairly easy to get a loan for an expensive home but it was very hard to get one for a small home.
It would be interesting also, Mr. Chairman, to recall what the Prime Minister thought of the tight money situation and its effect on housing construction. I have here a copy of an article published in the Toronto Telegram of October 30, 1957, entitled: "Credit where needed", and from which I quote:
(Text):
In the Prime Minister's opinion, the adverse effects of tight money have been most severe among persons interested in low and middle cost housing. In this area, he said, "credit restrictions had virtually nullified the rights of prospective home owners under the National Housing Act". Not only was tight money creating unemployment, it was impeding the normal development of our most precious asset-the average young Canadian family.
(Translation) :
Well, Mr. Chairman, if those people who now wield most influence in the cabinet and now have to find a solution to this problem, could then blame the government of that time, can we not tell them today that they are not logical, because of their past attitude and mainly because they forget the promises they made about this and many other matters.

That is why I repeat what the Minister of Finance said then:	The government cannot
shirk its responsibilities in this matter.
(Text):
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the acting house leader what the business will be for tomorrow and Friday?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Thursday, will be private members' day and we will
Business of the House
be considering Bill No. C-6, to amend the Criminal Code, dealing with capital punishment. On Friday, we shall deal with supplementary estimates. Should we complete the estimates we shall take up the resolution we have been discussing this afternoon on housing, and if we finish that we shall take up the resolution dealing with the railway crossing fund. The business for Monday will be announced tomorrow by the leader of the house.


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

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

Mr. Mcllraiih: 1.	Did the civil service commission, within the last six months, solicit applications for employment in the Department of National Revenue from Ottawa residents?
2.	If so, how many letters or circulars were sent out, and what was the estimated cost of the preparation and printing of such material?
3.	Were newspaper advertisements used in an attempt to recruit personnel for these particular positions?
4.	If so. what was the cost of such newspaper advertisements?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of Stale):
1.	The civil service commission, in October 1959, distributed circulars through the Post Office Department to all house holders within a 35 mile radius of Ottawa, for part-time employment in the taxation division, Department of National Revenue.
2.	135,000 circulars were sent out at a cost of $990.42 for preparation and printing.
3.	To supplement the advertising by means of the special announcement circulars, an advertisement was inserted in the Ottawa newspapers on October 22, 1959.
4.	The cost of a 3" deep classified display advertisement in the Ottawa Citizen, The Journal, and Le Droit totalled $26.76 for one insertion.


PUBLIC WORKS PHASE TENDERS
Mr. Bourget: 1* Since the beginning of the current fiscal year, have phase tenders for any one project been asked by the Department of Public Works?
2. If so, what are the projects, and for what reasons have phase tenders been called?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of
Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	Jackson Building, Ottawa-Rehabilitation after explosion.
Due to the serious damages caused by an explosion during the fall of 1958, immediate action had to be taken to restore the building to its previous standard with the least possible delay to provide accommodation for the departments previously occupying this building.
The remedial work was divided into four phases to allow as many of the original
occupants to return while repairs were being effected. The four phases were:
1.	Restoration of the exterior walls, openings and elevator services.
2.	Repairs to the interior including partitions on the first three floors.
3.	Repairs to the interior including partitions and lighting on the six remaining floors (4 to 9 respectively).
4.	Repairs to the plumbing, fire protection system and the cafeteria.
A contract was issued for each phase after receipt of public tenders. The work on phases 1 and 2 is completed; the work on phase 3 is 98 per cent completed and work on phase 4 is in progress.
Preparation of plans and specifications for the whole remedial work with the intention of obtaining one tender call would have seriously delayed reoccupation of the building. The procedure taken permitted the planning of each phase while work was being proceeded with on the previous phase and resulted in the reoccupation of the whole building in less time than if the project had been awarded to one general contractor.
Examining warehouse, 326 Howe street, Vancouver, B.C.-Major repairs and renovations.
This building which was mostly occupied by the Post Office Department became vacant after the personnel of that department was transferred into the new post office building completed during 1958. Major repairs were required to provide better and proper accommodation for numerous government departments including transport, citizenship and immigration, public printing and stationery, finance, northern affairs and national resources, national health and welfare, agriculture and the unemployment insurance commission, most of which were occupying rented quarters at various locations in the city of Vancouver.
The phasing of this repair and improvement work was instituted in order to provide the urgently required accommodation as soon as possible, rather than have these offices ill-housed until the whole of the alterations were completed.
During May, 1959, after receipt of public tenders, a contract was awarded for major repairs on the first, second, third and fourth floors of this building including the installation of a new freight elevator and a fish testing laboratory. The work is nearly completed.
During December, 1959, after receipt of public tenders, a contract was awarded for additional repairs on the second and third floors. This work is in progress.

Hamilton, Ontario-Harbour improvements.
Hamilton harbour has a long history of continued growth in traffic. It has been necessary to expand facilities for the freight traffic at public wharves in both the bulk and general cargo quantities. An expansion program was started in 1955, in conjunction with the Hamilton harbour commissioners and, since that time, the major projects completed or presently under way include the Wellington street dock and transit terminal, the ship street terminal 3 development, Strathearne avenue development, and the Burlington beach wharf. These structures will all meet seaway requirements as to available depth and berth size.
During 1959-60, the following stages of work were under way: stage 1, Burlington beach wharf, berm construction; stage 2, Burlington beach, dredging; stage 3, Strathearne avenue, wharf face walls and dredging.
It is anticipated that the above works will all be completed during the coming fiscal year.
Lakehead (Port Arthur and Fort William, Ontario)-Harbour development.
In order to serve western Canada with a port on the great lakes system capable of handling the deep draft ocean freighters, a multistage development program was started at the lakehead. The project calls for the construction of a modern seaway terminal with rail and storage facilities and other ancillary services. When complete, this terminal should offer one of the most efficient general cargo handling depots in Canada. Near the boundary between Port Arthur and Fort William, a large area of land is being reclaimed as the construction site to be developed.
During 1959-60, the following stages were under way; stage 1, construction of bridges and access roads, completed; stage 2, dredging and reclamation, reclamation completed and dredging transferred to stage 3; stage 3, construction of wharf and substructure, contract documents being reviewed prior to tender call; stage 4, additional fill and stockpile, work under contract not yet commenced.
Further stages of the over-all project will be initiated as the planning is completed.
Toronto, Ontario-Harbour improvements.
During the last several years, improvements have been made to provide the channels of this harbour with seaway depths. The department has been concerned primarily with dredging in the approach and entrance channels, while the Toronto harbour commission has been responsible for most of the construction work on new terminals, etc.
Questions
During 1959-60, the work included:	1.
Dredging, inner eastern harbour, not completed. 2. Dredging, eastern channel (clean up), completed.
In addition, dredging in the western entrance channel continued, with the spoil being used on the Toronto island airport extension work which this department has undertaken for the Department of Transport. On the airport extension project, we have been concerned mainly with the construction of retaining bulkheads.
St. John's, Newfoundland-Harbour reconstruction.
One of the largest harbours and rivers engineering projects ever undertaken by the department has been the improvement project at St. John's, Newfoundland, which includes the over-all renovation of a large section of the waterfront. The work includes the construction of a new general cargo handling terminal, additional deep-water and coastal shipping berths, new transit sheds, and the provision of both open and covered storage space. In addition, new service roads, sewer extensions, modern handling equipment, etc., are planned.
To date, five major parts of the project have been completed or are under way:
1.	Construction of Department of Transport marine agency wharf-completed.
2.	Small boat basin-completed.
3.	Dredging-completed, but a portion of the dredging was transferred to the main terminal contract.
4.	Removal of SS Desola-contract just awarded and work to start directly.
5.	Main terminal pier-contract awarded recently and work now under way.
In addition to the above projects, a number of smaller demolition contracts have been awarded, with some completed. These works include the demolishing of private dwellings, commercial buildings, sheds and wharves.
Other major portions of the project, which will be started as the planning permits, include:
1.	Transit shed, warehouse and administration building construction.
2.	Completion of the north shore embankment wall.
3.	South shore service road.
4.	Construction of the C.N.R. newsprint pier.
5.	Installation of rail and other services.
Miscellaneous:
There are also a number of small works which are to be built over a period of years, as an example:
The construction of protection walls is studied on an area basis, particularly along

Questions
the St. Lawrence river, usually covering the entire shoreline within the limits of a municipality. The area is divided into a number of projects or phases to ensure that priority is given to the sections where the damage caused by navigation is more severe and where work is urgently required. Tenders are called for only one project or phase during one fiscal year. This procedure is being used, for example, at the following places:
Cap de la Madeleine, Lavaltrie; Cap de la Madeleine (Ste Marthe), St. Jean I.O.; Champlain, St. Laurent I.O.; Contrecoeur, Tracy; Lanoraie, Vercheres.
1960 HOG PURCHASES, STABILIZATION BOARD

Question No. 164-Mr. Boulanger:
1.	Has the agricultural stabilization board made purchases of hogs since January 11, 1960?
2.	If so, (a) how many were purchased: (b) what was the average price per 100 lbs?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of
Agriculture):
1.	The agricultural stabilization board has not purchased any product from hogs marketed since January 11, 1960, except commitments on hogs delivered to stockyards, plants and certain railway loadings in western Canada before January 9.
2.	Not applicable.


DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD, SUFFIELD, ALTA.
Mr. Argue: 1.	What was the full cost (including salaries of staff) of operating the defence research board station at SufHeld, Alberta, for the fiscal year 1958-59?
2.	What is the estimated full cost (including
salaries of staff) of operating the defence research board station at SufHeld, Alberta, for (a) the fiscal year 1959-60;	(b) the fiscal year 1960-61?
3.	Do the governments of the United Kingdom and/or the United States of America, or agencies thereof, make information available to our Department of National Defence (a) on the blast effect of nuclear and/or conventional weapons; (b) on defences against biological agents; (c) on defences against chemical agents?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of
National Defence):
1. $2,685,958.
2.	(a) $2,967,759, (b) $3,216,611.
3.	(a) Yes, (b) yes, (c) yes.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Rouleau: How many salaried civil servants were in the employ of the federal government as at the end of December, 1959, and at the end of December, 1958?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
Statistics for December, 1959 are not yet available. The latest figures available are for September, 1959 and show:
Salaried civil servants* in the employ of the federal government: September, 1958, 153,859; December, 1958, 154,311; September, 1959, 155,950.
*"Salaried" employees include all persons paid on the basis of an annual salary rate and occupying salaried positions authorized by the treasury board or the privy council with the exception of government ships' officers.



CANADIAN SUPPLY AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS, NATO

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Are all supply and equipment requirements of Canadian forces in NATO met by open contract within the NATO infrastructure?
2.	If so, what portion, in value, has been provided by Canadian suppliers for each year in the last five years?
3.	If not, what is the distinction or line between material supplied by Canada to its forces and that which comes from other sources?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister
of Nafional Defence):
1, 2 and 3. The NATO infrastructure program concerns the provision of fixed facilities and not supplies and equipment. The supplies and equipment for the Canadian forces in Europe are obtained mainly from Canadian sources, except for certain items which are obtained for reasons of economy and convenience from European sources (either through the procurement agencies of countries in which Canadian forces are stationed or through logistic support arrangements with the British army and the United States air force).

Thursday, February 18, 1960