Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):

Mr. Speaker, ,1 rise on a question of privilege. On February 27, 1951, I made the statement in this house that certain Indians wished education divorced from the churches. This statement has been misrepresented in one publication, and in consequence may be widely misunderstood.

What I stated was merely fact. I refer to, first, the brief of the protective association for Indians and their treaties, addressed to the minister in September, 1945, at pages 26, 33, and 34; second, to the memorial on Indian affairs presented by the Indian association of Alberta in September, 1945, at pages 5 and 7. In my speech on February 27 I paid tribute to the work of the churches and their missionaries in the field of education. That will be found in Hansard of this session at page 725. In my speech on federal aid to education on February 22-

Order.

Mr. Knight:

I said at page 601-

Order.

Mr. Speaker:

Order. I think the hon. member should be allowed to state his question of privilege.

Mr. Knight:

I said at page 601:

We believe of course that a child should be grounded in the faith of his father.

My point of privilege is that The Ensign, dated March 17, 1951, and circulated just yesterday, whose representative I understand sits in our press gallery, used the following words in reference to my remarks:

His remarks were termed astonishing by the Progressive Conservative member for St. John's West, W. J. Browne, who challenged Mr. Knight's statement that religious education should be done away with.

Neither did I say those words nor do I believe any such thing. The impression created by those words in regard to my own attitude is completely false. I hope and indeed feel confident from the nature of this newspaper that it will be fair, that it will

correct its statement and give to such correction as wide a circulation as it gave to the original statement.

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) asked who was responsible for the maintenance of Wellington street facing the government buildings. The answer is that the federal district commission has the responsibility for the repair and maintenance of sidewalks on the north side of Wellington street from the plaza to Bank street. This includes the boulevard on the north side, and on the south side in front of government-owned property only. It also has responsibility for the removal of snow from the sidewalks on the north side of Wellington street and on the south side in front of government property only. The maintenance, repair and removal of snow from the street proper is the responsibility of the city.

What about the sand?

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, I think you and other hon. members will feel as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and I do, that it is desirable that there should be a permanent record of the appreciation felt by the government and people of Canada of the generous gift presented to our country by Her Majesty Queen Juliana, on behalf of the people of The Netherlands, of the beautiful painting, "The Two Water-mills", by Hobbema, which was unveiled today in the Hall of Fame of our parliament buildings by General H. D. G. Crerar in the presence of His Excellency the Governor General, His Excellency the Ambassador of The Netherlands, and the members of both houses of parliament, and which will hang there as a tribute to the valour of our Canadian forces who participated in the second great war, and particularly of the Canadian troops who, under the command of General Crerar, took such a brilliant part in the liberation of Holland.

Consumer Credit

I accordingly move, seconded by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew):

That the addresses delivered at the unveiling ceremony by His Excellency the Governor General, by General Crerar, and by His Excellency the Ambassador of The Netherlands, be appended to the official report of today's debates.

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a copy of order in council P.C. 1249 dated March 13, 1951, and made under the authority of the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. The initial regulations made under this act were published late in October and became effective on November 1 last. The terms and conditions laid down by these regulations respecting minimum down payments and maximum periods of credit were generally more restrictive than prevailing business practice, but were not as severe as those which we had during the war, nor have they been as restrictive as the revised American regulations which became effective a few months ago.

As hon. members are aware, there have been discussions recently between the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks regarding the most effective means of restraining the inflationary expansion of bank credit. As a result of these discussions one of the steps the chartered banks have taken is- to call a halt to further expansion of loans on the security of instalment finance paper.

In conjunction with this move, and with the same purpose of restraining inflationary credit expansion, the consumer credit regulations have been amended by the order in council which I have just tabled. The new regulations will come into effect next Monday, March 19.

The principal changes being introduced are:

First, in the case of motor cars the minimum down payment is increased from one-third of the cash price to one-half of the cash price.

Second, in the case of all other commodities affected by the regulations the minimum down payment is increased from one-fifth to one-third of the cash price.

Third, in all cases the minimum down payment will be not less than $10 instead of $5 under the former regulations.

Fourth, the maximum period of credit has been reduced from eighteen months to twelve

months, and the minimum size of instalment payments has been increased to $10 a month or $2.50 a week, as compared with $5 a month or $1.25 a week under the previous regulations.

Fifth, under what is known in the trade as a revolving credit plan, the minimum initial down payment is increased to $10, and wherever new purchases are made under existing credits the minimum monthly instalment is increased to $10.

Finally, as a result of varied representations and a further review of the effects of the present regulations we have decided that the consumer credit restrictions should not apply to the sale of books.

In their net effect the new regulations will be much stiffer than those now in effect, but except in the case of motor cars they will be no stiffer, and in some cases not quite so stiff as those in effect during the war. During the war we required a one-third down payment for cars, and if the amount remaining to be financed exceeded $500 the purchaser had fifteen months in which to complete his payments. Now we are requiring fifty per cent down and the balance spread over twelve months. Hon. members will realize, of course, that where an old car is being turned in, its trade-in value will normally constitute the greater part if not the whole of the required down payment.

In the case of other commodities our new regulations require one-third down and the balance over twelve months. During the war the same down payment was required, but the balance had to be paid in ten months, unless the amount to be financed exceeded $500.