1937-02-10

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. McLean (Simcoe East) be substituted for that of Mr. Slaght on the special committee appointed to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1934, and amendments thereto, and the Franchise Act, 1934, and amendments thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Questions


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house copies of the text of the decisions of the privy council on the various references, which decisions, as hon. members are aware, were delivered on January 28 last. Yesterday some hon. gentlemen expressed the wish that this text might be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of to-day, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give instructions to that effect.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Instructions will be given to that effect.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Are the shippers of packages of Canadian fruits and vegetables to the United States required to mark each package with the name of the grower and the country of origin?
2.	Is this required of similar shipments into this country from the LTnited States?
3.	If not, will the government put a similar regulation into effect?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes, with the name of the packer or shipper who may be the grower (to conform with Canadian regulations) and with the country of origin (to conform with the U.S. customs regulations).
2.	The country of origin is required, but not the name of the grower.
3.	Will be considered in due course.


WESTERN PROVINCES QUINQUENNIAL CENSUS STAFF
Mr. IIURTUBISE:: 1.	How many candidates presented themselves in May, 1936, at the civil service examinations for positions in connection with the quinquennial census of the western provinces?
2.	How many French-speaking candidates were there, and how many English-speaking?
3.	How many candidates were placed on the list of those eligible?
4.	Of the eligible candidates, how many were French-speaking, and how many Englishspeaking?
5.	How many of these candidates did the government employ during the first six months of the census work?

6.	Of the candidates employed in this census work during the first six months, how many were French-speaking, and how many Englishspeaking?
7.	Of the candidates employed upon this census work during the first six months, how many resided in Ottawa before the census, and how many resided elsewhere?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	7,206.
2.	French-speaking, 1,4S2; English-speaking, 5,724.
3.	604.
4.	French-speaking, 21; English-speaking,
5S3.
5.	276 (including one replacement).
6.	French-speaking, 8; English-speaking, 268.
7.	Resident in Ottawa, 64; elsewhere, 212.
"French-speaking" indicates those candidates who wrote the examination in the French language, and the same applies to the term "English-speaking."


CANADA GAZETTE-LIST OF REGISTRARS OF ELECTORS
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Who ordered the publication of the list of registrars of electors in the Canada Gazette of January 16, 1937?
2.	Why was that list published about two months before the time fixed by statute?
3.	What was the cost of the publication of the list of registrars of electors in the Canada Gazette of January 16, 1937?
4.	Will the list of registrars of electors be again published this year in the Canada Gazette during the period fixed by statute, namely: between the first and twentieth days of March?
5.	In that event, who will pay for the unauthorized publication of the list of registrars of electors in the Canada Gazette of January 16, 1937?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	The list was sent by the dominion franchise commissioner.
2.	It was published ahead of time-as soon as received.
3.	Cost not appreciable in amount, since the work involved in setting type is trifling.
4.	Yes.
5.	Answered by No. 3.


CAPTAIN FREEMAN HATFIELD
Mr. BROOKS:: What is the present position of the extradition proceedings affecting Captain Freeman Hatfield?


Ernest Lapointe: From
information received, Captain Freeman Hatfield intends to appeal from the decision of the United States circuit court of appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Housing Policy-Mr. Massey



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
SOIiEL, QUE., GRAIN ELEVATOR
['The working people of Toronto have very little to thank the hon. member for, however, in the way he spoke the other day about the textile matter. I did not prevent him from speaking, though.']
Mr. RINFRET:: Return tabled herewith.



Mr. MUTCH:: 1.	What was the cost to the federal treasury in each of the fiscal years from 1929 to 1936, inclusive, arising out of the termination of contracts entered into between the federal government and individuals and involving compensation for loss of salary as provided in such contracts as may have been thus voided?
2.	Who were the persons with whom such settlements were made?
3.	What was the date of the contract in each instance, and the date it was terminated?
4.	How much did each individual receive?


DISMISSAL OF QUEBEC POSTMASTERS AND MAIL CARRIERS
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	How many postmasters in the province of Quebec were dismissed since November, 1935?
2.	How many were dismissed in each of the other provinces of the dominion?
3.	How many mail carriers have been replaced since November, 1935: (a) in the province of Quebec; (b) in each of the other provinces of the dominion?


SURVEY PARTIES-QUEBEC PROVINCE
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	How many geodetic, geological, hydrographic, topographic and land survey parties were working in the province of Quebec, during 1936?
2.	What are the names and salaries of the members of each of these parties, and which of them were only employed temporarily?
3.	In what sections of the province of Quebec were these .parties employed, and what was the nature of their work?


HOUSING POLICY
Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood) moved:: Whereas the home is the quick centre of all national life;
And whereas, there is an appalling scarcity of homes in this dominion, and also that slum conditions exist to a shocking degree in most of our urban centres;
And whereas, as a result of conditions beyond their control, many working men who do not own homes are unable to build;
And whereas, housing plans have been operating with outstanding success in many countries, especially, for example, in the United Kingdom and Sweden,
Therefore be it resolved,-That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give full and immediate consideration to the setting up of a housing plan, with a thought to eliminating slum conditions; to overcoming the shortage of sufficient dwellings, adequately, properly and happily to house our population; and to making possible to the working man who wants to build, and who is at present unable to build, the building of his own home.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I introduce this
resolution to the house recognizing five existing and contributing factors: First, that we have a national employment commission that has been functioning for nearly a year to investigate and report upon ways and means of providing employment. Second, that Bill No. 11, to provide for a home improvement plan, on recommendation of the national employment commission, has already passed to the stage of third reading. Third, that the need for houses and the necessity for slum clearance is both appalling and appallingly obvious. Fourth, that experiments in housing plans and slum clearance schemes are by no means untested and untried, having proved to be a preeminent success in many countries, particularly in the United Kingdom and Sweden. And, fifth, that the hurdles of provincial and municipal cooperation must be negotiated before the federal government can step in.
I plan to approach this great problem of slum clearance under three main headings: First, the moral responsibility of the nation to protect its national life; second, the vital obligation of the nation to preserve and enhance national life; and, third, the prime necessity of employment both for those who have worked and are out of work, and for those who are prepared, equipped and ready to work but who cannot get a job-in other words, our youth.

73S

Homing Policy-Mr. Massey
First, as to the moral responsibility of the nation to protect its national life. As the resolution states, the home is the quick centre of national life. It may sound platitudinous to say, nevertheless it is true, that as goes the home so goes the nation. If the house is but a house and not a home, how can national home life exist? If the house is dilapidated, dirty, insanitary and inadequate, or if the conditions are those of overcrowding, and are unhealthy, demoralizing and a virtual insult to any sense of human decency, those who live under such conditions are bound to be the victims of the circumstances of their environment.
The converse is also true. If the people live in happy, tidy, clean homes, there is at once set up a sense of ownership, a desire to "possess possessions" and the feeling that, after all, the person owning a home has a stake in the state. The fact that people live in homes, not just in houses, is of inestimable value to any country. Broadly speaking, can we say to-day, particularly of urban centres, that the backbone of these communities, the working men, all have the opportunity of living in homes rather than in houses?
For nearly eight years, since 1929 and during the days of the depression, we have witnessed what may be described as a gradual undermining of Canadian national life. Some have lost their homes as a result of having purchased them under a mortgage plan, and have been unable to continue payment of the interest rates charged. Failing to meet payments on mortgages, they have lost their homes and their stakes in them and have been compelled to live in inadequate houses and to move about from place to place, usually at each move going lower and lower down the scale in the standard of living. The effect of such catastrophic events on youth, the industrial worker, or the farmer, is too great to estimate.
Then, too, in the past seven years no less than 1,500,000 of our young people have reached the age of sixteen years. What has been the effect on them as they have watched their parents suffer the indignity of having to move about from place to place? What has been the effect upon these young people, as they have been forced to witness the demoralizing spectacle of the parents being paid money to keep body and soul together, and still not being able to get work? Then, there are the conditions occasioned by the doubling up of families, conditions which have produced awful and degrading circumstances. Not long ago I was in a room of not more than

two hundred square feet in which were living two families consisting of five adults of opposite sexes. I hold in my hand the report of the lieutenant governor's committee on housing conditions in Toronto. It is a most illuminating document, and as one peruses its pages he cannot help but be impressed by the fact that in the city of Toronto at least conditions prevail which the average citizen would not care to contemplate, but which as representatives of the people it is our sworn duty to contemplate.
There are many interesting statements in the report, but none quite as staggering as that concerning juvenile delinquency. At page 45 of the report we find that the rate of juvenile delinquency in good housing areas is 7.9 per 10,000 of population, while in areas where housing is totally inadequate and where slum conditions exist the rate stands at no less than 36.6. In other words it is five times as great in one as in the other. Then, at page 50 I find this:
The whole plane of sex morality is likely to be lower in districts of poor housing. The breakdown in self respect due to lack of privacy and indiscriminate intermingling of the sexes results in a general increase of sex delinquency. The social consequences of dark halls and stairways are also seen in the increased number of nuisances committed where such conditions exist. In conference police officials stated that "houses of ill-fame are more numerous in areas of dilapidated and outworn housing, and a prominent social worker gave it as her opinion that illegitimacy and social diseases are more than generally prevalent among the occupants of bad houses.
I have gone to many of these areas and have visited families living in them. I believe I can speak with knowledge and certainty of conditions which exist in Toronto. In many of the areas the conditions are worse than deplorable, and always inexcusable. There are those who have attempted by manipulation of pencil and paper to show that there is no overcrowding in some of our urban centres. I maintain that in the light of the knowledge we all have, such statements are nothing short of criminal.
The Bruce report, to which I have referred, and many others, bring to our attention with crystal clearness deplorable conditions existing in many of our urban centres-yes, and not only in the cities, but in rural areas as well, where often they are desperate, conditions beyond the control of those who are forced to live under them. We are inclined sometimes to sit back and say, "Well, at least a man can be clean." I say there are conditions under which it is impossible for a man to be clean, and that therefore we should condemn ourselves for permitting these condi-

Housing Policy-Mr. Massey
tions to exist. A few days ago I was speaking to an hon. member of this chamber who comes from Saskatchewan, and who informed me that in some parts of that province there are houses where protection against the cold is so inadequate that one member of the family must sit up all night to attend the fire with whatever fuel is available in order to attempt to keep frost out of the house.
It is not my intention to try to prove by figures, by quoting from reports, or by placing on Hansard a volume of evidence to substantiate it, the truth of the statement that we in Canada to-day are facing a shortage of between 75,000 and 100,000 houses, that in urban centres slum conditions exist which are virtually a disgrace to Canada, let alone to the cities in which they exist, and that the housing of our rural population is desperately in need of attention. Mr. Speaker, we have had investigations and commissions, commissions and investigations, almost ad nauseam, -but in the main, what has been done? The purpose of the resolution is to bring to the attention of the house not merely the conditions which exist, but the necessity for immediate action in connection with this most vital of national problems. How long are municipalities to be p-rmitted to permit this cancerous growth of slums to eat at the very vitals of our nation? We talk about putting men to work, about that burning problem which has the attention of everyone to-day, namely that of employment and the finding of jobs for people who are out of work. Yes, by all means put men to work-but from what background?
In this house and out of it we have discussed at length the great problem of youth-youth that is undernourished and in ill health, whose morale is gone. What are we doing to build up our youth? We exercise great care over their education and this question has been discussed in the house. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), whose motion follows mine on the order paper under notices of motion, is introducing a resolution in connection with scholarships. Splendid, but what of the morale of youth?
I had the privilege of visiting the United Kingdom this summer and I realized that the mother country had not been slow to recognize the necessity of building up the morale of the worker. It is with essentially such a background that the mother country has launched and put into effect so efficient a housing scheme. The same is true of Sweden. A filthy house and the environment of a poorly ventilated, insanitary, verminous and smelly room will set up only one set of reactions in the mind of a human being-a
sense of inferiority, inadequacy and despair. If a man is red blooded at all, these feelings turn into but one thing-rebellion. There is an undermining effect from spending the day in walking the streets looking for work and then returning to an evil smelling, verminous and filthy space that is all a man has to call home. This is a fact which we are perhaps sometimes slow in recognizing.
I have in my hand a publication of the London County Council with reference to Becontree, one of the new subdivisions of the city of London. This subdivision has an area of 2,778 acres and houses no less than 25,000 families or 120,000 people. Attractive and clean cottages and flats are to rent, each with its garden and all that goes with it. A three-room cottage may be rented for $3.10 per week, or a six-room cottage for $5.60. This subdivision is only one of many around London. I have before me a map prepared by the London County Council showing the housing estates in operation in 1936. Hon. members who have seen this plan are amazed at the number and extent of the areas which have been set up by the London County Council under their housing plan.
I do not wish at this point to criticize in any way the operations of the national' employment commission, but surely it is not necessary to spend thousands of dollars-on investigations and use up months of time in connection with this matter of housing. The home improvement plan which we have been discussing in this house is splendid as far as it goes; it is a step in the right direction, but of what possible good is this plan to the man who has been evicted from one hovel after another, who is renting a place he is forced to call his home? The other day in committee I asked the minister a question concerning the use of money to be granted under the home improvement plan and whether any machinery had been set up whereby a home would be demolished when the owner should demolish rather than repair it. The minister's answer is to be found on page 479 of Hansard of February 2, 1937, as follows:
As the hon. member is aware, the duty of condemning a dwelling house as being unfit for human habitation is a provincial matter.
The home improvement plan is only one small step in filling the great need for housing. May it not be to the government as the words of the hymn, " One step enough for me."
In the second place there is a vital obligation on the nation to preserve its national health. As has been said already in this chamber this session, sickness costs this country approximately $300,000,000 a year.

Housing Policy-Mr. Massey
Much has been done to cure tuberculosis, while typhoid fever and diphtheria have been practically eliminated. All diseases of bacterial origin have decreased in a striking manner. We rejoice in Canada in such medical achievements and the achievements in the realm of science such as those of Sir Frederick Banting. But our governments, municipal, provincial and federal, do nothing to eliminate slum areas in our cities and to improve living conditions in some of our rural districts. Whole city blocks of so-called dwellings and many farm houses are virtually breeding grounds for the most filthy of diseases. The occupants of these places are unable to do anything about it. The slum areas of our cities foster all the evils of infant mortality, infantile paralysis, tuberculosis and other insidious diseases. These diseases are being fed by the conditions under which we compel men and women to live. One of the most filthy of all plagues, venereal diseases, is fostered by overcrowding in slum areas. On the basis of public health alone, it is incumbent upon the government to adopt the spirit of this resolution by doing as much as possible toward the elimination of slums and building up toward the happy housing of our population. Yes, the government should do all possible to assist the provinces and municipalities to eradicate this slum evil, the greatest blot on the escutcheon of Canada.
Unemployment is a burning question in this country to-day, but what is the use of giving work to men who are rendered physically incapable of working, as a result of the conditions under which they have been compelled to live. Within the last few days it was my privilege to talk to the one who was responsible for this report, the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, Doctor H. A. Bruce. During the course of our conversation that was the point he stressed, what is the use of expecting men to be able to work who have not worked for years and who have lived under the most unfortunate conditions.
There are some startling figures to be found in this report. In Glasgow the death rate per thousand in areas where families live in one room, is 29-9; where the families live in four rooms the rate is 10 * 8, just one-third. In Edinburgh the death rate in a certain area in 1892 was 45-5 per thousand. In 1933, after the elimination of slum conditions, the death rate in the same area was only 15 per thousand, just one-third what it had been. The challenge is here and something must be done. This job of work is an active, not a passive job. There is no possibility that good times of themselves will clear up our slum

areas. There is a job of work that must be done. May I quote the words of that great statesman of the nineteenth century, Benjamin Disraeli, who said:
The public health is the foundation upon which rests the happiness of the people and the welfare of the nation. The care ol the public health is the first duty of the statesman.
In the third place, there is the prime necessity of providing employment. A few days ago Mr. Tom Moore, vice chairman of the national employment commission, speaking to the Canadian Construction Association, then convened at Ottawa, is reported as follows:
Mr. Moore said that out of approximately 2,000,000 houses possessed by the Canadian people, based on the average life of a house at 30 years, 30,000 houses per year would be a fair estimate for new building. The total reported for the last five years had not been more than half this.
"According to this approach there would be a deficit of about 75,000 houses which, at an average cost of $3,300 each, would amount to a total building requirement of $247,500,000," Mr. Moore declared.
He pointed out that of 95,000 families on relief in Canadian cities of over 25,000 population, approximately nine per cent occupied one room and II per cent two rooms, making a total of 20 per cent, living in one or two
It is a well known fact that the building of houses provides more work than any other type of construction, with the possible exception of the building of concrete roads. Approximately 80 per cent of the cost of a house is used in labour, direct and indirect. Thus in the $3,300 home of which Mr. Moore speaks, there would be $2,640 of labour direct and
indirect.	,
It is unnecessary to call the attention of this house to the depressed condition of the building industry. Sufficient be it to say that the building industry to-day is struggling along about one-third of normal, and in this industry normal at no time in Canada has been anything to write home about. In the city of Toronto, my own city, in 1928 our building permits amounted to $51,607,188, while in 1935 they had dwindled to $9,905,455, or 20 per cent of the 1928 figure. The city hall has reported a further drop for the seven months ended July 31, 1936, as compared with the same period the year before, the actual figures being $3,869,041 as against $5,951,602 for the previous year, or just two-thirds of the amount for the year previous.
What better, broader, fuller way to create employment efficiently than by a housing and slum clearance plan? Those of us who have talked to men in the trade, to secretaries of unions and to those who are concerned with

Housing Policy-Mr. Massey
the building trades realize that an increase of even only a slight amount in the building trade would make a spectacular difference to employment in Canada, and a 25 per cent increase in the building trade means, Mr. Speaker, that we would have in Canada a scarcity of skilled mechanics. Here then is a magnificent opportunity for apprenticeships. Increase the rate of building in Canada; create a scarcity of skilled mechanics, and as a result thousands of apprentices who have studied through the technical school or some other medium to be plumbers, electricians, carpenters or whatever it may be, have an opportunity to step in, not to displace any adult skilled mechanic, but to learn their trade.
Slum clearance, let it be remembered also, does not necessarily involve construction only, for there is demolition; there is the elimination of what already exists, and elimination can be accomplished by unskilled labour. Therefore a housing and slum clearance plan at once accomplishes three purposes-the providing of jobs for skilled labour, the providing of jobs for unskilled labour, and the providing of jobs for apprentices and those who wish to practise what they have learned1 in the schools and otherwise as their trade.
The need for a dominion-wide housing plan is indeed a crying need, and if the plan is delayed much longer it seems to me that the results will inevitably be one of two, or both together: the breaking out of a severe epidemic in congested areas, or an understandable open revolt of those who are compelled to live within these areas. How much longer are 33,449 families going to occupy 15,780 houses? These are actual figures recently released in the city of Toronto. We have heard something of late in this chamber about subversive forces at work in this dominion. We have heard certain statements made in regard to the alleged rise of communism in Canada. What is the answer to these subversive forces? What is the answer to communism in Canada? Is it bludgeoning? Is it force? God forbid. The answer is in jobs and in proper homes. But what has been done? We have a national home improvement plan. That is one step. But what has been done on a broad national scale?


Mr. CHURCH:: Nothing.


Denton Massey: Nothing, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) says.


Thomas Langton Church: And they have done it well.


Denton Massey: That is at least encouraging. Let us consider what has been done in England. I have in my hand a publication of the Ministiy of Health dated March, 1936, on housing, house production, slum clearance, et cetera, in England and Wales. May I read a paragraph or two:
At the date of the armistice the number of houses in England and Wales was a little under 8,000,000. Between that date and the 31st March, 1936, 2,981,417 new houses were provided.
And further:
The total number of houses provided in the half-year ending 31st March, 1936, was 174,009. This constitutes a new record, the total being 5,282 more than in the half-year ending 31st March, 1935, the figure for which was a record at that time.
And still further:
Good progress is being made in slum clearance. During the year ending 31st March, 1936, 37,920 houses were demolished or closed under the act of 1930 as compared with 24,273 in the previous year. Up to 31st March. 1936, 80,611 houses (with accommodation for 380,042 persons) has been provided for the purpose of rehousing persons displaced under the act of 1930, nearly one-half of which were completed in the year ending on that date.
Now let us look at Sweden. Building schemes in Sweden are by no means new, for as early as 1849 Sweden began to contemplate seriously and actively her housing. Rapid changes in population had taken place in that country from 1850 to 1936. The change in population in the city of Stockholm, for example, has been an increase from 93,000 in 1850 to 534,000 in 1936, plus a suburban area with a population of 175,000. There has been set up a "build your own home" scheme, known as the Smastugebygge, which has been a preeminent success. Without going into details of the plan, it is possible for a man to make a down payment of only $80 for a beautiful little home worth $2,500 or $3,000, on a lot 80 feet by 125 feet, and to pay for it over a period of thirty years at the rate of $20 per month for the first ten years, $17.50 a month for the next ten years, and $7.50 per month for the last ten years, and these figures include ground rent, amortization of the loan, fire insurance, taxes, street cleaning, garbage removal, chimney sweeping and water service.


Mr. HEAPS:: What is the rate of interest?


Denton Massey: Various, usually about 3J
or 4 per cent. The "HSB" a cooperative society for the building of blocks of flats, has been so preeminently successful that to-day they can offer for sale an apartment consisting of a living room, three bedrooms, kitchen, bath and balcony, along with modern stainless

Housing Policy-Mr. Massey
steel kitchen, with an electric refrigerator, for $10.50 a month. And that is for purchasing the flat, not renting it. Tens of thousands of these flats have been built in Sweden in the last few years. I have in my hand two prospectuses of this scheme, if hon. members care to look at them. The environs of Stockholm are virtual parks, and are known quite justly as the garden suburbs of Stockholm. I hold in my hand a map of the western portion of the city, showing large areas purchased by the city in the course of its housing scheme.
How can we in Canada achieve such results as have the United Kingdom and: Sweden? Let us look at the problem for a moment. There are three main difficulties in the way, and let us recognize them. The first is that the federal government cannot force municipalities and provincial governments to introduce housing schemes and slum clearance plans. Second, there is our system of realty taxation. Third, have we the funds available to underwrite such schemes if, as and when approved by the provinces or the cities?
Let us attempt to answer the third difficulty first. As has been stated in this chamber this session, and concurred in by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), the number on relief is not decreasing rapidly. The total of the payments for relief by the federal, provincial and municipal governments during the last six years has been approximately $600,000,000, an annual payment amounting to, in round figures, $100,000,000. That is money being spent in many instances to keep men in idleness. Suppose such an amount as $100,000,000 were directed toward a housing scheme. It would mean that $80,000,000 would be put into the pockets of Canadian labour. If the average earnings were $1,200 a year-as low as that-it would mean that 67,000 men would be put to work. The government, we understand, can borrow money at three per cent or less; therefore the interest on money so borrowed would be $3,000,000 or less. Thus if the relief bill to the federal government were reduced by $3,000,000 a year the interest would be met by this saving alone. But I am suggesting putting the ^100,000,000 to productive use-not into public *works; not into buildings that will continue to 5be a drain upon this government; not into :roads that will involve further expense in maintenance. I am suggesting putting money rinto a housing scheme where there will be a return to the government, from the person who purchases or rents the house, of, let us say, five per cent, or $5,000,000 a year. This would show a profit to the government of $2,000,000 on a hundred million dollar housing scheme. True, the national debt is increased

by $100,000,000, but the money has gone into homes; it has not cost the taxpayer a penny; the houses are gradually being purchased and the debt is gradually being reduced by the home owner. It is in essence upon this simple principle that the modified housing schemes in effect in the United Kingdom and Sweden have been worked out.
But the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) may well say, "Can we, dare we, increase the national debt?" Is not that a question to be answered by, "It depends upon the purpose." That is the way in which the question has been answered in other countries. And what is the purpose? To raise the morale of Canadians, to give people pride of ownership, to raise the standard of living, to reduce crime and delinquency, to improve public health, to provide jobs, to revive a broken-down yet vital industry, to give youth a chance, and at the same time to receive a five per cent, more or less, income from a three per cent loan.


Mr. DUNNING:: I wish my hon. friend would be good enough to amplify that. The one thing I am not clear on is how the state could get back five per cent from a three per cent loan.


Denton Massey: I stated, Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, that if the government were to borrow $100,000,000 at three per cent-I believe this could be done at that figure or less-the interest on that loan would be $3,000,000 a year. If the hundred million dollars were invested in a housing scheme, or if houses were erected to the worth of a hundred million dollars, the return on that money through rents and purchases should be around five per cent per year.


Charles Avery Dunning: But if you did that you would not have low cost housing.


Denton Massey: That is exactly the basis on which low cost housing has been organized in the other countries of which I spoke. I will also say to the minister that the financing of housing schemes and slum clearance plans is not the great bugaboo; I think he will grant me that. There are two other far greater difficulties; the one, the system of realty taxation existing through this entire dominion; the other, the fact that under the British North America Act it is up to the provinces and the municipalities to institute action.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the greatest
difficulty.
Mr. MASSEY I have said that. The greatest stumbling block in the way of ridding our cities of the scars that mar them, the greatest difficulty in the way of rehousing

Housing Policy-Mr. Massey
our rural population, is to be found, on the one hand, in the present system of realty taxation, and, on the other, in the restrictions placed upon this government by the British North America Act. If the national employment commission has spent its money and its time only on the study of taxation and can bring any recommendations on this question that are attractive to provincial and municipal governments, then their work has been well worth while on that basis alone. We cannot expect extensive building, either under building societies or under the aegis of provincial or municipal governments, until our system of taxation is completely readjusted. I urge upon the government with all the earnestness of which I am capable that full and complete study be given to this phase of our national scheme of things.
At this session of parliament-yes, and in the last session and before that-we have heard it said again and again that we cannot do this or that in the way of social legislation because the Biitish North America Act says no. If the British North America Act stands in the way of our providing the obvious necessities for this nation in respect of such matters as I have been discussing, or in such matters as social reform, then for God's sake let us amend the act! Let us not disturb its intent. Let us not disturb its principles. Let us keep intact the great purpose for which it was designed. Let us guard the great principles which motivated the minds of those who drafted it seventy ypars ago. Let us not take away any of its binding force. Let us not weaken it in such a way as to lessen the rights of minorities or to increase the rights of majorities, or in respect of any of the things which have been so important in the development of Canada. But I am one of those who firmly believe that the exploitation of labour, and other abuses which have crept into our social system, cannot and will never be eliminated until this federal parliament has the power to eliminate them. Further, I do not believe that those who drafted the act seventy years ago expected it to remain just so in perpetuity. I have too high a regard for the life and work of the late Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald to believe that at any time he had it in mind that he could continue to run this Dominion of Canada from the grave.
In conclusion, just a word that seems to me to be of the greatest importance. We realize that there are forces at work within our nation that are attempting to overthrow democracy and to undermine us,-insidious forces, at work not openly but burrowing in
underneath and preying upon the gullibility of disillusioned youth-understandably disillusioned-and upon the sensitiveness of those who have starved and shivered and suffered these many years. These foreign agents paint a rosy picture of the possibilities of development under their system. They disguise its true colour, and the picture they paint is attractive to those who have been disillusioned. They realize how sensitive are those who have been forced to live only upon the generosity of the state, who have been paid to be kept in idleness, who have been compelled to live under such conditions I have attempted to indicate this afternoon. Democracy will be safe in Canada and Canada will be safe for Canadians only so much longer if something is not done to create work and provide the opportunity to our noble fellow citizens to live in good clean homes. We may talk earnestly and seriously about this item of legislation and that, about this job of work and that, about making available, to those who are denied them, means of education, scholarships and all the rest-all splendid things; but the ultimate answer for the safety of democracy and social security is to be found nowhere but in pay envelopes and good homes! As long as men are unemployed, as long as men who want work cannot get it. as long as men are compelled to live in a state of squalor, this nation is in jeopardy.
As a parliament we are challenged to make possible the creation of work, challenged as no parliament in this dominion has been challenged before. Outside of all that I have been attempting to say in regard to human values, moral values, social values in connection with the need of housing, there is this crying need for the creation of work. In the words of the resolution:
... in the opinion of this house, the government should give full and immediate consideration to the setting up of a housing plan, with a thought to eliminating slum conditions, to overcoming the shortage of sufficient dwellings, adequately, properly and happily to house our population; and to making possible to the working man who wants to build, and who is at present unable to build, the building of his own home.
It was Walt Whitman who wrote:
The house builder at work in cities or anywhere,
The preparatory jointing, squaring, sawing, mortising,
The hoist-up of beams, the push of them in their places, laying them regular,
Setting the studs by their tenons in the mortises, according as they were prepared,
The blows of the mallets and hammers-
Paeans and praises to him!
744	COMMONS
Housing Policy-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
Mr. DOUGLAS G. ROSS (St. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, as a member of this house I consider 'that I represent all classes of citizens, among whom are the unemployed, the unemployable and the low wage earners all of whom require low cost housing. Therefore I should like to say a few words in support of the motion of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), also to congratulate him upon his wide grasp of the problem.
In the riding from which I come, St. Pauls, Toronto, conditions of living in some sections are appalling. Of that I have personal knowledge. The Bruce report deals with the slum areas there. I am sorry to say that in my riding is to be found a majority of the slum areas of the city of Toronto. In the larger centres of population there is a necessity for stern and serious work to remedy the loathsome conditions which have grown up in what are called slum areas. It is not a new problem, and it is not true to say that it has not been studied in Toronto and other places in Canada during the past ten or fifteen years. Improved housing conditions were advocated in England more than one hundred years ago; a manufacturing philanthropist did this. Napoleon III saw the need of it in Paris and took steps, perhaps not as compelling as they might have been, to bring about some measure of reform. Within recent years, Germany, Russia, Sweden and other European countries have attempted a solution with varying degrees of success. As I said, Great Britain has been studying the problem for many years. One of the most useful examples that we can find in the world is provided in England where some three million houses have been erected at a cost defrayed by state subsidies, or by local authorities.
What is a slum? In the first place, it is an ugly scar upon the face of any decent community. In the second place it is the breeding ground for disease and crime. Crime does not lurk in open spaces and in decent environments. As disease and crime are a wasteful expense to the nation, why should not the state provide the means of eradicating both disease and crime, by obliterating slum areas and making it possible for people to enjoy life that is theirs?
I offer, for the serious consideration of the house, the principle that proper housing is a public service which should be assumed by the state in the same way that education, health, and compensation for injuries sustained in industry, mothers' pensions, old age pensions and unemployment insurance are state obligations. Some may cry socialism. It is .not socialism for people to be able to wash
rMr. Massey.]
their faces, to bathe regularly, to breathe clean air, to drink pure water, to avoid disease, as well as to be educated, in order to discharge their responsibilities as citizens.
Action already taken through the Dominion Housing Act and the rehabilitation measures has to do with a class of citizens who are in no particular difficulty regarding housing. The dominion act deals with builders, owners and those who are not usually in need of assistance from the state. Those who borrow the money under the rehabilitation measures are in the same category. The loans available under the Dominion Housing Act are made upon the security of property which has to be maintained and amortised upon an economic basis; that is to say, owners of houses coming under this act are, theoretically, and to a large extent actually, in a position to pay out of their income enough to discharge the maintenance and amortisation of the property; the same thing is true of borrorvers under the rehabilitation measures.
The Minister of Finance has said that under the home improvement plan all those who are credit worthy can get loans from the banks. What about the others who are not considered credit worthy-the low wage earners, the unemployed, the unemployables? They are, unfortunately, a very large proportion of the population. If they are not credit worthy, what will they do? A great many of them are decent people who, through lack of opportunities, are in the position in which they find themselves to-day.
Something must be done. These arrangements are all very well in their place and I think they will stimulate employment and building to some extent, although I think in their present form they are not likely to be taken advantage of on anything like the scale that their sponsors hope and no doubt expect. But the big housing problem in Canada is created by conditions surrounding low cost housing. To state the position clearly, it may be assumed that the economic cost of maintaining and amortising, in forty years, a new standard four-room housing unit in an urban area is $21.76 per month, or approximately $261 per annum. The assumption is that the cost per house is $3,000. The economic cost is made up as follows:
Per cent
Taxes (assessment 60 per cent of
value)	 2'40
Management	 0-15
Amortization	 D05
Maintenance	 1-00
Insurance	 0-10
Interest	 4'00
Total	 8-70

Housing Policy-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
There is a large class in Canada consisting of unemployables, unemployed and low wage earners whose ability to pay rent is limited. At the present time in the city of Toronto unemployed and unemployables have one-half their rent paid for them if they are on relief. The general situation is that all families in the unemployable, unemployed and low wage earning class inevitably gravitate to the house which can be rented at an average of $12 per month, whereas the economic rent for modern standard houses would be, roughly, $21.76. Therefore there is a condition under which all these families are compelled, generally speaking, to live in houses at least fifty per cent below standard. In view of this situation it is my opinion that the federal government should cooperate with the provincial and municipal authorities to bridge the gap between the economic rent of standard low cost houses and the ability to pay. The present occupants of these houses, unless their conditions improve, will gradually move down the ladder until they find themselves eventually in the poorest possible type of house that municipal bylaws permit to be lived in at all. In Toronto we now have a rehabilitation bylaw which forces property owners to maintain low cost houses under conditions as regards sanitation, and so on, as set out in the bylaw. Failure to comply with the bylaw results in the house being condemned and closed up.
The trouble is that there is no provision for the replacement of low cost houses in this country. If the ability to pay rent is represented by the sum of $12 per month and the economic rent necessary to support the investment is $22 per month, how can there be any replacement except with state assistance? Much is heard of private enterprises, building societies and public utility companies in Great Britain. But there is the problem-a fifty per cent gap between the ability to pay and the economic rent. How can private enterprises, in any form, be expected to enter a field of business which involves a loss of fifty per cent of the capital before you start?
The national housing committee of Great Britain made a report in 1934. The following is a summary of their views as adapted to Canada. If the state enters into a housing program, let us look at what might be called the assets and liabilities. What is the financial liability involved? Let us suppose that the nation, having built 10,000 houses, allows them to be occupied free of rent. Suppose, further, that the cost of the houses, including land, was as high as $3,000 per house, or $30,000,000; then the economic annual cost at 8-7 per cent would be $2,610,000. The
supposition that all houses would be occupied free of rent is, of course, absurd. On any reasonable assumption the cost to the exchequer of the investment involved would not be excessive. If all the annual cost to the nation were collected from those occupying the houses, there would be no loss to the state. The fact is that cheap finance minimises subsidy and risk alike through bringing the economic rent within the wage-earner's capacity to pay. There will be a financial liability in respect of housing where land values are high and in respect of certain low paid workers who could not afford a rent of $22 per month, but public finance is already assuming burdens in these respects so that any new burden will not entail entirely fresh obligations but will replace obligations which would arise in any case in the course of granting relief. Beyond this, the risks involved are likely to be small as, on balance, the $22 per month which I have suggested is probably below the average of the rents already being paid under conditions of overcrowding.
It is improbable that at least fifty per cent of the annual cost would not be collected. In this case the annual cost to the nation would be $1,305,000. Against possible liabilities may be set certain very real, if in some cases immeasurable, assets. Good housing means less expenditure on prevention of disease, less crime, greater benefit from education, less unemployability as opposed to unemployment. The elimination of bad conditions has a cash value as well as a moral value to the nation. Further, there are wider economic aspects to consider. The value of decent living conditions to the state has, in my opinion, been too little regarded by the country as a whole. Looking at this aspect from the purely selfish point of view as far as the state is concerned, and considering that upwards of sixty per cent of delinquents come from areas where improper housing obtains, and that a delinquent is a possible embryo criminal, one must face the possible cost to the state in this regard. Each delinquent is a possible liability that with proper housing and living conditions might be converted into a real asset.
The question of absorbing labour by industries catering to a home market becomes an important part of the attack on unemployment. A bold and constructive housing policy will have this effect and will increase employment both directly and indirectly through the activity generated. Tangible assets will be created while, to offset any liabilities on the national finances, the cost of unemployment will be directly reduced and the yield of income tax increased by the profits of those in
746	COMMONS
Housing Policy-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
building and allied industries as well as of those who benefit from the increased spending power of wage-earners employed through the scheme.
The conclusion is that an effort on the scale indicated would not prove in any way a strain on the nation's financial resources but would contribute materially to its economic recovery. It may be that these figures are not exact, but they are true enough to enable anyone to get a proper view of the serious condition existing as affecting thousands of families in this country who, through no fault of their own, are in one of the categories referred to, and also a view of a possible remedy.
I realize that many difficulties will have to be surmounted in dealing with this problem, but I do not think the problems are insurmountable. The question of competition with private landlords is a troublesome one, but as there is no great likelihood of a substitute program being commenced on a very large scale, this question will, no doubt, become clearer as time goes on.
A housing scheme in Toronto was carried out as the result of an appropriation made by parliament, I believe, about 1921, to relieve the housing shortage. The funds provided by federal authorities were relayed in this form to the provinces, thence to the municipalities and thence to a housing commission, which was set up at that time, not to be confused with the Toronto Housing Company. The money thus loaned to Toronto became a direct liability of the city. The enterprise has not been successful. We must bear in mind, however, that this housing scheme of 1921 was not a low cost housing scheme. That field of housing, in my mind, is not ordinarily to the same extent a basis for government assistance. That field is private enterprise where competition plays its full part.
The low cost housing field, as I have stated, is one in which the principal part that private enterprise can play is to keep going thousands of dilapidated, obsolete, broken down old houses. That is not compatible with a young, rich country like Canada with its great potential wealth and rapidly developing natural resources. The crying need of the moment is for a federal low cost housing policy that will serve the double purpose of replacing obsolete, dilapidated, low cost houses, and thereby creating much needed employment in building and allied trades and raising the standard of housing for thousands of families in this country, gaining all the economic, sociological advantages that such a change would bring about.

I hope the low cost housing problem will receive the earnest consideration of the government and hon. members. Broad and courageous action will bring, I believe, rich, economic and sociological returns. I understand the National Employment Commission and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) are giving this subject their careful thought.


Mr. VITAL MALLETTE (Jacques-Car-tier):: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this motion the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) made his explanations with his customary skill in debate and convincing eloquence. He dealt with the subject in a manner both thorough and sympathetic, and undoubtedly gained for his motion the support of the house, which is ever on the alert to cooperate in any movement likely to improve conditions for Canadians, especially those in unfortunate circumstances.
In his presentation the hon. member covered his subject so thoroughly that not very much remains to be said, and I should not have risen from my seat did I not believe it to be my duty to offer to my colleagues some suggestions which I believe to be constructive in the fight against slums.
In 1935 parliament adopted the Dominion Housing Act. The object of that legislation, as I understand it, was twofold. First, it was to help people already in possession of a small amount of money to borrow at reasonable rates and for a reasonable period the balance of the sum required to build their own homes, and thereby provide employment. As I have watched the application of the measure in my county I have come to the conclusion that the lending companies are not deeply interested in loans on houses costing less than $5,000, and for that reason people with small salaries are left out in the cold. An agent for the largest of these companies has explained to me that one of the difficulties was that houses in course of erection had to be inspected at least twice a week, and that where a house was being built fifteen or twenty miles from their head office the expense and loss of time in travelling to and fro was so considerable that they could not entertain proposals from other than the larger centres of the dominion. Nevertheless I do not make this statement as a criticism of the measure, because I believe this act was a step in the right direction. As its operations expand I am sure ways and means will be found of making it more useful. To a certain extent it will help the fight against slum conditions that the hon. member for Greenwood has begun to-day.
After passing the Dominion Housing Act we were asked to consider legislation to in-

Housing Policy-Mr. Mallette
crease employment by encouraging the repair of rural and urban homes. That, too, was in my opinion a step in the right direction. I have discussed the matter with bank managers with whom I am acquainted, and hon. members will know how sympathetic they are towards would-be borrowers. May I add that at that time I was not a would-be borrower. These men told me that the act was working well, and that they were looking forward with confidence to even better results in the spring. Hon. members may be interested to learn, in passing, that for once in my life I had the privilege of refusing a loan from a bank, and certainly that gives one a thrill.
I submit that while these measures are praiseworthy, if we are to avoid the prevalence of slums we must take steps to stop their increase. One of our first duties should be to help the small home owner to retain his home. When the previous administration introduced the Dominion Housing Act I believe it was received as good legislation. I submit, however, that they put the cart before the horse. In the first instance we had legislation to encourage people to build houses, and later legislation was introduced to encourage the repair of existing houses; but nothing is done for the poor fellow who has a house and who should be encouraged to keep it.
In his eloquent presentation the hon. member for Greenwood referred to the value of the home. All hon. members know its value, and it need not be described in terms of poetry or statistics. We know what the home means, and I for one believe that if we are to go ahead with social legislation of this kind something must be done to help small home owners to retain their ownership. It is my humble opinion that every citizen should own his own home just as he owns his own clothes.
It is said that in the sixteenth century when Francis I, King of France, was planning to send navigators westward to explore the then newly discovered America, representations were made to him that the Spaniards and Portuguese were already in possession. It is reported that the witty King of France, Francis I, known as le roi chevalier, the knight king, replied, "Well, I should like to see the article in Adam's testament which has willed the whole or any part of America to the Spaniards or Portuguese." As regards the ownership of houses or land, I should like to see the article in the same testament which has willed all the good things of this life, including the earth and homes, to just a few privileged people. If when the king
of France on that occasion referred to America he had known how conditions in America would develop, I believe he would have been surprised, and most certainly would have agreed that the good things in this country should not be the property of only a more fortunate class.
Hon. members may say it is easy for me or for any other hon. member to make a suggestion as to how best to preserve our homes. I know that if I made a suggestion my good friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) would meet me with his blue pencil and say, "How do you propose to do it?" Let me admit at the outset that I am not a great financier. Possibly if I were a great financier such as Sir Herbert Holt, Mr. Wood or Mr. Gundy I might carry more weight when speaking to this honourable chamber, but even as a small financier I have a little plan I should like to present. It is not very long, nor is it difficult to follow. If the preceding government and the present one can find means of producing money for those intending to build or to repair homes, why could .not the same provisions be widened so as to include those who want to keep their homes? The government could undertake the responsibility for a small proportion of the loans, just as is being done under the Dominion Housing Act, or under the legislation to increase employment by encouraging the repair of rural and urban homes.
I am told that bank deposits have reached a record high. It is well known that every day insurance companies receive large fortunes through the payment of premiums. Trust companies have huge funds to invest. The banks have had to lower their interest rates as an inducement for people to borrow. The money is available, and might be had, and the beneficial effect of helping small home owners would be tremendous. The first care of the owner is that of taxes, and the second is that of interest on the mortgage. If an owner paid his taxes the money would go to the municipality, which, in turn, would pay its loan to the bank, thereby causing the money to circulate.
I do not wish to be sectional in my observations, but hon. members are no doubt familiar with the small rentiers of the province of Quebec. These people have a few thousand dollars invested in their small properties; the money is out at fairly reasonable rates of interest, and when they do not get the interest they are ruined and have to go on relief. I speak for two classes, namely those who have homes they want to retain, and the small rentiers who are trying to keep their savings loaned on mortgages. I hope

Housing Polky-Mr. Dunning
some way may be found to help both classes, and I am sure the minister will give his best attention to any suggestion which is made. In case hon. members may say this suggestion has nothing to do with slum clearance as proposed by the hon. member for Greenwood, I say it has a lot to do with it. It would stop the ever-increasing number of people who are forced to go on relief. I know it has always been said of the people of Canada that everyone should stand on his owm feet and fight his own battles. If the present conditions were applicable only to Canada, then I would say there was something wrong, but they are applicable to the whole -world. I have no doubt that the government is doing its best to overcome these conditions.
Let us go a step further and try to help this one class which deserves every possible encouragement. I refer to the small home owners. I support the motion to that extent. I hope that speakers who follow me, and who no doubt will be better qualified than I am, will particularly discuss this point, because I believe its merits are obvious.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) on his manner of presenting the resolution now before the house. I take it that the resolution itself and the hon. member's presentation of it constitute approval of the steps which the government has taken and is attempting to take in connection with this very important matter. I was pleased indeed to note that while the subject lends itself to eloquence-my hon. friend was indeed eloquent-he did not allow his eloquence to carry him away from the practical considerations and realities of the situation. I refer particularly to his recognition of the fact that complete jurisdiction with respect to this problem does not rest in this chamber or in this parliament.
From the time of confederation all measures with respect to the building of houses have been provincial laws or municipal bylaws passed under authority of provincial legislation. We might as well face that fact. Recently we have been put in our place by a very high authority with respect to our powers. Our powers with regard to matters of this kind are limited very largely to paying out the money of all the people of Canada for the benefit of some of the people of Canada, under conditions which are largely affected if not governed by provincial jurisdiction. I am not for one moment saying that we should not assist in the national interest. My purpose in rising was rather to

give some information to the house with respect to the working out during its short history of the present Dominion Housing Act.
While the Dominion Housing Act was placed upon the statute books before this administration came into office, in the nature of things it was not at all active. In fact the first loan was made under its provisions in September, 1935. The information I am about to give may be regarded as a year's experience in developing the provisions of the present housing act. Up to the end of January. 1.119 family units had been provided for under the terms of the act. The term " family unit " is used because, as hon. members know, the act applies not only to individual houses but to duplexes and moderate sized apartment buildings. The only way to get any appreciation of the working of the act was to deal with it on the basis of family units. These 1,119 family units were provided at a cost of $5,376,000.
Our experience has been one of endeavouring, through administrative methods and in cooperation with the lending institutions which have entered into agreements under the law, to develop means of overcoming the manifest weaknesses which developed as a result of experience. I am not claiming for one moment that all weaknesses have been overcome. After endeavouring to administer the act during last year I do say that I believe it contains the framework within which can be fitted many very useful housing schemes. We have been compelled to modify the regulations in certain particulars. Having regard to what I said a few moments ago, we must remember that we are operating by agreement.
The major part of the money is supplied by the lending institutions which must comply with the conditions of the act. But these lending institutions are not compelled to lend. I do not think any housing scheme in England, Sweden, Canada or anywhere else is based upon the lender being compelled to lend. There are in existence direct governmental housing schemes in which the element of compulsion by political pressure is present, but in none of the schemes which have been advanced and discussed in this house or which have been considered as suggesting anything useful for our purposes has there been the provision that the lender is compelled to lend. I think everyone will concede that such a principle could not be developed.
On the other hand, the degree of willingness on the part of the lender to lend with reasonable freedom is one of the most vital features of the plan. We have had con-

Housing Policy-Mr. Dunning
siderable experience in this regard during the past year. Many members of the house have communicated with me and indicated that in their particular locality, especially in what might be called the smaller communities as distinguished from our great cities, the lending institutions are unwilling to lend under the terms of the act. As a result of investigation and discussion with some of the lending institutions we found that in some cases the objection was to the extremely heavy local taxation which, in the opinion of the lender, rendered his loan unsafe. In other cases objection was raised to the cost of inspecting a few loans. This matter was referred to by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Mallette). The lending institutions found the expense so great as not to warrant their embarking on the granting of loans in these small communities. An endeavour was made to meet this situation and also to meet the complaint that the scheme did not encourage the building of low cost homes, that it operated rather to encourage what might be called the middle field of residential buildings. An effort was made to meet that, partly by the architectural competition held last spring for designs for low cost houses, but mainly by the changes in administration which were made last September by order in council under the authority of the act, designed to encourage the lending institutions to make loans for low cost homes and to make loans in the smaller and more remote communities. In the order in council, authority was secured to bear a greater share of the loss and of the special expenses made in making these two classes of loans-the small loans, and loans in small communities. The original formula for allocating losses was modified. Wherever the lending institution made an 80 per cent loan for an amount of $4,000 or less, the dominion government agreed to bear 80 per cent of the loss in the case of such loans up to $3,000, 75 per cent of the loss where the loan exceeded $3,000 but did not exceed $3,500, and 70 per cent of the loss where the loan exceeded $3,500 but did not exceed $4,000. The effect of this order in council is now becoming more visible, particularly in the erection of the lower cost houses. The average cost per house since the scheme was inaugurated has been $4,861. Obviously that is high. That is not a low cost house. But as evidence of the greater development since September last, as a result of the order in council to which I am referring, I might point out that ninety-nine family units were built in the month of January, and the average cost of the whole ninetynine was $4,123, a drop in the average for the whole scheme from $4,861 to $4,123, greater emphasis being placed, as these figures show, upon the lower cost unit.


Denton Massey: Will the minister be good enough to state in what parts of Canada these houses were constructed? Was it pretty much all over the country or was it concentrated in any particular areas?


Charles Avery Dunning: I could give it by provinces and the figures for some of the larger cities, but it is a pretty long list.


Denton Massey: Just generally.


Charles Avery Dunning: In Ontario the number of family units is 472; Quebec, 503; New Brunswick, 13; Nova Scotia, 101; Prince Edward Island, 6; Manitoba, 13; Saskatchewan, nil; Alberta, nil; British Columbia, 11.
With respect to the lower cost houses, I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) with respect to Sweden's experience. I have read quite a bit regarding their scheme. While I have not had the privilege, as my hon. friend had this summer of seeing it, I have, as I am sure he has, studied most of the authorities with regard to it, and I was particularly interested in my hon. friend's citation of figures with respect to the rental cost. I take it he was referring to the lowest cost plan now. in force in Sweden in the city of Stockholm.


Denton Massey: Correct.


Charles Avery Dunning: And the rental cost was $20?


Denton Massey: Twenty dollars a month
for the first ten years; S17.50 for the next ten years, and $7.50 for the last ten years.


Charles Avery Dunning: And that included taxes?


Denton Massey: It included everything one can think of, even chimney sweeping.


Charles Avery Dunning: The only comparison I
can make of what is possible under the Dominion Housing Act is to say that an approved house-that is, all the specifications have been approved by the housing administration of the Department of Finance-containing a living room, kitchen, bathroom, three bedrooms, full basement, central heating, insulated and well constructed-incidentally, the criticism that we have had is that our specifications are too stiff-can be built on an average lot for approximately $2,700. An eighty per cent mortgage would amount to $2,160, leaving an equity of $540 to be supplied by the owner. There is the difficulty.

Housing Policy-Mr. Dunning
The monthly cost to pay interest and amortise the principal on that house would be $14.12. I submit that $14.12 to amortise a house of that kind puts it definitely in the category of low cost housing.


Denton Massey: It does not include taxation?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am just coming to the joker. The main reason why people who have $500, and who could get a home of that kind of which they would be proud, are not going into the scheme, is not because of any interest factor, not because the $14.12 per month is too much for them, but because the local taxes are what they are, and again I say that is within provincial and municipal jurisdiction.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister stated that
the house including the lot could be built for $2,700, and that it comprised six rooms, fully modern. Am I correct in that?


Charles Avery Dunning: I prefer my own description, if my hon. friend does not mind, because I know it is accurate. I shall give the description again:	"Low cost housing plans have
recently been approved"-it is definite, you see-"for a house which can be built in many sections of Canada at a cost of $2,400." I allowed in my statement, when I said $2,700, $300 for the lot. This house contains living room, kitchen, bathroom, three bedrooms, full basement, central heating system. It is also insulated and well constructed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: With full plumbing?


Charles Avery Dunning: I said bathroom. I do
not know how one could have a bath without plumbing.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is all right, but the
cost seems to me extremely low. I have had some experience in housing, and if it can be done at that price it is a revelation to me.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall not dispute with my hon. friend regarding it. I simply say that these matters are necessarily under continual study by the housing administrator, who is a qualified architect. I have already said that one of the criticisms we are receiving is that our specifications are too stiff. At the same time we are anxious, as I put it, not to start building new slums with dominion government aid. We must have minimum standards and decent homes. But one cannot expect a rush to build under a scheme which rests, as I pointed out, on a degree of willingness on the part of private lenders to cooperate. We have not had 100 per cent cooperation in that regard; I admit it frankly.

A number of the great insurance companies have cooperated splendidly, in working under the Dominion Housing Act. Others have not. May I say for the benefit of those who complain of what great corporations do or refuse to do that the least cooperation we have had has been from the local financial institutions in various parts of Canada. The local institutions have not cooperated under the dominion housing scheme to anything like the same extent as the great insurance companies doing business from coast to coast in Canada have done.
I do not intend to take a great deal of time, Mr. Speaker, but I did think it was due the house to be advised of the progress which has been made under the present housing act. WTthout claiming that it is perfect, I believe that it can be developed at a much greater rate. One of the insurance companies states definitely that it has now five hundred loans in sight for spring building; another company states that it can see two hundred loans coming, from the maritime provinces alone, relating to spring work. One company submitted, on February 3, thirteen loans, all in Nova Scotia. That is an indication of the way in which the use of the act is growing. With respect to growth, I might point out that in the first six months the total amount involved was only $810,000; in the second six months it jumped to $3,037,000, nearly four times as much, and the final quarter of 1936 showed an amount four times as large as during the corresponding quarter of 1935. Of course this is not a great quickacting hundred million dollar over-night scheme. But I submit that, having regard to the fact that it is wholly experimental, that administrative regulations had to be developed, agreements entered into with all sorts of lending institutions for working under it, and difficulties ironed out from day to day and week to week, $5,300,000 worth of building under the scheme constitutes a fair start. And while we are talking of greater schemes and plans for slum clearance and the rest, I hope the house will not overlook the fact that we have within the four corners of the Dominion Housing Act a possibility of steady, sound growth along lines which will do a great deal of good if we can keep up reasonable cooperation on the part of lenders and if we can deal with the problems associated with loaning in the smaller and more remote communities. There is a very considerable development along that line since the regulation was changed with respect to the cost of inspection. If we can do these things we are accomplishing something, having regard to

Homing Policy-Miss Macphail
the fact I stated at the outset, that while all that flows from bad housing constitutes a national problem, the authority which deals with housing is not in this chamber but in the legislature of each province.


Mr. LAWSON:: Would the minister permit a question?


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly.


James Earl Lawson: I wanted to seek some information in connection with his last statement. Has the minister or the government considered whether there would be any question of jurisdiction if, let us say, the government of Canada through a statute of this parliament, and authorized by this parliament, proceeded to build one hundred houses in any given community? Does any question of jurisdiction enter into that? It is true that the provinces have jurisdiction with respect to property and civil rights, but surely the dominion government can build houses just as they can a public building if they want to.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot give an answer to a lawyer, but my impression would be that the dominion would have to comply with provincial law with respect to the building of those houses.


James Earl Lawson: Unquestionably.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, that, of course, is the whole point. I do not deny that this government can give out money, but I am finding it more important than I formerly thought it to be that we should have jurisdiction over what we spend money on. I am finding that particularly in connection with old age pensions, a well intentioned piece of legislation on the part of the dominion, worked out, because of the provincial jurisdiction involved, by means of agreements between the dominion and the provinces. Rather more than a year ago the administration of that legislation was turned over to the Department of Finance. During the coming year it is not going to be an easy task to iron out the difficulties which have arisen, and they rest solely upon the point that we are spending seventy-five per cent of the money but the provinces have the jurisdiction in the administration; we deal with them only by agreement; we can deal with them by withholding that which we agreed to pay, but that is not a very satisfactory method of working out a partnership arrangement. I do not want to be too emphatic on this; I am sure my hon. friend realizes the force of the point as well as I do.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): I wish first to congratulate the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) upon his excellent speech. I was sorry that he was not in the house from 1929 and on to make speeches like that, but I am very glad that he is here now and that he has spoken as he has.
I think we all know now that the time for governments to spend or to encourage spending along such lines as housing is in the depths of a depression. Much as I appreciate the speech just concluded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and glad as I am that the housing act has been followed up by one providing for a renovation of buildings, I am sure that as we get further away from the depression expenditures by governments will be less useful. We ought to have gone early into the housing problem. The scheme should have been ready when the depression started so that we could have gone on with it at the time when the greatest need for employment existed, and there was just as much need for housing then as there is now. However, it is easy to say that; let us bear in mind the days that are to come. When conditions are good is not the time for governments to spend, because individuals are then doing it, but rather when depression comes making extensive individual spending impossible, government activity should greatly increase. I believe that Canada is at least a decade behind the times in evolving or setting up a housing act. I am glad we have it now.
The Minister of Finance touched upon something which we all know is true, when he said that the most difficult problem is to get houses for the low wage groups, whether they are workers who receive a pay envelope or those who live on farms or in smaller communities. Even yet there has not been evolved a plan whereunder people with low wages can be assured of good housing. When we are considering the cost of housing we should be willing, and I think we are, to subtract from that expenditure a good portion of the cost of sanatoria, of hospitalization, of reformatories, of gaols and of penitentiaries, because it need not be proved from the authorities that poor housing leads to poor health and1 crime and all the allied difficulties and charges they entail. The cost of good housing is never too great, since the better the housing, at any rate up to a reasonable standard, the less will be the costs in these other directions.	[DOT]
I noticed in to-day's Montreal Gazette a statement made by the Child Welfare Association in these words:
Inadequate incomes, poor housing conditions, tuberculosis and lack of understanding regarding

Housing Policy-Miss Macphail
nutritional and mental health needs, are the problems faced to-day by those who are seeking to improve the health of the community.
I am not going to deal particularly with Canadian housing conditions, because that has been well done, and we have available to everybody a series of pamphlets published by the Social Service Council of Canada on that subject, as well as the report of the Bruce commission. But I want to take a few minutes to tell the house something about housing as I saw it in Sweden this summer. I was not able to be in Sweden as long as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey)-


Mr. MARTIN:: Were you there together?


Miss MACPHAIL:: No, nor at the same
time, I am sorry to say. But I was very much struck by the housing enterprises, and spent a good deal of time seeing them. It is hardly believable that one third of the city of Stockholm has been rebuilt since 1921 as part of the tremendous building program by which Sweden sought to overcome the depression. That was a building program which in my opinion was carried on at the right time. They went through the small depression, as we did, from 1921 to 1924, and seeing that they might again need an extensive program of public works, when the better times came between 1924 and 1929 they prepared very carefully for public works which would carry them through the next depression. They called them in many cases reserve projects. Not all were of a housing nature, but so much rebuilding was done that one-third of the whole city has been built or rebuilt since 1921.


Mr. ROGERS:: By the government, or by private enterprise?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: In all sorts of ways- some by federal assistance, some by municipalities entirely, and some by cooperatives.


Charles Avery Dunning: Some entirely cooperative.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, some by cooperatives entirely. Even yet housing in Stockholm is not particularly cheap; it is a difficult city for building. To begin with, it is built on fourteen islands; it is rocky; the cost of the numerous bridges and of the blasting necessary in making excavation makes it expensive, and housing was too dear. That I think is one reason why they have developed such splendid cooperative schemes, because it is not so long ago that housing cost almost fifty per cent of the average income, which was much too high a proportion. This led to a great deal of investigation. They went 
into several schemes. They have studied housing needs much more thoroughly, I think, than we have. They do not consider that all who want houses have families of about the same size. One thing I found very interesting was that they have houses for elderly people of slender means, started by what they call the flower fund. Instead of sending flowers to show respect at a time of bereavement, people send to the flower fund and with that fund apartment houses have been built for elderly couples. These apartment houses have a central dining room, and trained nurses in attendance. That is a scheme by itself. They are good-looking apartment houses, built particularly for the sort of people who occupy them.
Then I went through some apartment houses built to accommodate five hundred families, who had three or more children. The federal government was anxious that children should not be raised in slums, with resulting ill health and juvenile delinquency. Working with a cooperative concern they build apartments for families of different sizes. Where the parents cannot support the children as the state thinks they should be supported, for a family of three the state, that is, the federal government, pays thirty per cent of the rent. If the family consists of four children the government supply forty per cent of the rent, and for families of five they supply fifty per cent. The H.S.B. house agent who showed us through these particular apartment houses said that on October 1 five hundred such families who were all being assisted by the federal government would move in.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In speaking of the federal government does my hon. friend mean the national government?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, the national government. The agent said further that they planned to accommodate 2,500 such families in Stockholm in the next year or two.
In Sweden over twenty-five per cent of all married women in Stockholm work outside the home. They have built houses designed for such families. In connection with the apartment house there is a nursery, which is complete or separate except that it is in the house. There are facilities to care for the children, sleeping rooms, play rooms and kitchen for the preparing of three meals daily for the children, and a trained nurse in attendance. The particular one that I visited had a central dining room, and a gymnasium which the families in the house could use not only as a gymnasium but also as a concert and lecture hall.

___________ Housing Policy-Miss Macphail
I suppose the best known cooperative concern for house-building in Sweden is the Tenants Savings Bank and Building Society, known to all the people in Sweden as H.S.B. They build three kinds of houses, known as the A, B and C types. In the A type house the person who is going to occupy the apartment-to purchase it really, because they can purchase apartments as well as houses-


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will permit me, the H.S.B. does not build houses, but apartments?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, cooperative apartments.


Denton Massey: They are starting houses this year.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: A person buying an apartment pays ten per cent down if he wants one of the A type, five per cent down for the B type, and for the C type he pays no deposit at all. The remainder of the purchase price for an A type is apportioned between the city and the state and a private lending company. It is such a mixture of cooperation and private ownership and government assistance that you can hardly tell where one begins and the other ends.
Then this H.S.B. had what I thought a very interesting scheme, and certainly a very useful one. The tenant gets six per cent interest annually on that deposit. If he chooses he need not accept six per cent but can take five per cent and let one per cent go as a premium of insurance which will provide on the death of the wage earner for the return of the entire deposit and annual rent reduction for the family is reduced by twenty per cent, thus providing security which is not provided here.
I visited one group of these H.S.B. houses where there were eight parallel blocks, built north and south so that both sides were open to the sunlight at different times of the day. Each block was separated from others by quite a wide grass plot. Each contained one hundred apartments, mostly one and two rooms with kitchenette and bath. But I should say that in Sweden what they call a two-room apartment is almost equivalent to what would be called four rooms here, because they always have a couple of extra entries or small rooms which are not counted in calling it a two-room apartment. These apartments were occupied by people earning small salaries, but they were very modern. They had laundries and drying rooms; they even had a very neat coffee room in the basement where the women who were doing the laundry could go in and
make coffee. It was part dining room and part kitchen, and was a very nice place.
The cost of these blocks of which I am speaking was very moderate. The cost of what they call a one-room apartment with kitchen and bath, which would be equivalent to what we would call a two-room apartment, was about $240 a year, with the larger ones coming higher. In addition they have to pay small sums for the laundry and the nursery. The cost of gas and electricity is not included in the figures I have given. The occupants were mostly skilled workmen receiving from 3,500 to 4.500 kroner per year, that is from $875 to $1,120. The corporation of Stockholm, in some cases I believe in cooperation with the government of Sweden, seems anxious to induce people to go into houses rather than into apartments.


Charles Avery Dunning: Did the hon. member see the magic houses?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, I was just going to speak of those. We spent the better part of two days looking into magic houses. Certainly they go up like magic; some of them, as far as the framework is concerned, are put up almost in a day. To induce people to go into them the houses had to be relatively cheaper than the apartments, so that the first thing the corporation of Stockholm did was to purchase large tracts of land beyond the city limits, which they then surveyed and laid out in streets. Water mains and sewers were installed and gas and electricity provided for. The projects are called garden cities, and in no case is the land sold; the leasehold is given for sixty years, the occupier paying an annual ground rent amounting to five per cent of the value of the site. In some cases rather expensive homes were put up financed by private money, but what was called the magic house was really a low priced house, almost a cottage, with a nice garden plot, for people of small means.
The corporation of Stockholm employed architects who designed many types of these cheaper houses. Then they prepared standardized material, and the workman who wanted such a house could start building it with practically no cash deposit.


Charles Avery Dunning: He contributed his labour.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes. He has to undertake, under the supervision of an architect, to construct the house. He goes to the warehouses where all this material is kept, selects what he needs and brings it to the lot, and usually starts the construction of the house



Housing Policy-Miss Macphail
by having a bee. He gets as many as possible of his friends to come in the morning, and they start, putting up the framework of the house. We saw one house they started that morning. We were in it before six o'clock in the evening and the framework was almost finished; the rafters were on for the roof. After that the man may hire some of his friends, or they may trade work back and forth. They try to get the outside work all done in the summer time. In the fall and winter they do the interior work, the painting and so on. Possibly both the man and his wife who are building this house have other jobs, so they can do the painting and other finishing work only when they are not busy with their regular occupations.
I was in many of the houses, and some of them are really beautiful. As a rule they are nicely furnished, because the Swedes are a very clean people with a fine sense of beauty. A four-room cottage of the kind I am now describing costs about 11,400 kroner or about $2,850. What they call landscape architects are also employed by the city to design the grounds to fit in with the house. I saw some of the raw houses where the grounds were not finished; I saw some houses where the gardens had been started, and I also saw houses where the gardens were three or four years old. These last were really beautiful, though I could hardly say that all the houses were beautiful. Some of them were pretty ugly, but they were all very comfortable.
There were many things to show how proud they were of their houses. I remember the pride with which they showed us all through, pointing out all the details. They were anxious that the H.S.B. man should let us see how splendid the housing project was. Not long ago I read an article in the Toronto Saturday Night, written by the hon. member for Greenwood, in which the hon. member mentioned the fact that these people had pride of ownership. In fact one man had a sign outside, reading "Small, but mine own."


Charles Avery Dunning: About how many houses have been built under that plan?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It must run into thousands. There are ever so many garden cities at different points surrounding Stockholm.


Charles Avery Dunning: All under the same plan?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes. Certainly they never will become slums; the pride of ownership will prevent that. I did not see any indication that there was not as much pride of ownership in the apartments, but there is

something about walking out of your own door into your own garden that you cannot get in an apartment. But in their wisdom the Swedes have tried to fill this gap in the life of people who dwell in apartments. In both Denmark and Sweden, as a matter of fact, anyone living in an apartment can. if he wishes, have a garden plot on the outskirts of the city, with a garden house on the plot. They are really things of great beauty, because roses grow very easily in both these countries. The garden house is often as pretty a little place as any summer house could be. Of course it is very small, it is intended only for holidays and Sundays, when the apartment dweller comes to enjoy his garden.
I did feel, after visiting Denmark and Sweden in particular, that in matters of housing and health, as in many other things, they were setting a pace for all other countries, and I think we have a great deal to learn from their experience. I do not say that we could do just what they have done, because conditions are different here, but I do think that if we start off by thinking that good housing for all the people is the greatest national investment we can make, we will be able to overcome all the obstacles that stand in the way of the realization of that objective.


James Earl Lawson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return immediately to the question I suggested to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). It seems to me that in matters of jurisdiction we are so often inclined to consider the question in regard to some involved scheme whereby the dominion in cooperation with the provinces, or the dominion in cooperation with the lending agencies, or the dominion in cooperation with somebody else, should do this, that or the other thing. I should like to suggest- and I am just making only a suggestion in that regard-that when the Minister of Finance is considering the housing problem, as apparently he is considering it, he might have advice from the Department of Justice with respect to a simple scheme, somewhat along the lines I am going to suggest.
Let me assume that the government introduced into the parliament of Canada, either by way of amendment to the present housing act-which the minister thinks has some virtue-or by a new act, a dominion housing scheme under which a commission was appointed; the government borrowed and advanced money to that commission with which to build houses; the commission constructed, in any particular province or municipality, so many houses which it sold on a rental basis

Housing Policy-Mr. Lawson
plan, such as has been outlined by the minister this afternoon, as to monthly payments. Under such a scheme would there be any question as to the jurisdiction of such a housing commission appointed by parliament to carry on?


Charles Avery Dunning: Would the hon. member permit me to answer?


James Earl Lawson: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can give an illustration by pointing out that the people who bought or rented those houses would immediately be subject to provincial and local taxation which, as I was indicating, is the big handicap in developing any housing scheme to-day. We could not control that.


James Earl Lawson: I realize that, but the
quantum of taxation has nothing in the world to do with the question of the jurisdiction of this parliament to do something. That is the point I am trying to make.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member is distinguishing between slum clearance and low cost housing.


James Earl Lawson: I care not whether a distinction is drawn.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But on the point of jurisdiction surely there is a distinction.


James Earl Lawson: The only suggestion I would make to the minister in connection with jurisdiction would be that of creating a certain number of low cost houses, if the government were so inclined, after investigation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But slum clearance brings up the question of jurisdiction.


James Earl Lawson: Unquestionably. What
brought it to my mind was the excellent information given the house this afternoon by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). I should not wish one word of mine to detract from the laudable objective behind the resolution before the house, but I do feel that there is a correlative problem which any government should consider and with respect to which it should act concurrently, in dealing with any housing problem. I refer to the matter mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Mallette) who gave expression to an idea which I had in mind.
Frequently in the house I have heard reference to the forgotten man. Usually, when that expression is used, we refer to the taxpayer. I have frequently thought, however, that if there is one man who is more forgotten than all other forgotten men, it is the home
31111-48J
owner who has been burdened by direct municipal taxation, as outlined by the Minister of Finance this afternoon.


Air. FACTOR:: And who is paying high
rates of interest.


James Earl Lawson: Yes, and paying high rates of interest. I shall touch upon that point later. As I see it, the difficulty has been that the municipality has had only two sources of taxation, one property and the other income. In their wisdom, some of the provinces have seen fit to take from the municipalities the power to tax income, and hence the whole burden of taxation in the municipality is today almost a direct tax upon real property. Unless some readjustment is made with respect to taxation between municipalities and provinces, I say seriously that in my opinion a tremendous number of urban and suburban municipalities cannot possibly survive. I realize that is not a problem for this parliament, but I suggest that in any scheme which may be considered or brought down by the Minister of Finance or the government, we should be careful to make sure that by legislation we do not place any additional burden by way of property tax on the home owner in a municipality.
May I illustrate how such a burden could be created. Let us assume that a scheme has been in effect, and that to-morrow we go into municipality A to build one hundred or one thousand new homes. In all probability the streets which we would lay out and upon which we would build the homes would not have local improvements. The new houses would have to be serviced with water service, sewers, roadways and sidewalks. In Ontario and, I believe, in two other provinces only a proportion of the cost of those new local improvements would be assessed against the house receiving the benefit. A proportion of the cost of local improvements, usually about twenty-five per cent, is spread over the whole municipality, and creates an additional burden upon the man who already owns a home in the municipality.
I believe it is incumbent upon the house to take care that in legislation we do not create an additional burden. This afternoon the minister outlined the progress being made under the Dominion Housing Act. A few days ago he indicated his hopes and aspirations as to what might be accomplished in providing employment through the new measure for the renovation of homes. I am thoroughly confident that neither of these measures will meet with the success I believe the minister anticipates. I say they will not for two reasons: One, that literally thousands

Housing Policy-Mr. Lawson
of people in Canada are losing homes they now have and, two, the burden of direct property tax. which I have already mentioned.
To a great extent Canada is a nation of home owners. In looking over the most recent census figures, I was surprised to observe that of all urban and suburban householders in Canada in 1931 approximately 47 per cent were home owners. In my own province of Ontario, of all suburban and urban house holders approximately 52J per cent are home owners. It is for these people that I plead with the minister this afternoon. In literally hundreds of cases working men in Canada have purchased or built homes in days when they had full pay envelopes and a reasonable measure of prosperity. In many cases that was done by dint of frugal living, saving and hard work. Then came the depression. Because of diminishing pay envelopes and, in some instances, envelopes which ceased to be received, and by reason of heavy municipal taxation plus a high interest rate to which reference was made by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Factor), hundreds of these people have lost their homes, and thousands to-day are in danger of losing them. In many instances interest rates ran as high as seven or eight per cent. I suggest that it is not going to avail us much if we clean up one slum only to create another, and I urge that in any scheme under consideration, care should be taken of those home owners who are likely to lose their homes.
I am not so sure that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier is feasible. However, if I may, I should like to make one, although the minister may not think my suggestion is feasible.


Charles Avery Dunning: I realize this is a diffi-.cult question, and I am looking for ideas.
Mr. LAWSON; The former government passed two pieces of legislation, the Farmers Creditors Arrangement Act and the Farm Loan Act. A combination of those two measures enabled the harassed farmer to remain upon his farm and to get a reasonable adjustment of his debts. Under the aegis of the farm loan board he was enabled to borrow money at a lower rate of interest.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish it worked that way, but it did not.


James Earl Lawson: I can only say that while I have received complaints from persons who had loans on farms concerning rates of interest being reduced, nevertheless every time I talk to any people associated with the administration of the acts I meet enthusiasm. Every time I talk to a fellow who happens

to be a debtor instead of a creditor, he seems to have got some relief.


Charles Avery Dunning: When I said it did not work that way, I meant the combination of the two acts, that the combining of the two did not prove successful.


James Earl Lawson: I believe a combination of an adaptation of these two acts would salvage thousands of homes for home owners in our urban and suburban municipalities.
I am not one of those who will rise in his place in parliament and urge upon a government of which I do not happen to be a member that it should embark upon some wild scheme which cannot be financed on a sound basis. However, I do believe there are thousands of homes in this country that could be saved if the means were made available to the home owners to have their loans readjusted at a low rate of interest which it would be possible for the dominion to provide. If a home owner could have his payments amortised and if he were given a short space of time, say six months or a year, before he had to start making his first payment, he would be able to save his home.
I am quite willing to admit that in some cases the payments would not be met, but I doubt whether there would be many cases where losses would occur. The loan on the average house would not be such that it could not ultimately be got out of the property. Do not think for a moment I am suggesting that we endeavour to save the home of a man who has a first mortgage of S3,000 and a second mortgage of $1,500 on a home for which he paid $5,000 in boom days.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the fellow who needs help the most.


James Earl Lawson: I am not so sure that it is. The man who needs it the most

I could take the minister to hundreds of them in the riding I represent-is the man who has either built his own little home or bought it, and over a period of five, ten or fifteen years has been paying out of his wages in order to obtain an equity of ownership in that home. That is the man to whom I want consideration given. Even if some losses were incurred under such a scheme, I believe it would be worth it. We shall never have any finer citizens in this country than the home owners. Show me a nation of home owners and I shall show you a nation that will progress to new heights by evolution and never be torn asunder by revolution. The home owner is the stakeholder in this country. It is for him that I make my plea. Laudable and desirable

Homing Policy-Mr. Elliott (Kindersley)
though it may be that we should have housing schemes, I suggest to the minister that if any such schemes are to be proposed, he consider concurrently and endeavour to bring in legislation which will give relief to the home owners whose problem I have tried to outline in the last few minutes.
Mr. 0. B. ELLIOTT (Kindersley): Mr. Speaker, this subject seems to have resolved itself more or less into a matter of finance. The question has been covered thoroughly from many angles and in my remarks I shall endeavour to avoid repeating what has been said already. The Dominion Fire Prevention Association prepared a statement of certain facts which was read at the convention of the maritime provinces chiefs of fire departments held at Kentville, Nova Scotia, on July 15, 1936. The statement reads as follows:
Sixty-five per cent of our people now live in houses of the cheapest construction, ill equipped and poorly adapted to obvious needs-and one-quarter of the families of the dominion live in accommodations of three rooms or less, while nearly 160,000 families live in one and two room dwellings lacking sanitary conveniences and efficient heating-investigation has revealed.
My purpose in taking part in this debate is to endeavour to prove conclusively, from figures taken from the Canada Year Book and the Labour Gazette, that it is financially impossible for nearly ninety-five per cent of the people of Canada to build themselves homes, even of the cheapest type. Among the facts that should not be ignored in any attempt to solve the housing problem is the social and economic condition of the people. One out of every ten of the entire population of Canada is existing on relief at the present time. Notwithstanding their needs, these people cannot hope to change their living conditions. Of the remainder of the population who are permanently employed, the average earnings are less than $18 per week. If I understood the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Mallette) correctly, he said that there was sufficient money in the country somewhere to provide loans for the building of these homes. I should like to place on Hansard a statement which will show where some of this money is at the present time. I direct attention to a report in the Edmonton Bulletin of September 12, 1936, of a statement by Mr. W. A. Bog, general manager of the Bank of Montreal, with reference to deposits in the chartered banks of Canada. The report says:
" The two greatest depositories for the savings of Canadians in all walks of life are the banks and insurance companies," declared W. A. Bog, general manager, at the bank of Montreal's annual meeting.
Continuing, he said: "There were on 31st October, 1935, over 4,600,090 depositors in the chartered banks with deposits aggregating $2,090,508,000, representing an average of about $450 for each account. It is estimated that there are 3,500,000 life insurance policy holders in Canada and that the assets by which this insurance is protected amount to over $2,000,000,000.
A great part of these funds belonging to depositors and policy holders is invested in securities. The protection of the savings of Canadians, built up so laboriously and with such self denial over the course of years to ensure a measure of security in old age or to provide for dependants after death, is and always has been the first consideration of this bank and should also be that of all government authorities. In most instances, these savings are not large and a loss of only a small portion of the principal is sufficient in many cases to bring want and anxiety.
Any policy which would tend to weaken the sanctity of contracts is to be deprecated as, in addition to harming those who can least afford to bear losses, such a policy would strike at the very core of our economic order, for when there is lack of confidence, a slalcening of business activity takes place, bringing unemployment in its train."
Without an investigation of the truth of the statement that the average deposit in the chartered banks is $450, it might convey the idea that we are becoming fairly prosperous. Nothing is further from the truth, as regards both the average depositor and prosperity in general. The article stresses the fact that we must not lose confidence; but how can we have confidence, especially in our banking system, when we can so easily detect this thinly disguised effort to deceive us by not giving all the facts? If one turns to page 910 of the year book of 1936, one will find a statement of deposits as at October 31, 1935. They are segregated in this manner: There were 4,290,695 depositors, having on deposit $501,881,610, grouped as having less than $1,000 each; 302,743 depositors, having on deposit $598,611,600, grouped as having $1,000 to $5,000 each; 41,815 depositors, having on deposit $376,319,432, grouped as having $5,000 to $25,000 each; 4,402 depositors, having on deposit $199,461,844, grouped as having $25,000 to $100,000 each; 1,223 depositors, having on deposit $407,229,739, grouped as having over $100,000 each.
These figures become even more significant when taken as averages. They show that 92f per cent of the depositors in our chartered banks have an average deposit of $117, or 24 per cent of the entire deposits; 6i per cent average $1,977, or 28| per cent; one per cent average $8,760, or 18 per cent; one-tenth of one per cent average $45,311, or 9J per cent; one-thirty-eighth of one per cent average $33,976, or 20 per cent. Approx*
758	COMMONS
Housing Policy-Mr. Elliott (Kindersley)
imately 7jj per cent of the depositors own 76 per cent of the deposits. So there should be no difficulty in understanding why at least 92f per cent of our population cannot take advantage of the house building plan. If for no other reason it is because they are minus the owner's equity of 20 per cent.
Now let us consider the wages of various groups to ascertain if the wages are sufficient to cover living expenses and leave a surplus enough for the repayment of a loan as provided by the housing plan. At pages 708 and 709 of the Labour Gazette for August, 1938, are given statistics collected by the bureau of statistics and taken from MacLeans Building Reports for 1934, as follows:
Construction Trades
Average Employees wages
Construction and trade contractors and sub-contractors	
37,561	$745Cities, towns, villages, municipalities	
49,946	385Harbour commissions	1,137	882Provincial government departments	
44,810	545Dominion government departments	
24,405	493Total	
157,859Average	
$536
Those are for the construction trades, construction and trade contractors and subcontractors.
Approximately one-half of the construction this year was done directly by government authorities, and if we take the average wage paid to these people in the different provinces we get the following results:
Average wage paid
Prince Edward Island	 $474
Nova Scotia	 662
New Brunswick	 481
Quebec	 556
Ontario	 544
Manitoba	 514
Saskatchewan	 321
Alberta	 408
British Columbia	 483
We also find that the minimum wages for the various provinces in retail stores average $12 per week or $504 per year, taking an
No. of
Provinces	loans
Prince Edward Island	 6
Nova Scotia	 94
New Brunswick		12
Quebec	 231
Ontario	 359
Manitoba	   12
Saskatchewan	, nil
Alberta	 nil
British Columbia	 10
average of 42 weeks. To be perfectly fair in this comparison, I have taken the fair wage agreements with the contractors as shown on pages 93 and 94 of the Labour Gazette for 1937, in companies constructing buildings and earth traverses at the dominion arsenal at Valcartier, Quebec, which can be considered about the highest average wage paid in the dominion to-day.
From a list of 3:9 occupations I find that men working 44 hours per week earn 65 cents an hour for the average year of 42 weeks, which gives them an annual income of $1,201.20.
Now let us review the cost of the family budget, as taken from the- January issue of the Labour Gazette, covering a family of five, and this does not include clothing, entertainment, medical attention, education, transportation, cosmetics, tobacco, and so forth, but comprises only a very meagre supply of foods, laundry, fuel, light and rent. The weekly cost is averaged at $16.99, or a total of $883.48 a year. So, if we deduct the amount of the average budget from even the highest average wage, there remains a balance of only $317.72 per year.
To aggravate the situation still further, I find that the average index of wholesale prices for building materials increased 4 per cent in the first eleven months of 1936, while at the same time the index value of permits decreased 5-2 per cent. It is difficult to gain confidence in a situation like this where an increase in income is immediately accompanied by an increase in the price of commodities equal to, if not always, greater than the increase in income.
A list of loans made during the year is shown at page 112 of Hansard of January 20 last. These figures must have been just prior to the ones which were given to the house by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) this afternoon. These figures bear out my contention that the class of people most in need of homes are unable to avail themselves of the loan privileges because of insufficient income. The figures for the various provinces are as follows:
Average	Amount	Family Units	Average loan$5,394	$ 32,364	6	$5,3944,475	420,737	96	4,3823.765	45,179	13	3,4759,668	2,233,394	467	4,7825.863	2,104,085	418	5.0338,380	100,564	12	8,3803,150	31,500	io	3,i50

Housing Policy-Mr. Plaxton
It will be quite understood that the cost of building in British Columbia would be much less than in Saskatchewan and other prairie provinces owing to the difference in the price of commodities and building materials.
Saskatchewan, the third largest province in percentage of population, with 21 [DOT] 67 per cent on relief, has been unable to avail itself of any benefits from this scheme. Perhaps this is because we have the lowest average wage scale in the dominion, in addition to high freight rates on building materials imported into the province.
It has become absolutely plain that the idea of cooperating with loan companies to put out home-building loans will not result in any substantial volume of business within a reasonable time. The business alternative is to make government loans direct without relying on any middleman agency. Companies naturally want profitable business for the companies and the need for ending unemployment is not a company object. To substantiate that statement I would point out that one of the largest financial institutions in this country, namely the chartered banks, has apparently been doing considerable toward helping the unemployment problem by unemploying men. The Canada Year Book for 1936 contains figures showing that from 1920 to December 31, 1935, the banks have closed 1,245 branches in Canada. In Prince Edward Island they have closed 14; in Nova Scotia, 35; in New Brunswick, 24; in Quebec, 77; in Ontario, 363; in Manitoba, 165; in Saskatchewan, 301-over 50 per cent-in Alberta, 215; in British Columbia, 52. In the Yukon one branch was opened, increasing the number from three to four.
The housing problem in Canada is not solely one of monetary returns. It involves the more fundamental question of whether we are civilized or not and whether we are prepared to follow in the path of better housing conditions blazed by Britain and other countries. The fundamental question of whether we are civilized or not is easily answered. So long as this nation has money issuing power and allows its people to subsist on relief just one stage removed from physical distress, this nation is not civilized and I doubt whether it is wholly Christian. Under present money famine conditions the earning power of the nation is rigidly held down far below the basis justified by the available national assets. These assets cannot be brought into active earning profitable account without the use of money. The only way to get the necessary money at work is to break the money famine, and the only power to
break the money famine is in the hands of the government.
There are several adjustments, no doubt, that would aid in this direction. We find the statement by James F. Coughlin, K.C., in his pamphlet Housing and Slum Clearance, with regard to taxation in the different cities:
In the city of Winnipeg, the tax sales art proceeding at such a rate that the assessment roles are being seriously diminished; the 1936 tax sale list included 2,250 parcels representing arrears of $1,128,000, and on the list were 606 homes occupied by their owners, and 527 other houses which were believed to be occupied by their owners.
In the city of Regina, the mayor says, they have reached the point of confiscation of all real estate. And so the story goes through all the western provinces. No doubt the same may be said about eastern Canada.
To my mind the rates of interest in this housing plan are altogether too high. If it is necessary that the banks shall discontinue the payment of all interest charges to depositors in order to reduce the interest rate, I am absolutely in accord with that program. Freight rates also should be adjusted so that those points which are removed from the source of supply shall be placed in some kind of a zone system, whereby such distant places will not be penalized because of their geographical position. There should be a reduction of taxation on homes, and above all else, security for regular income; that, I think, is one of the more important features of our community life. At the present time many people who are able to build homes are not doing so because they have no security for their income, and in many cases where I inquired of people who could build homes why they had not done so, they invariably declared that it would not be safe. If they keep their money in liquid assets, in the event of losing their positions they can always remove it to other districts.


Mr. H. J. PLAXTON (Trinity):: I wish to contribute a few thoughts to this very interesting and vital discussion. It seems to me that the problem of reviving the building industry must be attacked on two fronts: one, by the governments, federal, provincial and municipal, of this country, the other by private capital; its responsibility in this connection is just as serious and profound as the responsibility which is charged to the government under the resolution now before the house. It is true that it is the government's responsibility to assume the task of clearing slums in this country. There are many reasons available to support that state-
Housing Policy-Mr. Church

ment. For instance, one has only to review the experience of the house building industry in England to find support for my conclusion. At the moment there are perhaps two fairly obvious reasons to sustain what I have just said. In the first place, I do not think that any fair-minded person can ask private capital to engage in slum clearance. Speaking with intimate knowledge with respect to my own riding, I know that rents have fallen to such low levels in that particular urban centre that it is absolutely uneconomic and impossible for private capital to engage in the clearance of slums or near slums. Second, as has been mentioned by previous speakers, there is the grave question of jurisdiction, and it is a right peculiar to municipal governments and not to private capital to enforce the tearing down of obsolescent homes. That has been the experience in England, and I think we shall find that it will prove to be the experience in this country. To that extent I must support the resolution before this house.
But what is the duty of private capital? It seems to me that if private capital wishes to maintain as its exclusive field for investment that which it has had for many years, namely, the first mortgage lending and building industry field, it is the obligation of private capital in this country to provide long term cheap money to enable the building industry not only to fill the shortage of homes which has accumulated during the last seven years, due to the total stagnation of that business, but also to provide on a mass scale low cost homes for the wage earners of this country on a basis and terms which will permit of repayment. Private capital in the last seven years has dodged that responsibility. It has tried to maintain a system of first mortgage lending which is absolutely antiquated, and, if I may refer again to England for experience, should have gone out of practice about the time when hoop skirts disappeared. It is the job of private capital- if I may personify it-to provide the financing for mass production of low cost housing in this country. So, if people say to the governments of this country, wake up, and attack this problem of reviving the building industry, I say it with greater emphasis to private capital, because for the last seven years it has passed up the prime field for investment in this country, namely, real estate.


Thomas Langton Church: In
the few minutes that remain this afternoon I wish to say a few words on this motion, as in 1935 and 1936 I introduced this question. What the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dun-

ning) has said is nearly the same speech he made last year on a motion introduced by me in regard to housing, and the same speech he made the year before last when a committee was appointed to go into the whole question. But I say to the Minister of Finance, notwithstanding everything he said to-day, that in 1919 Doctor Hastings, medical health officer of Toronto, and I helped to persuade the government to lend $25,000,000 to the municipalities for construction of houses, and every dollar of that was paid back. The motion of mine discussed last year as recorded on page 221 of Hansard, stated:
That, in the opinion of this house, Canada should immediately adopt a comprehensive national housing, building, reconstruction, renovation, slum clearance, land settlement and reforestation policy adapted to its circumstances and also embracing as one of its main features a national policy for youth in relation to education and industry and employment, so as to get people off the dole and back to remunerative employment.
And further, that this house is also of the opinion, that in any such national reconstruction policy a lower rate structure for bank, mortgage and insurance loans is an immediate necessity. Such a reconstruction policy to also embrace protection for industrial workers in urban and suburban areas from forfeiture on the same principle as farmers and fishermen are now afforded by existing legislation.
Now, that debate went on all afternoon and evening at that time, and it is a strange thing that the government to-day has practically the very same reply to this resolution. The municipalities are the only bodies who ever pay money back. This parliament spent over two billions on railways, hardly a dollar of which has been paid back, and on other works such as breakwaters and harbours. Does the Quebec harbour commission pay money back? No. The only people who repay are the municipalities; yet they get no help. The Minister of Finance wants to do something to help housing and slum clearance, let him do something to lower bank and mortgage rates and insurance charges. These companies came here and appeared before the committees two years ago and they have no idea except to keep up the rates.
It is for the minister to offer a policy. Is or is not housing a matter of national policy? The answer is Yes, it is. It was found to be so in England, in the United States, and it is so in Canada, because an emergency exists, and was found to be so by the committee in 1935. But every time it is proposed to do something for the industrial workers in the cities and towns of this country, fifty-one per cent of the people never

Questions
can get any help at all. All the government of the day do is appoint a lot of useless commissions like this National Employment Commission, who do nothing and do it well. They just go around in a circle. The minister can find all this in the housing committee's report. Doctor Coats of the bureau of statistics showed that the municipal, provincial and dominion authorities were spending 1100,000,000 on relief, about $70,000,000 of which could be saved and given back in reconstruction work if it were spent on slum clearance and housing. The financial situation is bad, I admit, but this is a federal problem and upon the government of the day rests the responsibility of solving it. It is being solved in England and England is recovering faster than any country in the world because of balanced budgets, tariffs and a sane policy on housing and reconstruction.
I do not wish to prevent the mover of the resolution (Mr. Massey) from saying a word or two before six o'clock, but let me say that in the old days everyone owned some property in Canada, a mill, a store, a factory or land. We have been slow to see how the ownership of private property has been taken away by big business in Canada. The right to ownership or private property is derived from nature, not from man, and the state has no right to take it away, but only control it. But all this parliament does is to do nothing. The government have appointed three or four useless commissions. Another bill dealt with the other day'-I refer to Bill No. 11, respecting home owners-will1 lead to nothing but a glorious fiasco. I was in a bank the other day and saw a workman there who has a first mortgage and a second mortgage on his home, a chattel mortgage on his goods and a bill of sale and a mechanic's lien and the bailiff in possession for taxes. How can he get any relief out of this glorious fiasco proposed by the Minister of Finance of a loan from a bank when the man has nothing?
I was sorry to hear reference made to-day to what the city of Toronto -has done. It has been a pioneer in public health, in housing and in slum clearance from 1914. In 1914 it gave the first guarantee of bonds; the great Doctor Hastings led Canada in public health and the elimination of slums. I can tell the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) that Montreal is badly in need- of a clean-up on slums by a health officer like Doctor Hastings.
I may have something further to say on the third reading of Bill No. 11, because it looks to me as if this is not private members' day; the government might just as well abolish private members' day; all this session
the leaders have monopolized the time. I understand the mover of the motion wishes to reply, so I shall say no more now, but I am glad to see the large number of new members of this house climbing on the band^ wagon for housing and construction and slum reform, glad to see the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) also getting active, because two years ago I did not approve when the then government appropriated- $10,000,000 and spent $1,000,000. It was not the housing policy of my resolution on which the committee was formed.


Mr. WALSH:: May I say in reply to the
hon. member that the city of Montreal would have been heard- from to good effect this afternoon if it had not been for the peculiar action of the whips on either side of this house.


Thomas Langton Church: The working people of Toronto have very little to thank the hon. member for, however, in the way he spoke the other day about the textile matter. I did not prevent him from speaking, though.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 11, 1937