1948-05-19

Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think I should rise to a question of privilege to correct a press report of the figures which I gave in my budget speech last night with respect to our foreign exchange position. In the Canadian Press report which appears in this morning's newspapers it is stated:
The country's present foreign exchange reserves are $668,000,009 after drawings of $130,000,000 on the Export-Import bank loan from the United States-
And so on. The actual drawings on the Export-Import bank loan are only $80 million and not $130 million, and the net position is therefore $588 million. I do not blame the reporter. It is no doubt due to the way in which my budget speech was phrased. I gave the figures to the end of March as $607 million, of which $50 million represented drawings upon the Export-Import loan. The figures at the end of April were $668 million, taking account of $30 million drawn in April, or $80 million in all.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 314, for the relief of John Clayton Sturgeon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Alice Deborah Townsend Hawker.-Mr. Cro'11.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Rae Bellam Baron.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of David Ewing Jackson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Olive Turnidge Burns Turner.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Dorothy June Wilson Weedmark.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Kate Henny Wacker Prengel.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Jeanette Racine Garneau.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 322. for the relief of Gladys Gwendolyn Goode Buttress.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Gladys Victoria Lewis White.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Madge Reynard Lambton.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 325, for the relief of Cornelia Baren-drecht Nickel.-Mr. Maybank.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the first reading of Bill No. 326 (from the senate) respecting the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the first reading of Bill NO'. 327 (from the senate) to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McIvAY:
1.	What was the amount of the Royal Canadian Air Force benevolent fund on (1) September 30, 1945; (2) March 31, 1948?
2.	What are the yearly charges for the ad>-ministration of this fund?
3.	What have been the disbursements and receipts with regard to the benevolent fund for each year since its inception?
Mr. LAPOINTE:: The Royal Canadian Air Force benevolent fund was incorporated on the 1st April, 1944, under part II of the Dominion Companies Act. It is supported by contributions from service personnel and others interested, and is not administered by the Department of National Defence. However, the following information has been obtained from the corporation's annual reports:
1.	31st December, 1945, $1,875,565.31; 31st December, 1947, $3,194,368.03.
2.	1944, nil; 1945, $1,583.54; 1946, $18,252.68; 1947, $39,657.38.
3.	Disbursements: 1944, nil; 1945, $33,319.50; '1946, $112,076.53; 1947, $195,299.73.
Questions

Receipts: 1944-on incorporation $574,748.03, during year, $260,667.71; 1945, $1,122,116.94; 1946, $1,449,373.28; 1947, $276,401.19.


AFTON-ISAYFIELB-SUMMERSIDE RURAL MAIL SERVICE
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Did the Postmaster General or the Post Office Department receive a petition from eligible residents along the proposed1 rural mail route at Afton-Bayfield-Summerside in Anti-gonish county, Nova Scotia, objecting to the establishment of such route?
2.	If so, how many persons signed such petition?
3.	Do they represent fifty per cent or more of the eligible residents?
4.	Is a rural mail service being established? If so, when will it start operating?
5.	Who is the courier and what remuneration is he paid?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Petition has 76 signatures.
3.	Not known.
4.	It is proposed to establish rural mail delivery service when 50 per cent of eligible residents have purchased and erected boxes.
5.	Proposed contractor is John James Jones, at $1,100 per year.


FERRY STEAMER &quot;PRINCESS HELENE&quot;
Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: A few days ago another question was asked by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) concerning the steamer Princess Helene. I did not have the answers ready and therefore asked that the question be made an order for return. I find that the answer is ready and I therefore ask that I be permitted at this time to file the answer to that question.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Has the ferry steamer Princess Helene been taken off bay of Pundy service, Digby-Saint John, for a period from April 26 to May 18 this year?
2.	Is there a contract for conveying the western mail to and from Digby, Yarmouth and such points via this route?
3.	What provision has there been for conveying the mail when the Princess Helene is off duty during this period? Has it resulted in delays?
4.	What is the contract price per year for conveying such mail and for subsidy for operating the steamer?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Yes, for annual overhaul.
2.	Yes. Contract with Canadian Pacific Railway under order in council P.C. 1473 of 6th March, 1945.

3.	During suspension of ferry service mails usually conveyed by the steamer have been routed by railway. This results in delay in some instances.
4.	Contract price is 50 cents per mile. Actual payment made during fiscal year ending 31st March, 1948, was $13,500.
No subsidy is paid.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: 1.	What are the names and addresses, by provinces, of the holders of export permits for live poultry to the United States for the years, 1945, 1946, 1947 and to date in 1948?
2.	What quantities of live poultry were exported by each permit holder, by months, in the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and to date in 1948?


Mr. McILRAITH:: Return tabled.


DIMITRI DONTZOW
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	When was Dimitri Dontzow, now a resident of Montreal, admitted to Canada?
2.	What was he doing during the second world war and in what countries was he working and for whom?
3.	Is he now engaged in work for the government; if so, what?
4.	Has he taken any steps towards securing Canadian citizenship and, if so, what action has been taken thereon?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Return tabled.



RAILWAY COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual but I have a correction to make in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines which studied the Bell Telephone bill. The committee has reported to the house that it will not sit again, and therefore this is the only way I can make the correction.
On page 48 of the proceedings, speaking to Mr. Macaulay, I am reported as follows:
Mr. Pouliot:	Make it the best you can and
I would be satisfied with your answer, because you have a nice face.
I never said that. I paid a much higher tribute than that to the gentleman. I said "because you have an honest face," which is a great tribute to this man.

Inquiries of the Ministry



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has any consideration been given to allowing exemption from income tax for donations to memorial funds and arenas in the different towns and cities across the country?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of law. Under the Income Tax Act as it stands, donations for charitable purposes are exempt from income tax. The question as to what is or is not a charitable donation has been determined by a long line of cases and I think it is pretty well known. I understand that there have been some administrative directions that contributions to purely local undertakings which might qualify as charitable undertakings would not be allowed. That was discussed by officials of the department of my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, and myself, and it was decided that charitable donations include donations to undertakings which may be of a purely local character. Whether an individual memorial hall is eligible or not I am not going to say here; but I do say that donations of that kind can be, and in a good many cases would be, proper donations for charitable purposes and as such deductible for income tax purposes.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Fisheries):: The hon. member for Skeena
(Mr. Archibald) and other hon. members asked questions on Monday last about the prohibition of export of fish livers. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) also addressed a question to me.
As I indicated, the Department of Fisheries is not the department directly responsible for the orders in council in this matter. The Department of Trade and Commerce advised fisheries that the oils and fats administrator, following conversations and representations between officials of the Department of Fisheries and the wartime prices and trade board, had recommended that export permits be granted freely on vitamin oils. Strong representations had been made to the administrator for some
time by the west coast industry-both the co-operatives and the processors-favouring the removal of export permit control on oils. It was pointed out to Fisheries that this action would discriminate against fishermen unless export permits were granted also for unprocessed livers. If export permits were denied for raw livers, the fishermen would not gain entry to the high-priced United States market- as would the processors for the vitamin oils.
In considering this matter it should be noted that the United States rate of duty on vitamin oils is relatively low compared to duties on, say, canned salmon-halibut liver oil, 10 per cent; cod liver oil, free; soupfin shark and dogfish liver, 5 per cent plus one cent per pound. It appeared to us, therefore, that the processors should be able to meet United States competition for the unprocessed livers and to pay Canadian fishermen competitive prices for the raw livers. Accordingly, in the interests of the industry as a whole, this department recommended that if vitamin oils were to be exported freely, the raw material should be treated likewise. Therefore, the oils administrator agreeing, the Department of Trade and Commerce, through its representative at Vancouver, informed the industry "that export permits for fish liver may be freely granted until further notice."
Although permits have been issued freely, controls are still in effect on these products, and if this step recently taken is demonstrated to be having a detrimental effect upon the industry, the whole matter can be reconsidered.



NATIONAL HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, May 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 280, to amend the National Housing Act, 1944.
Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking the other day I tried to indicate that legislation which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is now sponsoring in the house is quite inadequate, taking into account the housing needs of the Canadian people, our material and human resources. I should like to support my views by referring to opinions which have come from quite a wide variety of individuals and organizations.
In the first place I should like to mention the Engineering and Contractor Record for February, 1948. This record contains a
National Housing Act

report of the thirtieth annual meeting of the Canadian construction association. The President, Mr. Albert Deschamps, O.B.E., in his presidential address attached a good deal of importance to housing as one of Canada's most important programs. I was interested to note that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has his picture in this issue. The Minister of Labour's picture appears four or five times. One of the most significant resolutions passed at the convention was the one dealing with low-rental housing. This group of men cannot be accused of being socialists, but they went on record as follows:
Low Rental Housing
Whereas inadequate housing has brought widespread conditions of substandard living, disease, family breakdown, moral and spiritual deterioration to a large segment of our Canadian people, creating Canada's most serious social problem, and,
Whereas the costs of labour and materials make it impossible to provide housing at rentals within the reach of low income families, and1, Whereas the critical need of housing for low income families has been acknowledged by dominion, provincial and municipal governments, and,
Whereas with the exception of aid to veterans through Wartime Housing Limited, the assistance necessary to meet the critical housing needs of Canadian low income families is being denied because of lack of co-ordination among the three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, and,
Whereas continued postponement of co-ordinated housing action by the three levels of government, in the face of their acknowledgment of the critical need, is weakening our Canadian democracy and providing fertile fields for the seeds of disunity and communism, and,
Whereas our people cannot afford any further delay in co-ordinated measures to provide low rental housing without ever-increasing danger to the Canadian way of life,
Therefore be it resolved that this association urge upon the federal, provincial and municipal governments the immediate necessity of a clear definition of their respective responsibilities and their immediate co-operation in providing housing for low income families through the establishment of a national long-term low rental housing program in keeping with the financial needs and abilities of the Canadian people and the availability of labour and materials.
And further, that this association recommend that, in such a program, full consideration be given to recognized principles of low rental housing such as the creation of local housing authorities-on a metropolitan basis in the larger centres-with due representation to competent agencies to determine family need; rent reduction funds; construction of multiple type dwelling units; slum clearance; community planning; rural housing and research on building materials and techniques.
And further, that this association emphasize to the dominion, provincial and municipal governments its considered belief that they cannot 
afford to permit any further postponement of co-ordinated measures to provide low rental housing for low income families without seriously endangering our Canadian way of life.
Several weeks ago I brought to the attention of the minister the desire expressed by the organization of mayors to have a conference at which representatives of government at these three levels might be brought together. The minister has stubbornly refused to take the initiative in convening representatives of the provinces and cities and towns to meet with the federal authorities and see if some solution of the problem cannot be worked out.
I might mention that in the Christian Science Monitor for May 17, which reached our desks yesterday, there is a leading story on the front page headed, "Taft housing bill aided by picture of overcrowded cities." The article goes on to say that housing conditions in one city are so acute that 70,000 families are living doubled up, with 30,000 married war veterans holed up in rooms, cabins, shacks, trailer camps or poaching on friends or inlaws. Then it says this was the picture presented to members of the house banking and currency committee, which is holding hearings on this housing bill, by George Edwards, president of the common council of the city of Detroit, who described conditions in his city but claimed he could have been talking about any one of thirty-two other cities where studies of bad housing conditions have been made. In his evidence Mr. Edwards said:
A free democratic economy should set its sights on raising income levels or reducing costs -or both-to the point where every family can afford to live in a decent house.
The witness went on:
Not necessarily a new house-just a house which meets minimum standards of health and decency. A house to live in-not a house to dream about.
I submit that the Minister of Trade and Commerce could now formulate in Canada a program which would make that objective a reality during his lifetime, not during the lifetime of his children or grandchildren-a decent house for every Canadian family.
I also have before me the report of the hearings before the committee on banking and currency of the United States senate on March 31 and April 1. I was interested in the brief presented by Right Reverend Monsignor John O'Grady, who is executive secretary of the national conference of Catholic churches. He was spokesman for quite a number of national organizations, such as the American association of social workers, the

National Housing Act
American association, of university women, the American council on education, the home economics association, the American veterans committee, the association of Jewish centre workers, the national conference of Catholic charities, the congress of parents and teachers, and so on. Right Reverend Monsignor O'Grady pointed out the general principles that these representative American organizations thought should be fundamental in carrying out a housing program. He said:
Implicit in any national housing objective is the goal of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family. As a corollary but . equally important goal is the development of a stable and health home building industry which can make its full contribution toward1 a prosperous economy of maximum and sustained production and employment.
There should be a national housing policy- established by the congress-which sets as a fundamental objective the realization, as soon as feasible, of the goal of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family, which calls for every feasible aid to enable private enterprise to meet more of the total housing need, and which clearly recognizes the necessity for federal assistance for the special problem areas of slum clearance and the provision of adequate low rent public housing for families with incomes so low that they cannot otherwise be decently housed in new or existing private housing.
In bringing down their specific program they called for housing research; for incentives and aids directly related to the construction process; for home ownership generally; for home ownership through non-profit co-operative housing; for central housing; for low rental housing; and they state again the obvious fact which has been recognized long before this in Canada:
The stark fact is that, despite years of congressional and other investigation, there still has been advanced no alternative program that will provide decent housing within the means of our lowest income families. There must be an unhesitating and unequivocal rejection of any housing program that will provide aid for all except those who need aid the most. Accordingly, there must be an extension of the present low rent housing program with such modifications as are necessary to adapt the program to current cost and related conditions.
Then they emphasize the need for slum clearance and urban re-development, for housing for veterans, and for farm and rural housing. If the minister will not act on the suggestions which have come from this section of the house, I would urge him to act on the suggestions coming from the annual meeting of the construction association of Canada and the opinions expressed in Washington before the senate banking and currency committee on behalf of so many representative organizations.
I had planned on making reference to two of the public housing developments I visited in the United States some time ago, those in New Haven and the East river district of New York city, but time will not permit me to say more than that the rents charged in these low-cost, subsidized housing projects were at a minimum rate of $15.50 per month up to a maximum rate of $19.50. The houses are all fireproof, well constructed, with frigidaires, electric lights and so on. Every unit gets sunlight at some time of the day. They are well ventilated, and playgrounds are available to the children. Compare the condition in New Haven and New York with the capital city of Canada, for example. The federal government has made available to the city of Ottawa a number of buildings. The leader of this group and a number of other interested citizens visited Wallis house, one of these housing units, and the story certainly is not one of which members of parliament or Canadians generally can be proud. The group included the leader of this party, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), Donald C. MacDonald, president of the Ottawa East C.C.F. club; Pat Conroy, Doris French and Allan O'Brien, members of the Ottawa East club, and J. E. McGuire, member of the Ottawa West club. They found conditions to be shocking.


Mr. HOWE:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has nothing whatever to do with the operation of Wallis house, and I suggest that any discussion of that matter is entirely out of order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I made it clear that these buildings are not being operated by the federal government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then what has the subject to do with this bill?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I mentioned that the federal government made the buildings available to the city of Ottawa. These buildings are used to house some of Canada's veterans and other Canadians who have come to Ottawa, and the federal government cannot say it has no responsibility for housing in this federal area.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do say so, and I press my point of order. My hon. friend is discussing a matter of housing in which the federal government has no participation whatever. It made the building available to the city. The building is a good building. How the city treated it has nothing to do with this bill.


Mr. MacINNIS:: We are dealing with a housing bill, and although it may not come under this particular measure, we have to have
*164
National Housing Act

some understanding of the housing situation generally if we are to know whether the bill is capable of meeting conditions. I suggest that is what my hon. friend has been doing.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that the bill before the house is an act to amend the National Housing Act, 1944.


Mr. PROBE:: We are speaking of the same bill.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If the minister was following me-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not mind my hon. friend entering into municipal politics, but I prefer that he do not do so on this bill.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: We are dealing with housing; the hon. member has been giving an example of housing conditions in the capital area, and I submit that he is within his rights in doing so. He is not dealing with municipal problems. This is a national problem, reflected in the Ottawa area by the conditions the hon. member has described, and I think what he has said supports his argument.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He could very well spend his time on some other phase of it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I was trying to point out that the federal government should be meeting representatives of the provinces and the municipalities to discuss these very problems. If the minister objects to my discussing these disgraceful conditions in the city of Ottawa, I will-


Mr. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: I object. On a point of order, I do not think it is necessary to single out any particular example-


An hon. MEMBER:: They are all over Canada.


Jean-Thomas Richard: -in the city of Ottawa or any other place. Wallis house is no worse than anywhere else, and I do not think it is bad at all. The hon. member should be called to order immediately. He should stick to the bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Tell us about the housing in your own home town.


John Oliver Probe: We want to try to remedy the present conditions.


James Horace King: May I call the attention of hon. members to the explanatory note in the bill. It states:
Section 3 of the National Housing Act has been rewritten to add to the powers of approved lending institutions the power to invest funds

in the purchase of mortgages from the corporation. The mortgages referred to are those which may result from sales to Wartime Housing units and from direct loans made by the corporation under section 31A of the act and which the corporation may sell under section 3B(3). The amendment in addition allows approved lending institutions to purchase an interest in such mortgages from the corporation.
That is the principle of the bill before the house, and I think hon. members should confine their remarks to that principle.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I shall be obliged to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, as my time is almost up. The leader of this group visited Wallis house and may a little later take the opportunity, before the debate is over, to reply to the hon. member for Ottawa East, who apparently is of the opinion that housing conditions in Wallis house are quite good enough for the Canadian people.


Jean-Thomas Richard: On a point of order, I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that Wallis house has nothing to do with this bill, and that the hon. member should show us an example in his own riding.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Before my time expires, I should like to move an amendment. I would call Your Honour's attention to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. McKay), at which time Your Honour mentioned that in form it was a declaration of principle, which can be moved on second reading of a bill but not on a motion to leave the Chair.
I now move in amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Bill No. 289 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to providing subsidized low-rental housing.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended speaking on this bill, but it does deal with housing generally for the people of Canada. In my opinion the bill is entirely inadequate. It does not do what the Canadian people want. It will not build any low-cost houses. What it actually does is to guarantee insurance companies and other financial institutions against certain losses that they may incur in connection with the loans they make. I suggest, sir, that that will not provide the Canadian people with housing.
We have heard a great deal about the necessity for low-cost housing. That necessity exists in acute form in every part of Canada. I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) when he says that

National Housing Act
perhaps one should not single out any particular area for condemnation on account of bad housing conditions. They exist from one end of the country to the other.


Jean-Thomas Richard: On a point of order, I never said there were bad housing conditions in Ottawa.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member says he did not say there were bad housing conditions in Ottawa. I want to tell my hon. friend, since he challenges my statement, that-


Jean-Thomas Richard: I did not challenge anybody's statement.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend says there are no bad housing conditions in Ottawa. I have seen housing conditions in this city that are a disgrace to Canada. I did see Wallis house in the winter. I do not know what has been done about it in the meantime, but I saw that overcrowded condition. The condition of garbage pails lying all around that building, where I saw children playing on a Saturday afternoon, was a scandal to this country, to this government, and to the municipal authorities of Ottawa. Any hon. member, whether he be a municipal officer or a member of the House of Commons, who rises in his place to defend that kind of thing is not a fit representative either of a municipality or of the country as a whole.


Jean-Thomas Richard: On a point of order, I am not going to allow any hon. member to put words into my mouth. I did not say it was good or bad housing, and the hon. member cannot put those words into my mouth.


James Horace King: Order. I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that they should speak only once on second reading of a bill. It is not proper for hon. members to speak back and forth across the floor, or for one hon. member to interrupt another who has the floor.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I was rising on a point of order.


Mr. IRVINE:: What is the point of order?


Jean-Thomas Richard: The hon. member said that any person who said such a thing was not fit to be a member. I want to know if that implies I am not fit to be a member.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member can put his own interpretation upon my words.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


James Horace King: Order.


Jean-Thomas Richard: You made your own coat.


Major James William Coldwell: I have said nothing I need to withdraw. I said that any hon. member-and I repeat it-who defends the kind of housing conditions which can be found from one end of this country to the other is not a fit representative of a municipality, a province or the dominion.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I defend it.


Major James William Coldwell: In discussing this bill hon. members have a perfect right to expose the deplorable housing conditions which exist in this country.


John Oliver Probe: Certainly; why cover it up?


Major James William Coldwell: We have to face the fact that thousands of people from one end of the country to the other are living under conditions which are unfit for decent Canadian citizens, people who with their families are in overcrowded areas where the children cannot be brought up in a proper manner. Anyone who will read the statements made by the judge of the juvenile court of this city of Ottawa will see that he has said on more than one occasion that delinquency is caused by these bad housing conditions; and he has mentioned some of the projects we have discussed here this afternoon. So that when my hon. friend is criticized for referring to a condition which is right under our noses, I say it is time we took notice of what is going on around us.
I will say this, that I do not think these conditions are peculiar to the city of Ottawa. They can be found in Toronto; they can be found even in my home city of Regina. They can be found in Vancouver. As I said once before in the house, I have seen slum conditions in Halifax that are as bad as or worse than any I saw in London thirty or forty years ago. We have to face these facts. It is all very well to talk about a housing bill, but it is only going to build houses for well-to-do people. What group of people in this country can afford to pay $75 a month for a housing unit?


Clarence Decatur Howe: How much do you pay yourself?


Major James William Coldwell: I am in the happy position of having an income which enables me to pay a rental of around $100 a month.


Clarence Decatur Howe: People like you and me have to live too.


Major James William Coldwell: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have to have houses too.


Major James William Coldwell: I know we have houses, but I say to the minister that if you have
National Housing Act

sufficient income you can get a house. According to the last census, eighty-two per cent of the people in this country had incomes of less than $2,000 a year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You mean the 1941 census?


Major James William Coldwell: Of course it is higher now, but even that will not help so much. The social service workers give 20 per cent as the appropriate portion of income that should be paid for housing. I do not know what the average income of this group is today, but I suspect it is not much higher. But suppose we put it at $2,400 or $2,500; twenty per cent would be $500, or just over $40 a month.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Fifty per cent of rental housing in this country rents at $40 or less.


Major James William Coldwell: But look at the housing. How many houses renting at $40 or less have the proper sanitary conveniences?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Most of them.


Major James William Coldwell: No, they have not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know of over 30,000 we built ourselves that qualify.


Major James William Coldwell: You can go through this country from one end to the other and find that even in the larger centres sanitary arrangements are absent in the lower rental houses. For example, in the city in which I have lived for a large part of my life I know that there are extensive sections where the houses have no sanitary conveniences. When you go into the smaller towns and villages throughout the country you find that these are entirely absent.
When we are discussing housing we should discuss not only the good houses we are going to build, but also the poor houses we should eliminate. They should be considered along with the plans we have for better class housing.
I intend to vote for the amendment moved by my hon. friend, particularly since you, Mr. Speaker, have indicated that it could be moved on second reading. My hon. friend has taken you at your word.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard the minister's speech and we have read the minister's bill, but I feel we must pronounce the speech and the bill, particularly the bill, wholly inadequate. A sure-fire weapon against communism is an adequate housing program. A really adequate housing act is the best general-purpose tool for the building of a nation's human resources, as to numbers, as to health and as to morale. The national housekeeping of any country should have as its aim the purpose which a bird has when it sets up its nest. The bird

intends to fill her nest with fledglings, and our national housekeeping should aim at filling the Canadian nest with fledglings.
One thing has struck me about our discussions in the house on housing. In a general way they seem so detached, so doctrinaire, and so leisurely. It is time that Canada stopped theorizing and day-dreaming and vaporizing and went to work to get results which are commensurate with Canadian needs. When wTar broke out we did not have a lot of vaporizing and doctrinaire discussion in the house. The ministers went to work to get results. They got results. They did not come back to the house every once in a while to tell us why they could not get results. The minister himself was one of the first in the nation to get results. We cleared the way so he could get results. He got results during the war. He did not come back here and tell us why he could not do so.
I will grant that there are many difficulties in the way. I am not blaming the minister overmuch under the circumstances, but I think the time has come for a showdown, not only on the part of the government but on the part of hon. members of the house as a whole. We are simply not getting results, and the nation is deteriorating. All the evidence that we can adduce proves that there are far too few houses now in Canada, and yet we are bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants. It has been showm in this debate that we are not building enough houses in the country to supply the needs of the newly formed families; what will the situation be in a few years after so many immigrants will have been brought into the country? We simply have not the time to do what we call in the west fooling around. The situation is serious.
I have been impressed by some of the things that have come over an interesting radio program called, "What is your beef?" Some weeks ago a woman in Toronto complained that she, her husband and three children were living in an attic to which they had to carry their water. Not very long ago a man in Montreal reported that he had read all the advertisements for houses and found that every single one of them said that no children were wanted.
I do not desire to reflect on Ottawa, but this illustration is right under our noses. A man named Rudy Lacasse, w'ho had lost both legs in Holland as a result of a mine accident, reported on March 18, 1948, that he was living in a little upstairs room with an outside stairs in Rockcliffe. Both he and his wife want to adopt a child, but the agencies responsible for letting out children refuse to grant a child

when there is only one room in which to cook, eat and sleep. The other day in Ottawa a young woman with a beautiful child five years of age was asked by a friend if she did not wish she had another baby. She said, "There is certainly no use thinking about another baby with the housing situation as it is in Ottawa." This condition is affecting our birth rate. I do not wish to become a crank about this matter, but it should be recognized that this nation is in a contest for survival, and its survival may well depend upon the number of children that are born and raised within the next twenty years. We cannot afford to permit any condition which tends to decrease our birth rate.
As has been brought out by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the conditions under which many of our people are living are such as to destroy their emotional and moral health. Emotional and moral health are two things we simply cannot afford to sacrifice. Far too many of the toilers and the taxpayers of tomorrow-I hope this can be understood by the government-apparently they understand only things that work out to dollars and cents-far too many of the toilers and the taxpayers of tomorrow, and far too many of the fighters of the future cannot now find where to shelter their infant heads throughout Canada; nor have the children wholesome places where they can play while growing up.
The housing shortage is even deterring people from marrying.
What can be done about it? I have very little use for the person who complains of a condition without offering some constructive proposal. I submit what seems to me to be a proposal worthy of consideration at this time. In the first place the minister simply must use subsidies. Next he must stay on the job until the housing battle in Canada is won.


Mr. BENTLEY:: We do not want him that long, do we?


John Horne Blackmore: I think he is as good a man as we can find anywhere. But someone is standing in his way. I understand that one prominent member of the administration has said that he would not continue to be a member of it if subsidies were used for housing. I suggest to the cabinet that unless they can change that man's mind the sooner they get rid of him the better. If we have to decide between a certain minister in the cabinet and decent housing in Canada, it should not take very long to decide between them.
The minister longs for private enterprise to fill the gap. May I point out that the govern-
National Housing Act
ment through its policy for the last twenty years-not only this government but every government in the dominion-has utterly destroyed any hope of success for private enterprise. After all, any social agency must have conditions in which to work which will not render its success impossible. The present financial arrangements do render it utterly impossible for private enterprise to succeed in providing housing.
The government insists on using only debt finance to run the business of this country, federal, provincial and municipal; consequently every bit of money has to be raised by taxation. The provincial sources of revenue are altogether too meagre for the heavy responsibilities the provinces have to bear, and the municipalities are placed in the worst position of all because their only source of revenue is taxation upon real estate. What does this mean? It means that the better the house a company or private individual builds, the more taxation he has to pay in the community, and if the taxes continue heavy when he is unable to derive a revenue sufficient to meet them, he loses ownership of the property. This has happened throughout Canada.
I am reliably informed that in the nineteen thirties fifty per cent of the properties in Edmonton became city property against the will of the city of Edmonton itself, simply because the people who owned them were unable to pay the taxes. Who with the money to invest would put his money into houses and run the risk of having that condition duplicated against him in the next ten years? It is a matter of plain common sense. How can you expect men with Aioney to put their money into houses after you have treated them in that way?
There was some hope when the war broke out that private enterprise in housing, having suffered terrible losses during the depression, might be able to recoup its losses. But what happened? In came wartime controls, rental controls, and control of every other aspect of housing, thus preventing those who had sustained losses in the depression from recouping. The residt is that they are out even in wartime. I am not saying that controls were not necessary in the interests of our citizenry; I merely point out what occurred In addition, if a man happened to make any money he was a victim of the income tax collector. Moreover we have exceedingly high building costs and a wide variety of restrictions on builders, restrictions for sanitary reasons, for fire protection, for the
National Housing Act

quality of houses in a given area, and so forth. How can a government consisting of intelligent people, how can the minister who claims to be practically intelligent, expect private enterprise to step into a certain loss by building houses under those conditions? The minister might just as well count private enterprise out, until he builds up a situation in which private enterprise has a chance to succeed. The government's policies have warned or driven off private investors from housing, and private enterprise will not be easily reassured.
What shall we do in this emergency? I say that we might as well count private enterprise out, not because of any weakness in private enterprise but because of weakness in the government's way of managing this nation.
First as an emergency measure we must resort to public enterprise, using subsidies freely until the people are provided with suitable houses and until venture capital in this country can regain confidence. We may have to have community-owned and operated homes, large apartment houses such as they have in Stockholm, Sweden; because housing has now become in effect a public utility. A public utility is something which the public must have; if private enterprise cannot supply it, public enterprise must.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are you advocating socialism?


John Horne Blackmore: No. I point out to my friends of the C.C.F. that the conditions which they have supported have rendered it impossible for private enterprise to succeed, and now they are foolish enough to blame private enterprise instead of the system which prevents it from working. If the C.C.F. would only take time to think this thing through they would stop blaming private enterprise and put the blame where it ought to be-on the financial system.
Second, we must endeavour to encourage the pioneering spirit and individual resourcefulness among Canadians until we have revived private enterprise. This principle should be laid down that every man in Canada should own his own home or should have the opportunity of being able to own his own home. If he has not that opportunity, then it is the business of the governments of Canada to change their system and see that he has. In the old days our fathers used to hold housing bees to build houses for the newly married couples. They realized that there was a certain amount of community responsibility for setting up young people. Why should we not have community effort today to help young people get started?

Third, we must change our system of public financing to remove the intolerable burdens from the backs of would-be private providers of housing. I have indicated what these intolerable burdens are, and I shall not go into them in detail now. But they must be removed.
I would like to see the minister introduce a new housing act, because this one is so tragically inadequate, to meet the situation. This act provides for the building of houses for only those who do not need houses provided for them, and neglects seventy-five per cent of our population who simply are unable to get the houses the government are undertaking to build. I propose therefore that a new housing act be introduced, and I suggest to the minister that he take that suggestion into serious consideration. I would call this new measure "An Act for Enabling the Rehabilitation of Canadian Housing". I would like to see in it provisions for, first, honeymoon houses; second, cradle-roll houses; third, senior citizens' housing, and fourth, housing for the financially underprivileged throughout the land, who number hundreds of thousands.
Unless definite provisions are made to remove the difficulties which surround these four groups I have indicated, then it is hardly worth the time of the house to discuss the housing act.
What should be the methods of financing on the part of the government? There are several different methods, but I would suggest these. The government might lend to needy people who are willing to build houses or to buy, and it should subsidize so as to enable them to buy and have houses at reasonable rates; the dominion should provide money through the Bank of Canada, lending through one or other of the chartered banks, one of the banks being selected for each given area.
I would suggest that the money so provided be interest free, that the principal be amortized at the rate of five per cent per year over a twenty-year period, and that a service charge be made for covering the loan, which would amount to two per cent per annum..
Of this service charge I would suggest that the dominion pay V/n per cent and the province pay % per cent. The provinces would be willing to do that, I should hope. It may be argued that such a thing has never been heard of in the history of the nation. Well, even if it had never been heard of, is there any reason why we should not adopt it? Radar had not been heard of until the last war, but it was adopted and was used with magnificent success. Why should we be so much afraid of trying to do something that has never been done before? We are faced with a set of circumstances never known before. Why not adopt some measure that has not been used previously?

National Housing Act
I understand, however, that a bill somewhat similar to what I suggest, the Municipal Assistance Act, was passed in the thirties, providing money for self-liquidating projects. The rate was two per cent; I am told that not a dollar was lost in the province of Alberta as a result of the loans made under that act. I do not see any reason why a house should not be a self-liquidating project, if it is managed right.
I suggest that the act should provide for an organization similar to this: let the dominion call together representatives of the provinces and establish a dominion-wide agency which shall be responsible both to the dominion and to the provinces. Then let the provinces in a general way be given supervision over and apportionment of the money which would be advanced by the dominion government in response to the request of the municipalities for housing. Then let the municipalities plan for and supervise the building of the houses and of the repayment of the loans.
These are merely general statements but I believe they lay down a sound policy. Only the other day when the Prime Minister brought forward his health scheme he made a great departure from the past. He said in effect: we will grant money to the provinces with which to rehabilitate the health of their people; they can take the money and invest it or spend it, whichever way they see fit, only let it be remembered that they are to spend it for the health of the people. Why should not the same principle be applied in connection with housing? Surely housing is an important element in the health of the people!
I suggest that the following general guiding principles be laid down in the act:	These
are emergency principles not necessarily to be applied in future years after we have got out of the particular difficulty in which we now find ourselves.
First I would lay down the principle that all materials should be bought from the factory and distributed at cost. Next, all possible facilities should be used unreservedly. Aluminum for example should be exploited to the full as a building material. All technological skills recently discovered should be employed and applied just as we employed and applied them in conducting the war. We should use prefabrication to the fullest possible extent necessary in order to cope with the situation facing us. We should allow the underprivileged to build a step at a time.
I am sure all hon. members have seen young folks start out with a little lean-to; after they paid for it they built another little lean-to; after a while they built another lean-to
behind it, and in due time they had managed to build a house. In this way they were able to save rent and apply the rent to the building of a house, and they had the joy of building their own home.
This principle is sound. I do not think it is a good thing to have people get houses put right in their hands. One of the greatest joys I have had in my life was in building a house with my own hands, notwithstanding the fact that I did not know how it was done. There was fun in learning how to do it. There are thousands of our young folk who would be happy to build on that basis.
The objection will be raised immediately: Well, the cities have building rules, and they will not allow houses of less than a certain value to be built in certain areas. Very well. If the people in the cities are determined to put quality of housing before the needs of the people, they must make up their minds in that regard. In the meantime, however, if the cities insist on houses up to certain standards, why should not the cities, since they are concerned, prepare plans with the people who are to build, allowing them to use their own initiative under the supervision of the very best trained architects that can be found, and with their guidance? Let the couple start to build a house, beginning with the basement or part of the basement, having a definite plan, so that by the time they finish the building, over a fifteen or twenty year period, their home will be up to the standard required in the area in which they are building.
If the people in these select areas are so "choosy", if we may use that expression, that they cannot bear to see young people grow up in those areas, then it is terribly bad. But I do not believe there are many people in Canada who are so far removed from the facts of reality that they would persist in an attitude which would prevent young people from starting to build their own house.
The next principle should be the centering of responsibility for any hold-ups that may occur. Then there should be merciless publicity. Speaking from my superficial investigation of the problems that confront the minister, I can assure him that I know something about them, and I know they are mean, ugly problems. They range all the way from deliberate failure on the part of certain provincial governments to co-operate, people who should have better sense, right down to disinclination to co-operate on the part of little townships outside a city, and a great many other things-threats on the part of certain unions to refuse to work, and so on.
National Housing Act

These bottlenecks should be discovered and exposed mercilessly. There should be broadcasts telling the people of Canada exactly who, in the province of Manitoba or Ontario, or in any other given province, is holding the building program up, and why. I think that sort of publicity would soon produce a co-operative attitude which now is far from existing. There is too great an indisposition to co-operate throughout Canada.
* People have failed to realize that housing is a Canadian problem, a problem that affects every individual of every province. It affects the provinces as well as the dominion government, and no agency in Canada can be expected to solve it if all the people of Canada do not get behind that agency and give the assistance needed.
Certain objections will be raised to the plan I offer. I fancy I shall hear someone say that it will cause inflation if we render available millions of dollars to the people to build their own houses. Well, did not the minister the other day call for the entry of private enterprise into the housing picture? If the dominion government, let us say, were to lend $500 to a young couple with which to build a house, how could there be any more inflation in that procedure than there would be if a private company spent the $500 in building the house? The money would go out into circulation just as thoroughly in one case as in the other. Therefore, if it were sound for private enterprise to build houses so far as inflation is concerned, it would be sound for the federal government to provide the money for the houses for the people.
My proposal may be said to impair the position of those who have invested in housing.
I can imagine a good many people who have spent large sums of money saying: Well, if the government does that it will ruin our investment. I do not believe that. The people who would be aided by the building proposals which I have made, would be people who will not be able to buy or rent without the help I propose. How it could possibly affect those who had money invested in housing I fail to see when less fortunate people are now unable to rent their houses.
It will be argued that this kind of proposal will prejudice the position of labour. I like to see labour protected; I like to see their interests safeguarded, but these little low rental houses and these cheap houses for ownership by the people are not now being built anyway. The government, in helping the people to build their own houses, would certainly not be depriving labour of any of the work which they would now be able to get. The government would be simply pro-

viding for building the houses that labour is unable to build at the present time. I fail therefore to see how my proposals would prejudice the position of labour.
It will be argued that my proposals would seriously affect the wholesalers and retailers. I have suggested that the government, in co-operation with the provincial and municipal governments, buy directly from the producers the materials which are to be used, the cement and other things, for the building, and distribute them wholesale. Why it would be argued that the wholesalers would be hurt thereby I fail to see, because the people for whom we would be providing for building the houses are people who would not be able to buy the materials from the wholesalers and retailers anyway. It is the underprivileged people about whom we are concerned.
I would say this in a general way: The Canadian people everywhere must realize that the housing problem must be solved-and, ''must" is the word. It is simply idle prattle to be everlastingly talking against communism and allowing the continuance of a housing condition, which is breeding communism every day. Why not be realistic about this thing? People must come to realize that a solution can be found only through the co-operation of all those concerned, which includes all governments, dominion, provincial, and municipal.
Finally, the people must learn that they must supplement the efforts of governments by community and co-operative action such as was common among our fathers in days long ago. The service clubs and the various community clubs can do a great deal to help remedy this situation if they see fit so to do.
A statement appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of May 17 which I think it would be fitting to read into Hansard at this time.It is called: "The $35 a month home" and has a subheading as follows: "Only by subsidies can it be built, say Canadian builders." The article was written by J. L. E. Price, M.E.I.C., chairman of the low-cost housing committee of the Canadian construction association. It reads as follows:
The provision of new living accommodation within the means of families in the lower income brackets is still as much as ever the most involved of all of our post-war reconstruction problems.
It is a problem, says Mr. J. L. E. Price, M.E.IjC., chairman of the low-cost housing committee of the Canadian construction association, that grows more pressing and more difficult day by day as time goes on-more pressing because the demand for low-cost shelter is constantly increasing in step with the growth of population, and more difficult because of constantly increasing labour and material costs.

National Housing Act
Generally speaking it is conceded that not less than 75 per cent of the present back-log of demand for housing emanates from families in the lower income brackets, that is to say from families financially incapable of paying more than $35 per month at the very most for the homes they occupy-and many of them far less than that-without depriving themselves of many of the normal necessities of life. From this it naturally follows that-theoretically at any rate-three out of every four of the new living units now being built should properly not cost the occupant more than $35 per month to rent or carry.
Actually, since V-,T day, only about ten per cent of all the new living units made available could be rented or carried for $35 per month or less, the great majority of these being wartime houses built for veterans.
Over-all progress in the production of new living units since the war ended has been just about all that could reasonably be expected, with labour and materials conditions as they have been. All things considered, we have done well in this respect and this fact demonstrates that our trouble lies not in lack of capacity to produce but rather in the nature of what is being produced. The real source of our trouble is that we have been, and still are, utilizing about 90 per cent of all of our house-building resources to build new living accommodation which is beyond the financial means of 75 per cent of the people who are in need of it.
It is as obvious as anything ever could be that unless definite action is taken to reduce this unbalanced situation in the housing field, wages are bound to go on rising. There can be no dodging this issue. We either have to devise ways and means of making living accommodation available to people in the lower income brackets at rates which they can afford to pay, or reconcile ourselves to the inevitable necessity to go on increasing the wages of these lower income groups. Whether we like it or not, we are going to be compelled to follow one or the other of these alternative courses.
The only conceivable means of bringing new living accommodation within the means of low income groups lies in subsidization and common sense dictates that no plan of subsidization will ever be successful unless it is based on co-operative action on the part of the dominion, provincial or municipal governments along predetermined lines, making possible the development of a practical formula which could be quickly applied in solving the problem of providing living accommodation within the means of low income families in all parts of the dominion.


Mr. MacNICOL:: May I ask the hon. member a question? I did not hear him very clearly. It hat did he say was the monthly rent?


John Horne Blackmore: The monthly rent was S35.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is too high for the ordinary low-bracket wage earner.


John Horne Blackmore: According to Mr.Price, seventy-five per cent of those who require houses are unable to pay more than S35 a month.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is right.


John Horne Blackmore: That is my point. Even the twenty per cent which has been referred to as the normal reasonable percentage of a person's income which ought to be spent on housing is an outrageous figure. I do not think that a person getting SI,500 a year can -pay twenty per cent on housing and still get the necessities of life.
We have a good example of successful housing in Stockholm. Sweden. The city builds its people houses. There is an article in the Christian Science Monitor which tells how Stockholm has provided thousands of low-rental apartments with state aid and finance for 500.000 of Sweden's 6.000,000 'people. First there is a community building corporation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does it give the rental
rate?


John Horne Blackmore: I will come to that. There are also several co-operative building associations and several community building associations. The corporation finances five per cent of each apartment house for rental.
There is a rental rebate for children under sixteen. For example, for every child under sixteen there is a rebate of ten per cent of the rent. The initial rate of rent is $360 for a three-room flat with kitchen and bath. According to this arrangement a family with three children would be paying only $250 a-year rent for the kind of accommodation I have indicated, while a family with five children would pay only $180 a year. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is a proposal which sounds something like common sense. If a nation like Sweden, with limited resources at its disposal, is able to find such a way of solving its housing problem, what can be said of its failure to do so of a nation like Canada with the vast resources which we have at our disposal?


Mr. MacINXIS:: They have a socialist government in Sweden.


John Horne Blackmore: It is all right to talk about socialism. We can use the methods adopted there without going socialist.


Donald MacInnis: But they will not.


John Horne Blackmore: The point is we can. t here is not a thing in this Swedish proposal that could not apply to the city of Ottawa, not one single thing, without going socialist. It is just plain common sense. It has been done for hundreds of years.


Mr. KNOWLES:: That is socialism.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, some aspects of socialism make common sense, but others certainly do not.
National Housing Act

The question will be raised immediately, "Have we the labour available?" Last evening the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said we were short of labour, that we had used up our resources. I say that simply is not the case. We are not using the labour supply we have at our disposal. Just to show, for instance, the situation that obtains in the city of Ottawa, I have in my hand a letter dated May 19, 1948, prepared and sent to me by Mr. Redverse F. Pratt, manager of the national employment service here. In this letter he says:
I may say I am not able to give you the figures for May, but I am giving you the figures as of July 31, 1947: the 45 to 64 age group, 517; and the total live file, 1,894.
That is the number of people in the city of Ottawa who were seeking work on that date.
The April 29, 1948. figures: age 45 to 64, 575; total live file as of this date, 2,113.
I do not see why many of those people who were unemployed as of those dates could not have been employed in putting together prefabricated houses, for example, or in driving nails and sawing boards, if they were under the supervision of someone who knew his business and who was working on a scientifically prepared plan.
Then the question may be asked, have we the materials in Canada? My inquiries have [DOT]satisfied me that we have reached the point where we have plenty of materials if we choose to use them. We might not have all the iron or steel pipe we would like, but vast numbers of the people of Canada, in fact by far the greater percentage of them, have grown up without ever having had steel or iron pipe in their homes. There never was a bit of steel or iron pipe in my home from the time I was bom until I left, and there has been none since; but my father and mother raised thirteen or fourteen children, and the boys were able to go to war when the time came; they have been able to make a living.
Therefore I see no reason why we could not be building without steel pipe in many parts of Canada. Why should we give up house building simply because for the time being we are short of steel pipe?
If we would be realists in this matter we would not allow problems of this kind to hold us up. Let us permit the people to build the houses they can build with the material we have available. Let us make available to them loans with which they can build, at rates which will permit them to pay off their loans in the course of a few years. Let us provide them with means such that, with good, hard, earnest work and thrifty living, they may come to own their own homes.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). I think it is conceded on all sides that the core of the housing problem in Canada at the present time, as it has been for a long time, is low-rental housing. I believe it is also conceded that we are doing very little to remedy that situation. There is an assumption, which I believe is apparent in the bill now before us, that if we build homes for people in the middle or upper income brackets the benefits will seep down to those in the lower income groups. I believe that assumption is a myth, that it just will not happen; because long before there is sufficient seeping, that section of the community that can pay for homes, either in purchase price or in rent, will have been saturated, so we just cannot remedy the situation in that way.
In a report made in January of this year the Vancouver housing association pointed out that at the end of 1946 there were 4,400 active applications for wartime housing on file with the emergency shelter administration in that city, while today that number has increased to 6,600. That is not solving our housing problem.
Almost all organizations and associations interested in social welfare and community work and, as has been pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Mackenzie, even the Canadian construction association has gone on record saying that the only thing which will meet the present situation is low-rental housing. In the report of the Vancouver housing association which I mentioned a moment ago, it says that in recent months the following organizations, among others, have come out in support of subsidized low-rental housing:	the Canadian
federation of mayors and municipalities; Canadian construction association; Canadian Legion; national council of women; Canadian welfare council, and the community planning association of Canada. These are important organizations in our' country, and I believe they have some understanding of the country's housing needs.
In my opinion Canada's housing policy is becoming more and more a policy of guaranteeing the interest on the investments of those who have money to invest, and less and less a policy of building houses for people who need homes. Let me quote the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I have in my hand a copy of Public Affairs for October, 1947, a Canadian quarterly published by the institute of public affairs

National Housing Act
of Dalhousie university. The first article is by Right Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. It gives a fairly comprehensive review of the housing situation as at that time, and the situation has not changed much, if at all, since. He deals with the housing problem under various headings, and I should like to quote briefly from two paragraphs to show that the minister himself understands quite clearly what the nature of the problem is and, I think, how it must be met. Referring to low rental housing, he said:
It is contended that the municipalities and provinces are not in a financial position to assume this additional load on the scale that is required so the dominion will have to do so. It is also contended that the dominion will have to assume a larger share of the cost of slum clearance.
I do not think there is any doubt whatever that the cities and municipalities cannot carry the load. I do not say they have no responsibility; I agree that they have, and that tliere are certain things that the cities and municipalities could do. Similarly most of the provinces are not able to carry the financial load that would be involved. Then the minister continued:
The dominion takes no dogmatic stand on these matters. In its proposals to the dominion-provincial conference in August, 1945, it invited the provinces to consider the various aspects of low rental housing and slum clearance. In the absence of agreement on dominion-provincial relations at that time, the provisions made in the National Housing Act respecting low rental housing, subsidization of such housing, and slum clearance have been allowed to stand unchanged.
The question of the responsibility for the failure to come to agreement on financial arrangements at the time referred to, in 1945, has been discussed in the house on many occasions. I shall not go into that phase of the matter now; but I would point out that seven of the provinces reached an understanding and signed a financial agreement with the dominion. If the two remaining provinces refused to enter into an agreement, in my opinion that is no reason why the government should not indicate its willingness to enter into an agreement with the seven provinces in the matter of housing and also in respect of many other matters. However, at the moment I am confining my remarks to housing.
Then, almost at the conclusion of the article the minister proves conclusively what I said at the beginning of my observations, when he states:
Housing will be a problem for quite a few years, even if actions looking toward its solution develop favourably.
And actions are not developing favourably.
He states:
Accommodation has been and is being provided; but the hard core of the problem-low-rent housing-has barely been touched. Until a steady flow of low-rent units is started, no Canadian can feel satisfied with what is being accomplished.
The minister was speaking as Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Stating his opinion in clear terms, he said-and let me repeat it:
Accommodation has been and is being provided; but the hard core of the problem-low-rent housing-has been barely touched. Until a steady flow of low-rent units is started, no Canadian can feel satisfied with what is being accomplished.
It is because the amendments before us do not provide for that steady stream of low-rent housing we are proposing that the bill be not now read a second time, but that a bill be brought before us which will provide for low-rentar housing.


Mr. H. W. TIMMINS (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on second reading of the bill, but I should like now to speak briefly with respect to the amendment now before us.
The bill provides actually for only two things: first of all, rent insurance, which is a new feature and a new expedient in respect of housing procedure in Canada. There is no use in labouring the matter of rent insurance. Those of us on this side of the house do not think it will succeed, nor do we think it goes far enough along the way of providing for immediate housing-because immediate housing is the answer to the problem with which we are now dealing.
The second matter covered by the bill is that of some amendments to the limited-dividend housing part of the bill. The minister himself says that it has not been successful. It has not provided the kind of low-rental housing that had been expected. In other words, so far as I know-and the minister will correct me if 1 am wrong-there have not been any municipalities that have really taken hold of that section of the act or that have implemented a plan which has been proceeded with for the purpose of providing low-rental housing.
The amendment offered by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) states that in the opinion of the house the government should give consideration to providing subsidized low-rental housing. We can go along

National Housing Act
part of the way down the garden path with the spirit of the amendment, but we cannot support it.
I have an amendment to the amendment which I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart). I move:
That all the words of the amendment after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
'That the government should forthwith enlist the active co-operation of the provincial and municipal governments for the setting up in municipalities which have need of them of local housing authorities to provide low-rent housing for veterans who cannot afford present economic rentals, and for the purpose of clearing slums and re-housing families living in slum accommodation."
The fact of the matter is that almost all governments of Canada are seized with the necessity for immediate housing and for co-operation in respect thereto. In Ontario at the present time an election campaign is in progress, and I have been pleased to see that Mr. Robinette, one of the leaders, a gentleman who might easily have been leader of the Liberal party in Ontario, has taken time out to speak respecting the subject of housing. This is what he had to say:
Mr. Farquhar Oliver would soon announce a new Liberal housing plan for Ontario if elected. It will call for the provincial government to assume the municipal taxes on new houses for a period of four years, if they are built by individuals on their own property.
This is an innocuous sort of platform for a party to have. However, I am not criticizing it. I am simply saying the thought is there in the mind of a Liberal leader in the Ontario election. He says the Liberal party has some ideas in connection with providing housing.
Then, we have the bill brought down by the Premier of Ontario, one of the sections of which reads something like this:
We shall participate with municipalities that wish to take advantage of the federal low-rental housing plan. Under these proposals the federal government offers to build houses for rent on land supplied and serviced by the municipality. The cost of the land and services to the municipality is not to exceed J600 per house. The municipality also receives a payment in lieu of taxes wliieh is frequently less than would be paid if the house were assessed and taxed in the usual way. Many municipalities have indicated that they wish to take advantage of this plan. In several places, the financial burden placed upon the municipality has been a deterrent. In order to reduce this burden we shall offer to pay one-half of the cost of land and services to the limit of $300 per house and to the present limit of 10,000 houses. Thus we are renewing in principle the offer made to the federal government in 1944 when we offered to

contribute one-half of the equity in low rental housing. The cost of this might thus amount to $3,000,000.
There is another evidence of the willingness of a government to co-operate with a federal administration in respect of low-rental housing. What is said in the brief extract I have just read was exemplified the other day in the township of North York where a group of young businessmen, who know their way around in respect of housing, went before the council of that township and said, "We have a plan. We know where we can get land, and we are prepared to build a large group of houses right away". The township of North York said that they did not want them in the municipality, that in a sense they were a menace because they would cost the township too much money through having to provide school facilities and sewage services. They told them that the township had no sewage disposal plant and that they would have to rely upon the city of Toronto. They told them that they had better go back to the city of Toronto and get it to take on their proposition.
That is the sort of run-around which has been going on for some considerable time. My thought and the thought of this party in moving the amendment to the amendment this afternoon is to suggest something immediate, something practical that can be brought into force in the not too distant future. The fact of the matter is that, while the municipalities are anxious to get houses, they cannot afford them. They have to pass the problem on to the province and in turn the province must solicit the leadership and help of the federal government. To my mind it is a simple problem, a problem which could be solved quite easily with some leadership from the minister and his department.
The minister has said all this himself. He said it in his address the other day. We are back to the position where we are asking that the whole matter should be brought to a head in the immediate future, that a conference should be called and that these matters which are pressing upon the municipalities should be dealt with in a practical way. As I mentioned the other day, some seventy-nine municipalities in Canada had negotiated contracts with the Department of Reconstruction and Supply with respect to 12,000 veterans houses; but, as far as the completion of negotiations and the doing of the work is concerned, only some 8,000 houses have emerged. In other words, the municipalities found themselves in the position where they could not carry through.
This simply typifies the situation throughout Canada. The parties must get together and arrange a low-rental housing plan. We in this

National Housing Act
party do not care whether it takes the form of capital investment. I know perfectly well that at some time in the future the minister intends that there shall be capital investment for this purpose. We do not care whether it takes the form of rent reduction or the form of a contribution. The fact of the matter is that none of the other levels of government can proceed without the leadership and help of the federal government. The amendment I have moved reads:
That the government should forthwith enlist the active co-operation of the provincial and municipal governments for the setting up in municipalities which have need of them of local housing authorities to provide low-rent housing for veterans who cannot afford present economic rentals, and for the purpose of clearing slums and rehousing families living in slum accommodation.
The purpose of this amendment is to assist the municipalities and the provinces in bringing this matter to an immediate and practical head.


Mr. J. E. MATTHEWS (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, when speaking outside this chamber I have on various occasions gone out of my way to extol the calibre of federal members irrespective of party. I have no regrets for having done so, but I confess a measure of disappointment at the unfairness that has characterized a great many of the addresses on the housing situation. I am still more disappointed because of the sources of a large part of that criticism.
To hon. members at large it must have been disappointing, almost pitiable in fact, that few of the critics gave voice to one constructive, practical thought. I must name the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Timmins) and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) as noted exceptions. How many hon. members even ventured to suggest what they would have done had they been minister of reconstruction during the last few years?
It is because of that unfairness, because of that pettiness, shall I say, that I raise my voice in support of the efforts of a minister who, all through the dark years of war, almost at the sacrifice of his own life, and right up to the present hour has given every ounce of energy in his being to further and safeguard the interests of the people of Canada. We must not forget that the minister of reconstruction has a record of achievement simply astounding in its proportions, a record which I feel free to say not another man in Canada could have excelled and few if any could have equalled. I cannot leave unchallenged some of the unfair remarks that
have been directed toward his work and the work of faithful officers in his department.
As we all know, during the war there was practically no residential building carried on. Many buildings already erected were not kept in repair because of lack of materials. Construction was confined to those mammoth projects which were erected with feverish haste all across Canada for military training and administration. During those years we were not interested in the building of homes. Instead of that, we concentrated on saving the homes we had, by winning the war and to that end supplying our soldiers with food and fighting equipment.
When hostilities ceased our first anxiety was to get those men who were spared back to their loved ones. Everyone realized the difficulties in that regard because of lack of shipping. Everyone realizes also that the conversion of war plants into peacetime production was no short process.
During this debate there have been repeated references to the Curtis report which attempted to set an objective for post-war building. I am wondering how many of those who participated in that report were actual builders, and how many were academic in their experience. No doubt all were actuated by the best of motives, but did they realize back in 1943 how great would be the changes in economic conditions following the war? It is because of those changes, completely and unavoidably unforeseen, that I suggest the Curtis report has become outmoded and can no longer be regarded as an authority.
But apart altogether from the Curtis report, here we were in this situation at the close of the war. There was no reserve of building material from which to draw, none whatever. Therefore men had to be secured to go to the logging camps and fell the trees, others in many cases to transport the lumber to the mills. Men who understood mining had to be secured to dig the coal, others to dig the ore, others to man the cement plants, and the quarries.
But in their simplicity, or is it simplicity, one would think, to hear some of those critics talk, that on the evening when hostilities ceased there was some magic button which the * minister could have pressed, and pronto, the very next morning there would have been lumber and steel, yes, even nails, in fact an unlimited supply of all materials in every lumberyard and hardware store in the country. However, there was no magic button, but rather an avalanche of hard, stern facts confronting the minister at that time.
The Curtis report set a target of 750,000 housing units to be erected in ten years; that
National Housing Act

is from September 1, 1945, the day when hostilities ceased, up to September 1, 1955. That would mean, on a pro rata basis, 187,500 in two and a half years up to March 1, 1948. That was the target. Has it been reached? Well, some hon. members will recall that the minister stated in this chamber about ten days ago that in the first two and a half years 200,000 units in round numbers had been completed, with about 40,000 more partly completed; and this was accomplished, may I remind the house, notwithstanding the delays, the unavoidable delays, to which I have referred, in getting started in the first place.
So where does the criticism come in? Is it because the minister is exceeding the Curtis report? That is how it would appear. From some speeches we have heard, one can imagine the gloating criticism that would have been forthcoming had he fallen below the Curtis objective. The Curtis report suggested 375,000 units, when taken on a pro rata basis, in the five years up to September 1, 1950. The minister has expressed the belief that we shall continue to exceed that objective in the future as we have exceeded it in the past. I believe every member of this house, right down in his heart, appreciated the statement made by the minister, plain, straightforward, unequivocal, with neither boast nor bluster. In his statement at that time we were told that, of 77,000 units actually completed in 1947, there had been 22,000 built for rental, under various forms of government sponsorship, National Housing, Wartime Housing, Emergency Shelter, V.L.A., et cetera.
The other 55,000 units were for home owners. It has been proudly said that a man's home is his castle, and to me there could be no more promising sign of national stability than for Canadian people to prefer to own their own homes. I believe that, in so doing, they should receive every encouragement. Surely there are none who have persuaded themselves into the belief that the government should have taken over the whole building program, and should not have permitted any citizen even in democratic Canada to build a home for himself. I sometimes wonder.
In that connection may I say that there comes to me every month, and perhaps to many hon. members, a small but excellent publication, known as The Scene, from Shing-wauk Farm. It is published at Bracebridge, Ontario. An article in the last issue contains two paragraphs which I desire to quote:
The housing shortage in Ontario today is due to three things-the scarcity of satisfactory material, the scarcity of satisfactory labour and the fact that it does not pay to build houses to rent.

There are probably more than 20,000 people in Ontario today who are financially able and are prepared to build houses for themselves to live in as soon as satisfactory materials and labour are available. If the government steps into the market and grabs off the materials and labour to build 20,000 houses, it will only mean that 20,000 private citizens will have to defer their building plans until the government is through. Will the government's 20,000 houses do any more to relieve the shortage than a like number of privately built dwellings would have done? Certainly not.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the writer of that article must be himself a builder, because he certainly has the faculty of hitting the nail right on the head.
It was interesting to me to hear the other evening an hon. member for whom I have the greatest rosnect name several towns or cities in Ontario that want houses. One wants 100, another, twenty-five; another, fifty, and so on. Well, who is preventing them? I am sure it is not the government. I can tell the hon. member about a small town or village in my own constituency that also w'anted houses. Those who needed the houses got busy and built them, and when I was in that town a few months ago there were over a hundred houses in course of construction, some nearing completion, others just begun. The parties building those houses were not wealthy in the ordinary meaning of the word; but, better than that, they were endowed with a wealth of thrifty habits and independent thinking. They did not go to their neighbours demanding assistance, by insisting that those neighbours pay higher taxes to the government in order that the government, by the granting of subsidies, would assist in the building of those homes. Nothing of the kind. And I can well understand that those hundred families living in their own homes, the result of their own work, their own savings, and their own planning will be much happier and more contented than if living in homes built or subsidized by any government agency. This has no reference, of course, to cases where permanent residence at any point is improbable and where individual building might therefore be unwise.
The taxpayers of Canada know from experience what subsidies mean. They know that every dollar thus raised comes out of their own pockets, be they rich or poor.
We hear reference occasionally to New Zealand's building program. Who would withhold - certainly not I - the slightest credit for the good work done in that country, even though it does fall far below what has been accomplished in Canada? However, what is the situation in New Zealand according to what would seem to be reliable reports? A statement issued recently by

National Housing Act
Prime Minister Fraser indicated' that last year New Zealand had built 9,500 units, and in the last three years 31,000 units, not 200,000 in two and a half years, as has been dene in Canada. On a basis of population, as someone has pointed out, that means in New Zealand fifty-three units, and in Canada seventy-five units, for each 10,000 population, a lead of almost 50 per cent in favour of Canada. Incidentally I understand that in the United States the building units per 10,000 population range between sixty-five and seventy.
An Ottawa paper carried recently an article by Isabel Atkinson, dated at Auckland, New Zealand, in which she said:
There are 56,000 unfilled applications listed for state houses in New Zealand and there are said to be five new applications made for each one filled. Without any new applications it *would take several years of construction to satisfy the demand existing now, even if the current objective, 10,000 to 12,000 state houses a year, is achieved.
I have before me also a booklet issued recently by the New Zealand veterans. They, too, are having housing troubles. There they have only a 50 per cent priority in the allocation of government-built houses. In Canada the veterans have a 100 per cent priority on all rental projects sponsored by the government, the allocation being made on a point system.
The veterans point out that the cost of construction in New Zealand has increased 56 per cent from 1939 to 1946. How much more it increased last year I do not know. The veterans point out further that this colossal rise in costs is viewed with the greatest concern and that for the government to increase their "rehabilitation loans" would have no beneficial effect. In their own words:
Indeed it would only accentuate the present rising costs.
That, Mr. Speaker, I would say, is an indication of realistic thinking, and certainly it touches on a vital point here as well as in New Zealand. It is always possible in any country, whether in building or in some other activity, that because of mounting costs governments and individuals alike are compelled to call a halt. I sincerely trust that common sense may forestall any such eventuality in the building program in this country, even though the present outlook in that respect is not promising. However, that is more an individual than a government responsibility.
We all remember back in the gloomy days when Churchill sent forth that challenging appeal that aroused and electrified the allied nations: "Give us the tools and we'll finish the job." The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply and his department may with almost
equal force issue their challenge to the Canadian people, "Give us the materials at anything like reasonable cost, and we'll finish the job".
I understand that the national research council are right now making investigations into the possibilities of adopting new methods, and to some extent new materials, in order to facilitate our building program, and that actual experiments in building are now being made in accord with those new advances of the research council. Let us hope that they may prove successful.
Another commendable feature is the increasing desire on the part of provinces and municipalities to co-operate with federal housing agencies in the sounder, and more harmonious, planning of subdivisions. Much can be done in this regard to ensure more attractive grounds and lawns than would be the case if it were left to haphazard methods. Among other well appointed projects based on sound community planning, the following may be regarded as outstanding:
Willingdon Heights, Vancouver Renfrew Heights, Vancouver Diceonson project, Edmonton Wildwood project, Winnipeg Bel'lwood project, London Brant Court, Burlington Yorkminster, Toronto Mann Avenue, Ottawa Benny Farm, Montreal Beauport. Quebec Rockwood, Moncton AVestmount, Halifax
Architects, officials in charge, and all concerned, are certainly to be congratulated on their efforts to make those properties attractive in their design, and therefore a source of greater pleasure to the residents.
It is said that those who were endeavouring at one time to locate a monument to Sir Christopher Wren were told to "Look around". I would suggest to certain hon. members that they remove from their eves the coloured glasses of political bigotry and that they, too, look around. Look around Ottawa, if you will, with its expansive newly built areas extending far into the suburbs on either side. Look around Toronto, east and north and west, where it may almost be said that new cities have arisen overnight. Broaden your vision still further by means of travel. Visit every province in Canada; visit many cities and towns; visit those hundreds of municipalities that have co-operated with the department in a worthwhile building program. Visit them from coast to coast and look around. Then, and then only, will you gain some adequate idea of the tens and tens of thousands of homes that have been erected all across this country, in the short period of two and a
National Housing Act

half years since the war ended. Consider the tremendous amounts of material that have been made available for their construction, and then tell me where in all Canada you could have found a minister who would have done a better job. When I say Canada, indeed I speak of a territory too restricted, for it is a recognized fact that, according to population, Canada leads the world in post-war housing.
So I say to the minister, disregarding the critic and the cynic, continue your building efforts largely along the lines that in your good judgment and with your wide experience appear to you as best. The people of Canada have unbounded confidence in your ability and your integrity. They are proud of your clean, unsullied record, free from even any suspicion of wrongdoing. They recognize and appreciate the dynamic energy with which you are so richly endowed. So carry on.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. McLURE:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: I hope the
minister is not speaking to conclude the debate.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: The hon. member for Queens wishes to speak.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a subamendment and an amendment to the main motion. I am speaking to the subamendment.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Queens will speak after the 'minister has finished.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I think I should say a 'word about the amendment and the subamendment, but first I wish to thank the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) for his kind remarks about the minister, the first I have heard with regard to housing, and I must say in that connection I think he has made the only sensible speech on housing that I have heard.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is tough on the rest of us.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I appreciate the contribution which the hon. member made.
I wish to say a word about the amendment and the subamendment. Of course the amendment to the motion is a negation of the subject matter of the bill. Both the amendment and the subamendment are want of confidence motions. The amendment simply says that we should not go into committee on the bill but that the government should consider subsidized housing. The government

has considered subsidized housing. It has built subsidized houses, and I could give an interesting illustration. In co-operation with the government of Saskatchewan the government contributed buildings and large sums of money to convert those buildings into comfortable apartments. The management of the buildings was left to the province of Saskatchewan and the rentals collected are the property of the government of Saskatchewan. That would be an excellent place for a socialist government, which gives lip service to subsidized housing, to practise a little of what it preaches. What are the facts?
Rentals for the housing, largely paid for by the federal government, operated by the socialist provincial government, are somewhat higher than in corresponding localities in the rest of Canada. That is a clear indication that our socialist friends love to give lip service-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Give the rates.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will let you look them up.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You are making a
statement. Back it up.


Thomas John Bentley: Substantiate your statement.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give the figures.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know the figures.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know the facts.


Thomas John Bentley: You have made a statement you had no right to make.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No right to make?


Thomas John Bentley: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did you hear the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) comparing incomes of 1941 with rentals of 1948? Was that a fair comparison? He had the figures for 1947; there was a census in 1946. You had better just calm down and take it.
We know all about subsidized housing. The difficulty with subsidized housing is that it does not build any more houses. A fair comparison of the situation arises in the wartime houses built in the period from 1942 to 1946. We built a great number of houses, several thousand of them, to rent at $22 a month for the four-room house, and up to about $27 or $29 a month for the six-room house. These rents are very much below economic rents today, and yet the rental in most of these houses has not changed.
The problem arises in allocating the houses. How do we allocate them? We allocate them

National Housing Act
on a very strict point system that can work for veterans. It depends on the number of months overseas, and the number of children in the family. The more children the more points. Various other service items enter into it. The result is that the man who can qualify with the number of points gets the house for $22 a month, while the man who cannot qualify has to pay perhaps twice that. Hon. members say that is very unfair. I agree, but it is workable where you have military service which can be reduced to the point system. But how could it possibly work for civilians? You have 10,000, 20,000 or 100.000 subsidized houses to apportion fairly among the civilian population. That is the practical difficulty.
What would be the advantage of subsidized housing? I have already pointed out that money has very little to do with the houses we build. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Timmins) made a great gesture. He said the government should appropriate $100,000,000 to build houses. The government has been doing just that. Since the housing program was started in 1942, the government has actually invested something like $283,000,000 for housing by way of loans and direct construction. Hon. members will find in the estimates this year something like $78,000,000 for housing, which is in addition to the amounts appropriated through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, covered by mortgages. Money is not the difficulty today. Any individual who wants to build a house can borrow probably up to 90 per cent of the cost of that house, if it is a low-cost house.


Joseph Henry Harris: Too much!


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know; it is too much for prudence; nevertheless we hope to get houses built. Any city that wants the government to build houses has only to ask for it. The requirement is that the city must furnish the serviced land, provided that the cost of doing so does not exceed $600. If it is more than $600 the government pays the difference. The government of Ontario have intervened and they say that, while that may be too much for some municipalities, they will share half of the cost with the municipality. So in this province the cost of providing serviced land for houses has been reduced to $300 per house, and yet we have no signs, as far as Central Mortgage and Housing is concerned, that that effort by the province has increased the number of applications from Ontario towns and municipalities by a single housing unit. In other words, it is not a matter of money.
We would gladly have built more houses last year had we been permitted to do so by the cities in which the houses would have
been built. We entered into a program to build 12,000 rental houses this year, apart from any other plan under the Wartime Housing plan. The applications are falling far short of that. We are building houses wherever we have had an application.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Will the minister say why, in his opinion, the municipalities are not taking up that plan?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend gave a description of that in connection with one of the suburbs of Toronto when he spoke a few moments ago. That is exactly the reason. A good many people in the town do not like to have that type of housing built in the town. All I can say to my hon. friends opposite, and particularly to our socialist friends, is that if they would go back to their communities and promote a little rental housing-it would not be a question of subsidization-the houses would be built and rented at prices which were economical.
A good deal has been said about the cost of housing in comparison with the ability to pay. I came across an interesting advertisement in a paper called the Melville Advance of Melville, Saskatchewan. It shows in terms of wheat that the materials for a house cost 34 per cent less today than in 1939. It points out that the .materials which went into a house in 1939 required 2.782 bushels of wheat, whereas in 1948 the materials could be purchased for 1,822 bushels of wheat, or 34 per cent less. It was also figured out in oats. In 1939 the materials of the house would cost 6,361 bushels of oats. In 1948 it cost only 2,927 bushels of oats, or a saving of over 50 per cent. In beef cattle the material in the house would have cost twenty-nine head of beef cattle in 1939; in 1948 it cost only eighteen head of beef cattle.
It is all very well to deal with absolute figures. The hon. member for Mackenzie thinks he can give income figures for 1941 and apply .them to cost figures for 1948, and believes that hon. members should pay some attention to that kind of statement. I would suggest that everything he brought forward in his speech was just about as sensible as that particular comparison. In my opinion that is a fair indication of the value to be placed on his remarks.
As far as the amendment is concerned, it is simply a negation of the motion. The subamendment proposes another alternative, and it would possibly provide more houses. It suggests that local housing authorities be formed. It suggests that the municipality, the province and the federal government join with local housing authorities. There is something to be
National Housing Act

said for that; but the difficulty is, as far as the dominion government is concerned, that it is likely to be called on for practically all the investment. It believes that, being responsible for appropriating the taxpayer's money for that purpose, it has a responsibility also to see that money is well spent.
The federal government has been in the housing business now for five or six years. It has built up a valuable experience and an able organization. I believe that the federal government is getting good value for its expenditures in housing.


Joseph Henry Harris: Fair value.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is pretty good. I do not know of anybody who builds them as cheaply as we do.
It has been said in this house that it is impossible to build a house which will rent for $35 unless it is a subsidized house. The federal government is finding that it can build houses without subsidization which can rent for $35 and below. Therefore I say that neither of these amendments is likely to add anything very much to the housing that will be built in this country.
It has been said that this bill simply makes it easier to finance private enterprise in building housing accommodation. I agree. That is the purpose of the bill. It has also been said that private enterprise cannot afford to build houses under these conditions. May I point out that of the 78,000 houses built in 1947 private enterprise built five to the government's one. In other words, it built five units out of every six.
We believe the quickest way to obtain adequate housing is to make it possible for private enterprise to carry a very large part of the burden. That is the purpose of the amendments being introduced in this bill. No amendment is required to enable the government to enter into the field of direct building; it has that authority already under the housing act. We hope and believe the amendments now being introduced will encourage more building by private enterprise than has been visible over the past twelve months.
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make any long address on housing or housing problems, but I want to draw to the attention of the minister a project in my constituency known as Maple Hills. A short time ago I mentioned this matter, and stated that the veterans occupying this accommodation have been notified that they must get out by September 30, 1948, or

be ejected. However I should like to review the history of this project, and find out from the minister what is to be done.
I think the minister will agree when I say that housing as carried on by the various companies under his department has been an entire failure in Charlottetown and, in fact, in all Prince Edward Island. Somehow or another they did not get into gear and get to work, so that very few houses were built. In 1945 the veterans began to arrive home; many of them were looking for houses, but they could find no place to live. The city of Charlottetown decided to come to their rescue, and took over the buildings at the airport, now known as Maple Hills. With some assistance from the provincial government they fixed up one hundred housing units for veterans and their families, and at the present time ninety-six of those units are still occupied by veterans and four by civilians.
The city of Charlottetown undertook this project to provide for the immediate accommodation of those veterans. That was in 1945. In February of 1946 a new city government came into power, and when they looked over the situation they decided they could not afford to carry it on. So they said to the authorities who were associated with them, "We cannot carry this on beyond May 31, 1946." The position of the veterans had not changed; they had nowhere to go with their families. In 1946 the provincial government decided to come into the picture. They had been assisting the city of Charlottetown, but the city withdrew from the proposition and the provincial government took over, and decided they would continue if they could get assistance from Ottawa. They came here in May of that year and made arrangements, I suppose with the right hon. minister, to carry on under a fifty-fifty plan with respect to the expenses in connection with Maple Hills, and this arrangement continued until September of 1947.
Finally, last August it was understood that some change would have to be made with respect to the veterans who had these homes. I understand on that occasion the provincial government approached this government and requested that the plan be extended for one year, until September of 1948. Of course that was not hard to arrange, because at that time a provincial election was in the offing. Maple Hills had a registered vote of some three hundred, and to turn those men out would mean a loss of that many votes. So the federal government granted the request, and the provincial government has continued to operate that project on a fifty-fifty basis.

National Housing Act
The end of the period is now in sight, and there is still no other accommodation for the one hundred families now living there. They are fairly well situated. They pay a rental to the two governments averaging about $24 a month, and those who are employed in the city have to pay another $15 a month for transportation to and from their work.
At the present time there is no possible chance for these one hundred men and their families to secure houses, so I should like the minister to give consideration to continuing this plan for the benefit of those people. It will not cost very much. The buildings are there. They may require a few repairs again this year, as all houses do, but generally speaking those families are fairly well located. They have a school and everything required; and the possibility that they may be ejected next September, with nowhere to go, presents a problem that I think well deserves the attention of the right hon. gentleman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in the debate, but before doing so I rise to a point of order with respect to the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Timmins). I should like to say that I agree with the suggestions contained in the subamendment, as an addition to the proposal contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), but I object to having those suggestions offered as an alternative.
It seems to me that this subamendment is out of order on two grounds. On the one hand, unlike our amendment which merely asks the government to consider a certain course, the subamendment in effect instructs the government to elicit certain co-operation and to do things that could not help but cost money. The other ground on which I suggest it is out of order is based upon a sentence I should like to read from May, thirteenth edition, at page 291:
An amendment to a proposed amendment cannot be moved, if it proposes to leave out all the words of such proposed amendment: but in such a case the first amendment must be negatived before the second can be offered.
The mere device in this instance of referring to "all the words after the word 'that' " is, as I have already characterized it, a device. In effect not only does it strike out all the ideas contained in our amendment, but it strikes out even the original motion, that Bill No. 280 be now read a second time.
For these reasons I submit that the subamendment, while containing good ideas, is out of order, and should be so declared.


William Henry Golding: I must say the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is well taken. The subamendment is out of order, and I would refer to the citation in May, 13th edition, which reads:
An amendment to a proposed amendment cannot be moved, if it proposes to leave out all tile words of such proposed amendment: but in such a case the first amendment must be negatived before the second can be offered.
This subamendment does that very thing, when it states that all the words after the word "that" should be struck out, and certain following words substituted therefor. Therefore I rule the amendment to the amendment out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly to the amendment now before the house. It was moved by my deskmate, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) and it was my pleasure to second it.
It seems to me that this amendment really poses the crux of the housing problem in Canada at the present time. A few minutes ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) suggested that in effect the government is doing some subsidizing of housing. That is correct, and I am glad the principle of subsidizing housing is, to that extent at least, recognized and approved by the minister.
But the point we wish to make, and we do so by the very wording of our amendment, is that what is needed is the subsidizing of low-rental housing, with the emphasis on "low-rental". For a long time the suggestion that there should be subsidized low-rental housing came chiefly, if not solely, from this group. That day has, however, passed. We now have such organizations as the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities, the Canadian construction association and many local groups, societies and organizations across the country pleading for subsidized low-rental housing.
Those pleas also call for something for which the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Timmins) asked in his remarks of a few moments ago, namely, that there should be a more definite attempt made to get together the three levels of government in respect of this housing problem. I support wholly his contention that that should be done. However, in the very words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, there is not much point in the various levels of government getting together, if you rule out the element of subsidies. That will have
National Housing Act

to come into the picture; and the Minister of Trade and Commerce is quite right when he says that if there is to be any worthwhile element of subsidy in the provision of low-rental housing, it will have to come from the federal treasury.
A few days ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) lectured the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken)-and some of us thought it "love's labour lost"-when he told him how to get along in political life. The Prime Minister said at that time something he has said on a number of occasions, namely, that even when a government has a good idea it should not get too far ahead of the thinking and desires of the people. The Prime Minister gave that as his reason for taking so long to take steps in the field of health services. That same reason was given when advances at long last were made in matters of old age pensions and family allowances. The Prime Minister's argument, when finally he did start to move in connection with these various matters, was that public opinion would now support these moves. As a matter of fact public opinion had overtaken the government and made it necessary that those moves be taken.
I suggest that public opinion has now overtaken the government in the matter of subsidized low-rental housing. The government needs no longer think it will be doing something out in front of public opinion if it rules in that direction. Every two or three days I receive resolutions from one group or another expressing concern about the housing situation; and it is amazing to note the unanimity with which bodies of various kinds are now asking for subsidized low-rental housing and for a get-together of the three levels of government to proceed with such a plan.
The most recent of these to come to my desk-it arrived only two days ago-is from the Soroptimist club of Winnipeg. This communication is signed by Miss Kathryn M. McLearn, president, whose address is the Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children at Winnipeg. Miss McLearn enclosed with her letter a copy of a resolution passed recently by the Soroptimist club in that city. It is lengthy, and I shall not read the whole of it; but I believe I should place on record two or three of the recitals and the operative part of the resolution. I quote:
Whereas a great many families with low incomes in Canada are living in unhealthy, overcrowded or unsanitary housing accommodation; . . .
And whereas most of the people living in deplorable housing accommodation cannot afford to buy houses at today's high prices;

And whereas bad housing results in higher disease and mortality rates, and in higher rates of crime and delinquency;
And whereas bad housing is not only costly in human values, but also is costly to the taxpayers in providing social services which otherwise would be unnecessary . . .
I would ask the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) to note that these remarks are not made by someone who wears politically coloured glasses-to use his phrase-but that they are made by the group to which I have just referred, namely the Soroptimist club of Winnipeg. The resolution continues:
. . . And whereas Great Britain, the United States and the Scandinavian and many other countries have provided lowr-rental housing for low-income families largely subsidized by the national government, but our federal government has not provided any such housing in spite of many recommendations to do so;
Therefore, be it resolved that the federal government without further delay, institute for low-income families a low-rental housing program largely subsidized by the federal government.
There is much more I would like to say. In fact I confess I have on my desk some notes and quotations which are somewhat provocative; and that is the way some of us feel about this problem. But I am not going to go ahead with what I had planned to say. I would rather leave it as it is. My reason for doing so is that the amendment now before the house poses the issue squarely that what we need is for the government to move in the direction of subsidizing low-rental housing. That is not just an amendment moved by the C.C.F. As already pointed out, it is the position taken by the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities and the Canadian construction association. That is the position of many organizations, societies and bodies across Canada, which are alarmed and concerned about the menace of bad housing in this country.
The minister has said that the effect of this amendment will be to negate the bill. I will not go into the procedural phase of the matter, but in spirit he is right. What we want and what I am sure the people of Canada want is not this bill, which will not build houses for people in the low-income groups, but that the bill should be defeated and the government informed that it is the opinion of this house that they should bring down a measure for subsidized low-rental housing. I hope the house will see fit to support and pass the amendment which has been moved.


John Oliver Probe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word at this stage. Hon. members on the opposition benches have pleaded with the Minister of
*111

Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to bring forth a subsidized low-rental housing formula which would be more effective than what the minister is now proposing. Every successive amendment on housing that has been brought into the House of Commons since I have been here has had the effect of consolidating the investment feature of those companies which lend money for housing purposes.
'I realize that on second reading I should not refer to any specific clause, but I should like to comment on one provision which, it seems to me, is a breach of what the minister brought forward a year or two ago. Investors in house building were held to a maximum profit return of five per cent by the amendment which was brought in, I think two sessions ago. This bill contains a provision which will permit limited-dividend housing companies to exceed that five per cent return on capital investment, because they are to be permitted to retain the full residual value of the property after the loan granted by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been repaid.
It seems to me that the emphasis is being improperly placed. No more building will be carried on as a result of these various amendments than was carried on before. What we need is not a guarantee to the investment company or the builder of eight or more rental units, but to the individual whose income does not permit him to rent anything more than a shack in which to house his family. Such quarters are not suitable for the size and dignity of the average family.
This afternoon objection was raised by the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) to a discussion of housing conditions in Ottawa on the second reading of this bill. I should like to tell the house something of what has been done in my city. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has criticized the lack of sanitary facilities in many of the houses at present occupied across this country.
Regina attempted to the best of its ability, with some help from provincial and federal purses, to provide emergency housing, but that city has now reached the end of its resources. As a result of what was done, there has been created out of sections of what we thought was a beautiful prairie city what are no less than slums. In providing this emergency housing we built small two-roomed shacks, about the size of the ordinary garage or perhaps smaller than the garage in which the minister houses his car. These were made available to families that had no better place in which to reside. There was no such thing as running water or plumbing in those build-
National Housing Act
ings. We live in a part of the world where the temperature drops to 40 or 50 degrees below zero, but for economic reasons and a lack of plumbing fixtures we were forced to build outdoor toilets fifty or sixty yards away from the shelters.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is the hon. member accusing the federal government of having built those?


John Oliver Probe: I tried to be explicit. I said that our own city had put up these shacks with the assistance of the senior governments. There was no other means of quickly housing the great influx of returned soldiers, veterans families and others. Regina tried to meet the needs with its resources, and we are thankful for the limited help we were able to get from the senior governments, which includes the minister's department.
The plea I make to the minister-I would get down on my knees if it would have any effect-is that we have not made an adequate start. I would like to mention one family that lives in one of these two-roomed shacks. The family consists of a man, his wife and at present there are three children. The mother is in daily expectation of having an addition of twins to the family, so that there will then be five children ranging in age from eighteen years down. The man is employed, but he has no alternative as far as housing his family is concerned. Canada does not have to do things in that way.
Since I have been here no man has been complimented more than the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Everyone recognizes the skills he possesses and has paid I think fitting tribute to him. But, Mr. Speaker, I dislike his bill. He will not be able to do the job as a result of these amendments. I am going to vote against this measure because it will not provide the housing that our people with low income desire and must have.


Joseph Henry Harris: Before this measure receives consideration from other hon. members, I should like to have the privilege, Your Honour, of paying my regards, respects and compliments to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews), and I couple with his name that of the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) for the speech he made almost a year ago. Both of these gentlemen took a very broad view of Canada's housing accommodation, not only thinking in terms of those of us who find ourselves crowded in urban centres but bringing into the equation also the people in the rural communities who, as so many
National Housing Act

members of this honourable assembly during the quarter century I have been in it have said to you, sir, and your predecessors, are the backbone of this nation. Yet, sir, as you and I traverse this country and see so many abandoned and neglected and not kept in repair homes, one sometimes wonders whether or not we are a people of the soil. That does not refer to the problem which is at present before the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who is charged with the responsibility of piloting through this house a bill which is far removed from trade and commerce, so far removed that I sometimes wonder how he can be a man of so many parts.
I want to make particular reference to a statement made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Brandon when comparing our position in this fair Canada of ours with the position that obtains in other dominions within the commonwealth. The hon. member said, as I recall it, that to the extent of SO per cent New Zealand gives priority to the necessary materials used in the production of housing-nails, if you will, and any other necessary commodity-while Canada gives 100 per cent priority wherever it possibly can.
It was my happy privilege some few short years ago to observe and travel through the length and breadth of New Zealand and also some 14,000 miles through the Dominion of Australia. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, a Canadian thinks of our sister dominions down under, which he may be visiting, in terms of what obtains in his own community. When I think of the climatic conditions under which our cousins down under make their living and carry on their way of life, at the same time I think of the conditions under which we in this more northerly and not quite so temperate zone have to find our way of life.
It is a great privilege perhaps and to the advantage of our ordinary Canadian citizenship to apply nomenclature to ourselves which
says that we are strong men of the north. That condition does not obtain-I am thinking of housing-to the same degree with our empire associates living in zones not quite of the same nature as our own, north of the 49th parallel, where we must of necessity be strong men of the north. Down there the people live under tin roofs, without basements in their homes because there is no frost to lift their foundations. They harbour their cattle and what not out in the open twelve months in the year. But in Canada the conditions are such that we cannot have our breakfast in a room in which there is no floor under the kitchen table. Ours is a different climate altogether; and when my hon. friend the member for Brandon stated that New Zealand gives priority to the extent of 50 per cent on building materials as compared with Canada's 100 per cent, I ask my hon. friends to my left when they speak of New Zealand to be fair and remember the very different conditions that obtain in Canada.
On motion of Mr. Harris (Danforth) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Ritchie MacNicol: What will be the business for tomorrow?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: Tomorrow we shall continue with the program outlined last night. We shall continue debate on the second reading of this bill, No. 280, to amend the National Housing Act, 1944, and if that is concluded, we shall take, but I cannot guarantee the order, the second reading of Bill No. 228, to amend the Excise Act, 1934, and the second reading of Bill No. 229, to amend the Customs Act, and resume the committee stage of Bill No. 300, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934. If there is time left we shall go into supply on the estimates of the Department of Transport.


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