1949-11-29

Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, and if I take longer than usual in stating my question I would ask your indulgence, sir.
I should like to tell the house very briefly a story of co-operation and courage that keeps alive one's faith in human nature.
Last Saturday at midnight a fire broke out in Brockville which at one time threatened the entire business section of the town, but, through superhuman effort, was confined to one city block. In spite of the heroic efforts of the Brockville Are department it was soon found that to control the fire was beyond the power of one department; therefore urgent appeals were made to other centres, whose response was immediate.
The first to arrive were the fire fighters from the Royal Canadian Regiment with army equipment. Almost immediately firemen and fire trucks from Prescott, Athens and Smiths Falls were on the scene, and, as soon as they could be ferried across the St. Lawrence river, a pumper, aerial ladder truck, crew and special police force from Ogdensburg, New York, arrived. Seamen from the Canadian navy sloop Oriol, which happened to be in port, joined forces with the firemen, soldiers and citizens, so the fire was ultimately brought under control by complete municipal and military aid and international co-operation.
Fire fighting is always hazardous, but with the temperature at almost zero it becomes an almost unbearable ordeal. Throughout the night a group of young women kept the fire fighters supplied with hot coffee and sandwiches, while others were on hand to crack ice off the fire fighters' coats, helmets, gloves and boots.
Fortunately no lives were lost and no serious injuries suffered, but nearly one hundred persons were made homeless.
On Sunday morning appeals for assistance were made from all the pulpits of the Brockville churches, and at one o'clock Mayor W. Fred Reynolds spoke over radio station CFJM to ask for money, clothing and other
necessities. By five o'clock on Sunday afternoon the receiving centre had been moved no less than three times in order to provide greater accommodation for the mass of goods that started to pour in, and by nine in the evening half the second floor of the city hall looked like a department store. In addition, the sum of $2,500 had been received in cash donations, and I am told the fund is now over $6,000. One farmer arrived with two dozen eggs, and emptied his purse, which contained $1.03. An elderly woman donated $1.85, and said that it was all she had at the moment, but that she would give more on Wednesday when her pay cheque arrived.
The generosity of the people of Brockville exceeds the bounds of any possible expectation; and what applies to Brockville extends to the entire district, which includes several communities in northern New York state. Truly the cardinal Christian principle, "love thy neighbour" knows no international boundary in North America.
A disaster such as Brockville has just experienced brings out, in no uncertain way, the best in all of us, regardless of race or creed, and serves to make us proud that we are Canadians and fortunate enough to live on the continent of North America.
I should like to thank the Prime Minister, the Acting Minister of National Defence, and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence for the prompt and sympathetic attention given the request that certain huts at the Royal Canadian Regiment camp be made available to the municipal authorities at Brockville. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that these huts will serve a most useful and humane purpose in looking after the temporary housing needs of the hundred men, women and children who were made homeless as a result of the worst fire in the history of Brockville.



NATIONAL HONEY WEEK


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to inform the hon. members that this is national honey week. In their offices they will find samples of honey supplied by the Canadian beekeepers' council. Owing to the loss of export markets, producers are facing difficult marketing conditions. If each
2388	HOUSE OF COMMONS
National Trade Mark
Canadian would consume a half pound more before commission I, the fifth session of honey per year, some of the marketing the FAO conference, at Washington, D.C., on problems would be solved.	November 24, 1949.



NATIONAL TRADE MARK


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen there is a report of a statement made by the general manager of the Ottawa board of trade which refers to my speech on the bill to establish a national trade mark. I am charged with being unfair to Ottawa merchants. The article states that I implied that there was a general practice among Ottawa merchants of misleading the public by using well-known containers to hold inferior products. Such a statement is incorrect.
I mentioned that stores on Elgin street used containers bearing the "O.K. brand" label to hold a local product of inferior quality. My contention is that a container bearing the name of a well-known brand should not be used for any other product. Even today those containers are still on display, filled with other than Okanagan produce. The article in question makes the statement that I said merchants filled containers with these products, and marked them as coming from the Okanagan valley. What I did say was that Okanagan valley containers were refilled with other, and in the case under review, inferior, quality produce. I shall be pleased to supply Mr. Cairns with the evidence if he so desires.
The other point with which I wish to deal is the charge that I was derelict in my duty in not bringing this matter to the attention of the house earlier in the session. May I point out that a perusal of Hansard will show that I dealt with this matter earlier in the session, but so far no action has been taken. I did not at any time, nor do I now, suggest that the practice is general among Ottawa merchants.
May I repeat that the principle involved in my speech is that containers marked with a well-known brand name should not be used again, once the original contents which fulfilled the specifications of that brand have been emptied out.



TABLING OF SPEECH DELIVERED BY MR. GARDINER AT FAO CONFERENCE, NOVEMBER 24

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table a copy of a speech which I delivered


Mr. Tustin:: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the minister's speech, which has now been tabled, would be of great interest to the agricultural producers of this country, and I suggest to him that he request that it be printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: I made the suggestion
yesterday that I was satisfied to have that done, but no one seemed to take me up on it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house now wish that the speech should be printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Mr. Coldwell:: I did not quite hear the proposal, because someone was speaking to me at the moment. Is it that the minister's speech should be put on Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say that while
members of the house might find it valuable to have the speech thus recorded, I do not like to see an expansion of Hansard to include speeches made outside the house. If that is done, we shall soon be in the position of the United States Congressional Record, which is full of that kind of thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: I agree with that statement; and I will go a little bit further and say that I do not think it is proper to insist that speeches made by ministers outside the house be tabled in the house. But I am quite satisfied to have this one tabled.


An hon. Member:: It is for your own defence.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I wish to lay on the table the answers to certain questions asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the debate on the Combines Investigation Act on November 25 last.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, November 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. 194, to encourage and to assist in the construction of a trans-Canada highway- Mr. Winters-Mr. Dion in the chair.

On section 1-Short title.
Mr. Green:: Apparently there has been an agreement with some of the provinces as to the route of the trans-Canada highway. Will the minister tell us what routes have been agreed on?


Mr. Winters:: There has been no agreement on routes, and I am not in a position to say what routes have been defined by the provinces.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister not tell us that with respect to any of the provinces?


Robert Henry Winters: There have been routes under discussion, but there have been no agreements with respect to routes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Agreements with provinces.
Mr. McLure:: Can separate agreements be made with each province and separate amounts paid, or will each province get the same amount or percentage of what the road costs? It would appear from this section that a separate agreement could be made with each province and separate amounts paid to each province.


Robert Henry Winters: There will be separate agreements with each province, but the same formula will be used throughout.


Mr. Argue:: According to the minister's statement, in the reference to the standards for certain provinces a stone base was called for, of a strict minimum of nine inches. Can the minister say whether or not he intends to follow this standard closely? In Saskatchewan, for example, it is almost impossible to find stone to crush for such a stone base; and even now we are facing a problem in getting adequate supplies of gravel. On the prairies would a gravel base not be suitable, rather than a stone base?


Robert Henry Winters: As I said in my statement, we shall not insist on any specification that is not acceptable or practicable in any one province. The specifications I mentioned were simply suggestions in order to provide the basis of an agreement.


Mr. Fraser:: Has the Department of National Defence made any recommendation as to the construction of the road so that it could be used for heavy military vehicles? It should be designed for that purpose, as well as for the handling of tourist traffic. In the case of war we would have to use it. That is why construction in the United States is uniform all the way through.
Trans-Canada Highway


Robert Henry Winters: The provisions with respect to construction and other such matters have been made with the full knowledge of the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Hatfield:: I understand that this act calls for a two-lane highway. Will the foundation be laid for a four-lane highway? Have culverts been built for a four-lane highway?


Robert Henry Winters: This proposal contemplates a two-lane highway.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has any consideration been given to police patrol of the highway, or allowing the provinces-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is a matter that has to do with maintenance. Has anything been done in this regard? With the radio patrol, if anything happened-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Chairman:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Those who do not know anything about maintaining a highway would be wise to keep quiet. If there is an accident on the highways in Ontario, with the radio control from provincial police stations a car can be at the scene of the accident within a few minutes. Is something of the kind contemplated for this highway? It should be, because we shall have accidents on it, no matter what happens.


Robert Henry Winters: According to my understanding, the normal patrol arrangements on the provincial highways will prevail.


Mr. Fulton:: May I ask the minister whether it is the intention that the provinces will first complete their construction and that under the provision for acceptance by the minister, if it is found to conform to the standards laid down, the contribution of the dominion will then be paid? Or is it intended that the payments will be made as the construction progresses?


Robert Henry Winters: There have been no agreements reached, but we would hope that new work would go forward first.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask whether the federal government fair wage provisions will apply to contracts in connection with the construction of the trans-Canada highway?


Mr. Mitchell:: I think my hon. friend had better direct his question to the provincial governments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


Humphrey Mitchell: Just sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was going to try to stop the minister from saying something worse.

Trans-Canada Highway


Humphrey Mitchell: That may be true, too. My hon. friend clearly understands that jurisdiction in this matter rests with the provincial governments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


Humphrey Mitchell: And there are reasonable stipulations in regard to these matters. We have a federal fair wages policy which deals strictly with federal works. I think it would be far better if my hon. friend directed his question to the various provincial governments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised at the answer given by the Minister of Labour. As a matter of fact there is some sense to it; but I have a case upstairs on which I am working; it has to do with a worker in Manitoba who is working on a contract which was let by the federal government. When he tried to get the vacation with pay stamps provided by provincial legislation in Manitoba, the contractor for whom he was working said: "This is a federal government contract, and provincial legislation does not apply." The case is, one might say, sub judice -I am still writing about it to the various authorities. But the fact of the matter is that that sort of thing does happen time and again. People fall between these two jurisdictions. From the way in which this clause is worded we may run into the same thing. We may have contractors not living up to the provincial labour requirements, and using as an excuse the argument that they are working on something that comes from the federal government.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members on the other side say "Oh, no"; but that is the sort of thing that happens after these bills are passed. I do not blame the government for it, Mr. Chairman, but when we move an amendment the members of the government look at it with the most powerful microscope they can get, to see if they can discover some little flaw in it. But when we suggest there might be a flaw in the wording of their bills, they say, "Oh, no; it can't happen that way." I am telling the government that this sort of thing does happen. I should like to be sure that the work on this trans-Canada highway will be done under fair wage conditions, and that there will not be any passing the buck between federal and provincial authorities with respect to that phase of the matter.


Mr. Maclnnis:: I should like to put myself on record as supporting the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do not think this matter should be dealt with with the hilarity and lightness that is displayed by hon. gentlemen on the other side

of the house. It took us a long time to get a fair wage clause in government contracts. We should like the fair wage clause in government contracts to apply to all contracts. I do not know whether I am right or not, but my understanding is that the fair wage clause applies to all federal government contracts, or to any federal government assisted contract. If that is so, it should apply in this instance. If it does not apply to a contract in which the federal government assists, it should apply, because the federal government should not supply money that is to be used in construction or manufacturing where unfair working and wage conditions prevail. We should make it clear that when the federal government assists any project it does so on the understanding that fair wages and fair working conditions apply. These conditions are not particularly onerous, because they are the conditions that apply in the locality. They are not conditions arbitrarily imposed. There is a formula for working them out.
I suggest that hon. members on the opposite side, who appeal to workers for support at election time, take this matter seriously and see that these fair wage clauses are in the contracts.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, just to keep the record straight may I say this? The hon. member for Vancouver East said that it took a long time to establish the principle of fair wages and working conditions. Let me say to him that that took place before his time and mine. I think it was in the year 1900. The political party that laid down that principle was the Liberal party. My hon. friend knows that the wage structure across the nation is not the same in every province. In British Columbia they have a comparatively high wage structure, probably the highest in the dominion. I think people engaged in public works in that province would wish to see the prevailing conditions in Vancouver or in British Columbia generally adhered to. I feel certain that if we had a national approach to the problem we would object to the wage structures in some of the other provinces. My hon. friend can rest assured that the provincial people, who have jurisdiction in this matter will see to it that the legislation and regulations affecting fair wage conditions in effect in their respective provinces are adhered to.


Mr. Gillis:: I cannot agree with the minister when he says the Liberal government was the first government to recognize the principle of fair wage contracts in agreements. That is true in theory, but it was not until the war contracts of 1939 and 1940 were let that the government gave effect to the fair wage conditions so far as federal government

contracts were concerned. As the hon. member for Vancouver East pointed out a moment ago, some of us in the house were fighting for these things thirty years ago. It is true that we recognized the principle, but it was never put into effect. Unless we are prepared to follow out the mechanics laid down by the government in federal contracts during the war, we shall slowly get back to where we were when the matter was just a theory. It was put in the contracts during the war.
We are not asking that any of the wage schedules in the provinces be upset. All we are asking is that when the federal government lets a contract, the contractor be obliged to conform to the wages and conditions established by the provinces. It must be remembered that conditions are not the same from section to section in a province. There is a differential. If a contractor is putting the highway through a certain section of the province, and the provincial government has set out a fair wage schedule, the least the contractor should be obliged to do is to conform to the law applicable in that particular section.
The minister knows well that since the war there has been difficulty with federal contracts. I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Transport since the present session in regard to federal works projects in my own community, where there was no difficulty during the war, although a lot of construction work was carried on. The contractor got out from under, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested, by saying that the provincial laws had nothing to do with it; that it was a federal contract. The Minister of Transport in this case stated clearly that once that contract is let, it is the responsibility of the contractors to establish the wages and conditions they see fit. A clause should be written into the contract providing that the contractor, in matters of labour, employment and wages should conform to the standards set up in that particular part of the country. Nothing would be upset at all; it would be simply writing something into the contract to avoid difficulties in the future.
I know that in the letting of federal contracts early in the war there was a complete upset right across the country. In my own section of Canada one of my main jobs was running from one works project to another in an effort to iron out difficulties with truck drivers and labourers as between federal contracts and provincial laws, and all that kind of thing. We do not want to get back to that. We are merely asking that the practical machinery established during the war-because once it was established it worked well-be used. These contracts are
Trans-Canada Highway not yet let. It is not necessary to have a special provision in the bill. But if the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply and the Minister of Labour could get together and have a little talk I am sure there would be no trouble in writing into the contracts a clause in which it would be asked that contractors conform to provincial laws in this regard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We should have some understanding of the method of determining the amount of contribution. If the total amount is limited to $150 million for seven years, it means a little more than $20 million a year. There are ten provinces. With the federal contribution of fifty per cent, this allows for a yearly average of construction of roughly $40 million. Again on a straight numerical basis this is an average of about $4 million per year per province.
We know the difficulties of construction in some parts of Ontario, for instance, and British Columbia. It is possible that merely in carrying out their own highway program a province might wish to do more than $4 million worth of construction in any year. What is to be the position? Is there to be a limit placed on the construction that any one province may carry out in any one year? How is the apportionment among provinces to be made? Suppose one province, with this in mind, does a lot of construction early-let us say $20 million or $30 million in a year; then are not the other provinces in danger of having less of the share of the $150 million, if they do not get in at the start? Will that not be the position, unless they know there will be a basis of apportionment, and what that basis is to be? What has the minister in mind in that respect?


Robert Henry Winters: The money will be spent as the work is done. There will be no attempt to allot on an annual basis, or break it down by provinces in relation to the expenditures that we think should be incurred. Nor will there be any attempt to spread out the $150 million over seven years. The seven-year period provision was put in there largely at the request of certain provinces which felt that, having regard to their present heavy highways program, they could not take on the additional work of the trans-Canada highway and complete it in a shorter period of time. The federal government is prepared to go ahead as quickly as the provinces wish to do so, and the expenditures will be in direct relationship to the mileage of work completed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On that basis it would be advantageous, would it not, for any province

Trans-Canada Highway to get as much done as it could, and as quickly as it could, in order to secure as large a slice as possible of the $150 million.


Robert Henry Winters: That is a matter for the provinces to decide. We are open-minded in our approach to the problem. I should think, though, that there would be no need for any province to try to do its work at once in order to receive payment from the federal government under the terms of this act.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: I can understand the minister's hesitancy about finding a route for the trans-Canada highway. It is a ticklish problem, no doubt. I should imagine, for instance, that in Prince Edward Island the trans-Canada highway would run the whole length of the island; is that correct?


Robert Henry Winters: As I have said, the route is a matter to be determined by the provinces.


John Lambert Gibson: One would expect, from the fact that they can determine the route, that it would run the length of the island.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I should say, to clarify the point, that we felt it necessary to state a definition suggesting the shortest practical east-west route consistent with the needs of the provinces and Canada as a whole.


John Lambert Gibson: I understand that. Of course when the minister mentions Victoria as the western terminus, I am sure he appreciates the fact that Victoria is the most easterly point of Vancouver island. I do not think I have to refer to the hon. member for Nanaimo to substantiate that fact. A substantial portion of the island lies to the west of Victoria. If the government of British Columbia defines a more westerly part of the island as the end of the trans-Canada highway, will the federal government be prepared to accept that?


Robert Henry Winters: I should think the hon. member would find the definition fairly comprehensive.


John Lambert Gibson: It would be wide enough, would it?


Mr. Drew:: The question raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni indicates some of the problems which are bound to arise. I can understand his visualizing the possibility that the Malahat drive would be part of the trans-Canada highway-and certainly no one would appreciate more than I would the opportunity to go over that drive. It does, however, indicate the scope of the problem, because in each of the provinces questions arise as to the direction of the routes, north-south as well as east-west. In voting for this bill I wish to have it clearly understood that

I regard it as nothing more than a statutory declaration of intention. That is all it is. I hope no one will leave this chamber in the belief that simply by passing this bill, we have solved the problem of building a trans-Canada highway. The fact that this decision is put in statutory form expresses the wish of members of the house that the government proceed to confer with the provinces in order to determine how it is to be done. Unless that is kept clearly in mind, serious difficulties will arise, and they were emphasized by the remarks made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Having had some background of experience in this respect, I strongly urge the minister that with the statutory declaration indicating that it is the wish of all members of parliament that a trans-Canada highway be proceeded with, any further attempt to deal with the matter by correspondence be abandoned until the provinces meet together and settle an over-all plan.
I would remind the minister that when attempts were made to make separate deals with the provinces in regard to tax arrangements, it brought anguished public statements from even provincial premiers who had most strongly supported the idea of entering into those agreements. If separate arrangements are made, based upon different standards and different widths and different procedure for determining the prior cost of segments of highway which were completed before the new arrangement was entered into, then the whole structure will be one which will proceed by progressive-and progressive is hardly the word-


An hon. Member:: No.


George Alexander Drew: -by unsatisfactory piece-bypiece dealings instead of by a clear, bold plan which all accept as the one under which they are going to work. I want to emphasize the vital importance of bringing the provinces together once this act is passed so that round-the-table arrangements may be made to the end that the representatives of Newfoundland on the east and British Columbia on the west may be aware now, instead of at some later time, of variable factors which will apply in respect to the arrangements in any particular province. It will save the minister a lot of trouble, and it will assure the satisfactory development of this great project.


Mr. Mclvor:: I think actually the leader of the opposition is convinced that this young minister is going to see this thing through. He can rest assured that the minister is not going to take a job like this and then throw it down.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Mr. Chairman, I should like to know if tentative arrangements have been made with regard to the route in Prince Edward Island. The starting point must be Tormentine in New Brunswick. The next link is the Abegweit, which crosses the Northumberland strait. When that is included in the highway we shall have the fulfilment of one of the terms of union of 1873. Then we reach Borden. It has been suggested by the minister that the highway should follow the shortest route to the capital; therefore the road would run from Borden through Victoria, to Crapaud, and then direct to Charlottetown, thereby saving fourteen miles as compared with the hard-surfaced road which is now in use. This route would necessitate a new bridge in order to cross the North river, because the old bridge farther down is not suitable for present day traffic. The North river bridge would be built at Brighton, and the road would then go directly into the heart of Charlottetown.
I understand that some leeway has been given the provincial government, because since I left in September they have opened up a highway from Brackley road to the lower North river with a hundred foot right of way-something new in our province. The rumour is that this highway is to be finished as part of the direct route from Borden. If the minister knows anything about these rumours, I should like him to tell us so we can give a little further consideration to this.


Robert Henry Winters: I know nothing about these rumours. In reply to the leader of the opposition, I would simply refer him to page 2330 of Hansard of November 28, 1949, where I am reported as having said:
It seemed desirable, therefore, that we should go ahead with the legislation and1 then invite provincial governments to attend a conference of officials and technicians for the purpose of discussing all matters of technical detail, with a view to resolving all such points to the mutual satisfaction of the provincial and federal governments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister gave a clear answer to the question I asked; in which he said that there is no intention to limit the amount in any one year. I think this should receive further consideration. Carried to its logical or possible conclusion, it means that any province in a less fortunate financial position than the others, any province that is not able to start work as early or to pursue it as aggressively as other provinces, might in the end receive nothing, or virtually nothing, from this $150 million. I am almost certain that the minister will be asked to give some assurance at the proposed conference that this will not happen. While there is no provision in the bill to which I could suggest an amendment in this regard, the minister will I hope consider this point and, at the
Trans-Canada Highway conference he proposes to call, be ready to propose some safeguards against anything of the kind.


Howard Charles Green: The reference the minister made yesterday was a conference of officials and technicians. Is it not the intention to call together the ministers from the different provinces? It would appear from the minister's statement that this is to be a technical rather than a policy conference.


Robert Henry Winters: A conference was held last December. When the provincial authorities assemble for a conference to discuss details, it will be the privilege of any provincial minister to attend if he wishes to discuss those details. I have no doubt that there are some who will wish to do this. The conference we envisage now will be one relating to matters of technical detail. I believe this has been brought out in the house, and it reflects the views of hon. members as to the next point of procedure. Following the conference we will determine what the next step will be toward implementation and the signing of agreements.


George Alexander Drew: I had thought I had ended my remarks on this matter, but I am seriously alarmed by the statement just made by the minister. First of all, let me say most definitely that the conference last December was not a policy conference. No policy was decided upon; no policy was even considered. The fact is that the provincial representatives who met here last December all went away questioning the value of coming here when no real program had been put in front of them. They went away without any real knowledge of what was intended. Nothing was decided, from the policy point of view, which would make it possible to bring in the experts to work out the technical details which of necessity must be related to an integrated plan.
I urge upon the minister that he reconsider his statement that the conference he proposes to call will be one of technical experts. The first meeting should be one by governments, if this act is to be the basis of a successful development of this project. I repeat that the first step is for the governments to meet at the government level to determine the procedure by which an over-all plan may be arrived at. It is only then that the technical experts can usefully discuss what is to be done.


Mr.   Baler@: Mr. Chairman, after listening to the remarks made this morning I have come to the conclusion that it is about time the hatchet was buried by the different parties in this chamber and by the federal government and the governments of the

Trans-Canada Highway different provinces. Personally I feel that there is no cause for alarm. I consider that this highway project is the greatest project ever considered in the history of our dominion. It is something that has been awaited for many years. I have every confidence, that when the conference is held, any differences of opinion will be set aside, and that the individuals who will gather together to solve the problem and start the wheels moving will adopt principles of tolerance, sacrifice and responsibility, and get along with the job.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I have a press dispatch here which appeared earlier this month in the Veterans Advocate. It reads in part as follows:
It had been planned to hold a dominion-provincial trans-Canada highway meeting in Ottawa, but that project has been abandoned in favour of individual meetings with the provinces.
Has it definitely been decided there will not be a meeting of representatives of the different governments in a nation-wide conference? I believe the minister of public works of British Columbia expects that there will be a further conference. Frankly I am surprised to learn today that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is planning to call in only technical officials from the provinces. I urge that he give consideration to having a meeting of the ministers of public works of the different provinces. There is time yet to change his plan in order to have such a meeting, and it seems to me a meeting of that kind would be much more likely to produce results. The technical men would also be present. I wonder whether the objective will be attained simply by calling in the technical men and leaving the ministers at home. They are not likely to come if they are not specially invited.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think that this should be a point of contention at all. In my opinion the plan has developed as far as it has by a process of co-operation. I have talked or written to the representatives of every provincial government. I have spoken personally to all but one, as I said in my statement. In those conversations we decided what the best course of action should be. We felt the first stage should be to bring down the legislation, and then to get together and discuss matters of technical detail. That is a point on which there has been agreement between the provincial governments and ourselves on the ministerial level, if you wish to call it that. After that has been done, and all points have been resolved, we shall
have to decide what the next step should be towards the signing of agreements so that the work can be got under way.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the thought that there may be a conference on the ministerial level after the meeting of the technical personnel has been held?


Robert Henry Winters: The invitation to provincial governments to attend a conference to discuss technical details will of course be directed through the provincial minister concerned. He will be invited to come himself or to send one of his officials to discuss technical points. The minister will be entirely free to come. For the information of hon. members I think I should say that so far no letter has gone out, but one is being prepared and will be sent in the near future. After that conference has been held, I am sure we shall be able to decide in a spirit of cooperation what the next step should be.


Howard Charles Green: In the Vancouver papers which arrived yesterday there are two questions raised. One is as follows:
A stumbling block to be removed, however, on this route is the operation of commercial truck transports through the national park areas which the road traverses. So far the federal government has not permitted this.
I mentioned in my remarks yesterday that for many years there had been objection to trucks not being allowed to use freely the highways through the national parks. The article goes on:
Another point on which B.C. seeks clarification is construction of the highway through towns and cities. Present federal plans call for building the road only to municipal boundaries.
I do not believe that press statement is correct, but will the minister clarify these two points?


Robert Henry Winters: The matter of commercial traffic through public parks is an important point, and it is one that is under discussion. I have nothing further to add at this time, except to say that it is a good point.


Howard Charles Green: Is that not entirely in the control of the dominion?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, it is. As to the second point, concerning the arrangements through municipalities, we have told the provincial governments that the normal relationship between the provincial government and the municipality with respect to payment for highways will prevail, so far as that is possible.


Howard Charles Green: What does the minister mean by that? In the terms which were sent out to the provincial governments the minister said that

the dominion government would not pay anything in excess of the cost of a two-lane highway. Does that also apply through towns and cities? In other words, if the street is 66 feet wide and the province is contributing to the construction and upkeep thereof in the municipality, will the position be that the dominion government will contribute only up to the width of a two-lane highway?


Robert Henry Winters: That is what is contemplated at the moment.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Can the minister give us an estimate as to how much of the $150 million will be required to reimburse the provinces for work that has already been completed on sections of the highway?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think I could give anything that would be of any value, because the routes have not yet been determined.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think section 4 is the most important one in the bill. It is the section concerning which a great deal of the discussion has already taken place. It is the provision whereby the federal government's contribution to the building of the trans-Canada highway will amount to no more than fifty per cent. I was particularly glad to see the stand taken by the leader of the opposition and the leader of the Social Credit party when they pointed out that a fifty per cent contribution is too low to assure the building of a trans-Canada highway within the seven-year period. If the highway is to be built within a reasonable time, the contribution of fifty per cent should be increased, so that there will be a greater incentive for each province to undertake construction within its own boundaries. The minister has said the building of the trans-Canada highway is contingent upon all provinces signing agreements. With a contribution of only fifty per cent I would say that the cost may be too high for some provinces to proceed.
I was greatly impressed by the speech of the leader of the Social Credit party. He pointed out that even for a province as wealthy as Alberta the contribution required from the province for the building of the highway within its boundaries will be a serious burden on the provincial treasury. If this is so in Alberta, certainly some of the maritime provinces, and likely the province of Saskatchewan, will have even greater difficulty in attempting to match the federal contribution dollar for dollar. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the fifty per cent contribution be increased to seventy-five per cent. If the federal government's contribution is increased, I believe that each province will be able to go ahead with the construction of a trans-Canada highway in the near future.
Trans-Canada Highway
I should like, therefore, to move an amendment, Mr. Chairman, seconded by the member for Saskatoon. The amendment is as follows:
That clause 4, subclause (2), be amended by deleting therefrom the words "fifty per centum" and by substituting therefor the words "seventy-five per centum."
This amendment will in no way increase the expenditure made by the federal government under this act. The expenditure to be made under this act is covered by clause 7, which states that the aggregate of all expenditures shall not exceed $150 million. All this amendment would do is to change the formula, so that the provinces could undertake construction. I admit that it might mean a reduction in the standard of the highway; I do not know. It would at least assure the building of a trans-Canada highway, and it would establish the principle that the federal government should make a greater contribution.
The federal government has found that in many cases, such as old age pensions and housing, it must make a seventy-five per cent contribution to enable the provinces to fulfil their obligation. The same principle should be applied to the building of the trans-Canada highway. If the government really desires the highway it should be prepared to pay seventy-five per cent of the cost, while the provinces contribute twenty-five per cent.


Mr. Howe:: Mr. Chairman, obviously the amendment is out of order, since it calls for an increase in the expenditure of public funds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in his statement that the amendment is obviously out of order, has not taken even a moment to think about it. I ask you, sir, and members opposite to take their time in considering this matter. It is quite clear that the amendment is in order. May I remind you, sir, and all hon. members, of the statement my colleague the member for Assiniboia has just made, namely, that clause 7 of the bill sets a ceiling on the amount of money to be spent under this bill. If the bill is passed without this amendment, the total amount of money to be spent will be $150 million. If my colleague's amendment carries and the bill passes with the "seventy-five per centum" in clause 4, the total amount of money to be spent by this government will still be only $150 million. All this amendment does is to relax the terms upon which the federal government is making the money available.
If I may illustrate by using a figure, in order for a province to secure $3 of federal money now, it has to match it with another $3.

Trans-Canada Highway [f my colleague's amendment carries, in order for a province to get $3 of federal money, it would have to match it with only $1. As my colleague has stated, it might result in less money being spent on the highway, but at least it would make it possible for the highway to be started, and it would establish the principle of a three to one contribution.
On Saturday last the member for Rimouski, who is parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, introduced a bill to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act. The amending bill was introduced without any prior resolution. In introducing it, the parliamentary assistant explained why there was no prior resolution. He said that it was not a money bill-that is did not involve expenditure. The member for Coast-Capilano is now nodding his head up and down. The member for Rimouski said that the Industrial Development Bank Act sets a ceiling of $25 million. All that his amendment did was to relax the terms on which a portion of that money is to be made available. He said that because it did not change the ceiling of $25 million, it did not involve an increase in expenditure. Mr. Chairman, the cases are completely analogous.
The bill before us sets a ceiling of $150 million, and the purpose of my colleague's amendment is to relax the terms on which that federal money is to be made available to the provinces. I submit that members opposite cannot claim one rule for the government on Saturday, and apply another rule to the opposition on Tuesday. If on Saturday it was in order for the member for Rimouski to say that his amendment did not involve an increase in expenditure, because it left the ceiling where it was and merely relaxed the terms on which that money was made available, I submit it is in order today for the member for Assiniboia to move an amendment that leaves the ceiling at $150 million, and merely relaxes the terms on which that money is to be made available.
I could go further, Mr. Chairman, and read from pages 510 and 511 of May, but I will simply paraphrase it. On those pages it says that once the resolution preceding a bill has been brought in with the royal recommendation, no amendments can be made that go beyond the terms of the resolution; in other words no amendment can exceed the scope of the royal recommendation. May I remind you, sir, that when the minister of reconstruction brought in the resolution preceding this bill, it did not specify any plan of contribution. There was no mention of a fifty-fifty basis. The rule is quite clear that when the house is in committee on a bill, any

amendment to the terms of the bill can be made, provided it does not go beyond the terms laid down in the resolution which was laid before the house with the royal recommendation.
I turn to the resolution, which is on page 2023 of Hansard. It reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to encourage and assist in the construction of a trans-Canada highway and to provide for this purpose that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply may enter into agreements with any provinces providing for the payment by Canada to those provinces of contributions in respect of the cost of a trans-Canada highway; with provision also for the employment of temporary engineers, technical officers and other employees for the purpose of the act.
The proposal to which the governor general gave his approval-that is what counts in these matters-was a plan which involved contributions couched in general terms. When the royal recommendation was received, the resolution did not mention a fifty-fifty basis, or any other specific plan. So long as we stay within the terms of the resolution, we are in order, and that is precisely what this amendment does.
But I come back to what I said before, Mr. Chairman, that not only are we staying strictly within the terms of the resolution but we are at this point moving an amendment that does not involve an increased expenditure of money, any more than the amending bill did which the hon. member for Rimouski brought in on Saturday last. I submit that if the rule applies one way for the government on Saturday, it should apply in the same way for the opposition on Tuesday.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that no explanation of mine is really needed with regard to the specious argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Donald MacInnis: It is not specious at all, and the minister knows it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I point out that the purpose of this bill is to build a trans-Canada highway from coast to coast at an estimated cost for the project of $300 million. The appropriation made here is intended to cover the government's share of the project. It is obvious that if the government's contribution is raised from fifty per cent to seventy-five per cent, additional funds will be required. Whether they are appropriated in this bill or not is immaterial. The motion represents an additional drain on the treasury of Canada, and therefore it is clearly out of order.


Donald MacInnis: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that this bill stipulated the building of a trans-Canada highway that would cost $300 million.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I did not.


Donald MacInnis: There is no such stipulation in the bill. The stipulation in the bill is that the federal government will provide up to $150 million. It does not say that that is for completion of a highway, either. This amendment does not increase the amount that the government will spend. It may reduce the amount that the provincial governments may spend, but it certainly will not increase the amount that the federal government will spend. For that reason it is absolutely in order, as every hon. member of this committee should know from the clear explanation of the rules given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Sinclair:: I should like to speak to the point of order. To begin with I support the contention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the purpose of this bill is not to grant $150 million to the provincial governments for road construction. The principle of this bill is to construct a trans-Canada highway to the specifications given by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply in his speech on second reading. Section 4 and section 7 are of course related in that respect. Under section 7 and section 4, when taken together, the fifty per cent contribution of the federal government is estimated at $150 million, which means that the cost of the highway is $300 million. Therefore when the hon. member for Assiniboia raises the percentage provided in section 4 to seventy-five per cent, that means seventy-five per cent of $300 million.


An hon. Member:: No, it does not.


John Ewen Sinclair: The result would be that section 7 would have to be amended to read $225 million.
As to the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that this is an exact analogue to the remarks of the hon. member for Rimouski on Saturday, I want to point out that there is a great difference. The Industrial Development Bank Act provided for an expenditure of $25 million, but that sum of $25 million could be available for loans for approved projects on which, incidentally, the government makes profits. In that bill there was the initial provision that for a certain period only $15 million should be available for these loans; and the bill proposed by my colleague was to provide that the remaining $10 million which had already been authorized by the first act should now be made available for these loans. There is no similarity whatsoever between what was moved by my colleague and what the hon. member for Assiniboia is now trying to do.
Trans-Canada Highway


Edmund Davie Fulton: Speaking to the point of order, it seems to me that the point just put forward by the parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, is not well taken. Here we have a bill which authorizes the expenditure by the federal government of $150 million. That is all the bill does with respect to money.


John Ewen Sinclair: It is a bill to build a trans-Canada highway.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The expenditure of $150 million is the only authorization with respect to money which the bill contains. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia does not vary in any sense the over-all commitment for the expenditure of money which is provided by the bill. It changes the details as to how the money will be spent, but it does not change the over-all commitment. It does not upset the balance of ways and means, or impose upon the treasury, if accepted, the obligation of raising further money by taxes, because the government is still committed to the expenditure of only $150 million.
The matter introduced into the argument put forward by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and repeated by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, raised an entirely new question. It raised the question whether $150 million is going to be sufficient to finish this highway. That is not involved in the argument or in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia. Since the resolution and the bill, as to ways and means, is limited only to the expenditure of $150 million, and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia does not vary that amount, I submit that the amendment is in order.


Mr. Byrne:: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I certainly cannot see how it will be possible for the dominion government to be assured of a trans-Canada highway which includes Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, and, as I believe was suggested this morning, Vancouver island from north to south, unless they are assured that the provincial governments are going to pay fifty per cent of their share, as was outlined by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply yesterday.
When he moved the second reading of this bill, the minister indicated that there would be certain specifications that would have to be lived up to. They may vary in different provinces, but we shall at least have a two-lane highway and not a cow trail; that was the intention of the bill. The cost is estimated at $300 million, and that is the basis on which

Trans-Canada Highway this committee is discussing the entire problem; the federal government is proposing to pay $150 million.
If it is determined that the provinces are going to pay only $75 million, then we have a $250 million highway and not a $300 million highway. At least we are cutting down from $300 million. Therefore we shall not have the highway that is anticipated by the $300 million figure. In order to ensure that there will be a two-lane highway from coast to coast, this government will ultimately have to pay more than $150 million, if it has been determined that the provinces are desirous of cutting down on the contract. I cannot see how the group that are putting forward this amendment can be so narrow in their outlook on the whole question, and I submit that it is out of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is a citation here to which I think your attention should be directed, Mr. Chairman. It is found in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, starting at page 165, paragraph 559:
The constitutional principle which vests in the crown the sole responsibility of incurring national expenditure, forbids an increase by the commons of a sum demanded on behalf of the crown for the service of the state. This principle, however, is apparently disregarded when the recommendation of the crown is given to a resolution empowering the expenditure of public money which, framed in general terms, places no limitation on the amount of expenditure to be authorized by the resolution.
The resolution on which the bill is based is drawn in general terms; it places no limitation upon the amount of money to be spent to implement the resolution. It has already been read, and therefore I will not repeat it, but I would refer you, Mr. Chairman, to page 2033 of Hansard, where the resolution is recorded.
The point of order therefore is this. In our contention the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia will not in fact increase the amount to be spent by the federal government; it will still leave it at $150 million. But even if it did, and even applying the arguments of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, the resolution being framed in general terms and placing no limitation upon the amount of money to be spent, according to citation 559, to which I referred you, sir, the amendment would still be in order.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The bill is a money bill. It provides for the expenditure of money. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia increases the financial responsibility of the government. The amendment, if agreed to, would place upon the shoulders

of the government responsibility for increasing the amount of money to be spent. An amendment of that kind cannot be moved by a private member. I refer hon. members to citations 453 and 458, third edition of Beauchesne.
The proposed amendment would place upon the government an increased financial responsibility, and cannot be moved by a private member. Therefore I rule the amendment out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Because I believe that citation does not apply at all, I must appeal your ruling to the house.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
When Bill No. 194 was under consideration in committee of the whole, Mr. Argue moved that clause 4, subclause 2, be amended by deleting therefrom the words "fifty per centum" and by substituting therefor the words "seventy-five per centum." The chairman ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it increased the financial responsibility of the government.
Whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed from the ruling of the chairman.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
Mr. Dion, chairman of the committee of the whole, reports that the committee was considering section 4(2) of Bill 194, to encourage and to assist in the construction of a trans-Canada highway. Mr. Argue, seconded by Mr. Knight, moved that said section 4(2) be amended by deleting therefrom the words "fifty per centum" and by substituting therefor the words "seventy-five per centum."
The chairman ruled the amendment out of order in that it increased the financial responsibility of the government. From this ruling the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and others, appealed.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Is there an
understanding with each of the ten provinces indicating that they are prepared to enter into agreements under this legislation?


Robert Henry Winters: No, there is no understanding.


Percy Chapman Black: If one province refuses to enter into an agreement, will that mean that the whole undertaking will be blocked?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think it is fair to anticipate that situation. In our public statements we have said that this is a national project, and if all the provinces do not participate, it will not be a national project and would have to be considered in that light.


Percy Chapman Black: Will the agreements with the provinces indicate the termini of the trans-Canada highway in the respective provinces?


Robert Henry Winters: That will be one of the things defined in the agreements.


Percy Chapman Black: What is the proposal with regard to branch trans-Canada highways? When the original trans-Canada highway was laid down in Nova Scotia, one of the terminals was at Louisburg, in the eastern portion of the province. As I have said on other occasions, the trans-Canada highway should go to Cape Breton in order to tie up with the highway in Newfoundland. Will this particular branch road in Nova Scotia, and the highway in New Brunswick which connects with Prince Edward Island, be considered as parts of the trans-Canada highway, and will payments be made to those provinces in connection therewith?


Robert Henry Winters: Any highway that becomes a part of the trans-Canada highway will be considered when provincial assistance is being given.


Percy Chapman Black: That road would be considered as a branch of the trunk road' in the province?


Robert Henry Winters: Not necessarily. It will
depend upon what Nova Scotia decides in respect to its trans-Canada highway. If it decides that the highway should run from the east coast of Cape Breton Island to the New Brunswick-Nova Scotia border on the west, payment will be made accordingly.

Trans-Canada Highway


Percy Chapman Black: Has the minister received any authority since yesterday to lay on the table the correspondence with Nova Scotia? We are being asked to approve a policy involving the construction of 5,000 miles of trunk highway, representing an expenditure of $150 million of federal money and $150 million of provincial money, and this correspondence is being withheld. If the minister has not received any authorization since yesterday, I would ask him to lay on the table of the house that portion of the correspondence emanating from the federal government and his department. I should like to have that portion of the correspondence laid on the table.


Robert Henry Winters: I have still received no permission from Nova Scotia to table the correspondence. In reply to the request that the federal government table the letters originating with it, I believe it would be unfair to the province, on the ground that the letters from the federal government would clearly imply what is contained in the letters originating with the province of Nova Scotia, and thus such action would not conform to the spirit of the wishes of the government of that province.


Percy Chapman Black: I do not agree with the minister. He is making commitments on behalf of parliament involving a major policy and a very large sum of money. I feel that we are entitled to know what commitments he has made to the province of Nova Scotia or to any other province, the correspondence with which has not been laid on the table.


Robert Henry Winters: There have been no commitments, nor will there be any until the agreements are entered into.


Percy Chapman Black: If there are no commitments, there are proposals made by the minister to the respective provinces, and I should like to have a copy of them.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Percy Chapman Black: Does the minister refuse to lay the correspondence on the table?


Mr. Abbott:: Yes, of course.


Percy Chapman Black: I should like to have the "yes" from the minister.


Robert Henry Winters: I have no power to act on behalf of the government of Nova Scotia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a point of order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Open a law office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister need not scowl, because it is the same point of order he raised last night, except that in this

instance the citation supports my contention. Last night the Prime Minister wanted the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to lay on the table private letters which he was citing.


Mr. St. Laurent:: I deny that positively. I made no attempts to have any private correspondence laid on the table. I said that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, having declared frankly that he was not prepared to lay the letter on the table or to say from whom it emanated, was not in order in reading it to the house. I objected to the reading of the letter. I did not ask that it be tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It amounts to the same thing.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You would think those members who want to go home for Christmas would not interrupt so much.


Mr. SI. Laurent:: I may inform the hon. member that if he wants to stay here for Christmas, we will oblige him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I don't mind. It is the nation's business we were elected to attend to.
The Prime Minister raised a point of order and objected to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar reading a letter which he was not prepared to lay on the table. During the course of the debate on the point of order the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar read citation 316 from Beauchesne, second edition.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. That was decided yesterday; it is finished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am now rising on a point
of order, namely, that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply has refused to meet the request of the hon. member for Cumberland to lay on the table a public document which he has cited, namely, his own letter.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Citation 316 reads:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the house, if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda.
The rest of the citation is there, but I do not need to read it. It makes it clear that it does not apply to private letters or memoranda, but that it does apply to public documents. Perhaps I should have read the rest of the citation, because it refers to letters to which a minister of the crown had referred in the United Kingdom parliament.


Robert Henry Winters: To the best of my knowledge -and I think I am correct in saying this-I

have never referred in the house to letters I have written to the government of Nova Scotia in this connection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There has been a lot of talk about it.


Mr. Hansell:: I should like to ask the minister a question. The effect of an answer which he gave a few moments ago was that it would not- be fair to anticipate something or other. When the government brings down legislation of this kind, it appears to me they should anticipate every possible angle. My question to him may involve some anticipation. The amount that the federal government is putting up is fifty per cent of that which each province will provide. Suppose a province cannot put up the required fifty per cent. What is going to happen? I have it in mind that the provinces already have certain plans prepared for highway construction covering a number of years, or at least for the next couple of years. Is it possible that these provinces may hold up the trans-Canada highway program because they have no additional money to apply to the program contemplated by the present bill? If they use their money for trans-Canada highway construction, then I am afraid a good deal of secondary road work in the provinces will go by the board for a few years.
It is one o'clock, and perhaps I have said enough at the moment. The minister can reply later. I should like to say a little more on this point.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Ernest George Hansell: To revert to what I was saying when the committee rose at one o'clock, it is proposed to spend $150 million on this highway over what might consequently prove to be a period of seven years. The provinces will put up fifty per cent of the cost, which will mean another $150 million coming from the provinces. I see a difficulty in that.
Supposing the provinces have already made plans for a highway program to cover the next two or three years. I believe some of the provincial governments look several years ahead, and plan accordingly. I shall give you an example of what I have in mind. Suppose when construction of the trans-Canada highway commences a province has decided to spend $10 million on its over-all highway program; so much is allotted to first-class, hard-surfaced highways; so much for second-class gravelled highways, and so much for third-class or market roads which are only
Trans-Canada Highway graded. This program calls for an expenditure of $10 million for that year. The dominion government then says it proposes to spend $5 million in that province on the trans-Canada highway in that year. The provincial government may say that will mean we shall have to get another $5 million from some place. We have already planned a $10 million program, so where are we going to get this $5 million. We cannot raise that much. Has the government anticipated a situation of that kind? What will they propose if that happens?
I am afraid that in such a situation the province may say, "We will have to cut our program in half and take $5 million from what we proposed to spend in some other part of the province, and put it on the trans-Canada highway so that we can get $5 million from the federal government this year". I rather favoured the amendment that was proposed by the member for Assiniboia, because if the provinces are to put up fifty per cent, will it not mean that they will have to depreciate part of their over-all program for municipal and secondary roads which are needed. In some cases, perhaps the provincial population needs those roads more than the trans-Canada highway. I know what happens in some of these provinces, because I live in one of them. Alberta has some good hard-surfaced roads, which were built in the hope of encouraging the tourist trade. We will not criticize that. There are some people, however, who do not live near those highways and they say, "What about us?" Those people live there all the time, and have to take their stock or grain to market. The tourist does not live in that province. Whether or not the criticism is justified, I am unable to say; but if any province, because of lack of funds, has to divert funds from its highway program in order to back the dominion government in building the trans-Canada highway, then there may be trouble brewing from certain sections of the public.
I should like to know whether the minister has anticipated any such thing, and how that situation will be met. I know the minister can say he has confidence in the provinces; he has always received co-operation from them and does not expect such a situation to arise. I should like some expression from the minister about that.


Robert Henry Winters: There were quite a number of suppositions in the statement made by the hon. member for Macleod. He said something about the provincial governments backing the federal government in its approach to this problem. From the outset I have felt, and I believe the members of the house have felt, it was the other way around; that the federal government was backing the provincial governments in the construction of

Trans-Canada Highway projects that would be theirs upon completion. I have no doubt that the provinces will be able to program their highways during the next seven years, so that they will be able to take full advantage of the assistance being made available by this bill.


Mr. Johnston:: 
Howard Charles Green: Subsection 2 of section 4 puzzles me a bit. It reads as follows:
The contributions paid to a province under this section shall not exceed fifty per centum of the cost to the province of the construction of the highway as determined by the governor in council.
Doe: that mean that the governor in council can decide, first, what figure is to be taken as the cost of construction and, second, what proportion of that cost is to be paid by the dominion? I think that is the meaning as the section reads; in other words, it means

that the cabinet is taking the final decision as to the cost of the road built by the provinces and as to what percentage of that cost will be paid by the dominion. Will the minister explain the intention with regard to that clause?


Robert Henry Winters: The clause is intended to
enable the federal government to provide fifty per cent of the cost of construction of a highway; the costs, and what determines costs, to be determined by the governor in council.


Howard Charles Green: In other words, the cabinet have the final say as to what the road costs the province. That is not a matter of agreement between the dominion and a province.


Robert Henry Winters: It is more a matter of what items go into costs. Once it has been established what items go into costs, it is clear under the terms of this bill that the federal government will pay half.


Howard Charles Green: Is the government planning to pay the same percentage of cost to each province or will one province get fifty per cent and another province get say thirty-five per cent? Is it the intention that they shall all get exactly the same percentage of the cost of construction?


Robert Henry Winters: That is the intention, Mr. Chairman, yes.


Mr. Higgins:: I should like to ask the minister if he has received a proposal to dam the strait of Belle Isle. This is entirely on the highway question. If he does not know about it, I will explain it to him later. Perhaps he has received a request. The only other matter about which I wish to ask is this. What happens in the event of a province signing this agreement and not carrying out the agreement within the specified period whereas some other province completes the full agreement? Does the province that completes the agreement get paid whereas the first province, we will say, spoils the whole scheme?


Robert Henry Winters: It is proposed to pay for work completed; and as the work progresses and the mileage is completed to the standard required, payments will be made.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What about the damming of the strait of Belle Isle?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not believe that matter comes within the ambit of this bill.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am quite serious, Mr. Chairman. I notice that there is a press dispatch of November 28 which reads as follows:
The Saguenay chamber announced that it has sent on to the federal government a resolution asking
45781-153i
Trans-Canada Highway that trans-Canada highway plans include a 900-mile road along the St. Lawrence north shore from Quebec to Blanc Sablon.
The resolution recalled that the theory of blocking the strait of Belle Isle, nine miles wide at Blanc Sablon, has been discussed in Quebec province.
Has the minister received any such request?


Robert Henry Winters: No, I have not.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Does he propose to do anything about it, if he does?


Mr. Pinard:: Before this clause carries I wish to say a few words in support of the remarks that were made yesterday by the hon. member for Levis. I think that the minister will not be surprised if I agree with the suggestion made by my colleague that in negotiating with the province of Quebec or rather with the government of the province of Quebec the minister should insist that the Sir Wilfrid Laurier highway which commences in my constituency form part of the project of the trans-Canada highway. In addition to offering many other advantages, this highway is I think in keeping with the spirit of the legislation which is to make provision for building a road by the shortest route from east to west in each province of Canada. I believe that every member from the district of Montreal, as well as every member from Quebec, will agree that the shortest highway from Montreal to Quebec must go along the south shore. This will not be denied even by those who favour the suggestion that a trans-Canada highway must go through Three Rivers. Even if this trans-Canada highway goes through the home town of the Quebec premier, I think the autonomy of the province of Quebec will be preserved just the same.
There is another advantage in using the Sir Wilfrid Laurier boulevard in this project. There might be brought about a solution to the problem of tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges, which span the St. Lawrence at Montreal. I have just a word or two to add to that, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister would not allow the users of the trans-Canada highway to be forced to pay tolls when they cross these bridges in order to reach the Sir Wilfrid Laurier highway.
In conclusion, I suggest that in discussing an agreement with the province of Quebec, the minister should realize that the spirit of the legislation would be preserved if this good road were used. It was begun during a Liberal regime in the province of Quebec and I think the minister would be well advised if he would allow this road to continue, in that way adding to the project one section of good highway.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Chairman-

Trans-Canada Highway


The Deputy Chairman:: May I say to the
hon. member for Portneuf that if he wishes to reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, he could perhaps more appropriately do so on section 5.


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will not be lengthy. I just do not agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat when he says that the shortest way will be through Laurier boulevard. The shortest way would be on the north shore, especially through Three Rivers and through my home town on the north shore of the St. (Lawrence. Because of the announcement made yesterday about an important discovery in my county it would be wiser to go through the north shore, to Three Rivers and Quebec.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Some latitude has been allowed to discuss the route. Under no section of this bill can the route be discussed. From now on I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the clause under discussion, which is clause 4, "Contributions to provinces."


Mr. Cole (Maiapedia-Matane):: That is why I am rising.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I call on the hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why the necessity for the words in the last part of subsection 2 which read as follows: " ... as determined by the governor in council?" The hon. member for Vancouver -Quadra asked a question about this and I am uneasy over the minister's answer. The subsection reads in full as follows:
The contributions paid to a province under this section shall not exceed1 fifty per centum of the cost to the province of the construction of the highway as determined by the governor in council.
I can see no reason for these words, because section 3 of the bill clearly lays down the procedure which will be followed in determining the cost of the construction, and that cost has to be determined in accordance with the agreement arrived at between the dominion and the respective provinces. The agreements provide for, among other things, the right of the minister to inspect the tenders for the construction of the road; the right of the minister to inspect the road while it is being constructed; the method of determining the cost of construction; the amount of the contributions and the examination, inspection and audit of all construction costs and accounts. Therefore the method of determining the costs of construction is covered in the agreement. In addition, the minister has the right to inspect the work while it is in progress to make sure that it is being carried out

efficiently, and to examine all contracts, and so on, and make certain that there is no room for overexpenditure or careless expenditure.
In view of that clear right of supervision which is given, and the provision for determining the costs of construction in the agreement, it seems to me that it would be quite unfair and unnecessary to give the overriding power to the governor in council under section 4 to determine what is the actual cost of construction. I would be inclined to recommend that the words should be taken out of the bill, but before doing so I would be much obliged to the minister if he would let us know why he considers these words must be in the bill.


Charles Delmar Coyle: I do not want to add to the difficulties of the minister, which seem to increase with every minute of the discussion. There is one well recognized fact. After the Rockies, the most beautiful scenery in Canada is to be found in the Matapedia valley and on the Gaspe peninsula. I have the honour to represent the Matapedia valley, but not Gaspe. I will not ask the minister to see to it that the highway goes through Matane; but, as I understand, it is the entire responsibility of the provincial governments to decide on the route to be followed. If the minister considers one fact, so far as our part of the country is concerned there is a road already through Matapedia on the way to Campbell-ton in the maritimes. That has already been built. It will be much easier to go from Riviere du Loup to Campbellton, and then to Edmundston, where my colleague was recently elected, and we should see that that route is followed if we have any influence whatever with Mr. Duplessis in Quebec.
The Depuiy Chairman: Shall the section carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister answer my question?


Robert Henry Winters: The provision for determination of costs by the governor in council was put in the bill as an added safeguard. I think it is pretty evident that where payments are being made of the order contemplated by this bill every precaution should be taken, and in fact every right is reserved by the governor in council to determine what the costs are.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But the right to examine and to safeguard against extravagance is contained in section 3. It is provided there that the right will be exercised under the terms of the agreement. Presumably the agreement has to be arrived at by negotiation.

The provision that the minister has in mind to safeguard the expenditures of federal funds could be inserted and should be inserted in the agreement, and that is what is contemplated in section 3. That having been done, and the provinces having carried out their obligations in accordance with the terms of the agreement, it seems to me that it is not right, nor is it necessary, to insert a further provision which gives the governor in council the right to override or to veto or to disregard the costs as determined by the agreements and say, we determine that some other amount has been the cost of construction. Will the minister not agree that section 3 gives him adequate powers to safeguard against extravagance and to supervise the terms, methods and standards of construction?


Robert Henry Winters: No. I feel the provision is one that is necessary in the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister give us some idea as to the proportion of the $150 million to be spent under this bill that will be spent under clause 4? I think the reason I ask this question is quite clear. This morning the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that the purpose of the bill is to build a trans-Canada highway from coast to coast, at an estimated cost of $300 million for the project. One of the minister's objections to our proposals to increase the percentage to seventy-five per cent was that in his view it would defeat the purpose of the bill. My point is that if a large percentage of the $150 million is spent under sections other than section 4 it will simply mean that we shall not get a $300 million highway, and that would defeat the stated purpose of the bill. I think it is a fair question to ask whether $100 million, $125 million, or what amount, will be spent under section 4. Clearly if the whole $150 million is not spent under that section we shall not get a $300 million highway. I think it is fair to ask how much of a highway we are likely to get out of this bill.


Robert Henry Winters: I think I estimated on the resolution stage that it is now possible to go from one end of Canada to the other on sixty per cent hard-surfaced highway. If one estimates that the remainder of forty per cent is to be built new, then one can get some idea of that approach by assuming that we shall pay half the cost of reconstruction. I would not like to venture a guess as to what the new construction would average across Canada, but I would say that it would be somewhere between $60,000 and $80,000 a mile, on the average. It would not be
Trans-Canada Highway relevant now because the routes have not been determined, but it gives hon. members an idea.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope the minister will watch me closely, because I do not wish to put words in his mouth. Did I gather that only about forty per cent of this money will be spent on new highways? The minister used that figure, but I do not wish to misinterpret what he said. Nevertheless he pointed out that at the present time there is sixty per cent of hard-surfaced highway. All of us do not agree, but the implication was that we need to build only the other forty per cent. So it looks as though the proportion of that money to be used to build new highway, forty per cent of $150 million, will be matched by a similar amount by the provinces, but that is all that will be spent on new highway.


Robert Henry Winters: No, I would not think that would be a fair conclusion. I do not wish to be in the position of giving the house information that will not be borne out by developments. I wish to make it clear that the routes have not been established. There are undoubtedly many places where there is now hard-surfaced highway which will have to be completely rebuilt. I do not know about that. I would say a great deal of the money will be spent on new construction.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Contributions in respect to highways previously constructed.
Heber Harold Hatfield: Will any part of the trans-Canada highway started in 1931 be accepted from the provinces as part of their share of this plan?


Robert Henry Winters: It might be. That is not a limiting qualification. If the provinces choose to put the trans-Canada highway over the route selected in 1931, we will not object to it. But we are not saying that they must do it.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Then we are going to have part a super-highway and part a super -cowpath?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Mr. Chairman, I wish to get a little information, because probably my province is somewhat differently situated. Prior to 1930 we did not have a single yard of hard-surfaced highway in our province. During the thirties the Bennett government put into effect the building of certain portions of highway in different counties of the province. These were completed and paid for by the federal government.
In 1933 the Bennett government started what is now to be called this super-highway,
2406	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Highway and built from Borden a section of solid concrete for two and one-tenth miles. That was the beginning of what is now planned as the trans-Canada highway. This road, built of solid concrete, cost the federal government $48,000 for the two and one-tenth miles. Then, following that, in 1935 the Bennett government hard-surfaced the highway from Hunter River to Rustico, a distance of ten and a half or eleven miles, at not one cent of cost to the Prince Edward Island government.
These highways are still there. Prior to that time very few highways were built by the federal government. During wartime, however, some highways were built. The province would not be entitled to any definite payment for any that were built prior to 1935. They would not get fifty per cent of that back again, and then make a double payment.
However, the point I am making is that after 1935, and down to the present time, we have built 225 miles of hard-surfaced highway in our province. The hard-surfaced highway I mentioned, from Hunter River to Rustico, was purely a federal project, and the upkeep of it, of course, was turned over to the provincial government. All our highways built from that time-and the balance would be about 175 miles-would now come in for the fifty per cent payment from the federal government, when this bill goes through, and they begin the building of the trans-Canada highway. Am I correct in my understanding of this?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Chairman; the bill states quite clearly that with respect to a road already built the federal government will contribute to the cost to the province of the construction of the highway. So the amount paid by the federal government will be related to moneys expended on the highways already built by the province.


Mr. Wright:: Where a grant will be made to a province for roads already constructed, is there any provision that they shall go ahead and do any further building at all on this trans-Canada highway? It seems to me that a province could conceivably, under this agreement, be paid for 500 miles of road which they have already constructed, with no obligation on their part to go ahead with any further work, or any connecting link of the trans-Canada highway. What provision is there for protection against that possibility?


Robert Henry Winters: There is no provision in the bill. The provinces can spend as they wish the moneys made available to them for work already carried out on the trans-Canada highway route.


Percy Ellis Wright: That seems to be a strange national highway plan, indeed, whereby we say to a province, "We will make you a grant of fifty per cent of the cost of a 500-mile highway you have already constructed in your province, with no obligation at all on your part to go ahead and complete the trans-Canada highway within your province." It seems to me this government should be protected by seeing that this plan is national in scope, and some provision should be made whereby provinces would have to co-operate at least to some extent by spending some money, themselves, to make the highway a trans-Canada highway.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member must keep in mind that some of the provinces have done more highway building than others. It would not be fair to those provinces to ignore that fact. I think the hon. member must know there is no province in Canada that will not be required to do a considerable amount of work on any route which will ultimately become the trans-Canada highway.


Percy Ellis Wright: There does not seem to be anything in this section to bear out what the minister has just said. There is no provision that any province shall have to construct any highway. The section states simply that this government will give to the provinces a grant of fifty per cent of any moneys they have spent on a section of the road which they may desire to be part of the trans-Canada highway -and without any obligation on their part to go ahead to complete any links which may be needed to complete the trans-Canada highway. Some provision should be made to protect this government in its objective of getting a complete trans-Canada highway. Great expenditures are to be made under this legislation.


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think the hon. member's fear is a valid one. This is an act to encourage the construction of a trans-Canada highway and if the work in any one province has not visualized an east and west route across the province then it is most unlikely that compensation would be paid for such work.


Howard Charles Green: This section deals solely with construction already done on roads which may be chosen as part of the trans-Canada highway. Can the minister tell us whether there are to be any agreements between the dominion and the provinces with regard to payments to be made for construction work already done? The act provides that agreements shall be entered into between the provinces and the dominion with regard to new construction, but I should like to know whether there will be agreements covering compensation for old construction.


Robert Henry Winters: That will be a matter of agreement with the provinces.


Howard Charles Green: Has an estimate been made of the amount that will have to be paid to the provinces for old construction? One would think that in arriving at this total figure the dominion government would have made an estimate of the amount of money that will have to be paid to the provinces for the construction of roads that become part of the trans-Canada highway.


Robert Henry Winters: That depends entirely on the route selected.


Howard Charles Green: There are not a great many different routes. There are only three routes mentioned in British Columbia and one would think that the minister's officials would have made some estimate of the amount that will have to be paid to the provinces for old construction.


Robert Henry Winters: The officers of the department have been discussing with the provincial officials matters such as that, but until the route is determined nobody will be in position to say just what should be done.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister not give us an approximate figure of what will be paid to the provinces for old construction?


Robert Henry Winters: No, I am sorry I cannot do so at this time.


Howard Charles Green: I think this is most important. Much has been said about the spending of $300 million to build a trans-Canada highway, but that is not the true picture. Any money that is paid to the provinces for old construction work need not be used for the further construction of a highway. Even if a province should spend the money that is paid to it on the trans-Canada highway, it still means that the dominion's contribution toward new work will be reduced by that amount. For example, if $50 million is paid to the ten provinces for work already done, then the dominion's contribution to new work will be only $100 million because of the ceiling provided for by the act. Therefore the total amount spent by the dominion and the provinces will be $200 million, not $300 million.


An hon. Member:: No.


Howard Charles Green: I am referring to the money that will actually be spent on the highway from now on. There is not the slightest chance of $300 million being spent from now on to improve the highway because a large part of the money to be paid by the dominion will be paid to the provinces for old work. The total amount that will be spent on the highway during the next seven years is
Trans-Canada Highway bound to be considerably less than $300 million because of what will be paid to the provinces for old work. I am sure the minister will agree that that statement is correct.
It is most important for us to have some idea of how much the dominion is going to pay the provinces. We will then know how much the dominion will have left of the $150 million to spend for new work. There is another fact that should be kept in mind. There is absolutely no obligation on the part of the provinces to spend on the trans-Canada highway what they receive for old construction. They can spend it on other highways, on government buildings or on anything they wish. The minister has said several times that he is not going to insist that the money paid to them shall be used only for this highway. If I am incorrect in that I wish the minister would correct me.


John Ewen Sinclair: The hon. member for Vancou-ver-Quadra is repeating the argument he made the other day which was answered very ably by the hon. member for Vancouver South. There is no province in Canada which stands to gain more from this section than British Columbia. In the past British Columbia has tried to provide a first-class transprovincial highway out of provincial funds. There may be other provinces which have not tried to do this. The argument of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is that British Columbia should be penalized because it has been progressive in providing a first-class highway within the province which will become part of the trans-Canada highway. The cost of constructing that highway will, under the agreement to be signed, become part of the cost of constructing the trans-Canada highway.
The province of British Columbia has expended this money in the construction of a first-class road across the province and it will be very glad to have paid back to it half the cost of that highway construction which may be incorporated into the route chosen for the trans-Canada highway. I am sure that our province will immediately use these proceeds to pay its half of the work which is yet to be done. I think this is a most reasonable provision. It certainly is a provision that will be of great help to our province.
The very example used by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra shows how impossible it would be for the minister to answer intelligently the question he asked. The hon. member has stated that there are three routes in British Columbia and then he wants an estimate of what will be paid to the province

Trans-Canada Highway for the road already along the route. The hon. member knows that there is a very great deal of difference between the work already done on the Vancouver-Yellowhead route, the work done on the Vancouver-Kamloops-Kicking Horse route and the work done on the Vancouver-Crowsnest pass route. Only when the provincial government of British Columbia decides which route is going to be the route of the trans-Canada highway can any estimate be made of what has been expended in the past by the province.
As a British Columbia member I want to say that I think we in British Columbia are most fortunate in having this provision. Road building is very expensive in our province and it is only fair that the great amount of good road building which has been done by the provincial government on a trans-provincial highway, in the last ten years should be rewarded, and not penalized as it would be if payments were to start only after the agreement is signed.


Howard Charles Green: Fortunately I am not in the position of having to take second place to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, or any other member from British Columbia, in my concern for my own province.


John Ewen Sinclair: That is your opinion.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that he and the other Liberal members from the province of British Columbia show that their first concern is to rush in to back up the government rather than to try to get some further benefit for British Columbia, and they have demonstrated that on more than one occasion.


John Ewen Sinclair: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra cannot cast aspersions upon members of the Liberal party from British Columbia. Liberal members from that province are as much concerned with its welfare as any others. I would also remind the hon. member that on the 27th of June last the people of British Columbia in great numbers showed their faith in the Liberal members, and in the policies of the Liberal party.


Howard Charles Green: I think a good many of the people of British Columbia have had their eyes opened since that time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond raising a point of order?


Mr. Goode:: The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra will please understand he is not speaking for the member for Burnaby-Richmond. I raise that point of order. He mentioned something about Liberal members

not speaking for their province. I will speak for my province when the times comes, and any time the occasion arises.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest the result of this policy may be that in the first place there will be so much money paid back to the different provinces that there will not be sufficient left in the dominion's grant to complete a first-class trans-Canada highway. I also suggest to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano that he would help his province a great deal more if, instead of getting up and saying "me too" to the proposal for a trans-Canada highway, he got up and advocated that the dominion should pay fifty per cent of the maintenance costs of the highway. In British Columbia the maintenance costs will be far higher than in any other part of Canada because of the mountainous nature of the province. Nevertheless we are to get no help whatever with the maintenance of the road. I should like to point out to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply that the provincial government of British Columbia this spring passed an act entitled an act respecting trans-Canada highways. It is provided therein that:
2. The lieutenant governor in council may from time to time:
(a)	Either alone or in conjunction with the government of the dominion institute and carry out such measures as may from time to time be considered practicable and necessary for the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of trans-Canada highways-
Plural.
-in so far as they may be within the province:
(b)	Enter into any agreement with the government of the dominion with respect to provision for payment of a portion of the costs incurred by the government of the province in constructing, reconstructing, and maintaining trans-Canada highways in so far as they may be within the province.
The act provides for the sum of $5 million. The minister has not yet made clear what will be done in the case of reconstruction. I believe that some of the proposed trans-Canada highway in British Columbia was washed out a day or two ago. Where such damage is done and reconstruction is necessary, under the measure now before the house will the dominion give any help, or will that be solely the responsibility of the provincial government during this period of seven years?


John Ewen Sinclair: Mr. Chairman-


Howard Charles Green: I am not directing my question to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. He is not an authority on the subject.


An hon. Member:: You can't take it.


Howard Charles Green: I am asking the question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply.


John Ewen Sinclair: I want to pursue the point further just as the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra wanted to pursue it. I am speaking now because the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra flung out a challenge with regard to the cost of maintenance in British Columbia. I want to tell the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that the government, following its election pledge, is doing just what it said it would do, that is aiding in the construction of a trans-Canada highway. It is doing it not because of the nattering and nagging of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, but because of the counsel and advice of Liberal members and associations across Canada. We say that the federal government is to be complimented for stepping into a field which after all is legally-and the hon. member is a lawyer of sorts-within the jurisdiction of the provinces.


An hon. Member:: Pretty weak stuff.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, normally I do not mind what the hon. member for Coast-Capilano says in the course of a debate, but when he makes an insulting remark of that type, that an hon. member is a lawyer of sorts, I ask that he withdraw it.


John Ewen Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, I will very gladly withdraw. Apparently he is not even a lawyer of sorts.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would ask the hon. member for Coast-Capilano to modify his remarks.


John Ewen Sinclair: In deference to you, Mr. Chairman, I will modify my remarks.


Howard Charles Green: He has not withdrawn the remark.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I understand that the hon. member withdrew, and then he made an additional remark which I have just asked him to modify.


Howard Charles Green: He said he would modify it, but that is all he said.


John Ewen Sinclair: I will not modify it; I will withdraw it. Getting back to my point, which was interrupted by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, we regard this measure as a great forward step. The federal government is now entering a field, which after all is a provincial one, and is generously saying: Yes, we will provide half the cost of a trans-Canada highway out of federal funds. We have not in our party these little minds which say: Oh, yes, this is good, but if we were in power we would do more; we would
Trans-Canada Highway also pay half the maintenance cost. Members who have been in the house for ten years know that one of the standard methods of obstruction of the Tory party on any measure is to say: Yes, but if we were in power we would do a little more. I think on June 27 the people of British Columbia, as well as the rest of Canada, gave a pretty clear indication of approval of the policies of this government, and a part of that policy was assistance in the construction of a trans-Canada highway.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, could we not get back from British Columbia to the House of Commons in committee considering this bill? The purpose of the bill is to provide half the cost of a transcontinental highway. There are some provinces where there are portions of roads that may be used as a part of the transcontinental highway. It is intended that, with respect to those portions, their value as a part of the transcontinental highway will be taken into account so that the provinces may be reimbursed for a portion of what is already in existence, but not exceeding fifty per cent of its cost. There are some portions of road in the province of Quebec that may be a part of the transcontinental highway, and which are already hard surfaced. I do not think they would be up to the specifications required for the transcontinental highway. It may be that they will be worth a certain portion of what it would cost if there were nothing there, but it is only that portion that will be taken into account, and all that will be a part of the agreement with the province.
The province will determine where the highway is to go. Engineers will then determine how much has been done that is of value as a part of the highway and is up to the specifications required by the contract. For that value the governor in council will determine certain reimbursement to the provinces not exceeding fifty per cent of what it originally cost in any event. That is the scheme, and all this is to be a part of agreements with the provinces. We do not want to step into their field and tell them what they shall do or where they shall do it, but we say: If you want us to contribute to it as something that will be of national value, you have got to build it to a certain standard. If you like you can make it better than that standard, but you have got to build it to a certain standard, and it is only the portion of the cost up to that standard towards which we will make a contribution.
I do not believe we can have any estimate at this time, because a moment ago the hon. member listened to two of my good friends
2410

Trans-Canada Highway from the province of Quebec. One of them wanted the highway to be built on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, and the other wanted it to be built on the north shore of the St. Lawrence. There are some roads there which would be of some use as part of a transcontinental highway, but they were not built at the same time. The widths are not the same, and the curves are not the same. Many of the portions over which I have travelled would have to be improved to bring them up to the standard that will be required in our trans-Canada highway.
Until there has been a determination of where it will be, and an examination by provincial and federal engineers to determine the worth of existing portions of the road, or what it might cost to make a new road, we cannot have any estimate of how much will be spent in that way. In any event, it cannot be more than half the original cost. That clause was put in because it was felt it should not be more than the cost, and costs are apt to be higher today than they were when some of these portions of the road were built. We put that in as the ceiling, and the rest is to be determined after investigation by the engineers of its worth as an element in the national highway.


Howard Charles Green: The amounts are still indeterminate. One portion will be paid to the provinces for the work they have done, and another portion of this $150 million is for new construction. The government is not in a position to say roughly how much of each there will be?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government is not in a position to say, because it will depend upon the physical examination, made by competent engineers, of the work that has already been done. It was felt that would be the only fair way of dealing with it. You could not expect the province of Nova Scotia, for example, which has a lot of good highway that was built at great cost, to enter into a contract which would disregard that. If the province of Nova Scotia still has to make some outlay, it will want the value of the highway already constructed to be taken into account in estimating what it shall receive as its fifty per cent.


Howard Charles Green: The cost of what has already been made may run into a good many million dollars. Does the Prime Minister not believe it will run as high as $75 million or $100 million?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know. I travelled from one ocean to the other, but most of it was by rail. I do not know how much good highway there is. I do know there is a

good deal that has to be done if we are to have a good highway from one ocean to the other.


Howard Charles Green: I mean that the amount that has already been spent by the provinces on the highway may be as high as $75 million or $100 million.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It will not necessarily be the amount that has been spent; that is the ceiling. The value of what has been produced may be as much as $50 million in a $300 million undertaking; I do not know. It is the value of what has already been produced that will be taken into account.


Howard Charles Green: Are the provinces to be paid on present values, or on the cost of the road when it was built?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It must not be more than the cost, but it need not be the whole cost. I know of certain portions of highway in my province for which it would be quite unfair to pay half the cost because, as a portion of the trans-Canada highway, the value would not be anything like half of its original cost.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister of reconstruction answer the question I asked a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, as to whether or not the dominion would pay half the cost of reconstructing the road if a portion should be destroyed during the seven years?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I believe each case would have to be considered on its merits. The extent of the destruction would have to be determined. I do not know anything about the particular case the hon. member raises, but that is a point that has to be considered.


Mr. Cote (Maiapedia-Matane):: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being genial enough to recognize me on my fifth attempt to gain the floor. This is not a beauty contest between the provinces, but is a national scheme to attempt to put Canada on the map, so to speak. A Canadian cannot go from one ocean to the other unless he goes through the United States. We paid for the Alaska highway. The Tory party seems to find many difficulties in the way of building a national highway across this country of which we are going to be proud.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.


Alcide Côté: Just let me speak, I am not through.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member knows that when he rises to discuss a clause-


Alcide Côté: If you will sit down a minute, I will take the floor.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I should like to remind the hon. member that he must discuss clause No. 5.


Alcide Côté: I am about to do so. If you will sit down, I will take the floor.


Louis-René Beaudoin: This clause relates to contributions in respect of highways previously constructed.


Alcide Côté: The gentleman asked two questions of the minister. He asked how much of the $300 million would be involved in paying expenditures on highways already constructed, and how much money would be available for the reconstruction of highways. I would suggest that this is no time to discuss how much money has been spent. We do not know. We do not even know how much we are going to have to budget for in the future. In other words, we should have a balance sheet from the provinces showing the expenditures they have made towards a national highway system. Then, we should have an assessment of what it will cost to complete that highway system and turn it into a trans-Canada highway. I humbly submit that this is no time to discuss money, when we have not those figures. A declaration was made by the minister, but we do not know whether it will go beyond that or whether it will go below that. I suggest that this discussion should end there because, after all, it is not a question of determining what has been spent by the provinces, nor is it a question of determining what the federal government will contribute in the future, until that assessment and balance sheet are available.


Donald MacInnis: I should like to say one or two words on this matter. I would remind the committee that, except for intervening on points of order, this is the only time I have spoken on this bill during the long discussion that has taken place. I did not rise to speak, for two reasons: One is that I do not know a great deal about highways, and from the discussion I believe the hon. member who preceded me said the most effective word that has been said so far, that is that we do not know. We know very little about what the cost of this highway is going to be.
Another reason for my failure to speak is that I am not in the fortunate position in which many members of the house find themselves. They have had the advantage of an education, which enables them to hide their ignorance under a plethora of words. I have not had that advantage, so when I do not know anything about a subject I have to keep quiet. I do take issue, however, with a point that was made by several speakers, including the Prime Minister, that in this 45781-154J
Trans-Canada Highway bill we were undertaking to pay half the cost of a trans-Canada highway. That, in my opinion, is not correct. We are undertaking to pay half the cost of a trans-Canada highway if that highway can be built for $300 million. We are limiting our contribution to it to $150 million. It is quite possible that that amount will not complete a trans-Canada highway. In addition to that, I think that the important thing in this connection- and I do not think we should hesitate to say it-is that we have at last started on the project. Having started on it, I rather think that we shall not leave it uncompleted, no matter who may be the government when this road is finally completed. Without reflecting on the part that anyone has taken in the debate so far, I think that we could dispense with a great deal of the debate on details about which we do not know much, inasmuch as the surveys have not been made which would give us the necessary information. As I say, I think we could leave that matter alone, and in that way we would get on faster with our work.


Joseph William Noseworthy: As I understand this clause, the federal government proposes to reimburse the provinces for those sections of the highway which become part of the trans-Canada highway, in accordance with their value to the trans-Canada highway. From there on the government proposes to match dollar for dollar the expenditure of the provinces for new construction. What I want to ask the minister is this. Did he discuss with the provinces or did he take into consideration the possibility that instead of turning back say $10 million to a province to reimburse it for what it has already done, the federal government should make a beginning by taking the $10 million that the province has spent and saying:	Here is $10
million to match what you have spent, to be spent on the trans-Canada highway under the supervision of the federal government as provided for in the act; and when that is done, from there on we will go dollar for dollar with you up to whatever amount the government decides.
In the Ontario correspondence I notice that the Ontario government claim to have spent $50 million on what they consider is the Ontario section of the trans-Canada highway. Let us suppose that the Ontario government is to get a grant of $25 million for their part, to reimburse them for what they have done. To my mind, it would advance the cause of the trans-Canada highway much better if the federal government made available for construction and improvement of the trans-Canada highway in Ontario whatever amount they might decide was coming

Trans-Canada Highway to the Ontario government, under that project, and from there on go dollar for dollar with the province for new construction. Was that phase discussed or considered, or what is the minister's opinion?


Robert Henry Winters: That was an involved question, Mr. Chairman; I lost myself once or twice in it. I think the question was intended to find out whether or not money paid back to the provinces would be required to be applied against the completion of the highway. Was that it?


Joseph William Noseworthy: My point was this.
Instead of turning back $10 million or $15 million to the province in order to reimburse it, the federal government should take that money and spend it in that province on the trans-Canada highway.


Robert Henry Winters: The provincial government in question is free to do that, Mr. Chairman; and in fact, I would imagine that in most instances it will do just that and apply to the completion of the highway moneys that will be reimbursed to it for work already done.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Temporary employees.
Howard Charles Green: This section provides that the employees having to do with the trans-Canada highway are to be temporary ones; at least that is the way I read the section. That seems an unusual provision to put in a bill of this sort. Can the minister explain why that is done?


Robert Henry Winters: The reason is that this is a project of a temporary nature. It will be one that will require terms of office of varying lengths of time. From the start to the finish the project is of seven years' duration; but the work in the various provinces will differ in length of time taken. It seems that the best way to tackle the job would be to have temporary rather than permanent employees.


Howard Charles Green: In effect, then, this provision is written into the act because the government expects to be right out of the trans-Canada highway business at the end of seven years?


Robert Henry Winters: This is a particular bill to do a particular job. Beyond that, I do not care to comment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-National parks.
Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us the approximate amount that will be required in the national parks to bring the roads in those

parks up to the trans-Canada highway standard? They, of course, come entirely under the dominion?


Robert Henry Winters: No, I cannot answer that question, for two reasons. The first is that I do not know the route the highway will take. I do not like to refer back to that matter again; but the fact of the matter is that I do not.


Howard Charles Green: That is a good alibi.


Robert Henry Winters: It is not an alibi. It is a fact. The other reason is that I have not complete information on the condition of the roads through the national parks.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Report to parliament.
Percy Chapman Black: I should like to ask the minister when we shall get information with respect to agreements entered into with certain provinces. I am particularly interested in Nova Scotia. A great deal is being expected of us in passing this bill involving a seven-year program, contribution by the dominion of $150 million and total expenditure of $300 million. We have a minimum of information coming from Nova Scotia. I would ask the minister when the agreement that he enters into with the respective provinces will be made public or will be made available to us, and when an announcement will be made as to the designating of the routes in the respective provinces.


Robert Henry Winters: I should imagine that most
provinces will announce their routes once an agreement has been made. With respect to the tabling of the agreements, I can say that once the agreements have been finalized and entered into I shall have no objection to tabling them.


Percy Chapman Black: Any province can keep it dark. I hope the minister will not keep it dark from us.


Mr. Church:: I notice that the last clause does not provide for a time limit. Is it fifteen days? Within what time is the annual report to be laid before the house? Will it include all matters in which rulings have been given accordingly under sections 8 and 9? Section 9 reads:
The minister shall annually lay before parliament a report of all proceedings under this act for the preceding fiscal year.
It does not give a time limit. What is the time limit on this? Is it thirty days or ten days for the annual report?


Robert Henry Winters: As the hon. member has said, no time limit is specified in the act. I therefore would not wish to give parliament any

undertaking beyond that contained in the act, and that is that an annual report will be tabled.


Thomas Langton Church: Will it be a full report? Will the annual report include all the rulings given under this legislation?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, November 15, consideration in committee of Bill No. 142, to amend the National Housing Act, 1944-Mr. Winters-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Terms of contract.
Mr. Fleming:: Section 2 has a number of subsections. I suggest first of all, Mr. Chairman, that you might call the subsections. If you do that I think it may contribute to the orderliness of the discussion.
I wish to make this observation, Mr. Chairman. Subsection 1 is a belated step in the right direction. I am glad to see that progress is being made, because it has always seemed unfair that, as the law stood before, a man who was trying to assist himself by helping to build his own house was in fact being penalized in comparison with the man who was perhaps not making the same effort or was not able, for one reason or another, to do so. I hope that this particular provision, along with others, will be brought into effect for that reason as soon as possible.


Charles Edward Johnston: There is a question or two I should like to have cleared up. When discussing this matter in the house the other day, or even prior to that, I had occasion to ask the minister some questions regarding it. These questions were answered by a return which may be found in Votes and Proceedings, No. 14. Among the questions asked was this one:
Under the National Housing Act integrated housing scheme is there a regulation covering a 25 per cent holdback of the proceeds of a joint loan to the builder building for sale?
The answer was a very decided no. The answer reads as follows:
No. However, under the 1949 integrated plan the builder is required to transfer title to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at the floor joist
National Housing Act
stage of construction and is required to trustee with the corporation the purchaser's deposit or down payment. When the property is completed and the builder has executed a transfer of title to the purchaser the conveyance to the corporation is then cancelled and the purchaser's down payment is paid over to the builder. Prior to release of the trusteed deposit to the builder steps are taken to ensure that he has paid all carrying charges on the property up to date of completion, including interest on advances made under the mortgage loan, taxes and fire insurance premium; otherwise the equivalent of such carrying charges are deducted from the trusteed deposit.
The point that I wish to make is this. The minister stated definitely that there was no regulation regarding the 25 per cent deposit. That is borne out to a degree by the pamphlet which was issued by the integrated housing plan. My mind goes back, Mr. Chairman, to the bill that we passed the other day on Canadian trade-marks. This integrated housing plan of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation appears to me to be somewhat similar to a Canadian trade-mark. Therefore when people see this pamphlet issued by a government corporation they should be able to put some reliance in it, just as they can rely on goods which have been processed and which have a Canadian trademark upon them.
When I look at this pamphlet I find it says: "The integrated housing plan". The pages are not numbered, therefore I cannot give a page number; but the heading says: "Release of the customary builder's holdback". Let me just mention that for a moment, Mr. Chairman. Without doubt anyone would think that there was a holdback; otherwise why the heading? The following paragraph says:
In the case of loans made under the integrated housing plan, there is no sales' holdback. However, a sum equal to the amount specified in the Mechanics' Lien Act of the province in which the project is built is generally retained until thirty-one days after the completion of the unit.
I do not know whether the minister misunderstood whait I intended when I asked the question. I asked him:
Under the National Housing Act integrated housing scheme is there a regulation covering a 25 per cent holdback of the proceeds of a joint loan to the builder building for sale?
He might have taken that to mean at this moment, and he said "No", which would be in accordance with this little pamphlet I quoted from. According to the pamphlet it would be correct, but according to the title it would be wrong. The hon. member for Battle River asks me what the name of the pamphlet is. It is called:	"The Integrated
Housing Plan." It is published by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa, Canada, and the marks on it are RCM-3. The heading of the paragraph to which I referred

National Housing Act
reads:	"Release of the customary builder's holdback". My question to the minister is: Was there a regulation governing that holdback? I am putting it in the past tense now.


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Chairman, there was no holdback of which I am aware.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister is qualifying it.


Robert Henry Winters: I am qualifying it. I am speaking from memory now. I do not recall any holdback.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister has his
officials in front of him. I want to get the point definitely established because there is a contradiction. I want to know whether there was a regulation governing that 25 per cent holdback. The minister ought to be able to ascertain definitely that there was not.


Robert Henry Winters: The answer is no.


Charles Edward Johnston: I mentioned the trade-mark in which the people of Canada place their faith. I hold in my hand a pamphlet issued by a government corporation, and it gives certain information. That information is given to the prospective purchasers. Surely they ought to be able to put some reliance in the statements issued by the government. The minister says "No".
Let me read from another pamphlet. The hon. member for Battle River asks me what the name of this one is. Do not let me confuse you: the name of this one is exactly the same as the other one. It is called "The Integrated Housing Plan, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation." This is published by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa, Canada-RCM-3. It is exactly the same book, except that this one was issued when this housing project, particularly the one in Calgary, was under construction, and at a time when a great many other projects throughout the country were under construction.
The other one is a recent publication. Let me read from this one-and, incidentally, it has the stamp on it of the parliamentary library. That was the only place I could get it. I sent to Central Mortgage and Housing for the other one, and got it; but that was not the one with which I was concerned.
Now I turn to article 7, which deals with the same thing, and I read this heading: "Release of the customary builder's holdback". It is exactly the same heading as appears in the other pamphlet. But listen to what I read now:
Under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation regulations-

Under the regulations, mind you-
-a proportion of the proceeds of a joint loan to a builder building for sale is withheld until the house has been sold to a satisfactory purchaser. In the case of loans made under the integrated housing plan, the holdback is released on completion of the unit.
Now, I ask the minister again: Is there a regulation covering that?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would ask the hon.
member what he was reading from.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is a little confusing, I admit. The first time I read in regard to this subject was out of a booklet entitled "The Integrated Housing Plan" issued by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa, Canada-with the identifying letters RCM-3 appearing thereon.


Mr. Blackmore:: Is there a date ?


Charles Edward Johnston: No, no date on it. In that booklet it states very distinctly, in the heading of paragraph 7: "Release of the customary builder's holdback". Then the following paragraph goes on to describe that heading, and states that there is no holdback.
It was at that point I asked the minister if there was a holdback, or a regulation covering holdback. He told me at that time there was not. Then I took another booklet, just exactly the same heading, and issued by the same corporation. And under the same paragraph 7 the heading starts out in exactly the same way,-"Release of the customary builder's holdback". But in the paragraph following that it states definitely-well, just let me read it again so that there will be no misunderstanding-
Under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation regulations, a proportion of the proceeds of a joint loan to a builder building for sale is withheld until the house has been sold to a satisfactory purchaser. In the case of loans made under the integrated housing plan, the holdback is released on completion of the unit.
I want to know now from the minister if there is any regulation covering that holdback.


Robert Henry Winters: No, there is no regulation covering that holdback.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well then, can the minister tell us this:	Why is this governmentauthorized pamphlet, issued by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, given out to the public? When they buy a house they see there is a regulation holding back 25 per cent for their safety. Then the government tell us there is no such regulation. What are the public going to expect? What can they expect? What security have they, when they rely upon a statement of the government, for their protection, when they buy these houses? They assume they have behind them a reliable

241S
organization, such as the government. Then they find they are fleeced out of every cent they have got. When they try to get restitution the government says, "That's just your tough luck. There was no regulation. Although we said there was, that was just to kid you. Now there is none."
This is an exceedingly serious situation. The other day we passed legislation to place a Canadian trade-mark on goods processed in this country, so that when the people of Canada see that government stamp on it they will know they are getting something worth while. Yet, here the government put out a publication, with their stamp on it, and it does not mean a thing. In fact, it is a lie, which has been admitted by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I think I should say I have admitted nothing of the kind.


Clarence Gillis: It is a typographical error.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, then, would you tell me which of these booklets is the authentic one? Which is truthful, and which is the lie?


Robert Henry Winters: I would ask, if the hon. member wishes me to pursue it further, to have the booklets sent to me, at which time I shall be glad to look them over.


Charles Edward Johnston: I had some difficulty getting them. However, I shall be pleased to do so, if the minister will undertake to send one back to the library, where I am charged for it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would point out to the hon. member for Bow River that the more appropriate time to discuss these booklets printed under the authority of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would be when the estimates of the minister are before the committee of supply. I offer that only as a suggestion, because from his reply it would appear that the minister does not have at hand all the information pertaining to these booklets. When the estimates are before the committee the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be here.
Today we have before us an amending bill which does not deal with the administration of the housing act. The section before the committee is somewhat limited in scope. I am not saying the hon. member has no right to discuss the two booklets, but I do suggest that since he wants all the information the more appropriate time to get it would be when the estimates are before committee of supply.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire at all to hold up the bill. I do wish to get the information, however, because it is exceedingly important, so far as I am
National Housing Act
concerned. I am not asking the questions out of idleness, nor do I ask them to embarrass the minister. I have a very definite purpose in mind. Perhaps I need not go further than that in my explanation. I have completed that part with respect to the leaflets.
I would now turn to an answer I received in reply to another question. I believe this would be the most appropriate time to ask it, because I do not know of any vote in the estimates under which it could be discussed- unless, of course, the administration item. While I am on this subject I have only one more question to ask

and then I shall not interfere for some time with the progress of the discussion.


Donald MacInnis: Progress?


Charles Edward Johnston: It is progress in the construction of houses, in the long run, I hope. The other question I want to ask arises out of a series of questions I asked some time ago. The first question and answer were as follows:
Under the N.H.A. integrated housing scheme is there an inspection and/or an appraisal fee of $20 permitted?
Yes.
The next question and answer were as follows:
If so, what work is to be performed in order to earn this fee?
When completing an application for a National Housing Act loan the applicant agrees to pay an appraisal fee of $20 for which the lending institution makes an inspection of the site and completes an appraisal of the proposed property. The lending institution inspects the property at various stages of construction to assure that standards under the National Housing Act and the plans and specifications are being substantially followed and to determine the extent to which mortgage moneys may be advanced to the borrower.
My other questions were as follows:
If so, what work is to be performed in order to earn this fee?
Must this $20 fee apply to each individual's property?
Must there be a properly written inspection and/or appraisal form made for each individual's property before this fee is chargeable?
To whom is the fee payable?
If the work is performed for the $20, I have no kick, but in many cases the work is not performed and that is why I am objecting. I am not going to hesitate to name the mortgage company I have in mind because I do not want it to become confused with others which are performing what I would call a legitimate service. The Manufacturers Life has received these $20 payments and they have not raised a finger as far as inspection is concerned because there is not yet a board laid on the lots. However, they have

National Housing Act
charged $20 as an inspection fee. They have a number of houses to build and the fee of $20 is charged in every case, whether there has been construction or not. That amount is charged on the individual mortgage. As I say, no inspection work has been done because in some cases there is only a basement. There could not possibly be any decision as to whether the plans and specifications have been followed. It looks to me like plain highway robbery. People are being fleeced out of their money and that should not be permitted.
I would rather see an inspection fee of $100 charged, provided qualified inspectors were employed and were carrying out their duties properly. I do not think that would be too much to pay to see that the houses are built according to the plans and specifications. I am not criticizing the size of the fee; I am criticizing the niggardly way in which it is *earned.
As has been pointed out, it was not earned at all, it was just a clear case of stealing. It would be worth while to have a proper inspector inspect these buildings. If that were done the government would save money and so would the people. The other day the hon. member for Halton said that he did not see why the minister should be so cautious as to bring forward amendments which the whole house except the hon. member thought were worth while in order to safeguard people who are taking advantage of this National Housing Act. The hon. member referred to the little affair in Calgary which caused all the commotion, but that is not so. The conditions that exist in Calgary exist all over Canada. All the hon. member for Halton has to do is to pick up the daily newspaper and he will see that they exist right here in Ottawa.
Why? As I have said so many times, it is that the government has not competent inspectors. The whole blame right here in Ottawa can be laid to that fact. I am not critical of the $20 inspection fee. As I say, I would gladly make it $100 provided a proper inspection was made of these places. It is not too late for the minister to take that into consideration and see that these inspectors really earn their money. It would save the people of this country millions of dollars and would save the government a lot of headaches.
Has the minister an answer to my first question with regard to the twenty-five per cent holdback? He has seen the pamphlets and I am sure he agrees that I read them properly, and I should like some explanation.


Robert Henry Winters: I have been listening to the hon. member and I have not had an opportunity to read the pamphlets. I shall do so during the recess at six o'clock and give him more information after we resume at eight o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, as a guidance to the committee will you state whether you are calling the subsections seriatism, because if you do not I am afraid we are going to become very confused. Section 2 has ten subsections which cover a wide variety of subjects, and I suggested therefore that they be called subsection by subsection.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I have considered the hon. member's suggestion and I have come to the conclusion that if it were agreeable to the committee we could proceed according to the titles in the margin. For instance, the title to subsection 1 is, "Terms of contract", under which you have paragraph (a) and subsection 2 and subsection 3. Then the next subsection covers additional loans by the corporation to home owners and home purchasers. If it is agreeable we can proceed in that way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think that would cover the point. The first marginal heading covers a number of different points.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the committee is agreeable we can take it subsection by subsection.


Clarence Gillis: Am I right in understanding that section 1 has been carried and we are now dealing with section 2, subsection 1?


Louis-René Beaudoin: That is correct.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to get some information with regard to co-operative housing, which is something new in the act.


Robert Henry Winters: That comes under subsection 6.


Clarence Gillis: I want to get certain information from the minister as to those cases where owners are building their own homes and obtain loans under the National Housing Act. I am particularly interested in the co-operative angle because most of the building is done on that basis in the section of the country from which I come, and will be in the future. A group secures a parcel of land, and the individual builds his own home. Under the amendments to the act I understand the government intends to allow a certain percentage of the loan for the labour put into the building of the home. At the present time a person building his own home cannot secure the percentage of the loan allotted for labour until such time as the house is completed, or the project in the case

of a co-operative. That places the group and the individual in a position where they must secure other credit.
The dealers who supply lumber and other materials in these communities are not large, and they are obliged to carry a huge volume of credit which they are not really able to handle. Can the minister tell me whether under the proposed arrangement the percentage of the loan allowed for labour can be supplied at any stage of the construction of the property instead of waiting until it is completed? It places the individual or the group in an awkward position, and also works considerable hardship on the suppliers of the necessary materials to build houses.


Robert Henry Winters: I gather that what the hon. member is seeking is something in the nature of an advance. There is no provision for any such arrangement under this measure.


Clarence Gillis: I am not seeking an advance at all. At the present time you lend up to eighty per cent, but in addition to that, where a person is building his own home, or a co-operative is carrying on a project, they do the building themselves, thus eliminating the labour cost. Nevertheless they cannot secure the portion of the loan granted for the labour performed until the whole thing is completed. That is what is holding them back. I do not know what the percentage is. It places the group or the individual in a position where they must secure additional credit from the suppliers of materials. When there is considerable building of that kind, it places dealers in a position where they cannot provide the necessary credit. Could some arrangement be made whereby whatever you lend to pay for the labour cost could be included in the original loan in order to enable them to carry on with the building, instead of having to wait until the thing is completed?


Robert Henry Winters: Under the normal arrangements of mortgage financing there is enough held back to enable the home to be completed. It is also difficult to tell how much owner-labour content is in the house before it is completed. It is a difficult thing to bring forward something within the limits of normal mortgage lending to meet the point the hon. member has in mind.


Clarence Gillis: I am not pressing it. I merely mention it because I have had letters written to me. If by saying what I have said I cause people to think about it, it may result in the act being made flexible enough to take care of that particular angle. I know that the Nova Scotia housing act works that way. It is an excellent co-operative housing
National Housing Act
act, but if the federal legislation is to supplement that kind of housing I think it should be made to conform as closely as possible with the Nova Scotia act. I know that in the section of the country from which I come housing is not a problem today for the simple reason that in the past ten or fifteen years many houses have been constructed under the Nova Scotia act. I have recently received letters on the subject from people who are getting stuck on that kind of thing, and it was suggested to me I might bring up that particular angle at this time so that those administering the act may think about it.	.


Robert Henry Winters: Of course the hon. member raises a good point. I know something about the Nova Scotia act, and I know it has worked well. Where bulk loans, if I may call them that, to co-operatives are being considered we feel there is something to be done. The technique is difficult to work out, but the corporation is working on it, and we hope we shall be able to do something in these cases.


Pierre Gauthier: I believe what I have to say can be said on this section, and I will say it now because I shall not be able to say it on the other sections. I want to stress the point made by the hon. member for Nipissing the other day about rural districts. In the past the housing act has not been of great help to such districts. It is all right to say that they are composed of farm owners, and on every farm there is a house, but that is not the only kind of dwelling there is in the rural communities. I have in mind my own county where there are about eight or nine parishes in which there are both farmers and industrial workers. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in those districts the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has not been very helpful. I do not mind writing letters to the corporation or to the minister, and I do not mind making trips every week, but the time that elapses between the_ first request and the refusal is enough to discourage anyone. In practice it hardly works, especially in rural districts composed of both industrial workers and farmers who want to build their own houses.
They are not helped by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation nor by the lending institutions, which apparently do not believe that they should give assistance in rural districts. Probably that is because they are scared they will not get their money back later on, but I think the inhabitants of rural districts are as honest as those living in the urban centres. They want to repay their loans, and I ask that they should be given

National Housing Act
an opportunity to benefit from the new law. I think it is a great improvement, but if the minister or the government or the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation do not give more favourable consideration to the rural districts than they have in the past there will be the same result. The act will be inoperative, and it will cause great dissatisfaction, particularly in my constituency. We cannot rely on the provincial housing law. So far as I know it has not worked at all in my county, but the people can say almost the same thing so far as the federal government housing legislation has been concerned in the past.
I would not want to have the same answer given to me in the future, and that is why 1 am asking the minister to give the matter careful attention. I would ask the minister to try to impress upon the lending institut-tions that they should give more attention to the requests made by the inhabitants of rural districts. I hope the minister will pass the word along to the central mortgage corporation, so that my people will profit from this act. Then we shall be able to tell our people that, through this law, the federal government is helping them to become proprietors.


Robert Henry Winters: On that point, I might say that the lending institutions lend where they wish, and do not lend where they have no desire to lend. For that reason section 31A was put in the National Housing Act to enable Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make a direct loan. The corporation has, in fact, gone into the field, and made a number of direct loans where lending institutions would not operate.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: Do you mean under the authority of the housing act?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, section 31A of the National Housing Act.


Pierre Gauthier: In my district there has not been much progress in that direction. The results are not very good.


Charles Edward Johnston: Section 2, subparagraph (1) <a) reads:
a joint loan shall be made only to the person (in this section called the "home owner") who owns the land or is a lessee thereof under a long-term lease, and intends to occupy the house or one of the family housing units thereof, or to a builder who intends to sell the house to a person (in this section called the "home purchaser") who will own and occupy the house or one of the family housing units thereof;
When these joint loans are made to the builder who is building to sell, what control is there over that money?


Robert Henry Winters: The control is that the advances are made only as progress is made; that is the control over the money.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is my understanding correct, that no amount of this mortgage money will be given out by the lending institutions, or the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, except as progress payments on that particular site?


Robert Henry Winters: That, Mr. Chairman, is correct.


Charles Edward Johnston: I might say that is going to be an improvement, because that is definitely not the way the lending institutions have been operating in the past.


Robert Henry Winters: That is the prevailing method at the moment, and has been for some time, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wish to tell the minister, Mr. Chairman, that is not the way money was loaned on the Bow River construction project. People who had assumed a mortgage of $6,000-1 am just speaking from memory now but I have the figures in my office-became fully responsible to the mortgage company for that amount. There was sufficient money available to complete the house, but when the company went broke the proceeds of the loan had been spent, and the only part of the house that had been built was the basement, walls and roof. The contractor had spent about $7,000 or $8,000, and was held liable for that amount. The lending institution had advanced the contractor money on the project as a whole, to complete other houses. The money from one man's mortgage went to complete another man's house, but the first man is still liable for the mortgage. If the minister is going to adopt the method he has suggested, it is not similar to the method followed in the past.


Robert Henry Winters: The method is the same. In certain cases I presume overadvances have been made, but that does not detract from the method I have outlined. It is the method laid down in the agreement.


Charles Edward Johnston: I take it, then, that the lending institution will become a trustee for that man's mortgage money until his house is completed. Is that it?


Robert Henry Winters: No, that is not the case.


Charles Edward Johnston: What else could it be? I may have used the wrong terms, but I think "trustee" would be the proper term to apply in such a case.


Robert Henry Winters: No, it is the normal mortgage practice to advance money against the progress of the building.


Charles Edward Johnston: But if the money is advanced and no progress has been made, then certainly the man who has the mortgage is in a difficult position. I would think that the lending institutions should become trustees for that

man's loan, and that no moneys should be advanced until the house has reached a certain stage. Then whatever amount is estimated as having been expended for materials would be taken out of the loan and given to the builder as a progress payment. Such a procedure might be the customary way, but it is not the way the matter has always been handled in the past. The minister may say that is an exception, and that might be true, but it is a difficult proposition for the man who is in that position.
Let me deal a little further with the loan to the builder, and the security for that loan. The government is becoming a partner in these lending institutions. Remember the building is not sold as yet, but the builder has secured a loan. He is building this house to sell. Can he just throw up that building any way he likes, or are precautions taken to ensure good buildings?


Robert Henry Winters: There is the inspection
requirement to which the hon. member referred before.


Charles Edward Johnston: Excuse me if I am a little bit dense, but I do not know what you mean by the "inspection requirements".


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member for Middlesex East and the hon. member for Sudbury also wish to ask the minister questions. I think the member will agree that he has had a good share of the minister's attention during the last few minutes. Perhaps he could return later with these questions. When he does return, I would ask him to speak to the clause under *discussion. I have given a good deal of latitude, but I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the subclause under section 1.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to pursue this point, Mr. Chairman, but if there are others who wish to speak I have no objection to permitting them to do so.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If the hon. member was about to conclude his remarks, he may continue.


Charles Edward Johnston: I cannot say that I am, Mr. Chairman, but I do say I am relating my remarks to this particular section, which deals with the security on these loans. I am concerned about these loans. If you wish to recognize someone else, however, it is all right. The minister was about to answer my question concerning inspection.


Robert Henry Winters: As I understand, we are on section 2, subsection 1, which is simply a matter of changing a definition to make clear the difference between a home purchaser
National Housing Act
and a home owner. The corporation wishes to have a clarification of the act to differentiate between a man who purchases a house built for him by a builder, and a man who undertakes to build his own house. That is all this section purports to do.


Charles Edward Johnston: That might be, Mr. Chairman, but this section does deal with loans being made to builders. I think it is the duty of members of this committee to see that government moneys are properly protected. You will recall that there are some cases in which the government and the taxpayers of this country stand to lose some money, because there are proceedings now before the court. I think we should be cautious and see that the public moneys that we are spending are properly taken care of. That is the point I had in mind in asking this question.
A moment ago I asked the minister what precautions were taken and he said that they had inspections to safeguard the advances made. But I want to get at it in a different way. When we are lending this money to a builder, and he is starting to build a house, has the government any control over the way that house will be built; and if they have any control what is that control in order to safeguard the money which we are granting under this section?


Robert Henry Winters: If the hon. member wishes to discuss that matter under this section, I would say that the loans under the National Housing Act are made jointly by the government and the lending institution, it is true; but the loan is administered by the lending institution which sees to it that the advances are made as progress is made on the building of the house. It sees to it also that there is an inspection of the house.


Charles Edward Johnston: In order to safeguard construction of this house and in order to safeguard our investment, does the lending institution-and I use that term in the broadest sense because it includes Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-have plans and specifications that must be followed by the builder in building this house, in order to see that the money is properly spent?


Robert Henry Winters: In the first place, the hon. member is not correct in grouping the government and the lending institution.


Charles Edward Johnston: They guarantee twenty-five per cent of the loss, do they not?


Robert Henry Winters: They are entirely separate in operation, and the lending institution administers the loan. There are certain minimum standards, and inspections are made to see that those minimum standards

National Housing Act
are substantially met, as I told the hon. member before in reply to a question he placed on the order paper.


Charles Edward Johnston: These minimum standards must be followed by the contractor. Is that right?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Charles Edward Johnston: Suppose he does not follow these minimum standards. What action would be taken? The minister told me a moment ago that they had an inspector. Probably I should add this comment. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has an inspector also. That inspector inspects the loaning company. Then the loaning company has an inspector who is supposed to inspect the building, for which inspection he receives $20. That inspection of course is not always carried out. What I want to get at right now is this. On this inspection, is there anyone to see that the builder carries out the plans and specifications which are approved, not by the loaning institution but by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Robert Henry Winters: That is the function of the lending institution. If they feel that the house in question is not built to the minimum standards, they are free to withhold advances or they are free to cut down the amount of the loan. ,


Charles Edward Johnston: Does the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approve those plans and specifications?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, those plans are approved, for general standards, by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Charles Edward Johnston: Can they be changed without the consent of-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I am afraid it is not realized that this is an amending bill. We are not discussing the principle of the National Housing Act but rather the amending in certain particulars of certain sections of the National Housing Act. I do not think any of this discussion we are having now is relevant to section 2 (1). I will ask the hon. member again to confine his remarks to the subclause that is under discussion.


Charles Edward Johnston: Where would the remarks be appropriate, Mr. Chairman?


Louis-René Beaudoin: The subclause was previously read by the minister, and the minister pointed out to the hon. member that the discussion was not exactly relevant. Notwithstanding these warnings, I have allowed the discussion to go on, as the hon. member will agree, for quite some time. I am quite
IMr. Winters.]
agreeable to being patient and to giving all the latitude that is necessary; on the other hand, I must ask that the hon. member's remarks be strictly relevant to the subclause under discussion.


Charles Edward Johnston: Whereabouts would they be proper, Mr. Chairman?


Louis-René Beaudoin: 1 think perhaps when the estimates of the minister come before the committee.


Charles Edward Johnston: The Chairman says "perhaps". Would that be the place? He may not be presiding then.


Louis-René Beaudoin: As the hon. member knows, it is not customary for members, from their seats, to question the Chairman.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is merely for clarification; because you, sir, may not be Chairman at that time.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I suggest that the hon. member has only to read the subclause to realize for himself what is relevant and what is not.


Harry Oliver White: At this moment it is difficult to know whether the questions 1 wish to ask and the remarks I wish to make are going to be relevant in all cases, but I hope that you, Mr. Chairman, will be as lenient with me as you have been with other speakers.
The city of London is no different from most of the other communities in Canada; we are suffering from growing pains. One of the difficulties that I have encountered is between the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the insurance company that is making the loan, the contractor and the owner or the owner-to-be. It would seem that the crux of all the difficulty is the inadequate inspection from time to time. As the purchaser of a home, because of the fact that it is a Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation project, with the government behind it, I expect that it is going to be all right. Purchasers are disappointed when they find that such is not the case.
There are some difficulties. I must admit that in London the type of housing that is being built is I think superior to that which is being built probably anywhere else in Canada, according to what I have heard. But these small difficulties occur. Possibly if better inspections were made, those difficulties would be ironed out. But when a number of complaints were given to me about these particular homes, and when I took the matter up with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and with the insurance company,

each of them passed the buck. They said: This was done two or three years ago, and the timber shrinks, and that is the reason that these difficulties occur.
I just want to point out what happens when a man applies for a loan for a home under the National Housing Act. I am going to read three paragraphs that are on the application and questionnaire. The first is as follows:
Borrowers and purchasers must make their own arrangements with the builder or vendor ot the house and must not assume that their interests have been or are being looked after by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the lending institution making the loan.
I do not suppose that one in a dozen actually knows that paragraph is in there. Then there is another paragraph which reads as follows:
The lending company collects from the borrower $20 for the appraisal of the property and a minimum of four (4) inspections of the house during construction. These inspections are to see that C.M.H.C. standards are complied with, and to determine when progress advances may be made on the mortgage. They do not assure a full architectural or engineering inspection to see that all details of the plans and specifications are complied with.
What is the use of hiring an inspector if he does not look after these things? The last paragraph reads:
There have been instances in the past where borrowers and purchasers have made no contract with the builder and made no inspections of the house because they relied on the fact that they were getting "an N.H.A. house." This is a warning to borrowers and purchasers that they must make their own contract with vendors or builders and look after their own interests and inspections in the building or acquisition of a home.
That lets the lending institution, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and everyone else out from under. The only man who is going to be responsible is the man who buys the house. When he moves in and finds these defects he is troubled about them. I maintain that when a man accepts a house an itemized list should be made of all the different things in the house, and then an inspection should be made and each of these items checked off so that when the man takes the house he has agreed that it is as it should be. The owner and purchaser should sign that acceptance document. If the person who is acquiring the property did that he would know where he was, and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the lending institution would be protected.
I want to say a word or two about integrated housing and prefabricated housing in London. Generally I think they are doing a good job. In fact I know of instances where from $700 to $1,000 is being saved to owners of these particular houses in London; but still these defects sometimes show up and they
National Housing Act
cause bad feeling, shall I say, between the builder, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the purchaser. One of the advantages they are finding there is a saving in taxes and insurance. Perhaps that is not possible under some other plans. I just want to mention what Central Mortgage and Housing had to say when I complained of some of these defects. One of the things I complained about was the wiring, and this is what they say:
The electric wiring could no doubt have been improved-
I complained about the defect of switches on the stairway. They would not work both ways. If you were upstairs and wanted to turn on the light downstairs it would not work. This is the reply I got.
The electric wiring could no doubt have been improved but it would fall into the category of a "frill" as mentioned above.
I think that is a necessity in every properly-wired house. This is their second comment:
It is quite possible that there may be a few visible leaks in the cold air ducts, after being installed this length of time. In the process of wood drying out there might be a tendency of it pulling away from the metal duct. However, the average new home owner expects minor defects like that and usually it is no trick for a minor repair.
To say the least, I think that is a silly statement. I do not agree with it.
Then there was the question of ice forming on the steps. I complained of that. Their comment was:
In so far as entrance steps are concerned, we considered they were adequate, and again one must consider the price at which these houses were sold.
It does not cost any more to put a cement step in right than it does to put it in wrong. When I took it up with the lending institution this is what they said:
In spite of what is said on this form, we do our best to give reasonable consideration to any difficulties that borrowers may have.
I do not want to go into all the details, but it was just as I mentioned in the beginning, namely, passing the buck. The man has his house and nobody is going to do anything about it. There are defects there but he is stuck with it and nothing can be done. As far as humanly possible we should encourage the people to own their own homes. That is very desirable in this country. We want a country of property owners. They are the backbone of the country. Let us do all we can to foster that. The hon. member for Nipissing mentioned that in his speech a few days ago.
When speaking on the resolution stage of this bill the hon. member for Spadina made a reference to subsidized housing, and hoped that it would be brought into effect. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Montreal

National Housing Act
Gazette of November 11, 1949. They quoted from the big green book of the Department of National Revenue, released on that day. The heading of the report is as follows: "Report shows only 540 farmers in Quebec assessed for income." The remark I want to make is that all the other farmers in the province of Quebec will be paying for subsidized housing in any city to which it is applied. I do not think that is right.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps I should make a statement about inspection. I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member, although I think they are considerably wide of this section; but in the circumstances we are all glad to have them. I think he would expect me to say with respect to his remark about passing the buck that the normal assumption of responsibility and the expectation that people will assume their normal responsibility is not, in my opinion, passing the buck. It seems to me, though, that there has been a great tendency for people to expect some departure from the normal relationship between the purchaser of a house and the builder of that house or the mortgagee, whichever the case may be; and if that relationship does not obtain in all respects the first recourse is to the government. Then, if the government does not come in and bail out the home owner, the immediate charge is one of passing the buck.
This is quite a long statement on the inspection procedure, but in view of the fact that the point has been raised I think I should read it.
For the most part loans under the National Housing Act are made jointly by approved lending institutions and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The arrangement between the lending institution and the corporation is set down in an agreement between them which deals with the administration of the loan, both during the process of construction and thereafter during the period of repayment. The lending institution takes charge of the administration of the loan and the agreement provides that during the period of construction the lending institution shall inspect the house as often as will reasonably ensure that the owner or builder is properly and faithfully carrying out a work of construction in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The agreement specifies that such inspections shall, in any event, be not less frequent than:
(a)	once at or before the laying of the footings,
(b)	once at or before the time when the roof is completed,
[Mr. White (Middlesex Eastl.1
(c)	once prior to the process of lathing or its equivalent, and
(d)	once on completion of the house.
In addition to the above-mentioned inspections the agreement provides that the corporation may make additional inspections, and the corporation in fact does, from time to time, follow through on inspections of houses which are being financed jointly under the National Housing Act for the purpose of seeing that the terms of the operating agreement are being fulfilled.
I should like to make it clear that in the matter of inspections no attempt is being made to shift responsibility from the corporation to the lending institution or vice versa. The government feels that the inspections which are made are not intended to provide full architectural inspections and supervision. The borrower pays $20 for the appraisal of his lot and the inspections which are made. A full architectural inspection, and supervision of the house would normally cost not less than $150.
We have endeavoured to make our position clear to borrowers under the National Housing Act, and have printed on the questionnaire, which is the first document that a prospective home owner sees, and the sales form, which is the first document that a prospective purchaser sees, a warning which deals with the corporation's position regarding inspections. For the information of hon. members I should like to read the warning as it appears on the documents I have mentioned:



IMPORTANT

[Stage Direction]
Warning to Borrowers or Purchasers
Borrowers and purchasers must make their own arrangements with the builder or vendor of the house and must not assume that their interests have been or are being looked after by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the lending institution making the loan.
That is the same section as was read by the hon. member for Middlesex East.
In the case of a purchaser of a completed house, the purchaser must satisfy himself that the house is. up to the standard that he thinks he is getting.
In the case of a purchaser of a house under construction, the purchaser must himself see that the portion built is up to the standard he thinks he is getting, and that the remainder of the house is completed as arranged between him and the builder..
Borrowers likewise must make their own arrangement with a contractor and see that the house is built according to the plans and specifications which have been agreed upon between the borrower and the contractor.
The lending company collects from the borrower $20 for the appraisal of the property and a minimum of four inspections of the house during construction. These inspections are to see that C.M.H.C. standards are complied with, and to determine when progress advances may be made on the

mortgage. They do not assure a full architectural or engineering inspection to see that all details of the plans and specifications are complied with.
There have been instances in the past where borrowers and purchasers have made no contract with the builder and made no inspections of the house because they relied on the fact that they were getting an N.H.A. house. This is a warning to borrowers and purchasers that they must make their own contract with vendors or builders and look after their own interests and inspections in the building or acquisition of a home.
The National Housing Act is designed to provide credit to assist prospective home owners in acquiring their homes, credit which cannot be obtained through normal commercial channels. The interest rate is lower than the prevailing rate and the terms of repayment of the loan are much more favourable than those normally given. To add the responsibility of making complete architectural inspections upon the lenders would impose a burden almost impossible to discharge, and most certainly would increase the over-all cost to the borrower resulting from the discharge of such responsibility.
As hon. members know, since 1935, joint loans have accounted for approximately 100,000 units. This has meant 400,000 inspections at least so far. In the year 1949 there are being built under the National Housing Act at least 30,000 units, calling for 120,000 inspections.
It seems to me that we can go no further on the inspections than we do at the present time and at the same time take all steps Possible to inform borrowers of their responsibilities and ours in connection with this problem.
Mr. Gauthier (Sudbury):: I should like to compliment the minister and his officials upon this section in the bill, namely the one referring to home owners. This very day I received a letter from the minister as a result of my drawing his attention to a certain case in Capreol concerning a man earning $3,800 a year, who had applied to all the lending institutions in the country and could not get a loan to build his own home. This man is certainly in a position to be a home owner in Canada.
I believe the section before us will take care of a matter of that kind. I do not like situations such as that of the man in Capreol who had to go 150 miles to get help with his house. Sudbury is one of the most thriving cities in Ontario. It is sixth largest in the province; yet there is no office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation there. Despite this, we find them in many smaller centres of Ontario where I should think they would not be as necessary as they are in Sudbury.
National Housing Act
In Sudbury we have I believe the largest payroll for individual men of any city in Canada. Many of our men are earning from $300 to $400 a month. These people want to-become home owners in Sudbury, and they have no way of finding out how they can get those homes. They are refused the help of lending institutions-why, I cannot say. This-is more serious than one might think. I am one who was refused the help of a lending institution. I am also one who is paying monthly to the national housing administration in Canada for my own home. But I was refused my home until such time as I refused to take "No" for an answer from these big financiers. I came to Ottawa and discussed my problem with the officials here. The man who was in charge of the national housing administration in 1938 told me that if those lending institutions did not accept my application they would not receive any more applications from anybody else. He believed I was certainly one who could comply with the regulations surrounding the buying of a home in my town of Sudbury.
Next morning upon my return to Sudbury the representative of the lending institution was waiting for me, with a taxi, at the station, to take me home, and to tell me that I was going to be given a loan. He did not have to do that, because I had already been told that the day before in Ottawa.
This goes to show that these lending institutions are not serving the purpose and the spirit of national housing in this country. They are taking the cream of the loans in all' sections. Furthermore, I would add that they zone certain sections of the city because they have streets in these localities in which they own real estate; and if you do not build a home in that section you cannot get a loan through these people.
I do not think Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should or will stand for any of this. Let me say to the minister now that the sooner his department establishes an office in Sudbury, the better. In three or four months they will have no regrets for having done so, because there are many people there who are able to come within the regulations; and build their own homes.


Mr. Calherwood:: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to confine my brief remarks to this section of the bill. May I associate myself with others in thanking the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply for having brought this bill before-the House of Commons. It is a step in the right direction, and I believe it will accelerate the building of homes throughout Canada.
One angle of the bill, however, I think will' not work out as satisfactorily as might be hoped. I refer to its application to the smaller

National Housing Act
towns and villages throughout Canada. Under the old act we could negotiate an additional loan up to $1,250 as a second mortgage. That, of course, is not possible under the new. All hon. members realize that the lending value depends upon different factors in different sections of the country. The rental value of a property may depend upon the amount of money a wage-earner makes, and also upon other factors. The lending value in the small towns and villages is not as great as the lending value in the cities. As we all know, the basic loan is 80 per cent of the lending value and consequently people in the towns and villages are not going to be able to secure as much money by way of loans.
Apparently the lending institutions are not willing to go out from the cities in order to negotiate loans in the small urban centres. The reason is quite apparent. The cost of inspecting and supervision of a property 50 or 60 miles away from the office of the lending institution is considerable. But this is something that could be overcome. I believe the minister has a humanitarian feeling for the people across Canada. The housing situation in the cities is quite acute but I think at times that is over-emphasized. There is a housing shortage in the towns and villages where a large proportion of our population reside.
As the hon. member for Eglinton told us the other night, this is a social problem of great magnitude. As he said, this should be a pilgrimage to a happy land. I am quite sure the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply will take this matter into consideration. I think it was the hon. member for Lambton West who stated the other evening that the interest rate on loans should be reduced to three and a half per cent. I am sure the minister will take that into consideration also. So if by sound legislation we can remove every obstruction and impediment that will interfere with the construction of homes for *our people, we will win the acclaim of our citizens from sea to sea and justify by this action alone the sittings of the house for this fall session.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the remarks of the two previous speakers with respect to the service given by the lending institutions to the small towns and villages.


Robert Henry Winters: These remarks have nothing to do with this particular subsection. If we are going to get into a general discussion we should revert to the proper section. We are now on section 2, subsection 1.
Subsection 1 agreed to.

On subsection 2.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are two phases to this subsection, one having to do with the percentage and the other having to do with the lending value.
So far as percentage is concerned I can understand that a flat rate of 80 per cent has the virtue of simplicity, but I do not think that is what dictated this amendment.
1	fancy the reason the government is proposing to depart from the present standards of 95 per cent for the first $2,000 of lending value, 85 per cent for the next $2,000, and 70 per cent for everything above that is that houses in the low-price range are not being built today. I should like to ask the minister if calculations have been made to indicate how the 80 per cent will compare with the present basis of granting loans. My impression is that it will work out just about the same, but perhaps the minister has some figures on that point.
I turn now to the question of lending value which in many respects is a vital matter. There is not much use our preparing great plans to help house construction if we are going to write down the lending value. Lending value is defined in subsection 23 of section
2	of the act as follows:
"Lending value" means the estimated cost of construction or cost of conversion, or the appraised value, whichever is less, of a house or housing project.
In other words, in the case of a new house, "lending value" as defined by the act is the estimated cost of construction or the appraised value, whichever is less. I have said before, and I repeat, that the interpretation which has been placed upon lending value in the administration of this act has subtracted greatly from the intended effectiveness of the act. We know perfectly well that the definition put upon lending value by those responsible for the administration of this act has not borne a direct relationship to the cost of construction today.
This is not the first time this matter has been discussed. The minister's predecessor was pressed on this matter more than once, and his answer was that there would not be any departure from the practice of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that they were not going to measure lending value in terms of the cost of construction. While building costs have been steadily mounting during the lifetime of this act, lending value as interpreted by those responsible for administering the act has not risen proportionately.

I think that those responsible for administering the act have been putting too much emphasis upon the fear of inflation in housing values. They have been more bent upon avoiding loss in connection with lending operations than they have been on making this section fruitful in the construction of new homes. The administration can reduce the effectiveness of the act if they are not going to measure the lending value in terms of modern costs of construction. I say that there should be a more sympathetic interpretation of lending value in the future than there has been in the past; otherwise we are going to see much of the effectiveness of this act taken from it by those responsible for the administration.
I think the minister is prepared to concede that costs of production have been rising, although they have reached some measure of stabilization in recent months, and those responsible for administering the act should be ready to abandon this fear of inflation which has apparently beset them in the past. I urge upon the minister a change of heart and a change of emphasis in connection with this matter.
There are many people who have good reason to complain that they have received less by way of mortgage loan under this act than parliament intended they should receive. I think the reason for that has been unsympathetic administration. I ask the minister to make up his mind and perhaps give the committee assurance that from now on lending value is going to have a direct relationship to the cost of construction and not to some fictitious figure which has the effect of writing down the lending value.


Robert Henry Winters: With much of what the hon. member has said I agree. He has said that a certain attitude with respect to lending value has been taken by those administering the act. He thought that the administration in some respects was throttling the intent of the act. In fairness to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I think I should say that the government has at all times been informed by the corporation of these matters of administration, and they have carried the judgment of the government. I feel the time has come for some revision of the attitude towards lending values, and in that I am in entire agreement with what the hon. member has said.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Does Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation determine the lending value of the property, or is it the company that lends the money?
National Housing Act


Robert Henry Winters: They are joint loans, and the decision is a joint decision, but the lending institution predominates in the loan, and it would have the greater voice in the decision.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Would it not have practically the controlling voice? Is it not true that the lending company decides whether it will lend anything, and how much it will lend, regardless of what the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has to say?


Robert Henry Winters: In agreements and arrangements between the lending institution and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation there is no point of difference with respect to that problem.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister be kind enough to deal with the first point I raised? I asked a question about how the 80 per cent is going to compare in the future with the way the blended percentages have worked out up to the present time.


Robert Henry Winters: The 80 per cent will be approximately equivalent to the average loan under the present arrangement, and the extra one-sixth under the new arrangement will have the effect of reducing the amount of the down payment required by approximately one-half.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On subsection 3.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think anyone will object to increasing the period in question to thirty years provided at least two conditions are present. One is sound methods of construction and the other point is one on which I now ask assurance that it will not be overlooked. The section as it stands now contemplates that there shall be protection of the area by community planning and appropriate zoning restrictions. No reference is made to that healthy safeguard in the proposed amended form of the subsection. It may be unnecessary, but I would ask the minister for his explicit assurance that that necessary form of protection is not going to be overlooked, and that due emphasis will be placed upon protection by means of community planning and proper zoning restrictions.


Robert Henry Winters: As the hon. member has said, subsection 3 of section 2 may give the appearance that we are abandoning the principle of the desirability of community planning and zoning. This is far from the case because in the ordinary operations of loans under the National Housing Act the areas in which loans are made are limited to those which are

National Housing Act
stable and have every possibility of remaining good residential neighbourhoods during the term of the loan.
The limitation now contained in the act, that loans for a term exceeding twenty-five .years but not in excess of thirty years shall be limited to areas protected by community planning and appropriate zoning restrictions, presents administrative difficulties. With higher costs of construction and the larger loans provided in the amendments, it is likely that longer terms of amortization will require that the debt service on the larger loans be kept within a reasonable percentage of the owner's income. Debt service includes principal, interest and taxes. Generally the corporation is unwilling to approve an individual as a satisfactory home owner where the debt service exceeds 23 per cent of the 'owner's income.
There are a number of communities which *are quite satisfactory from the residential point of view in which there is no approved community plan. The practicalities of the situation are that in some cases in these communities a thirty-year amortization is required. Provided that there are adequate :zoning restrictions and the location is satisfactory, there is no reason why loans on a thirty-year basis should not be made. I question the advisability at this time of using the limitation to a shorter term of amortization as a method to force municipalities to approve a community plan. There are more effective ways of achieving this end without imposing a hardship upon individuals whose circumstances make a thirty-year loan desirable.
I may say that in considering applications for loans under the National Housing Act an area rating is considered. The basis of this rating takes into account all features relating to the community. If the rating is high there is no reluctance in proceeding with a thirty-year amortization. If, however, the rating is low, amortization will be restricted to fifteen or twenty years. In principle we believe that the community planning restriction has much merit. From a practical point of view, however, we believe that administrative procedures can better achieve the purposes of the present limitation.


Donald MacInnis: I should like to point out that what has just been said raises one of the serious objections to the National Housing Act. It limits loans to people with relatively high incomes and stability of occupation or work. The kind of housing that is most needed is that for people who have not high incomes, and who have not any great assurance of continued work. Where loans are made it is usually in a high-class district in

the community. In our cities there are numerous working class districts, as they are termed, and it is impossible for people living there to get a loan under the National Housing Act, no matter how good the character of the individual. Steadiness of employment, even if the wage is not high, should be a factor in obtaining a loan under the act, but I do not think that applies at all unless there is an assurance of a certain level of income. As a matter of fact, the National Housing Act as it has been operated up till now helps those to build homes who most likely could do so without the National Housing Act at all.


Robert Henry Winters: Just before six o'clock I think I should say that one of the greatest limiting factors in the areas the hon. member for Vancouver East has just mentioned is the unavailability of land. I would say to him, however, on a more encouraging note, that the dominion-provincial arrangements contemplate scope for operation in those fields.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Shirley Patricia Susan Oakes Rowlands.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Margaret Adeline Bodley Cabana.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Mary Letinet-sky Nemeroff.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Norah Helen Jarrett McCaffrey.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Elizabeth Karaszi Bergeron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of John Albert Roberts.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Leslie Ernest Tulett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Ernest Tone-gawa.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Rene Walsh. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Sara Tepper Prupas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 188, for the relief of Joseph Wilfred Melanson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 189, for the relief of Muriel Johnson Binnie Keates.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of William Campbell James Meredith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Lillian Steinberg Heitner.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 192, for the relief of Clayton George Allison.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 193, for the relief of Louis Kasper. -Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Arthur Col-pron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Berengere Pare Fuller.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Enid Dorothy MacRae Gauley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Guy Merrill Desaulniers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Margaret May Lester Rajotte.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Odette Therese Gabard Coupal.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Ella Maxine Shover Logan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Bernard Kivet.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Phyllis Elizabeth Campbell Westover.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Mildred Blanche Tilson Bell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Ruby Anderson Edwards.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Vera Marguerite Abraham Allen Richey.-Mr. Winkler. [DOT]

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, November 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benidickson for the second reading of Bill No. 119, to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Maclnnis.
Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, when one of these bills was last before us, I made a number of references to what the legal position was. In this House of Commons, we have gone on the assumption that a statement made by the Prime Minister that the export of gas in Alberta was purely a matter for the provincial government was true; but with great respect and deference,
I have ventured to disagree. For a moment I should like to speak about the statements that have been loosely made, not only loosely made but falsely made if they included myself, to the effect that I was taking part in a filibuster. My immediate answer to that is that-I see some amusement registered by the member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford). I think he should stay with his cheese production, and not stick his nose into things he knows nothing about. The fact is that I made a speech on the other bill, and tonight I am making a speech on this one. That will be the end of my efforts, irrespective of amendments or anything of that kind.
Prairie Transmission Lines
In my own favour, I think I may safely say that that can scarcely be called a filibuster; particularly when the gas we are talking about originates in the province in which I have lived for over forty years, and I am really interested in what happens to that gas.
The hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) made a speech on one of these bills. He is not only the hon. Minister of Fisheries, he is one of my oldest, closest and best-regarded friends. He made some reference to statements which I had made, and suggested that I did not know what I was talking about. He began by saying that I referred to only one pipe line, and I quote his words as they appear at page 2019 of Hansard:
Then he went on to say that this pipe line should be built on Canadian soil. I think he should he asked to give us his authority for making such a definite statement to the house.
I made that statement, and now I give my authority. I begin by giving you, Mr. Speaker, a statement made by Mr. Dixon in the evidence given before the Senate on one of these bills. I am afraid I must confuse these bills to some extent, but the principle is exactly the same. This is the man behind the other bill, and at page F-3 he said this in answer to a question by Hon. Mr. MacKinnon:
No, that would be utterly impossible. You could not finance the line. This is the way it will have to be regulated. We shall make contracts to sell gas in Vancouver, Seattle and Portland, and we shall have to have sufficient gas for the entire market or the line will not be financed. If the gas should play out, which is inconceivable, Vancouver would naturally get the last gas.
I read that slowly and quietly to you, because those are the words of the man almost entirely responsible for that bill. The member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), when this particular bill was before the house, read a statement-required by statute-from the newspapers in Calgary, which said definitely the route was through Kingsgate into the United States, on to those American cities and then to Vancouver at the tail end of the line. Now, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, I am not going to abuse any company. I pause to make this statement with respect to the bill we passed last session. I think we acted like schoolboys. We did not make a proper examination of that bill, and my responsibility is the same as that of the other members in this house. May I say that if the board of transport commissioners, before whom that company is now, imposes a condition that the line be built on Canadian soil I shall welcome it. I do not want to leave any doubt in anyone's mind as to why I am adopting the position I am.
Then, in further support of my answer to the statement made by the hon. Minister

Prairie Transmission Lines of Fisheries, that they wanted to allow the prospective company's lines through to Vancouver-it was three lines, I think-


Mr. Mayhew:: No, I mentioned two.


Arthur Leroy Smith: -two gas lines, I read the statement of Mr. Connolly, who is a king's counsel, and who appeared before a Senate committee. At page C-5 he said this:
It is necessary to include the United States market because the limited market available in Canada would not, in itself, support the cost of a pipe line from any of the known Canadian natural gas fields to Vancouver.
I have quoted to you statements made by spokesmen of both these corporations, who were speaking with full authority. They demonstrate that there will be no gas line except one which will take care of this whole market. There can be no doubt of that. In that testimony, there is a good deal of evidence as to the quantities which will be required over a twenty-five-year period. It amounts to so many trillions of cubic feet that it staggers me. I notice something which I thought amusing in the evidence given before the committee, and that is that in London a trillion is a million million, while in New York it is a hundred thousand million. In other words, the word "trillion" has two definitions in the mathematics of those two countries. When the committee was finished, it did not appear to be definite whether they were using the London measurement or the New York measurement. So I leave that because the Minister of Lands and Mines in Alberta, Mr. Tanner, made a statement the other day which we have all read. He said that there would be no export of gas from Alberta unless the supply in Alberta were assured for fifty years. That is quite a statement to make, but what does it mean? Frankly, in my judgment, it does not mean much. Who is to prognosticate the progress in that province and who, therefore, can do any more than guess how many trillions of feet we need to have now, using either measurement, to take care of that province for the next fifty years?
The minister asked me where I got my authority for that statement. I have quoted to him the top officers of one of these companies. Then may I say to him that I have further authority, and I do not mean secondhand information. I have authority from the firm of Ford, Bacon and Davis of New York city, the largest engineering firm in the world, who told me it was utterly silly to think of more than one pipe line to this one market from the oil fields of Alberta. I will not mention the gentleman's name but I saw him some little time ago in the hotel in which I

think the minister and I are both living. If he wants further authority, I will give him privately the name of a man who stands all by himself in North America as a gas engineer. He assured me of the same thing. If that is not enough, I want to give him the names of two prominent senators who certainly are not of my political persuasion. One is Senator Farris.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Order.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The other is Senator Turgeon. Am I out of order, Mr. Speaker? If I am, I will stop; but I did not think that I was. May I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that I was merely answering a question put to me by his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew). I hope there will not be another cabinet split over that. Let us try to get along without that necessity.
The hon. member went on and gave us these routes. Then he said that they should follow the routes taken by the Canadian National Railways and the Great Northern Railway. Into this I have also made some inquiry, but I want to ask my good friend the Minister of Fisheries a question. In the mountain section all railways run through tunnels. They run through tunnels only because there is no overland route. In their evidence before the Senate, these people say that they expect to carry this gas at a pressure of 750 pounds as opposed to the pressure at sea level which we all know is fifteen pounds. I should like to ask the minister how he would like to travel through a tunnel on a train knowing that he has a 24-inch gas line underneath him carrying gas at a pressure of 750 pounds. Connaught tunnel is five miles long. This is on the C.P.R. One can just imagine what would happen to the minister and the rest of the train if there was some accident with respect to the gas carried at a pressure of 750 pounds through these tunnels which are on all these railways. It is not a matter of the C.P.R. or anything like that.


Mr. Rowe:: There is nearly that much pressure under the minister now.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member suggests there is that much pressure under him now. I think there is more than that on him, not under. Then the minister said:
As Canadians we should be supplied first with the gas we need and then, just the same as with anything else, we should export our surplus. II we have a surplus of gas and oil then I say we have every right to export it unless we want to build a fence around ourselves and become isolated from everybody else.

In that statement let me compliment the minister. He has put the truth simply and forcefully and much better than I might ever do it myself. Then he went on and, speaking of me, he said:
I should like to tell the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) that, when the first oil field was drilled in the province of Alberta, when people thought it was a wild gamble and there was no oil in the Turner valley, some of my money was invested in that project taking a long chance.
I think the minister will admit that he did it, as I will admit that I did it; and how many thousand other suckers, including myself, were pinched in on that particular occasion? I am sure he will remember this incident, because he was in Calgary then. The name of the company I have forgotten, but it was operated by a fellow by the name of Buck. I think the Minister of Fisheries was probably in that show too.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No, I was not.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The minister *was smarter than I was.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Black Diamond.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I remember that show well. There was some gas in this hole. A number of us enthusiasts went down there. Buck had salted the well with machine oil. There is no doubt about that. So enthusiastic were we that we-I even in my Sunday clothes-stood under it, stunk like a skunk and had this stuff poured all over us. We thought Mr. Buck had a big well. I am glad the Minister of Fisheries was not in there. But I gather that the Minister of Trade and Commerce might have had a share or two.
I think I have finished dealing with the speech of the minister. He mentioned, as other people have, the word "monopoly". In the first speech I made in connection with this matter I too said there could be, economically, only one 24-inch or 26-inch pipe line. In his evidence, Mr. Dixon admits that it must be at least a 26-inch pipe line. In the carriage of gas, if you have a 12-inch line it will carry so much; and if you have a 24-inch line it carries five times as much. In other words, you just cannot say 4, 8, 12, 16, 24 inches and so on. You must remember that the gas takes in the whole circumference of the pipe, and a 24-inch line will carry five times as much gas as a 12-inch line will carry.
What is our position out there with respect to gas? I have read the telegram. I am anxious that my Social Credit friends should know this. I have read the telegram from Mr. Manning. I have read the statement made the other day by Mr. Tanner, the minister of lands and mines. Both of those gentlemen are fine and able men. What have they said?
Prairie Transmission Lines They have said that they have a policy of Albertans first, Canadians second and other people third. These are their priorities. In my judgment nobody in the world, at least none of us who come from there, would dare dispute that simple statement. But Mr. Manning did say that he was not opposed to the incorporation of other companies, thereby having a better chance for bids to do this particular job. Neither will I dispute that.
We have before us two applications. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is a great authority on these matters. The other night I heard him say-and I am sure he meant it-that he controlled the export of gas beyond Canada. I agreed with him; I still agree. But to be realistic we must know that when this tremendous amount of money has been spent we have a situation confronting us that means something. One gas line company frankly admits that in the event of a breakdown or a shortage Vancouver will be at the end of the line and will suffer first because of the contracts they will have made with the northwestern United States and clearly and most important with the cities of Seattle and Portland. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to pause here because I am leaving the filibuster business out. I want to pause and ask hon. members this question: Do they want that, if the main scheme can be accomplished in some other way?
I have read the evidence very carefully. We know that we have been told that five lines were looked at by one company. We have been told by Mr. Dixon that to build a line on Canadian soil, that is just north of the border, would cost $20 million more than if it crosses at Kingsgate, runs through the United States and turns up with the last bit of gas to Vancouver. I wonder, sir, whether hon. members will not pause and consider. Is it not more worth while that Mr. Dixon, a man from New York, described as an engineer and geologist, and I am sure he is, should build a line through Canada? Is it not much more important to us that Canadians should have the advantage of that line rather than save Mr. Dixon $20 million? The sum of $20 million is not a great deal in a $125 million proposition. Roughly that is to be the cost of this project. So far as I am concerned- I do not go to Vancouver often because it rains out there all the time-I do not care how much it costs Mr. Dixon, but I do care about Vancouver being on the front end of this pipe line and not on the tail end of it. That, Mr. Speaker, is the simple problem that hon. members have to decide when this comes to a vote, and I have already promised that I shall not further hinder that vote after I have concluded my remarks this evening.

Prairie Transmission Lines
What is the position? I am trying to bring this thing down to what we are going to vote on, because we shall vote on it some day. I am going to tell the house this because I am anxious to justify myself completely in regard to the attitude I have taken on these bills. I begin by saying, suppose someone came here and asked for a charter to build a railway and did not tell us where the railway was to go. He would be laughed out of the House of Commons. 1 do not think I shall hear a voice dissenting from that statement. If hon. gentlemen have not seen the last issue of Fortune magazine I would ask them to take a look at some of the maps in it showing the underlying gas lines in the United States. If they do so they will see that they are infinitely more plentiful in certain areas than are railroads. The underground pipe lines of the United States, both gas and oil, have a far greater mileage than all the railways in the United States. The last issue of Fortune may be procured in the library. I had it for only a minute or two. It shows the tremendous development. In other words, the development of gas as a fuel is far ahead of coal or of fuel oil. The curves on the graphs in this magazine show that the price of gas is infinitely more on a level line than either of the other two, which are going up. Those of you who burn oil and coal even in your houses will know the truth of what I speak. It would be very interesting for hon. members to look at Fortune magazine to see the expansion of the pipe line business, which has now become a major business in the United States. It will become so in this country.
I am not one of those who believe that in Alberta we have all the gas in Canada. I am certain we have not. I know that in the Peace river area, particularly of British Columbia, they have lots of gas. Incidentally, within the last ten days in that country, the Pacific Petroleum Company-I do not mind mentioning their name-have brought in two excellent gas wells across the British Columbia border. I think they are in the constituency of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray). I may be wrong about that. I am anxious that we should not fail to give this matter proper consideration. Let us have some facts with respect to the whole problem, because we are only on the doorstep of the development of the oil and gas industry in Canada.
We come now to what I think is our real problem, and in my judgment our only problem. The other night I mentioned what a tremendously useful purpose this line would serve in northern Alberta and in northern British Columbia. At the moment these

areas are undeveloped. Let me put it this way. The development could be infinitely greater if they had some form of energy such as natural gas. I am not insisting on that route or that company or on any other company, but I am saying-and perhaps this is what we shall vote on-that we are going to vote on whether this is or is not a Canadian line. I for one will oppose anything which is not a Canadian line.
I pause to take up the answers to that question. The answers so far given are that we have the board of transport commissioners. We have the province of Alberta with certain authority, and they will not permit this or that because they have announced as a policy Albertans first, Canadians second and other people third in priority.
What are we doing here? We saw fit to pass-and everybody has agreed with that- a Pipe Lines Act. The principal provision of that act is that people going to do that must procure their charter by private act of this parliament. But for that, anybody could go to the Secretary of State and get letters patent with a big red seal, and green ribbons hanging down from it, permitting him to incorporate a company of any description-the only exception being that the company be not incorporated for illegal purposes. In other words, you could not incorporate a gambling club, as such. But for any other divisions of human activity you can get incorporation from the dominion government, simply by procuring letters patent.
We saw fit to change all that. We saw fit to say that in connection with a gas line they must come to the House of Commons. Why did we do that? We did it in order that this House of Commons-this thing being of such importance-should make an examination of the problem or proposition which was submitted.
Now then, if we today are to incorporate gas pipe lines without knowing where they are going, or over what route, we become nothing but a rubber stamp-just the same rubber stamp as used by the Secretary of State when we could incorporate for any purposes at all. Surely that is true. Surely there is no argument against the simple statement I have made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order-


Arthur Leroy Smith: I conclude bysaying this-I saw you getting nervous, sir, and I think I have come to my conclusion at about the same time. We passed one pipe line bill last spring, and I think we were foolish. I am content, because that is the company about which some people in this House of Commons have been circulating the

rumour that I am in that picture. If I were outside I would know what to call them- and I do not see anybody where I am looking at the moment.
But I do say this, that 1 am content now to say that the transport board in dealing with their application, which will come up within the next month or two, should put in that permission the proviso that that company must complete their line on Canadian soil. I am quite content and happy that that should be done.
And so I say to the sponsor of this bill- and they are both together, both this bill and the other one-that if they will take a little piece of paper, and put on it only one line, saying that this company shall build this line between Alberta and Vancouver, and that it shall go on Canadian soil, I will join in making it unanimous with all the members of this House of Commons; and that bill will not meet with any more trouble, and we shall not have any more stupid, silly and false charges of filibustering in connection with this matter. That is all I have to say.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Smith@Calgary West: I do not wish to interfere, but the hon. member did speak on this bill just ahead of me the other night. But if the house wishes to give unanimous consent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understood the Minister of Fisheries wanted to ask a question.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I wish to make a short statement-


Mr. Casselman:: No.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: -to point out I spoke on the amendment the other night. I have not yet spoken on either bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Fisheries is correct. He spoke on the amendment, but he has not spoken on the main motion. When the main motion is called the Minister of Fisheries will have the right to speak. I believe I am correct in that. The hon. member for Moose Mountain.


Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words on this pipe line bill I realize it may be said, when I have finished, that I did not know what I was talking about. However, I am going to say a few words. My constituency may not be interested to any great extent in where these pipe lines are built. However, I am not going to take very much time in holding
Prairie Transmission Lines up this session, or this bill-because I am quite anxious to get home. And, Mr. Speaker,. I have a home to go to.
It may be suggested that I am on the wrong side of the fence. And that reminds me of a letter I received from a very good friend in my constituency-one who happened to be a C.C.F.'er. He congratulated me upon my first speech in the House of Commons, and upon a radio address I had made. He said,, however, that he thought I should stay on my own side of the fence, and that was. agriculture.


John Ewen Sinclair: On a point of order, according to page 2111 of Hansard the hon. member for Cape Breton South moved an amendment to this bill, and that was the last order of business before eleven o'clock on the evening on which the debate continued for three hours. Then the hon. member for Calgary West began to speak. So the Minister of Fisheries was quite correct in saying that he had not yet spoken on the amendment-on this amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to deprive the hon. member of a right to speak; but my recollection is that the hon. member for Cape Breton South moved an amendment to one of these bills which I, with regret, as. I always have on such occasions, ruled out. of order. Then-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was voted on.


Mr. Speaker:: No, I did not rule it out of order. The amendment was voted upon, and did not carry. There was not a recorded vote. The amendment at the present time is the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). The record I have in front of me shows that the Minister of Fisheries did speak on the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On the point of order, you are absolutely correct. It appears on the page of contents-"Mr. Maclnnis, amendment; Mr. Sinclair; Mr. Church; Mr. Mayhew; Mr. Gillis; Mr. Smith (Calgary West)". On my motion it was then adjourned.. It is all there.


John Ewen Sinclair: The last item was a motion-by the hon. member for Calgary West.


An hon. Member:: You are wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have again referred to the record, and I have before me Hansard for November 22. It is true, as the hon. member for Coast-Capilano states, that the hon. member for Cape Breton South did speak immediately preceding the hon. member for
2432	HOUSE OF
Prairie Transmission Lines Calgary West. But at that time the hon. member for Cape Breton South was speaking to the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver East. The hon. member for Moose Mountain.


Mr. Cruickshank:: On the point of order-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is the hon. member for Coast-Capilano trying to stage a filibuster to talk it out?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Mountain.


John James Smith: I, too, would like to see a Canadian route in connection with this pipe line bill. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has been referred to as the big shot in the government but I think that should be taken as a compliment. The other evening some hon. members said that the minister was talking through his hat. I do not picture him as being the type of man who talks through his hat; I picture him as being a wise and experienced gentleman. He differs from some hon. members of this house. He is not fond of hearing his own voice. I do not think he told us all that we would like to know, provided he has the information. We want to know where this pipe line is to go. Possibly he has satisfied himself that it will be good for Canada as a whole.
The outlook in Alberta is particularly good and we in Saskatchewan, the next province, rather surmise that we have gas resources also. However, these have not been developed but rather discouraged in Saskatchewan as outside private capital has either gone around our province or flown over it to land in Alberta. It might be said that we have lots of gas in Saskatchewan, but it is different from the gas that will be going through this pipe line. Hon. members will realize that we have eliminated that to some extent.
Saskatchewan should be entitled to this gas if it needs it for industrial or other purposes. Our products are mostly agricultural and we are bound to suffer if we cannot find markets at good prices. Private enterprise should be induced to build up industry in our province. Many hon. members of the house had the opportunity of going through the Studebaker plant in Hamilton and I do not think anyone will suggest that that plant could not have been located in Saskatchewan provided we had the gas and other essentials.
This gas pipe line should be built on Canadian soil. It has been said that the Alberta government has the power to say where the pipe line shall go but I do not know whether they have. After Alberta is served


the gas should be made available to the rest of Canada and this parliament should have the right to say where it will go.
It has been suggested that the board of transport commissioners have the right to state where it will go and I do not know whether that is correct. If they have that power then I suggest that it is quite possible that they will insist on an all-Canadian route. I do not know all the members of that board but I do know Mr. Patterson from Saskatchewan who was recently appointed. If the other members are the same kind of men I am sure that they will state where the pipe line is to go.
I do not know whether this bill is going to be talked out and I am not going to spend much more time talking about it tonight. But if it is talked out I presume it will be brought up at the next session. I hope that when it is it will be stated in the bill that the pipe line shall follow an all-Canadian route.


Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that I should permit this bill to pass without saying a few words. I support entirely the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). I feel that hon. members of this house should know just where this pipe line is going. If some hon. members do not know where they are going, that is their business, but I submit that we should know where this pipe line is going. We should know also just who is sponsoring this bill. I should like to read out those who are listed as sponsors.


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind the hon. gentleman that on second reading it is not in order to refer to particular sections of the bill.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Canadian needs should be satisfied before any gas is permitted to go to the United States. Until we are satisfied as to that I do not think we should approve of this bill. I think every hon. member is familiar with the natural gas possibilities in Alberta. There appears to be a lack of natural gas in other provinces than the province of Alberta. Nevertheless we must stick to the bill seeking to establish this pipe line.


An hon. Member:: Why?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: As I have said in the house on many occasions, we in Medicine Hat and the surrounding district, and I may also say in southern Alberta, are much concerned about a bill of this kind. In the early years we had gas wells that were sunk right in the city of Medicine Hat, you might say.


An hon. Member:: Lots of them.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Yes, we had lots of them. You are right; we had lots of them. What happens today?


An hon. Member:: You are here.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the help I am getting from Liberal members on the other side of the house because we never had as much natural gas in the house as we have today. Speaking seriously, the natural gas situation at the present time in southern Alberta is beginning to become rather critical. It is beginning to get worse, to the extent that, so far as Medicine Hat is concerned, we have to drill wells nine miles from the city. What does that mean? It means higher taxes. If that does not mean anything to the Liberal members, it means a lot to Social Crediters. It is costing us more in taxation. We have got to pipe the gas from these wells to the city.


An hon. Member:: Why?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: It means a lot to every resident of southern Alberta.


An hon. Member:: They exported you, too.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: They would not want the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) in Alberta. If we had him in Alberta we would have no gas left because he would have consumed it all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I appreciate all the help I am getting, considering where it comes from. In a serious vein, I should like to say that we believe we must be careful about the exportation of gas from Alberta. We must see that the other provinces of Canada are supplied with gas.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Will the hon. member permit a question?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Certainly.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Does the hon. member know that the Westcoast Transmission Company, the company which has obtained a pipe line charter, cannot be stopped by this house from building a pipe line to Vancouver by way of the United States if the board of transport commissioners determines that it may do so?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, yes, they can; you had better read the act.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: We are not discussing that pipe line at the present time. May I say that we in Alberta do not object to having a few companies in competition with each other. We never have objected to that, but I think when a bill is passing through this house we should know where they are going to build the line. We should know whether the pipe 45781-155
National Housing Act
line is going to go directly from Alberta to British Columbia or whether it is going to go through the United States to British Columbia. I think that is our main concern at the present time. I am most surprised that a British Columbia member should rise and ask the question he did a few minutes ago. May I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker?
On motion of Mr. Wylie the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, and the hour for private bills having expired, the house will resume the business it was considering at six o'clock.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 142, to amend the National Housing Act, 1944-Mr. Winters-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 2, subsection 4-Additional loans by corporation, to home owners and home purchasers.
Robert Henry Winters: Before six o'clock the hon. member for Bow River asked me a question concerning two pamphlets issued by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation having to do with the integrated housing plan. He will notice one of the pamphlets is dated July, 1947, and the other one June, 1948, and thus supersedes the former. The hon. member points out that there is a difference in these two pamphlets in respect of holdback. This is quite true because the terms and conditions of the integrated plan were changed which occasioned the issuing of a second booklet. The hon. member refers to a holdback of 25 per cent. We have no knowledge of such an amount because the usual holdback, where it is applicable, is in an amount of 15 per cent, not by regulation but in accordance with the appropriate mortgage practice.
It may be the hon. member is making the point that holdbacks in the case of houses built by the Bow River Construction Company should have been available for the benefit of home owners. I would point out that, even if the holdback were available, its purpose is not for the benefit of the home owner. The contract of the home owner is with the builder, and the lending institution looks to the house itself for its security. The discussion is quite academic, however, because the integrated housing plan was completely changed early in 1949 with title to the houses being transferred to the Central Mortgage

National Housing Act
and Housing Corporation at the joist stage. This change in the arrangement, although generally unacceptable to builders, has had the effect of protecting the position of the purchaser. The new plan requires that all down payments be trusteed. Under present arrangements, if trouble arises such as is described by the hon. member for Bow River, there is full protection to the purchaser of the house under the integrated housing plan. These changes, although improving the position of the home owner, have had the effect of greatly reducing the volume of houses produced under the integrated plan.
I hope that this answers the question of the hon. member. I do feel there is little purpose to be served in further debating what holdbacks were required two years ago, particularly when the holdbacks were not for the benefit of the individual purchasers in whom the hon. member is so interested. The hon. member also asked me whether there were regulations in respect of holdbacks in connection with the integrated plan. The National Housing Act requires regulations approved by the governor in council. I confirm that there are no regulations in this respect. The use of the word "regulations" in the pamphlet dated June, 1947, is a general one, and refers to mortgage procedure rather than to the formal regulations as required under the terms of the National Housing Act. I quite readily admit, Mr. Chairman, that the word in that sense is used loosely in the pamphlet. I should like to return the pamphlet to the hon. member.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wish to thank the minister for his statement. I believe it is going to be of value to have that on the record. I should like to thank him further for the improved conditions in the administration of the housing act since he has been minister. I think there has been a great improvement, and it is going to be of great assistance to those who are building under N.H.A.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, on the matter of interest, that was one of the subjects discussed with the province of Ontario. Having regard to all the circumstances, it was felt it would not be desirable to introduce an interest rate lower than the prevailing rate of 4J per cent.
With respect to the matter of assimilating the Ontario mortgages, that too has been a matter for discussion but no decision has been reached. It is not a matter under active consideration at the moment.
With regard to the problem of assimilating the additional loan into the basic loan, it will be amortized over the period of years provided under the act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One other question: On the following page, Mr. Chairman, there is part of the final subsection of section 2 of the bill. These clauses that are printed on page 3 are simply parts of subsection 4 of section 2. Under clause 6 (a) we have a reference to the terms upon which loans may be made to co-operative associations. One of the stipulations contained in (a) is, that the instrument of incorporation of the co-operative association and its bylaws are to be approved by the corporation.
I should like to ask the minister what tests it is the intention of the corporation to apply in determining whether the instrument of incorporation of the co-operative association, and its bylaws, meet their approval.


Robert Henry Winters: It must satisfy the corporation, Mr. Chairman, that it is a bona fide co-operative, that it has power to hold land, build houses and undertake any of the other functions that a genuine co-operative would undertake. It must not in any sense be a speculative venture that will result in anything short of a proprietary interest by each co-operator.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister's remarks about the test are very general. Can he be more specific? At the moment I am interested in having some knowledge of what the tests are which, inferentially, are to be approved by this house in legislation, without having them before us in precise form. I presume there will be regulations to define those tests.


Robert Henry Winters: This section reserves the right of the corporation to determine the financial standing, the financial structure, and whether or not it is the type of co-operative that will

result in houses, and which will carry out what it purports to be in presenting itself as a co-operative.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I summarize those tests the minister proposes to apply? The first is to find the corporate power to undertake a housing enterprise of that kind; the second would be to prove financial ability to undertake a project of the size proposed. Does that correctly summarize the tests that the corporation will apply?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, and the others set forth in the act which require-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not speaking about the others that are set forth in the act.


Donald MacInnis: Before we leave subsection 6, I have a question which would come under this heading. Credit unions are becoming fairly strong financially in Canada, and I am wondering if any requests have been made to have credit unions designated as approved lending associations under the National Housing Act?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I understand there have been some, and approximately six or eight have been approved as lending institutions.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Am I correct in understanding that the conditions applied to loans to co-operatives will be on the same basis as other loans, that is loans made by approved financial organizations?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right, sir, yes.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Has the government taken into consideration the question of making loans to co-operatives at less than 4J per cent or at the rates, for instance, upon which loans are made to limited dividend companies?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, that was fully considered and was not deemed advisable on the basis I mentioned when I made my speech on second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Subsections 5 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
On section 5-Loans and losses paid out of consolidated revenue fund.
Donald Methuen Fleming: There is some information I should like to have on section 5, Mr. Chairman. By this section it is proposed to increase from $100 million to $300 million the amount of money available under part I of the act, for loans on houses to be occupied by the owners. Will the minister state, first, what amount has been actually drawn to date under the provisions of part I out of the 45781-1551
National Housing Act
consolidated revenue fund; and, second, what is the estimate of the requirements for the next year or two? Will he give an indication of what that estimate is, because it will include not only the loans hitherto available under the National Housing Act but also the one-sixth loans.


Robert Henry Winters: Approximately $86 million has been drawn against the $100 million formerly specified in the act. On the question of how much it is estimated will be used for next year, I do not feel now that I am in a position to estimate that amount.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With all due respect to the minister, that seems to me an extraordinary statement when he is asking the house, in effect, for an additional appropriation of $200 million to be made available under part I of the act, from that one source alone. The minister has indicated that out of the $100 million that have been available for the past five years a total of $86 million has already been drawn, leaving I take it approximately $14 million on hand. The government is now asking that the house make available an additional $200 million. Surely that amount was based on some estimate as to the need and some estimate as to the amount to be required within the next one, two or three years. This committee, I take it, just does not vote $200 million without having some idea as to the need of it.


Robert Henry Winters: I find estimates of this nature, Mr. Chairman, are something that come up some time hence and are held against one. I would think, though-first making the precautionary statement that it is difficult to estimate this figure-that perhaps an amount of $100 million might be required over the next eighteen months.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On what number of houses is that based and what average loan per house; that is, the original loan under part I plus this one-sixth provided in a previous section.


Robert Henry Winters: I would think that would cover around 35,000 houses. Hon. members will bear in mind that apart from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's share in the joint loan, there are contingency funds which also require certain moneys.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the minister mean to say that 35,000 houses are expected by the corporation to require assistance under part I over the next eighteen months?


Robert Henry Winters: I would say that 35,000 would apply more to a per annum basis than the eighteen-month basis.

National Housing Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder if the minister will just reconcile those figures for us? The figure that he gave us was a requirement of $100 million over the next eighteen months and the 35,000 houses, I understand now, are houses that will likely be built with this assistance in 1950. Is that correct?


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then what proportion of the $100 million is expected to be required in 1950 to provide the financing for the 35,000 houses?


Robert Henry Winters: I think the hon. member will feel that those figures have already been reconciled. I said the $100 million amount would be a rough estimate of what might be required over the next eighteen months. I also ventured the guess that there might be 35,000 units built within the period of the next year. That includes the joint loans plus the houses built on direct loan by the federal government under section 31A of the act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I must ask the minister if he will try to be a little more informative and a little clearer in these explanations that he is giving. If the $100 million is the expected requirement for the next eighteen months, will the minister tell us what portion of the $100 million he expects to be required in the next twelve months to provide the financing required to construct those 35,000 houses that he has told us about; and if the 35,000 houses cover more than those that he expects to be built under part I of the act, will he tell us what number are estimated to be built or expected to be built under part I? After all, it is part I we are dealing with under this appropriation of an additional $200 million. We do not vote that, I trust, without information.


Robert Henry Winters: I think I have given the best estimate I can, Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances. If the hon. member wishes the $100 million on an eighteen-month basis translated into the number of dollars on a twelve-month basis, it would very evidently be $66,666,666.66. I do not want anybody, however, to take that as a hard and fast figure.
As to why it is not possible to give a more precise estimate, I would say that it is not possible at this stage to forecast what the result of the additional one-sixth loan will be.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It should be possible for the minister to announce his objective. We are interested in objectives. We have not much confidence that the goal of meeting the housing needs of the Canadian people is going to be reached unless the government has some

objective to give us. Up to the moment, with all respect to the minister, we have been left to draw conclusions from figures and to bat these figures around without yet having any clear conception of what is the government's goal. Here the government is asking for $200 million. Surely the committee is to be given some idea as to just how the government proposes to put this act to work so that a case is made out for that money as being required. There is not going to be any disposition on the part of the committee to deny the money for this purpose if the committee is told that that money is going to be available to be turned into the construction of houses; but if you take the minister's figures for the cost-35,000 houses to be built under assistance of this kind in the next twelve months and $66 million to be required for that purpose-that means, as I take it, that the amount per house is not going to be as large as most of us thought was going to be required. According to my perhaps doubtful mental arithmetic, it would mean something under $2,000 per house.
I do not think these figures add up; because you are not building houses today under conditions in which $2,000 a house provides something like 88 or 90 per cent of the value of the house. This afternoon the minister gave us to understand that the houses that are to be built under part I from now on are houses that are going to be a little more expensive than the cheaper houses because the 80 per cent lending value is going to work out, he said, about the same way as these blended percentages work out at the present time, 95 per cent on the first $2,000, 85 per cent on the next $2,000 and so on. Surely we can have some clear information on the subject. Will the minister tell us whether the 35,000 houses he is talking about are houses to be built under part I alone.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes. That estimate of 35,000 houses, Mr. Chairman, is for part I alone. I want to emphasize again that it is only an estimate, and under the circumstances I am not going to tell the committee that we will build 35,000 houses. The estimate my hon. friend made of $2,000 is substantially correct, but that is only the government's portion of the joint loan.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the government is going to apply a loan value with some relationship to the cost of construction, and if the new provision for the adding of one-sixth to the previous loan allowed under part I is to have some effect, then that will mean that the kind of houses that the government expects to build or to assist in building under this part I would be houses having a value of about $2,400 each. You are not building houses

like that today. These figures just do not add up. You cannot reconcile the figures the minister has given to the committee tonight. The minister being the honest and sincere man that he is, it seems to me that it is patent that no real thought was given by the government, before they brought down this legislation, either to the goal to which they were working or to the necessity of giving to the house anything that looks like a case for the additional money, the $200 million, that is being asked for. In effect we have not got any figures. We have those vague estimates which have been drawn from the minister tonight. They do not bear any relationship to the cost of construction today. On the strength of that the committee is asked to provide $200 million. I emphasize again that there is going to be no disposition on the part of any hon. member to be niggardly or penny-pinching in the provision of money, if the government will put that money to work in the building of houses. But surely by the ordinary dictates of common sense and under the rules of parliamentary responsibility, the committee is entitled to something more than it has been given tonight to justify the appropriation of $200 million.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the point raised by the hon. member for Eglinton. When I spoke on the resolution stage of this measure I referred to it. I referred to a return which I received in April, 1949. One of the questions I asked was:
How many houses (family units) were constructed with financial assistance under the provisions of the National Housing Act, during the year 1948?
The answer I received was:
The number of housing units completed in 1948 with financial assistance under the provisions of the National Housing Act was 11,939.
My second question was:
What was the total amount of financial assistance?
The answer I received was $101,642,194. On that basis I calculated that the average assistance per house was $8,512. If the minister expects that some 35,000 houses are to be built during this year or next year, with assistance on this basis I do not think that $200 million will be too much. But then I am at a loss to understand the difference between the figure that I received, namely, $8,512, and the figure that the minister gave tonight, namely, some $2,400 a house or something like that. Will the minister try to explain the difference between these two sets of figures?


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member is referring to the question he asked with reference to the number of houses receiving financial assistance under the National Housing Act during 1948, and the answer was 11,939.
National Housing Act
That, I find, is the correct answer for the number of houses built in 1948, under the terms of the National Housing Act, 1944.


Donald MacInnis: Would the figure of total assistance of $101 million odd be correct?


Robert Henry Winters: That too of course is the figure given the hon. member in the same reply. I have been informed that the figure is correct.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Will the minister tell us on what conditions a part of the $300 million may be lent directly by the government to co-operatives or builders?


Robert Henry Winters: No, I cannot estimate that.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Is this $300 million a revolving fund? When the money is paid back does it go back into the fund again, and is it lent over and over again?


Robert Henry Winters: No, this is not a revolving fund.


William Joseph Browne: What happens when the people pay back the money?


Robert Henry Winters: The money is paid into the consolidated revenue fund, which is separate from this fund.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am not clear on the answer to the question I asked. Surely there are certain conditions under which the government may lend money directly to builders or to co-operatives in the event of lending companies refusing to lend money. What are these conditions?


Robert Henry Winters: That is covered by section (33) (a) of the National Housing Act. But my hon. friend asked me to estimate how much of this $300 million would be applied, and I cannot estimate that amount.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Payment of losses.
Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall clause 6 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the'minister say how long it is since this section of the act was proclaimed? Can he give us some figures as to the extent to which it has been used? How many home improvement loans have been made, and what is the aggregate amount?


Robert Henry Winters: The home improvement section of the act has not been proclaimed. The home extension section has.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So far as the total amount of the $125 million is concerned, are they together?

National Housing Act


Robert Henry Winters: Yes they are.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The act does not differentiate as to how much of the $125 million should be for home improvement and how much home extension?


Robert Henry Winters: No, it does not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How much has been used up for home extension?


Robert Henry Winters: I am informed that it is approximately $300,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether there is any intention to proclaim the home improvement part of the act?


Robert Henry Winters: It is intended to proclaim that section of the act, but at the moment certain types of hardware are still in short supply, and until they become more generally available it is not intended to proclaim that section of the act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says that only $300,000 has been used thus far. I am not sure whether we are on clause 6 or 7, but they both deal with the same section of the act. The amount allotted is $100 million. It is now proposed to raise that to $125 million, and thus far only $300,000 has been used. If it is not going to be proclaimed it seems an unnecessary increase. My hope would be that it is going to be proclaimed soon, and put to use.


Robert Henry Winters: It seemed logical. We are increasing by 25 per cent the amounts that can be advanced against home improvement and home extension. So it seemed logical at the same time to raise the total amount provided for under the act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister's statement a moment ago, that since this section was first put on the statute books five years ago, providing that the sum of $100 million be made available for the purpose of loans under part IV of the National Housing Act, a total of $300,000 has been used, makes it perfectly clear that section 7 of this bill is just so much eyewash. Parliament is being asked to enact a solemn farce by voting an additional $25 million on top of the $100 million that is already mentioned, when over the past five and a half years a total of only $300,000 has been used.
Will the minister, in the face of this extraordinary and amazing statement, be good enough to tell the House of Commons on what basis the government arrived at this calculation of an additional $25 million required, over and above the $100 million already available? Let him give this committee all the information that was compiled and put
'Mr. Knowles.1
before him before he undertook to sponsor a bill asking for an additional $25 million on top of the $100 million already available?


Robert Henry Winters: The same ratio prevails. It was felt that the amounts that could be expended under home improvement and home extension should be increased to compensate for increased costs, and that the total amount available should be increased in the same way, and according to the same ratio.
It is true that the amount advanced against home extension has not been as large as my hon. friend thinks it should have been; but the fact is that the demand for loans for that purpose has been met. If and when the home improvement section of the act is proclaimed, I have no doubt that the demand will be such that the amount of money voted will be required in a very short time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister's explanation has not subtracted anything from the extraordinary features of the discussion thus far. The one reason the minister has given to the committee for asking for an additional $25 million on top of the $100 million is that he is working it out in proportion. The minister has demonstrated an extraordinary sense of proportion, in saying that because there has been $100 million provided in the act for the last five years, and the basis of the individual loan is now to be increased by 25 per cent, therefore he says "Let us work it out in proportion, and we will add an additional $25 million." Mr. Chairman, is not this an amazing demonstration of government legerdemain? They have used $300,000 in five and a half years; and now, just to satisfy a sense of proportion, they are going to ask the House of Commons to boost the amount provided for from $100 million to $125 million.
Would not one have thought it only reasonable to expect that the government, before coming forward with this request for an additional $25 million, would have sat down and asked themselves, "How much have we used? Have we any right to ask the House of Commons to put another $25 million at our disposal, when we have not used more than a fraction of the first one million, let alone the $100 million now available?"
This whole thing is just so utterly ludicrous and farcical that it is hard to believe that it could happen in this Canadian parliament in this year of grace nineteen hundred and forty-nine. I think this whole episode demonstrates that what we are doing now is to enact a solemn farce.


Robert Henry Winters: I am sure the hon. member did not listen to what I said, or he would not have made those remarks. This is a provision

against the time when the home improvement section will be proclaimed. As I said before, once it is proclaimed it is anticipated that the demand will be such that this money will be required in a very short time. Surely he cannot criticize a type of foresight which tries to provide for such contingencies.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall make only one observation in reply to the minister, that at the rate the government has been moving under part IV of the National Housing Act, he and I will both be old men-probably in our graves, and long since forgotten-before the government of the day comes anywhere near to needing that additional $25 million.


William Joseph Browne: Can the
minister say when he is likely to have it proclaimed, because it seems to me it would be helpful in reducing the housing shortage. It would be easier to put on additions to houses than to build new ones.


Robert Henry Winters: The current shortages are of plumbing and heating equipment, which constitute the bulk of expenditures on home improvement. The supply situation now is that plumbing and heating hardware suppliers are just barely able to keep up with the requirements for new housing. When we can go beyond that, and service more than new housing units, then consideration will be given to proclaiming the home improvement section of the act.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I cannot help sharing the astonishment expressed by the hon. member for Eglinton. It does seem to me that after creeping along for several years we are now suddenly going to break into a wild gallop. While I think we all do wish substantial and speedy progress to be made, it does seem to me that to jump from $300,000 over a period of years to this noble figure which has been mentioned does call for an explanation, as the hon. member for Eglinton has said.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unless the minister is going to answer that, I would like to ask with respect to the $300,000-that three-tenths of one per cent of the money that has been used thus far-how much of it was used for urban home extension, and how much for rural home extension.


Robert Henry Winters: I am informed that the whole amount was used for urban home extension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were there any applications for rural home extension?


Robert Henry Winters: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
National Housing Act
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Corporation may undertake projects jointly with provinces.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I suppose section 9 can be regarded as, in some respects, the most important departure in the bill from what has been the scope of the housing act up to the present time. The minister on an earlier occasion has very properly indicated that there is no thought in his mind of compelling the provinces to do things, but that his intention is that the act shall be administered with a view to assisting in co-operative endeavour with the provinces to find a solution in this particular branch of the housing field.
He is asking that $50 million be made available for this purpose; and if the provinces, all of them, meet their share-and if the appropriation is really used, and is not left to be forgotten as in part IV of the act-then I suppose we can expect a total expenditure of about $75 million. That, of course, will depend upon the extent to which all the provinces feel that they are financially able to participate with the dominion government on the terms contemplated by section 9 of this bill, the new section 35 of the act.
Lest hon. members may have formed the impression that all the provinces are just waiting to participate on these terms, I think it only right that we should have regard at this time to what the provinces themselves have said, particularly in view of the desirability and indeed the necessity of getting our feet on the ground on this problem, instead of running away with our heads in the clouds, as has been done with regard to this bill on some previous occasions by some hon. members.
I refer to the correspondence exchanged during the past year between the minister and the governments of the provinces with reference to this subject. I am going to refer only to the correspondence with two of the provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, because the governments of those provinces have written letters which I think should be before the committee. I do this in order to test some of the optimism that has been expressed by hon. members in connection with this bill.
According to the correspondence with Alberta I gather that when the minister made his statement in the house on September 21 the premier of Alberta made a public statement-the terms of that statement do not appear in this correspondence-which was apparently in rather critical terms. Thereupon the minister wrote to the premier of Alberta on September 24 expressing regret at his statement and saying that it must have been the result of some misunderstanding. He made reference to the correspondence

National Housing Act
which had been exchanged, and then on September 30 the premier of Alberta replied by letter from which I should like to quote as follows:
I, of course, do not know the contents of the press report reaching Ottawa but the statement I made to the press here was to the effect that I deplored the federal government's action in committing the provinces to participation, probably at heavy financial cost to the provinces, in any scheme not submitted beforehand for the approval of the provinces. I made no comment on the housing plan as such.
I have no hesitation in reiterating my objections to any plans requiring participation by the provinces and which is announced officially before the provinces have an opportunity to discuss and consider provisions of the plan at a round table conference. This is not the first time this has occurred. My own feeling in respect to the proper procedure is that in any plan formulated involving participation of the provinces, particularly financial participation, the federal government should call a conference of representatives of the provinces, submit the plan, invite discussion and by this means arrive at conclusions mutually satisfactory. It then would be time enough to announce the plan publicly.
In particular reference to the housing plan, even though the provinces are committed to 25 per cent of the costs, the provinces were given no opportunity to express favour or otherwise, or even submit alternative suggestions for joint dominion-provincial efforts to solve housing problems. It was our understanding your recent trip across Canada was of an exploratory nature to personally obtain information on the housing question and that this was preliminary to the calling of a meeting of dominion and provincial representatives to work out specific measures for coping with the problem.


Robert Henry Winters: I wonder if the hon. member would read my letter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The letter that preceded this one?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is a rather lengthy letter.


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would do certain hon. members some good if they did a little reading. They might be contributing more to the debate than they are by making these useless interruptions.
I am quite prepared to read the minister's letter if he is serious in asking that I do so. However, I could state the gist of it, if that would satisfy him. As I have said, the minister wrote on September 24 to Mr. Manning and regretted that any misunderstanding should have occurred. He refers to the correspondence that had been exchanged and which started on March 7.


Robert Henry Winters: I ask the hon. member to be good enough to read my letter as I think it will be helpful to hon. members.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am quite prepared to do so, but I want to make it clear that it is being done at the minister's request. I take no

responsibility for the time involved, because it is a two-page, single-spaced letter. It is dated September 24, 1949, and reads:
Dear Mr. Manning:
Statements attributed to you by the Canadian Press following my announcement in the House of Commons on the 21st September would lead me to believe that there must be some misunderstanding. If this is in fact the case, I would like to submit the following record of correspondence and conversations between the Alberta government and the federal government in the hope that it may serve to clarify the situation.
March 2, 1949: The Prime Minister wrote you, enclosing my letter to him, the theme of both being that the federal government would welcome for consideration any suggestions or proposals your province might have with respect to its housing problem.
March 7, 1949:	You acknowledged the Prime
Minister's letter, stating that his communication was being brought to the attention of members of the government of Alberta.
April 8, 1949: I wrote you, stating that I would be absent from Ottawa during the period April 8 to April 25, and stated that if Alberta cared to submit suggestions in writing, they would be given early and full consideration.
July 30, 1949:	I wrote you, setting forth my
intention to visit Edmonton on August 23, and stating that I would welcome an opportunity of discussing the housing problem with you or your appropriate ministers.
August 5,	1949:	The Honourable Mr. N. E.
Tanner, acting premier, replied to my letter, stating it was unlikely that you would be available on the 23rd August, but that he had arranged for me to discuss the problem with the Honourable Mr. A. J. Hooke.
August 23, 1949:	In company with Mr. D. B.
Mansur, president, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and Mr. R. L. Elliott, private secretary, I had a full and pleasant discussion with the Honourable Mr. Hooke, who, as I understand it, stated that he was not able to express any definite views on behalf of his government but that he would bring the subject to the attention of his colleagues and inform them regarding our talk. At that time the proposals which were set before the House of Commons later on the 21st September were discussed quite fully.
September 1, 1949:	I wrote to the Honourable
Mr. Hooke, extending my appreciation for the opportunity to discuss the problem with him and expressing the hope that it would lead to a more comprehensive approach to the housing problem generally.
September 13, 1949:	I wrote to the Honourable
Mr. Hooke, outlining and crystallizing the discussions I had with him on the 23rd August and stating that I proposed to make a statement in the House of Commons along the same lines on or about September 20.
September 21, 1949:	I wrote the Honourable Mr. Hooke, enclosing a copy of the statement I made in the House of Commons on that day.
It is regretted that what appears to be a misunderstanding should have developed. I can assure you that it was most certainly not my intention or the intention of the federal government to proceed in this matter without first exchanging views with the government of Alberta. I was of the opinion that all possible steps had been taken to this end, and I was very pleased with the co-operative attitude reflected by the Honourable Mr. Hooke during our conversation.

It is my sincere hope that if there is a misunderstanding, this letter will serve to correct it. Moreover, if you would care to discuss the matter of housing more fully, I would welcome the opportunity.
Yours sincerely,
Robert H. Winters
I am glad to read that letter in order to accommodate the wishes of the minister, although I do not see what bearing it has on the point I was making with regard to the letter of the premier of Alberta which followed. The premier of Alberta replied six days later to the minister, as I have read. It was made quite clear by the premier of Alberta that notwithstanding the exchange of correspondence, notwithstanding the conferences, it was his understanding that there would be a general dominion-provincial conference. On that point I ask the minister to be good enough to state what is the plan of the government with reference to consultation with the provinces.
I turn now to the province of Saskatchewan and I should like to refer to a letter written by Mr. Sturdy, minister of social welfare, dated September 23, 1949. This letter is a lengthy one and I should like to quote only two paragraphs. The first is on page three and reads:
2. It may be generally assumed that the poorest provinces, such as Saskatchewan, will have difficulty in getting loans and that in any event they will have to pay the highest rates of interest for loans. It also may be generally assumed that the poorer the province the greater is its need for satisfactory housing. While the 75 to 25 sharing arrangement will put the provinces in a better borrowing position, it can be predicted with certainty that Saskatchewan will experience difficulty in obtaining moneys. Since the dominion can secure funds at more favourable rates than the provinces, particularly the poorer provinces, some assistance should be provided by the dominion government to aid the provinces in procuring loans.
I invite comment by the minister on that statement of the position of that province. Then Mr. Sturdy adds this:
From our exchange of communications I believe we can mutually appreciate the complexities involved in the dominion's housing proposals. These will, undoubtedly, be multiplied after more consideration has been given them by this and other provinces. Therefore, we would ask that there be a dominion-provincial conference at the earliest possible date to make uniform and to finalize these details. It is to be hoped that the same amicable relationships which have characterized your discussions with the provinces on housing to date would' prevail throughout such a conference.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I should like to ask the hon. member what relationship he sees between the documents he is reading from and section 9 of the bill?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is related to the new proposed section 35 which contemplates agreements between Central Mortgage and Housing 45781-156
National Housing Act
Corporation, on the one hand, and the governments of the provinces, on the other hand, by which capital costs and profits and losses will be shared seventy-five per cent by the corporation and twenty-five per cent by the province concerned. It is related to the question whether that section is going to be fruitful in effecting agreements, because it is quite patent that nothing can come out of it except by agreement between the corporation and a province, or more than one province, and I should like to indicate what are the expressed views of certain provinces as to the possibility of agreement in the face of the difficulties that confront them in the way of entering into an agreement to assume a twenty-five per cent share of capital cost and possible losses.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the hon. member not anticipating difficulties which perhaps may not arise at all? I understand that he is quoting from correspondence that has been so far exchanged, and he wants to make the point that, according to that correspondence, opinions have been expressed indicating that perhaps future agreement may be difficult to reach. That may be the point that the hon. member is trying to make.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not the only point, Mr. Chairman. I had just about finished reading. As a matter of fact, there is only one more paragraph I was proposing to read from one other letter written by the president of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in reply to that letter. These matters are directly relevant because either we are legislating in a manner that is going to be really effective for the purpose that parliament approves, or in a manner that, as suggested here, may be defeated by reason first of all of the failure to call a general conference. Two provinces have indicated they understood a conference was to be called, and that they considered such a general conference necessary. The second point is that at least one province has questioned whether it has the financial means to enter into agreements on these terms.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I must tell the hon. member I do not think that a discussion as to the advisability of holding a dominion-provincial conference on this question is relevant to the section that is now before the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I suggest with respect that, if two provinces say that in their opinion the proper avenue to reaching an agreement between the corporation on the one hand and the province on the other is by means of a dominion-provincial conference, it is a perfectly relevant consideration under this section. As a matter of fact,

National Housing Act
I had not intended to say anything more on that aspect than I have already said. I was asking the minister for his comment on that question. For my part I am not saying that a conference is necessary at this point, but nevertheless if such a conference would help to bring about agreement then I think the minister should either take steps to call such a conference, or give the reasons why he thinks some other method of achieving agreements may be more effective.
At the moment my point is that I, in company with all members of the house, want to see agreements reached that will put the new section 35 to work.
The final extract-and this is just a paragraph-is from a letter dated October 4, 1949, written to Mr. Sturdy, in reply to the letter from which I have just read extracts, by Mr. Mansur, the president of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This touches on a point that has already been discussed. He says:
In your paragraph twelve you comment upon the needs in the rural areas. The dominion-provincial arrangement now proposed is designed to assist in meeting needs in communities of, say, 5,000 population and up. If special steps are required to relieve housing conditions in rural areas, I believe that other techniques had better be adopted. Certainly the present arrangement was not patterned for such a purpose. Without in any way minimizing the desirability of better housing conditions in the rural areas, I think you would agree that the shortage of housing falls with heaviest incidence upon the urban areas. It is in that sector that the sharpest increase in the population has taken place.
As to the subject of agreements, I have respectfully asked for the minister's comment first of all on the method by which agreement is to be sought. In the second place I ask what, if any, consideration is to be given to provinces which claim that they may not be able to afford to enter into agreements. In the third place, dealing with the needs of rural areas, about which we have heard something in this debate already, if the legislation is as indicated by Mr. Mansur in his letter and is not intended to bring any benefit to rural housing, then I should like to ask whether the government has in contemplation any plan that will supply needed help to rural housing?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member apparently is of the opinion that formal agreements will be required between the provinces and the federal government before this section of the act will become operative, whereas the actual agreements contemplated are with respect to particular projects. I believe the provinces share with us the view that conditions vary so much from province to province and project to project that they can best be discussed with the particular province concerned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I infer that there will be no general conference.


Robert Henry Winters: We will determine how this section can be used to the best effect, and we are going to make available to provincial governments the facilities of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as they may require them. The provincial governments are fully aware of that, and at the moment nothing beyond that is contemplated. As to the ability of a province to pay, I think the hon. member will agree that is a matter beyond the jurisdiction of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply as it applies to this act. The financial position of a province with respect to its ability to pay is something that would have to be discussed between the appropriate ministers. As to the matter of the act being applied to rural areas, my view is that this section of the act will apply wherever the provincial government and the federal government jointly determine and agree that something can be done to provide more housing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to say one or two things, and the minister will correct me if I have not understood him properly. I take it what is involved under this section is not a series of overriding dominion-provincial agreements but rather specific agreements with respect to each project.


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That agreement may be between the dominion government and a provincial government directly, or it may be between the dominion government and an agency designated by a provincial government. In any case what is involved is each particular project on its own.


Robert Henry Winters: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Moving on from there, may
I ask the minister to take a minute or two to tell us how this thing is going to work, and what the formula is for it. It is a pretty important section. Some of us are anxious to see it pushed for all it is worth. As I understand it, it is under this section that houses will be built in some cases for rent and in some cases for sale with the possibility of an element of subsidy. It is clear, is it not, that that element of subsidy arises by reason of such loss as is sustained in getting the project under way? It is clear, is it, that such loss is sustained 75 per cent by the federal government, and 25 per cent by the provincial government? Now, in the case of houses for sale, who sells them and who determines the price? I have in mind the fact that there is a possible element of subsidy in the sale of such houses. In the case where houses are rented, who rents

them and who determines the rental? Is there any formula, any set of conditions, that determines who can rent these houses? I am asking these questions sympathetically. I am interested in seeing this section in force.
I would be glad if the minister would give us some indication as to how it will work. One more question: what is the relationship between this section of the act and the slum clearance section?


Robert Henry Winters: This section of the act, Mr. Chairman, provides for the two governments jointly entering into a number of types of projects. First of all, it contemplates the assembly of land and services, and may not go beyond that. Another phase of it is that it enables the provincial and federal governments jointly to build on the land thus assembled. The houses built thereon may be sold or they may get into a rental position. From the outset, we have taken the view that the federal government does not wish to go further as a landlord, and that in any arrangement contemplating rental the management will be on a local basis. There will be some local housing authority.
We have said further that we wish to see as many houses as possible pass into ownership. We recognize that there are places where rental is required, and where people are able to pay economic rentals, economic rentals will be charged. The project will come under the management of the local housing authority. There is a further possibility that there may be rental housing required where the prospective tenants may not be able to pay economic rentals, in which case some underwriting of the losses might be required. We have said that we are prepared, jointly with the provincial governments on projects that are mutually acceptable, to underwrite those losses to the extent of 75 per cent federal money and 25 per cent provincial money.
In answer to the last question, about the relationship between this section and the slum clearance section which is already in the act, I would say that the two sections are entirely separate. That does not mean, however, that this section cannot be made operative with respect to a site that has been cleared and made available under the slum clearance section of the act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for the explanation he has given. Is it quite clear that these local housing authorities that will be set up to administer the renting of these houses will not sustain losses at that level? The losses will be sustained on the 75-25 basis between the federal and provincial governments?
45781-156i
National Housing Act


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, sir, we have said that the relationship will be one in which the federal government will sustain 75 per cent of the loss, and the provincial government 25 per cent of the loss. How the provincial government wishes to handle that loss with respect to any arrangement between the municipalities and others is up to the province. The basic arrangement is 75 per cent by the federal government, and 25 per cent by the provincial government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The extent to which losses may be sustained in connection with the houses on a rental basis will be largely determined by the rents that are fixed. Who fixes those rents?


Robert Henry Winters: Those rents will be fixed by agreement involving the federal government, the provincial government, and the responsible housing authority for the area concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On reading subsection 6, clause (e), it would seem as though the governor in council had power to fix those rentals. I take it from what the minister has said that the governor in council merely confirms, as it were, the rental and other arrangements made by agreement among the three groups concerned. As the act reads, it looks as though the governor in council could fix those rents, but the minister says it will be done by agreement among the three groups?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not think either approach is mutually exclusive, if I may use that expression. I believe the governor in council reserves the right to determine the type of arrangement that shall be entered into, even though the arrangement may be a matter of agreement between the provinces. What I have said with respect to the federal government's willingness to enter into an agreement with the provinces for sharing losses, or any of the other arrangements, stands.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to thank the minister for the answers to those questions. Is it clear that it is possible, say in the slum areas in my constituency-there are areas there that need new housing badly-for us to get the advantage of both the slum clearance section and this section 35? In other words, could the land be assembled, and the loss sustained in clearing that area paid for to the extent provided in the slum clearance section, and then have the local housing authority build subsidized, low rental housing in that area under section 35?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is envisaged, again subject to the mutual agreement between the province and the federal government.

National Housing Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope it will come soon.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I have two brief questions. The minister is aware of what is known as the St. John's housing corporation. Does section 9 cover the operations of that corporation? Is it privileged to get financial assistance under it?
The other question is, under what part of the act, the amendment or the original act, has the provincial government of Newfoundland made arrangements for slum clearance?


Robert Henry Winters: I believe the hon. member, in effect, asked two questions. The first was whether or not this act empowers us to deal with the government of Newfoundland with respect to housing developments in St. John's. I would say that the power is there; the legislation would enable us to do that.
With respect to the second question, as to whether or not there is provision in the act to take care of slum clearance in St. John's-


Gordon Francis Higgins: As to whether application has been made under the original act or under this amendment.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member talks about an application having been made. I should say that the premier of Newfoundland has discussed the problem with me in a general way, but beyond that no formal application has been received.


Gordon Francis Higgins: No decision has been made by you?


Robert Henry Winters: We have not been asked as yet to make a decision.


William Joseph Browne: I should like to clear up a few points with regard to what my colleague has said about this section. It is rather difficult to approach the matter in view of the answer just given by the minister. I would certainly ask his sympathetic consideration if the subject ever comes to his attention. I understand the minister has been in St. John's, and has seen the conditions prevailing in certain sections of the city. There is a historical explanation of those conditions.
St. John's was destroyed by fire in 1846, and wooden houses were built. In 1892 half the city was destroyed by fire, and the half that remained-which covers about 50 acres -is in a bad condition owing to overcrowding. During the first and second world wars, people went to live in areas known as South-side hill and Blackhead road. The area is really in a scandalous condition. No interest is being taken in these people. In two sections of the city at least there is certainly a need for a housing project. If I could describe truthfully the condition-


Louis-René Beaudoin: I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the clause under discussion. His remarks must be strictly relevant to the clause.


William Joseph Browne: Surely, Mr. Chairman, when we are speaking on a housing project we must say why it is that we need one. I hope the minister is not objecting to my drawing these things to his attention. He may have forgotten them in his hurried visit, but I am closely associated with them. I have been closely associated with these conditions for a great many years.


Louis-René Beaudoin: That cannot be done under this section. We are now discussing section 9.


William Joseph Browne: The minister said it could. He told us that a slum clearance project could be considered under this section because it is a project arranged between-


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Chairman. I think I should clarify that point. I said that slum clearance and this section could be regarded as complementary projects. But this section has nothing whatsoever to do with slum clearance as such. Slum clearance is covered under an entirely separate section of the National Housing Act.


William Joseph Browne: Since the minister gave me that answer some time ago, I have read the section and I think the position is this. The governor in council may make an arrangement with the municipality in regard to slum clearance. But under this section which we are discussing now a project can be arranged between the province and the central housing authority with regard to the housing project. What are we going to do with the people who are living in these terrible, distressful conditions? Are we not going to do something for them? I feel a great responsibility personally, and I should imagine that the minister would be sympathetic toward people in this position.


Robert Henry Winters: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I must say that while I am most sympathetic, and while we should like very much to do the greatest possible amount of good with the slum clearance section of the act, yet I feel obliged to say that the slum clearance section of the act is not under discussion at the present moment.


William Joseph Browne: I am not
really discussing slum clearance only, Mr. Chairman. Suppose we say that there is a certain area there that is a slum, that it is

discreditable, that we are ashamed of it, and that we want a new housing project. My friend the hon. member for St. John's East referred to the housing corporation. I presume I am not out of order when I speak of the housing corporation, because that has to do with the wealthiest class in the community. They have been provided for. Hundreds of houses have been built for them and millions of dollars have been spent for them, but nothing has been done for the poor. What I am recommending is that we should have a housing project for poor people as well as for those comfortable people who are employed in the government services in high positions and so forth. You do not need to take down the old houses and replace them by new ones. You can go out into some of the area which was acquired by the housing corporation of St. John's and put down a new housing project where the children of these poor people would have recreation facilities near their homes and where they could live decent lives, something which they cannot do at the present time.
I had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that I would be able to specify to a greater degree than I have been able to do the terrible, degrading conditions under which the people live in parts of St. John's. I hope, at any rate, that these words will leave a mark and an impression upon the minister's mind and that, if the matter should come to his attention, he will remember what I have said and give it sympathetic consideration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is one question I wish to ask before coming to the series of points as to interpretation which I shall ask the minister to clear up. Are we to understand that this section provides for subsidized housing?


Robert Henry Winters: I think I have made the government's position on that matter quite clear on more than one occasion. We have said that if there are circumstances in which the provincial government and the federal government together feel that an element of financial assistance-call it subsidy if you wish-is required, we are prepared to share the losses on the basis of 75 per cent federal government expenditure and 25 per cent provincial government money.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister's answer is quite clear, Mr. Chairman. I do not know why he did not simply say: Yes, it is subsidized housing. That is the simple substance of what the minister said.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We do not have to use your language.
National Housing Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think he needs to feel so sensitive about the Prime Minister's feelings with regard to the use of these words "subsidized housing".
May I come now to some points of interpretation. In subsection 1 of the proposed section 35, in the fourth line there is reference to "agency". The section reads in part:
The corporation may pursuant to agreements made between the government of Canada and the government of any province undertake jointly with the government of the province or any agency thereof . . .
That is to say, an agency of a provincial government. Are municipalities, for this purpose, to be regarded as agencies of the provincial government?


Robert Henry Winters: No, they are not. That word is put in there to cover agencies such as the Ontario housing corporation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: My next point is with regard to subsection 4 and the provision of $50 million. When I spoke a few moments ago I think my mental arithmetic was faulty when I said that with the corresponding assistance from the provinces this would create a fund of $75 million. It will call for maximum contributions by the provinces of $16,666,000, giving an aggregate of $66,666,000. May I ask the minister upon what estimate this figure has been arrived at and how far it has been estimated that this figure will go? How long will it last? What is the government's objective?


Robert Henry Winters: In effect, this is a working fund. The financial arrangements will rely upon moneys voted by parliament, as I think subsection 5 says. This envisages a situation whereby the building of houses is a continuing operation and where moneys are required until such time as parliament can vote further moneys. It is a working fund to provide for that purpose. The moneys voted by parliament will then be turned back to this fund so that it is maintained at the level of $50 million.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the minister anything to tell the house about the objectives? Within what space of time is it expected that the $50 million will be put out to work under this section?


Robert Henry Winters: It is expected that there will be an appropriation in the 1950-51 estimates. It is contemplated that this $50 million will carry us over until such time as money is available from any such vote. By that time we shall be in a position to know just to what extent projects under this section will go forward under agreements with the provinces.

National Housing Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: Am I to understand that this $50 million is an interim fund which will provide what may be thought necessary until April 1, 1950, and that from that point on a specific appropriation will be sought by the government from parliament?


Robert Henry Winters: That is right.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the clause carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I have several other points on which I should like interpretation. I should like a little more information about the $50 million, and the use the government is making of it. Have any estimates been prepared now as to how soon this money can be put to work, and as to how soon agreements can be negotiated on specific projects? Have any specific projects been submitted to the government by the provinces in anticipation of the enactment of this provision?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, the money, I presume, will be available immediately this bill receives the royal assent. No specific projects have been formally put to us envisaging the passage of this legislation; but some of the provinces have indicated that they are very anxious to proceed, and immediately this bill passes we shall enter into discussion with them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister be good enough to turn to subsection 6? There are some points on which I should like to ask for light. For example, 6 (a) empowers the governor in council to make regulations with reference to certain subjects, prescribing the type of land which may be acquired for housing purposes and the maximum purchase price that may be paid for such land. May I say here that I should have thought that that had a direct bearing on slum clearance; because surely one of the purposes that some hon. members at least attach to this section of the bill is that it would be used for redevelopment projects, and redevelopment projects surely do not contemplate simply the assembly of vacant land for the purpose of housing projects, but rather such projects as the one which the Prime Minister saw in Toronto last year, namely, the Regent park project, which he acclaimed as a landmark in housing.
There are very definite shortcomings under section 12 of the act in the assistance that the dominion gives toward the cost of slum clearance projects. Perhaps the minister will correct me if I am wrong, but under that section I should have thought that subsection (a) of this new section 35 was to be created for the purpose of making possible

redevelopment projects such as the one I have spoken of, which involves slum clearance.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, this is a very broad section. There is really very little, if any, limitation on what the two governments, provincial and federal, jointly can do. There seems to be a tendency for hon. members to feel that there is something about this that is not consistent with the slum clearance section of the act. There is no reason why the slum clearance section cannot be applied if so required on property acquired, cleared and made available for rebuilding. Then it is straightforward to envisage that this section can be applied, using the appraised value of the land, reserviced, if necessary, housing built upon it, and the costs shared on the 75 per cent 25 per cent basis set forth.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister's answer, while it may be consistent with the one he gave a moment ago to the hon. member for St. John's West, does not seem to me to be consistent with the provisions of this section. I think the section is much more remedial than the minister now indicates it to be. It has been my hope that the minister would have been prepared to tell us that he intended to put this section to work. This section contemplates regulations prescribing the type of land that may be acquired for housing purposes. The minister's last statement seems to resolve itself into this, that under section 35 you can assemble land, provided it is vacant. That is clear. But he also says that if you have old substandard houses on land and you need a redevelopment project you cannot apply this section 35 in the first instance. What you then must do is to apply section 12 first. The land must be acquired under section 12, and then section 35 will come into operation. If that is the situation, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid there are going to be very great and unnecessary difficulties in carrying out redevelopment projects, for section 12 does not go far enough in providing needed dominion assistance for the purpose of clearing slums and building redevelopment projects, because these redevelopment projects by their nature contemplate the clearing of land that has these old substandard houses on it. If it comes down to this, as the minister indicates, that the only help for these redevelopment projects, the only help in the acquisition and the clearing of the land must come under section 12, and only after that is done can section 35 come into operation, then, Mr. Chairman, he is leaving me with a very disappointed feeling about his intention with regard to this provision of the act. Surely, there is nothing in the fair rules of

interpretation of the language of this subsection that entitles the minister to say that it must be confined to the acquisition of vacant land. How can the minister interpret land in this section as narrowly as that? Cannot the minister tell this committee that it is the government's intention to use provisions of this kind for redevelopment projects that will bring about the clearing of slums and substandard houses?


Robert Henry Winters: I think it is clear, Mr. Chairman, that where there is a section already in the act, namely, section 12, providing for the redevelopment of land, it is not intended that this section should apply. There is no reason why the two sections cannot be complementary, however, as I said before.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It just comes down to this, Mr. Chairman, that the fifty per cent assistance the dominion gives under section 12, with a view to the acquisition of land for the purpose of slum clearance, is something the dominion contributes to on a much lower scale, than the seventy-five per cent which it contributes under section 35 to the projects that are contemplated there. Unless the government is prepared to extend the remedial provisions of section 35, or terms equal to those, to the slum clearance provisions under section 12 of the act, then we are not going to get slums cleared. I am not the only member of this committee who construed the minister's statement and the language of this section as including redevelopment projects, which are the really essential factor in the long-term approach to housing conditions in Canada. However, the minister has said so and one can only express one's very great disappointment that that is the interpretation the government is putting on this section and at the way they are watering down what appeared to be sections of this act to which we could look hopefully for some benefits.
I come now to subsection (b), namely, the type, maximum costs and rentals of housing units that may be constructed. Will the minister be more specific as to exactly what the government has in mind with reference to the subjects of this subsection?


Robert Henry Winters: For example, I might say that the government does not propose to apply this section to houses that cost $25,000. We have to exercise some measure of control and this section gives us that privilege.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What are the maximum costs-


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order.
National Housing Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, some hon. members have a queer idea of expediting business.


Mr. Weir:: Yes, that is right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are in no hurry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister what maximum costs are contemplated?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Take all the time you want.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is getting into this. I want to tell him-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us talk about that for a while.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I will tell him that he will make a contribution to expediting matters if he keeps out of it.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member asked a question. The minister should be given an opportunity to answer it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The financial critic will now speak.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is not the minister going to answer the question?


James Garfield Gardiner: You have wasted forty
minutes already in a useless attempt to block the bill.


Robert Henry Winters: We would be in a better position to determine the type of housing required after we have had an opportunity to explore the field with the provinces.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But surely the government has done some exploring of the field. They know surely by this time what kind of housing is needed, and which they intend to assist in constructing. Is there not any idea in the government's head on the subject?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Don't answer that.


Robert Henry Winters: We made it clear from the outset-


Clarence Decatur Howe: He couldn't understand it if you spelled it out.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce would assist by keeping quiet.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member for
Acadia.


Mr. Quelch:: Could the minister state what the rate of interest will be under section 6 (d)?


Robert Henry Winters: The money will be advanced on the basis of long-term dominion bonds and long-term provincial bonds, subject to a nominal carrying charge.

National Housing Act Mr. Quelch: What will the rate of interest be? It seems to me that the government is placing in the housing scheme a very severe handicap when they maintain the rate of interest as high as they are under this act. I was interested in a press report appearing in the Christian Science Monitor of November 16, 1949, which states, under the heading "Low interest rates held rehousing aid"-
Mr. Bernard E. Loshbough, administrator of the Connecticut housing authority, stated:
"The housing plight of moderate income families is being met in a manner completely unique to this country. Low interest rates constitute the tool through which these houses are being made available to families, making too much for public housing ventures, yet not making enough to pay the current high rents or building costs."
Connecticut's plan of action was based upon a mortgage interest rate of only one and one-half per cent, made possible by state-backed credit. Thus lower interest rates constituted' the crux of the over-all Connecticut plan of providing for new housing.
Surely if the state of Connecticut is able to use its credit to provide money at the interest rate of one and a half per cent, the government of Canada, with the Bank of Canada at its disposal, should be able to finance the housing scheme at a very much lower cost than four and a half per cent interest.
I quite realize that the minister himself is not in a position to provide the money at that rate, but the government of Canada is. He should approach the government to try to provide money at a rate of interest which will really make it possible to have low rental housing in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. The minister would assist in shortening the debate if he would be a little more explicit about this matter of maximum costs under section 6 (d). Surely the matter has been considered by him. As soon as this bill becomes law presumably regulations will be promulgated under the terms of the very section we are now called upon to enact. This is a matter of importance, because I think the house is concerned to see this section put to work to provide houses in a category where houses are most needed. Would the minister tell us what maximum costs are contemplated by the government?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, this is a matter of agreement between the provinces and the federal government. We have approached the problem from the outset only to help the provinces solve the problems which are normally regarded as being theirs. It should therefore be logical to expect that the provinces will have a good deal to say about the type of housing that will 
result in any of these projects. I would, of course, like to see housing that costs the least possible money, and at the same time would result in houses which would be a credit to the municipalities in which they are built.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has not told us about maximum costs at all.
I turn to paragraph (c) and find reference to-
(c) the number of housing units for which commitments may be given.
I was surprised to find that term in the bill, because it suggests that there may be a ceiling in the government's mind. Exactly what limits have the government in mind when they are asking power to make regulations prescribing the number of housing units for which commitments may be given?


Robert Henry Winters: That section contemplates particular areas. It is conceivable that in some areas it might not be desirable to build all the houses that somebody may wish. Since the federal government is a participant, it should have the right to have some say in the matter.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought it was obvious that the government would have to have some control over the particular number of houses in any particular project which are to be approved. But that is not what this section says. This does not refer to the number of houses in any particular project or any particular area. It prescribes in (c) for the number of housing units for which commitments may be given.
The only possible interpretation that can be put upon that is the number of housing units that may be approved under section 35. The interpretation that the minister has just given, if it is put forward seriously, just wrenches the meaning of plain words.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps the minister will answer my question. Perhaps the minister would answer my question this way-if he would indicate that there is no-


James Garfield Gardiner: What do you think about it? Tell us that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of Agriculture is interesting himself in it, too? I think if they will just-


James Garfield Gardiner: I may interest myself a lot more.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If they will just leave the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply alone -these two big men of the cabinet-he will do very well. He will get along better without their assistance.

Will the minister tell us that there is no ceiling in contemplation by the government under these provisions, and that so long as the need exists, the need will be met, so far as the legislation that we are now enacting will meet that need?


Robert Henry Winters: This simply reserves the right to the federal government to make regulations. In reply to the hon. member's specific question, the answer is that we are not contemplating any over-all ceiling on the number of housing units to be built.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Robert Henry Winters: the third reading of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express a few words at this time, for a minute or so, because I was stopped-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Next sitting of the house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -under section 2(a) by the Chairman in committee at that time-and I think most improperly. That section had to do with the provision for home owners in connection with the purchasing of homes. I just wanted to speak along the lines which had been followed by the two hon. members who preceded me and who were allowed by the Chairman to speak. I think I was perfectly in order but I was not allowed to say what I wanted to say at that time. Therefore, I shall say now what I intended to say then.
As I understand the principle of this bill, it is intended to provide more housing for Canadians. I support what was said this afternoon by two or three hon. members who said that they were of the opinion that those who live in small towns, in small villages and in rural communities do not receive from lending institutions the services they should receive under this act. I have had that very experience. I know that the small villages, the small towns and the rural communities in my constituency are not receiving the service they should receive from the lending institutions which operate under the act. I know of many good hard-working artisans, workmen, business people and others who have made applications for loans, who are well able to meet the payments on a decent type of house but whose applications have been rejected, mainly because they live in small towns, small villages or unincorporated areas.
From what I can gather, the objections of the lending institutions to lending money to people living in small towns, small villages and rural areas are, first, that they do not
National Housing Act
consider it to be a particularly good investment where the community is small and industry is not highly developed; second, they claim that quite often there is poor fire protection; third, they claim that the cost of inspection is greater.
With regard to the first objection, I contend that they are entirely wrong. Some of the most stable communities we have in this country are the small communities which stretch from one end of the country to the other. When it comes to poor fire protection I can speak from experience when I say that the small communities in my own constituency, particularly those with voluntary fire brigades, have a lower rate of fire loss than the larger centres. When they complain about high inspection costs I think they are failing completely to serve the Canadian people as they should. The lending institutions do very well under this act and I do not think they should be permitted to skim the cream and not serve the rural communities as they should.
In my opinion they are taking a coldblooded business view of this question, without any sense of their responsibilities to Canadians as a whole. In order to illustrate my point I should like to refer to what has happened in Nakusp, the village close by to where I live. This is a village of 750 population in the Arrow lakes. It is surrounded by wonderful scenery. It has a permanent forest industry based on a provincial forest which by means of selected logging will produce an annual yield of over thirty million board feet of lumber forever. In addition there is a well-established agricultural industry. This is a stable community which the people themselves have built up over the years.
In order to illustrate the financial strength of this small community and its position as a risk, I should like to mention some of the things that have been done by these people who want to have the opportunity under the act to borrow from lending institutions. This village of 750 people has a legion post with 25 members who have built and paid for completely a $20,000 community hall. They have built nine-hole golf course at a cost of between $5,000 and $7,000. They have built and paid for completely a $50,000 water system that supplies every house and nearly every farm in the district with water for domestic and irrigation purposes. They have built a $45,000 twenty-two bed hospital. They have a voluntary fire brigade with a $7,500 modern fire engine; in all $10,000 worth of equipment.
I give that as an illustration of the development of a small community. It is in these

Coal
small communities that democracy prevails to a greater extent than in the larger centres. When this unincorporated village decides to take action it is done by getting the board of trade, the women's institute, the farmers' institute and the Canadian Legion representatives together. This is only one illustration of many that I could give of the small towns and communities in my constituency that are not being served under this act by the lending institutions.
In my opinion we should do our level best to further the development of our small communities, and that is not being done under this act. It is in the small communities where the greatest opportunities to build homes and bring up families to the best advantage are to be found.
I support the arrangement for dominion-provincial co-operation in the building of subsidized housing. We are hopeful that this will produce results for industrial workers and those who live in the larger centres. We are hopeful that the opportunities provided under the act to co-operative societies to borrow money for the building of houses will be fruitful. But I want to emphasize that under this act as it is being operated at the present time the small towns, the small villages and the rural communities of Canada are not receiving the service they should. I urge the minister to investigate this situation so that the provisions of this act will be available, not only to those in the larger centres but to those who work in and build up our small towns, small villages and rural communities. I am speaking on behalf of the rural folk who have been denied the service that they should receive under this act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Clarence Decatur Howe: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to assist the production of coal in the Atlantic maritime provinces by making loans to producers of coal, and to provide therein for the conditions of such loans and the terms of repayment thereof; to provide further that the aggregate principal amount of loans made to coal producers shall not exceed ten million dollars and that the aggregate principal amount of loans made to any one coal producer shall not exceed seven and one-half million dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
[Mr. Herridge.l
Percy Chapman Black: Does the minister intend to make a statement now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a matter which can be better understood with the bill before us. I could make a statement and have the debate on the resolution, but I think it would have to be duplicated when the terms of the bill are available. I suggest to hon. members that the resolution be passed tonight so that the bill may be distributed tomorrow. I have a statement to make, but I would prefer to make it with the bill before us.


Percy Chapman Black: Speaking for myself, that will be quite satisfactory.


Clarence Gillis: I am interested in this resolution and the bill that will follow, but I see no point in discussing it until we have the bill before us.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Howe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 217, to assist the production of coal in the Atlantic maritime provinces.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VETERANS LAND ACT


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to present a bill to amend the Veterans Land Act, 1942, for the following among other purposes:
To make the benefits of the act available to veterans in receipt of pensions for disabilities which are not the result of service but were incurred during service; to provide conditions under which modifications may be made at the request of veterans in current and future contracts made thereunder; to provide conditions under which adjustments may be made with veterans who have surrendered their contracts, and for the absorption of past abnormal building costs.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is the minister going to make a statement now?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have a statement to make, but as in the case of the preceding resolution I think everything is to be gained by having the bill passed around. The intention underlying the resolution and the oncoming amendment is a very simple one. It is, by simplification and providing greater flexibility, to make that very excellent legislation, the Veterans Land Act, more valuable to the veteran settled under it, and thus to the country at large. I shall be glad to make a fuller statement when the bill is before the house for second reading.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gregg thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 218 to amend the Veterans Land Act, 1942.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: I move the adjournment of the house. I think it is too late to start anything else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Eleven o'clock.


Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will take up the following bills: Nos. 64, 65, 63, 62, 120, 185, 148, 175, 210 and 215. I am not sure of the order, but I will try to have the ministers here.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You are quite an optimist.


George Alexander Drew: Can the minister indicate which will be called first?


Alphonse Fournier: The first two will be the two measures concerning the Department of Justice, Bill No. 64, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, and Bill No. 65, to amend the Judges Act, 1946. The next will be Bill No. 63, an act respecting the inspection of fish and marine planjts; then Bill No. 62, an act respecting forest conservation; Bill No. 120, respecting the incorporation of purebred livestock record associations; Bill No. 185, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act; Bill No. 148,
Veterans Land Act
concerning the Canadian National Railways, and providing for a deficit, I believe; Bill No. 175, to amend the Excise Tax Act; Bill No. 210, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act; Bill No. 215, to amend Dominion-Provincial Tax Rental Agreements Act, 1947.


George Alexander Drew: Will there be government business all day?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes. There is no hour for private bills tomorrow.


Donald MacInnis: Did I understand the minister to say that the bills will be taken in the order in which he read them?


Alphonse Fournier: For the first two in the morning.


Donald MacInnis: The point I want to make is that I do not think the first two will take the house very long. Can the minister tell us the order in which they will come the first thing tomorrow?


Alphonse Fournier: I can give four bills. There will be the two justice bills I have mentioned. The third item will be an act respecting the inspection of fish and marine plants, and the fourth will be an act respecting forest conservation.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 30, 1949