1949-11-15

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport, of which, because of morning sittings, he has not had notice. At some time before prorogation would he be in a position to make a report to the house as to the progress which is being made in the matter of the construction of a bridge over the strait of Canso?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: When the estimates of the Department of Transport are under discussion I shall be glad to make a statement on the matter referred to by the hon. member.



CITY OF OTTAWA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I should like to ask a question, of the Minister of Public Works. Would the government consider erecting a shelter for the large number of people who wait for buses next to the Chateau Laurier hotel in the cold and wintry weather? It is largely crown property. Would he confer with the civic authorities in the matter, and act accordingly? I raised the same question last session, and he said he would.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: I cannot recall what I said on the previous occasion, but I know these crown lands are close to certain of our buildings. The policy of the government in the past has been to keep such lands free. I believe they have changed twice in the last three years the stopping places of these buses, and we do not know whether the city would wish to make any further changes. However, I have taken note of the hon. member's question, and I shall ask my officials to consider the matter.


Thomas Langton Church: The fact that the city recently became the owners of the street railway might make some difference in the matter of their willingness to erect a temporary shelter.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 142, to amend the National Housing Act, 1944.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before commenting upon the proposed legislation I should like to make some general remarks, including a few references to what has been achieved in the field of housing by the aggregate efforts of all who have concerned themselves with this important activity.
Housing accomplishments in the years before 1949 have been reviewed on a number of occasions in this house. Factual information will be found in the annual report of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which was tabled on March 22, 1949, and in "Housing in Canada", a quarterly publication of the corporation. I will therefore confine my remarks to the housing situation as it has developed in the course of this year.
On September 21 I said that new housing, even at the present record rate of production, was barely keeping up with current needs, and making no important inroads into the backlog. In degree this is less true in 1949 than in any previous post-war year. Our housing completions this year are likely to be about twenty per cent higher than in 1948, and net family formation is likely to be about ten per cent below that of last year. On this basis new housing would exceed net family formation by about 20,000 units. Two years ago net family formation exceeded the number of new housing units by a large margin. Last year new housing was just about in balance with net family formation. This is the first year that some progress will have been made to reduce the backlog of housing need accumulated both during the war years and the depressed thirties. It is not an important inroad, considering the magnitude of the backlog; nevertheless it is a significant reduction of the over-all housing need.
A favourable feature of the housing situation is a distinct levelling-off of building costs during 1949. During the first nine months of 1949 the weighted index of residential building costs changed very little. Hon. members will recall that in the years 1946, 1947 and 1948, construction costs, as represented by

National Housing Act
this index, rose 11 per cent, 22 per cent and 11 per cent respectively. The weighted index of materials is approximately one per cent under that of January 1, 1949. This is offset by a weighted wage increase of approximately 3 per cent, so that the index is now only fractionally higher than it was at the first of the year.
Furthermore, a more regular and adequate supply of materials, together with increased productivity of the house building labour force, has had the effect of reducing costs. I am not suggesting that the price of new houses has decreased appreciably, because under present market conditions it is the sale price of a house rather than the cost of construction that is the governing factor. A year ago Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was having difficulty in securing contractors to build veterans' rental units. They were able only to secure prices subject to an escalator clause. This year there has been keen competition in bidding for jobs in all parts of the country, with the result that comparable houses are costing about three per cent less this year than last. These reductions are not large, but they do represent a cessation of the continuous upward cost trend experienced since the end of the war. In 1950 we may expect further improvement in the supply situation. As a result there is reasonable prospect that building costs will not be higher than in 1949.
There is general complaint about high building costs in the post-war period. High prices of building materials, high wage rates, high profits, and inefficiency of the building industry, are the reasons usually ascribed. We would all like to see construction costs lower than they are today. But it might be helpful to consider a few facts which provide us with a perspective in this matter.
It is true that it costs about twice as much today to build a house as it did before the war. But it is also true that the income of the average person in 1949 is more than twice as great as it was in 1939. In that year, in per capita terms, the average Canadian had a net income of $371 after taxes. But in 1948, the year for which the latest figures are available, the corresponding income was $859, or about two and one-third times as high as it was ten years ago. The relationship between prices of housing and incomes is probably more important than the absolute level of construction costs. It is true that there are a number of families who cannot afford new houses at present prices and costs, but the fact remains that more new houses are being built and more existing properties are being sold when both

costs and incomes are up than was the case before the war when costs and incomes were much lower.
The outstanding feature of the housing program this year has been the continuation of the large volume of hew starts and completions. During the early months of the year, new residential starts ran far ahead of the corresponding months of 1948. In June, July and August the starts dropped sharply in comparison to a year ago, and it was thought by some that perhaps the experience of these three months indicated a trend. However, starts in September were buoyant and somewhat in excess of the corresponding figures for 1948.
Completions have been at new record levels. The heavy carryover of partly completed units at the beginning of the year, together with the high level of new starts, has resulted in completions far above 1948.
Complete figures up to the end of August and partial figures during September indicate that 62,500 new housing units were completed in the first nine months of 1949. This is an increase of 24 per cent over the corresponding period of 1948. If the last quarter of 1949 follows the pattern of the last quarter of 1948, completions of new units will amount to approximately 92,000. Adding conversions to new units, total completions of all kinds for 1949 would under these conditions be of the order of 96,000.
Starts in the first nine months of 1949 were about 71,000, almost the same as in 1948. Units under construction at the end of September, 1949, amount to 65,800, as compared with 63,700 a year ago. Projecting new starts for the remainder of the year on the same basis, a total of 86,000 starts might be expected.
There are, however, two important qualifications to the projection of the figures for the first nine months of 1949 as an estimate for figures for the full year. The effect of the steel strike in the United States may reduce the number of completions during the last quarter. In respect to starts, a repetition of last year's pattern requires weather as favourable as it was in the last quarter of 1948.
Speaking in this house on July 22, 1946, my predecessor, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), estimated that some 480,000 units should be built during the five years ending March, 1952. He set a target of 80,000 units for 1947-48, and 100,000 in each of the following years. Up to the end of September, 1949-the first two and a half years-his estimate was 230,000 units. During that period completions have amounted to 212,134 units. This is substantial accomplishment of the target of completions, and full



IS, 1949

[Stage Direction]
accomplishment if allowance is made for the increased number of houses presently under construction.
The greatest part of housing completions in 1949 will be by private endeavour. Housing on direct government account, such as veterans' rental units, married quarters for the Department of National Defence, and other activities resulting in government ownership, will account for about 14 per cent of all completions. Another 25 per cent is financed under the National Housing Act. The remaining 61 per cent of completions will be without government sponsorship of any kind.
I would call the attention of the hon. members to the fact that this unprecedented amount of housing has been built during a time when capital investment of other forms also has been at a record level. With the exception of a few areas, the construction industry is fully employed. Nor is there indication of an immediate decrease in the aggregate volume of non-residential construction. This is probably a good thing, because most of the current non-residential construction program is necessary for the growth and welfare of the nation. If there were a lessening in non-residential construction, it might be possible to increase residential construction by a moderate amount. I say a moderate amount, because the limitation upon our house building program is not only because the construction industry is fully employed, but also because of the shortage of serviced land.
Much has been said about steps which the iominion government might take to promote ;fae building of many more thousands of hous-ng units each year. I need hardly remind ;hose familiar with housing problems that the irst and foremost need is for land upon vhich to place houses. Municipalities have lefinite ideas as to the manner of develop-nent of their communities. Services of all finds must be provided-not only those im-nediately adjacent to the houses, but also >asic services such as pumping stations, chools, sewage disposal and facilities of the find. Some municipalities are having trouble n financing these services for the current esidential construction program; other muni-ipalities have no undeveloped land within heir boundaries. This is an important limi-ation upon the volume of new housing which an be built. The bill now before the house ontemplates a co-operative arrangement between the provinces and the dominion to assist le municipalities in this respect.
Quite naturally, a great many people are liking about housing these days. Some people elieve that the only solution is a subsidized ublic housing program to look after those
National Housing Act
who cannot afford to pay economic rentals. Others believe that the only way is for the governments to sponsor large quantities of modest dwellings to be sold to potential home owners on a rent-purchase plan with little or no down payment. Others believe that, if enough houses are built for those who can afford them, in due course the filtering process will work so that everybody will be comfortably housed. It seems to me that there is nothing mutually exclusive in various methods of making progress. There is great merit in-and certainly it is the policy of the government to encourage as much as possible-new housing by private enterprise. A good case can be made to widen the band of potential home owners by terms of financing. Hon. members will notice that we have taken steps along these lines in the bill now before the house, and I doubt if there are many who will object too strenuously to the proposition that there is a group of families in this country which is financially unable to improve its housing condition and for whom public housing with subsidized rentals is necessary. It seems to me that the problem is so large and so important that every reasonable approach must be used.
Perhaps the most important principle of the legislation which we are now considering is the new structure being created for dominion-provincial co-operation. Years of experience of the federal government in the housing field on its own account have indicated very clearly the impracticability of the dominion being the sole participant in a long range national housing program. The provinces have authority and facilities in the real property field. Moreover they, with the municipalities, are better judges of local housing needs than is the federal government. Any good plan must contemplate close and continuous co-operation between all three levels of government. I hope that the pattern we are now proposing, which has received a measure of informal support from some of the provinces, will provide a long-term method of operation whereby the three levels of government can assist the orderly development of housing throughout the country.
In the immediate future, this pattern will be useful toward making good the housing shortage. A further consideration is that the day may come when the building of a large volume of new housing will be welcomed as well for the employment it will provide. All hon. members will remember evidences of this during the thirties. Construction then was, and perhaps still is, one of our most volatile industries.
The policy of the dominion government, and we presume most provincial governments, will be directed towards an even flow of new
[Stage Direction]
National Housing Act
residential construction by private enterprise. However, the pattern which we are now suggesting will provide an opportunity for public investment in this field should it be considered desirable. To illustrate my point, I can think of no better example than slum clearance and redevelopment of the site. If for no other reason than inability to rehouse families, slum clearance and redevelopment projects are not appropriate everywhere today. However, the time may come when effective demand for new housing will have dropped to a point where redevelopment of areas containing substandard housing will have not only social but economic benefit. The pattern of this legislation provides the machinery by which such steps can be taken.
I should like now to make some comments upon the bill itself. It contains four major changes, as well as a number of minor amendments. The major changes are:
(a)	The reduction of the down payment required from people who wish to own their houses.
(b)	Enabling the federal government to join with the provinces in desirable housing developments of all forms, including the assembly of land.
(c)	An increase in the maximum amounts which may be made available for home improvement and home extension purposes.
(d)	Changes in the co-operative section of the National Housing Act so that its facilities will be more readily available.
The bill changes the definition of a builder so as not to exclude a builder who holds a long-term lease or other satisfactory interest in the land. The previous limitation of ownership has caused difficulty in areas where long-term leases are customary. A continuation of the limitation of ownership would be inappropriate for Newfoundland, where ground leases are more general than land held in fee simple.
The bill provides that a basic loan of 80 per cent of the lending value shall be made available to a builder or to a home owner. The amortization may be for a period as long as thirty years. Provided that the purchase price to the home owner is a fair and reasonable one, provision is made for an additional advance in amount of one-sixth of the basic loan. This change provides considerably higher mortgage financing than the act in its present form. Depending upon the price at which the house is sold by the builder to the home owner, the down payment requirements will range between one-sixth and one-tenth of the purchase price.
The fair and reasonable price provision is included because previous experience under the National Housing Act, as well as our understanding of experience under the
[Mr. Winters.l
Ontario second mortgage legislation, indicate that increased mortgage financing tends to increase sale prices. Little purpose would be served if, by providing an extra mortgage loan of $1,000, the sale price of the house went up a part or all of this amount. The majority of present houses under the National Housing Act will, within the present range of sale prices, qualify under the fair and reasonable provision. Houses upon which the builder is taking a very long profit will not qualify.
I should like to make it perfectly clear that the fair and reasonable provision is not a limitation upon the sale price of houses to be financed under the National Housing Act. A house with a lending value of $6,000 will qualify for a basic loan of $4,800, and for a further advance of $800 to a home owner who has purchased the house at a price not exceeding $6,720, which is the total loan of $5,600 plus 20 per cent, and would be considered the fair and reasonable price. The builder may sell the house at any price he desires. If, however, the price is above the fair and reasonable price, the basic loan of 80 per cent will be made, but the additional advance to the home owner is not available. During the last few weeks I have had a number of representations that the fair and reasonable price requirement is unreasonable, and that the legislation should be brought down without this provision. I can only say that these representations in many ways point up the very reason for the limitation.
The bill also provides for revisions to the co-operative section of the act. During the past year or two there have been a number of representations from co-operatives that the act, in its present form, is unsuitable. With this we agree. Representations have been made that the rate of interest payable by co-operatives or by individuals who have built their houses under co-operative schemes should be less than the rate of interest available to home owners. As will be clear to hon. members, this point of view cannot be accepted. Therefore amendments are now being proposed to improve the mechanics, and indeed the terms, of loans to co-operatives, but no change is being made in the interest rate.
It has been suggested to us that there is a similarity between the purpose of section £ and the co-operative part of the act. This of course, is far from being the case, because section 9 contemplates rental housing with nc proprietary interest by the occupant. It is also definite in its provision that continued occupancy is dependent upon family income being below a certain level. An examinatior of section 9 will show clearly the reasons why a co-operative is not a limited dividend rental housing project.

It does not seem reasonable to us that individuals with a proprietary interest in the house in which they live should be afforded better terms under a co-operative than if they arranged the financing of their houses on an individual basis. The government deems it unwise to create such differential.
In our experience we find that there are two kinds of co-operatives. There is the genuine co-operative formed by a group of people interested in producing houses for their mutual benefit. The legislation is being revised to suit their needs.
The other type of co-operative is one developed by a promoter for the purpose of finding a lucrative method by which to market bis construction. This is the type of co-operative in which we believe Canadians would not wish the government to be interested. It will be noticed than an application will not ae approved from a co-operative unless the corporation is satisfied that 80 per cent of the family housing units will be occupied by co-operators. In other words the genuine nature of the co-operative must be evident at the time of the application. I may say that this limitation carries the judgment of several afficials experienced in the co-operative movement as it relates to house building. They are as anxious as we to avoid the use of the co-operative principle for purposes for which it was not intended.
There are two distinct kinds of housing projects for which the legislation makes provision. In the province of Quebec, especially, co-operative housing maintains the co-operative principle until the completion of the unit, at which time full ownership is transferred to the individual. Hon. members will aotice that the legislation contemplates loans to such a co-operative in amount of 80 per cent of the lending value, and an additional advance of one-sixth of the joint loan at the time the member of the co-operative takes title to his home. The arrangements give advantage of blanket loans to the co-operative, together with the full advantages of the borne ownership provision of the act to the co-operator after he has full ownership of ais house.
The other form of co-operative contemplates the co-operative principle continuing after the completion and occupancy of the lousing unit. Of necessity this must be the condition in the case of a multi-family unit. But where a multi-family unit or a group af houses maintain the co-operative principle after completion, provision is made for the additional advance comparable to that afforded to a home owner.
Under the present co-operative legislation, where the co-operative principles extend
National Housing Act
beyond completion, there is a requirement of joint and several covenants. During the past few years a number of genuine and worthy co-operatives have been unable to finance under the National Housing Act because the solicitors of the co-operators have recommended to their clients that they do not participate in a joint and several covenant. In order to meet this difficulty the legislation before the house now provides for a several covenant only. In other words, if the cooperative gets into trouble and the mortgagee must realize on his security, each co-operator is personally liable only for his share of the loss suffered by the mortgagee. Although this removes one of the main limitations of the legislation as it now exists, there is no manner in which the equity of the nondefaulting co-operator can be protected against the default of a large enough number of co-operators to occasion default and foreclosure of the mortgage. This is an unfavourable but inherent feature of co-operative ownership.
There is provision for an increase in the maximum amount of loans for home improvement and home extension purposes. The present maximum limits were established in 1944. Since then building costs have increased, and the limits are being increased by 25 per cent.
Authority is being sought so that the corporation shall have the power to deal with properties acquired by it. The present act limits such powers to housing projects. Because the corporation now manages properties such as Ajax near Oshawa and Laurentian Terrace in Ottawa, like powers are needed to deal with all classes of property.
On September 21, and again on October 28, I outlined the nature of the proposed dominion-provincial arrangements and the general reasons why enabling legislation is being sought. During the last ten years, in the construction of both war workers' and veterans' rental units, experience has shown that governmental operations in the housing field require participation by the provinces. Neither the provinces nor the dominion are happy with arrangements whereby the dominion enters directly into agreements with municipalities. It is quite true that most of the provinces passed enabling legislation to allow their municipalities to enter into such contracts. However, in my conversations with the provinces there was general agreement in principle that longterm arrangements and contracts between the dominion and the municipalities were not desirable.
The provincial governments are familiar with local conditions, and their direct participation is required to develop housing
[Stage Direction]
National Housing Act projects, particularly in view of the jurisdictional aspects of the various phases of the problem. For instance, new housing in a number of our larger municipalities is dependent upon land being made available. In many cases this land is not within the present boundaries of the municipality. The main municipality is reluctant to extend its civic services into the adjoining municipality. The adjoining municipality in some cases is reluctant to add new small residential units built within its area, because, even with full taxes, small residential units are a deficit item in the accounts of the municipality. This is the type of problem which the provinces can do much to resolve.
It will be noticed that the legislation is general in form and enabling in character. In order to join with the dominion in such projects, the provinces will in most cases require authority from their legislatures. Procedures in operation have not yet been established. The bill contemplates regulations by the governor in council which will prescribe the type of projects and the conditions under which they may be arranged.
I will now suggest a few types of arrangements which might be undertaken by the dominion and a province.
In certain areas of the country there are builders and other individuals who are anxious to build houses but who cannot do so because serviced land is not available. The municipalities are pressed in financing other services within their boundaries, and do not feel that at this time they can undertake the capital financing of servicing new areas of land. Therefore authority is being sought to enable the dominion and the provinces to take ownership of tracts of land in fringe areas, and with the co-operation of the municipality, see to the installation of services. The land will be purchased jointly by the dominion and the province. Services, when installed, will be paid for by the dominion and the province. Builders and other individuals will be able to purchase these lots. In some cases the value of the fully serviced lot will be included in the lending value for National Housing Act purposes so that the cost of the land and the improvements will be paid off over the period of the mortgage. In other cases, it may be preferable for the municipality to assume the improvements, with the new owner paying off the costs of the improvements on a local improvement basis. Under this latter arrangement the municipality issues debentures secured by the annual local improvement taxes.
Another type of dominion-provincial project might be the assembling of land as just described, together with the erection of houses for sale. There are certain localities in the country where such an arrangement
[Stage Direction]

by the two senior governments would be helpful. Land would be assembled and a contract would be awarded for the building of houses. Houses would be sold from the project to individual home owners. To the extent that these home owners financed their purchases under the National Housing Act, the unpaid balance of purchase price would be recovered by the dominion-provincial project, and the long-term mortgage risk would be assumed under the National Housing Act.
Transactions such as this might give the appearance that the governments were taking the place of house builders. To the extent of a managerial position, this would be true. However, in practically every municipality in Canada the same men are going to build the houses, whether they are being built on the home owner's account, on their own account as a speculative builder, or for the account of the dominion-provincial project. We wish to avoid reducing the supply of houses which will be built by individuals for themselves, or by builders on a speculative basis. This is important, but it is even more important that the needs of prospective home owners be met. It is our opinion that in certain areas a sufficient volume of housing for prospective home owners can be achieved only by direct support of a dominion-provincial project.
As a modification of this arrangement, the dominion and the province might assemble serviced land and arrange for builders to build houses on a speculative basis with the proviso, borrowed from the integrated plan, that in the event of non-sale the dominion-provincial project will take the houses over at a price somewhat less than their regular sale price, but rather more than the out-of-pocket costs of the builder.
Another type of project would be the development or redevelopment of centrally located land to provide new rental housing, either on an economic or a subsidized basis. The procedure would be very much the same as in the other examples which I have mentioned. The province, with the co-operation of the municipality, would see to the acquisition of the land, to be paid for 75 per cent by the dominion and 25 per cent by the province. It may be that slum clearance provisions of section 12 of the National Housing Act would be used. After the land had been acquired for redevelopment, the dominion and the province, with the co-operation of the municipality, would determine the type of rental housing which is needed. In certain parts of the country it may be that rental housing can bear economic rents. In other localities an element of subsidy may be necessary. After the rental scale, allowing for the

element of subsidy, has been determined, Central Mortgage will proceed with the construction of the buildings. When complete, the dominion and the province will seek local management in the form of a local housing authority, or such other method as may be mutually agreeable. The matter of local management is emphasized. The policy of the dominion is to reduce, not increase, its direct landlord position. The project, however, will remain in ownership of the dominion and the province. The operating profit or loss will be borne 75 per cent by the dominion and 25 per cent by the province. The annual subsidy will be the amount by which rentals received are less than operating costs of all kinds, including depreciation. These operating losses will be met on an annual basis 75 per cent by the dominion and 25 per cent by the province.
Under our arrangements with the province, provision will be made that the municipality shall receive a payment in lieu of taxes so that houses in the project will provide tax revenue equivalent to taxes received on like houses in the municipality. We feel-and some of the provinces agree with us-that a suitable way to determine these payments in lieu of taxes is to have the municipal board of the province establish a fair level of payment.
Although the costs of these projects will be borne 75 per cent by the dominion and 25 per cent by the province, it may be that the province will feel that some share of the capital costs should be borne by the municipality. This is a matter for determination by the province. Our arrangement will be directly with the province; the municipalities will not be party to the agreement. Any agreement providing for the municipality to assume financial responsibilities will be independent of our arrangements with the provinces.
Dominion-provincial rental projects may take the form of houses in fringe area locations. The principles will be the same as those described for rental projects in central locations.
Our main purpose is to increase the volume of housing. We wish to stimulate, and where necessary, supplement, the supply of housing from present sources. Care will be exercised to ensure that we are not replacing the normal activities of builders. The provinces which have shown an interest in the proposal feel that the joint efforts of both senior governments, in co-operation with the municipalities, will increase the volume of new houses.
Hon. members may wonder how much housing can be expected as a result of this legislation. I can give them no satisfactory
National Housing Act
answer. It will depend upon the number of provinces participating. It will also depend upon the attitude of the provincial governments toward proposals which they may receive from municipalities and other interested groups. For our part, the federal government will require that the projects be sound, in that they fill a need at a reasonable cost. I am sure that the provinces will adopt the same attitude. As I mentioned in one of my earlier statements, each project must be satisfactory to both the dominion and the province. If a province is of the opinion that projects of the various forms I have described earlier are desirable, the federal government is likely to participate unless very obvious difficulties or deficiencies are present.
We are entering a new field. Techniques have not yet been established. After a few projects have been considered, methods of operation will be more definite than they are at the present time. Techniques and methods will be found to implement the purpose and intent of the arrangement-a co-operative effort by the dominion and the province to improve housing conditions within that province. In this as in all other housing legislation the existence of the legislation and appropriations does not ensure new housing in itself. It is the energy and ingenuity of private endeavour and of federal, provincial and municipal governments working together which will achieve successful results.
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house has listened with great interest to the statement made by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters). I believe the house will be glad indeed to concur in his concluding statement, in which he laid emphasis upon the necessity for co-operation on the part of all governments in Canada in their approach to governmental responsibility in respect to housing. One of the criticisms many of us have had to make of this government in times past is that it has not shown that spirit of co-operation; consequently the co-operation between the dominion and the provinces which was so necessary has not previously been available.
I should like in all frankness to say to the minister who has assumed responsibility for this department and the very important subject of housing that he seems to have shown a co-operative attitude in his approach to the other governments in Canada. I believe that approach will be productive of results.
We on this side of the house have said, and we said it times without number in the last parliament, that this problem was so great and had so many aspects to it-I am not now speaking simply of the constitutional and

National Housing Act legal aspects-that co-operation between the dominion government and the provincial governments was an absolute essential. The present minister-and this is a reversal of the previous attitude-has demonstrated a willingness to co-operate. The house will be quick to note the change and to commend the minister.
The house will always be on its guard against a note of complacency in any statement from the government on the subject of housing. We have had so much experience in the last five years with statements made by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), in which it was evident that he was gazing at housing conditions in Canada through rose-coloured glasses, that the house is naturally sceptical, and quite properly so, with regard to any ministerial statements in the matter which sound that note of optimism.
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that on the whole I think the minister has been fair in his factual approach to the provisions of the bill and the needs that the government hopes it will meet. There are, however, one or two considerations that are worthy of comment and supplement.
At the outset may I say that I do not intend to repeat or to cover again the ground that I sought to cover in speaking on the housing question at the resolution stage of the measure on October 31. At that time we had an extended discussion of housing conditions in general; today I hope to confine myself to some of the aspects of the minister's statement and of the bill itself which I think ought properly to be commented upon in the debate on second reading. In committee stage later we can expect extended discussion on some of the features of the bill, because hon. members undoubtedly will be seeking much more information with regard to some of its provisions.
The position in which the house finds itself today, as compared with that in which it found itself on October 31 on the resolution stage of the measure, is improved by reason of two factors. In the first place, the minister has tabled the correspondence between the dominion government and the governments of the provinces in the course of their negotiations since last spring with regard to a joint approach to this question. In the second place we have had from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) a statement of government policy with reference to rent control. The house would be in no position to review the adequacy of this present measure without at least knowing the contents of that correspondence with the provinces, and what the policy of the government is with reference to rent control.


As to rent control-and again I do not intend to repeat what I said on that subject in the house last Tuesday-and the relationship that the statement of the Minister of Finance on that subject bears directly to this question of housing, I shall simply say that the statement will not help in the slightest the efforts that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is making to meet the housing problem. I think one is justified in offering a word of sympathy to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply in having his efforts to improve housing conditions in Canada hamstrung by a statement of policy on rent control of the kind made by the Minister of Finance.
Here you have a most amazing situation- and I am sure it could not exist under any other government than this. One minister is making efforts to improve housing conditions, and another is making declarations of policy which unquestionably will confuse and retard the efforts of the first minister. Surely the time has come, sir, when this government must at least make an attempt to unify its policy with regard to housing in Canada. Surely we have had enough of this situation *-of the government speaking with one voice through one minister on one occasion and with another voice through another minister on another occasion, and saying things that are frequently diametrically opposed in result and in policy.
In 1945 we started off with housing responsibilities divided not between two ministers of the crown but among three. Under insistent pressure from the official opposition, the government got round to concentrating housing principally under the then minister of reconstruction, with jurisdiction in respect of the wartime prices and trade board and its orders still residing in the Minister of Finance. When the functions of the wartime prices and trade board today are so greatly concentrated on the subject of rent control, surely the time has come when the simple step must be taken by the government of unifying under one minister all government policy and administration with respect to housing. Surely then we might hopefully look for an end of these contradictory statements and policies.
On the other aspect, as to the information now available to the house through the correspondence between this government and the provincial governments, which has since been tabled, I shall hope at a later stage in my remarks to make some comments.
I made mention of the factual information given by the minister today. He looks for encouragement to construction through the fact that building costs seem to have levelled off. He properly drew attention to the fact

that new housing starts in Canada have shown a reduction-which I will not say is critical but which certainly is disturbing- in the months of June, July and August, the season of the year when the volume of starts should be at its maximum.
While there has been some improvement in the situation in September, I think it is too late in the season now to expect that it will be possible to overcome this diminution in housing starts that occurred in June, July and August. This situation cannot be viewed without great concern. We are glad to see a record of completions, and we shall bear in mind at the same time that many have contributed to that number of completions, among them the government of the province of Ontario through beneficial legislation which became necessary because the dominion government-this government-was so tardy in measuring up to its responsibility. Why did this government not see its responsibility in 1947, as it professes to see its responsibility today, late in 1949?-and so late in 1949, sir, that it is unlikely that any measurable benefit will be available in 1949 from this legislation; the most we can hope for is that it will produce some benefit in the building season of 1950. Think of all the precious time that has been lost, when the way was being pointed out to the government!
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in its last quarterly-issued report, has some comments that may well be considered at this time. I refer to "Housing in Canada", and the last available quarterly report is the one bearing the date of July. The report opens on page 9 with this statement:
During the first six months of 1949, for the first time since the end of the war the rate of new families formed in Canada showed a significant decline. This is indicated by a drop of 10 per cent in the number of marriages, from 50,000 during the first six months of 1948 to 45,000 during the corresponding period of 1949. Immigration of married families, births and deaths changed little as compared with the same period of 1948. The reduction in the number of new families formed will tend to lessen the added pressure exerted on the housing market from this source.
I comment upon that to urge that the government ought not to lay too much stress upon that factor, because it would be highly dangerous at this stage of the development of housing programs for any thought to creep into the minds of those responsible for government administration in the field of housing that the pressure has diminished. I believe the minister was frank in his statement this morning when he intimated that no appreciable reduction is yet being made in this tremendous backlog of housing needs in Canada. This is no time for relaxation. If there is any evidence of a reduction in 45781-113
National Housing Act
the family formation rate; if there is a reduction in immigration this year, as there has been, then certainly this is the time for the government, in association with other agencies interested in the building of houses, to put forward all pressure toward making a substantial dent in that formidable backlog, which represents a great burden of hardship to hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
The report lays further emphasis upon the decline in starts, which I have already noted. A significant sentence appears at page 9 of the report:
If the trend of decline in starts apparent for June and July of 1949 continues it may mean that an immediate post-war peak in starts has been reached in the second quarter of 1949.
In the face of the critical conditions still prevailing in Canada, we dare not accept a situation in which we look back and see, in the condition that obtained some five months ago, the peak in housing construction in Canada since the war. That would be an intolerable situation. Surely this is the time when every effort should be made to build toward new peaks in housing construction. If the minister will dedicate his considerable talents and his commendable good will in that direction, I am sure the house will applaud his efforts and will give him credit when credit is due.
Looking at other fields of government endeavour, I believe it would be well to offer a word of caution in respect to some of the statements which have fallen so freely in recent days from ministers of the crown. On the subject of veterans' rental housing, one reads at page 11 of the same report:
Starts of rental housing units for veterans under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation dropped from 2,300 during the first half of 1948 to 1,500 in the same period of 1949.
And, sir, to those who listened to the statement made in recent days by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) as to the way in which his department has been mustering its forces behind the provision of housing for married men in the services, one notes with considerable interest another sentence appearing at page 11 of the report. It has reference to construction operations in 1949 under the armed services housing program of the Department of National Defence. As hon. members are aware, that program was carried on through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The sentence is:
No starts were made in the first half of 1949.
How does this measure up alongside the statements made by the government in recent days about the tremendous efforts they have

National Housing Act
been putting behind the housing construction program for the benefit of married personnel in the armed forces?
Then, sir, as having a bearing on the question as to the principal source of effort behind the house-building program in Canada-and I affirm it still must be the private builders -the house will be interested in a statistical table appearing at page 27 of the report. There are three figures dealing with the first six months in each of the three past years, and these figures have a direct bearing on the subject.
The first deals with direct government housing, that is to say, housing built and owned by the government or a government agency. In the first six months of 1947 the figure was 1,800; for the same period in 1948 it was 3,240, and for the first six months of 1949 it was 1,626-not a formidable figure indeed, and one which shows a substantial reduction from the first six months of 1948.
Turning to the broader subject of total government-assisted housing, which includes not only the figures I have already mentioned but also all forms of government assistance to housing, including loans under part I of the National Housing Act, we find that in the whole of 1947 the figure was 20,540; in 1948 the figure for the whole year was 29,348, while in the first half of 1949 it was 11,768. The figure for the first six months of 1949 is approximately the same as that for the first six months of 1948. Therefore we do not see any appreciable advance being made in the total number of units constructed with government assistance this year, as compared with last year.
I believe a percentage comparison would be of interest. The total of government-assisted housing in the whole of 1947 as compared with the total housing constructed in Canada gives a figure of 28 per cent. In the whole of 1948 it was 33 per cent, and in the first half of 1949 the figure is 29 per cent. This shows a slight reduction in percentage, for the first half of this year as compared with the first half of last year, in housing to which the government has contributed in any form compared with the total of housing constructed.
If one compares the total of government-built housing, or direct government housing, with the total of houses built we find that in 1947 the total of government-built housing was only 9J per cent of the total number of houses built in Canada. In 1948 it was 11 per cent, and in the first half of 1949 had dropped to 4 per cent.
One other figure which has great statistical importance is the number of houses in the

construction of which the Ontario government has assisted by means of second mortgages. I shall have a word to say about that in a moment.
The minister has indicated that this bill has four major provisions. The first is the reduction in the down payment. The house will be glad to see this provision introduced into the legislation, regretting at the same time that the government has been so slow to follow the good example of the government of the province of Ontario.
Here is the other statistical figure that I wish to give the house. Since the Ontario government in 1948, one and a half years ago, instituted the plan of government second mortgages to bridge the gap between the cost of construction and the available loan on first mortgage under the National Housing Act, or by straight private loan, the number of houses that have been so assisted now totals 10,000. That, sir, is a formidable accomplishment on the part of the government of the province of Ontario. I hope that the minister and the house will be fair enough to acknowledge that, having regard to the figures which were quoted this morning, showing completions of houses in Canada, the efforts of the government of the province of Ontario in this field ought to be recognized. Not only that, sir, but the fact that in the province in one and one half years those who are constructing houses needed this form of assistance to the number of
10,000	establishes conclusively the great need that exists throughout the whole of Canada today for legislation of this kind. The house welcomes it at long last, but regrets that one and a half precious years were lost while this government was sleeping soundly and blinding itself to a useful and constructive example that was offered to it by the government of the province of Ontario.
I pass over, for the moment, the second main provision of the legislation, and take the third, which is an increase in the maximum available for home improvement and home extension. The house will be glad to provide anything in this sphere that will be put to work by the government to improve housing conditions in Canada. The house has never been niggardly or penny-pinching in its approach to this question. It has pleaded with the government for action, and it has furnished the government at all times in this critical post-war period with every tool and weapon that the government asked for to meet the needs of Canadians who lack housing and who have been living under substandard conditions. If the government will use additional money in this way for

improving housing conditions, there will be no cavilling on the part of any hon. member about making sums available for these purposes if the government will put them to work.	-
The fourth provision relates to changes made in the co-operative housing sections of the act to meet particular needs in this field, as the government sees them, in three provinces in which co-operative housing is a factor. Again I say this: While there will be something to be said in committee, on this part of the bill in general I am sure the house will grant any request the government makes that will have in it any promise of bringing about an increase in the construction of houses in Canada, or an improvement in housing conditions, but will wish to be sure that the legislation will be put to work.
I come now, sir, to the second principle that the minister emphasized. It has to do with the joint efforts on the part of the dominion and the provinces in several fields of endeavour.
When the minister visited and conferred with the governments of the provinces during the late summer and early fall, there were three subjects that came particularly to the fore. They are referred to in the minister's letter of September 13. I have in mind now particularly his letter to the premier of the province of Ontario, although a letter in almost identical terms was written by the minister on that same day to the premiers of all the provinces. In the second paragraph of the letter the minister said:
In general, I believe the provinces feel that the proposals already discussed with you are reasonable, and the dominion is prepared to proceed along these lines. Therefore on or about the 20th September I propose to make a statement in the House of Commons that the government intends to introduce legislation-
We come now, sir to the three features of the proposals:
-to enable the dominion to enter into agreements with the provinces for publicly assisted housing projects. These projects may take the form of the assembly of land and services to enable an increased volume of housing by private builders. They may take the form of the dominion and province proceeding with moderate priced houses for sale to home owners. They may also take the form of rental projects, in, which event the dominion and the province will seek local management for the project after it is completed.
The minister goes on to comment on these three features. May I, in the hope of clarification, sir, emphasize what these three proposals are, the three projects that were discussed? The first is assistance in the assembly of land and services to enable an increased volume of housing by private builders. The second is assistance for home owners to proceed with moderately priced houses-that is,
National Housing Act
house construction; and the third, rental projects with local management.
This is the observation that the minister made on the reactions of the governments of the ten provinces after his personal consultation with them:
We found that the other provinces agreed with you in favouring the first two forms of project.
Now, sir, as to the second, namely, the assistance in the construction of moderately priced houses for sale to home owners, I take it that the first feature of the bill is the one that is designed to carry out that undertaking by increasing by one-sixth the loans at present available under part I of the National Housing Act. The area, therefore, within which the second feature of the present bill will have operation, I assume, will be with respect to projects of the other two kinds mentioned by the minister in his letter-first, the assembly of land and services to enable an increased volume of housing by private builders, and the second, the rental projects.
I take it, sir, there will be no quarrel-


Robert Henry Winters: Just by way of clarification, I may say that part of the agreement between the provinces envisages the building of houses which may be put into sales position as well.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I assume there will be further clarification of that subject, perhaps when in committee we come to the particular section of the bill in which the enabling powers are proposed to be vested in the government.
The features that I have been referring to particularly, sir, are worthy of one or two further comments. I think the minister still needs to give the house further clarification of government policy with respect to rental projects, because in times past there has been the greatest variety of government statements on this subject. For years we have seen the government imposing upon municipalities the obligation to contribute subsidies. Those that wanted housing constructed by Wartime Housing Limited or the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation were called upon to contribute subsidies in the form of serviced land and the acceptance, in lieu of taxes, of grants that usually were only a fraction of the taxes that the same property would have borne had it been in private hands. Let me remind the house of the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on October 27, 1947, when he said in Montreal:
No government of which I am a part will ever pass legislation for subsidized housing.
I cannot square the statement made by the Prime Minister at that time with the statements which the Minister of Reconstruction
1778

National Housing Act
and Supply has been making in the house during the present session. If the government has abandoned the position taken by the Prime Minister; if the Prime Minister has now changed his mind and is prepared not only to be a member of but to lead a government that will pass legislation for subsidized housing, then in the name of common sense let him come forward and say so. Let him not continue to leave the house in a condition of perplexity as to just what the government's position is with reference to subsidized housing.
The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is chary about using the word "subsidized", possibly because of remarks such as those made in the past by the Prime Minister. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply talks about low rental housing. To most people low rental housing carries with it the connotation of assistance, subsidy. A subsidy may take various forms; nevertheless it is a form of assistance. I ask the government to come clean on this subject; I ask the minister really to tell the house where the government stands on the subject of subsidized housing. When they talk of assistance for low rental projects, do they mean subsidized housing? Let us have some clarification of that point.
The minister initiated his approach to this subject, and the negotiations and consultations with the governments of the provinces, by the writing of a letter to the Prime Minister on February 23, in which he dealt with statements made by the Prime Minister on the occasion of his then recent visit to Toronto. At that time the Prime Minister had had the instructive experience of seeing under construction in Toronto what is known as the Regent Park housing project, a project that was made possible by action on the part of the municipal, provincial and federal governments. On that occasion the Prime Minister was good enough to commend it in the most generous terms. His description of it was that it was a landmark in housing in Canada. This project was made possible by reason of the leadership given by the municipal government and citizens of the city of Toronto, together with the effective co-operation of the provincial government. The contribution of the dominion government was confined to a contribution toward the acquisition of land under section 12 of the act.
I take it that such measures have the approval of the government. I wish to know how far the government is prepared to go in encouraging other municipalities to adopt similar measures. I wish to know whether the federal government is prepared to use the powers that it seeks in this bill to put drive and vigour behind measures of that kind in

order to give assistance to municipalities which in many cases are ready to proceed with needed projects if they are not going to be left holding the bag.
The Prime Minister is quoted by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply in his letter as making such statements as these in his speech in Toronto:
While we hope that as much of our new housing as possible can be provided through private and local enterprise, we recognize that privately initiated housing may have to be supplemented and stimulated by even further government support for low rental housing.
The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, commenting on that statement of the Prime Minister, says in his letter to him:
Moreover there is likely to be a falling off in the demand for houses for purchase and an increase in the demand for rental units, both for veterans and civilians. There is ample indication of this already, and it is anticipated the trend will increase as the growth of economic activity levels off.
That was a word of warning to the Prime Minister by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Then there is a further quotation from the Prime Minister's speech as follows:
We realize that the magnitude of the problem of providing low rental housing is such that it will be solved only as a result of active co-operation of all governments.
Active co-operation on the part of all provincial governments is plainly assured. There can be no question left in the mind of anyone reading the correspondence exchanged between the minister and the governments of the provinces that all the provincial governments are prepared to co-operate to the limit in measures of joint government concern to meet Canada's still critical housing needs. I hope the minister will be utterly and completely frank with the house on this subject. Again I ask, what does the government mean when it talks about low rental housing projects? Does it mean subsidized housing? If so, will the minister indicate whether there are any limits to the type of the subsidy that the government proposes to make available?
I think the minister is deserving of commendation for his emphasis upon the need for local management. From the outset of studies of housing needs in Canada, it has been apparent all through the years that wherever measures of government-assisted housing require to be instituted, the emphasis must always be laid upon management at the local level, and I think the house will undoubtedly approve that proposal. By vigilant local management I hope we shall avoid some of the mistakes that were made in times past. We do not wish to see a repetition of the kind of tragic fiasco that was perpetrated by the government in some of the housing projects that were exposed in the public

accounts committee of 1947; tragic housing fiascos under the Veterans Land Act, which were directly the responsibility of the government, in regard to such projects as those at Sarnia and elsewhere which were investigated by the committee that year. We want no more of that. We want to see management, at every turn, kept as close as possible to the local level. Then we shall be sure that local public opinion will be so mustered and marshalled that tragic fiascos of that kind will not be repeated, and it will be possible to see to it that the buildings that have been constructed receive proper upkeep.
We do not want to see housing, such as was constructed by Wartime Housing during the war, fall into disrepair. We do not want to see such housing become a blot on local municipalities which are trying to improve their appearance and their local conditions through planning their development. There must be co-operation, and, in my humble submission, management at the local level will do more than anything else to bring about that vigilance which will prevent similar situations in the future.
I am sure the house welcomed the statement made by the minister this morning for its reassurance on one point, after the disappointing statement of the Minister of Finance yesterday in regard to federal assistance to municipalities. Following that statement yesterday, many of us wondered if it represented the extent to which the government was prepared to accept a tax liability, or to make payments in lieu of taxes, on housing constructed by the federal government or any of its agencies under programs such as the minister has described today. If the statement of the Minister of Finance, a statement as lengthy as it was confusing and disappointing, had been taken at its face value, we could have assumed that only some municipalities would receive payments in lieu of taxes on government housing. But the minister seems to have made it reasonably clear, by the statement he made at page 1318 of Hansard, that with respect to all housing built under this program the government will pay taxes equivalent to those the houses would bear if they were in private hands.
The statement by the minister at page 1318 of Hansard was as follows:
As I stated on September 21, we will pay grants in lieu of taxes on the basis of the normal level of taxes in the particular municipality, subject to approval by the provincial department of municipal affairs or the equivalent department.
I take it that what the minister has said today reinforces that statement, because that is a question of prime importance in this whole matter. It would be of little help to these municipalities, many of whom are in
National Housing Act
no position to undertake the expenditures required to service further blocks of land for house construction, to say to them: We and the provincial government will contribute to the cost of servicing, but we are not going to improve the basis of payments in lieu of taxes made hitherto by government agencies. In the past such government agencies as Wartime Housing Limited and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have not been making payments equivalent to the taxes these properties would have borne had they been in private hands. In some cases in the larger cities the payments made by these dominion government agencies have been little more than one-third. In other municipalities the percentage may have worked out at a higher proportion; but in general one may say that those payments in lieu of taxes have not even approached the taxes those properties would have borne had they been in private hands.
It is quite clear in the correspondence that the provinces have interpreted the views of the government as I, for one, am interpreting the statement of the minister; that is, that the policy which has prevailed hitherto will not hereafter be followed but that a new policy will be instituted under which payments will be made by these government agencies in lieu of taxes which will be equivalent to the tax payments the same houses would bear if they were in private hands. If there is any thought on the part of the government of withdrawing in any degree from that position, I ask the minister in all frankness to declare it before this debate concludes, because it is a matter of fundamental importance to the success of this whole project.
The statement of the minister was lacking in one respedt. I think most hon. members looked for something to be said in regard to plans for pressing research. Today the minister did not say anything about the very important subject of research. I hope that before the debate concludes the minister will take it upon himself to give the house some wholesome assurance that effort will not be spared in pressing on with enterprises of research.
The minister made reference to the importance of at least stabilizing house construction costs, and lowering them if possible. Certainly a lowering in the cost of construction, if it did not mean sacrifices in other respects, such as economic activity in different quarters, undoubtedly would be of great assistance in stimulating the construction of houses in Canada. In the face of certain existing factors, with the continued scarcity of many building materials, it may be unreasonable to expect any noticeable reduction in building costs in the near future.

National Housing Act
It seems to me this points up the necessity of taking advantage of every opportunity, through research, of developing improved methods of construction and lowering those costs, and I hope the minister will give the house some reassurance on this question, because of its great importance.
Now, sir, I come to my concluding thought. The minister has quite properly said that this bill is general in form and enabling in character. In one respect that can be a strength; in other respects it can be a great weakness. So far as the strength is concerned, I think the house will wish to see a flexible approach to this question. The house will not quarrel with the minister's insistence upon flexibility, and will endorse every syllable the minister uttered when he said he thought we should use every approach; those were his words, and they are commendable. There can be no thought of forcing any province to embark upon a particular type of approach to a solution to the housing problem. There must be co-operation; there must be no attempt at compulsion. It may be that projects in different parts of the country will assume different forms. It is more than likely, it seems to me, that projects in our large urban centres, where housing conditions are so acute today, will not take the same form as those initiated under this dominion-provincial co-operative effort in other areas. So much for the desirability of flexibility.
But, sir, when the minister says that this bill is enabling in character, it brings directly before this house two points of the highest importance. The first is this: What is to be the responsibility of parliament in this respect? Is it enough for parliament simply to clothe the government with very wide powers? I submit that this is' not enough. Parliament does not discharge its responsibility simply by giving the government wide powers. Parliament must accept its responsibility to see that the powers given to the government are used for purposes that parliament will approve. How does parliament satisfy itself that these measures will be used resolutely, effectively, vigorously and insistently in coping with housing conditions in Canada? At this stage we simply have the assurance of the minister. Again I do not wish to embarrass him, but I think he has a very high standing among all parties in this house. I think all parties in this house will give him every assistance within their power, both in writing legislation and in putting forward proposals as to ways in which this legislation can be used for the purposes for which parliament intends it. But sir, at the moment, we have only a statement from the minister. The house will have to assume the serious responsibility of maintaining vigilance

to ensure that these powers are used effectively as parliament intends them to be used.
In times past, this house has clothed the government with powers which the government sought. It is fair to say there never has been any disposition on the part of the house to deny this government any power it requested which promised any contribution whatever to an improvement in housing conditions in any part of Canada. The attitude of the house has always been to push the government forward, not to hold it back. I believe that is the position of the house today, sir-that we are pressing the government to go forward. We will never hold the government back.


Mr. Knowles:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he recall that on May 20, 1948, when there was a proposal before the house in the form of a motion requesting the government to consider subsidized low rental housing, the hon. member and his party voted against it? Surely that is not pushing the government forward; that is holding it back.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member seems to be directing that question to me. If he will look up what I said on that occasion before the vote was taken, he will see the reason I gave was that no party could undertake to commit itself to a bald statement of that kind without knowing what was involved in it. A party would have to know what were to be the responsibilities of the governments at various levels; what was to be the nature of the various forms of construction that may be undertaken. Anyone who has made a study of public housing measures in various countries knows that there has been a variety of approaches. To take one of these socialist tidbits dangled in front of the house and say you must swallow it whole is something that no self-respecting party, apart from our socialist friends, is going to do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You took the same position as the Prime Minister took, and yet you condemn him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Prime Minister will have to answer for himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And you, too.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have answered for myself, and my statement is on the record. I am quite prepared to repeat that statement and take the same position today. If the hon. member wants information on the subject, and the house will recognize his need of it, certainly that information is available to him in an official statement this party made during the election campaign. Our position has been made clear before the whole of the people of Canada.

What is more, this party does not simply ask the people of Canada to accept statements. We point to the record of the government of the province of Ontario, which has done more in the field of housing than any other government in Canada. If one desires a signpost to point the way to effective measures to grapple with housing conditions in Canada, then I commend to him the legislation adopted by the legislature of the province of Ontario under the leadership of my leader.


Clarence Gillis: Why is Ontario so short of housing today?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Because of conditions for which the federal government is principally responsible. During those years the government controlled all forms of construction materials, and those controls are still in effect in some form or other. In the face of all these powers, with unlimited resources, huge budget surpluses and revenue flowing into the treasury, Ottawa's policy created these substantial influxes of population into the populated centres of Ontario, where so many of the factories engaged in war production were concentrated. It is quite clear that the shortage of housing was the result of conditions arising out of the policies of the federal government. I do not condemn all those policies; nevertheless it was the policies of the federal government that were principally responsible for the creation of those conditions in Ontario.
It was the government of the province of Ontario, and action on the part of municipalities in the province of Ontario, that were largely responsible for the effective measures taken to meet the conditions in that province. For the information of my friend, I repeat that since the enactments of 1948 in the legislature of Ontario, under the government then headed by my leader, 10,000 houses have been constructed. Their construction was made possible by one feature of that legislation, and that is the provision of money on second mortgage. The government of the province of Ontario led the way and showed an example to this government which it has been slow to follow.


Clarence Gillis: Has not the legislation which the hon. member refers to been withdrawn?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The legislation has not been withdrawn; it is still on the statute book. My friend is referring to a statement made yesterday by the premier of Ontario, which was fully expected, that when this bill comes into effect to provide, as it will, an increase of one-sixth in the present loans, there will be no occasion to continue after December 31 that one feature in the legislation of the province of Ontario. But sir, that was one
National Housing Act
feature out of four leading features of the housing legislation introduced in Ontario, and the other three remain.
At the commencement of my remarks I promised I was not going to repeat the speech I made in this house on October 31. Since my friend has asked me a question I shall, modestly and respectfully, refer him to the speech I made on that occasion, in which I reviewed in detail those beneficial measures. By the enactment of that legislation in Ontario, leadership was given in helping to solve this problem. We have been waiting a long time for leadership from the government benches opposite. If we can see any sign of leadership now, we will applaud it and back it up. If the leadership is not forthcoming, then the government can expect everything that opposition members can do by way of exposing the shortcomings of the administration.
I would have completed my remarks sooner, sir, but for these last few questions. I am not suggesting for a moment that 1 disliked the questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They made your speech interesting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They may have accomplished something new in that respect.
I laid stress upon the nature of the bill, that it was enabling legislation. I was emphasizing the importance of the responsibility resting upon this house to see to it that that enabling legislation is used for the purposes for which parliament considers it is enacting it. Effective supervision cannot be undertaken under the procedures available in the house today. No machinery exists that will enable the house to give effective supervision to the government's administration of measures of this kind. I urge again, therefore, that provision be made for the establishment of a committee of this house that will concern itself with frequent review of housing conditions in Canada. Through that means this house could ensure that the government is giving the vigorous prosecution to the efforts which the house is making possible under this legislation and which the house will insist be made.
There is no use in saying that these questions can be discussed on the estimates. Discussion on the estimates is the clumsiest vehicle imaginable for reviewing housing conditions. The house has to be on top of this housing situation, and it cannot be unless there is machinery available, such as a committee, before which witnesses, such as the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, can be called, thus enabling the

National Housing Act
house to keep a constant check upon the government's efforts and the needed progress. It is a reasonable request.


Mr. Ferrie:: May I ask the hon. member a question? What percentage of material did you get in Ontario last year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman flatters me if he thinks that I carry in my head figures such as that. I shall be glad to assist him in getting the information, if he wants it. The information is available. I do not profess to be able to give the answer offhand. I will tell him this, however:	If he will review
some of the reports of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation he will find that, while progress has been made in the production of some building materials, there is still reason for much concern over the shortage of other building materials. I wish the hon. member had been in this house to see the fight that we in the official opposition have had to make against apathy, inertia and lack of information on the part of the government with reference to such a simple building need as nails.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: I should like to ask the hon. member-


Donald Methuen Fleming: We were given assurances about the great profusion of nails in the country at a time when you could not lay your hand on a new steel nail anywhere. To hear the present Minister of Trade and Commerce talk at that time, you would think that the country was full of nails. That was just how far this government was removed from reality.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: May I ask the hon. member this question? How did you build 10,000 houses if you could not get nails? We could not get nails in western Canada for love or money, but you could get them in Ontario.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can assure the hon. member that those 10,000 houses were built as a result of diligent effort on the part of builders who used their opportunities under the free enterprise system,-


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: Everything for Ontario.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -to the extent that their efforts were not hamstrung by government red tape. Moreover, if the hon. member thinks that Ontario was relatively better supplied than other provinces with nails and other building materials, then he has been misinformed; because the point where the critical shortage of nails and other building commodities was most acutely felt, relatively -and when I say relatively, I mean in relation to the need-was in Ontario.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: You did not answer the question. How did you build 10,000 houses if you could not get nails?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They were built in Ontario; and more houses would have been built if more building materials had been available, and if the efforts of those who were engaged in producing building materials, in distributing them and using them in construction, had not been hamstrung and hampered by the government that the hon. member was elected to support.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And if you had not voted
against subsidized low rental housing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am willing to stay with this, Mr. Speaker, as long as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) continues to contribute such utterly foolish and inane remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that upon reflection, the hon. gentleman would not like to have that remark stay to his credit. He will remember that on that occasion to which I referred-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is this a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: A question of privilege. He will remember that on the occasion to which I referred, the former member for Parkdale, Mr. Timmins, and others asked for subsidized low rental housing; and it was after we moved the amendment, calling for the very thing that he had asked for, that my hon. friend and his friends were embarrassed and then voted against the very thing they had asked for.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, a more spurious point of privilege? The hon. member did not have any point of privilege at all. He just wanted to get up and contribute his two cents' worth by way of interjection-not that his two cents' worth is worth answering. If he is open to be told anything, I will tell him this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Come on. I am all ears.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On that occasion I had no intention, nor have I today, nor, I am quite sure, has the responsible party to which I am proud to belong, of swallowing, hook, line and sinker, one of these coy little formulas of about six words such as was dangled before the house by the socialists in that amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Such as you asked for.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Had we been foolish enough io fall into their trap, they could have put any interpretation whatsoever that pleased them upon our adherence to their amendment. We are a responsible party. We do not put forward irresponsible amendments, and we do not subscribe to irresponsible amendments put forward by parties that perhaps do not view their responsibilities in quite the same light as we do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are not going to be taking jumps in the dark simply to satisfy the egotism of our socialist friends in drafting these cute amendments with tidbits hung on the end of them. If the hon. member wishes to be fair in giving the house information, he will read to the house the amendment put forward by the Progressive Conservative party in that same debate, on the same motion, and he will see there a constructive proposal for joint action on the part of the various governments in this country, at their respective levels, and especially with a view to providing government-assisted housing for those who have first claim upon it, namely, the veterans of Canada. If the hon. member wishes to treat the house with frankness instead of interjecting spurious points of privilege, and lop-sided and unfair interpretations, I think it is high time for him to change his tactics and give the house the whole story, not his carefully selected portion of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He will.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If hon. members will permit me, I should like to conclude my remarks. I had hoped to finish before this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You were finished long ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is more of it, Mr. Speaker. You can see who is responsible for the length of these remarks.
This is my concluding plea. I hope that the government will agree to let the house establish workable machinery under which parliament will have an opportunity of seeing that the government does carry forward this housing program with such drive, vigour and energy as the house certainly will demand of it.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. J. W. Noseworlhy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in order that the readers ot Hansard may be able to appreciate more fully
National Housing Act
the consistency of my good friends of the Progressive Conservative party, I should like for a moment to refer back to a little argument that developed in the house just before one o'clock between the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
That argument arose over a vote in the house on a C.C.F. amendment to a bill amending the National Housing Act in May of 1948. At some length this morning the hon. member for Eglinton gave his explanation for the action taken by his party in the vote on that amendment. Incidentally he described the amendment as tricky, and a socialistic tidbit. What are the facts as recorded in Hansard?
They are these. During the course of the debate several members on the Progressive Conservative benches, along with a number of C.C.F. members, argued that the government should make provision in that bill for subsidized low-rental housing. I have read a number of those speeches, and so far as I can discover both Progressive Conservative and C.C.F. members in that debate spoke almost the same language on the subject, and discussed subsidized low-rental housing in almost the same terms.
After the Progressive Conservative amendment to the bill had been ruled out of order, the C.C.F. moved an amendment on May 5, 1948, as recorded at page 3644 of Hansard- no, I should say it was moved on May 19 and is recorded at page 4164 of Hansard.


Mr. Fraser:: We can see who wrote the speech for him.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The amendment stated:
That Bill No. 280 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to providing subsidized low-rental housing.
I should like to read into the record a statement made during that debate by a member of the Progressive Conservative party who, among others, spoke in favour of subsidized housing. This is the quotation from a speech delivered on May 5 by the then member for Vancouver-Burrard, Mr. Merritt, as recorded at page 3644 of Hansard:
I believe that the basic reason for the change in the government's attitude is that it has refused to enter the field of subsidized low-rental housing for those in the low-income group. The minister knows it is not possible to provide rental housing at rents which those in the low-income group can afford to pay, unless this type of housing is subsidized.
And a little later he said:
I say to him-
-and he was speaking to the minister-
-that this is the time to face up to the problem of subsidized low-rental housing.

National Housing Act
And a little later:
There is nothing necessarily socialistic about subsidizing housing for the low-income groups. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and no other minister need ever worry about that. Subsidized housing for those with low incomes was introduced in Great Britain in 1920 by a Conservative government, and it has been in operation, and in useful operation, in the United States of America since 1938 or thereabouts.
Those sentiments are expressed in language very similar to that used by C.C.F. members and others in the house over the years. Then came the vote on the amendment, and every Progressive Conservative member who remained in the house tor the vote, including the hon. member for Eglinton, voted against it-I presume on the ground set forth this morning by the hon. member.
I submit that was not a tricky amendment. It was not a socialistic tidbit. It was as straightforward as any amendment moved by a private member on that particular bill could possibly have been. It was surprising therefore to find Progressive Conservative members voting as they did. Readers of Hansard will have to judge for themselves and reach their own conclusions. I submit however that Progressive Conservatives are in favour of subsidized low-rental housing, provided the measure is brought in by their own party. They appear to be so befuddled by their capitalistic free-enterprise thinking that they cannot even recognize something for which they themselves have asked when it is introduced by a member of the C.C.F.
I should like to make one further comment, since the hon. member for Eglinton chose to introduce provincial politics into the debate, just in case other hon. members from other provinces may gather from his grandiloquent expression of achievements of the Conservative government of Ontario that we have no housing problem in Ontario. Let me assure the house that, notwithstanding the fact that since 1943 we have had a Conservative government in Ontario, the housing situation in that province is just as acute as it is anywhere else in Canada. I believe I can say that the sole effective step taken by that government from 1943 to the present time to relieve the housing situation there has been the provision of second mortgage money to the purchasers of homes where the security was not sufficient to warrant their friends, the mortgage bankers and trust companies, to risk their money.
I will admit that householders who otherwise would not have been able to purchase homes have been placed in a position where they could purchase them-but those purchases have been made by tying around their necks another millstone in the form of second mortgages, a condition which may well lead

in the near future to a repetition of what happened in the thirties, when tens of thousands of home owners lost their homes and their investments, and when those same mortgage bankers and trust companies reaped a bonanza in the form of repossessed housing.
We have before us today the 1949 edition of the Liberal government's housing plan. As you know, sir, there was also the 1945 edition. That is the edition which was publicized during the election campaign in the spring of 1945. Hon. members opposite will undoubtedly recognize this little pamphlet which was prepared under the auspices of the national Liberal federation, Ottawa, and printed in Winnipeg. It is called, "New Housing Plan of the Liberal Government". It was new in the spring of 1945. It calls for the building of a new social order in Canada. A fine new building plan for Canada is pictured. On the front page is depicted a man holding a model of a house that was to be built for $3,000, and was to be purchased at $13.82 a month, plus municipal taxes. There was a cheaper house as well, one at $2,000, which was to be available at $9.58 a month. On the inside we are told how it works and what it means. We find this choice bit:
This plan means more and better homes for hundreds of thousands of families. It means closing the present gap between our housing needs and the number of homes available.
On page 3 we are told that the low-cost home ownership is just part of the housing plan. It says:
Legislation-
I do not know where the legislation was. This pamphlet told the electors in 1945:
Legislation also provides for low-rental housing.
There were to be houses for rent. There was to be slum clearance. There was to be a large-scale housing development. There were to be houses for farm families, houses for returned men, and there was to be a department of the government set up for development and research, and all this for $9.58 a month, and yet some people talk about the C.C.F. making promises and talking about pie-in-the-sky. I suggest that no Canadian citizen has ever been able to eat pie under the roof of any of these houses that had been built by the Liberal government since 1945 at either $9.58 or $13.82 a month.
When we begin to come to grips with this housing problem, sir, the first fact that confronts us is the shortage of houses. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) says the Conservative government in Ontario has done, notwithstanding all the glowing promises of the Liberal party in 1945 and again in 1949 there is still a tragic shortage of houses. The 100,000 units

which it is expected will be built this year will barely take care of this year's new requirements.
A report on the housing problem by the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities estimates that today throughout Canada there are 300,000 more household groups than there are individual residential units. They go on to say that there is another 300,000 units still being occupied which, by modern standards of what constitutes good housing, should long since have been demolished.
Our present rate of housing, high as it may be compared with past years, is just not catching up on that backlog of 300,000 houses needed if our people are to find any kind of house, apart from providing replacements for the 300,000 no longer fit for human habitation. That is the first fact confronting us. At the present time we need 300,000 houses to provide any kind of homes for our people and another 300,000 to replace dilapidated houses that are now occupied.
The second fact is that the policy we have been following has, in effect, resulted in overbuilding for certain economic groups and under-building for others, and these others are those whose need is most acute, and who are unable to afford the rent or purchase price at the prevailing high construction costs. For this class, notwithstanding all the lavish promises we have had from the Liberal party since 1945, we are as yet building no houses at all. That is the second fact to be considered.
The third fact to be considered is that with the demand for housing at the prevailing high cost already beginning to fall off it is not reasonable to expect private building to go on creating a surplus big enough to provide any housing for low-income families. There again the federation of mayors points out in their report that lending institutions will no longer keep on financing projects for which there is no ready market. With these facts in mind it becomes self-evident that any housing bill which will adequately meet the need must do one or both of two things. First, it must provide for the building of houses at a price where the monthly purchase price or the economic rent comes within the ability of middle- and low-income groups to purchase or rent.
Second, it must provide a rental subsidy of at least $20 a month and build a minimum of 12,000 houses a year on that monthly rental subsidy basis for the next ten years.
I chose the figure 12,000 because the Canadian construction association says that available labour and building material are sufficient at the present time for the building of 12,000 low-rental dwellings a year for ten years, presumably without interfering in
National Housing Act
any way with our present policy of building high priced houses, as many of them as can be sold, and without interfering with the present policy of permitting the building of theatres, hotels, gasoline stations, beverage rooms, cocktail bars, factories, stores and so forth, that the market can absorb.
Or, third, such a bill must provide for a combination of lower costs and rental subsidies.
Now, sir, let us examine the principles of the bill before us with these points in mind. The bill does contain five provisions that are helpful-helpful to the extent that half a loaf is better than no bread. The first of these provisions is for a second loan which will reduce the down payment. Second, the extension of the amortization period from 25 to 30 years; third, a vague sort of control over the price, since the second mortgage is to be made contingent upon the selling price being reasonable, whatever that may mean.
Then there is a provision for building houses for rent in conjunction with the provinces; and lastly, the extension of national housing assistance to the co-operatives on a more generous scale.
The first and second provisions of the bill are designed to make it easier for the purchaser to make his down payment, and it spreads his payment out over an additional five years because of the increased mortgage. It does nothing whatever to reduce the cost of housing. As I have pointed out already, I fear that the result of the measure may well be, as in the case of Ontario, a repetition in the near future of the situation that faced us in the thirties when home owners, carrying mortgages larger than they were able to pay, lost their homes when they were repossessed by mortgage companies and banks.
One of the major factors in the cost of houses today is the interest charge, and the bill does nothing whatever to reduce it. We hear a great deal about feather bedding by certain groups of people. We hear that bricklayers are feather bedding, that they should lay more bricks, and that the building trade workers are getting too much wages. We do not hear about the feather bedding being done by real estate speculators and mortgage bankers. The biggest feather bed in Canada today is that on which the mortgage bankers are sleeping, and the bill does nothing to reduce the size of that bed.
To illustrate how interest enters into the cost of a house, I want to take the example of a $10,000 dwelling. I take that figure because it represents about the lowest priced house that can be bought in Toronto or the Yorks at the present time. Today $10,000 is the market price of a bungalow with two

National Housing Act bedrooms downstairs, and two unfinished attic rooms. If we take a $10,000 house carrying two mortgages, as provided for in the bill, and I presume bearing interest on both mortgages at 4| per cent over a period of thirty years, such a house, with a first mortgage to the extent of 80 per cent of the cost, $8,000, and a second mortgage which is one-sixth of $8,000, or roughly about $1,300, or a total mortgage of $9,300, will cost $15,900 when paid for, $5,900 more than the original cost. I suggest that if the same house were built with money bearing interest at 2J per cent amortized over thirty years, it could be purchased for $36.73 per month exclusive of taxes instead of $46.96, and would eventually cost the purchaser $13,222 or a saving of $2,700. If the same money were amortized at 2J per cent over forty years, compounded half yearly as I suggest in all these calculations, a $10,000 house could then be purchased for $30.60 per month exclusive of taxes, and would still cost the purchaser over $1,000 less on his forty-year payments than it would cost on the thirty-year payment plan at 4J per cent.
I am talking now about the middle income group, that percentage of our population now in receipt of incomes from $2,000 to $3,000 a year, and I submit that the government in any measure which attempts to provide for that class should reduce the interest payments to 2J per cent and extend amortization to forty years. As evidence that I am not being unrealistic, I want to call the following facts to the attention of the house. A labour press release from Washington dated November 4 indicates that members of the United States senate housing subcommittee, who have just returned from a tour of European housing, report that in Scandinavia government loans for co-operative housing are made at 2J per cent, about the cost of the money to the government, and that payments are spread over one hundred years on houses of brick and stone construction, and over sixty years on houses of wood construction. That is the report of the United States senate housing subcommittee.
The United States co-operative housing bill now before their senate calls for government loans at 3 per cent and amortization over a period of fifty years. In the United States public housing on a large scale has been built in the past with government money loaned at less than 2 per cent. In New Zealand 30,000 rental homes have been built with money loaned by the New Zealand government at from 1 to 14 per cent. As has been pointed out here, even the Conservative government of Ontario has been advancing government money at 3 per cent. The federal


government advances money to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at 2 per cent, and money to limited dividend companies at 3J per cent. Yet it insists on charging co-operative builders and others 4J per cent. Surely there is no justification for a government charging 4J per cent if it wants to bring housing even within the reach of the middle income group.
A noted United States authority, Nathan Strauss, writing in his book "Seven Myths of Housing", has this to say:
A reduction in financial charges, that is, interest and amortization, by half would effect a greater reduction in annual costs than cutting in half both the cost of labour and materials.
A Canadian authority, Leonard Marsh, writing in Public Affairs of October, 1947, says:
If the interest rate should be cut by one-third, say from 3 to 2 per cent, operation costs would be reduced 12 to 15 per cent.
The government proposes to place some check on the selling prices of houses on which there is a second loan. May I point out that in the bill the government appears to be making no attempt whatever to check profiteering on building materials, real estate speculation, or excessive profits by contractors. There is a widespread belief in Canada that building costs are unwarrantably high. I most strongly recommend to the government that they give heed to the request of Mr. A. R. Mosher of the Canadian Congress of Labour for a royal commission to go into the whole question of building costs. I submit that such a commission should investigate whether or not contractors are making excessive profits, whether or not the cost of building materials is unduly high, whether labour costs are unduly high, whether real estate interests are profiteering, whether interest rates can be reduced, and also whether the decentralization of the industry is making for higher unit costs than are necessary.
If the government is serious in its desire to provide homes for those people in the middle income bracket, receiving from $2,000 to $3,000 income, who can afford only $30 or $40 a month in payments or rental for housing, then I have three suggestions to offer. First is the extension of the amortization period to forty years; second, the provision of government money to builders, co-operatives, municipalities, and home purchasers at two and a half per cent. I can see no good reason why, in its effort to protect private enterprise, this government should refuse to lend money to people building in a metropolitan area, and lend only to those in outlying districts where loans have been refused by insurance companies. That seems to me to imply that this government is much more

concerned with protecting private interests who lend money than in having houses built for the people who need them. In the third place I suggest an acceptance of Mr. Mosher's suggestion for an investigation into the whole question of building costs.
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to the question of providing homes for the one-third of our people who cannot afford to pay more than $20 per month. According to an investigation by Dr. Leonard Marsh, as reported in a Star editorial some little time ago, 33-4 per cent of our people today are receiving less than $2,000 per year, even though their income is twice what it was in the pre-war years. Under instructions given by the government to those who borrow under the National Housing Act, one should not be required to pay more than twenty per cent of his gross income for housing, including rental or mortgage payments, taxes and so on. On that basis some 33-4 per cent of our people cannot afford to pay more than from $15 to $30 per month, and there simply are no houses available at those prices. I have here pages of advertisements from the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star taken last week end. Here are the rents being charged in Toronto today: five-room bungalow, one year lease, $150 per month; brand new five-room bungalow, $150 monthly to reliable tenants; fine large brick house, sixteen rooms, $200 a month; house on a quiet street near shopping, eight rooms, $125; four unfurnished rooms, new home, $100; five-room upper suite, $115; four and a half room upper duplex, $150. And so on. Those are about the only houses available in Toronto for rent today.
In view of what I have said in reference to the price of houses and the need for them I would ask the minister to indicate clearly to this house whether or not this bill provides for subsidized housing in the sense that a rental reduction fund will be established and a subsidy will be paid on rent for people in the lower income group. Does the bill provide for a subsidy on rent, or does it provide only for a subsidy on the cost of construction? In view of what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said about subsidized housing, in view of the vagueness of this bill, I think the minister owes it to this country to state in a forthright manner whether or not this legislation envisages a subsidized housing plan under which the difference between the economic rent and the rent people can afford to pay will be met by a monthly subsidy from a rent reduction fund. I think that is the most important question before us today. If the government does not visualize the construction of houses on that basis, I submit that by its recent action in connection with rentals the government is
National Housing Act
merely adding more confusion and more hardship to a housing situation that is driving hundreds of thousands of people to the point of despair. If the government were half as interested in building houses for people as they were in building an iron curtain around the McGregor report concerning flour, we would have houses available today for these people.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I want to submit that in view of the fact that rentals are invariably tied up with the whole question of housing, and in view of the fact that the federal government may soon pass out of the picture as far as rent control is concerned, consideration should be given by the government to rescinding the order concerning rentals which was made public a few days ago. At this point, with your permission, I desire to move the following amendment:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give immediate and prior consideration to rescinding the order announced on November 3 providing for increases in domestic rents.
Mr. C. E. Johnston {Bow River): I wish to say a very few words on this occasion. The last time this matter was before the house I spoke at some length, but there are many points which I desire to discuss in detail when the bill is before the committee. I should like to take this opportunity of saying to the minister that I think the bill he proposes is an improvement on anything we have had up to date. There are a great many ways in which I believe the bill could be improved, but at least the government has taken one small step in that direction. There is necessity for a decided improvement in housing conditions in Canada.
It seems to me that now there is a greater need for housing than ever. If the effort were put forth that this problem deserves, I believe great strides could be taken in solving it. Whether or not the bill which is before the house will solve the problem remains to be seen. I notice that when the minister was speaking he gave figures to show that the housing condition was improving. In that connection, I should like to read an article published in the Ottawa Citizen which quotes the dominion bureau of statistics on the housing problem. The article is dated October 13 and reads as follows:
This was reported by the bureau of statistics yesterday in its monthly housing bulletin. It showed, however, that fewer new houses were started this year than last.
That is not in accord with the minister's statement. The article continues:
Starts during the seven months of 1949 totalled 49,285 compared with 49,452 in the first seven months of 1948.

National Housing Act
According to these figures released by the dominion bureau of statistics, there were less houses started this year than last year. 1 understood the minister to say that more houses were started this year than last year, so there must be something wrong. The figures I have quoted were released by the dominion bureau of statistics. Certainly, it is evident that the rate at which houses are being built is not meeting our requirements. Some different measures, therefore, will have to be taken if we are to overcome that lag.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I think one of the most urgent needs in Canada today is a program which will supply low-rental housing. No matter how many houses we may build for those who have sufficient money to construct them under private enterprise, no matter how many of those houses we may build for those who can take advantage of the National Housing Act, it still will not meet the requirements of people who have not the money to build a house. This is particularly true of the labouring class. These people just have not enough money to lay aside a portion of their monthly income to make the required down payment. It does not matter how small that down payment is.
As the member who preceded me said, people cannot afford to spend more than one-fifth of their income for rent. That being so, the greatest need is for low-rental housing. Labouring people, and many so-called white collar employees, are in positions which do not lend themselves to the owing of a house. Some of these people are apt to be transferred from one position to another, yet they have not a sufficient income to pay the exorbitant rents which are being asked today. The other day I pointed out that there are thousands of people in this country, and in my own city particularly, that are receiving from $100 to $135 per month. It is exceedingly difficult to lay aside sufficient from that salary to pay rentals of anywhere from $40 to $70 per month. Many of these people cannot afford to pay anything in excess of $20 per month for rent.
This is the problem with which we are faced today, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me inevitable that this government will have to have a program of subsidized low-rental housing. The problem cannot be solved through any financial corporation. It must be done through the government, if we are to give the people who so urgently need it low-rental housing.
Let me speak for a moment about the cost of housing. When it comes to dealing with those people who are taking advantage of the National Housing Act, then of course the cost of the house is a material consideration. One of the factors which contribute to the high

cost of building a house under the national housing plan is the rate of interest that must be paid. I have always maintained that 4J per cent or 5 per cent is entirely too much. As I said on one other occasion last year, it seems to me that the government is now endeavouring to provide a field of investment for financial institutions instead of building low-cost houses. During the war and since that time I have oftened wondered where the mortgage companies would have received anything approaching 41, per cent for their money if the government had not initiated this housing program. There is no other field in which these loan companies could have invested their money so safely.
This is particularly true when one considers that the government guarantees their losses to the extent of 25 per cent. It seems to me a safe investment for the mortgage companies, because they take absolutely no risk that I can see. They take no responsibility for the construction of the house. The onus is entirely on the purchaser, and it is so stated in the contract. If the purchaser fails to make one payment on time, his whole equity may be entirely washed out.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that on another occasion I had the contracts here in the house. When I raised the question at that time, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. He pointed out to me how absurd it was for me to suggest that these loan companies would be so inhuman as to throw people out of their homes and destroy their equity. At that time I said that it was not whether they would or would not do it, but there was a provision in the contract which enabled the loan companies to wipe out every cent the purchaser had put into the house. That very thing did come to pass. Veterans in Calgary who built under the N.H.A. lost every cent they had put in those houses, owing entirely to the mortgage company's foreclosing on them because they had not made payments, and for other reasons. I believe that one of the greatest contributions the minister could make to prospective builders would be to see that these contracts are redrawn so that the man who purchases a house under the National Housing Act will be guaranteed his equity in that property.
One large item of cost which enters into the building of a house is the interest charges. I am entirely in accord with those who suggest that the interest rates under the National Housing Act should be cut down. Surely, an insurance company should not be given any greater interest rate on its investment than the ordinary person who is trying

to provide for comfort in his old age by buying an annuity. The government saw fit to reduce the rates on annuities from 4 per cent to 3 per cent. If it was fair to do that, surely it is just as fair to reduce these interest rates from 4J per cent to 3 per cent.
The minister said, I think-though I am just speaking from recollection now-that the cost of materials was down about 1 per cent and that wages were up about 3 per cent. I do not know where he got his information in that regard. The cost of building a house today definitely is 50 per cent higher than it was right after the war. I know that from an actual experience of my own. For the house that I built four years ago, the lumber alone would cost me $3,500 more now; or rather, a year ago it would have cost me that; it would cost even more than that now. The lumberman who supplied the lumber gave me that quotation. That is a tremendous increase in the cost of lumber alone. I have yet to see any lumber yards with which I have ever done business going broke.
But that cost is not nearly so bad as the tremendous interest rates which these people are asked to pay on their loans. It may be true that wages have increased; in fact, it is true. There is no doubt about that. That too would add to the costs. But I believe the government could render a service to the people of Canada if they would take such steps as are necessary to see to it that the costs of building materials are reduced.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, when I was going through the United States on my way home- we have not a Canadian highway on which we can travel; we must go through the United States; when he gets the houses built, perhaps the minister will give us a highway -I made it my business to check on the cost of some of the building materials. I found that, even on the west coast, where prices are higher than they are in the central part of the United States, lumber was cheaper there than it was in western Canada. I found that plumbing equipment was cheaper there than it is here, as was hardware. It seems to me that there is quite a field there which might be advantageously investigated, and that the result might be worth-while savings in the construction of these houses.
Let me speak of one other thing which the minister mentioned, namely, the price of ;hese houses, and particularly the end price. When the minister was speaking on Septem-rer 21, as reported at page 119 of Hansard, re had this to say:
It is proposed that the present level of loans to louse builders would be little changed.
Then on a little further:
There would be no restrictions upon the builder is to the price at which he may sell the house.
National Housing Act
In my view that is wrong. The minister of course will say to me: If we are going to give a loan on a house, then the price must be fair and reasonable; and this morning I think he gave the formula on which that fair and reasonable price would be determined. But in my judgment that is not enough. I do not see how this government can loan money to contractors building houses and then permit them to sell those houses at any price they like. To me that just does not seem to be good business. But I take it that is exactly what will happen under this plan. I believe that there should be some control on the selling price of the house.
The government of course may be trying to get out from under something which they have experienced in the past.
In answer to one of the questions put to him, the minister repeated what he had said on many other occasions, namely that there was no contract between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the lending institution and the builder. I disagree with that statement, and I hope that some of the courts will disagree with it. Without question, there is an agreement. You can call it an agreement, a contract or anything you like. There is an agreement between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the lending institution and the builder. Whether you call it an agreement or a contract is a matter of quibbling, I think. Under that agreement certain standards of buildings are set up. Specifications must be submitted, and a plan must be submitted for the approval of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If that does not constitute a contract, I do not know what does. There you have the type of house determined, and you have the plans and specifications submitted. They must meet the approval of the institution. If that is so-and I take it that it is so, because I have seen the agreement-surely the government must have some say as to the selling price of that house.
The minister went on to say a while ago that it was not the cost that mattered but that it was the selling price. Then we must take into consideration the selling price; and if the government, through the lending institution, is going to make building loans to these builders building for sale, then certainly there must be some control on the selling price of that house. Suppose that a fair and reasonable price for a house is, we will say, $8,000. Are we going to allow them to sell that house for $12,000 or $14,000 to people who are desirous of buying it and who of necessity must buy a house? If we are trying to solve our housing problem, are we going to allow these men whom the government finances through the lending institutions to hold up the public who are in such great need of these houses? It

National Housing Act
just does not sound sensible. My view therefore is that there must be some control over the selling prices of these houses of the type of which I was just speaking.
In my remarks today I am endeavouring to give the house some suggestions whereby I think our building program can be improved.
I want to say something about the qualifications of the builder. I do so because experience has taught us that the greatest difficulty the housing program has ever got into was because of some of the things I am about to mention now, and have mentioned in the past. One of them is the soundness of the construction. I have told the minister this privately,
I tell it to him here, and I have mentioned it in the house before. I think one of the greatest difficulties the government has found itself in was not through their building program exactly but rather through the inefficiency and incompetence of the inspectors employed by them. On almost every occasion I can think of I could trace the difficulty back to inefficient inspection. In the little pamphlet which the government puts out, it is true that they speak about sound standards of construction, and about the specifications and so on. An outline is given in the book which the government sends out, or which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation sends out to the public, called "The Integrated Housing Plan", which is distributed all over the country. The people who get that book have confidence that the houses that are going to be built will be of sound construction.
That is not just so. They are fooled again, as the hon. member for Medicine Hat points out. Certainly if the buildings were constructed according to plans and specifications they would be of sound construction. The point arises however that the man whom the government has as its inspector has never seen to it that the plans and specifications were followed. In a great number of cases the specifications of the house have changed entirely without the knowledge of the purchaser, although such purchaser must assume all the responsibility together with the mortgage; that is, according to the government. There should be some different arrangement in that regard.
When the government is letting these agreements they should investigate the contractor to see whether or not he has had building experience sufficient to carry on an enterprise of that kind. Then they should review his financial position to see whether or not he is financially capable of carrying on that portion of the construction for which he is responsible, until he receives his progress payments.
There again the government has failed. These are things upon which the minister

might check so as to save the government and the people who purchase these houses thousands upon thousands of dollars. Right now I can point to at least four large companies which have failed because they did not have sufficient financial backing to carry on construction to the point where they were entitled to progress payments, and for that reason had to fall down on their contracts.
In almost all those cases, however, the government reports-and I could read the statements if I were asked to do so-stated in effect that the financial standing was to the satisfaction of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the lending institution, which is just so much bunk. In the case of the Pelmo construction company at Toronto this fact was evident, as it was also in connection with the Bow River Construction Company at Calgary, where it was even more evident. These companies did not have the financial backing sufficient to carry them up to that stage where they would receive progress payments.
This condition could be easily overcome. One hon. member said to me the other day that if I got too strict in this connection I would have no one building. Well, I would rather not have that type of man building for me. Surely we do not want that kind of contractor building houses for the government or for anyone else. The government has fallen down most miserably in checking the financial condition of some of these people who have been building houses. This is a condition that could be overcome.
In almost every one of the cases concerning which I have had correspondence with the government on the point as to whether the contractors had the contracting ability and the building experience necessary, the same old answer was given, that it has been found to the satisfaction of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that they had that ability. In some of the cases where Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had given approval the organizations concerned had absolutely no building experience.
I believe it was the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), when he was minister of reconstruction and supply, who said it was the practice that these fellows could sublet to others who did know something about the business. What a lot of silliness! One might as well say he would let a contract to anyone who comes along, so that that person could sublet it to somebody with the necessary building qualifications who would complete the job. Here again is a place where the government could save the country hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I hope this matter will be taken into consideration.

There have been so many building failures involving such large amounts that it seems to me the request I made the other day for a royal commission to investigate such failures is now more warranted than ever. I am not saying this in any spirit of bitterness toward the government. I do say however that when a government crown corporation is handling millions upon millions of dollars there should be some check upon the way in which that money is spent. There should be a check by the House of Commons, if not by a royal commission. A committee of the house should be set up, if the minister is opposed to the appointment of the royal commission I have suggested, before which members of the house could satisfy themselves as to the methods employed in the building and financing of these housing projects.
I do not intend to speak longer. I have many other points in mind, but I believe they may be more properly discussed when the bill is in committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the debate proceeds further I feel I should make a ruling on the amendment now proposed. In accordance with the custom established, perhaps I should first hear representations either for or against ;he amendment-and in doing so I suggest that such representations be as brief as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word in support of the contention that the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) is in order. I shall heed your admonition to be brief, but before proceeding with what I have to say concerning the amendment I believe it would be in order for me to say, on behalf of members on all sides of the house, that we deeply appreciate the manner in which Your Honour is handling these points of order. This offer to hear representations before you rule is really something for which we are most grateful, and in my view it is one of the highlights of this parliament.
The fundamental basis for an amendment of this kind is found in citation 657, Beau-chesne's third edition, which states:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress-
I shall stop there, because the rest does not apply. My contention is that this is an amendment drafted according to the terms of that citation which, for reasons stated in the resolution and for reasons stated in my colleague's speech, expresses opposition to the further progress of this measure until some-
National Housing Act
thing else has been done. That "something else" is a request that the government consider rescinding the order of November 3 which made provision for an increase in domestic rents.
The form as set out in Beauchesne's third edition for this kind of amendment is form No. 93 at page 337. There are in fact several variations of it. They have been more or less put together in the present amendment, but I draw Your Honour's attention particularly to the form which says that:
The further consideration of this bill be deferred until . . .
Such and such had been done.
My colleague asks that second reading of this bill should not now be given. He asks instead that there be prior consideration to the rescinding of the order with respect to rent control. Therefore I suggest that it is carrying out what is provided for in citation 657, and also what is provided for in form 93, which indicates that one can ask that second reading be deferred until something else has been done.
Incidentally the passing of this motion would not kill the bill. It would merely delay its progress, as is clearly set out in May's thirteenth edition. I will not take the time to read it to the house because I do not think there is any doubt on that point so far as Your Honour is concerned. I refer to pages 390, 391 and 392 of May's thirteenth edition.
It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the only question that might be raised would be whether or not the question in this amendment is relevant to the question involved in the bill before the house. The bill deals with housing, and surely rents are germane to housing. Surely no one can say that rents are foreign to housing, to use a word that appears in one citation. In fact, in introducing the bill the minister had to speak of rents repeatedly. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) did likewise. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) did the same and so did the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) who has just spoken.
The bill proposes to deal with the rental situation in a certain way. My hon. friend and colleague contends that before it is dealt with in that way it should be dealt with in this way, namely by rescinding the order increasing rents.
I also draw your attention to the heading of a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Sutherland on December 10, 1906. It is found on page 576 of Beauchesne's third edition, and reads as follows:
An amendment is relevant when it deals with the same subject-matter as the main motion.

National Housing Act
Certainly part of the subject matter of the main motion has to do with rents. The amendment deals with that part of the main question, and I submit for Your Honour's consideration that it is relevant.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, I wish to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for his reference to the way in which I have been giving my rulings and on the custom that has been adopted whereby I am prepared to hear hon. members before I make my rulings. I must say that I intend to continue to do that and I hope that other hon. members will be as brief as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was in this instance.
The amendment before the house at this time proposes to amend the motion that the bill under consideration be now read a second time. The form of the amendment is that the bill be not now read a second time but that the government should give immediate and prior consideration to a certain rentals order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has referred me to citation 657 of Beauchesne's third edition, which reads:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution;
I do not think the amendment would come within the provisions of the section of that citation as far as I have read them. The citation goes on:
-or otherwise opposed to its progress.
The amendment, being in the proper form, might possibly come within these words. However, I would point out to hon. members that the amendment must be relevant to the question which is under consideration. This amendment suggests that the government give immediate and prior consideration to rescinding an order announced on November 3, providing for increases in domestic rents. May I inform the hon. member that that increase in no way affects any houses that are to be built under this bill. The order with regard to rents affected houses which were in existence in 1941 and probably some time subsequent to that date; but in no way can it be considered that the order affects anything that might be done under this bill. I would refer hon. members to citation 354 of Beauchesne's third edition, which reads as follows:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved. (Can. C. J. Vol. LX, p. 122.)

In my opinion this amendment deals with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the motion which is now before the house, and is therefore not relevant, and I must accordingly rule it out of order.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are words of congratulation and commendation to the minister on the most heartening statement of government policy which he made early today. In the course of his remarks I was particularly impressed when he pointed out that in 1946 we set before us housing objectives, and that in 1949 we had fully achieved them and realized them. That for me holds out considerable hope for the bill we have now before us.
In 1946 we said that we would do certain things. We come back here in 1949 and we say that we did them. Now we set ourselves an entirely new objective in this bill, and I am satisfied that once again we shall be able to come back to this house and to the country and say that we accomplished exactly what we set out to do.
Some time ago an hon. member informed this house that during the last campaign I had more to say about housing, as he put it, than any other hon. member. Let me just read what I did say about housing during the campaign. I think the house will be interested in that. I shall quote from the Toronto Star of May 4:
David Croll, Liberal M.P. for Spadina, predicted last night that, shortly after the federal election, the Liberal government will announce a sweeping program of low-rental housing, because experience has shown private enterprise has failed to solve the problem of housing, which the speaker described as "a social problem, a great national emergency."
According to the Toronto Star of June 13, I said:
In the light of present conditions, the government must undertake, in co-operation with the provincial and municipal authorities, to build low-cost rental and subsidized housing.
On July 6, at a meeting held in the office of the mayor of Toronto, at which I was present, along with other hon. members of parliament, I had this to say, as reported in the Globe and Mail of that date:
Let there be no question as to the government's position in this respect.
I was dealing with housing.
We intend to carry out our campaign promises in connection with low-rental housing.
While I am on the subject, I think it presents me with a good opportunity to set the record straight as to what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said about housing. I do so in order to give the house the benefit of his remarks, and the oppor-

tunity to appreciate the evolution of a Liberal mind. In October of 1947 he was quoted as having said:
No government of which I am a member would ever pass legislation for subsidized housing.
This statement has been quoted in the house time and time again by members of the opposition to the point where I firmly believe that they would have preferred him not to change his mind. That is the way they would have liked to have his mind remain. Later on, when he became Prime Minister, he came to Toronto, and he is quoted in the Toronto Star of February 19, 1948, as having said, speaking of housing:
That does not mean that we do not recognize the need for housing units at low rents. With today's costs, it must be obvious that low-rental housing cannot be provided without some kind of financial assistance. Our legislation provides for slum clearance grants, and also for loans to limited dividend companies for the construction of low-rental housing. It may be that experience will show that other forms of federal assistance will be desirable.
Then we have the Liberal manifesto issued in Moncton on May 20, in which he said:
We are not going to be satisfied until decent housing is provided for every family. All levels of government must combine to promote low-rental housing projects, slum clearance and community planning.
Then we come to what the Prime Minister said at Stratford, Ontario, on June 4. The report in the Toronto Star of that date reads in part as follows:
"We should not rest until every Canadian has a decent home to live in." He stressed that housing is not a federal responsibility. "But we have said that if any province or any other governing body will come to us with a proposition, it will find that the federal government is ready to share with it the responsibility and expense of providing houses."
Then on June 8 at the city of Quebec the Prime Minister said:
For many people low-rental housing is essential... Municipal and provincial authorities obviously have to decide what is feasible and desirable before we can give effective help. But I certainly feel strongly that we in Canada should push ahead vigorously with our housing policy because more and better housing raises the standard of living; low-rental housing promotes improved health and greater social and family security for those with low incomes; and an active housing program helps to keep up employment in the construction industry which, as you know so well, is one of our least stable industries. A successful housing program depends upon good town and community planning. Increased cost, and complexity of governmental action in the development of towns and cities, emphasizes the importance of careful long term planning to avoid needless expenditure.
Today we have this bill before us, to amend the National Housing Act, and naturally I am happy to endorse it because the National Housing Act has become a landmark in Canadian history. Over the years it has made it
National Housing Act
possible for many people to become home owners who otherwise might not have been able to do so. At the present time we find that the country from Halifax to Vancouver is dotted with N.H.A. homes. To that extent it has become a part of our Canadian way of life. The proposal today is to broaden the application of the act and when the amendments before us are adopted it will make it a truly national housing act. The present amendments make it more than ever a bill with a purpose, and the purpose is to create more and better housing for all the people of Canada.
If this bill means anything at all, it means public housing; it means low-rental housing; it means subsidized housing. I should like to quote now from the Ottawa Journal of November 12. The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) addressed the Dominion United Church men's association, and the newspaper report reads in part:
He said that the principle had been admitted that homes in low economy areas must be subsidized, and added that the work of clearing slum sections was important.
Furthermore, for the information of those who may not have caught the full import of the statement he made today, I should like to point out that he said:
The project, however,-
Speaking of dominion-provincial house building.
-will remain in ownership of the dominion and the province. The operating profit or loss will be borne 75 per cent by the dominion and 25 per cent by the province.
These are important words.
The annual subsidy will be the amount by which rentals received are less than operating costs of all kinds, including depreciation. These operating losses will be met on an annual basis 75 per cent by the dominion and 25 per cent by the province.
How much clearer could anyone be than in that particular statement? I think we have sufficient background so that we can now discuss the bill and the principle involved in it. The amendments bring to the act a principle that, in my opinion, is of the greatest social significance. I think the house and the country should recognize it exactly for what it is. Today for the first time we are asked to accept the proposition that housing is a social as well as an economic problem. I gladly accept it as do my fellow members on this side of the house. I call upon the rest of the house to join me in hailing this as another forward step in our political and social maturity.
I think the amendment does something even more than that. Here for the first time we have an admission by this or any other

National Housing Act
government of responsibility for housing the nation. We have now taken the initiative, and we must see that we keep it. I need not recall to the house that under our constitution housing is normally a provincial and municipal matter. That has been largely the reason why there has been a failure to solve the housing problem decisively. Each government authority looked to the other two governmental authorities to do something about it with the result that nothing very much was done. As a result housing, because of the differences of opinion, was lost in the zone of non-co-operation which lay between the governmental authorities. The present amendments end an era of indecisiveness. There is no longer a twilight zone. The field has been completely covered, 75 per cent by the dominion government and 25 per cent by the provincial government.
The amendments also do something else. They end once and for all, I hope, the "after you" philosophy which has dogged Canadian housing for many years. They show clearly that the dominion is now prepared to act co-operatively, according to the terms laid down, with all levels of government to provide housing for Canadians who need it. This seems to me to be a great challenge to the people of Canada, and I am sure it is a challenge that they will take up. It is a challenge that gives comfort to all those of us who believe in public housing. One of the important features of the bill is that in order for it to be a success the people will have to interest themselves in the problem. This is a public level project.
I think it should be admitted to begin with that this is not a perfect bill. It is a new field, and inevitably deficiencies will become apparent which we will have to remedy in the light of experience and with the passing of time. But I want to recall to hon. members that all our social legislation, from old age pensions to family allowances, has been amended and improved with the passing of time and the gaining of experience; and this housing legislation will prove to be no exception. Imperfect it may be, though I do not suggest that at all; yet it is a very fine beginning. It is important, too, that the government has not placed a price tag on housing, and has not attempted to deal with this question in pennies. At the present time under this legislation we are allocating some $50 million. That is a nice beginning. It will cost more, and hon. members must expect that, as I am sure the country will. Today we are making a capital investment in human welfare; and when a government does that it is money well spent.
This government is saying to the provinces and municipalities: this is what we propose to do. We are partners, and we will share the load on the basis of 75 per cent for the dominion and 25 per cent for the province. We will increase our assistance to the builders, subject to one special safeguard, that of a fair and reasonable selling price. That point has occasioned some comment by other hon. members. It may not appear important to some, but those of us who had some intimate association with wartime housing following the first war will know that it is a guarantee of protection for the home owner. Certainly we could not be forgiven if twice in one generation we made the same mistake, and this provision is an attempt to prevent that happening.
Finally the dominion is saying this: we will enter into agreements with provinces to build publicly assisted housing, including low rental housing on an economic or subsidized basis. There, Mr. Speaker, you have it. For the first time, in speaking of housing, it is safe to use the word "subsidized" without being considered a wild-eyed radical. It has taken a long time; but when the need was fairly placed before the government they did not hesitate to take action. So at long last the government, to its everlasting credit, has taken a direct stand in the field of subsidized housing, something that will be hailed from one end of this country to the other as one of the most progressive and far-reaching measures ever introduced in this house, in my opinion comparable to the family allowance legislation. This 21st parliament has much to commend it. So far it has dealt with two constitutional problems of great importance; yet I venture to predict that long after those have come to be taken for granted this parliament will be remembered for this legislation which at last recognizes housing as a matter of social welfare and a problem of national concern.
I know our opponents are criticizing this legislation. That is the function of an opposition. Already from the right we have suggestions that we are giving too much, while on the left they are saying we are not giving enough. Well, that was ever the way, as we well know. However, I prefer to welcome this bill for what it is, a very long step forward in government thinking. And believe me, the step was not taken any too soon. Today, as has been pointed out, the need for housing is immediate and urgent, and in some instances almost tragic. We cannot deny that lately it has become aggravated. That is particularly true in the low-income groups, whose rate of family increase is

greatest and whose ability to pay is the smallest. We have now reached the point where we cannot let any more grass grow under our feet. We need action, and we need it quickly. We need to pass, proclaim, plan and put up houses, even before spring is here, because time is working against us. We have a backlog now of nearly 500,000 units which are badly needed; and the need increases daily as our population increases and our present housing units become more obsolete.
This amendment, of course, is not aimed primarily at the upper bracket Canadians. They have always been able to look after themselves. They have always been able to build or buy houses. No doubt this legislation will help them, but the amendment is not intended for their specific benefit. They do not constitute the real social problem with which we have to deal in this country. The problem is posed to us by that one-third of our nation who cannot afford to buy or rent homes constructed by private builders at present costs. The latest figures I can find from the taxation department, which I believe are for 1947, show that one and a quarter million taxpayers in Canada had incomes of $2,000 or less. Well, from there on it is a matter of simple arithmetic, the kind every head of a family sits up nights working out but hardly ever solves. The top figure of $2,000 a year means an income of $166 per month. We are told that an economic rent is somewhere between 20 and 23 per cent of the monthly income. This means that our Canadian earning that top income of $2,000 a year can afford to pay only $38 a month in rent; and it must be remembered that $2,000 a year is the ceiling. Some of the one and a quarter million taxpayers earn much less than that. So it has long been clear that those earning $25 to $40 a week cannot possibly obtain adequate housing accommodation at today's costs. They must be helped.
The answer is subsidized housing. In this bill the government has recognized a very important principle. The real issue in housing is no longer materials or manpower; it is cost. No housing plan is going to relieve the present shortage unless something is done to reduce the cost to the occupant, whether he be owner or tenant. Over the years the National Housing Act has helped thousands of Canadians to own their own homes. In the first seven months of 1948 more than
11,000	Canadians took advantage of that legislation. It is true that by lowering the down payment the act increases the number of potential owners, and by extending the
National Housing Act
amortization period it makes it easier for others to obtain houses at a more reasonable rental. But neither of these affects the cost. The longer amortization, good as it is, merely spreads today's inflated building costs over a longer period of years. It is true that it makes housing more easily available to those who can afford it, but what about the one-third of the nation which cannot afford to pay even the smallest down payment, or which cannot afford to carry even the present generous amortization plan. These are the people who need assistance immediately. These are the people who need subsidized housing now. It is for that reason I say to the minister, we have no time .to lose.
Now that we have taken the wraps off this terrible and terrifying word "subsidized", we look around and notice some rather surprising things. One is that we have been in the subsidizing business for some considerable length of time. Fourteen per cent of the building completed in 1949 was subsidized by this government. This government has already built 50,000 subsidized houses for veterans, both low-cost and low-rental houses. No one will say that veterans housing has not been a tremendous success. We have already proven to the country that subsidized housing is workable and beneficial.
Under the principle contained in this bill, it will be possible to do something for the rest of the Canadian people who need homes in the very same way. If we can build 50,000 subsidized homes, we can build 100,000 subsidized homes. We can build as many as this country needs, as many as this country asks for, or as many as this country can digest. One thing we must not forget, the initial drive must now come from the municipalities. Low-rental and subsidized housing must have grass roots enthusiasm emanating from the cities and towns in which the houses will be built. What we are setting up by this act is the machinery for housing the nation.
Writing a cheque, in itself, is not good enough and the minister fully recognizes that. It is not enough for us to write a cheque and say to the provinces or municipalities, "There you are, you have the money, it is your baby; you bring it up." By this act housing becomes our baby from this time forward. We have to see to it that it becomes a full grown, healthy adult. The dominion is providing for 75 per cent of the cost and 25 per cent will be borne by the province. Profits and losses are to be divided on the same basis. In a broad scheme such as this, there will be losses. They are inevitable if we are to have the full benefit of subsidized houses.

National Housing Act
In'addition to that, the dominion government provides the research knowledge, technical and administrative experience, and the provincial government provides the local knowledge and considerable experience. The municipalities provide two things which will cost them nothing. They provide the initiative and the local services. The services are to be paid for by normal taxes. There will be no cost to the municipalities. The subsidy which in the past the municipalities gave to wartime housing now comes to an end. It is expected that the municipalities will provide serviced land, either immediately or whenever it is required of them. They will be repaid every cent of the cost for providing the land, in the same way that any taxpayer pays his taxes.
We only ask one more thing from the municipalities, and that is that they do some intelligent planning. Public housing cannot be like Topsy, it cannot just grow. It must be planned systematically, carefully and intelligently. I believe the importance of planning becomes all too evident when one looks around and sees the result of unplanned private building. I am thinking of areas around the city of Toronto, but it is applicable to Ottawa, Windsor and practically every municipality across this country. One finds row upon row of homes, identical bungalows. It must be a nightmare for someone coming home on Saturday night. They are crowded together as closely as possible with a minimum of air, light and recreational space. Many private builders, and the government to some extent, seem to forget that houses are meant to be lived in by human beings. There is more to housing than four walls and a roof.
The public housing which this act envisages must be built intelligently and with great imagination. There must be planning. Little communities will be growing up here and there. They must have lots of green spaces, schools, stores and recreational facilities. The aim cannot be to squeeze in as many low cost houses as possible into a given area of land. It must be to provide a pattern of living by means of which people may lead happier, healthier lives. That is what I meant, Mr. Speaker, when I said that housing is now a social as well as economic problem.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


David Arnold Croll: Not just now, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will you permit a question later?
I am convinced that we can house this nation, provided we obtain the co-operation

of the provinces and the municipalities. I commend the minister now for the trip he took across this country earlier this year, when he visited the premiers and the men responsible for housing in the various provinces. He came back with an agreement. I am suggesting to the minister that he take another one of those Winters travels across this country immediately after the passage of this bill, for the purpose of implementing the intention of the house.
This act provides the means, but the real drive must now' come from the people in the municipalities. If the people of this country are alive to the unlimited possibilities of this act for human good, if they are vigorous and concerted in their approach, and if the provinces will do their part by co-ordinating and co-operating, this country will have housing as it never had it before. This problem is vital today. The need will, I hope, never be greater and our ability to finance the program is beyond question.
Bad and inadequate housing has been the worst blemish on our generation. Crime, social unrest, lowered health standards and human waste, have all stemmed from bad housing conditions. To some extent all these conditions can be ameliorated, if not eliminated, by an adequate level of housing. We come down to this: that adequate housing is an integral part of the welfare state we are building in Canada. This is a great contribution to it. Like education and good health, it must not be reserved for the few who can afford to pay for it. Like education and good health, it must be made available to all people who need it.
I believe that the Canadian people are solidly behind this venture. Already there is a wide cross-section of public opinion which has fully endorsed subsidized housing. Let me relate a few.
It has been endorsed by the Canadian Legion, by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, by welfare and social councils across Canada, by the Canadian Congress of Labour, by the American Federation of Labor, and by church groups, by the Canadian Construction Association and by socially minded people across this country. But they must do something more than merely endorse. They must actively press their municipal authorities to take full advantage of this act. It is impossible, and it would be undesirable, for us here to impose housing on the Canadian people. There must be a desire and a demand, which I am certain are there, which will make themselves not only heard but felt at the municipal and provincial

levels. The Canadian people can rest assured of one thing, that the dominion will do its part.
Such, then, is our new housing act which is reaching out to new horizons. The only people who stand to lose by this act are the slum owners and shelter profiteers. The country stands to gain. This act will assist many Canadians to own their own homes and will assist others to rent decent, adequate housing at prices that they can afford to pay. I think this act, if fully implemented will eliminate soft spots in our economy and will keep our way of life secure. I know that this will cost money; but no matter what it costs, it will be cheap in comparison with the good that it will do. I think that this is an excellent beginning.
Just one more word of urgency. In the light of other decisions which we have made, this act at the present time should have the highest priority with the minister. We must hurry, hurry, hurry and get building done as quickly as we possibly can. I do not expect the minister to go out and lay bricks; but anything short of that I am prepared to accept. We must not forget this fact. When we endorse the principle of this bill, we accept responsibility, and then we must follow through. We have already paid too high a price for slowness in this country.
I heartily endorse the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the minister and the government, and I am happy to find myself in support of a government that sponsors a bill such as this.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. gentleman permit my question now?


David Arnold Croll: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In view of what he said about the social benefits of housing, how does he square what he has said today with his acquiescence in the recent 25 per cent increase tn rents authorized by the government?


David Arnold Croll: My hon. friend should merely ask the question, not make a statement on something that is not a fact, as far as he mows.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Did you acquiesce or did you lot?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have ruled that-


David Arnold Croll: In any event, let me say to the ion. member that I was not in favour of loing away with rent control in 1945, as he vas and as was his party.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a question of privilege, sir. Speaker, I do not comment now on the act that my friend did not answer my ques-ion, but on the fact that he has just finished
National Housing Act
up with a statement that I and my party advocated the abolition of rent controls in 1945, a statement that is totally, absolutely and completely without one word of truth in it.


Mr. Speaker:: I might say to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) that I have ruled that the recent rental order does not affect houses which are to be built under this bill, and is therefore foreign to it.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: My brief remarks this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, will I believe reflect in the main the opinions held by the majority of the people of the riding that I represent in this house.
First, I should like to compliment the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) and the government for realizing that, in spite of the extensive housing program across the nation, the need for housing with all its accompanying difficulties continues to be one of Canada's most serious problems. In fact, in many of our larger centres the need for housing seems as great as ever.
While I realize our responsibility in this most urgent matter, however, I feel obliged to offer a word of caution in respect of the rental phase of our assistance as proposed by this bill. As all hon. members know, the most acute need for housing exists in those areas in which we have a density of population caused by industrial expansion. Does it not seem reasonable that the industries and the municipalities causing this influx of population and, of course, benefiting from it, should share the costs and the responsibility in this regard? To me it does not seem fair that, in this country in which so many of our people live on farms and in small towns, this section of our people should be penalized and forced to subsidize certain urban dwellers. Furthermore, such action can only accelerate the movement of our people from the farm and the small towns and cities and further defeat the plans and hopes of those of us who believe, for various reasons, that industry should be decentralized across this nation.
As I said at the beginning, I am glad our government realizes the need for housing and is doing something about it; but I urge that we proceed cautiously in this rental phase of our proposed assistance. As for the rest of the bill-that is, with the portion of the bill to assist home ownership-I am thoroughly in accord with it. I have the good fortune to live in North Bay where we boast a high percentage of home owners; in fact, 75 per cent of our homes are owner-occupied. This home ownership, I believe, is the greatest single factor in the general well-being and stability of our people. The

National Housing Act
urge to own one's own home is strong in the hearts of Canadians; and this portion of the bill is designed further to develop and stimulate this urge to the end that it may become a reality.
I do not believe many Canadians want to live in subsidized homes with another section of our population being penalized. What the majority of Canadians want is an opportunity to own their own homes. I urge the minister to make this section of the bill as workable as possible. Let us cut those down payments to a minimum, so that they will be within reach of all our people. When I say "all our people" I mean just that. I do not subscribe to the theory that a large portion of the Canadian people are incapable of owning their own property, nor do I share the view that certain people are doomed to live in subsidized rental accommodation for the rest of their days.
Further, when this legislation becomes effective, I would urge that special attention be given to publicizing these amendments to the National Housing Act through every possible means-in other words, let us popularize this N.H.A. plan-so that we may hasten the day when as many of our people as possible may own their own homes.
I have just one further observation to make. I would urge on the minister, in the application of these new amendments, that everything possible be done to encourage the building of small low-cost homes. I know the minister has this in mind, but I think it warrants serious consideration; because the low-cost home of today in terms of our present-day thinking is, in fact, the high-priced home of a few years ago. I need scarcely remind hon. members of the days when our economy was not so buoyant, of the days when our people who had purchased high-priced homes during a previous period of economic buoyancy were being hard pressed to meet their obligations and when, as you know, thousands of homes were lost, along with every dollar the owner had invested.
I am not suggesting that we are headed for another period like the early 30's; but at the same time, one would be foolish to plan his future on the assumption that our present high level of prosperity will continue to climb unabated. The point I want to make, sir, is this. As I move around this country today I see young inexperienced people buying high-priced homes, little realizing the seriousness of their obligations, of the crushing burden of interest payments, instalments on principal, local taxes, insurance, maintenance. Let us not be responsible for saddling our people with homes that in the future will be monuments to debt and misery,

but rather let us especially encourage low-priced small homes where our young people can meet their obligations and still enjoy al least some of the luxuries of life.
If and when these small homes are partially or fully paid for, they can be resold to othei young people starting out in life and the former owner with his increased equity can then step into a higher-priced home that will be more in keeping with his more mature requirements and capabilities.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: part of 1947, following the proclamation of the section, facilities were established in regional and branch offices-
-to make such loans. And then later it
says:
Only four farm loans were approved during 1948. Of these, three were in Alberta and one in Nova Scotia. The total amount of the four loans was $20,100. It is interesting to note that in the case of each of the four loans the farm houses being constructed were to include wiring for electricity and modern plumbing facilities.
Nothing has been done. I have checked to see what other government organizations there are under which farm loans could be obtained for housing purposes. I find that in "Housing in Canada", a factual summary published by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, loans are made under the Canadian Farm Loan Act. It states here that-
Loans having a total value of $52,000 for the construction of thirty-one new farm houses were approved during the first half of 1949. Thirty-nine loans to a value of $34,000 were approved for the alteration and improvement of existing farm homes. In the first half of 1948 loans were approved with a value of $18,000 for sixteen new farm houses, and forty-one loans with a value of $17,000 were approved for residential improvements and alterations.
Guarantees under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944-
And this is the other act under which loans may be obtained for building purposes so far as farm homes are concerned-
-were made in respect of 176 loans for new farm houses, and 385 loans for the improvement and alteration of existing farm residential property in the first half of 1949. The loans for the new units had a total value of $283,000 and for the improvements and alterations $347,000. In the first half of 1948, loans were lower both for new farm houses. 162 valued at $211,000 and for improvements and alterations, 213 valued at $194,000.
These totals mean nothing when compared with the need for better homes in rural Canada. The failure of the government to interest any large corporation or manufacturer in the production of suitable bathroom units and toilet facilities for rural homes is deplorable. From 1944 to the present time we find the government has been able to interest only one manufacturer, and him only in a tentative way-he has not yet even made an application-for the production of these facilities. Goodness knows they are needed in rural Canada.
I have not the statistics with me, but I did place on record during the last parliament figures which showed that approximately 90 per cent of homes in urban areas have running water and bathroom facilities whereas 90 per cent of rural homes have neither. Surely there is something lacking in a country like Canada where in rural districts the homes of the greatest single wealth-producing group in the country are of this kind.
National Housing Act
That is the one blind spot in the minister's legislation. Something should be done to rectify the condition and to meet the need for better homes in rural Canada. I hope some other members representing rural areas will add their voices in urging the government to meet this need.


Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Halton):: My first word is one of congratulation of our new minister on the very interesting ministerial appointment with which he has been honoured. I also want to congratulate him on the wonderful progress he has already made after being in office for so short a time.
May I, Mr. Speaker, have the leave of the house to put on record two short tables, one dealing with all building construction in Canada-the information was obtained from the bureau of statistics-for the years 1939 to 1947 inclusive. It consists of two columns, the first column showing the total building construction in Canada and the second column the residential construction only. The second table shows the number of housing units built in Canada in the years 1937 to 1949 inclusive but excluding the war years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Has
the hon. member leave of the house to put these tables on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hughes Cleaver: The tables follow:
Building Construction
All types, including industrial, commercial, institutional, resi-
Year	dential, etc. Residential
1939	
$159,041,080	$ 53,926,4291940	
257,800,560	59,925,1971941	
439,095,000	119,576,0001942	
418,371,000	109,346,0001943	
368,899,000	97,184,0001944	
296,714,000	121,927,0001945	
384,672,000	173,524,0001946	
632,171,000	264,127,0001947	
838,871,000	320,304,000
Housing Units excluding war years
1937		 34,000
1938		 37,000
1939		 42,000
1945		 48,599
1946		 67,315
1947		 79,359
1948		 81,243
1949		estimate only 96,000
Wherever you go in Canada today you find the strongest possible evidence of the fact that we are enjoying the greatest building boom that this country has ever had. You do not need to go to the bureau of statistics to satisfy yourself as to that. Your own eyes are sufficient evidence of the fact. All types of building, not only homes but all types of construction, factories, stores, churches,

National Housing Act
schools and so forth, all types of building that you can think of are being erected. In my own community I have never seen anything like the building activity which we have today. If hon. members will glance at the statement that I have put on record they will notice that the total of all building construction in Canada in the year 1939 was $159 million odd. By 1947 our total building construction had moved up to $838 million. Complete figures are not yet available for 1948 and 1949, but I am reliably informed that our total building construction this year will run well over a billion dollars. Compare that figure with $159 million in 1939.
Coming to residential construction, the total value of house building in 1939 was just over $53 million. By 1947 we had moved up to $320 million, and this year we shall go well over $400 million. There will be that many dollars' worth of houses built in the one year. If hon. members will check over the housing units they will find that in the years prior to the war our peak year was 1939 when we built 42,000 new houses. By the end of this year the minister estimates we shall have built 96,000 new housing units. Expressed in other words, we have geared up the building trades of this country, so far as house building is concerned, to over double the number of houses which we built in 1939, which was our normal production of houses prior to the war.
I should like to remind the house that this remarkable achievement in house building has been accomplished notwithstanding the heaviest competition, competition in other branches of building. If hon. members will check over the table again they will see that in this year, in addition to the tremendous house building program, we shall have built over $600 million worth of stores, factories, schools, institutions and the like. We all know that the change-over from wartime production to peacetime production is a difficult one. Because of that, in the early years after the war we ran into many bottlenecks in the building trades. Plumbing fixtures, soil pipe, electrical supplies, seasoned lumber, doors, hardwood flooring, nails, cement, brick, gyproc, fibreboard and countless other items I could mention were all in short supply. Most of them are becoming easier today, but cement, bricks and nails are still in short supply.
Since the war, and certainly in 1947 and the early part of 1948, the builders of this country spent well over one-third of their time searching for building materials and chasing up the delivery of those materials. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this tremendous expansion in our building trades, this tremendous expansion in house building, did not

come about by mere accident. It came aboul by good planning and able leadership. Toe much credit cannot be paid to the house building trades of this country for the persevering way in which they carried on in 1946, 1947 and 1948 under these constantly recurring bottlenecks of one type of building supplies and the other. They cannot be given too much credit for their ingenuity in improvising and substituting one type of material for another that was in short supply.
Another branch to which some credit is due is our lending institutions. We should express appreciation of our lending institutions for the wonderful way in which they have co-operated and made the finances available for the tremendous program which we have had. I am proud to say that this country owes a deep debt of gratitude to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe! who was responsible for the organization ol this program, and also to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Much of the credil for what we have done in house building today should be given to the officers and stafl of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporatior for the different programs and schemes thai they have devised to assist in and to stimulate the construction of houses. Mr. Speaker, I dc not know of any department of governmenl where men have worked any harder or any more efficiently than the officials of Centra Mortgage and Housing during the trying years of 1946, 1947 and 1948. Many times i-has been my experience to call these men who were making such a wonderful effort, anc very often 1 found them in their offices working in the evening. This goes for the brand offices as well as at head office at Ottawa I do not think that happened very often ir many of the other departments.
I think too that a measure of appreciatior should be expressed to the Ontario government for the assistance which they hav< given to home owners in buying their owr homes. When the hon. member for Eglintor (Mr. Fleming) suggested that Ontario's con tribution meant that we got 10,000 mor< houses than we would have had without tha contribution, perhaps he was overplaying th< point a little; but Ontario is deserving o: credit for their forward move in assistinj something over 10,000 purchasers who die not have the necessary down payment. ' want to say, Mr. Speaker, that that depart ment of government at Toronto is very effi ciently managed, and these down payment; in the way of assistance to purchasers havi come through to the different home owner: as promptly as one could hope that they would.

I can only speak of my own community because I know it well, and while I travel to some extent I do not pretend to speak for the rest of Canada. In my own community, so far as housing is concerned, one part of the problem is well under control. I refer to the part that has to do with home ownership. With the assistance which I have mentioned, so far as the private home owner is concerned the problem is well under control and we are making quite good progress.
The remaining hard core of the problem, as I should like to term it, is the need for low-rental housing. In view of the achievements, and in view of all the surrounding circumstances, I was hopeful that there would be some helpful suggestions from the opposition as to how the low-rental problem should be tackled. I also fully expected that we would have some expression of appreciation from the official opposition for what has been accomplished. I was both surprised and disappointed with the speech delivered by the opposition's official housing critic when the bill was up for first reading. On re-reading his speech carefully and going over it from beginning to end, I fail to find any helpful suggestion for the solution of the problem. In addition to that, about the only thing that one can find is a long list of misleading grumbling complaints. May I read a few of them to the house. At page 1297 of Hansard the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming) said:
When we look back on these post-war years from 1945 to 1949 Inclusive, we can say that so far as housing is concerned they will go down as the wasted years.
Further down on the same page there are these words:
The record during the past five years has been a record of failure . . .
Over on the next page I find these words:
Progress by this government in three precious years in spite of all this boasting and these promises-absolutely nil!
No progress. I wondered, when I re-read these statements, what on earth the hon. member for Eglinton has been doing with himself. Has he been going around blindfold, or what is the matter with him? In the same speech at page 1302 of Hansard there are more complaints, and I find these words:
I have said before that there has been far too rigid and unsympathetic administration of the National Housing Act.
Again on the same page are these words:
. . . but I do not intend to spare the feelings of the supporters of the government any more than I have been.
45781-114i
National Housing Act
Of course he has never done that. Further down there are these words:
Of course they were smug, they were satisfied just as they are today, and they followed the course of just letting the people who were faced with the housing problem worry about it.
I have a suggestion to make to the hon. member for Eglinton. If he will not believe what he sees himself, if he will not believe his own eyes, if he will not believe the material that is available to him in the dominion bureau of statistics and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, then I would ask him to be good enough to go and talk with the son of a former Conservative minister of finance, a lifelong Tory, who will not lead him astray politically. I refer to Mr. Rhodes. I believe at the present time he is president or past president of the Ottawa real estate board. He is a man who has made a wonderful contribution in Ottawa towards the solution of Canada's housing problem. X invite members of the house to go and inspect Mr. Rhodes' Manor Park suburban development. I ask the hon. member for Eglinton to inquire of Mr. Rhodes whether progress in house building since the end of the war has been nil, if they have been wasted years, if it is a record of failure. I also ask him particularly to ask Mr. Rhodes if the administration of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been unsympathetic or smug, and whether the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and this government have let people who were in distress for housing do their own worrying.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They certainly have.


Hughes Cleaver: Enough of that. My object in speaking today is to try to sell an idea to the private members of the house. The first thing I wish to do is to urge as strongly as I can that our housing problem is much too vital for anyone to play politics with it. '


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Page the government.


Hughes Cleaver: In the first place I do not think it is good enough for private members, whether on the government or opposition sides of the house, to content themselves with simply grumbling about it. I suggest to all private members of the house that we should go to work and help in the effort to solve the housing problem in our own ridings. I hope I shall be pardoned if I make a personal reference. As I view it, as I said a moment ago, the remaining hard core of our housing problem is one of rentals. I think there are two distinct groups requiring rental accommodation, and I think they should be kept in two separate compartments as to their needs and the remedy to be applied. The first group

National Housing Act
comprises a limited number, and every community has them. It consists of a few folk who, on account of old age, ill health, or some misfortune of one kind or another, find themselves in a position where they cannot afford to pay the economic rent for decent housing accommodation. Their number is relatively small but their need is most urgent. In Burlington we have these people.
The mayor of the town, Major Leather, and I organized a housing plan for these unfortunates under the existing National : Housing Act. You will find under that act that 90 per cent of the cost at 3 per cent interest is available for this purpose in any municipality, but there are two restrictions. In the first place the sponsors of the scheme, who put up the 10 per cent equity, must be 'content with a 5 per cent interest return on their money. The other restriction is that the housing units constructed under the plan must not be rented to anyone except the needy folk to whom I have referred. The major and I organized such a scheme in my home town. It was sponsored by the Lions Club, the Legion and the town of Burlington. We raised the 10 per cent owner equity as a gift. We did not pay any interest on it. We built the most modern type of units that we could. They are of fireproof masonry construction, and are attractive in appearance. We rent the nicest little housing suites you ever saw at $16 and $21 a month. They have white-tile bathrooms, and nicely equipped kitchens with everything that the heart could desire. The rentals of $16 and $21 a month pay all of the operating costs. By the way, we were able to get an amortization period of forty-seven years on the mortgage, because the buildings were well constructed. Those rentals pay the expenses of the caretaker, the cost of fuel, and all operating costs. What we have done in Burlington has been repeated in one or two other municipalities in Canada, but in far too few; and I suggest to the private members of this house, especially to our critical friends in the opposition, that they get busy in their own ridings and help solve Canada's housing problem in so far as it concerns these unfortunate people.
As to the other part of the problem, the provision of low-rental housing for the workmen of this country, I do not know how many units we need. My guess would be somewhere between one hundred and two hundred thousand housing units. I am pleased indeed that this amendment to the National Housing Act provides for co-operation between governments at all three levels, municipal, provincial and federal, for the solution of this problem. On a question as

important as housing it is not surprising that we should find differences of opinion. I am quite free to admit that I do not find myself in agreement with all hon. members of my own party on this point; nevertheless I want to express my personal views as to how I believe the problem should be tackled. Today in Canada a large percentage of our workmen already own their own homes or are well on the way to ownership. The national advantages which flow from private ownership of homes simply cannot be overestimated. The home owner who has to struggle to pay for his own home has a real stake in the country; and I would very much dislike to see Canada, through a large-scale subsidy program, degenerate into a country of tenants. I do not think we should allow that to happen. I am not unmindful of the fact that a limited amount of rental housing accommodation is essential. Folk move from one community to another; their jobs change, and we must have rental accommodation to take care of that small floating part of our population, if I may so term it.
I was pleased indeed to hear the minister say today that nothing will be done to dull private initiative with respect to home building. I may be reading more into those words than I should, but I hope they mean what I think they do. I hope the minister plans that whatever is done to help solve this housing problem will be done right across the board and that savings in cost effected through land assembly, or savings made in other ways, will be made available not only for the benefit of the man who needs rental accommodation but also for the benefit of the man who wants to and should buy his own home. I would urge that never in this country should we have a subsidy scheme going so far that it would be to the advantage of folk to rent rather than buy, or which would be carried to the point where Canada would eventually become a land of tenants.
Proper planning and financing of the servicing of new land can do much to lower costs; and on this point I have a suggestion to offer the minister. Since the early thirties, when many municipalities in Ontario got into difficulties, our municipal board has been insisting on the repayment of debentures for both water works and sewers over a short period of time. I think fifteen or twenty years is the maximum period for which a debenture issue covering either water or sewers may be approved. We all know that a cast-iron water main in the ground is good for at least sixty to eighty years in most parts of Canada, while a well-laid sanitary sewer has an indefinite life. It would greatly help in bringing down local improvement

payments in taxes if the minister could effect some arrangement under which the payments to defray the cost of sewers and water mains would be spread over a long period of years, rather than the short period which now prevails.
Then, too, I entirely agree with the suggestions that have come from all sides of the house that money spent in research is money well spent, and I include in that money spent in improving the design of housing accommodation. Much has been accomplished already in that regard by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Prior to the National Housing Act, home building standards in Canada were nothing like what they are today. The advent of the National Housing Act brought about a distinct improvement in the construction standards of our homes. The same thing has happened in regard to the planning of homes. While perhaps it is true that not more than one-quarter of the homes being built today come directly under the National Housing Act, it is equally true that many private home builders are using the well designed plans which anyone can get from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at nominal cost.
In addition to the saving that can be effected by reducing the annual payments required to service land, I think a distinct saving can be effected in the actual purchase of land. In many of these fringe land developments I believe land can be provided at a cost which would permit lots to be sold for not more than $200 or $300 each, instead of the present going rate, which I believe is $500 or $600.
So I urge the minister to do everything he can to get low-rental housing for the needy workmen of this country, and at the same time go as far as he can to make all those advantages also available to people who want to own their own homes. And before I reach the concluding portion of my address let me urge once more that private members can make a real contribution to the solution of this problem. I live in the district between Hamilton and Toronto; my riding fronts on lake Ontario. That district has participated perhaps as largely as any district in Canada in the tremendous development going on today. The builders in my riding are on their toes. I have tried in every way to help them and today in Halton we have our building problem well under control. Under the integrated housing program something over 11,000 homes have been built for veterans.
I should like to comment for a moment on that feature of the National Housing Act.
National Housing Act
Under that scheme the builder is restricted on the resale price to an extremely modest profit. Under that scheme he must give priority in the sale of those homes to veterans, but in return for that the builder is given priority for all building materials. The government also gives the builder an undertaking that any unsold houses will be taken off his hands. In two short years, as a result of that, approximately 11,000 housing units were produced.
Then there was the unfortunate experience with the Bow River construction out west. This scheme involved approximately 40-houses. As a result of the failure of that scheme, what do we find? The member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) urged that certain safeguards and restrictions should be imposed to protect the purchaser. Those restrictions were imposed and they are rather onerous. What has been the result of that? The number of houses built under the integrated plan this year is approximately 2,300. The member for Bow River got his restrictions, and we got the results. I wish to urge the minister to revise those restrictions. I do not believe the whole integrated plan should fall into disuse simply because of one incident that happened in Bow River. I should like to urge also, as a control against builders taking: unreasonable profits, that it might be wise to introduce a ceiling price on houses built under the National Housing Act. Perhaps this should not be a rigid ceiling price in that it should allow a little more profit than is allowed under the integrated plan, but I. think that is a good way of guarding against excessive prices.
I shall turn now to another plan of the; Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I refer to the rental insurance plan which came into force a year ago last July. Under this plan loans up to 85 per cent of the cost of the project are available to owners. The, interest rate is four and one-quarter per cent. The rental insurance premium costs, in round figures, another quarter per cent of the face of the mortgage, for which the owner is insured up to 85 per cent of the agreed rentals. The insurance is for a period of twenty or thirty years, whichever period the owner chooses. This is a safe investment and it is a profitable investment for a builder who is interested in that type of building. The only string on that is that if depressed times return and the owner has to draw on the rental insurance to a greater amount than the total of one year's rental, then the government reserves the right to buy back the building at the agreed price less the yearly principal payments that have been paid off the mortgage. Under this rental insurance plan, two and a half per cent of the principal is retired

National Housing Act
annually and, of course, the rental guarantee drops correspondingly each year. I would say that the premium which is being paid would go a long way towards meeting any liability which will occur under this insurance scheme. In other words, there is very little of the subsidy feature in this scheme.
Under this scheme in slightly more than a year, 7,900 rental accommodation units have been built. On checking the records, I find that Quebec leads all other provinces in Canada by a substantial amount. In Quebec approximately 5,400 of these rental insurance units were built in slightly over a year. Ontario lags behind in this field. Whereas the province of Quebec built approximately 5,400 units, there were less than 1,900 units built in the whole of the province of Ontario. Once again, I should like to ask my hon. friend the member for Eglinton to get busy in the city of Toronto. Practically none of these units have been built in that city. The hon. member would be doing a good turn to the people in Toronto who want decent rental accommodation. He would be doing a good turn to the builder whom he interests in this scheme, and I think he would be doing himself a good turn because, after he has done some work of that sort, I do not think he will feel so frustrated as he obviously does today.
I turn now to co-operative housing. This is one field in which the members of the house could get busy. I trust the house will pardon another personal reference, but I helped to organize eleven of these schemes in the last two years involving something over 400 housing units. Two such schemes are in progress in Oakville at the moment. I shall tell you about one of them. A group of about fifteen chaps, most of them veterans, came to see me five or six months ago and talked over the project. I helped them get it started. These veterans are building fine modern homes with three bedrooms, all fully equipped and modern in every respect, at a cost of approximately $6,700 each. The men are turning in $300 worth of work on each of the homes and are doing some general over-all work as well. The carrying charges including the mortgage, taxes, fire insurance, water rates and so on will add up to just under $45 per month. That is the way I like to see Canadian boys behave. I would far rather see that type of construction, that type of home occupancy, where a man has a real stake in the welfare of the country.
I should like to say just a word about the over-all operation of the National Housing Act. In the past some members have commented on the small amount of housing in Canada built under Central Mortgage and Housing. I believe these remarks are largely

the result of misunderstanding and misinformation. I should like to put a few of the general figures on the record. Since its inception and up to July 31, 1949, 67,000 N.H.A. housing units have been built in this country. The total of the outstanding loans as of the same date is approximately $340 million. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is a stupendous contribution. In addition to that, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation manages something over 40,000 government-owned homes.
There is one feature which I think has not been recognized. It is that the Central Mortgage and Housing funds or N.H.A. funds are largely responsible for practically all the speculative building undertaken in Canada. Funds for that type of building in sufficient amounts were not available from private institutions. We would not have had these speculatively built houses if it were not for N.H.A. funds and, as a result, we would not have had the large quantity of houses which we have. In looking over the whole picture, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we have every right to be proud, and that the private members should go to work.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill? Nos. 104 to 115, inclusive, 121 to 132 inclusive and 134 to 141 inclusive:
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Edith Cohen -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Ida Lindy Angel Katzman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Marian Latora Glendening Joncas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Eva Neren-berg Anger.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 108, for the relief of Josephine Teweson Paul Bero.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Phyllis Elizabeth Ross Erskine.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Jeannette Mathilda Seymour Oswald.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of George Bennett Gagnon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Bertha Rudolph Holzberg.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Lillian Elizabeth Moore Bowen.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 114, for the relief of Laurence Bouchard Pappini.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Nana Rosenberg Taube.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Cecile de Mers Asheim.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Elsie Margaret Harding Lewin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Raymond Webster Elliott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Hazel Wilma Drysdale Warnecke.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Ruby Rabino-vitch Friedgut, otherwise known as Ruby Rabinovitch Freygood.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Mildred Carmen Mitchell James.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Bessie Biren-baum Abrams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Grace Elsie Mills Johnson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Robert Ewen Stewart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Mary Cecilia Helliwell Glassco.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Betty Malca Stillman Shugar.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Tessie Charow Hersh.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Cicely Manley Sampson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Paul Paquette. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Joseph Simon Adelard Barrette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of Edith Daisy Steer Catto.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Gwen Pollock Harris.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Sonia Eagle Davies.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Evelyne Louis Stein wold.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of John Gilbert Speak.-Mr. Winkler.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee on Bills Nos. 104 to 115 inclusive, 121 to 132 inclusive and 134 to 141 inclusive, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Bills reported, read the third time and passed, on division.



SECOND READINGS

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bills Nos. 150 to 173 inclusive:
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Chesna Laing Shapiro.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Edith Turcotte. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Irene Brodwin Miller.-Mr. Winkler.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Jean Ruth Montgomery Loiselle.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Joseph Charles Michel Emery.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Lyla Almina Wharry Johnston.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Marjorie Helen Glass Nixon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Olga Hetman-chuk Dorval.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Grace Melina Cotton Crawford.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Thomas Gillespie Shields.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Czerna Berger Borodow.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Freda Tippett Hart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Rebecca Rosa Jacobs Bershadsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Etta Valerie Sherwin Sperber.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Sandy Douglas Carbone.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Hellen Isabel Dawson Parlee.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Violet Emma Woodhall Brownridge.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of James Samuel Hatton.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Anne Denburg Hershcovich.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Ruth Baranoff Clark.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Viateur Longpre.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Evalina May Carter O'Connell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Borys Zaryn.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Alice Dorothy Rolison Cransky.-Mr. Winkler.
Motion agreed to on division, bills read the second time, and referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.



PRAIRIE TRANSMISSION LINES LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benidickson for the second reading of Bill No. 119, to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited.
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, at the last sitting when this bill was discussed I pointed out the steps necessary to be taken by any company which desires to build a pipe line in Canada. I said that the first requirement under the Pipe Lines Act is that the company shall be incorporated by act of this parliament. I pointed out that the company must
180S	HOUSE OF
Prairie Transmission Lines next acquire the gas sufficient to justify a pipe line, by contract with producing companies or by other means. I then pointed out that the company must obtain an export licence from the province of Alberta which, through its own legislation, has retained jurisdiction over the export of gas from that province. I then pointed out that the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada must be satisfied with the route of the pipe line and satisfied with all particulars regarding the construction of the pipe line.
I stated that one requirement of the board of transport commissioners would be the assurance that an export licence under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act would be forthcoming. That act is administered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and its function is to make sure that electricity or fluids are not exported until the present and future requirements of Canada are satisfied. It is therefore seen that there are ample safeguards for the public interest of Canada.
A good deal has been said about possible routes of the pipe line. A good many uninformed assertions have been made in the house in that regard. I know nothing about the pipe line company which is asking for incorporation under this bill; but I do know something about the interests that are asking for incorporation under another bill now before the house. I know that that company has surveyed five routes from Alberta to the Pacific coast, and that one of them at least is an all-Canadian route. There is no difference whatever between my opinion and opinions expressed here that Vancouver must not be on the end of the pipe line. Vancouver must be served before any considerable service is taken off for supply to the United States. Under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act that requirement would have to be complied with before any export permit will be given by the department of which I am the minister.
However, I do think that these acts should be studied, and studied very carefully. I should like to know much more about the incorporation asked for in the bill about which I am speaking than I know at the present time. But the place to obtain that information is in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines to which this bill will be referred, and before which the sponsors of the bill will appear to make their case for incorporation.
I will say this, however, that since incorporation by act of parliament is a requirement of the Pipe Lines Act, that incorporation should not be refused on trivial grounds. It seems obvious to me that if a responsible group of men, be they Canadians or Americans, properly financed and having
[Stage Direction]

the proper background of experience, apply to this parliament for incorporation, they are entitled to incorporate.
I should like also to say a word about what seems obviously to be a filibuster in connection with these bills. The government will not permit any small number of members to prevent this house as a whole from voting on a private bill. If these bills continue to be talked out in the limited time permitted for private bills, the government will ask the house to suspend the rules and provide whatever time is required to finish the discussion and to obtain a vote on such bills.
I might say the house has granted one franchise for a pipe line for gas in a western direction and a pipe line for gas in an eastern direction. As the situation stands today, the incorporators of each of those two bills have a monopoly, so far as gas moving in either direction is concerned. My hon. friends of the C.C.F. party have a good deal to say about monopolies, and yet we find them very busy filibustering so that the monopoly on the pipe line situation can be maintained.
The province of Alberta will, in the end, decide with which incorporated company it wishes to do business. That province has expressed the desire that it shall have the choice as between several companies, and there are obvious advantages in that procedure as far as Alberta is concerned. Therefore, I hope that these pipe line bills will be examined and if they are properly sponsored I hope that this house will grant the incorporations.
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken yet on any of these bills and I had no intention of speaking tonight. As far as I know only one member of this group has spoken in the debates on these bills. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) knows of any more let him state their names.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is wrong again.


Angus MacInnis: It is not the first time the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been wrong and I hope people will discontinue taking his advice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Including the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson).


Angus MacInnis: Including the Minister of Justice and any other ministers who might get into the habit of being intimidated by him. We are opposed to monopoly and the mere fact that half a dozen pipe-line bills are passed here is no proof that there will not ultimately be a monopoly. Is there any law, once this bill is passed, to prevent them getting together

and forming a monopoly or to prevent those with larger financial backing from getting together to squeeze out those who have the least money?
From the way the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke tonight it would seem that these bills are not private bills at all. The fact that they are introduced as private bills is merely subterfuge. It would appear that after all these are government bills and if we are not going to pass them as private bills- well, we are going to pass them as government bills.


Mr. Howe:: Nonsense; I did not say that.


Angus MacInnis: It seems to me that the government is getting rather high-handed of late.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you do not get your way under the rules, change the rules.


Angus MacInnis: If you do not get your way under the rules, stretch them. The rules have been stretched during the last ten months to a point approaching a scandal. I have no objection to the Minister of Trade and Commerce supporting in this house any interests he likes, but I do not want him accusing this party of doing something we have not done. I am going to go this far and say that we have been told that we had better "lay off" these bills or something might happen to us.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Having said that, my hon. friend had better say who told him that.


Angus MacInnis: That is what we have been told.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


An hon. Member:: By whom?


Angus MacInnis: I do not have to name them. The stories you see in the papers concerning the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) and the action he has taken in connection with certain bills and the stories you see in the papers about the C.C.F. are part of the campaign to intimidate hon. members of this house. Whether all the parties are a party to that action or not, I do not know, but that is what is going on. Here is one person who will not be intimidated, no matter who tries it.
I have nothing further to say on this bill and I would not have said what I have said tonight if the minister had not spoken as he did. But now that the question has been brought out in the open we shall see who is behind these bills.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, as the one member of this party who spoke on the previous bill, not on this one, I want to make it quite clear that what I said on that occasion expressed exactly what I felt, that these pipe 45781-115
Prairie Transmission Lines lines going through the United States are not going to serve the best interests of the province from which I come. I felt that there should be included in that bill a clause containing a promise that the pipe lines would go through the dominion to Vancouver. I gave my reasons for objecting and I think they are sincere. I resent the minister's suggestion that we are filibustering when we put these claims before the house. Now that the minister has full knowledge of the conditions under which I spoke, now that he knows that I was the only speaker, I think he should retract the suggestion he made.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the two members from southern British Columbia whose constituents are greatly concerned with this bill I should like to express the opinion of those constituents. I was surprised to hear the minister suggest that this group was conducting a filibuster. Originally it was intended that only the two members primarily concerned, the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones) and myself, would speak on this or the related bill. I was fully aware that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) did not intend to speak. I am sure if the records of this house are read it will be proved that the hon. member for Yale and I rise to speak only when we feel we have occasion to say something and it is our duty to do so.
I am going to deal for a few minutes with this bill to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited and express the opinions of the people whom I represent. It is strange that this bill and the related bill to incorporate the Alberta Natural Gas Company are sponsored by Manitoba members. Apparently there was no British Columbia member who was ready to stand up and sponsor either of these bills.


An hon. Member:: Manitoba and Ontario members.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Pardon me, Manitoba and Ontario members. I think that is rather significant. In speaking at this time I feel I am doing my duty in expressing the opinions of the great majority of the people whom I have the honour to represent. I am quite certain that if a plebiscite were taken on these bills 95 per cent of the people of Alberta and British Columbia would vote in support of the action taken by those opposing the bills in this house.
There has been an indication of united action by members of the Conservative, the C.C.F., the Social Credit and the Liberal parties. Hon. members of those parties have considered it their duty to express their opinions with regard to the protection of

Prairie Transmission Lines Canadian natural resources and Canadian interests. We have a perfect right to do that as representatives of the people.
Strangely enough, just yesterday I was talking to a person who had recently come to Ottawa from Washington state. These pipe line bills are of considerable interest to the people of Idaho and Washington because the introduction of gas and oil from Canada will mean a great deal to the development of industry in those states. I am speaking only from information given to me, but I think what I have been told indicates that we should be careful in giving these wide powers to these companies.
The newspapers in Idaho and Washington have published maps which show the wide distribution that is to be made of these natural resources to the cities, towns and small communities in those states. Not one of those maps I am informed shows the pipe line returning to Canada to serve Vancouver and our coastal cities. This bill is most important to the people of the interior of British Columbia as it provides for the transportation and exportation of natural resources in the form of oil and gas. In addition you will find on examining the bill that it confers very wide powers on the company concerned, the holding of lands, the building of pipe lines, the operation of air services, and telephone and other communications. In fact the privileges granted to this company, if the bill is adopted by the house, are so wide that they are causing some of the members from British Columbia serious concern.
Before proceeding to deal briefly with my argument-and I am not speaking for the sake of holding up the bill-I must say that I think we made a mistake when we passed the general pipe lines bill last session, and the other bills associated with it. They were introduced during the latter part of the session and did not receive sufficient attention. I am quite sure that many of the members who supported the pipe lines bill did not visualize for a moment the export of gas into United States territory before serving Canadian requirements fully. I am quite sure that aspect of the situation was not given consideration when that measure was passed.
I think the time has come for us to give earnest and careful consideration, as the minister mentioned, to these pipe line bills. What we do at this time may mean much in the future to the advantage or disadvantage of Canada. At this time I wish to emphasize the point of view of members of the C.C.F. group with respect to a measure of this type. We favour the operation of pipe lines as a public utility. We believe they should be owned by a crown company, and operated by


the crown in order to ensure the fair distribution of gas for industrial and community development and domestic use. This is a new development which will be considerable in the future, and I think the profits will be large in the days to come. We should therefore ensure that the profits made in the distribution and transportation of these products will be returned to the public exchequer.
We are often told that the capital cannot be found in Canada to develop such huge undertakings. I understand these projects will cost from $100 million to $125 million. In my opinion that is not a large sum of money for the Dominion of Canada to invest if the pipe lines were organized under a crown company. I think we would be protecting Canadian consumers. We would have complete control over the transportation and fair distribution of the commodity, and the state would reap the profits. That is not the policy of the government. Their policy is free enterprise. They do not believe in the public ownership of pipe lines through crown companies. Therefore, not finding it possible to have our ideas given effect to by this parliament, we feel it is our duty to do the best we can to protect Canadian interests under the existing situation.
First we are opposing the bill

and I am speaking particularly of the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Jones) and myself-because we believe the route to be followed should be stated therein. If the sponsor of the measure wishes to see it passed readily by the house, all he has to do is to rise in his place and assure members of the house that an allCanadian route will be followed before the entry of the pipe line into the United States. I realize that under the Pipe Lines Act parliament has given authority to the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada to decide such questions, but it is my contention that in such an important matter, and in view of public opinion as expressed by the people at the head of the lakes, parliament should at least decide the approximate route that the pipe lines should follow. I believe we should follow the procedure adopted in granting charters to railways when we grant incorporation to companies which are going to transport gas or oil. The routes which it is intended the pipe lines should follow should be designated and approved by the house.
Second, I believe Canadian needs should be met first before any export of oil or gas from Canadian soil is permitted. There is no guarantee to that effect in the bill. Third, I believe the house should be fully informed as to the persons who are financing this company. We see mentioned in the bill various solicitors and persons of the city of

Toronto and other places, but that does not give to the house real information as to the individuals who are financing the company. I am opposing the bill at the present time, and I am supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) until I am assured that an allCanadian route via the Kettle valley, Hope, and then down the Fraser valley to Vancouver will be followed so that the coastal cities and the interior of British Columbia will be assured of service first.
If the proposed United States route is adopted it will mean that the pipe line will, from our present information, traverse only a short distance in the eastern portion of British Columbia before entering the United States at Kingsgate and give first service to United States industries and communities. Large sections of the southern interior of British Columbia would, if that were the case, be denied the advantages of this gas and oil. As I said before, in my opinion Canada's natural resources should be used to develop Canadian industries and Canadian communities first. There is great need for the development of secondary industry in the interior of British Columbia. In fact it is the primary need to bring our economy into a proper balance. I am sure the minister will agree with me on that. The boards of trade of Trail, Nelson, Penticton, Kelowna and all the smaller interior communities, the farmers' organizations and co-operatives, in fact all public-spirited bodies, are most anxious to see the development of secondary industry in the interior of British Columbia.
For that reason members from British Columbia intend to do all they can to assure the availability of these natural resources to the interior towns and communities for the development of the necessary secondary industries in the Kootenay, Okanagan and Fraser valleys. Then again, if the pipe line is routed through the United States it will mean that the greater part of it will be under foreign control. There is no question about it. Once it enters the United States they can determine the destination of the line. A branch line from the United States to Vancouver and other Canadian coastal points will mean the possibility that they may not receive all the gas they eventually will require for industrial expansion and domestic use. I think that is a very undesirable feature of any proposal that these pipe lines should first enter the United States and then return to Canada. I think it also stands to reason that, as Vancouver and the other coastal cities will be at the end of the pipe line, the cost will be higher to them on that account.
45781-115J
Prairie Transmission Lines
Before concluding I wish to deal briefly with what I consider are the advantages to Canadians and to the people of British Columbia of an all-Canadian route. If the pipe line follows the valleys of the Kettle and the Fraser to the coast, the gas or oil exported therefrom will include charges for transportation. Therefore I am of the opinion that a very much larger amount of United States funds would be payable in Canada than if the gas and oil were exported to the United States at some point before the line went far into British Columbia. Again, the construction of nearly 900 miles of pipe line in my province, if an all-Canadian route were followed, would mean the employment of a large number of Canadians; and I believe we in this house should consider that point. It would also mean immense markets for Canadian materials, for Canadian steel, pipe, valves, fittings, compressors, cement and lumber; and a large market, while the line was being built, for Canadian farm commodities. I believe those facts have to be considered seriously. All those expenditures would be lost to Canada if this line did not follow an all-Canadian route. Later on the maintenance of 900 miles of pipe line would mean a continuous and large expenditure which would provide permanent employment for many Canadians and an assured market for large quantities of materials. The construction of nearly 900 miles of pipe line on Canadian soil would return large revenues to the province of British Columbia in the form of sales tax during construction and by way of other taxes after the line was completed. Speaking as a British Columbia member I believe we certainly must give consideration to that fact.
In view of my firm belief that Canadian natural resources should be used first to develop Canadian communities and Canadian industries; in view of the fact that we must first consider employment for Canadians, markets for Canadian products and revenue for the Canadian exchequer, all of which will flow from the development of Canadian natural resources within Canada, it is my intention to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church).


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had anything at all to say on these bills incorporating companies to construct pipe lines. I must say I support the view just expressed by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). That is quite a concession, because I seldom support a socialist in anything he proposes. However, the hon. gentleman and I are good

Prairie Transmission Lines friends, and since he has thrown in the sponge with respect to pipe lines being socialized, I can support him now.
I support what he has said with respect to an all-Canadian route. I do so not because I particularly want to speak on the matter but because on the train on my way to Ottawa I had quite an extended conversation with an Alberta oil executive, who expressed the view that the pipe line should go through the Kettle valley, following an all-Canadian route. His position was that there was no reason why the larger cities in the northwestern United States should not be supplied by the same pipe line. He went on to explain, though it really does not require much explanation, that if the pipe line ran through the Crowsnest pass, Kettle valley and the Fraser valley, it would provide oil and gas to many small communities along the way. Some of them are not so small; some are growing rapidly. There is the city of Nelson, which is a growing community. I was there this summer; I am not quite sure what the population is, but it is quite a nice little community. It is not far from Nelson to Spokane, which is a large city in the state of Washington, and it would not be difficult to construct a feeder line from the all-Canadian pipe line to Spokane, the largest city until you get to Seattle. Then it would not be so very far from the pipe line running through the Fraser valley down to Seattle. So it would be quite reasonable to have the pipe line follow an all-Canadian route to supply our own communities with oil and gas, and at the same time construct feeder lines to these larger cities to the south.
I certainly support the very reasonable request that has been made by the hon. member for Kootenay West, that the sponsor of this bill should say now what route it is intended to have this pipe line follow. Of *course that does not mean very much, either, even if we have the assurance of the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill. Unless there is something in the bill itself, any assurance that may be given is not worth a great deal. I do not mean to cast any reflection upon anyone who may give an assurance, but business is business; and after the assurance is given, if it is considered wise to have the pipe line follow some other route, that will be done.
Before I resume my seat I want to say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that I do not think he scares anyone when he accuses any group or any individuals of creating a filibuster. I am rather charmed with the word, and I do not mind a bit being party to a filibuster. I have been in this house long enough to know that, even on a measure of this kind, if a minister of the crown can gather enough support through the


party machinery there is not a ghost of a chance of that measure being defeated unless we want to exercise the only prerogative left to us in that case, and talk it out. To some that may appear not altogether ethical; but if we are so convinced that the thing is wrong and we do not want it to be done, no minister of the crown is going to scare any of the members by saying they are creating a filibuster.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have had a little publicity out of this. I have been accused of organizing a filibuster, according to some newspapers. I did not know I had sufficient influence to control such independent members as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and a few others. I am rather flattered to be accused of organizing a so-called filibuster. That seems rather peculiar to me when I recall that the sponsor of one of these very bills spoke for forty-one minutes to talk out a certain bill. You can check that in Hansard; I remember because I have now become one of the old-timers in this house. I did not know until tonight that the government was interested in this bill. I am going to tell you the reason why I am interested in it. Last year I sponsored a bill on behalf of the Westcoast Transmission Company whose directors are the wealthiest and most responsible and reliable men in the province of British Columbia. These men did not try to influence me in my stand on the matter. Two of the directors of that company were in Ottawa last week, and neither of them saw me.
The people of the province of British Columbia are interested in the matter, at least some of us, and I am glad some of the C.C.F. members have spoken on the subject, first as Canadians and secondly as inhabitants of British Columbia. We have no desire to start dissension between the east and west. We want no favours or concessions from the east, nor do we want, and particularly through you, any concessions to certain members from the east at our expense. We are trying to build up British Columbia. Apparently some members have never heard of that attempt. Within the last week, natural gas wells have been brought into existence. Some members have apparently never heard of that, but they should keep abreast of what is happening in Canada. Never mind the United States. I was born in the United States; I have every pride in that country; but I am a Canadian first, last and always.
I was glad to hear the minister say tonight, and I want to be corrected in this if I am wrong in my understanding, that no matter

what company has the charter gas will not be exported until after it goes to Vancouver. Am I correct in that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct. I said Canada's present and future needs would be provided for before any export is permitted.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am glad to hear the minister say that. From that it is obvious that, no matter which company gets the charter, the route will be an all-Canadian route.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Some of my friends who are not experienced in the law should study it. Once gas or oil is exported to the United States, it becomes an international matter. Neither Canada nor British Columbia has any say whether the surplus will be allowed back into Canada from Seattle. Hon. members can check on that point if they wish. The power situation in Ontario is a case in point, as I believe the leader of the opposition knows. Once these products get over to the United States they become matters of international concern, and Canada cannot say whether the surplus will be returned. The question has to be decided on an international basis.
The United States is a growing country. How do we know there will be any brought back? I should like to repeat what the member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said; if you took a vote in the province of British Columbia today you could not get 18 people to vote for the route through the United States. Here are two companies, and I have no doubt one is a good company and the other is backed by pure promoters. I have no doubt one company is bona fide. There are 18 members from the province of British Columbia now, and for the first time British Columbia has the proper representation. There are at least 12 Liberals out of the 18 members. Neither of these companies could get a sponsor for these bills from amongst the 18 members. One had to be sponsored by a member from Ontario and the other by a member from Manitoba. Is it not quite obvious from that what the people of British Columbia think of those companies?
In my riding, I do not have to curry favour or make threats. The people of my riding will tell George Cruickshank what they think of him when the next election comes. I am not worried half as much as some people here should be about the results in their ridings. I know what the people of British Columbia think.
I should like to point out a few facts in connection with this matter. I pointed out that the Westcoast Transmission Company
Prairie Transmission Lines has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money, not any promotional money, in exploring routes and developing the natural resources of Canada. That company has deposited with the government of Alberta approximately $600,000. To some people in the east $600,000 means nothing, but to the people from the land of the Stampeders $600,000 is a lot of money. I sponsored this company simply because it proposes to build an all-Canadian route. The company has $3 million in reserve to develop and exploit the oil and gas resources of the Dominion of Canada. They are not fly-by-night promoter? by any manner or means. The company has the money available to build these lines.
It has been estimated that it will probably cost $170 million to build the pipe line no matter which company builds it. The money will be raised in Canada and the United States. It will be raised by any one of the incorporated companies in exactly the same way. Someone has said something about forty minutes, and I hope it was not a member from British Columbia. I will take my stand right now and vote on the matter as a British Columbia member. Just to show who these people are who are in the Westcoast Transmission Company, may I give you the names of some of the companies in the group. There is the Pacific Petroleums Limited, Calgary, which is a subsidiary. The Peace River Natural Gas Company Limited; Sunray Oil Corporation of Tulsa and Los Angeles-1 wish some of my friends would check on these companies. There is the Pacific Western Oil Corporation of Los Angeles and the Tide Water Associated Oil Company of San Francisco. All of these companies have several hundred million dollars behind them. They are the companies through which the Westcoast Transmission Company will finance the undertaking.
Then, there is Eastman, Dillon and Company of New York. Even some of the junior members from Ontario should know whom that company represents. Some of them may have heard of the Morgans of New York. I am not trying to talk this bill out, but I could easily do so if I wished, since there is only ten minutes left. I do want to put on the record what the attorney general of the province of British Columbia said about these pipe lines when he appeared before the board of transport commissioners. Surely the attorney general of British Columbia should have some standing. He said:
Mr. Chief Commissioner and Mr. Assistant Chief Commissioner and commissioners of the board: The government of British Columbia is very, very strongly supporting the proposal to export gas from northern Alberta through British Columbia to Vancouver.

Prairie Transmission Lines
We feel that it would be a great step forward in the development of northern British Columbia,-
I am surprised now that we have not heard something from northern British Columbia.
-and we are in duty bound of course to make the representations because we enjoy a franchise from the people of British Columbia in the last election to start a survey for gas.
Now, I had hoped before making any special submission that I would have had an opportunity of listening to the evidence that will be presented on behalf of this applicant as to their financial possibilities and as to their plans and so on. All I can say now is that we generally support the proposal to export gas in this manner.
If I may make a few observations as to the points I consider should be mentioned,-
Do not forget this is the attorney general of the province of British Columbia speaking. His government was just returned with the strongest mandate that any government has had for many years. This is the attorney general's submission to the board of transport commissioners.
-if you first have a permit to operate, I am afraid if that decision is taken it will be a very, very long time before we will ever carry out the proposal which our government had in mind, that is to export through this particular territory. That had :he advantage of not only opening up the northern part of British Columbia, it comes down through some sixteen I think very important constituencies in that province, but it also had the advantage that it would lead to the development of our own oil reserves in the north,-
I want to repeat that: "our own oil reserves in the north". We have every reason to believe, and I am quoting the premier of my own province, that we have in northern British Columbia oil resources equal to those in Alberta; we have every reason to believe that in our own northern British Columbia we have coal resources unequalled anywhere else in Canada. Should we not develop those resources? To continue the quotation:
-because we feel we have a great potential oil and gas field in northern British Columbia as they have in Alberta. We have very sound reasons for that. We had the report of geologists and our own investigation. We felt that if this pipe line was built in the manner that is suggested that we could look for the development of gas lands in northern British Columbia, the gas to be picked up on the way. So that this is very-
The Chief Commissioner: Is there some development there now?


Hon.   Mr. Wismer@: There is some development
going on, some slight development going on. But we feel that would be accelerated.
I want to point out to the board this, that you have an entirely different situation in northern British Columbia and northern Alberta than you have in southern Alberta. There you have towns, you have a market for your gas, and that undoubtedly has been a factor which influenced companies in spending their money for the production of gas. But in the north if you must wait to find the amount of gas which will comply with the requirements of the Alberta government I am afraid we will wait a very long time, because what company or what individual is going to spend money exploring to find out if the gas is there unless there is a market? I mean we have the same situation in
[Mr. Cruickshank.}
regard to oil. The first thing any company would ask, or any investor, would be to say "What are we going to do with it after we find it?"
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word to the house about all these various little settlements that are mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), before I go on with what the attorney general had to say. We have heard it said, and we presume that it was meant seriously, that it was the desire of our great leaders to decentralize industry and to build up the smaller communities where the labour situation is easier and the living costs are less. As I understand it, we have today a committee of this house visiting a certain plant. If war should come it is a most essential thing to Canada that we should have our industry decentralized. How can we do it if we are to place in the hands of what has been called a monopoly greater difficulties in bringing this about?
The best speech made on this subject certainly was not made by any member of the government. It was made last year by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) who said-and I am speaking from memory now-that he was surprised that the directors of the Canadian National Railways had not taken more interest in this matter, and that they should have developed this resource, not any private company. But it was obvious to everyone that you cannot have some five or six companies operating. It would not be possible to finance them; and to finance the operation, it could not be possible for them to construct five or six lines across Canada.
Just to surprise some of my junior friends, let me say that I am not going to talk until nine o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There are other members who can go on talking until then. I am speaking on the amendment. I have plenty of chances to speak on the two main bills.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


An hon. Member:: Go on and finish.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am getting a little bit of assistance from some of my friends who apparently have never seen the west, let alone taken any interest in it. I am disappointed that there are not more of my friends from the province of British Columbia here tonight. If there were, I would be delighted to have a vote on this matter right now. It is exactly nine o'clock now, and I move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Mitchell:: It is not nine o'clock.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is one minute more.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


Mr. George Prudham (Edmonton West):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) on a most constructive speech. In my opinion, housing is the greatest national problem we have in Canada today. We have other national problems such as social security, full employment and national health but in one way or another they are all related to the housing problem. A man might have a steady job, adequate insurance and pension for old age, but if he has not a decent place in which to live and raise his family, he has not social security.
Inadequate and overcrowded housing is the breeding ground of physical disease, mental disease and social disease in that it has a bearing on juvenile delinquency and crime. A housing program of sufficient volume to meet the needs of the Canadian people is and always will be a stabilizing influence in the over-all economy of the nation. While the wages paid in the construction industry are not large, they are largely spent for the necessities of life and almost immediately find their way into local trade channels. The present housing crisis is partly the aftermath of the war, but it had its beginning, in my opinion, as far back as twenty-five years ago. Following the first great war the radio and the automobile were developed, accompanied by instalment buying, or pay-as-you-go financing.
We needed more and better housing in the 1920's, but this was not considered to be a social problem; it was one for the individuals concerned. We had not yet learned to blame our troubles on the government. The automobile and the radio captured the imagination of the buying public, and the result was that a large percentage of the purchasing of that generation was diverted to channels other than housing. The buying public always call the tune and get what they want. The result was that there was little technical improvement or advance in housing methods or in the
National Housing Act
planning of housing during the 1920's. With the economic breakdown and depression, the housing industry practically went out of existence. The government of the day told us to tighten our belts and to go back to the farm. A large-scale housing program at that time not only would have provided a great deal of employment but would have created a great national asset in the form of housing, from the lack of which we are still suffering today. The government of the day preferred to pay direct relief which had no lasting result but to increase the national debt.
I do not think that progress in housing stopped entirely during the 1930's. It was during that period that insulation, improved plumbing, improved electrical equipment and many other technical advances were developed. But in so far as the general public was concerned, it meant little because they could not afford to buy. The automobile, which is always an expensive luxury, and a fast depreciating asset, became the Bennett buggy. With the change of government in Ottawa there was a change for the better, and with the passing of the Dominion Housing Act, and later the National Housing Act and the Home Improvement Loans Guarantee Act, the industry began to improve, especially in the provinces where local governments were willing to co-operate.
In my own province of Alberta the National Housing Act did not become fully operative until 1944. At the beginning of the war the building industry was mobilized for the war effort. Supply industries and all available manpower were conscripted to build ships, barracks, factories and houses for war workers. For obvious reasons there was very little civilian housing built during the war.
At the end of the war the government felt obliged to provide shelter for returning veterans, a large number of whom had married. Large sums were spent and in some localities every available building was converted to temporary shelter. The operations of Wartime Housing Limited, which was incorporated in the first place to provide housing for war workers, were extended into peacetime. This same agency has operated to provide emergency shelter for veterans in areas where the need was most acute; and I believe it has done much to relieve the pressure which might otherwise have become explosive.
At the end of the war the building industry and the lumber industry were still geared for war production. Like other industries they took some time to reconvert to peacetime needs. That time lag, together with the unprecedented demand for materials, has caused serious shortages which have plagued

National Housing Act
the industry ever since the war. It is only in recent months that the supply of materials has anywhere nearly met the demand.
In spite of the shortage of materials the house building industry has made a remarkable recovery. We in Canada have built more houses, on a per capita basis, than any other nation in the world for which we have statistics, including Great Britain and the United States. Our standard of housing has greatly improved. The houses of today are planned for convenience and use rather than for appearance. A modern house is insulated, kitchens are modern, electrical installations are elaborate, and plumbing has been greatly improved.
The saving in interest rates alone, the 41 per cent under a National Housing Act loan today, as compared with 7 per cent which was common before the war, accounts for a saving of approximately $10 a month on the purchase of a $6,000 house over a twenty-five-year period.
Our national income is at an all-time high. It has more than doubled. Employment is more universal than ever before. Today's construction costs are high; but considering the improvements in housing, the saving in interest rates and the high level of employment and income, I believe the average Canadian is better able to pay for housing at today's costs than ever before.
The housing industry in my opinion is just as efficient as any other industry or profession. The costs have not risen any more, comparatively, than they have for food, or any other costs of living. We are suffering from the war, and the depression which preceded the war. During the depression few if any young men entered the building trades for the simple reason that there was no work for them. Also the trades did not pay enough to warrant young men making it their life work. Even today a lot of people think that building workers are overpaid, but I contend they are not. Owing to the seasonal nature of the work the average building worker does not make much more than $200 a month. If that is too high a salary, then they are overpaid. The average weekly wage rate in the construction industry as at the end of July, 1949, was $43.23 per week.
Soon after the war many young men entered the building trades, and as they acquire skill the over-all efficiency of the industry is improving. The availability of labour-saving power tools and the introduction of new materials and techniques will from now on be a factor in increased production as well as in the reduction of costs.
Many who criticize today's increased costs are prone to forget the great improvement that has taken place in housing. Also they

forget that pre-war housing was produced at very low wages, and if we are to revert to 1930 prices we will also have 1930 wages, with the accompanying unemployment and breadlines.
Home ownership has a stabilizing influence in the family life which is reflected in the community and in the national life. In my opinion it is the best hedge we have against communism. This is evidenced by the fact that in countries where communistic governments gain control the first thing they do is to liquidate property holders. Food, clothing and shelter are the three necessities of life which we cannot escape. We must pay for them. Food and clothing are completely expendable, but not necessarily shelter.
We pay for our landlord's house, or we pay for our own. If we live in a subsidized house we pay for it partly by taxes. Home ownership has the added advantage that every monthly payment adds to one's estate. By wise purchase rather than renting the cost of shelter becomes a profitable investment. All the purchase of a house actually costs is the down payment. Monthly payments for principal, interest and taxes under the National Housing Act are in most cases less than rent for similar accommodation. Added advantages are the building of an estate, security of tenure, and the other satisfactions including pride of ownership.
There are those who advocate subsidized housing and government-owned rentals. Subsidized housing is a negative approach to the problem. It is in effect subsidizing low wages. I believe Canada can provide an income for all able-bodied persons who are willing to work, an income sufficient to provide the necessities of life, to raise and educate a family and to provide shelter for that family.
Subsidies must come from taxes. Taxes come from the working population, directly and indirectly. If the majority in the country are in need of subsidy, as hon. members of the C.C.F. would have us believe, then it is only a matter of time until we would all be pulled down to the same level. I do not believe that the young people of this country want subsidies; all they want is a chance to help themselves.
In my opinion it should be made possible for young people to begin the purchase of their homes when they first form their families. In my experience as a builder for years I have found that the average person buying a house was in middle age. The reason for that was that it took him that long to save the money necessary to finance the down payment. Children of these people were usually in high school. The result was that they had the maximum use of their new homes for only six to ten years, until the

children left home. The children went out to support their own families and had to go through the same process of living in undesirable quarters. The net result then, and the same applies to some extent today, was that the average citizen spent his early childhood and married life under unsatisfactory housing conditions.
There are those who say that the financial risk of a home-ownership scheme is too great, but I say it is very small. The loans will be secured, first by the building, and second by the credit of the young people of this country. If those two securities are not good, then there is nothing of value in this country. The urge for home ownership is fundamental. It is natural and instinctive to all creation. Even in England under a socialist government, where only one house in five is produced by private enterprise for private ownership, the desire for home ownership is once more becoming very evident. I should like to quote from the Overseas Daily Mail, a London newspaper, of October 8, 1949, as follows:
Britons prefer to own their own homes.
The building societies year book for 1949 just published shows that during 1948 building society membership increased by 53,000 and now more than totals 4,196,000. Borrowers increased by 23,000 and investors by 42,386. The sum advanced to borrowers during the year, largely for buying homes, was 264,000 pounds, the highest on record.
Commenting on this the book says. The facts lead to the inescapable conclusion that in spite of the lavish sums lavished on public authority housing, the average citizen of this country prefers to own his house and is willing to pay for it if he is given a chance.
Building societies have been most successful for the last 100 years in England enabling hundreds of private citizens to purchase their homes built by private contractors and through private enterprise.
I would say to those who defend the system of government-owned rental housing that that also has many evils. In the final analysis it is the same system as that used in Russia and other communistically inclined countries. I think it should be used here only in cases of emergency. To my hon. friends of the C.C.F. and others who advocate subsidized housing I should like to tell an old story. A certain farmer was very thrifty. In the fall of the year he and his family gathered vegetables and fruit and brought them into the basement for use by the family during the winter months. Being thrifty they gathered up all the cull and windfall apples and the family were instructed to use those first. They did this and the cull apples lasted during the fall. Then when they opened the barrels of good apples they found that the top layers showed signs of decay. Being thrifty the farmer instructed them to use the decayed apples because they could not afford to waste them. Being
National Housing Act
obedient the family did so, but by the time they reached the next lot of apples they found more signs of decay. The final result was that while the family had apples all winter, they used only decayed apples.
Subsidies work in the same way. If you subsidize the lower strata at the expense of the other taxpayers, it is only a matter of time until they will all need subsidies, and then what do we do? I recognize of course that there are those who because of extreme misfortune, physical disability or old age are unable to help themselves and therefore must receive assistance from the state. But as a general policy, and considering the fact that the production of houses is limited by the capacity of the industry to produce, I believe we should concentrate first on the great middle band who are able and anxious to help themselves. If and when we satisfy the needs of this great middle group it will be time enough to consider subsidies and slum clearance, except in cases of extreme emergency. I believe there are still some emergency areas in Canada where government action will probably have to be taken.
By concentrating first on the middle band, a large number in the lower income strata can be lifted and assisted to help themselves. If we concentrate first on those in the lower income band and assist them by means of subsidies, which must be paid by the taxpaying public, there is every danger that a large percentage of those in the middle band will be discouraged and forced into the lower group and will themselves become eligible for subsidies.
I believe we have only two alternatives. First, there is the positive approach to the problem which places the emphasis on home ownership, even with small down payments, and which will enable people to help themselves, with the government assuming the risk of having to subsidize such a scheme only if and when we run into a major depression and purchasers are forced into default. The other alternative, which is the negative approach, is to provide subsidies now rather than take a chance on the future.
Let us review the situation as it exists today. Employment and income are at an all-time high, but wartime savings and gratuities are largely spent. Because of the high level of prosperity we have an unprecedented demand for separate housing accommodation. People are no longer contented to live in shared quarters. Because of the high level of prosperity the marriage rate is at an all-time high and the new family formations alone almost equal our present production of houses. There is a decided trend and desire

National Housing Act
on the part of young people to marry young and raise a family. The first thought now seems to be a home rather than an automobile.
The mechanization of farms and the prosperity of the agricultural industry have caused a large exodus from the farms to urban centres. We have a large backlog of need as a legacy from the war and pre-war years. We are becoming socially conscious and greater attention is now being paid to public health. Because housing is a social as well as a physical problem, all levels of government have a responsibility. Our building supply industry will soon be normal and competitive and many new materials are being introduced. Our labour force is greatly improved in skill and numbers since the veterans have become re-established in civilian life. Also many new labour-saving tools and techniques have been introduced in recent years.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has compiled much data on housing and is conducting research on materials and methods and planning. Research is one activity of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that I should like to see expanded. Research has paid off in agriculture and I am convinced that it would pay off in housing. At this time I should like to pay a tribute to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They started from scratch not many years ago and they now have a most efficient organization. There has been a good deal of criticism by hon. members to my left about certain housing projects that went bankrupt. I think we ought to review the record. Only one per cent of the builders operating under the integrated housing scheme have gone bankrupt. Only eight builders out of six hundred have got into trouble and only 120 houses out of 14,000 units are involved. The 120 purchasers involved all have their houses completed or have received back their down payments.
As I mentioned before, the building industry practically went out of existence during the thirties and it did not have a chance to get back on its feet during the war.
When Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was given the job of administering the National Housing Act they did not have much of an industry to deal with at the start. I know for a fact that they have encouraged many people to enter the industry and have given them technical advice and help in planning. In my opinion we would not have been able to produce the number of houses we have without the well organized efforts of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The officials of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation were not the only people who were fooled
[Mr. Prudham.l
by some of these builders who started in without sufficient experience or finances. The particular housing project in Calgary, which the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) spent a great deal of time talking about the other night, received a loan of $13,000 from the Alberta government credit house just one month before they ceased operations.
The only way to meet the need is to build more houses. Talking does not help very much. The production and processing of materials and the necessary financial arrangements to get the finished product into use is the only solution. The industry must co-operate and respond to the challenge to produce houses for people of moderate means under the threat that if they do not do so the government has the option of participating in construction for sale or rent. Labour plays an important part in industry, and it is my opinion that labour unions should consider working a forty-four hour week while the housing emergency exists rather than the forty hour week which is common today. Now that materials are becoming more readily available, the additional four hours of work per week by the building workers could boost the over-all production of houses by as much as 10 per cent, and no one would be hurt. The workers themselves would benefit from the additional wages, and they would also benefit from the more adequate supply of housing. Tradesmen and the working classes are suffering as much as anyone else today because of the lack of housing.
The policy of the government was stated by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) on September 21, and is found in Hansard at pages 120 and 121:
Care would be exercised to see that the operations of the senior governments in this field supplement rather than replace the activity of private endeavour upon which we place the greatest reliance for large volume of house building . . . There is no desire by the dominion to enter the direct construction field.
Again I quote:
. . . the creation of conditions favourable to a large housing program by private individuals and companies. Only to the extent that housing needs are not being met, is it proposed that the dominion and the provinces will enter the field. It seems to me that only by the co-operative efforts of all levels of government and the house building industry can we maintain our high volume of new residential construction and increase it beyond its present level.
In my opinion this policy is the most practical and sane approach to the problem that we have had. The minister and his assistants are to be congratulated. The amendments are designed to implement that policy, and to make the act broad enough and flexible enough to meet the needs of any province or

municipality. The new legislation is in effect enabling legislation. It enables the municipalities and the provinces to provide utilities and services for new housing developments with the dominion assisting by bearing a large proportion of the cost. The amendments also provide for assistance to public housing projects for sale or rent with the dominion contributing a larger proportion of the costs. The responsibility is on the provinces and the municipalities to decide whether publicly sponsored projects are necessary.
The new legislation is a challenge to the industry and, in my opinion, will provide the necessary machinery for a constructive approach to the solution of the problem. The problem is too urgent and too complex for industry or government to solve alone. Only by co-operative action on the part of everyone concerned can we hope to provide adequate housing for the Canadian people. The reduction in the down payments will bring new housing within the reach of thousands of people, especially the young.
I should like to close my remarks by saying once again that the only solution to the problem is the production of more houses. To ensure this, conditions must be made favourable by the creation of serviced land and improved financial arrangements through the co-operation of all levels of government and the industry. To the members of the C.C.F. group may I say that they are probably sincere in wanting better housing conditions, but I think they lack a practical approach to the problem. Their arguments are largely based on humanitarian considerations, and they forget that the only way to build houses is by the practical application of common sense and skill. To the members of the Social Credit party I suggest that, if they are sincere in wanting better housing conditions, their efforts should be directed towards influencing the government of Alberta to cooperate under this scheme to provide serviced land so that the industry can provide the houses that are needed.
To my hon. friends of the official opposition, who have had so much to say about what the so-called enlightened government of Ontario has done, I would say that housing is constitutionally a provincial responsibility. What the Ontario government has done is but their duty, and I would suggest that if you want to promote more housing, especially in the province of Ontario, you should prevail upon the Ontario government to continue and increase their assistance. The new legislation is intended to supplement rather than replace provincial efforts. Hon. members of the official opposition have spent a great deal of time during the last few weeks supposedly
National Housing Act
defending provincial rights. It sounds rather strange to hear them finding fault now with the federal government for not doing more in the field of housing, which is a provincial responsibility. In my opinion housing is too important a problem to be tossed around for political reasons.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Page the Liberal government.


George Prudham: What we need is genuine Canadian co-operation regardless of party and constitutional responsibilities. The new amendments to the National Housing Act now before us will provide the necessary machinery for such co-operation.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the house is a piece of legislation which can be very useful if it is carried forward in a spirit of co-operation, and if a wholehearted effort is made to bring together the three levels of government that can produce the results that are desired. I simply want to say in passing, in relation to the remarks that have just been made, that obviously the hon. member has not been following the discussion on this subject because the fact is that, in so far as the activities of the Ontario government are concerned, the present legislation merely replaces one part of the existing Ontario legislation, and has been welcomed by the premier of Ontario for that purpose.
I wish to say at the outset that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) has shown a commendable spirit in dealing with the provincial premiers, which is a change, and offers some hope that there will be a real spirit of co-operation under the bill now before the house. The responsibility in connection with housing is the responsibility of all the people of Canada through their representatives at the three levels of government. As far as the type of housing is concerned and the rules that apply to the actual standards of construction, such matters in the ordinary course of events come within provincial jurisdiction because of the exclusive responsibility of the provincial governments for the municipal laws of the provinces. Nevertheless the bill now before the house does offer the possibility of agreement among the three levels of government which undoubtedly will bring to any consideration of the type of housing the joint judgment and experience of those who have been associated with this work.
By virtue of the fact that a very considerable undertaking has been carried out by the national government and that in the carrying out of that program great experience has been gained, this government will be able to make a substantial contribution, not merely

National Housing Act
in the financial support that is offered but in the experience gained in the mass building that has been done under that program. In addition valuable experience will be at the disposal of the provincial governments through their municipal and other departments, such as public works, which in various ways have been associated with this activity. Above all there will be a vast store of experience, knowledge and good judgment in the possession of the municipal authorities, who during the whole development of Canada have been exercising supervision over the types of homes constructed in the urban areas where there is a concentration of building.
This is a challenge to each level of government. It is not only a challenge to bring forward constructive ideas; it is a challenge to act in the common interests of all the people of Canada. Hon. members do not need to be told from any part of the house that this is not a matter with which to play politics. That remark might well be underlined, and not necessarily directed to the official opposition, the socialists or the social credit party, because this afternoon we heard one speech that sounded as though it had reference to some bill this house has not yet seen or heard of. In that speech was drawn a picture of a new heaven and a new earth which certainly is not expressed within the four corners of this bill, and certainly was not in any way prophesied by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) in his explanation of what this act really contemplates. It may be, of course, that the hon. member was preaching for a call or trying to do a little personal prodding. The fact remains, however, that it would be very unfortunate if any attempt should be made, for political reasons, to create in the minds of the public the impression that this bill contains more than it really does.
This legislation can be the basis for effective, long-term co-operation among these three levels of government which collectively represent our people in all their many activities. That objective will be best attained if no attempt is made to create the impression that this act goes beyond what it really states. As has been very frankly explained by the minister, this is enabling legislation and nothing more, and by itself can achieve nothing except to the extent that, in the spirit of co-operation, the joint action of government at three levels brings together the experience of those who have had to do with these questions, with the common objective of giving the people not only the number of homes they need but the type of homes they need to form a foundation for a healthy, good society.

I do not want to stir up the feelings of any hon. members who may not wish to hear what was done in the province of Ontario, but in view of the fact that certain statements have been made I should like to keep the record clear on one point. This is not the first day in the history of Canada that there has been recognition on the part of those in positions of responsibility of the fact that housing is a social need. It is not the first day in the history of Canada that the necessity of giving to the people of this country an opportunity to build their own homes with a small down payment has been recognized by those in authority. I welcome, as I am sure every hon. member welcomes, the possibility of encouraging the construction of homes by reducing the amount required as a down payment; but I do want to remind some hon. members who have seen fit to be rather critical, in a friendly way, of the suggestion that there is any other wisdom or experience than that now embodied in the ranks of the present government, that other efforts have been made, and that there is very good and positive reason why in the case of Ontario, which has been mentioned, as in the case of other governments, vigorous co-operation will be forthcoming. In order that certain statements which have been made today will not remain unchallenged on the record I should like to read an editorial that appeared in The Legionary of May 1, 1948, which reviews one earlier attempt-and a not inconsiderable attempt-to deal with this subject. That attempt also dealt with certain aspects of this problem I want to place before the government and the members of the house in my later remarks. The editorial reads:
Veterans everywhere will acclaim the new housing legislation recently enacted1 in the province of Ontario to:
1.	Promote the building of more rental accommodation for veterans, by the provincial government undertaking to share with municipalities (within specified limits) costs incurred in providing serviced lots for further "wartime housing" developments.
2.	Encourage the purchase of small homes, by the provincial government undertaking to guarantee approximately $1,000 of the cash equity or down payment required of the purchaser beyond the first mortgage loan, thus eliminating one of the greatest obstacles now standing in the way of home ownership-the inability of the average would-be purchaser to finance a very high initial cash equity payment.
3.	Encourage more efficient building methods, and
4.	Provide assistance for municipalities in slum clearance projects.
Provided municipalities and lending institutions co-operate to the maximum in making this new legislation fulfil its intended purposes, Ontario will in all probability now see a house-building boom of unprecedented proportions, bringing renewed hope for every home-seeking veteran in that province.

In this new housing legislation, the Ontario government is blazing new trails out of which might materialize the long-awaited over-all plan for the successful solution of the housing problem in every part of the dominion which the Legion has been pressing for so hard ever since the war ended.
Now, that editorial in The Legionary brieflly reviewed the attempt made by the government of that province to deal with the subject. I only mention this now to point out that this is a subject which has been engaging the thought and the concern, not only of the government of Ontario, but of every government in Canada. I feel sure that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply would be the first in this house to say that he had found nothing but a desire on the part of the provincial premiers to further any effort seeking the effective co-operation of all levels of government to advance the development of housing in Canada.
There is one feature of the Ontario provision which I should like to mention. I have said that the attempt by that provincial government was not inconsiderable, and I think that is a fair statement. The commitment made under this bill in regard to the co-operative plan is approximately $50 million. The Ontario government committed itself to a program involving $35 million, so that it took rather extensive steps to enter this field as far as it could at that time. This bill, of course, goes beyond that in other ways and offers wider opportunities of co-operation which will, undoubtedly, expand as time goes on.
One of the things mentioned in this editorial, and which I should like to put before the house and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, is the importance of encouraging the employment of new types of building. I believe that has already been mentioned by the hon. member who spoke immediately before me, and who, I understand, has had practical building experience. He mentioned the fact that new types of construction provide new opportunities for building homes. I imagine that nearly every member has already seen some of the new types of homes that have been constructed but which, for one reason or another, have not been generally employed in these programs. I can think of many of them. I feel sure that the minister has seen a most interesting development on the north shore of lake Superior at Terrace. Within the last three years a new community has grown up out of the virgin forest and today it is a beautiful town with homes that would attract attention anywhere. The cost of those houses was much lower than would have been the case in any urban or suburban development elsewhere, because they were
National Housing Act
built under one plan with special types of construction and with the actual prefabrication done on the site.
The figures for the cost of construction suggested that those houses were being built and could be sold at less than two-thirds of the price of similar homes in many cities and towns in Canada. I have seen other developments. There is one not far away at Marathon, and I have no doubt there are others in other parts of Canada. With the possibility of radiant heating, with the possibility of metal frames, with new opportunities for insulation and for prefabrication of mass-produced houses, there are great opportunities for lowering the cost and improving the standards of the houses themselves. I would hope that the plans which are made will provide for the encouragement of new developments of that kind.
As the minister of reconstruction doubtless knows, one of the features of the plan to which I have referred was the financial support of new types of construction which demonstrated their practical possibilities. It would be unfortunate if, at this stage, we did not make every possible use of what the builders have learned from the experience of these past years.
There is one feature of this bill which I believe might well be given consideration, and that is the interest rate. Again, I am not putting it forward as a basis of unfavourable comparison, but nevertheless I would remind the minister that under the Ontario provision for reducing the down payment, the loan guaranteed under the Ontario plan was provided at 3i per cent. As that was on a second mortgage, I do think that the government might give consideration to the possibility of an interest rate lower than the 4J per cent on the amount that is advanced. It is true that this figure might contemplate the desirability of having a certain safety margin for those cases in which the rental will not be collected.
As I understand, it is the intention of the government to take a calculated risk in accepting losses in construction, and it is for that very reason that provision is made for the joint responsibility of the dominion and provincial governments. Under this plan, therefore, I do not think the interest rate should be fixed at a level which will provide anything in the nature of an insurance fund against the possibility of loss on any of the other payments. I would urge that consideration be given to the lowering of that figure. I point out that, under the other plan to which I have referred, a lower interest rate was charged and is now being paid on some 11,000 second mortgages which were arranged.

National Housing Act
I do wish to emphasize this feature of the bill that is before the house. I do not intend to embark on the discussion of a subject which can be discussed on another occasion, but rentals have a bearing on this subject that cannot possibly be overlooked in examining the effectiveness of any plan of this kind. First of all, there is the question as to whether rentals will themselves be at a level that will make the purchase of homes seem relatively attractive.
There is also the fact that a considerable part of the building of homes in Canada in the past has been done for the purpose of investment. Undoubtedly there are landlords whose conduct is open to the most severe criticism. But let us also remember that there are many landlords who, in relation to their tenants, have acted in a manner which the tenants themselves would be the first to say has been fair. Let us also remember who some of these landlords are. Many of them are widows who have been left with homes which are larger than they can use and which perhaps represent their largest evidence of personal security. There are other landlords who have built their own homes while they were younger and then as their family has grown or they have felt that they wanted another home, they have built another house; they have kept the first one and have rented it. These are investments which, under our system, should not be discouraged if that system is to continue.
I hope no one will seek to interpret what I have said as any defence of or excuse for those who have abused the opportunity that has existed on many occasions during the present critical demand for housing. I think it is time, however, that we were all fair enough to recognize that every landlord is not a man or woman of evil design nor is every tenant a saint. In the balance of human experience, in every relationship there are those who present their problems in any of these tasks that must be undertaken. The needs of the tenants must be respected. The right of tenants not to have improper rentals charged under the compelling demand of necessity and the shortage of houses, and also the right of fair landlords to have some assurance of what their rights are as well, should be recognized in dealing with any of these plans. Anything else produces bad results for tenants as well as for landlords.
One of the objections that are expressed to-what has recently happened with regard to rents is the uncertainty and confusion which will have its impact on this whole question of housing as well. I am not going

to enlarge on that matter at this point, because this subject can be discussed in complete detail on another occasion; but I suggest that it will be well for the government to remember that, in approaching the provincial authorities and the municipal authorities, they are going to be asked what the situation is with regard to rentals. I hope they will be in a position to give a much more satisfactory answer than can be given today, because all over this country now tenants are disturbed and are naturally resentful of what they regard as the complete repudiation of undertakings to protect their rights. Others who thought that they were benefiting in some way are equally confused as to the extent to which their rights are being recognized.
These day-by-day clarifications, which I believe is the official word used to describe them, and which represent new efforts to cure the incurable, are in themselves only contributing difficulties in the way of that necessary measure of co-operation. While on this occasion we cannot go further in reaching any positive conclusion on the matter, may I say that the government would be well advised to start all over again on these rental measures that they have so recently undertaken and to seek to follow a course that can be understood and that recognizes the general obligation, under circumstances of this kind, to treat fairly all those with whom they deal. Then one of the questions that will be raised can be answered, because undoubtedly that question will be asked.
In some remarks that were made today, it was stated that the number of houses will depend upon the attitude of the provincial governments in relation to the municipalities in working out these plans. It is going to depend on the attitude of the dominion government, not only in regard to this particular bill but in regard to the wider field of dominion-provincial co-operation.
The question was raised tonight as to the constant emphasis that is placed upon provincial rights. That comment was based upon an obvious misunderstanding of the arguments which have really been presented. Those who have emphasized the need for dominion-provincial understanding on the widest possible basis have been doing so in the belief that it is essential that the three levels of government in this country ought to know what their responsibilities are, what their ability is to carry out those responsibilities as well. The argument has been based upon the contention that a government cannot carry out those legislative and administrative responsibilities which it thinks it should carry out unless it also knows whether, and

to what extent, it can raise the revenue necessary for that purpose. One of the things that have been emphasized over and over again in this house and outside of it is the need for clarification of the relationship between the dominion government and the provincial governments. Let no hon. member of this house be under any illusion that the tax agreements that have been signed between the dominion government and the-


Alphonse Fournier: You are out of order.


George Alexander Drew: I am not out of order, Mr. Speaker.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, you are out of
order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, he is not out of order.


George Alexander Drew: I am not out of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members do not realize that the provincial governments-


Alphonse Fournier: On a point of order, these are amendments to the housing act, and I thought on second reading of a bill one had to speak to the principle of it. There is no question here at all of taxation as between the provincial and federal governments. I hope the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) will confine his remarks to the principle of the bill-if I am right in my point of order.


George Alexander Drew: If necessary, Mr. Speaker, I shall ask for your ruling. I will point out that this bill has a direct bearing on taxation, because this bill is premised on the requirement that the provincial governments will raise substantial sums which are not provided for now under the tax agreement to which I have referred.


Alphonse Fournier: That is going too far afield.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the housing problem.


George Alexander Drew: I am doing that.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Drew: And, Mr. Speaker, I say now that I do not intend to use any carbon copy of any statement handed to me by any member of the government, no matter what any other hon. member in the house may be prepared to do.
The provinces of this country will wish to have an opportunity to carry out this general proposal. But if they are to do so there must also be some way in which they can meet the added obligation that would be incurred by agreements contemplated by this bill. And it is for that reason that it is essential, if these agreements are to become effective, that there
National Housing Act
be an understanding on a wider field in regard to the taxing powers of the provinces, and their ability to raise the funds that are necessary to assume their part under the agreements contemplated in this bill.


Alphonse Fournier: Still out of order.


George Alexander Drew: Well, if I am out of order at least my speech is on Hansard.


Alphonse Fournier: On another point of order; I think if the remarks made by the leader of the opposition are out of order it should be ordered that they be struck out of Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Always the same speech, anyway.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, after the humorous interjection of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier), I now wish to mention another point which was introduced earlier. It is this, that emphasis was placed in some remarks made today on the objective being set. I believe these were the words, "We set an objective; we reached that objective."
Let us keep this in a clear sense of proportion: This is enabling legislation. This is legislation which will best be advanced in the interests of the people of Canada if it does not start with attempts being made to create the impression that the building being done under it will be done by agencies of the dominion government, entirely, or even in a major degree.
The remarks to which I am referring were not those of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters), who has made it clear that he believes that the major building program should be carried out by the building contractors of this country, operating under the broad provisions of agreements that can be made.
The reason I mention this lies in the fact that, if the impression is created that this is a bill only to provide buildings or mainly to provide buildings which will be built by a government agency, it will not receive the support it should receive. Because what the people of this country want is encouragement to those who can buy their homes to build those homes according to their own desires. And it is the duty of the government-and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply has indicated a full recognition of this-to join in meeting the need for homes facing all our people.
There are too many people in Canada who are still badly housed. There are too many people who even yet can find no homes. There are still too many people who are

National Housing Act
badly clothed, and there are too many who are badly fed. But that condition is not going to be met by any single bill or by any simple device. That represents a problem that reaches into the wider field of education, of social services and of all these other things.
Let us be sure that in this particular case the words of the minister are remembered, and that it is recognized that, except for the special plans indicated in his remarks, this mainly contemplates encouragement to private contractors to build homes to be purchased by the people of Canada. And as was pointed out by one hon. member in his remarks today, by the fact that in the very nature of their activities many people move from place to place, it is required that there shall always be a certain number of homes available for rental, quite apart from what we may describe under the over-all expression of low-rental housing.
Having said that, however, I feel sure there is not a single member in the house who does not agree the hope should be that as many of our people as possible are able to buy their homes, and in that way to establish the sound foundation of their family life, with that measure of personal association, personal interest and personal pride in the home that has so much to do with the life that is the basis of our society.
In all this, the success or otherwise of this bill when it becomes law will depend upon wholehearted co-operation among the three levels of government. Let us remember that this government can pass only enabling legislation. But it can contribute experience, and so can the provincial governments; and in the end it will be the municipal governments which, with their services and their various municipal bylaws, will have most to do with any homes that are built.
Above all, in the planning of these projects which will emerge from this legislation, let us do all we can to make sure that in this great and vast country of ours we do assure as much land as is possible for every one of these homes, that we make them as attractive as possible, and that we encourage the very highest and most permanent type of building consistent with the availability of supplies and the money available. Let us do this so that not only may we be providing shelter for today but that we may be providing homes for the years ahead, homes that will really be homes in the very finest sense of the word.


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not trespass long upon the time of the house. However in my riding of Parkdale

the housing situation is of a critical nature, and I feel I should make some remarks not only about the amendment but about certain things which in my view the amendment fails to accomplish.
We all know that not so very long ago the matter of buying a house was entirely a man's private business. If he could afford to buy a house, he bought one; if he could not afford to buy one, he did not buy one. No one cared what he did. However, in recent years, as has been stated so repeatedly, it has become clear that housing has become a distinctly social problem. It is realized that poor housing can contribute to overcrowded conditions which bring about disease and ills of that nature. It can create poor marital relations, cause the breaking up of homes and contribute to juvenile delinquency.
The original Dominion Housing Act was passed in 1935. The National Housing Act was first passed in 1938. That act provided for a reduction in the down payment on houses and permitted amortized payments at lower rates of interest. That act proved most helpful and a great deal of housing was built under it. It is interesting to note the tremendous progression in social security trends and thinking that we have witnessed in our own day. With your permission I should like to review briefly the act and the amendments to see just what we have accomplished.
It will be noted that the act is divided into six parts. Part I deals largely with housing for home owners and provides for the usual 80 per cent loan with interest at four and a half per cent and 30 year amortization. The housing corporation's share is not to exceed 25 per cent and the corporation may guarantee to the lending institution up to 15 per cent of their share. Under that home owners part we now have provision for additional loans of one-sixth more if the price is fair and reasonable, and I shall have something to say on that later on.
Under part I provision is made for the integrated housing plan with which I think most hon. members are familiar. As far as I have personally witnessed the operation of this plan, it appears to be available only to veterans, but I would hope that this will soon be extended right across the board. I feel that if the many restrictions which have been placed on integrated housing were withdrawn this would be greatly appreciated by the building industry.
The third part of part I deals with cooperative building. This is an intricate, detailed matter and I do not propose to go into it at all. The terms are set forth in the amendment.

Part II of the act deals with rental housing and some seven different plans are provided. The first is the ordinary joint loan made to the builder who erects housing units for rent. The second is the guaranteed rental plan with which most hon. members are familiar. The rents are agreed upon between the corporation and the builder for a period of three years and are guaranteed for the term of the loan, not exceeding thirty years. The guarantee is not to exceed 85 per cent of the rents which are determined for the first three years.
The third plan provides for the setting up of limited dividend housing companies. Under that plan the rents are agreed upon and there is the usual ratio between rents and the income of the people who are to occupy the housing units. A 90 per cent loan is provided for with interest at three per cent, the term being for the useful life of the buildings or not more than 50 years. This plan is usually carried out by a corporation especially incorporated for that purpose. I have seen this in operation and I believe it is a most useful feature of the act.
The next plan provides for housing for special industries. I have not been in a position to witness the operation of any of these plans by mining, lumbering, logging or fishing companies. The act provides for an 80 per cent loan at four per cent, not exceeding a 15-year term. The fifth part provides for institutional housing corporations and institutional holding companies. This is the scheme whereby the lending institution as designated by the act can set up a low-rental scheme.
The sixth part provides for institutional land improvement schemes. An institution may take over a block of land, thoroughly service it and then offer it for sale to builders. The only advantage to the lending institution which has a guarantee for five years from the government of a return of two per cent is the hope and probability that it will sell land to builders who will obtain loans from the institution. This scheme has been quite successful and 1 have no doubt it will be used more as time goes on.
The seventh scheme under this part provides for slum clearance, the clearance of what is sometimes called blighted or substandard areas. We have seen this scheme worked out in certain cases. There are not many ridings where slums are a problem and therefore this scheme would be applicable only to a limited number of ridings in Canada. Under this scheme the municipality acquires the land and after clearing it sells it to a limited dividend housing corporation. The dominion government makes grants not exceeding one-half of the difference between
National Housing Act
the cost of acquiring and clearing and the sale price to the limited dividend housing corporation.
Under part III of the act provision is made for rural housing. The provisions here are similar to those in part I. Under part IV provision is made for home improvement and home extension loans. Provision is made for loans up to $2,500 for single units, and $2,500 for the first and $1,250 for each subsequent unit in a multiple unit scheme. This part has not yet been proclaimed.
Under part V provision is made for housing research and community planning. This provides for the expenditure of up to $5 million on research and community planning. This provision somewhat overlaps the $5 million which can be provided under part III which deals with rural housing. Under this part experiments in plumbing, heating and other component parts of housing could be carried on.
Part VI is the general part which gives very broad powers to supplement the more specific powers set out in the other sections. The amendment section 35 will give additional powers.
I have some suggestions to make which possibly are of a critical nature, but I do feel that some of the provisions of this act will have to be extended. There are many things which are not perfect at the present time. Section 5, subsection 2, provides that the corporation may for the purposes of part III of the act prescribe the manner in which the cost of construction of a house or of a housing project shall be estimated, and by whom and in what manner the appraisal of the value of the house shall be made.
The definition section states that 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. Anyone familiar with the working of the National Housing Act is only too well aware that there is a great distinction between lending value as defined in the act and the sale price or market value. Therefore when one speaks of an 80 per cent loan it will be obvious to every member of the house that it is most important and vital that there be some close relationship between the lending value and the market value. Otherwise the 80 per cent advance may not be of any great assistance in helping people to purchase homes.
I think the act has been administered with great fairness in the past, but I suggest that it will have to be administered with a greater breadth of vision. I do not for one moment criticize the attitude which has been adopted by the president of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He has been in the

National Housing Act
position where he was given an act to administer. He has been told the money is available for loans, and accordingly he has made them. He is a sound businessman and does not care to lose money. If the government fails to provide more housing they must to a certain minor extent subsidize housing in this manner. I feel it has been unfair to put the whole burden on the president of the housing corporation. I think the government might well take this matter under advisement, as they have under part III, and that the government should lay down the policy from time to time in that connection instead of leaving it to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the officials thereof. I make this suggestion, and I think it might be desirable that a further amendment to the act be passed in the near future to bring this matter directly under the government rather than having it handled by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
We must administer the act in such a way that the distinction between lending value and market value will be very slight. Otherwise we are not going to give the help to the purchasers of homes that we obviously hope to give. Turning to the additional one-sixth loan which is now being provided under the bill, it will be recalled by all members of the house that this loan can only be made if the purchase price is considered to be fair and reasonable. I am afraid I must take exception to an amendment worded in that fashion. It is my personal belief that to say that the one-sixth loan will only be advanced if the purchase price is fair and reasonable has no relevancy. I cannot see how the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the purchase price has any relation to the loan. If it will make it any easier for a person to buy a house, I do not see that it matters whether the corporation considers the price reasonable or unreasonable. Surely if the purchaser has sufficient money to pay the unreasonable price the government will help him to the extent of extending the extra one-sixth loan and making the house that much more easily obtainable. At the same time the government is not taking any more risk than they would with a normal house.
I have always felt that the important thing to any purchaser of a house is the down payment. I think most members will agree, if they have had any experience in real estate, that it is the down payment that is interesting to the average young married couple, and to many older people. I have always felt that, instead of having the present system, surely the loan should be calculated to help the person to buy the house, and that it would be better to have a graduated

down payment in relation to the purchase price. I throw out that suggestion. I have talked to many people about it. Provided that the down payment is made reasonably sufficient to ensure an adequate stake in the house, I think that is something that could well be put into effect. In that case I would agree it might well be advisable to add that the price must be fair and reasonable. For instance, if you say that a $500 down payment is needed for a $6,000 house, a $750 down payment for a $7,500 house, and so on, .1 think you are getting closer to the root of the problem because it is the down payment that is the killer to the average young married couple trying to buy a house.
I can assure anyone who feels that $500 is a small stake in a $6,000 house, that to any young married couple who are just getting started $500 is a lot of money and a big stake, and that they are going to fight very hard to keep that house.
There is one other suggestion I should like to make. It is something that is coming eventually. I do not think there is any great urgency at the moment, but eventually we will have to amortize houses over a longer period of time. The reason I do not think it is so urgent at the moment is that I have not much doubt that in the next six months or a year all the available labour forces and supplies will be poured into housing in any event, and those houses will be sold. The market will readily absorb them, but I think eventually we will have to amortize these loans over a longer period. It is not only important that the down payment be small; it is equally important that the carrying charges be small. Provided the house is of adequate construction to stand longer amortization, I think it will be entirely desirable. As I said before, however, I feel in the next year all the available men and materials will be used, and that there will be no slackening of the market for houses.
It may be that at the end of another year it will be desirable to re-examine the act to see how it is working and readjust our viewpoint towards it. I can assure the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) that the amendments have my most enthusiastic support. I think they are decidedly a great step in the right direction. I think we will probably find there are some inadequacies, but I have no doubt they will be corrected.


Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the matter we are discussing this evening, and indeed we have discussed it all day, is not something in the nature of the principle of stare decisis nor even the question of the Combines Investigation Act. It is

a matter which is known and understood and is of the greatest importance, I may say, to all Canadians. The question of housing is one which people from all over Canada not only know, but know to their great cost these days from the point of view of the necessity existing for increased housing units.
I do not think that we can emphasize the matter of housing too much because, if I may use outworn words, housing is of the greatest importance in the making of good citizens not only in Canada but all over the world. Home environment to a very great measure molds the future children of the world. The last outworn remark I might make is that criminal tendencies may very well be developed as a result of poor housing conditions. I think that is realized by all hon. members of the house, and the interest they have displayed in the legislation is sufficient proof of the importance with which they view it.
The bill that we are discussing is, as the minister said when he first introduced the resolution, an enabling act. It gives the dominion government power to discuss with provincial governments, and through them with municipalities and, as he said on September 21, with other public bodies. I take it that "other public bodies" would be bodies other than provincial governments and municipalities such as housing corporations. I hope to refer to that later.
I must say that the bill appears to be a very sensible approach to the problem. Its provisions, read with the act as it stands today, seem pretty conclusive. The only question I have in my own mind is whether it goes far enough. I am not trying to criticize the government in this regard; in fact I disagree with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Prudham), who referred to hon. members to his left who were criticizing. I considered that what I heard of this discussion was constructive criticism. I do not believe anything destructive was uttered by an hon. member. As far as I could judge anything said even by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), who spoke at length on this subject, was purely constructive.
The hon. member for Edmonton West referred to one other matter. He said that constitutionally housing was a provincial matter. I must say I entirely agree with the statement by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) a few moments ago that housing is the responsibility of the whole Canadian people. It is not the responsibility of the provinces, of the municipalities or even of the dominion government; it can be solved only by all the people working together. That, I am sure, will be one of the important
National Housing Act
results of the tour made by the minister before this legislation was introduced. I am quite certain he has put a great deal of work into that tour. He paid Newfoundland a very real tribute by making our province one of his first visits. Incidentally, in respect to the timing of his visit-I am sure it was pure coincidence-he came just before the election, and I can assure you that the Liberal party lost no votes as a result. Nevertheless his visit was very welcome, and from his correspondence with the premier of my province I can see the minister is really getting his teeth into our problem in Newfoundland, and of course the problem of Canada as a whole. I should like to join other hon. members in saying that as far as I can see the minister really is trying to do a job to the best of his ability. We realize, of course, that he has had a hard row to hoe in this matter. I would not go so far as to say, as an hon. member said some time ago, that the minister has been handed a lemon, but his has been a hard job because housing legislation has been before many parliaments. The problem is not new, but as far as we can judge he is really getting down and tackling it manfashion.
I do not want to delay the house too long this evening, but there are a few points on which I should like some enlightenment. There is the matter of slum clearance. On October 31 my confrere the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) asked whether slum clearance came within the purview of the act, and I believe the answer was that it was provided for in the general act. But then I saw in Hansard of September 21 a question asked by the hon. member for Eglinton:
In the first place, is any specific assistance contemplated in connection with slum clearance?
The answer by the minister at that time was:
The sections now in the act with respect to slum clearance are quite clear. I do not believe the statement I have just made is debatable at the moment, but there will be a resolution before the house rela-. tively soon, upon which occasion I should be glad to discuss all these matters.
That question has not been discussed since, and I do not know whether it is dealt with in the act. So when the minister speaks I hope he will refer to this point. I am particularly anxious about it because we have a great problem in connection with slum clearance in St. John's and in fact throughout many towns in Newfoundland. I understand an announcement has been made that construction of some five hundred houses is to be undertaken within the next few months in St. John's. I shall be glad to hear that this is so.

National Housing Act
The other matter I am particularly interested in is what is to become of the St. John's Housing Corporation. When the minister was in Newfoundland he visited the corporation and saw something of its work and what is needed. I might just tell hon. members that something like $6 million has been invested by the provincial government and the municipality, and that the corporation now owes some $1 million to the municipality and $5 million to the provincial government. That project includes the most modem housing; it is located on some 800 acres of expropriated land, with a modern sewage system and modern roads. As of October 1 some 240 houses had been constructed and under construction and ten apartment buildings containing 92 apartments, making a total of 332 housing units. Without money that corporation is not going to be able to carry on. This matter was discussed by the original delegation that came here in 1947, at which time a committee was appointed consisting of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), Mr. D. B. Mansur of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the premier of Newfoundland and myself. Since I had been connected with the housing corporation I presented a brief on the matter to the committee of cabinet, outlining the work of the corporation since its formation in 1944 and the need for more financial assistance. If I might read from the volume tabled in parliament in December 1947, containing the report of the meeting between the delegation and the cabinet, this reference appears:
Would it be possible to receive a grant for this purpose . . .
That is, the purpose of the corporation.
... or, if not, could any form of financial assistance be made available to the corporation in the event of union?
The answer at that time was:
In reply, it was pointed out that under present facilities available there was no manner in which the dominion could take over the position now held by Newfoundland and the city of St. John's in respect to the St. John's Housing Corporation. It falls within the category of a provincial-municipal housing project for which no assistance by way of loans, subsidies or rent reduction funds are presently available from the dominion to a province and/or a municipality.
On that point, as the minister stated, this bill deals with public bodies apart from municipalities and provinces; and I would submit that public bodies might very well include this housing corporation. So I wonder if under this legislation any financial assistance might be given the St. John's Housing Corporation, or what is the plan for the future

in that connection. From reading the bill I am not very clear whether or not funds can be obtained under it by the corporation.
The only other matter I wish to stress at this time is the question of providing low-rental housing, not only for all of Canada but particularly for St. John's, because that is the only place I can use as an example. I realize that if the necessity for low-rental housing is great in the place that I know best, it must be even greater in other parts of Canada. I believe provision is made for that in the bill. It strikes me, however, that with the relaxation of rent controls so recently announced there should be an even more intensive effort put into effect a low-rental housing scheme. I shall not transgress the Speaker's ruling by talking about rentals, but if rents are going to have the lid taken off then something in the nature of a low-rental housing scheme must be put into operation at the earliest possible moment.
I should like to mention that I was quite taken with the remarks of the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) about rural housing and the fact that no provision had been made in this bill for the promotion of rural housing. It strikes me that is one of the most important phases of the housing situation. If it has been overlooked, it should certainly be included in this bill or a suitable bill covering that matter should be presented. You remember that the old song asked the question "How are you going to keep them down on the farm?" There is only one way you can keep people on the farm and that is by providing rural communities with the facilities that are usually associated with living in a city. It should not be too difficult to provide those facilities. Certainly, I think it is the direct responsibility of the government to provide proper facilities for rural dwellers, just as it is to provide houses for urban dwellers.
I do not see any mention in the bill of veterans' preference. It strikes me rather forcibly that this has always been to the forefront and I do not know why it has been dropped. It would appear to be worthy of consideration, because from the discussions I have had with people in Ottawa the need for veterans houses is just as great as it ever was. I shall conclude with these remarks, Mr. Speaker, so that it will be possible for the minister to close the debate, as he is anxious that the bill go into committee tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just before the minister closes the debate, I Wish to take a moment to say a few words. I shall be brief so that the

minister will have time to close the debate tonight. In what I shall say I may not be adding to what has been said during the course of this debate, but it does seem to me that it is worth while in part to sum up what has been said, and in part to place before the house the objectives with respect to this housing problem.
As I see it, there are three. First of all, and perhaps the most important problem facing us, is the need for subsidized low-rental housing. It is important not just to get the phrase into the minister's statement, but to get large-scale subsidized low-rental housing projects under way at the earliest possible moment.
The second objective which I feel we must not overlook is, to use the words of my colleague the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), to realize that getting the down payment reduced to a smaller amount is not enough. The fact of the matter is that a great many of our people could not afford to buy houses today even if there were no down payment. Steps have to be taken to bring down the cost of good homes and to improve the living standards of our people so that they can own good homes.
The third objective which I think should be kept before us, even though it may be a long-range one, is to realize that we have not solved the problem of housing just because we reach a point where every Canadian is under a roof of some kind. For example, I think of the trip that I make when I go to and from the place where I live in this city. When I do not get a ride with one of my friends, I take the 'R' streetcar which goes out Albert street and down Preston street. A good many people live along those streets and I see those houses every morning as I come down here. Those people have a roof over their heads, but it is not satisfactory housing in which at least half of them are living. That is the case all over this country. A tremendous job lies ahead of us. This is a social as well as an economic problem.
We must not think we have solved the problem merely because people have a roof over their head. This is a field in which research can be undertaken and in which new types of home construction are long overdue. I feel that it is one of the most important problems to which we must give our attention. I hope that this parliament, and whatever government is in power during the next few years, will accept it as a major objective to provide good and adequate housing for all the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to inform the house that if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.
National Housing Act


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, at this stage I wish to be very brief. 1 am most anxious that the legislation should pass this house as quickly as possible because, among other things, it will be necessary for most of the provincial governments to pass legislation which will enable them to participate in the dominion-provincial program embodied in this bill. I wish, therefore, to commend all members who have taken part in this debate for the high order of their remarks.
After talking to all the provincial governments I was able to say that, without exception, they realized the gravity of the problem and showed a real desire to come to grips with it. I now can say that all members who participated in the debate fully reflected the attitude of all members in the house in their view of the importance of this problem of housing to all Canadians. I thought we had a very good cross-section of the general attitude towards the problem. It ranged all the way from those who opposed any element of subsidization to those who felt that a full program of subsidization was the important approach to this question.
I should like, of course, to deal in detail with the points raised by the various members, but that would take too long. There was some putting straight of the record tonight with respect to the contribution made to the housing problem by the province of Ontario, especially by the leader of the opposition. Let me be among the first to say that Ontario is to be highly commended for what it has done. There is no doubt about the contribution that province has made. I think it must be said that the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) perhaps somewhat overstated the achievement when he said that the 10,000 houses on which second mortgages were applied were built only because second mortgages were made available. I do not wish in any way to detract, however, and I wish to make that clear. As one example, though, I would refer to the 100 houses that were built in Manor Park, which were completed and fully occupied before the home owners applied for the second mortgage. And he referred to the fact that this government was two and a half years behind the Ontario government in introducing the second mortgage practice of reducing down payment. As I understand it, the act in Ontario was passed in May, 1948, and the first loan was made in August, 1948, which is considerably less than two and half years ago.
I wish to commend especially the vigorous speeches made by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) and the hon. member for

National Housing Act
Halton (Mr. Cleaver) who, I thought, pointed the way to what can be done by all members of this house and a great many people in this country with regard to a solution of the housing problem. He gave me an opportunity I have sought for some time. I thank him for the remarks he made about the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and would add my own to them, for the splendid service they have given in working on this problem and in adding so greatly to the stock of housing units in Canada today.
One other word I would say is in connection with rural housing. I think the point was raised by the hon. members for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) and Melfort (Mr. Wright) and their point was well taken. They were a bit apprehensive that perhaps existing legislation might not do what it should do for the rural segment of our economy, and one might easily get that impression. I understand there are some 700,000 farms in Canada and, roughly speaking, there is one house on each farm. By and large, new housing is not the problem facing the farmers today; it is a matter of improvements and, in some cases, extensions. Where there is a demand for loans for new farmhouses, those loans, other things being equal, are forthcoming under section 14 of the act. Where improvements are necessary, facilities for borrowing are available under the Farm Improvement Loans Act administered by the Department of Finance. We of course agree with the hon. member for Melfort about the quality of farmhouses which, in many instances, could well be improved. But the fact is that supplies have not been available to promote large improvement programs. That is the very reason why the home improvement section of the act has not been proclaimed so far.
Since the hon. member comes from Saskatchewan, one of the prairie provinces, I will tell him that there is a prairie farm research committee to which the federal government contributes 55 per cent of the finances required and to which each of the three prairie governments contribute 15 per cent. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the three provincial governments and the three provincial universities have seven major projects under way now for research and development, on problems relating to rural housing. I will tell him also that there is much more on that subject in the annual report of the corporation, and if he wishes additional information I shall be pleased to see that he gets it.
Just before I resume my seat-and I do not wish to dwell any longer on speeches made by hon. members-I would say just one word to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Prudham) who in making his maiden speech
dealt with a subject about which he knows so much from his own practical experience. I want to say to him, and to all hon. members who took part in the debate, how highly constructive I have found their words. I appreciate the attitude they have reflected towards the bill for which we are seeking the approval of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
Progress reported.

Alphonse Fournier: As was announced some days ago, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will be here tomorrow and the first order of business will be a motion by him that votes numbers 51 to 70 inclusive in the main estimates, 1949-50, and numbers 766 to 779 inclusive in the further supplementary estimates, 1949-50, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and be referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys. If the debate on this motion be concluded before six o'clock, we will move one step forward with Bill No. 149, respecting bankruptcy. I understand this bill has no political significance. It is a technical bill and a long one. I am furthermore informed that it will take quite a long time before the committee on banking and commerce. We should therefore like to have it advanced one stage tomorrow, if possible.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask if it is the government's intention to press this bill to adoption at this session? The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) indicated that we were aiming at prorogation by December 3. This is a long and involved bill.


Alphonse Fournier: I understand that most of the work on this bill will be done in the committee on banking and commerce. If we can get it before that committee, we shall then have to wait for the report of the committee. If it came back, perhaps we would have a chance to have it adopted. It has been in the Senate for two or three sessions, I believe. It has been modified. Expert witnesses have been heard. If the bill did not pass this session, it would have to go back to the Senate again. We shall therefore do our utmost to have it back from the committee on banking and commerce during this session.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 18, 1949