1954-01-25

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I now table three copies in English and three copies in French of a report concerning alleged attempted resale price maintenance in the sale of certain household supplies in Chicoutimi, lake St. John district, Quebec.



ELECTRICAL WIRE AND CABLE

Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement in connection with a report under the Combines Investigation Act relating to the electrical wire and cable industry. In releasing this report in November last I stated that as soon as I had carefully examined the report and received the opinion of counsel I would make a further announcement as to the prosecution.
The matter was referred to Mr. J. D. Arnup, Q.C., of Toronto, who has advised that in his opinion the evidence justifies prosecution of some or all of the manufacturers mentioned in the report. The exact parties will be determined as the evidence is further examined in detail in course of preparation for trial. Mr. Arnup has been instructed to proceed with prosecution.



RUBBER GOODS-INQUIRY AS TO INVESTIGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he is in a position to tell us anything in connection with the rubber goods investigation recently concluded, information of the same nature as he gave us recently with respect to the alleged combine in electrical goods.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend's question, I may say that the prosecutions arising out of that report have been concluded except that the order prohibiting continuation or repetition of the offence, which was granted by the court in the mechanical rubber goods case, is under
appeal to the court of appeal of Ontario. Naturally the question as to whether such an order will be granted in the other two cases, tires and tubes and accessories on the one hand and footwear on the other, was reserved by the trial judge until the judgment of the court of appeal on the application for the prohibiting order in the mechanical rubber goods case is delivered.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, in my remarks last Thursday in connection with the National Housing Act I made reference during the course of my remarks to a civil servant named Raymond Card. My remarks were as follows:
I am informed that Mr. Card came to Canada from England in 1907 and originally set up as an architect. After a brief career in this field he entered the firm of the T. Eaton Company, for which. I am told, he worked as floor manager for some 17 years.
Since that time I have received information from the minister which leads me to the conclusion that, without question, those remarks are not correct. And since I have no desire to be unfair to Mr. Card, or to misrepresent anyone in respect of his qualifications, I should like to have those remarks removed where I state that Mr. Card was an employee of the T. Eaton Company for 17 years. I am quite satisfied he was not, and that he has been an architect ever since he came here.
I might say that I believe the cause for this misinformation was that Mr. Card, who is chief architect for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has a brother who was also an architect and who has had business with the T. Eaton Company.



MR. FLEMING    REFERENCE TO STATEMENT IN DEBATE BY MR. BROWN (BRANTFORD)

Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I was not in the house on Thursday evening at the particular time the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown) was speaking in the housing debate. It was only upon reading the newspapers next day that I found he had attributed to me in his speech on Thursday

Questions
evening a statement that the banks would not co-operate. I find, in referring to his speech at page 1344, that the hon. member for Brantford said, in referring to the speech I had made earlier the same day:
The hon. member for Eglinton thought that the banks would not co-operate.
Mr. Speaker, you know that is the very opposite to what I did say. At page 1329 you will find what I said in my speech that afternoon. These are my words:
I know we can assume that the banks will cooperate.
I hope the hon. member will be more accurate in his statements in future.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 169, respecting Victorian Order of Nurses for Canada.-Mr. Mcllraith.
Bill No. 170, respecting the Associated Canadian Travellers.-Mr. Hanna.


Mr. Murphy (Lamblon West):: What amount in dollars did Canada receive for patent royalties where patents by Canadian
residents and/or corporations were issued in foreign countries, during each of the years 1950 to 1953 inclusive?


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


PAYMENTS FOR FOREIGN RESEARCH
Joseph Warner Murphy: What estimated amount of money did Canadian citizens or Canadian corporations pay to foreign citizens or corporations or governments or government agencies for the purposes of research, during each of the years 1950 to 1953 inclusive?


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT-NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Balcom:: 1.	What was the total amount available to the province of Nova Scotia, under the hospital construction grant for the years 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, and to date in the present fiscal year?
2.	How many hospitals in the province of Nova Scotia are receiving or have received federal financial aid under the hospital construction grant?
3.	What are the names, locations and amounts approved for these hospitals?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	1948-49, $642,857; 1949-50, $641,963; 195051,	$636,359;	1951-52,	$635,281;	1952-53,
$614,098; 1953-54, $301,923.
2.	29.
3.	Name of hospital
Location
Amount approved
Bayview Memorial Red Cross hospital	
St. Martha's hospital	
Victoria County Memorial hospital	
Western King's Memorial hospital	
Nova Scotia institute	
Eastern Memorial hospital	
Halifax Municipal hospital	
Nova Scotia hospital	
Glace Bay General hospital	
Guysboro Memorial hospital	
Children's hospital	
Victoria General hospital	
Blanchard Fraser Memorial hospital	
Queens General hospital	
Lunenburg hospital	
Musquodoboit Valley Memorial hospital______
Twin Oaks Memorial hospital	
Buchanan Memorial hospital	
New Glasgow hospital	
St. Elizabeth's hospital	
Eastern Shore Memorial hospital	
St. Mary's hospital	
St. Rita's hospital	
Point Edward hospital	
Sydney City hospital	
Harbour View hospital	
Cape Breton County hospital	
Colchester County hospital	
Payzant Memorial hospital	

Advocate	$	3,608.81
Antigonish	 122,000.00
Baddeck	 17,872.22
Berwick	 28,333.33
Brookside	 74,761.11
Canso	 5,471.83
Cole Harbour	 300,000.00
Dartmouth	 342,000.00
Glace Bay	 10,000.00
Guysboro	 15,000.00
Halifax	 177,530.00
Halifax	 138,549.01
Kentville	 21,000.00
Liverpool	 41,666.66
Lunenburg	 38,666.66
Middle Musquodoboit	 5,349.12
Musquodoboit Harbour	 11,000.00
Neil's Harbour	 17,000.00
New Glasgow	 251,000.00
North Sydney	 188,333.33
Sheet Harbour	 17,161.16
Sherbrooke	 10,113.09
Sydney	 199,000.00
Sydney	 22,004.67
Sydney	 153,666.66
Sydney Mines	 49,666.66
Sydney River	 510,000.00
Truro	  60,000.00
Windsor	 45,666.66


PATENTS OUTSIDE CANADA
Joseph Warner Murphy: What was the total estimated amount of money paid by Canadian citizens, Canadian corporations and government agencies for use of patents issued outside of Canada, for each of the years 1950 to 1953 inclusive?
Questions
dropped in certain instances, or, subject to modification in other instances, answered or made orders tor returns.


POINTE AUX OUTARDES
Mr. Dufresne:: 


Mr. Pickersgill:: I wonder if I may take this question and the five following and deal with them now. These questions have been discussed with the hon. member for Lambton West and I understand from the discussion that the hon. gentleman is agreeable to dropping the words "Canadian citizens, Canadian corporations and" in the first question, and with that amendment to have it made an order for return. Then the next question should be made an order for return as it stands; then the words "Canadian citizens or Canadian corporations including" should be dropped from the next question and it would then become an order for return. It is really impossible for the government to answer the next question from its records, and it should
1.	Was any construction work done in connection with a protection wall at Pointe aux Outardes, Saguenay county, during the year 1952?
2.	If so, what was the amount spent for such work?
3.	Was the work done by contract or by day labour?
4.	If by contract, (a) who submitted tenders and what was the amount of each tender; (b) who was the contractor?
5.	If the work was done by day labour, who was the foreman?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$9,214.75.
3.	Day labour.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Armand Brisson.


FEDERAL HEALTH GRANTS
[Stage Direction]
be dropped entirely. The next question should be made an order for return, and the one after that should be dropped.
Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is an agreement between the hon. member for Lambton West and the minister that these questions are to be considered as either being


Mr. Noseworlhy:: 1.	What is the amount that was available for each province for each year since 1948 under the federal health grant program?
2.	What is the amount that was actually paid to each province for each year since 1948 under that program?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	1948-49	1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53(c)	1953-54(8)Newfoundland	... $ -	$ 923,518	$1,013,060	$1,027,005	$1,058,505	$1,229,702Prince Edward Island	... 293,913	278,504	297,069	301,269	313,547	325,376Nova Scotia	... 1,542,084	1,541,613	1,667,101	1,699,039	1,699,904	1,623,263New Brunswick	... 1,226,191	1,226,248	1,343,758	1,365,796	1,382,959	1,342,203Quebec	... 8,986,080	9,009,775	9,911,636	10,164,182	10,559,509	10,219,388Ontario	... 9,668,425	9,739,949	10,622,784	10,S98,076	11,369,158	10,948,791Manitoba	... 1,806,331	1,803,150	1,971,964	2,017,850	2,023,595	1,952,260Saskatchewan	... 2,002,077	1,990,483	2,133,948	2,175,435	2,138,225	2,035,061Alberta	... 1,969,032	1,985,460	2,173,663	2,238,981	2,410,632	2,322,764British Columbia	... 2,529,236	2,568,418	2,819,068	2,890,267	3,015,861	2,906,018Northwest Territories	-	-	-	-	48,100	57,699Yukon	. . . -	-	-	28,600	34,634All Provinces (a)	... 30,123,369	31,272,266	34,262,101(5)	35,188,600	36,561,495	35,510,059
(o) The public health research grant, unallotted by province, is included in the over-all totals and consists of:
1948-	49 - $100,000
1949-	50 - 205,148
1950-	51 - 308,000
1951-	52 - 410,700
1952-	53 - 512,900
1953-	54 - 512,900
(6) Includes an amount of $50 unallotted by province.
(c) Does not include a revote of $17,306,914 under the hospital construction grant.
(8) Does not include a revote of $12,993,767 under the hospital construction grant.
1402

2.	Questions 1948-49	1949-50Newfoundland	
% -	$ 607,657Prince Edward Island.	
158,939	184,271Nova Scotia	
423,311	671,855New Brunswick	
460,741	464,651Quebec	
2,591,620	4,978,087Ontario	
1,445,760	4,109,969Manitoba	
445,986	749,358Saskatchewan	
655,934	1,294,955Alberta	
307,706	1,407,341British Columbia	
1,170,777	1,277,604Northwest Territories	-Yukon	-All Provinces	
7,660,774	15,745,7481950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54(to January15, 1954.)$ 722,252	$ 735,769	$ 823,786	$ 332,300216,710	235,406	233,993	91,4321,022,077	1,104,154	1,276,972	688,431617,993	1,092,289	1,100,570	517,7766,165,074	7,315,940	7,971,458	6,414,0524,493,101	7,068,260	8,292,081	3,336,5721,060,320	1,134,332	1,485,358	845,5311,436,930	1,538,755	1,980,965	766,7201,483,756	1,616,149	2,106,153	289,9521,701,011	2,481,398	1,986,277	1,419,448-	4,782	817-	-	10,960	-18,919,224	24,322,452	27,333,355	14,703,031


NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many persons are employed by the executive and professional division of the national employment service?
2.	What is the total annual cost of this division, (a) in salaries; (b) in all other expenditures?
3.	How many persons have been placed in executive or professional positions, during each year since January 1, 1950, as a result of the efforts of this division?


Mr. Gregg:: 1.	54.
2.	(a) $198,784 including the recent civil service increases; (b) Travelling expenses: $1,615.72. As to expenses for rentals, stationery, equipment, etc., these are not allocated to any particular branch or service.
3.	1950, 5,808; 1951, 6,260; 1952, 6,819; 1953, 5,837.


THE RED ENSIGN
Mr. Poulioi:: Referring to the red ensign which is hoisted daily on the tower of this building and the arms or ensigns armorial tierced in fesse, what is the height and length in inches and the heraldic signification of
1.	Gules three lions passant guardant in pale or;
2.	a lion rampant within a double tressure flory-counter-flory gules;
3.	azure a harp or stringed argent;
4.	azure three fleurs-de-lis, or;
5.	argent three maple leaves conjoined on one stem proper;
6.	a royal helmet mantled argent doubled gules the crest, that is to say, on a wreath of the colours argent, and
7.	gules a lion passant guardant or imperially crowned proper and holding in the dexter paw
8.	a maple leaf gules;
9.	and supporters on the dexter (a) a lion rampant or holding a lance argent, point or, flying therefrom to the dexter (b) the union flag, and (c) on the sinister a unicorn argent armed crined and unguled or, gorged with (d) a coronet composed of crosses-patee and (e) fleurs-de-lis a chain affixed thereto reflexed of the last, and holding (f) a like lance flying therefrom to the sinister (g) a banner

azure charged with three fleurs-de-lis or; the whole ensigned with (h) the imperial crown proper and below the shield upon a wreath composed of (i) roses, (j) thistles, (k) shamrocks and (1) lilies a scroll azure inscribed with the motto-"A mari usque ad mare"?
10.	Referring to No. 1, what is the official translation of "gules three lions passant guardant in pale or"?
11.	Referring to No. 9, why does the union flag fly to the dexter and why does the banner azure charged with three fleurs-de-lis or fly to the sinister?
12.	Is there any difference between (a) a lion rampant, (b) a lion passant and, (c) a lion passant guardant, and, if so, what is it?
13.	At what date were the armorial bearings of the Dominion of Canada assigned by royal proclamation?
14.	Who were the cabinet ministers of Canada at that time and what departments were they heading?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This question would in
the normal course of events be made an order for return, since it affects more than one department. The statistical material which is asked for in a number of the parts of the question is being furnished by the Department of Public Works, and I am tabling it as a part of the return. I am also tabling a list of the cabinet ministers asked for in part 14 of the question. The answer to part 13 is the 21st day of November, 1921. The answer to all the other parts of the question will be found in a publication put out by my department and printed by the queen's printer. I understand it can be secured for 25 cents. I have copies in both official languages which I intend to present; to the hon. member for Temiscouata.
There is one part of the question, however, which I think I should refer to in the house, and that is the part asking for the official translation of the phrase "gules three lions passant guardant in pale or". The translation given in the proclamation is: "de gueules, a trois leopards d'or, l'un sur l'autre."

Now, sir, I am grateful to the hon. member for Temiscouata, and I am sure everyone else in the house will be, for letting us know that a French leopard can change its spots and become an English lion.


Jean-François Pouliot: Because those leopards are
spotless.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Department of Public Works:
The red ensign used daily on the peace tower is 12 feet by 5 feet 9 inches.
The space occupied by the shield is 23 inches long and 171 inches wide.
1.	Gules three lions passant guardant in pale or. occupy 81 inches in width and 7 inches in length.
The lions themselves are 61 inches high.
2.	A lion rampant within a double tressure flory-counter-flory gules, occupies a space 81 inches wide and 7 inches long. The lion itself is 4g inches long and 41 inches wide.
Each tressure is 1 inches wide.
3.	Azure a harp or stringed argent, occupies a space 7 inches wide and 51 inches long. The harp itself is 41 inches wide and 51 inches long.
4.	Azure three fleurs-de-lis, or, occupy space 6g inches wide with 1 of an inch between the top two and the bottom one, which is 2g inches wide by 3 inches long.
5.	Argent three maple leaves conjoined on one stem proper, occupy a space 9 inches long and 91 inches wide. From tip to tip they measure 91 inches and from the centre tip to bottom of stem 61 inches.
6 to 14. Not for this department.
Cabinet Ministers, as of 21st Nov., 1921, date of Royal proclamation approving Canadian coat of arms.
The cabinet formed by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen July 10. 1920, was reorganized Sept. 21, 1921, as follows:-
The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, P.C., K.C.,
B.	A., Prime Minister, Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The Hon. Sir Albert Edward Kemp, K.C.M.G., Minister without Portfolio.
The Hon. Sir James Alexander Lougheed, K.C.M.G., K.C., Minister of the Interior: Superintendent General of Indian Affairs and Minister of Mines. (Leader of the Government in the Senate)
The Hon. Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne, Minister of Marine and Fisheries and Minister of the Naval Service.
The Hon. Gideon Decker Robertson, Minister of Labour.
The Hon. Hugh Guthrie, K.C., Minister of Militia and Defence.
The Hon. Sir Henry Lurnley Drayton, K.C., K.B., Minister of Finance.
The Hon. Simon Fraser Tolmie, Minister of Agriculture.
The Hon. Fleming Blanchard McCurdy, Minister of Public Works.
The Hon. Edgar Keith Spinney. Minister without Portfolio.
The Hon. Louis de Gonzague Belley, K.C., Postmaster General.
The Hon. John Babington Macaulay Baxter, K.C., Minister of Customs and Excise.
The Hon. John Wesley Edwards, B.A., M.D.,
C.	M., Minister of Immigration and Colonization and Minister in charge of the Department of Health.
83276-89i
Questions
The Hon. Louis Philippe Normand, President of the Privy Council.
The Hon. Rodolphe Monty, K.C., Secretary of State.
The Hon. Henry Herbert Stevens, Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The Hon. John Alexander Stewart, LL.B., Minister of Railways and Canals.
The Hon. Edmund Bristol, Minister without Portfolio.
The Hon. Robert James Manion, M.C., M.D., C.M., Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment.
The Hon. James Robert Wilson, Minister without Portfolio.
The Hon. Richard Bedford Bennett, K.C., LL.B., Minister of Justice.
The Hon. Guillaume Andre Fauteux, Solicitor General (a member of the Ministry but not of the Cabinet) appointed Oct. 1st, 1921.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.


AWARDS CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Who are the members of the awards co-ordination committee?
2.	How many cases have been referred to the said committee by the Secretary of State, in each of the years 1953 and 1954 to date?
3.	Of the cases considered how many recommendations favourable to the granting of awards have been made and in how many cases were awards finally granted?
4.	How long has this committee been in existence?
5.	How often has it met since first constituted?
6.	To whom are its recommendations given or made?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1. Undersecretary of state (chairman); secretary to the governor general; undersecretary of state for external affairs; deputy minister of transport; deputy minister of labour; dominion archivist; secretary to the naval board, R.C.N.; adjutant general of the Canadian Army; air member for personnel, R.C.A.F.
2 and 3. As these questions relate to the advice to the sovereign with respect to the exercise of the royal prerogative, it is not the practice to disclose the information on which advice is based.
4.	Since 1942.
5.	46 times.
6.	The Prime Minister, or in the case of proposed individual awards, the minister designated by the Prime Minister.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Joseph Warner Murphy: What was the total estimated amount of money paid by government agencies for use of patents issued outside of Canada, for each of the years 1950 to 1953 inclusive?


FEDERAL RESEARCH, 1950-53
Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):: 1.	What department of government spent money for the purposes of research in the years 1950 to 1953 inclusive, and what was the amount spent by each department during each of the said years?

Orders jor Returns
2.	II any money was spent outside of Canada for purposes of research during these three years, what were the amounts per year and countries to which payments were made?


CANADIAN PATENTS-FOREIGN PAYMENTS
Joseph Warner Murphy: What was the total estimated amount of money paid by government agencies, for use of patents issued in Canada, to foreign residents or corporations or government agencies?


FEDERAL PAYMENTS FOR FOREIGN RESEARCH
Joseph Warner Murphy: What amount of money, if any, did the government or any government owned corporation pay to any foreign government, resident or corporation of a foreign country, for the purposes of research, during each of the years 1950 to 1953 inclusive?


FERTILIZER
Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: What government control, if any, has there been over the distribution and price of fertilizer sold in Canada, during 1952 and 1953?


NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Since August 10, 1953, how many national
organizations, or bodies representing national organizations, have presented briefs or made representations to the government, including a request for a national or nation-wide health insurance program?	.
2.	What are the names of the organizations or bodies which have made such a request?
3.	What has been the answer of the government to each such request?
4.	Is consideration now being given by the government to the implementation of a national or nation-wide health insurance program?


VANCOUVER-NINE O'CLOCK GUN
Mr. Winch:: 1.	Has the Department of Transport decided not to pay the costs of firing the Vancouver nine o'clock gun after February 28 of this year?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	Was a similar decision reached regarding the costs of firing traditional guns in other localities? If so, where?
4.	Will any other department of the federal government assume the responsibility for the financial cost of firing the nine o'clock gun?


GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1953, how many (a) individual contracts: (b) group contracts, were issued by the government annuities branch?
2.	What was the cost to the taxpayer of issuing the contracts in (1), including administration and any payments made to maintain reserve?
3.	For the first nine months of the current year,
how many (a) individual contracts:	(b) group
contracts, were issued by the government annuities branch?
4.	What was the cost to the taxpayer of issuing the contracts in (3), including administration and any payments made to maintain reserve?


GOVERNMENT LIBRARIES
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	How many individual libraries are maintained by government departments or agencies in Ottawa?
2.	What is the staff of each such library?
3.	What was the total cost in the last fiscal year of maintaining each such library?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: For a copy of payrolls and lists of materials purchased, in connection with the construction of a protection wall at Pointe aux Outardes, Saguenay county, in 1952.



KURT MEYER

Mr. Drew:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, cablegrams, recorded telephone or other conversations between the government of Canada and any other government authority, person or persons and all documents in the government's possession relating to the trial, death sentence, commuting to a sentence of life imprisonment, the removal from the Canadian prison at Dorchester, New Brunswick, and the further commuting of sentence to imprisonment for fourteen years of Major General Kurt Meyer.


Mr. Claxion:: This motion relates to several departments and I have been asked to state the government's position.
Parliament is not the place to try or retry criminal cases of any class and this has always been recognized in the past. Motions for the production of papers relating to trials and remissions of all kinds have not been allowed, as not being in accord with practice or the public interest.
As I stated in the house a few days ago, mixed consultative boards were set up to review sentences of all war criminals still in custody in western Germany. The British high commissioner set up the board to review the cases of all war criminals in custody in the British zone. Meyer and Neitz were among those in custody in the British zone and the Canadian government agreed that they should not be excluded from the review.
The government appointed an outstanding lawyer and a distinguished soldier, Brigadier Sherwood Lett, as observer during the proceedings and to advise the government.
The board recommended that the sentence be reduced to fourteen years. The recommendation was unanimous and it was supported by Brigadier Lett.
So far as is known, every recommendation of every board in every zone has been accepted by the government concerned.
In this case the Canadian government could either reject or accept the recommendation

made by the board and supported by the observer appointed for the purpose. The government of Canada accepted the recommendation. I now table the orders in council giving effect to this decision, dated January 15, 1954, being P.C. 1954/74 and 75. The orders speak for themselves. Of course the government does, as it must, accept full responsibility for them.
For the reasons stated the government is opposing the motion.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that this motion might have been accepted by the government because there is no suggestion in this case of a retrial. The circumstances here are not the ordinary circumstances relating to the reconsideration of the punishment due to any convicted member of the armed forces or those who served at one time a former enemy.
Kurt Meyer was found guilty and sentenced to death. Subsequently other steps were taken. We are unaware of the details. Kurt Meyer was transferred from this country under circumstances which left a great deal to the imagination, particularly so far as members of this parliament are concerned. We suddenly found that Kurt Meyer had departed and we did not know whether there had been any previous arrangement. It will be recalled that the suggestion was then made that the spiriting of Kurt Meyer out of Canada at the time was simply preliminary to his subsequent release at an early date. The fears thus expressed have been confirmed by what has taken place.
If there are circumstances which would be disclosed by the material now called for justifying any other decision, then I think we should know of such circumstances. I think it is altogether right and proper, if Kurt Meyer was wrongly dealt with, that his name should be cleared. But a distinction must be drawn between the case of Kurt Meyer and the other cases that were under review.
Those who carry rifles or handle other weapons in the field of battle are entitled to have consideration given to the fact that they are under orders and must obey orders. Officers in command of armies are called upon to interpret the political decisions of governments and there have been cases where that has been given due consideration in dealing with army commanders, even though the conduct of the troops under them may have seemed outrageous and atrocious.
Motions for Papers
But when an officer in command of fighting' troops is found to be guilty of the responsibility, as in this case, extending to the death of young Canadian men in uniform taken-prisoner on the field of battle, that officer" must be held responsible for such an act, or the rules of war will be disregarded at will in the future. At any rate there will be encouragement to follow such a course.
Kurt Meyer either was responsible for the death of young Canadians contrary to the rules of war or he was not. If he was not, then his name should be cleared. If he was, then the procedure that has been followed is not consistent with the best interests of the recognized practices of armies in the field. I submit that this parliament, as the supreme authority in this country, should have the opportunity of examining the exchanges that took place.
I submit that we should know whether there was in fact any prior understanding at the time Kurt Meyer left Canada with the authority and assistance and approval of this government. I submit that we should know whether there was in fact anything in the exchange of correspondence that suggested that a wrong was being righted. I think we should know also, and the parents of young Canadians should know, whether that was the case, or whether a man serving a terrible system was in fact guilty but has been brought almost to the door of freedom for purposes which have not yet been disclosed to this parliament or to the people of Canada.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, only a word, the occasion for which arises out of what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has said. I think it is evident from what he did say that the purpose for which he is calling for the production of these papers is precisely the purpose for which I suggested that such papers should not be produced. There is no question of the guilt or responsibility of Kurt Meyer involved; that was determined by the court martial. He was found guilty on three out of five counts.
The only question involved subsequent to that was what sentence was proper to be imposed on him. The court martial imposed a sentence of death. That sentence was not valid until it had been confirmed and the death sentence was never confirmed. The confirming officer, acting independently on his own authority, Major General Chris Vokes -a fighting soldier if ever there was one- confirmed the sentence with the sentence of life imprisonment.

Motions for Papers
Kurt Meyer was transferred to Canada to serve his sentence. With the development of events after he had been here some six years it was apparent that he was the only single war criminal convicted of an offence committed in Germany and punished after trial in Germany who was serving his sentence outside of Germany. It was not in order to treat him separately and differently from anyone else that he was transferred back to Germany but in order that his case might be treated precisely the same as every other case of a man sentenced by a similar tribunal and receiving a similar punishment.
On that account he was dealt with just the same way as all other cases were dealt with by the British, French and American authorities in respect of similar cases. Now a tribunal set up by the British authorities in virtue of authority they have and agreed to by us has acted in precisely the same way as tribunals set up by the American and French authorities. In every case, so far as is known to us, the recommendation of the mixed consultative board has been carried out, accepted and acted upon by the government concerned.
Are we in this case going to be the only country to make an exception in respect of this case and treat Kurt Meyer separately and differently from every other war criminal?


Mr. Coldwell:: May I say just this word.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the issue has been obscured. We are not asking the right to judge-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: -a man, we are asking the right to see papers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will understand that under the provisions of standing order 51 hon. members may put this type of motion on the order paper. If a motion is inscribed under "Notices of Motions for Production of Papers" with an asterisk it is supposed to be disposed of without debate. After the minister had explained why he did not want to allow the motion to go through he made a statement and I allowed the mover of the motion to make his observations.
Hon. members will realize that if I were to show more leniency from now on I might as well consider this as a debatable motion. This is not the time to discuss a notice of motion, which would come later. When an hon. member wishes to have a certain matter debated he has it inscribed, not under "Notices of Motions for Production of Papers" but
[Mr. Claxton.l
under "Notices of Motions." When the order "Notices of Motions" is called it would be debatable. Standing order 51 reads:
Notices of motion for the production of papers which the member asking for the same intends to move without discussion, shall be marked by him with an asterisk-
If hon. members will look at the order paper they will see that this motion is marked with an asterisk.
-and shall be placed by the Clerk on the order paper above "Notices of Motions," under the heading "Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers."


Mr. Thomas:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.



RICHARD NOWALINSKI

Mr. Pearkes:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents, from June 1, 1953 to date, connected with the arrest, internment and deportation of one, Richard Nowalinski, a Polish seaman who left his ship at a British Columbia port during the summer of 1953.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. What steps is the government taking to deal with the serious unemployment situation now facing this country?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The government is not forgetting that in 1950 there was supposed to be a very serious unemployment situation which, as the season advanced, gradually disappeared. There are at this time more applications for jobs than there were at that time but a substantial portion of those applications are from people who are already employed vut
Inquiries of the Ministry who would like to improve their employment conditions. Nothing is being done now except the increased endeavours of the various employment agencies throughout the country to find employment for those who have registered with them.



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, bringing to his attention again the emergent situation, in Prince Albert and also in North Battleford, which is becoming more serious rather than better. In an editorial I have here in my hand I see a description of conditions of the water at Prince Albert. Those who speak with authority describe it as "water comparable to low grade swamp wash laced with crude oil".
In view of the fact that this situation has continued for a considerable period of time, I would ask the minister what stand the federal government is taking with reference to this matter and the removal of this nuisance, or at least to give assistance in that direction. I would also ask whether, under all the circumstances, regardless of federal responsibility or otherwise, he would make available and send out to Prince Albert one or two of his officials to see what they can do to solve the problem there and to preserve the health of the people. The situation is serious.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My hon. friend does not now deal with the question of competence. That was dealt with in the question which he put to me the other day. He now asks me if we would be prepared to send out to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan officials of our own department who are technically qualified to assist in this matter. I am happy to be able to inform my hon. friend that not only will we be able to do so but that we have already done so. Last Friday the supervising engineer of the public health engineering division of our department attended a meeting in Edmonton with the representative of the company and the department of health, and the matter was fully reviewed. The technical officers, including our own officials, are now engaged in determining the precise cause of the pollution. The supervising engineer has also been in touch with the officials of the department of health in Regina. My hon. friend may be
1408	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry assured that, without in any way begging the question of competence, the federal government will do all it can do to assist the provincial authorities to carry out their constitutional responsibility.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for his reply, and I should like to ask a supplementary question. The other day I asked him to ascertain the responsibility of the federal government in connection with rivers that traverse two or more provinces. Has he had any legal opinion on that matter? Is it not a fact that, under the situation disclosed here, there is a distinct responsibility federally to look into this matter and to act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe I can add anything to what I said in answer to the supplementary question put to me by my hon. friend about four or five days ago.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will he table the Kennedy report on reorganization of the reserve army or, failing that, will he make a statement as to the findings of that committee?


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member gave me notice of the question. The report referred to is a report of a board of officers consisting of Major General Howard Kennedy, Major General E. J. Renaud and Major General H. F. G. Letson, which was appointed with my concurrence by the chief of the general staff to advise him regarding certain matters relating to the reserve army. The report has been made to the chief of the general staff. It is naturally a confidential document intended for his information in order that he may advise me. The report is being given consideration, and I hope to tell the house at a very early date what measures are being taken to implement it. Anticipating this I may say that we hope it will be possible to carry out the great majority of the recommendations of the report, which is a most constructive and helpful document.


George Alexander Drew: With respect to the question asked by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the reply of the Minister of National Defence, may I ask the minister if copies of the report on the reorganization of the reserve forces to which he has referred will be available to the officers attending 

the conference of defence associations, or at least the senior officers of the different component associations, before that conference meets in Ottawa.


Brooke Claxton: The conference met on Thursday, Friday and Saturday of last week. I do not think copies were made available, but the main lines of the recommendations were gone over and considered by them with the result that they authorized a press release, in which I concurred, in which they said that they accepted the recommendations of the report in principle.



POLIOMYELITIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of a report appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press of January 18 headed "Manitoba Won't Get Vaccine". If the statement attributed to Dr. Elliott, deputy minister of health, is true, will the minister inform the house why Canada will not get some of the new vaccine from the Connaught laboratories?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1 think I have already dealt with this question. The story in the Winnipeg paper is of course not in harmony with what I said when I replied to the question about ten days ago in the house. The vaccine referred to is being examined and research in connection with its production is taking place at the Connaught laboratories in Toronto. Much of the funds to make this research project possible have been provided by the federal government under the national health program. What my hon. friend has in mind is whether or not tests of the vaccine will take place in Canada as well as in the United States. We are following the tests in the United States before deciding to use a vaccine, not yet a certain remedy, on people in Canada. But my hon. friend may be assured that the medical scientists who are advising us, and who have charge of this matter, are satisfied that we are following a sensible course.



DELIVERIES UNDER QUOTAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: On Friday last the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)

asked for certain information about delivery-quotas on prairie grain. I gave a partial answer at that time, and I can now give more complete data. The over-all quota is five bushels per cultivated acre with the proviso that every producer is entitled to deliver a minimum of 1,000 bushels of grain. There is a supplementary quota on oats of twelve bushels per acre seeded to oats. Special quotas on malting barley can be obtained on application. They are being issued freely. Of course there is no quota on flax or Durum wheat and these grains can be delivered in unlimited quantities.
It is estimated that the five bushel quota with the minimum of 1,000 bushels represents 391 million bushels of grain. Deliveries up to Saturday last had totalled 356 million bushels of grain but of that amount some 40 million bushels were delivered ea: five bushel quota, so that deliveries against the five bushel quota were 314 million bushels. While it is probable that the present quota may be reached before the opening of navigation, it is unlikely that any additional quota will be authorized until the opening of navigation and until there is space to take further deliveries at Fort William.


John George Diefenbaker: In effect, there is no possibility until the opening of navigation of any increase to eight or any larger quota in the light of present anticipated deliveries and capacity. Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would prefer to say that there is no probability although special quotas may be opened except for supplementary quotas such as the special six bushel quota on oats which was opened only last week. The over-all quota of five bushels per acre will probably not be exceeded until the opening of navigation.


Mr. Argue:: I wonder if the minister can tell us when navigation may open with relation to normal practice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: I saw a press report the other day which said that this year navigation would in all probability, irrespective of ice conditions, open at a later date than it has for a number of years. It said that recent practice has been to use every available day for navigation and that that practice would probably be discontinued and the season shortened. Does the minister know anything about it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All I can say is
that based on my experience extending over some 40 years, navigation opens just about a week before the ice goes out.
National Housing Act NATIONAL HOUSING ACT



SUBSTITUTION OF NEW LEGISLATION TO INSURE APPROVED LENDERS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Winters for the second reading of Bill No. 102, to promote the construction of new houses, the repair and modernization of existing houses, and the improvement of housing and living conditions.
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, at a rather late hour on Friday night I rose with the intention of adjourning this debate but was encouraged by the minister to make a start. It occurred to me that perhaps he had entertained the hope that I would make a start then and finish and not prolong the agony over the week end. However, on reflection I decided that was a rather cynical point of view, and I was a bit surprised to see that I had already succumbed to the atmosphere of Ottawa. The more charitable interpretation which I have adopted is that the minister really wanted to hear what I had to say and was just impatient on that occasion.
On Friday I was discussing some of the matters pertaining to this bill, and I indicated that I would not deal at any length with part I or attempt to repeat any of the arguments in that connection but would give some attention to parts II and III. The minister mentioned parts II and III in the course of his remarks earlier but did not elaborate upon them and did not point out any greatly needed changes with regard to these particular parts of the bill. I judged from this that the purpose for which parts II and III were designed is being fulfilled, and that nothing further need be done concerning those particular sections of the bill. It is obvious that in any extension of part I, by the filtering down process, which will result in increasing the number of new homes constructed, some benefit will accrue to those people who at present are unable to get rental accommodation or the home ownership accommodation they require. Nevertheless the filtering down process, as we know, works very slowly, and it is measures such as those outlined in parts II and III which are considered necessary, if we are to cope with some of the other problems connected with housing.
I appreciate the fact that difficulty is experienced by some people in understanding the housing situation. On occasion there is an obvious reluctance on the part of certain public bodies to face up to the housing problem, and this is understandable. Time and
1410	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
again I have had people remark to me, "How can there possibly be a housing shortage when we see all these new developments?" One sees those developments everywhere in Canada. They say, "Why is there still a shortage of houses?"
Of course the reason is twofold. In the first instance, as has been pointed out, family formations have kept pace with the construction of new homes, to a very large extent. Then there is that backlog which has been mentioned by other hon. members-and which I mentioned on Friday night-of anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 homes, which is not being reduced appreciably by the construction of new homes. Therefore the housing shortage continues, despite the new construction we see all around us.
We are in a transitional period in our civilization. Pioneer days are still a vivid memory, and the adjustment to a more highly organized industrial condition of life is being made slowly. For some people it is difficult, on that account, to appreciate the present problem in the matter of housing. In earlier years the task for many was simply the elementary one of physical labour. I have talked to people who constructed sod houses on the prairies. Anyone who is willing to work could construct that type of accommodation for himself. Similarly a log house could be constructed with little more effort. From that to the frame house was a step depending upon increased income from developed farms.
Governmental assistance and planning was unknown and unexpected. I appreciate the attitude taken by people of the pioneer generation, and by others, who have endured with courage and patience the difficult living conditions they have known. I appreciate the fact that they are not prone to view with enthusiasm any plans that, at first glance, appear merely to afford an easy means of producing luxuries unknown in the earlier period. They realize that life is possible, without all the newfangled gadgets and amenities of modern urban communities.
It is quite true that existence is possible for human beings under primitive conditions. At the same time it is true that bad living conditions exact a heavy toll in disease, in suffering and in reduced expectancy of life. The price paid by earlier generations was the price of a shorter span of life, more suffering from disease and an abnormally high rate of infant mortality.
This leads me to a consideration briefly of the effect of housing on health. As we know, housing is not the only factor that makes for better living or for the improvement of the health of a nation. But it is certainly an 

important factor, and there is plenty of evidence that this is so. In a book published by Edith E. Wood entitled "Housing" she has this to say:
The two nations with the lowest general and infant death rates in the world are Holland and New Zealand. One is old, densely populated, highly urbanized and industrialized; the other is new, sparsely settled and predominantly agricultural. Both have been outstanding in their attention to housing conditions since the turn of the century.
I have not had the pleasure of seeing New Zealand, but a great part of Holland is rather familiar territory. It is a thickly populated country. The houses in the towns and cities are close together, but so far as I could see there are no slums in Holland. There may be, but I could not find them- and I looked for them in the years when I was over there. I looked for them in places that are familiar to many hon. members-Tilburg, Breda, Hertogenbosch, Nijmegen, Apeldoorn. I found no slums, but I did find well-built, substantial homes, even for the poorer classes.
I talked about housing in Holland with a wealthy grain merchant in Tilburg, whose offices we occupied for military purposes. Incidentally he is, or was, an importer of Canadian wheat and an enthusiast for Manitoba No. 1 hard. He informed me, with pride, that not one of his employees was badly housed, and showed me where many of them lived. I visited some of those homes of the working people and found them to be not pretentious dwellings but sturdy brick houses of good appearance, of reasonable size, of obvious comfort and, in typical Dutch fashion, of perfect cleanliness.
In a desire to learn how this had come about, I investigated a little further and gained the information that Holland had embarked upon a housing program as far back as 1901, and had dealt with these matters basically. It was the first attempt on the part of Holland to provide for and to regulate housing in general. Under the legislation then introduced over 10 per cent of the houses in Holland were built by municipalities and public housing societies. Organizations and tenants were permitted to borrow 100 per cent of the cost of their buildings, the buildings to be paid for in 50 years and the land in 75 years.
I have not had the opportunity to investigate further to learn the financial details in this connection, but I simply record these facts as evidence of something I had the pleasure of seeing; and my observations were confirmed by this gentleman in Tilburg, who understood the situation.

Sometimes we are prone to think that Canadians have the highest standard of living in the world. I have never been quite able to understand that phrase, because I do not know how one would go about estimating a standard of living, unless it were merely by a process of counting automobiles, vacuum cleaners, bathtubs, or something like that. If you use the yardstick of housing, Canada has little to boast about and a very great deal to learn. I well recall how surprised Canadian soldiers were when they entered Holland and saw the living conditions of the people in places where the war had not caused destruction.
Again, on the question of housing and its effect on health, I had occasion to delve closely into the book published by Mr. Abrams called "The Future of Housing". He was dealing with the situation in New York city and with the situation in other cities in the United States. The subject that he was discussing was the effect of slums with regard to social evils. May I give a quotation from that book, which is as follows:
That slums breed juvenile delinquency and crime has long been contended. They provide the physical, and encourage the social environment that nourishes growth from truant to juvenile delinquent to felon. The prevalence of a high delinquency rate in slum areas has been established by many authorities and studies ... In one Chicago slum area one out of every four boys between 10 and 17 years appeared in juvenile court in a single year. In Hartford slums, delinquencies were twice as high as in the rest of the city. In Cleveland the rate was three times as high. In Washington, D.C., more than 72 per cent of all juvenile probationers were said to come from overcrowded dwellings . . .
Mr. Abrams investigated the problem of what happens when you rehouse slum dwellers; that is, when the effects of this bill are put into force and slums are cleared away, what happens? Well, the evidence, according to his investigation, was: Fires per 1,000 houses in the new area where the slum had been cleared away and new buildings erected were 2 per 1,000. In an old adjacent slum area similar to the one which had been cleared away, the fires per 1,000 dwellings were 180. Deaths from pneumonia were 2 as contrasted with 14 per 1,000 people, comparing the new cleared area with the old adjacent slum area. Tuberculosis deaths were three times as great in the adjacent slum area. Infant mortality was 2 per 1,000 in the new cleared area as compared to 10 per 1,000 in the old slum area. He then goes on to deal with the excessive costs of public services with regard to those blighted areas and points out in respect to Atlanta, Georgia:
The slum areas of the city contributed 51 per cent of the city's tax revenues from real estate, but 83276-901
National Housing Act
cost the city 53 per cent of its police, fire, health department and other service costs.
It is possible to multiply these examples and draw upon the experience of other countries, but there is no need to go far afield, which I think is unfortunate. We have had surveys in Canada which indicate things somewhat along the same lines. For example, in the city of Winnipeg, and I am quoting from the Winnipeg Tribune of October 24, 1953, we read:
That poor housing is costly to Winnipeg taxpayers and is responsible for higher rates of disease, delinquency and other welfare problems, is shown by a study conducted by the late Mrs. R. F. McWilliams, when she was an alderman in Winnipeg in 1935.
It was found that in two crowded downtown areas scarlet fever and diphtheria cases were 13-6 and 15-7 annually for 1,000 of child population as compared with 7-5 for the rest of the city.
Deaths from tuberculosis were 4-6 and 7-9 annually per 10,000 of population as compared with 2-9 for the rest of the city.
Juvenile court cases were 16-9 and 23-7 per 1,000 pupils as compared with 11-5 for the rest of the city. The excess cost to the city for seven municipal services in these two areas was computed by the deputy city treasurer as being $450,000 annually.
I give the example of Winnipeg merely because it is where I live. I understand and have seen some of the living conditions of the people in that city. I do not think the situation in Winnipeg differs materially from that in other cities across the country.
Those matters of slum clearance and so on are supposed to be dealt with in part III of the bill. Part II of the bill deals with the question of providing rental housing. I have been interested in this for a number of years. It was the first object of interest for me when I returned from overseas in 1946 and entered the Manitoba legislature. At that time I investigated the situation for veterans as far as wartime housing was concerned, and I found that the need for wartime housing exceeded the number available by well over 1,000. The qualifications, you will remember, were: married; overseas service; two or more children. Then, three months ago I inquired again with regard to the wartime housing in Winnipeg and I was informed by those who are responsible that the waiting list at that time was 1,300, a longer waiting list than prevailed in 1946.
I took an interest in emergency shelters in the city of Winnipeg from 1946 on, and became perfectly familiar with emergency shelters that had been set up in the city. There are still emergency shelters in the city of Winnipeg in 1954. According to the report given to the Winnipeg city council not so long ago there are 199 families living in emergency shelters at the present time, and during the course of the year 1953, 932 families applied for emergency accommodation.

National Housing Act Just to indicate the situation I quote two paragraphs from the Winnipeg Tribune of January 14, 1954:
Drafting of a new by-law to enforce higher standards of housing and curb the growth of slums in Winnipeg was recommended today in a report prepared by William Courage, city's emergency housing supervisor.
Mr. Courage reported that living conditions of low-income families with children are more acute now than when the city first set up its housing committee in 1933.
I will show in a minute, Mr. Speaker, why I am drawing attention to these matters of the need of rental housing and the need of slum clearance. But let us consider what the effect of housing is on those who are most seriously concerned. It is interesting to note that in the remarks that were made last week on the question of housing we spoke about- what?-people; about family formation. The number of houses required has a close relation to family formation in the country, and it brings us then of course to a point of interest in that part of our national organization that is most important, and that is the family. We fully agree with and recognize the fact that it is groups of families that form our community and in turn support the superstructure of government on all levels. Unless the family unit is sound all else suffers, and of course the family unit is more concerned with housing than with almost any other problem. Because of faulty housing of families in some areas we are compelled to devote millions of money toward supporting mental institutions, health services, penal institutions and law enforcement services. We lament the growth of delinquency, the increase in divorce, the mounting toll of mental ill-health and the ravages of disease, yet we fail to take adequate measures to counteract the environmental factors that are partly responsible for these social troubles.
That environment contributes to social ills has been proved without shadow of doubt. That adequate housing can assist in preventing the development of these social ills has been clearly demonstrated. If the family unit can be strengthened and maintained under proper circumstances in suitable homes, the children have an opportunity for healthful development.
The nurture and care of children is of prime importance. In their turn they become the working element of the population and provide for and protect the older generation. If the older generation is wise it will ensure that the younger generation is healthy in body and mind. Adequate housing in the interests of the family unit and of the children in particular is sufficient ground for government planning.


We realize that the problem of housing is a difficult one to solve, but to what extent should we urge a solution? I am quite sure that at this point the minister will be prepared to say that the government is perfectly willing to play a part in doing those things which are being advocated to provide rental accommodation and slum clearance and that parts II and III of the act are in the bill for that express purpose. Those parts have been operative for some time. I ask the minister: Why is it, if those parts are satisfactory, that we still have these problems of the lack of rental accommodation and the development of slums?
I was discouraged to read that William Courage had reported to the city of Winnipeg that some action must be taken to curb the growth of slums. I had hoped that at this stage we would have come sufficiently to grips with the problem that there would be no further growth of slum conditions.
I suggest to the minister that when he was rewriting the parts of this bill he should have given more attention to parts II and III. I think we should have a picture given to us of how these parts have operated in the past and what effect they are producing. We should have indicated to us why they are not measuring up to our expectations.
The burden is not solely with the dominion government as the provinces and municipalities have to play their part. I wonder if the problem does not arise because of the situation in which the municipalities have been placed. When the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) was speaking the other day he quoted from a statement by the minister in which it was indicated that one of the great bottlenecks, perhaps the largest in connection with the problem of housing, was the provision of serviced land, that it was the inability of municipalities to provide serviced land that helped to create the bottleneck. Then the hon. member for Eglinton made a comment which I think deserves repetition and I quote from page 1321 of Hansard of January 21:
The municipalities of this country, sir, are functioning today with virtually the same tax base that was given to them at the time of confederation. And, with the rapidly soaring costs of providing municipal services, demanded by all residents, it has become beyond the power of municipalities to meet the responsibilities they are now expected to discharge under existing legislation.
My observation of municipal government is that it does set a very good example in this country of efficiency and economy, but it has been pointed out time and time again in this house that in recent years the municipalities have been curbed because of their

lack of financial strength. Should not the minister give some attention to this? If the municipalities are unable to meet the fairly generous offers contained in parts II and III of the bill, then a review of the situation should be considered. Let us make it possible for the municipalities to deal with these problems which are affecting them adversely in so many ways.
I would conclude with one remark. In so far as rental accommodation is not provided to meet the needs of our people, in so far as slum clearance is not proceeded with vigorously and with dispatch, to that extent the present bill falls far short of what is desired.


Mr. R. R. Knighi (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak but briefly on this bill. While I was sitting here thinking of what I might say when I got up, and making a note or two upon which I might base what I had to say, I had interjected into my thinking a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a few minutes ago when he said that he did not intend to initiate any move at the moment to combat unemployment for the reasons which he stated. I have no doubt that he was sincere in stating those reasons. One reason given was that it was merely a temporary condition. I do not think that this new bill in regard to housing will have much effect upon the unemployment situation. I sincerely do not think that it will result in the building of many more houses than would have been built under the original act.
I wish the government would show some bold imagination in this connection. In spite of the fact that you might have called me to order on my first sentence, I do submit that there is some connection between the two subjects of housing and unemployment. If we had a bold imaginative program for subsidized rental housing, if we had a government scheme instead of the government retreating from housing; if they would get into it wholeheartedly; if they would set some of these unemployed people to work; if they would give them employment with the hope that they would earn sufficient money to get into a house on any terms; then I think the government would be doing something worth while.
I must say that I think that up to now the government has been bankrupt of ideas in regard to both unemployment and housing. That may be rough criticism, but that is what I think. As long as this government is in power I do not think that we will have our people properly and sufficiently housed. I am a great believer in the ownership of homes. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has referred to the necessity
National Housing Act
of having a good environment for children. Needless to say I am entirely in agreement with that statement.
I have shown some interest in this house in young people, in their education and in their health. I feel quite convinced that those two things affect the rising generation. It is the same with a home. Let every man sit under his own fig tree. I hope he can. But if he cannot have a fig tree of his own, I hope he can at least find a fig tree. In other words,, if it is impossible for him to own a house then it should be possible for him to rent one according to what the economic condition of the country allows him to pay.
In my own city of Saskatoon we are getting along reasonably well with housing. Some hon. members may know that we have various housing schemes under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation which are going along all right, except that some of my friends who are in the contracting business claim they are not getting enough of them. But they can fight that out with the minister.
We are being helped too in the matter of rental housing by the fact that one or two outside firms are coming into the city and will begin extensive building this spring. That will help to ease the situation but there are still many people, in spite of the fact that, as I believe, living conditions there are as good as any in Canada, who are still living in quarters where three and four families are using the same bathroom. These are the so-called suites. I need not tell hon. members that some of these suites that are available to rent usually comprise a room with something that I think some would call a kitchenette, but which you and I would call a clothes closet, with one electric burner or unit on which perhaps you could fry an egg if you were lucky.
There is one matter I wish to draw to the attention of the minister which arises out of various complaints I have received. Many people have approached me, young men, who have gone into Central Mortgage housing schemes and they have discovered after being in the houses weeks or perhaps a few months, after putting money into them, that there were faults in the houses such as cracks in the basement, and badly fitting doors or something wrong with the construction. They try to do something about it and are told that once the contractor has been paid out there is really nothing that can be done about it. "You should have spoken earlier", is the answer they get.
I would suggest it takes time and a certain amount of living in a house to discover whether it meets your expectations or not.
1414	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
I would also suggest that this matter needs some attention, because I feel these people have a just cause for complaint. I believe there should be a fairly substantial reserve laid aside which would be payable to a contractor when and if the house proved to be satisfactory.
As regards the bill itself, on the face of it it looks to me like a plan which, whatever its intention may be, will result in putting a larger number of people into a larger amount of debt over a longer period of time. That may result in the building of more houses. I hope it will. Some hon. members have expressed the view that it will not.
This bill does not set out a definite rate of interest. We have been given to understand that the rate of interest will probably be 5f per cent. I would submit that in any contract, particularly one that covers a long period of time as this one is likely to do, the rate of interest is the crux of the whole matter.
I had some experience myself in paying for a house and I finally managed it just before I came to this house, but I certainly realize now what I let myself in for when I signed an agreement at 7 per cent. It was later reduced to 6 per cent. I have not worked it out but I am quite sure that a 1 per cent difference in the rate of interest over a period of years could quite easily mean a difference of $1,000 in the final cost of the house.
Unfortunately, people are apt to overlook the interest rate. My experience has been that the immediate problem of those desperate young people to whom I have talked and who have talked to me is to get into a house. When you have a wife and three children naturally your immediate problem is to get them out of such-and-such an hotel and get them into a place of your own. When agreements are presented to them under such conditions I am afraid they do not scrutinize very closely the rate of interest. The important thing to them at that moment is the down payment and when they do find themselves in a house under a 25-year contract the result is that they have a long, long time -as I myself found-to think over their recklessness in accepting that particular kind of proposition.
I think the interest rate is the crux of this whole measure and I believe that interest rate should be lowered. Someone has mentioned a rate of 2 per cent. I am well aware that that would entail a subsidization on the part of the government. I am well aware that the government is getting or can get its money at 3| per cent, and that there is a difference of 1J per cent that would have


Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part in this debate on the new housing legislation which was recently introduced by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters). I do so for several reasons. This legislation is an attempt to make provision for what is commonly admitted to be perhaps the most glaring and serious need of the people of this country. This problem has contributed, perhaps more than any other, to many of the negative repercussions of this cocktail age in which you and I live. For this reason I believe this measure is one of the most important ones which have come before this session of parliament and certainly deserves the widest of discussion. Anything I may say is said in good faith and is certainly not meant to detract in any way from the efforts of the minister, incomplete as they are, to alleviate the situation.
I have the honour of representing in this house a constituency in a city which, on a per capita basis, has one of the highest figures for construction of any city on the North American continent. When over 50 per cent of the construction permits issued in that city were for the purpose of building homes, it stands to reason that this matter is one
1416	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
which is of great concern to me because it affects the well-being of the people I represent. In order that it may serve as a background to anything further which I may have to say on this matter, I should like to read what I consider to be an extremely interesting report that appeared in the Financial Times of January 22, 1954. It is entitled, "Growth of Edmonton Shows Top Building Rate Per Capita" and reads in part as follows:
At the beginning of its fiftieth anniversary year, Edmonton stands in a class by itself among the larger cities of North America . . .
Computed on a per capita basis, construction in Edmonton last year was much greater than in any other city on the continent . . .
Though many millions of dollars are being spent on industrial construction in Edmonton, it is encouraging to the city's increasing population that nearly half of the total building permits issued during 1953 were for housing construction.
All signs point to another record year in this direction in 1954. This is essential if the city is to keep pace with its rapid growth.
Edmonton is now estimated to have a population of 193,000. At its present rate of growth of 8 per cent, this figure will be very close to 200,000 by early summer. Moreover, if this rate of gain is maintained, the city will reach 300,000 by 1959.
This matter of housing legislation, Mr. Speaker, involves more than just bricks and the materials going into the construction of a home. It involves shelter in the full meaning of that word. We know that homes are crucial for the well-being of any nation. Homes means greater population. Homes mean a happy people; and a happy people means an unconquerable nation. The unhappiness, delinquency and crime which this housing situation have brought about in our country cannot be measured. In the press and in past parliaments there has been a great deal of discussion of the necessity for encouraging cultural growth in our great country. I maintain there is a definite community of interest between family life-the home-and further cultural growth. It seems strange to me, as a new member, that at a time such as this we should be spending millions for guns, bombs and tanks and yet permit the deplorable situation in housing to exist. I should like to say that I have no quarrel with defence. In the face of what we see in the world today we have no alternative. But it does seem strange that we are able to solve the problem of defence and are not able to apply the same maximum effort in matters which have to do with internal conditions. While we have been vigilant on the military front, we have at the same time [DOT]been absolutely negligent with respect to something that is just as important, the internal front.
r.Mr. Holowach.]

The history of nations in recent years shows us quite vividly that countries with tremendous defence set-ups have fallen to negative moral forces because their governments had failed to pay any attention to the crippling and demoralizing economic and social injustices in their lands. I think this should be remembered when this legislation goes before the banking and commerce committee. I think that the key to an understanding of the problem facing us can be found by comparison. During the depression years we needed homes badly. We had the skills and materials and unemployed men who were ready to do the job, but one thing was basically lacking. The people did not have the money. Today we have an equivalent situation. We need homes desperately. We have the skills and materials and better techniques. We have unemployment, and yet people today lack the basic purchasing power necessary to acquire the things that they need.
In order to verify what I have just stated I should like to quote a most revealing bit of information from the Ottawa Journal of January 19. The article is headed, "Credit Buying Hit New High September" and reads in part as follows:
Another boost in instalment-plan buying pushed Canada's consumer credit bill to a new high of $1,772 million on September 30 . . . The major share of the increase was in finance company dealings. Their outstanding credit rose to $544 million on September 30 from $516 million on June 30. Instalment credit by retail dealers increased by $5 million to $248 million from $243 million.
It seems to me that is a very good indication that, so far as the people are concerned, what is most lacking today is the purchasing power to take advantage of the scheme that the government has presented. For the past few days we have listened to a dissection of this legislation, and what does the autopsy show? I think it would be quite right to say that it is the same old body dressed up in the same old suit. The only difference is that there are a few patches which I do not think will give any amount of comfort or aid in securing the basic needs of the people today with respect to housing legislation.
It is admitted that in the bill there are several new features which are commendable. The banks will be induced and encouraged to enter the mortgage business, and payments will be spread over a longer period. But there seems to be no provision or inducement to reduce interest rates and construction costs. There is no provision to protect the equity of a defaulter, and I do not quite understand how anyone earning less than $3,000 can take advantage of the plan now presented. I believe that the Canada Year Book indicates

that for the year 1950 three-quarters of a million people in Canada fell within that income tax bracket. I think we should bear this in mind when we are considering this legislation.
During the past few days most of the criticism of the bill has come from members of the opposition, and I should like to hear some of the government members express their views with respect to it. As grown-up men and women we should realize that patting one another on the back and following party lines in matters of this kind will not bring about betterment. I know of no progressive legislation that has not been brought about by a united protest. This matter is of the greatest importance to the Canadian people. As a matter of fact, I think it has a most serious implication. It places parliament on trial. Our ability to solve the housing problem in Canada will strengthen the faith of the people of Canada in the ability of parliament to get down to business and tackle a serious problem. It will strengthen the faith of our people in democracy and set a shining example for those who condemn it. I think our failure to do so will strengthen the hand and the voice of those who say that democracy cannot bring about improvement and must be replaced by some form of "ism."
Various suggestions have been made. In the first place, I believe that the interest rate is far too high. What is wrong with lowering the interest rate to 3J per cent for those who earn less than $3,000 a year? At the present time banking institutions pay 2 per cent on depositors' money. It seems to me that what is sauce for the goose should certainly be sauce for the gander. Nobody has any criticism of the important part our banking institutions play. They have a most important function to perform, but I think that they, as well as every other agency, should realize that this is the zero hour from the point of view of making sacrifices and that their sacrifice so far as profits are concerned should be just as great as the sacrifice of people who now have to suffer the discomforts of not having a home.
As a new member I have watched and studied with a great deal of interest the activities of the various cabinet ministers and have listened to them with great interest when they have been in action on the floor of the house. From where I sit the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) strikes me as being a very capable, sincere young man. I do not know too much about his political past, but I would say that, having been in politics but a short while, he certainly has not become hardened or indifferent to the
National Housing Act
needs of the people. I submit to him that when this matter comes before the banking and commerce committee he should use his good offices to see that the interest rate is lowered, that some inducement in the form of lower income tax is offered to people who have to carry the extra burden of paying for a home, and that some attempt is made to lower the terrifically high construction costs.
I think this could be done by the declaration of a definite building target for 1954. It would certainly contribute to stabilizing employment. It would enable the various construction firms to make definite plans for the future and would eliminate the valley of ups and downs so far as employment is concerned. Here is an opportunity for the minister to really take a bold and broad step forward in meeting the needs of the people. It is an opportunity for him to be marked in Canadian history as one who has done much.
One thing further I would say and it has not been said before in the debate. As a matter of fact certain inferences have been drawn which are not true so far as the Canadian people are concerned. One of their most prominent characteristics, it seems to me, is a spirit of independence and a willingness to assume responsibility. They do not seek any form of handout, because they know there is no such animal. In any event they would have to pay the price for it. But they do insist that we, as their representatives, understand the financial situation confronting them and that we bear in mind the fact that this legislation, as in respect of all other legislation dealing with the well-being of the people, must be geared to assist those who are not now in a position to afford homes, rather than make it easier for those who are. Unless this is done, then it would seem that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) was right on Friday night when he said that this legislation is only another step to perpetuate this government's moth-eaten financial policy.
In conclusion, I would like to see justice and fair play for the Canadian people, and an effort to make available, particularly to the low income groups, the homes which are so sorely needed. While this legislation in its present form may be expedient from a political standpoint, it is certainly not right in principle and does not answer the demand the people are making upon parliament today.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, speaking in this debate on January 22, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Jones) said:
-these people are not anxious to live in these shacks, they cannot meet the requirements of this

National Housing Act
bill or any government legislation that has ever existed so far as the securing of a home is concerned.
In my opinion it is not any defect in the housing act that causes people to live in shacks, but rather the excessive cost of housing in our time. The National Housing Act cannot be blamed for the fact that housing is as costly as it is today.
Speaking in the debate on January 21 the minister said:
The period of amortization for home ownership loans, including co-operative housing associations and rural housing, will be 25 years as a minimum and 30 years as a maximum. However, the borrower will be able to arrange for a shorter term if he so indicates in writing.
Earlier he stated:
It will be recalled that at the present time the maximum loan is $10,000 for home ownership. In setting the limit of loan one consideration will be that the present cost of residential construction is about 25 per cent higher than it was when the $10,000 was set.
If my memory serves me correctly it was in 1950 or 1951 that the $10,000 figure was set, so this means an increase of 25 per cent in the cost of housing since that time. When we speak of the high cost of living at this particular period and compare it with the pre-war period we say that our dollar is worth 56 cents. Others say that it is worth less than 50 cents. For the purposes of my argument, however, I shall say that it has 50 per cent of its 1939 value, or that it is worth 50 cents.
An automobile that cost about $1,300 in 1939 will now sell for about $2,600, or an increase of 100 per cent. I have actual figures for the cost of houses in 1939, but for purposes of simplicity I shall use round figures and say that a house which then cost $2,500 would cost between $8,000 and $9,000 today. This is almost four times the cost of the pre-war article.
When purchasing an automobile today everyone seeks a certain amount of individuality, but in the purchase of homes people are going even farther. It would seem that every home must have its own individual design to suit the taste of the purchaser. We will either have to forget this demand for individuality or be content to pay these excessive costs. Whether one buys a low priced automobile or one in the $5,000 or $6,000 class he will find that, essentially, they are the same in outline, and that the differences are chiefly in the matter of colour. One's individuality is given scope in his choice of paint, or in the chrome used. I believe that in a home one's individuality could be shown in the upkeep of the home

or in the condition in which the yard is kept. It is not necessary that every house be different in appearance.
If there is a continuation of this demand for individuality it will be impossible to use the prefabricated article, which is so desirable at the moment. Great quantities of lumber are available in British Columbia which would be quite suitable for prefabricated homes. Insulation when applied to frame houses makes them acceptable, and I think it is within reason to believe that prefabricated homes can be built at costs lower than those quoted today.
I believe it is essential that the government take the lead in an effort to find ways and means to have the builders and the unions sit down with government officials to work out some policy whereby homes may be provided at prices within the ability of average wage earners to pay. If necessary a royal commission could be set up to go into this serious matter and ascertain why the cost of housing has got so far out of line when compared with the cost of other commodities.
If a man earning $2,500 to $3,000 attempts to purchase a home with a capital cost of $10,000 to $12,000, and undertakes to pay the normal interest charges for adequate financing, he will be in slavery for well over a third of his natural working life. That is a very unhealthy situation, and I believe something should be done. It is not only necessary to make provision for more capital, because capital is merely a measure of the goods themselves, and more -capital does not mean that we are going to have more houses until the prices of houses are brought more nearly in line with the salary of the average wage earner today.
While we are doing an excellent job, I am sure there is not going to be any appreciable difference in the number of houses that will be built within the next year. I predict that owing to the greater amount, as we hope, of capital becoming available there will be throughout the year a greater increase in the cost of these houses.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, it requires a certain amount of hardihood to enter a debate on the third day, even a debate of the importance of the one we are engaged in now. I think I should not have that hardihood except that I believe the bill before us invites us to confer powers so broad, so far-reaching, and above all so permanent on this government institution that I still cling to the hope that it may be possible to achieve the end desired, and

which of course is eminently desired by us all, without the necessity of having recourse to the tremendous powers which are given. These powers incidentally seem to relegate private enterprise, which is nailed to the mast, so to speak, of our party, and which I think the government would say is also nailed to their mast, to the position of a mere machine which is going to be used by this government organization. There will be precious little freedom left in the housebuilding and the house-investing industry, so far as I can see, if this bill passes unchanged.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear. There is nobody who can possibly be anything but favourable to the declared purpose of the bill, which I will read:
An act to promote the construction of new houses, the repair and modernization of existing houses, and the improvement of housing and living conditions.
Everybody has to approve of that, but of course it is possible to do the right thing in the wrong way, and I thoroughly believe that in some respects this is the wrong way.
I am not going to get involved in many details which have been dealt with admirably by my colleagues in this house, but there are certain general points that I do wish to discuss. The first thing that strikes me about this is that the government gave themselves every chance, it seems to me, to go the wrong way; because so far as any of us know this plan was worked out in splendid isolation in one of the government's ivory towers. Those people who have so fully and effectively co-operated with the government in making house loans for a good many years-I refer to the lending institutions- were not consulted. The institutions who it is hoped are going to take up the load, or a good part of the load from now on, namely the banks, were not consulted.
Now, as I reflect, I wonder whether perhaps the only people who may have been consulted at all are people outside the country. This plan, I take it, is modelled very largely on the position in the United States, and it may be, though we do not know, that there was consultation there. There is no point in my asking at length why there has been no discussion. There are of course governments who do not believe in discussion. We think of the totalitarian governments, and we know that to expect them to discuss is just silly. They do not discuss things, but it is surprising that it should happen here.
1 have asked myself why it has happened. I have reminded myself that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), when
National Housing Act
he has a public enterprise under his control, thinks of it as very much his own enterprise. Whether the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), who is still early in his official career, has already caught up with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and -has come to regard these institutions as his own, I do not know. He does not convey that impression, of course. He tries to make us feel that our opinion is of value, that we are being consulted, but there are the facts, such as they are.
Of course we all do admit that there are cases where obviously governments cannot consult. We do not expect the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to come and consult with us at the last moment as to just what changes he is going to make in the income tax, and incidentally I doubt whether the minister is going to consult very much with this house in future in any event, because of a certain unfortunate experience that he did have.


Mr. Winters:: I wonder whether the hon. member is aware of the great many consultations that have taken place between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the various institutions which will operate under this legislation, and between the Minister of Finance and those same institutions, and between me and those same institutions.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I know that numerous consultations have been held since last October. I realize that; nevertheless, when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made his statement last October the chief decisions had been made. I do realize that there have been discussions since. Indeed I was going on to say that it seemed to me the attitude of the government up to last October was somewhat like that of a patient who might go to his doctor and say to him, "Now, doctor, I am not well, and I want you to prescribe for me A, B and C.". The doctor, if he were a man of proper standing in his profession, would refuse to do that. He would say, "No, I will prescribe for you what I think I should prescribe." I imagine that since October last there has been, as the minister has very truly said, a good deal of discussion, and possibly it has even been necessary to pay more attention to the opinions of those who were not consulted before.


Robert Henry Winters: Very valued opinions, too.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Oh, yes, I am sure they were, but as I say it was a delay-action consultation.
Now, there is another thing that handicaps us a bit at the moment, and I hope it will be set right before we get too far into the

National Housing Act committee. It is that this bill has another unfortunate-what shall I say-feature that so many bills have. That is, just as you are getting to something very important you find, "The governor in council will make regulations to cover this." The regulations of course are not public. On the other hand they are not entirely secret, either. They sort of leak out from time to time. But I do hope that when we come to the committee we shall have the regulations and we shall not have to approve the bill without the regulations before us. In other words, we shall not have to go to the play with Hamlet left out.
Now a word as to the public reception of the bill. I would never deny that the government publicity is always good. I think there was the usual built-up enthusiasm which we are so accustomed to seeing, at the very first announcement; but as people had time to look at it a rather different attitude sprang up. People felt that they would be wise to "stop, look and listen." I refer very briefly to some words from the Regina Leader-Post of December 22, which bear that out. They are as follows:
Glib references to a ten per cent down payment are likely to conjure up images that anyone who wants and needs a house will be able to buy one by going through somewhat the same procedure as plunking down $25 on a $250 refrigerator which in a matter of hours is ensconced in the family kitchen.
Reginans who have been dreaming of the yet unattainable cosy home might as well face the fact now, as they inevitably may have to do later, that no such alluring prospect may be in store for them.
Just a word as to the history of this thing. As it has been covered before I shall not do more than mention it. I think it was in 1935 that the first legislation was passed, just before the change of government. That was followed by legislation put through by Mr. Dunning, and under the National Housing Act there has been a successful partnership which worked pretty well on the basis of an 80 per cent loan, 25 per cent participation by the government and 75 per cent by the lending institutions.
The figures for last year are very important. The results achieved in 11 months of 1953 showed $239 million as the amount put out in joint loans, and I believe $51 million by Central Mortgage alone. On the basis of $239 million for 11 months I take it to work out to something in the nature of $260 million for the year.
As I said a moment ago, this was changed without any warning. Notice was given by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on October 1 that this was going to be changed. It was felt that enough money was not
[Mr. Macdonnell.l

likely to be forthcoming this year; therefore the change with which we are familiar was proposed.
As I have said, there are many points of criticism which have been carefully made and which I have no desire to repeat. But there is one thing that I do desire to repeat, because I believe it is so important. I think it is unfortunate, and it seems to me that it perhaps is a necessary characteristic of bureaucracy, but it just shows how much one loses when one is forced away from ordinary human dealings between man and man and gets into the hands of a bureaucracy. I am not saying that with disrespect, as I have great respect for the president of Central Mortgage, I am only saying that there are certain things a huge bureaucracy cannot do, and I refer to them in this manner.
We are bringing in borrowers, purchasers of houses who are going to pay for them on the instalment plan. As the president of the Royal Bank of Canada said the other day, we have become a pretty high-cost economy. I will not dwell on the fact, which I have mentioned before and may mention again, that that is not at all unrelated to the easy money policies which were followed by this government and which were nice and easy for those who get the easy money but which become more and more difficult for those who do not share in the easy money.
That helped to raise prices. We all know that the rise in building costs was very much above the average. So these prices, to which I shall not refer at length, have gone up. I had hoped incidentally that suggestions which have been made as to the possibility of much lower prices even though not on exactly the same standards of construction, might be seriously considered by the minister.
I come back now to these borrowers. If they are just human beings like the rest of us the chances are they will have some other instalment payments to make beyond the payments on their houses. They may very well be making payments on a car, on a radio or what you will. What I am coming to is this. In all probability a good many of these people will be under strain in making their payments.
When an individual borrows from a good lender-I shall try to explain in a moment what I think a good lender is, and on this subject I have some experience-he knows that the last thing in the world that lender wants to do is to take his property. That is not from any high or altruistic motives, though I would say that there have been far more good relations between borrower and

lender throughout this country than sometimes people like to admit. However, I just put it on the ground of good business. No lender wants to take over the property of a private borrower who has lived up to the character which the lender believed he had and who is doing his best to work out his loan.
Let us see what is going to happen here, because here is where bureaucracy comes in. It has been pointed out, and I do not intend to refer to it at great length, that there is an escape clause; but the genius of this act is that the lender, who is being guaranteed, bias to be right on the job and not leave any opening so it can be said that he was slack in pressing for his money. If that is what we are led to understand from, shall I say, unofficial reports of the regulations, he may easily get into difficulty. So I just want to make this point-


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I understand the hon. member, he referred to regulations leaking out on one occasion, and he now refers to unofficial reports of regulations. Does the hon. gentleman not know that by a law enacted by this parliament all regulations having the force of law have to be published and have to be tabled in this house?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is a question of timing. I do not think at the present time the regulations are supposed to be available to any except those who have been called into consultation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There cannot be any
regulations until-


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have to make them first.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is quite nice to have someone try to keep us on a high intellectual level but I am afraid the minister will always be disappointed in me because I am only a reformed lawyer and I shall never be able to attain the level which I can see he is going to try to set for us.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And for his colleagues.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I accept whatever proper word I should have used about regulations. If I am wrong again the minister no doubt will correct me again. I just want to stress the great importance in my mind of what I understand is in these particular regulations.


An hon. Member:: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What I understand to be in them-of course the sections of the act are pretty stiff too-is that the lender, unless there are unusual circumstances, will have to give practically no leeway. He will have to go ahead and enforce his security. I point out that this is one of the difficulties with a
National Housing Act
huge bureaucracy. You are faced with the dilemma of it either being ridden with politics, which none of us want but which could happen, or it has to act in a rigid and unyielding manner. I do not think we shall be able to blame them. I think Central Mortgage will have duties laid on them which will compel them to do this. Therefore I am making the point that to me one of the most unfortunate things about this is that the lender will not be able to put off the foreclosure even for years if he believes the borrower is doing his best and that he is not only honourable but capable.
I have said that there was a fruitful partnership between the lending institutions and Central Mortgage, but that the form in which it worked it is being done away with and that Central Mortgage is proposing to withdraw from the 25-75 relationship. We are all aware of how that is to be taken care of. Central Mortgage will still be able to make loans itself, but as regards the others they will be dealt with by insurance policies. The money is supposed to come from private institutions and is to be guaranteed. How much money will be needed is anyone's guess. I gave the figures a moment ago to indicate that last year the total amounts put out jointly by the lending institutions and Central Mortgage were somewhere in the neighbourhood of $260 million. Central Mortgage will not now supply its 25 per cent of that, and it is expected that the lending institutions will not be able to supply quite so much. I suppose a fair guess might be that there may be something like $100 million or more needed. I put that forward purely as a rough guess.
A word about the availability of funds. The banks of course have declared their readiness to co-operate and on this point there has been some interesting comments, some by the Bank of Canada and some at the annual meetings of the banks themselves, indicating their approach. Bank loans are very high, and they have increased by some $600 million their ordinary commercial loans in the last year. In a manner of speaking it has been customary to say that the banks are "fully loaned" but I think it is a dangerous phrase to use, because after all, in spite of the fact that a year ago the banks were pretty well loaned up, last year loans were increased by the very substantial amount I have mentioned. The question then arises as to the banks' reserves and I will refer to that in a moment.
On the question of liquidity-a word I think has almost fallen out of use in our vocabulary, at least as far as money matters are concerned, and which I think we should
1422	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
recognize as of great importance-it is interesting to point out that within the last few days there appeared in the press a reference to the reserves of the chartered banks. That reference contains the following, and I am quoting from the Montreal Gazette of January 22, 1954:
A broad change in the mechanics of credit control by the Bank of Canada is under study by the government and may be translated into legislation.
A proposal, which follows upon the decision of the government to permit banks to lend on new residential construction is that the cash ratio chartered banks must maintain against deposit liabilities shall be variable and shall be altered by the Bank of Canada according to the position of the economy.
The statutory position now, substantially unchanged since the Bank of Canada came into existence in 1935, is that the chartered banks must maintain with the Bank of Canada not less than 5 per cent of their deposit liabilities. In practice this has been generally conceded to be unrealistic and the ratio has been kept in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent.
What is likely to happen, if present plans mature, is that the Bank of Canada will from time to time set a minimum ratio that may vary from 8 per cent to 12 per cent according to circumstances.
As you will observe, Mr. Speaker, that is really following what has actually been the practice. In other words the banks have not been content to maintain the legal minimum of 5 per cent, but practice has fixed it at about 10 per cent. Indeed, 10 per cent is used as almost a legislative figure. That 10 per cent is the amount by which the banks may increase credit facilities as they increase cash. In other words, they apply the 10 per cent figure and not the 5 per cent figure.
I want to draw attention to a recent comment by a banker, because on the one hand I think we can take it for granted that the banks will co-operate to the best of their ability, and on the other hand I think we should bear in mind that it is not just a question of looking at the amount of deposits in a bank and saying there is a lot of money there and they can lend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. I am reading from a report in the Toronto Globe and Mail dated January 21, 1954, part of which is the Globe's own comment and part of which contains the words of Mr. Vanstone, president of the Bank of Toronto. The first part is the Globe's summary of what Mr. Vanstone said, and when I come to Mr. Vanstone's own words I will indicate them:
Mr. Vanstone agrees that it is right and proper for the maximum number of Canadians to live in their own houses. To do that construction and financing costs must remain within their capacity to pay. If public funds are to be considered essential to add to private funds to aid in financing house buying, dwelling units should be of the most economical type of construction consistent with durability, sanitation and propriety. Hitherto life insurance, mortgage and trust companies and 

private investors have been the traditional sources of mortgage funds. House mortgages were made a lawful investment for trust funds and practically everything had been done to put them in a preferred position to attract funds for which immediate liquidity was not necessary.
The need for liquidity had dominated banking since before confederation.
Now I come to Mr. Vanstone's own words:
Depositors in Canada's chartered banks consider that they are placing their money on demand.
It is true that savings accounts have legally a 10 day delay, but no bank would ever dream of invoking that delay. Mr. Vanstone continues:
Only by in turn placing their depositors' money in constantly maturing, short-term loans to business or in sound marketable public securities, can the banks be certain of not disappointing them.
That is the depositors.
Inasmuch as there is a hard core of savings deposits which in effect form personal reserves likely to be called for only in personal emergency, it may be that the banks can without undue risk depart from total short-term liquidity to place some small portion of these funds in well-secured mortgages and thereby be in a position to perform a public service by filling such gaps in the market for housing capital as existing financial agencies may not quite cover. Obviously the extent to which this can be done will depend on the degree of liquidity that the government is willing to make available if and when necessary, and it is only to a moderate extent that it would be prudent to tie up the funds of Canadian depositors in long-term fixed investments.
The banks must keep themselves in a position to take care of demands from depositors and fully look after the requirements of trade and commerce.
Now, in the light of this let us look at the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) which started this discussion last October. I read briefly from his speech as reported in the Ottawa Journal of October 1, 1953:
The government does not believe that it would be sound under present conditions to fill the gap-
That is the gap caused by the expected inability of the lending institutions to provide all the money.
-by direct government lending.
If that were done the government would become the direct mortgagee or landlord of a large number of Canadian families.
The Prime Minister continued:
The government feels that the proper solution is to enlarge and broaden the supply of mortgage money by making mortgages more attractive and a more liquid form of investment than they have been up to now.
I wish to comment briefly on the Prime Minister's statement. He does not think it would be sound under present conditions "to fill the gap by direct government lending". That does not seem to me to be a very realistic statement because the government is actually the person responsible, though in

the background. When you consider that the government is behind Central Mortgage, and that Central Mortgage is guaranteeing the loans, it seems to me that it is a distinction very largely without a difference.
The Prime Minister then went on to say that it is not the government's wish to "become the direct mortgagee or landlord of a large number of Canadian families". He considers it very undesirable, and so do I. Nevertheless, if in fact Central Mortgage is going to assume that position I do not see that it is any great comfort to us. You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister uses the word "landlord" as well as "mortgagee", by which I assume he means that by reason of defaults there is a possibility of properties having to be taken over.
I want to deal now briefly with the question of liquidity. Liquidity, as I said a moment ago, has nothing to do with the temperance act. It has to do with the availability of money on depositors' demand. Commenting on the Prime Minister's statement about mortgages being made more liquid, Saturday's edition of the Montreal Gazette has the following to say:
Graham Towers, governor of the Bank of Canada, said the bank probably will be allowed loans up to 100 per cent of the value of mortgages, but in practice this is not done. Their borrowing from the central bank was only for moderately small amounts and for short periods.
The period is indeed short enough, because under the Bank of Canada Act, section 18, loans are supposed to be for six months. That would not open the door very wide though, as a matter of fact, I suppose in actual practice if the banks went to the Bank of Canada for additional money they would probably use as their first line of defence not their mortgages but government of Canada bonds and other securities which they have.
In passing I want to point out that I think this whole plan is based largely on the practice followed by United States banks. I further point out that it was done there in the midst of the depression. It was a depression measure. It seems to me to be unfortunate if we have to follow somewhat slavishly, in a time which is certainly not a time of depression, what the Americans did at a time of depression.
I want to digress just for a moment further on the question of the amount available. That is a matter that is going to be undoubtedly in the discretion of the Bank of Canada. I think that is clear. It will depend upon how much further cash they are prepared to provide the chartered banks so the chartered banks may turn around and make these mortgage loans. As I said, it is interesting that
National Housing Act
at the very moment this matter comes up, there is a suggestion of increasing the percentage of reserves required.
May I spend just a moment on the question of liquidity. The banks take deposits, and of course their only means of earning is to make those deposits work. They lend those deposits out, and they have to judge the likely requirements or the likely demands of depositors. Of course it is fatal to any bank if they are ever caught without enough money to satisfy the demands of depositors. It is important to distinguish between security and liquidity. In the crash in the United States in 1932 there were banks which had plenty of assets with which to pay all the depositors but which could not be realized on demand. It is no good to tell a depositor who wants his money today that you have a loan coming in next week, next month or next year. If you cannot pay upon demand, your doors close. There were many banks at that time whose doors closed, though eventually they were able to pay off in full.
It will be obvious to hon. members that, as you might say, the three lines of defence a bank has are, first, its cash reserves; second, government bonds and other quickly realizable securities; and third, commercial paper and that kind of thing which represents money lent on short terms and which is being repaid day by day.
At the outset I complained about this bill which erects this huge bureaucracy and which leaves so little to be done by private enterprise. I want to quote briefly from words used by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) which I think are worth repeating. Speaking of the powers of the bill, as reported at page 1333 of Hansard he said:
The powers are so vast that those of us who do not trust power in the hands of the government will not feel that powers of this nature, powers which are so wide, so sweeping and so inclusive are needed.
There is one point that I should like to make here and it is this. We have had many cases where there have been sweeping emergency powers, with regard to foreign exchange control and other matters, where we have differed-where there have been different feelings-as to how long they should last. But I think I am correct in saying that in those cases there was always or almost always agreement among us that the power in question was for an emergency, for a special purpose, and that the time would come when it would disappear. With respect to this bill it seems to me that the situation is exactly the opposite. There is no reason to believe that it will disappear. Quite the contrary; I think it

National Housing Act
will become more and more deeply embedded, and that it will exercise more and more authority in this part of the lending industry which, after all, is a large area of our whole economy. As time goes on, I think the approved lending institutions may find that it is almost a waste of time for them to keep up the organizations which they have at the present time and which have been so active, as the minister knows, in arriving at sound valuations.
The best information I can get in connection with the similar practice in the United States is that the approved lending institutions there still take the responsibility of making the valuations, though they may be checked up-as indeed our own valuations have been checked up-to some extent by the public body.
But as the situation stands, as the minister well knows, every approved lending institution must await the nod from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation before it acts. If it is a building loan, there must be a detailed, meticulous report and approval by Central Mortgage; and let anyone beware of disregarding the slightest wish of Central Mortgage because, as we all know, guarantees are tricky things and his guarantee might be called in question.
As I said a moment ago, the only place where initiative is still left to the lender is in the dirty job of foreclosing loans. He is not only left with that job but he is forced to do it, even though it may be entirely against his own better judgment.
I said at the outset that nobody can read the legend on the outside of this bill without approving it, but I wish to say that I still hope that in committee it may not be found necessary to go nearly the length of these wide, inclusive, meticulous and permanent powers. I want to say here that to me, despite everything that may have been intended, this is a great step forward into state socialism. What we are having here is the part played by private enterprise-which up to the present has been great-really being played down. Private enterprise is going to be just the agent of this new institution.
I wish to make a few comments on that matter, because to me it is striking at the very root of what I believe to be the motive power of our economic life. Most of us in this chamber differ from the socialists on that matter. I would think the socialists would find this legislation extremely palatable. If they do not, I shall have lost confidence in their judgment. After all, it is going along the line they themselves so often advocate.

I want to draw attention to the fact that in England there has obviously been a revulsion of feeling. I drew this to the attention of the house before. At the Margate convention again and again measures to further public enterprise were voted down. I refer to the trade union congress at Margate.
I often find that the socialists seem to regard wealth as if it were a fixed amount and it were only a question of dividing it up.
I have been greatly interested to find the extent to which leading socialists apparently have turned their faces in a different direction. I have here a book the title of which will not immediately commend itself to hon. gentlemen opposite because it is called "The Conservative Mind". But I should like to make two comments with regard to that book. One is that the "c" is a small "c", and the other is that it was strongly recommended to me by one of the best-known gentlemen who sit opposite in this house. In it there are two or three short quotations I should like to read because they indicate such a great change of attitude. One is this:
Finding that the majority of men seem to lack motive for performing their duties in society, now that the ordinary rewards for ordinary integrity have been abolished or diminished, the socialists are dismayed; they begin to wonder whether their theory of human nature can be at fault. Professor G. D. H. Cole says that "socialism is an unworkable system without a new social drive such as the communists have managed to give it" . . .
It is a curious thing that here is one of the leading socialists in Britain who practically says it is no good unless they can import something of the communist attitude. On the other hand you get a man like Gordon Walker, who was a member of the last cabinet, and he is all in favour of more and more regimentation. He says:
Since the state is the main organ of authority in society, one of the natural ends of the new state will be to secure the increased quantum of authority necessary for the increased output of social energy ... In large part ... it will achieve this end by an extension of its positive functions; there will not be a village, a street or a house into which the new state does not enter, exacting respect for regulations, requiring information and rational action.


Mr. Gillis:: What is the name of the book?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The name of the book is "The Conservative Mind".


Clarence Gillis: Who is the author of the book?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let us imagine that by some magic we came back here tomorrow and found that there was a C.C.F. government in power.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That would be black magic.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let us imagine that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was minister of trade and commerce. I want to imagine him bringing in some of the measures that he would like to bring in and with which we are so familiar. I want to imagine what he would say if this bill had become law. Would he not say-


Clarence Gillis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As long as it does not use up my time.


Clarence Gillis: He gave us the name of the book, "The Conservative Mind", and it certainly is, but would he mind giving us the name of the author?


Mr. MacDougall:: Jim Macdonnell.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The author's name is Russell Kirk. I understand he is quite a respectable person in the United States. With this state I have asked you to imagine, the C.C.F. being in power, I think they could say to us: "You have given these overwhelming powers, the kind of powers we socialists like, in the house building industry. Why do you stop there? If houses are socially desirable so are a lot of other things. Refrigerators are socially desirable. Stoves are socially desirable. Motor cars are socially desirable." In the situation I have asked you to imagine I suggest that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would think that he was going along perfectly within the four corners of this measure we have before us now.
It may amuse hon. members, but it has been suggested here that if we are going to guarantee those who lend money we ought to guarantee those who borrow money. That has been suggested. I thought first of all that it was a joke, but apparently it was not a joke.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that I am coming very near to the end of my time. I wish that somehow I could convince hon. members who are going to sit on this committee, and the people of Canada, that these extraordinary powers are not all necessary. I feel that what is needed is not a further extension of socialist powers, government powers, but the effort to bring freedom and private enterprise more into action as I think could have been done here if the attempt had been made.
I quoted what the hon. member for Eglin-ton said last week, and I should like to quote one or two more things from this book by Mr. Russell Kirk. In my opinion we should try to assess these things very carefully and not merely take some easy way to get an
National Housing Act
immediate result if in fact we are disregarding what we really believe are the principles that we should follow. At page 414 Mr. Kirk says:
During the remaining half of the present century, the principal endeavour of intelligent conservatives is likely to be resistant to the idea of a planned society, through restoration of an order which will make the planned society unnecessary and impracticable.
He goes on to say:
If, by the year 1984, justice, liberty and hope still are general characteristics of western social thought, the credit for this conservation of traditional values may belong to the school of genuinely reformatory and critical conservatism which is a growing influence in America and Britain . . .


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but it is my duty to advise him that his time has expired.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If I may have 30 seconds, I should like to finish reading what he says. He goes on to say:
The mass of men must find status and hope within society: true family, respect for the past, responsibility for the future, private property, duty as well as right . . .
Referring to what he calls the problem of economic stability he says:
But it does mean the establishment of a rational relationship between endeavour and reward.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that these considerations, to which I have tried, very inadequately, to address our minds, should not be disregarded, and I hope they will not be disregarded when the bill gets to the committee.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I am at a loss to understand why the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) is apparently unable to comprehend a writer of the clarity of G. D. H. Cole and why he draws such strange deductions from his words. I am also surprised that the hon. member finds fault with this bill on the grounds that it is a bill which would appeal to socialists.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Colin Cameron: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I hope he realizes that I was quoting Cole.


Colin Cameron: I know the hon. member was, and I will come back to that in a moment. I know that the hon. member was quoting from Cole, and when I heard him quoting Cole I realized how useless it was for socialist writers to expect to be understood.

National Housing Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not only socialist writers. How about socialist speakers?


Colin Cameron: I am at a loss to understand why he should think the bill would appeal to socialists, and equally at a loss to understand why he objects to it so strenuously from the corner in which he sits. Here we have a bill apparently designed to do nothing but protect the interests of the lending institutions, with which I have always understood my hon. friend had connections.
Let us see what the purposes of the government were in introducing the legislation. They are stated as being the promotion of the construction of new houses, the repair and modernization of existing houses and the improvement of housing and living conditions. They are worthy motives, but I wonder whether, after a year of operation of this legislation, the minister will not find himself perhaps murmuring the old tag, "How doth desire outrun performance".
I am giving him the credit, of course, of thinking that he has the desire to see houses built for the people of Canada. Let us take his own figures. An individual who is going to build an $8,000 house first of all has to find $800 for his down payment. He then has to buy a lot. I presume he will pay at least $200 for his lot. This is of course, Mr. Speaker, always assuming that today one can build a house for $8,000.
Here is our prospective buyer who now has to find a total of $1,000. Where will we find him in the population of Canada? I have the taxation statistics of the Department of National Revenue for 1953 covering the income brackets of all those taxable and nontaxable persons in Canada who filed income tax returns. We have those persons with incomes of under $1,000 who amount to 14-7 per cent of the total. I think the minister will agree with me that a person with an income of under $1,000 is not going to be able to find $1,000 for a down payment. So they are wiped out. The next group is persons with incomes between $1,000 and $2,000, and they amount to 28-1 per cent of our total population. Again I think the minister will agree with me when I say it is very dubious whether people with incomes of $2,000 or less are going to be able to find $1,000 for a down payment. Then we come to persons with incomes between $2,000 and $3,000. These amount to 30-4 per cent of the population.
This makes a total of 73 per cent of our population with incomes of less than $3,000 a year. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that anyone with an income of $3,000 or less is

not going to be able to take advantage of this act. Someone has suggested that perhaps they are not eligible, that perhaps they do not fall into that quaint category the minister mentioned the other day when he referred to credit-worthy individuals. It struck me at the time that that was a rather curious form of worthiness.
Just to show how impractical is the suggestion that people of modest income are going to be able to build houses under the terms of this legislation, I should like to tell the house of what I saw in the state of California only a few months ago. In September I visited the peninsula south of San Francisco, probably one of the richest areas in North America. It is one vast garden all the way down from that city. All along the skyline boulevard highway private building developments are in progress. One may see large billboards advertising the terms upon which people may take advantage of what these builders have to offer. They are advertising houses to a value of $16,000 which can be obtained with a down payment of $400.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is a practical realization on the part of these private building contractors that the average family that aims to live in even a $16,000 house has very little cash to make a down payment. I have yet to hear any convincing argument which satisfies me as to the necessity for this down payment at all. We are told, of course, that it creates an interest in the property, and unless a down payment is made the purchaser will not care for the property after he gets it.
That seems to be a dubious argument. I believe that persons who are putting aside each month regular sums in the hope that they will own their homes some day will look after them whether down payments are made or not. The down payment requirement in this legislation makes it of practically no use to the people of Canada.
One of the great shortcomings in the bill is that there is no real provision for low rental housing to meet the needs of those people who cannot afford to pay the rentals charged today. There is of course a provision to aid private contractors in the building of multiple dwelling units, but this will not meet the needs of those in the low income brackets. It will meet the requirements of those in the middle and higher income brackets. I recall the sad experience many people had in Vancouver shortly after the war in dealing with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. At that time apartment houses were erected, designed to accommodate veterans with children. First

of all the rents were to run between $40 and $50 a month. Those rents gradually crept up until they reached $60 or $70 a month.
That appears to be the situation in Ontario today. This past week end I was in Toronto visiting a young couple who are living in an apartment house constructed under the guarantee of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They rent a small basement suite with a total floor area of between 600 and 700 square feet and pay $81 a month for this accommodation, and they have been told that when their lease expires the rent will increase to $100 a month.
These are conditions people in Canada are facing today. I might add that the young man in the case I have mentioned makes a weekly wage of just over $70. He told me when he went to that apartment he was obliged to pay three months' rent in advance. I presume this was to be a form of insurance against damage that can be done to an apartment. It is clearly just another racket; that is all it is, because there are terms in the lease saying that the owner can expend the whole of the advance to redecorate the apartment when the tenant moves out. In order to make this down payment of three months' rental at $81 a month this young man was obliged to go to a bank and sign a note to borrow the money. They are not a particularly extravagant couple, and have two small children. It is obvious that $70 a week is not enough to provide the thousand dollars required to take advantage of this legislation.
I am wondering what the purpose of this legislation is. The government has brought it in with a fine fanfare, stating that it is to promote the construction of new houses, the repair and modernization of existing houses and the improvement of housing and living conditions. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is nothing more or less than a cruel hoax being perpetrated upon the people of Canada by this government.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak my first few words in parliament inspired by the tremendous importance of this legislation and, particularly, its importance to my own constituency. York-Humber is a pulsating, growing suburban part of Toronto. Residential sections seem to spring up almost overnight. Young people are pouring in and, as in so many other urban parts of Canada, housing has become of vital importance to us.
This bill provides some relief, some assistance, to potential home owners; but there are thousands of people who will find no relief in it whatsoever. For instance, in my riding there are hundreds of young couples living under conditions of two and three families
National Housing Act
in a house, or living with their in-laws and in a shockingly overcrowded state. They have had to do this, not because they are unemployed or are incapable of maintaining homes. In many cases the wife as well as the husband is working, and each is drawing a quite reasonable salary; but they simply cannot make this down payment that must be made in the purchase of these houses. They cannot set aside that percentage of income required to secure a loan under the National Housing Act.
As I said, the wives as well as the husbands are working. I understand that under the regulations it is not possible to use their combined salaries; yet it seems to me that where a husband and wife are both working toward a common goal, the purchase of a home, they are really a better risk than is a husband with a higher salary whose wife is at home, with plenty of time on her hands to spend his money.
This bill will do nothing for the young people in the riding I represent. The attitude, which amounts almost to scorn, that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation seems to show for the small-salaried worker, and the even greater scorn it shows for a wife's earning capacity, makes it quite impossible for these young people to benefit by this legislation.
As the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) said last Friday, under this new measure a prospective home owner must be receiving an income of $3,860 a year before he can apply for a National Housing Act loan. Well, there are many thousands of prospective home owners in my constituency who are certainly not earning even $3,000 a year. Among some of those couples, as I mentioned previously, the wives are also wage earners and their combined incomes would qualify them for a loan. I submit, sir, that wives' earnings, or at least a part of them, should be included in the amount that qualifies for a loan.
There is no doubt about it, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is one of the government's most successful arms of bureaucracy. I understand the losses under C.M.H.C. are practically nil, but so are the chances the corporation takes. Bureaucracy can always be successful because it takes no chances. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the way this country was built, and at this stage in our growth it seems to me that such regimentation as is shown in this bill could stultify any further growth. Central Mortgage sits in its ivory tower here in Ottawa laying down the rules without any regard *for the drive and initiative of the individual.

National Housing Act
What I find suspect in this bill is the fact that there is one rule, and that one rule debars the small wage earner and also the average wage earner; so that while promising so much on the surface, in reality this bill could strangle housing for the majority of the people.
We all know the important part that Canadian banks played in building the Canadian west. In those days, unlike bureaucracy, the banks did take chances on the human element as well as on cold, hard cash. During the early days of this twentieth century, Canadian banks sent young men out to the prairies and over the Rockies to open up new branches for them. They were men of vision and imagination, and they were given much more power than bankers seem to have today. They were permitted to judge a man by his character as much as by the security he could offer when he was seeking a loan. Sometimes the borrowers on the prairie, the farmers, would have to borrow three times before they could pay back the amount. They would come again and again to the bank manager with a story of a bad crop, and then a bumper crop would come along and they would pay off the whole loan. If those prairie farmers had to show that they earned $3,000 a year before they were allowed a loan, well, the prairies would still be pretty arid and the west a bit of wilderness.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, this country has been built by men of vision and imagination, and not by bureaucrats in Ottawa who lay down one rule and take no chances whatever on human drive and initiative. I suggest that this bill should be expanded so it will give assistance to the average Canadian who wants a home of his own. The percentage of income required is too high.
I agree with one hon. member who asked why the government should say, in a country that is free, that a man has to have so much and spend so much on the maintenance of his home. Some people want to spend more on their homes than others. The down payments are too high, and in that regard I was interested in listening to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) pointing out to us what private enterprise can do in San Francisco where they can build houses to sell for $16,000 and ask only a down payment of $400. I do not see why private enterprise could not do that here in Canada also.
A great Conservative prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, once said that the social happiness of the millions should be the chief concern of a statesman. Well, I believe the home is the greatest of all social happiness. The very word "home" is a beautiful one to
[Miss Aitken.)
our Canadian ears, and I say that no government should debar the average or the small-salaried Canadian from owning his own home.


Clarence Gillis: I want to compliment the hon. member who has just taken her seat on her very able and relaxed effort in her first address in this house. With much of what she had to say I agree, but there is a spot or two where we might disagree with her. However, at this time I am not going to do it, not until she has had a better chance of looking over this forum and perhaps revising her opinion.
I would just like to say that the great difficulty in the part of the country from which I come-and it is still operated, mind you, under the free enterprise system-is not getting homes at the present time but keeping the people in the homes they have established over the years. That is our main problem. I want to suggest that the cure for lack of housing in Canada is not slogans.
I was rather disappointed in the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). He is always very fair and inclined to be factual; but when he gets up in the house, takes a book and reads the title, and judging by what he quoted from it, it was very appropriate, and pulls a few sentences out of their context-and you know how prone the Americans are at this time to eulogize anything going on in Britain-and give it to the house as the opinion of G. D. H. Cole on a certain subject, all I can say is that I am reasonably sure that if the whole article by Cole were quoted the house would get an entirely different impression. However, that is by the way.
As I see this question, Mr. Speaker, it is tied up with a lot of other matters to which we have to give consideration. Since 1945 this world has been going through a process of change. In my judgment it is a complete revolution that affects the whole world. There are no guideposts to lead us along the way. It is one world today. We have been going through this cold war process. In the cold war, in my opinion, the thing that stands out to a greater extent than developing armies and guns has been the advice we have received from time to time from people who were in a position to give us that advice: that the social and economic conditions of North America particularly are more important to us than the development of armies.
The system in North America is on trial as far as China, Africa and other countries we refer to as backward are concerned. They look to us, and they judge the system that we

represent on the basis of how we do our housekeeping and how we take care of the people who live under that system. In the social and economic structure of this country the thing that stands out in my judgment as a first and must is the housing of our people.
If we are successful in preventing a shooting war, and it looks as though we will be, then the thing we have to do is develop an objective in this country toward which we can take our people. We united ourselves during the war. We had a common objective in defeating fascism. The people got behind us to help win that war and we now have to answer the questions asked, not only by the men who were in the services but by those who were in the plants and factories. They ask, what were we fighting for? They contend that they were fighting for the right to retain what they had and to go forward into something better. There are hundreds of thousands of those veterans who do not forget the slogans on which we fought the last war.
As I said, one of the first things is housing our people. I do not think you can develop good citizenship in any country until you give the individual citizen a stake in that country, a piece of land, a home which he owns, the right to say, "This little bit of Canada is mine; I have something to fight for." If we said now that we were going to declare war on slums, that we were going to give our people the right to own homes in so far as their ability will enable them to do so; if we made that an objective for the Canadian people and told them that we were going to spend some money in the future in that way as we have been spending it on war, then I think we would at least be living up to some of the promises made during the days of the shooting war when the world was threatened, and when we felt we were fighting for something better.
The Chinaman, the African and people in other backward countries are looking to North America as the last bastion of democracy as we know it. We had better smarten up and try to fix it up in order to give them an incentive to strive in their own countries for something similar to what we have in Canada.
I am disappointed in the bill, and for this reason. In 1945 the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) tabled a white paper in this house. One of the things stressed on several pages-if anyone wants to have a look at it I would refer them to pages 3, 10 and 11-was housing. That was one of the things pointed out definitely by the white paper. There was going to be a program
National Housing Act
managed by the government that would enable returning service personnel to get homes of their own. The people of Canada were going to get housing generally better than it was previous to the war.
In that white paper the government outlined what their future policy was in regard to the whole development of Canada. Step by step they pointed out that free enterprise would have the right to develop the country and work on the resources, but they also gave a warning that where free enterprise failed to fill the bill the government would step in and supplement their efforts. That is what the government has failed to do in the matter of housing particularly.
The hon. member who spoke just before me made reference to the fact that in the United States free enterprise had been able to build houses for a certain figure, as indicated by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron). She wanted to know why Canada could not do the same thing. If the hon. member takes a look at the whole picture she will find that United States capital is doing a lot of things in Canada that you cannot get Canadian capital to do. I would refer to the development of our iron ore and so forth. United States capital is coming into this country and working on our resources because Canadians who have capital apparently either have not the initiative or the courage to put their money into any project that is all-Canadian. The Americans are gamblers. They are ready to get out and do things, and that is why you can get houses in the United States much easier and at cheaper rates than in Canada. Apparently our people who have money are afraid to spend it, or they have not much confidence in the future of Canada.
My No. 1 disagreement is that the government announced a very good policy in 1945 in their white paper with particular reference to housing. The bill which the minister has brought in falls far short of living up to the announcement made at that time that where free enterprise failed-and it has failed completely in providing the Canadian people with homes-the government would step in and see that they were provided with homes. This bill does not do that.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, when we recessed for dinner I was making a few observations

National Housing Act
on Bill No. 102 amending the National Housing Act, and I was emphasizing that the policy and philosophy of the government, as laid down in their white paper in 1945, was not being followed in so far as housing is concerned. They laid down a very good policy at that time, but unfortunately they have not followed their own program. In that document tabled in April, 1945, they said that in the National Housing Act, as in all other matters affecting the economic future of Canada, they would depend on the system of free enterprise to do the job, but that where free enterprise fell down the government would step in and supplement what they were not able to do. In the matter of housing that has not happened.
There is no doubt that since 1945 the people of Canada have not been provided with houses under the system of free enterprise. From 1945 on, previous to the amendments, the National Housing Act was largely in the hands of the insurance companies in Canada. They had a lot of money invested, but they certainly did not provide the Canadian people with homes. In fact if you check the figures closely you will find that the backlog of housing that existed seven or eight years ago has not yet been caught up with. We have to a large extent met the demand created since that time, but I believe I am safe in saying there is a backlog of housing in Canada today of around 400,000 family units. That still has to be taken care of; and if you take the natural increase we can expect, and couple that with the fact that the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship (Mr. Harris) announced a few weeks ago that the government planned in 1954 to bring into Canada an additional 168,000 new citizens who will have to find themselves places to live, then the mechanics of this new bill are, in my judgment, not going to meet the need.
To begin with let us have a look at the drawbacks. The bill itself may provide housing for those in the higher income brackets and for some in the middle class, but it definitely will not provide housing for those on average incomes in Canada. There is one group who are not going to be able to get houses on a home ownership basis under this bill. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), when he brought down his last budget, in discussing the tax rates told us in this house that there were 137,000 families in Canada on incomes below the taxable level. That was families, mind you, and families require houses. That group below the income tax level will not be able to build or rent houses under the arrangements provided in the amendments to the National Housing Act. They are out.

Second, those on average incomes-and the average is under $3,000 for the majority of wage and salary earners in Canada-will also be unable to take advantage of this bill. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation determine what they call an "economic unit" which is around $10,080 with a lending value of $12,000, and they also insist on an income of around $3,800 a year. There is no point in the average wage earner, earning under $3,000 or around that figure per year, applying for a loan under this bill. He cannot meet income requirements and therefore he is out. You can add that large group to the 137,000 families with incomes under the income tax level.
Looking at the bill on that basis you are not going to provide houses for 10 per cent of the people of this country. The test of income and the "economic unit" as defined by the bill at the present time automatically disqualify them. So we are just wasting our time if we think this bill is going to provide homes for average Canadians.


Mr. Dupuis:: Is there any good in the bill at all?


Clarence Gillis: It is not my job to point out the good in it. That is the job of my hon. friend and the members on that side of the house. My job is to pull it apart. If there is anything good in it you tell us what it is, and I would like you to analyse the position of the groups I have just mentioned.


Hector Dupuis: I will do that.


Clarence Gillis: And how they are going to get homes under the act.


Hector Dupuis: I will do that.


Clarence Gillis: Another matter the government was lax in supervising, not only the federal government but the provincial and municipal governments also, was that of land speculation, which is one of the main stumbling blocks today in the provision of homes.
Take any city or town across Canada of any size and take a look at values of land back in 1945 and beyond that, then take a look at what you have to pay for a lot in these towns and cities today, and you will find that the average person on an average income cannot even afford to buy a lot. I am told, though 1 would not swear to this, that there are lots in this city today that cost around $8,000. People who were smart, anticipating what is happening today, namely that the government would take some responsibility in the matter of housing, got hold of land in and around towns and cities across Canada and they are now holding on to it. Today they are holding a gun

to the heads of those who need houses, and in that way we are left with the major problem of finding land for the average person who may want to own a house in or around a town or city of any size in the Dominion of Canada.
I think something should have been done a long time ago, though I believe perhaps we are too late now, with regard to people holding land for speculative purposes. Theirs, I think, was a very unpatriotic act.
A load has been dumped on the municipalities. If one undertakes a housing development in any of the municipalities and towns across Canada today, we find the town is left with the responsibility of servicing the land, and most of the towns and cities today are pretty well up against it in the matter of finances. The larger cities, of course, where they have a lot of property, are not quite so badly off but in most of the smaller towns the situation is not quite so good regarding the servicing of land.
Under the present bill the rate of interest has not been fixed, but the minister did suggest the other day it might run around 6 per cent.


Robert Henry Winters: I said it would likely be less than that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; 5-9 per cent.


Clarence Gillis: I would not quibble over a
fraction. I suggested around 6 per cent. The banks are going to be protected. They are going to benefit by that interest rate. They are going to be insured. They are not taking any chances. That is not free enterprise. There is no risk capital there. The taxpayers of Canada are guaranteeing it.
Under this act everybody is protected except the man who purchases a home. They are guaranteed by the taxpayers of Canada against any loss of any kind; but under the insurance scheme laid down by the act the purchaser of a home has no protection whatsoever. A man who undertakes to make the down payment obligates himself for the amount of the mortgage. He may continue to make his regular instalments for ten years, and may get some equity in the property. Then he may take sick or lose his job and be obliged to move to another part of the country. He is not able to handle the payments on that property any longer, or maybe he is not permitted to live in the house. He has to get out and find other ways and means of providing that he may eat. The bank is insured. It is not going to lose anything. But for the property holder, who has perhaps put $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000 into the property, there is no insurance whatever.


Mr. Enfield:: He could buy it.
National Housing Act


Clarence Gillis: Most of those people would be in a nice position to buy it, if they could not make their payments. That is why the man has to get out, or why he has to go to some other part of the country. He has no insurance whatsoever. Whatever equity he has in that property is gone, but the poor little bank is to be protected to the extent of about 90 per cent by the taxpayers of Canada. That is not right. It is immoral, in my judgment, and is something that should be corrected.
We are not asking the government to go into the housing business in Canada for the purpose of stimulating the profits of either the insurance companies or the banks. That is not the objective. The objective is or should be that of getting homes for the people of this country so they may become citizens of the country with a stake in it and be able to say with pride, "I own something in this country besides a place in which to bury me when I pass away". If you are looking for initiative, incentive or that kind of thing, may I say that I think some of the guarantees and protection given to the moneylenders should be given to the purchaser of the property who is endeavouring to make a contribution to the country and to obtain citizenship status.
I think perhaps the interest rate is the biggest stumbling block in connection with the whole matter. My own personal view is that we shall never provide houses for the people of this country on the basis on which we are attempting to do it at the present time. As I said a moment ago, that group of 137,000 families is out as far as this act is concerned, and the large percentage of salaried workers across Canada earning an income of about $3,000 are also out. They are not going to get any housing under this particular act in the form in which we are discussing it at the present time. In their last presentation to the government on December 10, 1953 the Canadian Congress of Labour placed the emphasis where it belonged, in my opinion; because the average person in Canada today, at present prices, cannot afford to become a home owner under the National Housing Act. In a memorandum to the government the Canadian Congress of Labour touched on the whole question of housing and in their final summing up they had this to say:
. . . very few Canadian workers can afford to build their own homes.
Assuming, as conservative expert opinion does, that a wage earner should not buy a home costing more than 2i times his annual income, and taking eight heavy industries (coal mining, metal mining, pulp and paper mills, heavy electrical apparatus, primary iron and steel, motor vehicles, non-ferrous metal smelting and refining, and products of petroleum and coal) in which most of the workers are full-grown men, we find that in only

National Housing Act one of the eight are wage earners now getting enough to buy even the cheapest type of N.H.A. house. And these are the high-wage industries.
The most urgent need is for low-rental housing. This means subsidized public housing. The government has provided for this, in section 35 of the act. But it is doing little or nothing to make the section known, let alone promote it, in the local communities which have to take the initiative in bringing it into operation.
I think the Canadian Congress of Labour, who have their finger on the pulse of the industrial workers of this country anyway, stressed the essential point under present circumstances when they pinpointed the question of low rental housing. As they point out in their memorandum, section 35 of the National Housing Act does now make provision, in co-operation with provincial governments, for the application of low-rental housing.
In what position are the provincial governments to take advantage of that section of the act? Some of them may be in a position to do so. Ontario may be in a position to take advantage of it, and Quebec to some extent, and British Columbia; but the maritime provinces are not in this position. Where the federal government offers either to match dollar for dollar with them, as in connection with the health grants, or even on the 75-25 per cent basis, the provincial governments with low incomes are not in a position to embark on any kind of program that means any large outlay of capital which is to be tied up for any considerable period of time. They could not take advantage of it.
I agree with the criticism made by the congress of labour in that memorandum, to the effect that this section of the act has never been stressed, has never been pushed as it should have been, that the use that could have been made of it has not been made, and that it is not a solution. As indicated in the memorandum of the Canadian Congress of Labour, the scheme might have to be subsidized; and money should be made available to the municipalities which have to service the land, at a rate of interest not greater than 2 per cent. A special fund should be set up to be administered by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the money should be made available directly to the municipalities, cutting out all the middlemen in between, in order that the municipalities which are in a position to do so may be able to embark upon a housing program designed by themselves to take care of their own needs in accordance with the planning they may have done for expansion, the building of their towns and the servicing of their land. That is not a new suggestion. That was done back in the twenties. I can show


you groups of houses that were built under a plan similar to that back in the twenties after the first war. They were good, substantial houses. I never heard about any trouble in getting the rents. They were all paid for. Those who went into those houses on a rental plan ultimately became owners of those properties. They are all owned privately now, but in the first place they were built by the municipalities in that way. In my judgment the Canadian government is not going to be able to fulfil its obligation to the Canadian people, with present prices and circumstances, in any other way.
Then I do not think the federal government has done enough advertising with respect to the assistance that can be had by co-operative organizations in the building of homes, and their recognition in the act as lending institutions. In Nova Scotia we have a provincial co-operative housing act. It has been in effect for some considerable time and I think it is one of the best acts of its kind in Canada. The only drawback has been that funds have not been available to make it work. If the minister could arrive at an arrangement under this legislation-


Robert Henry Winters: We have done so.


Clarence Gillis: -whereby funds could be made available-


Robert Henry Winters: We have done that.


Clarence Gillis: -directly to these co-operative housing groups at a lower rate of interest, not at the present rate but at a rate of approximately 2 per cent, he would not hear any more about housing from that part of the country. The people would look after their own problem. But the difficulty arises when complicated machinery is set up involving either banks or insurance companies. A person has to make application to some central office in Toronto or Montreal, and the economic experts of these companies, who have never seen the part of the country concerned but who take their opinions from economic analyses made by banks and so on, put a red pencil mark around that part of the country and say that its economic future is not sufficiently promising to warrant spending any money on housing. That is the kind of deal you will get in many districts across Canada.
Some person may say that this plan is going to be a wonderful thing because the local bank manager who knows the needs of the people is going to be able to sit down in his own town, his own community, and determine whether or not John Jones should get a loan for housing. That is a fallacy. All the local bank manager will be in a position

to do will be to spend a couple of weeks taking applications and determining what security and income the applicants have and what the future of the community is. After he has compiled that information he will send the applications to the head office in Montreal, and they will be sent back with a red pencil mark through them. Head office will say that the economic future of that part of the country is not good enough to warrant the investment of any of their money over a period of 25 or 30 years.


Hector Dupuis: There is no such place in Montreal.


Clarence Gillis: There is such a place as "Jesse James" street down there. We have to overcome the complicated, mysterious, administrative roadblocks that have caused trouble in housing since at least 1945.
The minister comes from Nova Scotia. I suggest to him that money should be made available at a reasonable rate of interest directly to co-operative groups under the Nova Scotia housing act. Their legislation is properly administered, and they are easy people to talk to. They have done a lot of building so far, and there has never been a suggestion that anyone has ever defaulted on payments. There has never been any trouble, and they have provided many good substantial homes at reasonable rates. If you can cut out the red tape of the banks and the insurance companies and make money available to these co-operative groups at proper rates of interest you will not have any trouble in that area with regard to housing.


Robert Henry Winters: I wonder if the hon. member would mind my interrupting to tell him that last year the Nova Scotia government made their legislation complementary to what was then section 35 of our National Housing Act so we could co-operate with them under an arrangement whereby we would provide 75 per cent of the funds for that very purpose.


Clarence Gillis: I am very glad to hear that. That is a step forward. The next thing you will have to do is lower the rate of interest, and when you have done that you will have solved the problem. I seriously suggest to the minister that the rate of interest must be dropped. I believe the amount of the down payment should be lowered. With the stereotyped administrative machinery of the banks, I do not think as good a job will 83270-91
National Housing Act
be done in providing houses this year as was done under the old act last year, even with the insurance companies. I think less money is going to be available. The banks will administer things on a much more conservative basis, and we are going to wind up at the end of 1954 with a much bigger backlog in housing than we have at the present time.
I think it was a proper step to make section 35 complementary to the Nova Scotia cooperative housing act, and the only thing wrong now is the rate of interest. If you can succeed in lowering it and make money available throughout the provinces of Canada to provide low rental housing you are going to take care of a large group of wage and salary earners who will never get houses under the National Housing Act by applying to the banks. You will also help to provide low rental housing for the 137,000 families mentioned by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) who live on incomes below the income tax level. In my judgment the solution is low rental housing handled directly through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in co-operation with municipalities and co-operative organizations in the local communities.
(Translation) :


Hector Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the house has given us once more the opportunity of hearing the sempiternal jeremiads, criticisms and lamentations of the opposition. The way our Conservative friends speak, one would think that they have the monopoly of kindness towards the people! It is so true that were we not conversant with their past, their extremely revealing past, we might be led to believe them when they seem to take an interest in the low wage earners. But we know that the government can never do anything to please Her Majesty's loyal opposition. If we gave them the moon, I believe they would ask for Mars, if not Venus, and would want still more.
It is quite easy to criticize a party in power. But one should make worth-while suggestions to improve the situation.
Some C.C.F. members, and in particular, I believe, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested that the rate of interest should be 2 per cent with amortization spread over a 40-year period. Well, why not go further and ask the government to pay a premium to all who wish to become

National Housing Act
home owners? We must take a realistic view of the situation and recognize what the government has done for housing up to now.
Going back to the years where no help of that kind was to be expected from the government, the best mortgage a prospective home owner could hope for was 50 per cent of the amount he was ready to invest. Today the amount has been raised to 90 per cent, 80 per cent of the first $8,000 and 70 per cent of the amount above $8,000, which means that with a down payment of $1,400, one can build a $10,000 house, thanks to the government. I do not bring any new facts. I am just reviewing the main sections of the bill before making my own deductions.
Really I wonder if in ordinary business today you could obtain an $8,600 loan on a $10,000 property? That is impossible. You might have the greatest reputation in the world but nobody in business would be willing to transact anything on that basis. So that is one step better than what the government has so far given us.
The opposition has made much of the fact that to take advantage of this legislation a man had to earn between $3,500 and $3,860 a year. I know, of course, that those who have no special skills do not at present earn this salary but I do not think I am wrong in saying that all skilled tradesmen earn at least $3,500 a year, if not more, so that a large number of those whose revenue is $3,500 or more are in a position to benefit from this offer on the government's part.
Now, you will say that the government should have given more thought to those whose revenue is less than $3,500. Of course one can always do better and the more the government will do to encourage home ownership, the more they will deserve the praise of the interested parties. Still, while I feel sorry for those whose earnings are less than $3,500 a year, I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that I am in a very good position to deal with this matter. As it is, the people in my constituency are workers, and, for the most part, skilled craftsmen, the rest being what are commonly called helpers, or day labourers.
I would like each of them to own a house. I would like all of them to benefit from other generosities of the government and own a house. But we cannot do everything at once. However, it is possible that we may be

advancing toward the goal desired by each and every one of us. It has been said-it is not I who said it, and I do not rejoice at the thought-that, unfortunately, there will always be poor people among us. There will always be people who will not be able to afford to own a house; there were such people in the past, and it will be the same in the future. It is inevitable. It is a situation that we must accept, but we must try to improve it for the working classes, those who earn less than $3,500. They are protected by unemployment insurance, by family allowances and in various other ways, but we ought to study their case in order that they may benefit from the facilities which are being provided under this bill.
Formerly, when the small wage earner wished to become a home owner, every member of the family would get together in order to contribute to a common fund, and the savings of everyone would be sufficient for a down payment on a house. Well, I fail to see how things are different today, for it is still possible to achieve the same result through the same means. Every member of the family can help the head of that family, who has made great sacrifices, who has saved quite a bit, not only to make both ends meet but also to make his dream come true, that is to own a house of his own. Well, I would imagine that by saving wisely, one can make such a dream come true even today!
Mr. Speaker, there are some who think they are furthering the interests of the country when they claim that our citizens cannot benefit from the proposed legislation because their income is too low. Our provincial governments and our municipalities also have responsibilities in that field; they must accept them and use the facilities which the proposed legislation will offer as they could use in the past the facilities offered under the existing act, which enabled our municipalities and our provinces to build dwellings to replace existing slums and unhealthy houses. There is a provision in another act for that purpose, which was underlined by the minister in the following words:
.	. . Or where a municipality and a province
feel there is need for rental accommodation with subsidized rentals for families of low income, the federal government will participate to the extent of 75 per cent of the capital investment and subsequent operating losses. Where slum clearance and housing redevelopment are desirable, federal participation is available for 50 per cent of the cost of the slum clearance.

Those who have complained about the scarcity of houses have never hoped that one day everyone would own his own house, but all have wished that conditions might become such that families could house themselves without having to crowd into dwellings that are too small. When we succeed, through this bill, in increasing the number of houses available in the country, we will enable people who now have to share housing accommodation to occupy premises vacated by the owners of new houses. Again I say that everyone cannot become a home owner.
As I stated before, one must remember that provincial and municipal governments also have their share of responsibility in that field. Besides, provincial governments now have sufficient revenues. For instance, if we examine the budget of the province of Quebec, we find that it now stands at $308 million, while between 1930 and 1934 its revenue was approximately $52 million. I believe it might be possible to take advantage of this plan to undertake a housing program of dwellings suitable for two or three people only. Here again another great problem arises. It is not simply a matter of building five or six-room dwellings, as in the case of those who would avail themselves of this plan to build $6,000 or $8,000 houses. I am wondering how we shall proceed when the provincial government decides to embark on a large-scale building program to supply homes for those who have none. Houses will have to be built for the large number of families who are today living in hovels that are detrimental to the moral as well as the physical well-being of our fellow citizens.
Well, that legislation will enable us to lay the foundations for such a program and I hope that it will be implemented in the near future for the benefit of the whole population.
Now, some hon. members have contended that the monthly payments to be met by the home owner under this program are too high. I have always understood, and those who have kept themselves somewhat informed about economic conditions in this country have always thought that a month's rent should be the equivalent of a week's earnings. Well, on the basis of the revenue of a home owner taking advantage of this plan, we see that his monthly rent will not exceed his weekly earnings, as the amortization of 83276-91J
National Housing Act
his debt, spread over a period of 25 or 30 years, will entail payments of only $58 to $60 per month.
Those payments are by no means excessive. The government are not acting with undue haste but they are going along slowly and wisely, meeting new situations as they arise in this country. That is what we must look forward to. There is no need for us to be ashamed as we rise to support a measure such as that which is being introduced here at this time by the government. They are not rushing into this madly, they are not losing their heads over the situation but are wisely looking over matters.
No one can seriously imply, not even my C.C.F. friends, that there might come a time when property owners who have taken advantage of this plan will lose the money they have spent because they will no longer be able to meet their obligations.
Now, gentlemen, that is easy to say, and it is very easy to appear to sympathize with the plight of the poor. But, as far back as I can remember, I have known that those who cannot meet their obligations unfortunately stand to lose, in many instances, what they have already paid. Such is the case for automobiles, electric refrigerators and so on. If the buyer is not in a position to meet his payments, he stands to lose what he has already paid. That is unfortunate, but he must accept his loss, as we all have to accept our woes, since we are all in a valley of tears, as it is so well put in a certain prayer.
The government has made things easier, perhaps not for everybody, but at least for 90 per cent of those who will now wish to become home owners, and I am sure that they will all be in a position to meet their obligations. Even if the prospective homeowner under one of those plans became so ill as to lose his job, the remainder of his family would still be there, able to come to his help. I hope that enough of the old family spirit has survived to inspire them to do their share to avert the disaster, even at the price of great sacrifices. I dare hope that our fellow Canadians have kept enough of that family spirit to come to the help of their parents, in such circumstances. There should not be too many cases of foreclosure of mortgages, and I hope that such cases will never arise.

National Housing Act
Some have tried to minimize the advantages from which people will benefit now that banks are allowed to grant mortgage loans. I know very well that the humble manager of the branch around the corner will not have authority to make a decision in all cases but his influence will make itself felt in the main office. Here I am thinking especially of the city of Montreal and the surrounding district. Now at the same time this will put an end to a situation that was truly deplorable for certain citizens of our metropolis, more particularly in certain districts east and southwest of Montreal where lending companies refused to lend money pretending that it was economically unsound to do so in that part of the country, because the security factor prevented them from lending money in the districts I have just mentioned. Well, banks having branches in the various parts of our city and wishing to do business throughout the city of Montreal will be able at any time to recommend to their head office the loans requested in their respective districts, so that all parts of Montreal will be on an equal footing.
Now, it has been said that it is quite probable that no more than 100,000 dwellings can be built. I am no expert in the matter, but I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether we have sufficient manpower and skilled labour to build more than 100,000 houses in the same year. Like everyone else, we hope that the housing crisis will soon end. However, one must not be too optimistic about the possible results of the bill now before the house. I hope that it may enable us to remedy the situation as soon as possible. If I said that we can find in the country sufficient labour to remedy the situation in one year, my colleagues might be tempted to take my remarks jokingly. It will undoubtedly take some years before that can be done. But legislation of this kind will enable a large proportion of our people to become home owners, to build houses of their own.
I could dwell longer on the matter, but I will limit my remarks to the interest rate. It is true that anyone can personally seek information from loan companies, or from the banks to find out what the interest rate would be on a first mortgage loan. I believe that it would not be easy to obtain such a loan at less than 6 per cent. I hope that the rate will not reach 6 per cent and that it will be set between 5 and 6 per cent and even lower

if possible, though I don't think that it is feasible.
It is easy perhaps to wish that the rate be set at 2 per cent. If those who advocate such a rate were in power, they would be the first to admit that it is impossible to set the interest rate much below 6 per cent. I do not question their sincerity. They want our fellow citizens to benefit from a 3 or 3J per cent and even 3J per cent reduction in the interest rate. If our friends opposite want a 2 per cent interest rate there is nothing to prevent them from making representations to the authorities of their respective provinces in order to get them to undertake to pay the difference between the likely rate of 6 per cent and the 2 per cent rate suggested by the opposition. As I see it, their suggestion has no other purpose but to lure the people with bright prospects. As far as we are concerned, we have here a bill the results of which will surely be beneficial to a great number of our fellow citizens.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I do not hesitate to give my wholehearted support to this measure. I express the hope that this government may keep on improving the situation, through a policy which is so beneficial to those who wish to become home owners. It is possible that the government may be in a position to do better in the not far distant future and I hope that they will take advantage of every opportunity to do good in all fields under their jurisdiction.
(Text):


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage in the debate there is a tendency for discussion to become somewhat repetitious. I think that is all to the good, because I feel that the subject of housing in Canada is one of the most important topics that members of this house could discuss. I say that not merely because of the debate we have had during the past three days and the inspiration derived from listening to the various speeches, but also because of a keen personal interest I have had in this topic for the past seven or eight years since the war.
My close personal interest in this subject arises first because I belong to the age category which has felt most severely the postwar pressure on housing in Canada. I remember vividly my own experience of venturing into housing in the manner to which so many young couples have had to resort these days, by subletting a few rooms in a home. The

demand for a private home soon became imperative. My first investigations into the subject were carried on in 1947, when I discussed the matter with real estate men who were supposed to have an intimate knowledge of the real estate situation in Canada. Their advice was that houses were at the top level of value. They suggested that on the basis of their experience I should wait until such time as prices would level off, when I would be able to purchase housing accommodation on a more permanent basis and for a more equitable value.
That was in 1947. In 1948 the price of houses soared another $1,000. In 1949 it went up further. By the time I finally took upon myself a house I found that I could have saved some $2,000 or $3,000 had I taken advantage of the opportunity back in 1947. I found also that even though I had managed to save a fairly substantial sum of money in order to make a down payment, it was not adequate to meet the requirements of the National Housing Act at that time and I had to assume a double mortgage.
As I say, I have had a personal interest in this subject along with a large number of Canadians in the same age category as myself. I remember taking part in a discussion back in 1949, a year or so before I came to this house. We used to get together in a citizens' forum discussion group and one evening the topic discussed was "When do we get more houses?" As I have listened to this debate it seemed to me that that topic is just as pertinent today as it was in those days.
I recall carrying on an exchange of correspondence with the member who represented the old Brandon riding at that time, the late Mr. Matthews. He was interested in housing and we pursued the subject by correspondence for several weeks at the time the special amendments were being introduced, I believe in 1949. In a sense then I am merely expressing in this debate the interest and the emphasis of the members who in the past have represented the constituencies of Brandon and Souris in this House of Commons.
It has been said that, next to national defence, housing is the most important domestic problem in this country. Several hon. members have dealt with that particular aspect of the topic already during the debate, and have suggested that there are very serious social implications involved in housing. We have heard it said that if we solved our housing problem we might solve all the major social problems that are besetting the large urban communities during these complex post-war days.
National Housing Act
I am not going to oversimplify to that extent, because I do not think there is any one cause that can explain the problems of juvenile delinquency, broken homes, divorce, mental illness and those other difficulties that have been referred to here this afternoon. I do not accept the environmentalists' theory holus-bolus, neither do I believe that there is no major contribution to social well-being to be made by the provision of adequate housing.
I would like to point out that we should not confuse the issue. Merely providing a house does not necessarily mean that you are providing a home. There is a vast difference between a home and the physical facilities that would be provided in a house. The problem of establishing a home, and by that I mean a healthful, wholesome environment in which a family can grow up, in which children can be shaped into responsible citizenship in our twentieth century civilization, involves much more than the mere provision of the physical facilities. It involves a number of subtle spiritual and psychological factors.
I shall sum up this part of my speech by stating that I agree generally with the statement made by Phyllis Burns who, speaking as secretary of the Canadian Welfare Council's family welfare division-


An hon. Member:: Rabbie Burns day.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: And very appropriate, too.
I certainly think he had something worth while to say about housing and families. But whether Miss Burns is related to Rabbie Burns I do not know. However, she was reported in the Ottawa Citizen of May 2, 1952, as follows:
A lack of housing has become Canada's most acute social problem affecting family life, Phyllis Burns, secretary of the Canadian Welfare Council's family welfare division, said yesterday. More causes of family quarreling, desertions and juvenile delinquency have been traced to the housing scarcity than to any other cause, Miss Burns said. Her estimate was based on field reports by Canadian welfare agencies across the country.
We all highly respect the opinions of the Canadian Welfare Council because that group is very closely in touch with conditions in Canada generally so far as social problems are concerned.
The reason the housing situation in Canada has such serious social implications is that it is largely young couples, at the beginning of their family careers, who are affected. These young Canadian families from which will come the generations of the future will be moulded by the family atmosphere established in these young family groups, and that atmosphere will have a very serious bearing on the Canada of the future. Unfortunately it is these younger families who
143S

National Housing Act
are most seriously affected, and it is they who are least able to assume the financial obligation of obtaining a home, a reasonably adequate home, either by purchase or through rental.
Looking at the local situation for a moment, the city of Brandon is not a large city, certainly not among the largest cities in Canada, but in that community alone there are 150 young veterans still waiting to obtain accommodation in the group of wartime houses established in Brandon shortly after the war. I know this to be a fact because every time one of these houses becomes vacant I get the impression that I hear from the remaining 149 who did not get the vacant house, and they ask why they with their eligibility they did not obtain the house that became available.
In addition to the problem of the young couples we have the effect of the housing shortage on the group I might call senior citizens. I believe it is the senior citizens, the older age group in Canada at the present time, along with those who are just beginning their family careers, who are suffering most. These senior citizens have become victims in a society which has undergone the rapid changes which accompanied the industrial revolution. Canada has rapidly become urbanized, with the result that fathers and mothers, the pioneers who played their part in the foundation of this country, are being very hard-pressed to find suitable accommodation. The smaller families-and I think it is recognized that the family unit tends to be smaller on an average across Canada- are not able to care for grandmothers and grandfathers as they did when the majority of families lived on the farm. There is also the problem of increasing longevity. These two groups create a very urgent demand.
As I have listened to the debate during these past three days it has seemed to me we have viewed the problem slightly out of perspective. The emphasis has been on the urgent demand of the moment, but it seemed to me as the discussion proceeded that there has always been a housing shortage in Canada right from the early pioneering days. Here we must, I believe, make a distinction between real demand and real needs, because we know human needs can become insatiable. Human beings, so far as material and physical needs are concerned, have horizons which are unlimited; and in this day and age, when we emphasize materialistic values more perhaps than in the early pioneering period of Canada's development, it seems we are not as easily satisfied as our forefathers in regard
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
to housing. Perhaps the need is not much greater, but certainly there is a wider demand for better housing accommodation today.
The housing shortage is a problem of long standing because with the wave of immigration in the early part of this century, when 2 million people landed 'on Canadian shores in a relatively short period of time, hardly anything was done to provide suitable housing accommodation for the newcomers.
During the Christmas recess I read that very excellent biography of the late J. S. Woodsworth, and I was intrigued to learn that it was while he was serving in a mission in the north end of Winnipeg, and dealing with some of the housing and social difficulties created by this wave of immigrants pouring into our urban areas, that he first began to think in terms of political and economic action as a means of solving basic human problems rather than relying on religious emphasis as had formerly been the case. I do not want to oversimplify this, but it might well be that this housing crisis and the impact it had upon its founder gave rise to the C.C.F. movement in Canada. The wave of immigration, the shift of population to the urban areas, the industrial revolution, the resulting growth, and the tendency to build houses that degenerated very quickly into slums have all contributed to the confused political situation in which we find ourselves today.
There is a backlog in housing demand, not necessarily housing need, that has been estimated at anything from 100,000 to 700,000 housing' units. The matter came to a head during world war II, when for a period of four or five years there was hardly any housing construction at all, with the result that in 1944 the government had to take serious steps toward grappling with the backlog of demand. Since then increasing government attention has been given to housing in Canada and I noticed, as I reviewed the situation, that unfortunately the response to government measures and the results from these measures have not always been good.
There has been a somewhat disappointing result from the legislation thus far. That statement applies even to the legislation I referred to, namely that of 1949, when enabling legislation was passed by this house making it possible for the three levels of government-federal, provincial and municipal-to deal especially with the provision of low-rental units. That legislation seemed to offer an excellent solution to this difficulty which would relieve the pressure with regard to young couples to whom I have referred

and also with regard to older age groups. Unfortunately there have not been too many projects developed under this legislation. It seems to me this stalemate has resulted mainly because the legislation was only enabling legislation and its success depended on the initiative of the provincial and the municipal governments. In most cases this initiative has been lacking.
In Manitoba steps were taken in the legislature to make it possible to take advantage of the federal legislation, but that was just about as far as the matter went in our province. Individual schemes must be approved by plebiscite before the municipalities can proceed to meet the urgent need for low-cost and low-rental units. While the municipalities would like to do something about it, unfortunately they are not financially able to do so. They are hamstrung financially by a tax situation that is only too well known in this country. They cannot put up even the small percentage that is required of municipalities under section 35 of the National Housing Act. They cannot put up the money nor can they provide the serviced land necessary to deal with the situation.
As hon. members on all sides of the house are aware, the crux of this problem arises from the fact that the municipalities will never be able to cope with the situation financially until the main burden of providing for general services of health, welfare and education is shifted to the senior governments. We cannot expect taxes on property, which is the main source of municipal revenue, to handle these services. Actually municipalities can scarcely handle the demands for local services such as roads, sewers, sidewalks and so forth, let alone indulge in the luxury of providing the general services of health, welfare and education.
In reading my local paper, the Brandon Daily Sun, of last Friday, I believe it was, I was interested to note that one of the points stressed at the meeting of the Manitoba municipal association, the first major point to be stressed by the president, was this problem of the inequitable distribution of taxes and responsibilities among the three levels of government. This situation becomes especially difficult where there are no large industrial developments to supply broader tax resources for municipal purposes. This of course is true where you have an area that is made up of smaller rural communities or smaller urban areas. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out by many others who have taken part in this debate, the new legislation that we have before us will not begin to deal with this difficulty.
National Housing Act
To bring these remarks to a conclusion and generally to appraise the legislation in the light of the observations I have already made, may I say this. Even to keep up with current demands we need some 130,000 new housing units annually. This requirement has never been met under any of the legislation put forward by the government up to the present time, and it does not appear that we are going to be much better off under the new legislation.
On the surface it would seem that the basic problems of lower down payments, more readily available mortgage funds, and a longer period of amortization are going to be met; but as various hon. members have proceeded to analyse the legislation, it seems obvious to me that all these provisions are going to be invalidated by the fact that we are still faced with high costs of construction.
This was the problem that first beset me when I began to pursue some solution for my own housing difficulties; and it is still the basic problem that will largely invalidate the effectiveness of this legislation before us. It is not going to meet the situation where the urgent need is felt, namely among the younger families who tend to be in the lower income groups because they are starting out on their careers; and certainly it is not going to deal with the problem of low-cost housing for our older age group.
Various solutions have been put forward by hon. members, and I am not going to labour that point. This is merely a discussion preliminary to the legislation going to the committee. In that committee, as it continues the discussion, I trust that something will be done to deal with this problem that seems to be the central one, namely that of the cost of housing soaring beyond the capacity of the ordinary wage earner to meet it.
We have had the "co-op" housing scheme put forward as a solution. I concur in the suggestion that this scheme could help in a real way to deal with the difficulty in the lower-income group. We have also had the suggestion that we should eliminate some of the frills on the houses sponsored by the National Housing Act, so the cost might be kept low enough to enable advantage to be taken of the improved financial terms.
In the city of Brandon one contractor has been able to put up a series of homes priced at $7,200, which is just about the level that the ordinary young family is able to meet. But unfortunately, because these units do not meet the specifications of the National Housing Act, they are not covered by this kind of financing. That difficulty is also related to the fact that serviced land is not

National Housing Act
available, and I understand that under the National Housing Act units are not approved that have no running water and depend on septic tanks and so forth for sewage disposal.
These two solutions, the co-operative housing scheme and the suggestion that we might be satisfied with a more practical form of low-cost housing at the moment, depend very much upon local community action. In fact it seems to me that most of the provisions of the National Housing Act are quite useless unless municipalities, provinces, co-operative building groups and even the local contractors are willing to take advantage of the terms of the legislation and exert some initiative at the local community level toward the solution of these difficulties.
That leads me to suggest that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation might do something by way of propaganda and publicity to try to stimulate local enthusiasm and encourage local groups to participate under the terms of the legislation. I think Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has the necessary public relations machinery to do such a job. Certainly the government has, because as we contemplated the appearance of this legislation quite a feeling of anticipation was built up. It looked as if it were going to be the summum bonum as far as our housing problems were concerned. We were all on our toes hoping to find that at last we had the answer to the riddle; and it could be that the legislation will be helpful if the provinces accept their responsibility, and if something is done about the basic difficulty of inequitable distribution of tax resources, financial resources and service responsibilities.
I saw a newspaper announcement to the effect that C.M.H.C. is opening further regional offices in order to promote the construction of houses under this legislation. Indeed, I think it is even contemplated that the facilities of the regional office in the city of Brandon may be expanded in order to make it easier for local citizens to become fully informed as to the nature of the legislation and be governed accordingly. Certainly if we are going to meet the really urgent need-and this legislation does not provide a solution because, as I have indicated, of the increasing high cost of home construction -it is going to be met not because of the initiation of this legislation by the federal parliament but by action on the local level.
This question also has broader economic significance. We are very reluctant to talk about the process of economic readjustment, as it is politely referred to, that is going on throughout the continent at the present time. No one dares to use the word "depression".

We use the word "recession", and the term the economists are using today is "economic readjustment", a period of transition to a more realistic economic state of affairs, a moving away from the inflationary buoyancy that has carried the two major countries on this continent forward in an intoxicating state of artificial prosperity since world war II. If there is such an adjustment taking place, and public opinion seems to be crystallizing around the idea that there is, we should not ignore the possible impact of a stimulation in the housing construction program because the economy of every community and city throughout the country has benefited as a result of the construction activity that has gone on since the war.
I have prepared a few statistics to point up just what this means in terms of man hours. These are rough averages. If each housing unit constructed involves 2,300 man hours on the site and 3,100 man hours offsite, we have 5,400 man hours of labour per unit. Taking a full working year as 2,000 hours and the average housing production per post-war year as 80,000 units, work is provided for 92,000 men in the construction industry itself and 124,000 in the industries producing and distributing building materials, a total of 216,000 men, a significant figure indeed.
I will not have the opportunity of serving on the committee that will consider the bill, but I trust that the recommendations that have been made during this very interesting debate will be taken into consideration and that something really constructive will be done to provide through this legislation a solution to the problem of the lower-salaried, younger Canadian citizen.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on housing there are a few observations I wish to make. The first is that in the constituency of Middlesex East, which I have the honour to represent, there are no slums, so the minister can forget all about slum clearance. However, this fact does not relieve the authorities, municipal, provincial or federal, from taking part wherever possible in the introduction of a modern, realistic housing program to provide homes in modern communities for people who need them and are in a position to purchase them.
So far as housing is concerned, however, the truth of the matter is somewhat similar to the truth of the matter as far as markets for primary products are concerned. We have priced them out of the reach of many prospective buyers. When it is necessary to have an income of $3,800 to purchase a home

under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that eliminates quite a large number of people, especially young people who are just getting established.
As the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) pointed out, probably no other activity pumps money into the economic bloodstream to the same extent as the construction of buildings, particularly houses. So many different things are needed in the building of a home that money spent for that purpose is scattered throughout the whole country. I have said time and again that the more people we have owning homes in Canada, the better off we as Canadians will be.
It has been mentioned that the banks are going to be guaranteed on these loans; but do not let us forget what happened in the United States not so many years ago when the banks in that country were not able to meet the demands of their depositors, and declared a bank holiday. This was brought about because the liquid assets, so-called, of those banks were tied up in real estate. We can point with pride to the ability of our banks always to be in a position to meet the demands of depositors. I am not certain that this venture into making loans on real estate is a good move so far as our banking system is concerned.
Then I would point out to prospective purchasers of houses built under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that they should not get the idea that because this is sponsored by that corporation it will result in dream houses for everyone. People must not permit themselves to expect that everything will be just as they might wish it to be, simply because the government is behind it. They will find out, to their sorrow, that such is not the case. True, inspections are supposed to be carried out; but those inspections are for the protection of the suppliers of capital, not for the protection of purchasers of homes. Many purchasers have found that out, to their sorrow, in years gone by. An owner will find, after moving into his house, that there are many defects; and then when he makes complaints the buck is passed around from one to another and no one seems to be able to put a finger on the real culprit.
This is a pretty serious matter, and it has been brought to my attention on more than one occasion. I have gone to see some of these homes and I have found that the purchaser has been the guy who have been left holding the bag. He is the boy who is given the runaround. I know the situation particularly well in London, Ontario. Purchasers in that area were just laughed at 83276-92
National Housing Act
when some of these defects developed. I suggested to the manager at that point that some of the contractors who had not been supplying homes up to the specifications should be dropped. However, apparently they were friends of the government, because my suggestion did not appear to be feasible when I broached the subject to him.
I hope the minister will look into the situation in London. I have in mind the Hale-Trafalgar area in the east end of that city. It is a whole new area. Services were laid, levels were established, and the city did its part. But when the homes were built and the city laid the sidewalks according to the levels supplied from their engineering department, it was found that some of the homes were from 7 to 23i inches below the level of the sidewalks. After one good rain last summer the water backed up in one of those lots until it was within half an inch of the cellar window.
When I brought this matter to the attention of the manager he just laughed about it, but it is no laughing matter so far as these purchasers are concerned. The property to which I have referred depreciated to the extent of a couple of thousand dollars, I would say, because of the condition I have described. Yet the purchaser was in no position to do anything about it. The contractor would do nothing, and neither would Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The purchaser was just left holding the bag. I know of another case where the lawn, the sidewalk and the whole driveway were under water, and this after just an ordinary summer rain. What will happen if there is a real downpour or a thaw following freezing is fairly clear; they will have water in their basements.
All this has happened in an area that is high and dry, an area with good drainage. There is no reason in the world why the building could not have been done in a proper manner. I took these problems up with the manager of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but I was just given the royal runaround. One of these properties is at 63 Cornish street, and the other at 32 Stevenson street. If the minister does not believe what I have said he can go down there and look at it himself.
I think the people generally welcome this legislation, but no doubt they are expecting more from it than they are going to get. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) pointed out, I am afraid the interest rate is so high that it will discourage some of the young people from participating in the scheme.

National Housing Act


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the same position as the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), who spoke earlier this evening. I, too, have been vitally interested in this matter over a period of many years. I was therefore happy when I heard the government was going to introduce a new measure on housing. I was immensely pleased when, upon receiving the bill, I read that according to the title it is for the purpose of the construction of new houses, the repair and modernization of existing houses and the improvement of housing and living conditions.
After reading the title of the bill, 1 read the bill. I was bitterly disappointed. I had expected that this would be one of the major pieces of legislation at this session of parliament, that it would introduce principles that would mean a real upsurge in house construction in Canada. I anticipated that it would introduce new principles that would meet what I think are the three basic requisites at the present time. This is not something that can be postponed for months or years; it is something which must be tackled right now.
The first of these principles would be amendments to the act, or new principles, that would result in a greater impetus in home construction, presented in a way such as to be financially acceptable to those in average and lower income groups. The second would be an effort to see that those who are not in a position now, and perhaps for some time to come will not be in a position, to start owning their own homes, would be enabled to rent homes at low rentals. The third is something which in our estimation is of the utmost importance, and that is through an upsurge of house construction to be able to meet at least in part what is undoubtedly an urgent and severe unemployment situation.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible to contradict the statement that one type of construction that can do more than any other to activate employment dominionwide from the Atlantic to the Pacific is house construction. House construction entails the supplying of lumber, cement, sand, everything required in the kitchen, plumbing, heating and the electrical fixtures. If you analyse the requirements of house construction you will find that it affects industry, as I said, over the length and breadth of Canada, and in addition it supplies direct employment to all the services employed in construction.
Although that is a phase of employment, it is tied in with Bill No. 102, because it was my hope that there would be such sections

and plans in this government bill as would take care of the unemployment situation. I am greatly disappointed that in my estimation it does not do that, and I can understand why. Today it has been made very definitely clear to hon. members and to the people of Canada that the government does not recognize the seriousness and the urgency of the unemployment situation.


Mr. Studer:: More so than the socialists in Saskatchewan.


Harold Edward Winch: I was very definitely surprised at what I term the apathy of the government toward the situation in Canada. I think it might have been a very good lesson to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who spoke this afternoon, and the members of the government if they had been in Hamilton over the week end and had seen the demonstration by unemployed who met a certain train carrying placards saying there were 12,500 unemployed asking either for work or cash benefits, and corralling the M.P.'s who were on that train and saying, "What are you going to do about it at Ottawa?"
It would be most interesting if the government or the Prime Minister went to our own province of British Columbia where, according to the last figures, we have over 52,000 unemployed, the highest for many years. And, Mr. Speaker, it is not seasonal, as the government would like to try to indicate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will realize that no matter how closely unemployment or employment may be related to construction, we should discuss on this bill the construction of houses and housing conditions in Canada. The hon. member will recall that earlier his own fellow member, the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), opened his remarks by references to unemployment, and carried on after those few remarks made "en passant" to discuss the bill. I should like to hope that the hon. member will now turn to housing and stay on the subject of housing; otherwise I shall have to intervene again, and I am sure he would not want me to do that.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, as you know I always bow to the will of the Speaker, and I hope of course that my remarks have been noted and that changes will be brought into this housing bill in principle that will help the unemployment situation.
It was my sincere hope that in this bill the government of Canada would have recognized housing needs to the extent which it is apparent, or at least should I say anticipated, that the President of the United States views the matter of housing. I am going to refer

to that, Mr. Speaker, because of the recognition there and because it brings in a principle which should be included in Bill No. 102, namely the method of providing housing by low rental and by subsidy. With your permission, sir, I should like to quote from the New York Times of this morning at page C-31:
President to ask 1 million houses.
Thirty-five thousand would be subsidized-message today to stress aid for lower incomes.
Washington, January 24. President Eisenhower will ask congress tomorrow to liberalize . . .
Will you note that, Mr. Speaker, and through you the government? I continue:
. . . the government's housing programs to help Americans buy at least 1 million new homes a year.
He will place special emphasis on helping middle and low-income families obtain better housing. Among the proposals will be an experimental program to let low-income families buy inexpensive houses with almost no down payment.
Further on it says:
Another will be the experimental program to "finance inexpensive homes for lower income families". President Eisenhower was expected to ask for at least $5 million for this.
The program, as outlined by the special advisory committee, would allow low-income families to buy homes costing up to $8,000 on 40-year mortgages with down payments as low as $200. It would also allow families to rent such homes with an option to buy them later if they wished.
It is my hope even yet that the minister who introduced and is directing Bill No. 102 will reconsider the principles of housing in Canada, and perhaps himself recommend to the house an expansion of the bill so as to directly or indirectly-we can discuss that in committee-subsidize low-cost housing and low-rental housing in Canada. It is in my estimation a move that is imperative at the present time if we are to meet the urgency of the housing situation.
I read the bill very carefully and tried as well as I could to understand the principles of the bill on second reading. There are without any question of doubt certain minor improvements in the bill and in its operation, but not fundamentally any basic principles as a brand new act, that is, to meet the housing problem. I fail utterly to see why the government ever brought the bill in at all.
It is only my own opinion, but to me it seems evident that one reason the government has seen fit to introduce the bill in its present form is because of a lessening of mortgage money available from the lending institutions under the previous act. The original source of money is tightening and as a last ditch effort, having some idea of the problem, the present bill is brought in with the hope that the banks of Canada will come through with 83276-921
National Housing Act
some mortgage money under this new bill and the necessary amendments to the Bank Act and I presume also to the Bank of Canada Act.
If that is the intent-and I say "if" because I cannot impute motives to the minister-
I am inclined to think that the money will not be available unless the interest rate is such that the average citizen, in particular the low-income citizen, who requires a loan will not possibly be able to pay it.
At the present time under the Bank Act the banks of Canada cannot make mortgage loans from their own bank funds, but I think under the trustee act they can lend trust moneys on mortgages. I know of at least one national bank that has been and is now lending millions of dollars on mortgages at 6 per cent. I cannot conceive of a bank which in the past and at the present has been and is lending trust funds on mortgages at 6 per cent accepting an interest rate, even though established by an order in council, that is less than that for loans of depositors' money. I just cannot conceive of that situation.
If we consider what the banks are getting now for lending trust funds, that is 6 per cent, it seems extremely doubtful that the government will be able to get them to advance their depositors' funds at 5J, 5J or 5f per cent. The government can lay down that rate by order in council but it is in the hands of the banks as to whether they lend the money.
This brings me to what I consider to be a very important phase, that is the matter of interest. I remember an hon. member on the government side saying last week that no hon. member on this side of the house had ever commended the government for anything. He should have checked his Hansard before he made that statement, because I remember distinctly that when I spoke in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I commended the government and the minister who is introducing this bill on the attitude they had taken under the old act with regard to the interest rate if the money was being lent on mortgage to companies established on a nonprofit basis to build houses for senior citizens or for others in the same category.
I want to thank the government again because some hon. members forget that if we had not had that kind of help-and I speak for the organization with which I am connected in British Columbia-we would not have been able to construct the number of homes we have for senior citizens and others in the same income group.

National Housing Act
Housing is of such importance, and I am certain the minister agrees, that it is not strictly a local or provincial problem. If my information is correct, several provinces of Canada are making direct contributions as grants in aid to non-profit organizations set up under the laws of Canada as companies to construct homes on a self-supporting basis for senior citizens and others in the same category.
Over a period of years British Columbia has contributed in the neighbourhood of one-third of the capital cost. I am subject to correction, but I believe in Saskatchewan it is 20 per cent. I believe in the case of Toronto, in Ontario, they are asking for 5 per cent and I anticipate it will be raised. That is what some of the provinces are doing. Housing is not solely the responsibility of a municipality, a province or a group interested in
trying to do something about it; it is a matter of major concern to the federal government.
I was hoping and I still hope that something can be put in this bill to indicate the acceptance at least in principle of direct financial responsibility by the government in the building of the type of homes I have been discussing.
On motion of Mr. Winch the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Tomorrow we shall begin with the resolution having to do with salaries and indemnities. We shall follow with this debate, and then with the post office amending bill.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 26, 1954