1954-01-28

[Stage Direction]
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that this is the time when such a statement would be made I wonder if, in view of the statement that has been made to the press, the Prime Minister would feel this was the appropriate time to inform the house regarding the details of his proposed trip and other circumstances connected therewith. It might guide us in our discussion in the debate on external affairs tomorrow, in regard to our comments about any of these countries he will be visiting during the course of his trip.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if it is the pleasure of the house that I should make such a statement I would be glad to do so tomorrow afternoon, when I will give some of the details about what I hope will be the results of that trip and other information that may be of interest to the hon. members. I would have to have the unanimous consent of the house and if I can count upon that I will be glad to make a statement at the opening of the house tomorrow afternoon.


Mr. Drew:: I feel sure there would be unanimous consent. My question was directed to the Prime Minister in view of the fact I have just learned of the statement which was given to the press earlier today.



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Hunler (Parkdale) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 173, to amend the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to allow newly minted Canadian gold to be minted in Canada into coins designated as to weight and fineness only, and during such time as a fixed parity in terms of gold is not being maintained for the Canadian dollar. It provides for the free marketing of such coins and permits them to be held, sold, imported or exported by any person.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	How many (a) pilots; (b) navigators, have been trained in Canada to date under the NATO air training plan?
2.	How many of these (a) pilots; (b) navigators, come from the respective participating countries, (i) Canada; (ii) the United Kingdom; (iii) France; (iv) Italy; (v) Belgium; (vi) West Germany?
3.	What is the cease training (washout) rate among (a) pilots; (b) navigators, for each of the groups referred to above?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Up to November 30, 1953, 910 pilots and 1,567 navigators were trained in Canada under the NATO air training plan.
2.	Aircrew of the Royal Canadian Air Force trained in Canada are not trained under the NATO air training plan. West Germany is not a member of NATO. The following countries have had aircrew in the following numbers trained in Canada under the NATO air training plan:
	Pilot	Navs.
U.K	
698	1,098France 	
125	345Italy	
14	21Belgium 	
26	74Holland 	
30	Norway 	
12	5Denmark 	
5	243.	It is not the practice in either the United Kingdom, the United States or Canada to make public cease training rates for aircrew.



WHEAT BOARD ACT


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1. How many resolutions and letters have been received from each of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, since the 1st day of

Questions
July, 1953, requesting that an amendment be made to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, providing tor the voluntary deduction from wheat board payments of fees or dues of the provincial farmers unions?
2. Has consideration been given by the government to the introduction of such an amendment?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Saskatchewan, 79; Manitoba, 24; Alberta, 40.
2.	No.



WESTERN SOCIETY FOR PHYSICAL REHABILITATION

Mr. MacDougall:: 1.	How much has the federal government contributed in the province of British Columbia towards the western society for physical rehabilitation in Vancouver, since the beginning of the national health program?
2.	What services do the western society for physical rehabilitation provide with the assistance of federal funds?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	$173,040.27.
2.	With the assistance of federal funds, the western society for physical rehabilitation was given a grant for the construction of 40 additional chronic beds and floor area for an outpatient department, and for physiotherapy and occupational therapy facilities. Services were extended for the training and rehabilitation of poliomyelitis patients and to cerebral palsied children under the administration of the cerebral palsy association of British Columbia which is located on the premises of the western society for physical rehabilitation.



HOUSING


Mr. Breton:: 1.	How many agreements have been entered into between the federal government and the provinces in connection with those provisions of the National Housing Act, as amended, which provide that the federal government may enter into agreement with the provinces for the acquisition of land and land assembly projects for housing purposes and the building of houses for sale or rental, and under which the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's share is 75 per cent of the cost of the projects?
2.	What are the names of the municipalities which have benefited under these projects, and in each case what have been the amounts of such benefits?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1. Fifty-three agreements had been entered into under section 46 of the act at December 31, 1953, jointly with the provinces or agencies thereof to provide for either the acquisition of housing lands or the construction of houses, or both.

2. Projects authorized by the above agreements in many cases are operated so as to recover for the partnership of governments the full amount of their capital costs. In such cases the principal benefit to the municipality is the addition obtained to its supply of land available for private house building, or to its stock of houses. The following are the full recovery projects authorized to the end of 1953, showing number of residential lots and houses added to municipalities, by provinces:
Building Housing
	Lots	Units
Newfoundland		
Corner Brook	201	-St. John's	594	100Nova Scotia	Amherst 	-	10Trenton 	-	10Ontario	Arnprior 	43	-Amherstburg 	31	-Atikokan 	1140	-Brockville 	385	40Cobourg 	1015	*-Fort William	-	122Goderich 	-	26Guelph 	203	70Hamilton 	-	496Kingston 	615	-Kitchener (approx.)	1000	-London (city) 	825	-London (Twp.)	(approx.) 	1500	-Midland	42	-North Bay	56	54Ottawa 	683	-Owen Sound	52	-Peterborough	(approx.) 	2170	-Prescott	-	10Sarnia 	1351	-St. Thomas 	206	40Stamford Twp	57	-Stratford 	122	40Trenton 	195	25Windsor 	-	325British Columbia	Kimberley	50	-Prince Rupert	-	50Trail	269	-
In other cases, the agreements provide for rental housing to be offered to families of low income at rents according to their ability to pay, and these agreements provide for maximum annual deficits. The benefit to the municipality over and above the additional housing made available is in such
Questions
cases a contribution to the lowering of the rents; of that contribution 75 per cent is provided by the federal government under the act. The following table shows the authorized benefits of this type for municipalities, by provinces, as at December 31, 1953:
Authorized No. of rental	Estimated average full recovery rent per dwelling	Agreed average monthly rent per dwelling	Agreed potential annual deficit	dwellings	Total	Federal share$	$	%	8Newfoundland- St. John's	31,500140	55	30	42,000	(2 projects)	152	58	35	41,952	31,464Nova Scotia-	Halifax	161	66	40	50,232	37,674New Brunswick-	Saint John	88	58	40	19,008	14,256(2 projects)	200	60	44	38,400	28,800Ontario-	Arnprior	25	66	55	3,300	2,475Amherstburg	25	60	50	3,000	2,250Dunnville	25	65	55	3,000	2,250Fort Erie	28	65	55	3,360	2,520Galt	50	62	52	6,000	4,500Goderich	25	63	53	3,000	2,250Lindsay	20	55	46	2,160	1,620Midland	20	58	52	1,440	1,080Owen Sound	40	63	55	3,840	2,880Port Arthur	40	69	57	5,760	4,320Sault Ste. Marie	100	67	57	12,000	9,000Smiths Falls	24	63	53	2,880	2,160Stamford Twp	70	56	47	7,560	5,670Saskatchewan-	Moose Jaw	75	62	40	19,800	14,850Prince Albert	30	67	45	7,920	5,940British Columbia-	Vancouver	224	67	45	59,136	44,352




Mr. Breion:: 1.	How many agreements have been entered into between the federal government and the provinces, in connection with those provisions of the National Housing Act, 1944-45, which provide that the federal government may grant subsidies of as much as 50 per cent of the cost of projects to municipalities wishing to modernize and rebuild slum areas, since the coming into force of the act?
2.	What are the names of the municipalities which have availed themselves of these agreements, and in each case, what are the amounts of the subsidies granted to the said municipalities thus benefiting under these agreements?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	One agreement has been entered into by the minister under section 22 of the act.
2.	Order in council P.C. 3090 of July, 1948, authorized an agreement providing for a grant of $1,150,000 to the city of Toronto
toward the cost of acquisition and clearance of the northerly portion of the Regent Park housing site. The agreement is dated February 21, 1950. Order in council P.C. 1953-30/691 of May 7, 1953, authorized an amendment to the original agreement to provide for an additional $212,000, making total authorized grants to the city of Toronto for this purpose of $1,362,000.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. MacLean:: What has been the total amount of the imports into Canada for each of the last four years of the following items:	(a) potato starch and potato
flour (tariff item 39 (i)); (b) starch and all preparations having the quality of starch (tariff item

Inquiries of the Ministry 39 (ii)); (c) dextrine and combinations and preparation of starch and dextrine (tariff item 39 (c)); (d) combinations or preparations of starch and dextrine with admixture of foreign material (tariff item 39 (d));	(e) potatoes as defined in tariff
item 83 (a); (f) dried or dehydrated potatoes as defined in tariff item 83 (b); (g) vegetables, pickled or preserved in salt, brine, oil or in any other manner including frozen french-fried potatoes and potato chips, as defined in tariff item 90 (b); (h) glucose as defined in tariff item 139; (i) vegetable glue as defined in tariff item 232 (b); (j) cereal or starch products as defined in tariff item 232 (e); (k) mucilage and adhesive paste as defined in tariff item 232 (f) ?


Mr. Dickey:: Return tabled.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E, D. Fulton (Kamloops): I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he is in a position to give the house some information with regard to the position and the fate of two persons who have been referred to in the press as refugees from Yugoslavia. I am not able to pronounce their names, but I told the minister that I should like to ask the question and I think he knows the cases to which I refer. Can he say whether it is established whether or not these men are genuine political refugees?
Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The two gentlemen concerned are at present in detention quarters in Montreal. They are citizens of Yugoslavia. One is a married man of about 33 years of age; the other is a young man of about 22. The latter has a passport from the Yugoslavian government which, so far as we know, is valid. The former has no papers of any kind. They both left Yugoslavia last July, proceeded through Austria and Germany to a port on the North sea, stowed away on board ship and eventually were picked up in Toronto.
They were ordered deported as stowaways because that is our policy. We do not accept people who do not conform to our immigration regulations. In the course of examination they both said they had been informed in the refugee camp where they had spent a short time in Germany that there was an easy means of getting to Canada if you stowed away at a particular port on board ship. Consequently we are doing our best to prevent this from being a fact, and in particular we are deporting these people so that it may be learned that we do not accept immigrants in this way.
However, I know there are certain people who felt that ir: these two cases these persons might possibly suffer because of their actions
(Mr. MacLean.l
should they be returned to their native country. I point out again that the one has a valid passport, so far as we know. I point out also that any deportation order we may issue would only mean that they would be taken in custody by the shipping line whence they came to Canada, and would in the normal course go back to the port in Germany from which they came. We do not make a practice of deporting people behind the iron curtain unless there are most unusual circumstances.



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Batflefords):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or his assistant. Has the minister received a report from the supervising engineer of the public health engineering division regarding the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have nothing further to add to what I said the other day. As soon as I have any further information I shall be glad to give it to the hon. gentleman.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River-Camrose):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position to make a statement with regard to reported thefts from Camp Wainwright, Alberta?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I received notice of this question after 1.30 p.m., and I have not yet received a report which I have asked for. I am therefore not in a position to make a statement. If I receive information I shall be glad to give it to the hon. gentleman.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Can the Minister of Public Works tell the house whether it is proposed to finance additional low rental housing units for the Lowren Housing Company of Ottawa?


Hon. Roberi H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: The hon. member previously gave me notice of this question, so I am able to answer it at the moment.
The president of this limited dividend company has approached Central Mortgage to finance another 316 units to be owned by Lowren Housing Company. The proposal is that 32 of these units will be for elderly persons. The remaining 284 units will be semi-detached houses and row housing in envelopes of four. The location of the new units will be on the easterly extension of Prince Albert and Queen Mary in the Overbrook area. Central Mortgage has already financed, under section 16, 158 units owned by the Lowren company and 100 units for a similar limited dividend company known as Bon Logis.
The city of Ottawa finances the 10 per cent equity requirement and waives the interest return on its investment. This, together with the 40-year amortization and 3f per cent interest rate under section 16 of the act, has the effect of creating rentals of $58 a month.
The proposal is now being examined, and if the plans and specifications for these units are satisfactory and the need clearly established, then I believe that financing will be available.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Is
the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position to say now what the position of Canada has been in connection with the request of Madame Pandit for the reconvening of the general assembly of the United Nations? If so, has he any word to give the house as to whether a sufficient number will have assented in order to assure that the meeting will take place?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I am not in a position to give the final view of the government with regard to this request at this moment. It had been expected that we would have sent our reply to New York a day or so ago but there have been last-minute developments, which we have heard about through New Delhi, which may have some effect on the request for the meeting of the assembly. We are trying to get the matter cleared up.
I will, however, be in a position to give a reply tomorrow, because tomorrow is the last day on which replies are receivable. So far as the number of countries that have accepted the proposal for reconvening the 83276-98i
Inquiries of the Ministry assembly is concerned, I think 15 or 16 have accepted, whereas 31 are required before there can be a meeting.



DECLINE IN EXPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: I wish to
ask this question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the very rapid decline in wheat and flour exports during the past two months, will the minister make a statement on Canada's position and what is being done to meet the situation?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The decline in exports in December and January is perfectly normal. It happens every year. The reason is that the main outlet for Canada's wheat is closed by ice, and no way as yet has been found of breaking the ice and keeping navigation going during those months.
Just to illustrate the point, let us consider the crop year 1951-52, when there was a very active demand for wheat. Exports were as follows:
Exports of Wheat (millions of bushels) 1951-52
August	 19-1
September	 19-1
October	 27-6
November	 35-5
December	 16-8
January	 16 0
In 1952-53', which we considered a record year for exports, with exports almost reaching the capacity of the ports, the figures were as follows:
Exports of Wheat (millions of bushels) 1952-53
August	 28'6
September	 24-5
October	 27 1
November	 38*0
December	 24-7
January	 18-7
My hon. friend will appreciate the fact that the wheat board takes delivery of wheat at three principal marketing places, namely Fort William-Port Arthur, Vancouver and Churchill. To market the wheat from Fort William in the winter season it must be shipped by rail to Halifax or Saint John and transportation charges have to be added to the Fort William price, which puts sales from those ports somewhat out of line with those from Vancouver.
As far as Vancouver is concerned, the port is operating at capacity, and has been all

Inquiries of the Ministry autumn. Shipments in December and January from Vancouver will be just as high as they have been in any month for the past 18. But as far as eastern shipment is concerned the normal pattern is being followed, namely that grain shipments from the eastern ports will be at low level as long as the St. Lawrence river is frozen.


George Alexander Drew: With respect to the statement the Minister of Trade and Commerce has just made, in view of the statement by a member of the government yesterday regarding the danger of what was described as a possible fire sale of surpluses in the United States, will the minister inform the house whether any representations have been made to the government of the United States concerning that danger and, if so, what those representations were?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has been a rule of the department for several years that we do not discuss the marketing of wheat from the current crop. I think my hon. friend will appreciate the necessity for that. The wheat board is dealing with customers around the world, and anything I say here is reflected as being the views of the wheat board. Comments from me are not helpful to its operations.
Representations are being made to the government of the United States almost every week, just as representations are being made to us by the United States. I know of no plan for a fire sale in the United States. That country has a certain program that has dangers to Canada inherent in it if recklessly used, a program of giving assistance to foreign countries in the form of foodstuffs. We have reason to believe that it will be used with due regard to friendly countries who also have marketing problems. But, as I say, the situation is being watched carefully. Our people are in Washington and people from Washington are here frequently to discuss that particular problem, and we have every reason to believe that the United States will co-operate with Canada in order to see that the Canadian position is not damaged.



REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO INCREASED PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of a report in this morning's press that there will be an immediate and substantial increase in the price of coffee. Will the Minister of Justice direct that an inquiry be made into this matter, as President Eisenhower has directed in the United States?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I wish to thank my hon. friend for sending me notice of his question which, unfortunately, reached me only a moment or two before the house opened. However, I may say that the report which appeared in this morning's Montreal Gazette, and which is perhaps the one to which my hon. friend is referring, indicates pretty clearly on its face one of the main reasons for the increase in the price of coffee. Due to frost damage in the coffee plantations of Brazil the normal production of some 16 million bags of coffee in that country has been cut down to 14 million bags and, what is probably more serious, the frost damage to Brazil's young trees is so extensive that it appears that Brazilian production for the next several years may be severely limited, in this way reducing the world supply.
On the face of this news item, therefore, it would appear that the rise in the price of coffee is perhaps attributable to these natural causes. In the combines investigation branch we are interested in rises in the prices of things which are attributable to other than natural causes, in other words to combines and to attempts to rig prices. It is true that we watch the prices of these commodities carefully to make sure that a price rise which is under observation is not attributable to a combine, and for that reason we take an interest in such matters as the present price of coffee.
But our inquiries would seem to support another item which appears in this morning's Montreal Gazette, wherein it is stated that while Toronto importers predicted that the price of coffee would increase by about 34 cents a pound to $1.33 in the next few months, Ottawa importers did not believe the price would go that high and predicted a rise of two or three cents. Our price checks have indicated that the price rise here has been more of the order of that mentioned by the Ottawa importers.
My hon. friend asks whether we will authorize an inquiry along the lines of that authorized by President Eisenhower in the United States. According to press reports President Eisenhower instructed the federal trade commission of the United States of America to make a full-scale investigation. I would say that we would not authorize a full-scale investigation here unless it appeared, from the checks we are now making, that it was necessary. In that connection, having regard to the fact that the United States is by far the largest purchaser of coffee in the world, the price which it pays for its coffee tends to fix the price of the

coffee that is bought in Canada, so the investigation by the United States, if it discloses anything at all, would probably disclose the causes or some of the causes for the increase that is taking place or will take place here. '



POLIOMYELITIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: The other day the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) asked a question with respect to the new vaccine, and I should now like to give further information.
Research on poliomyelitis vaccine has been carried on at the Connaught laboratories during the past two or three years, and has contributed greatly to the production of the large supplies to be used in the extensive testing of this vaccine in the United States. The value of the vaccine has not yet been established and may not be established for some time. Consideration was given by the officials of my department and by the dominion council of health to the institution of similar testing in Canada. But on the basis of the information we have and of the advice we have received from experts in this field, the department has concluded that the proper course for us for the time being is to observe the very extensive trial already launched in the United States, with the knowledge that the information resulting from the trial will be completely at our disposal and may be used as a guide in determining the need for and the nature of further action in this country.
As outlined in the reply which my parliamentary assistant gave to the house on December 2 last, the government has already undertaken to provide substantial assistance toward measures to combat poliomyelitis in Canada. I wish again to assure the house that we are prepared to play our full part in ensuring that the people of this country will enjoy the benefits of any outstanding advances in the prevention of this dread disease.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has his attention been drawn to an order of the Tientsin people's government dated November 11, 1953 which abolishes the business of
Inquiries of the Ministry representation or management of properties of third parties by foreign real estate firms and which also, in the case of principals residing outside of China, has placed a three months limit on the time within which they must adjust their affairs.
I apologize for not giving the minister notice of this question, but the matter only came to my attention a short time ago. The three months limit of course ends on the 11th of February.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My attention has not been drawn to that report, but I shall look into the matter and see if I can produce a reply tomorrow.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the government received representations from the dominion council of the Canadian non-pensioned veterans widows asking for an increase in the widows' allowance and for certain other changes in the War Veterans Allowance Act? Will action be taken on these matters in the near future?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part is that the representations are receiving consideration at the present time.


DISABLED PERSONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: May I ask
the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he expects to give the house some report on the recent conference with the provincial ministers of health and welfare, or is he leaving the report until the measure is eventually introduced?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not now intend to make a report but I will when the bill providing for a dominion-wide system of disabled allowances is introduced in the house later this session. I can only say at this time that the conference was a most successful one, all provinces affirming the principle which it is proposed to incorporate in the federal government's legislation.
i542	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act FLOODS


FRASER RIVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: should like to direct an inquiry to the Minister of Public Works. I am informed that snow conditions at the headwaters of the Fraser river are more severe than they have been for some years and that, if there is a quick run-off, the Fraser river will be in severe flood. Will the minister make an inquiry into the state of repair of the dikes on the main channel of the Fraser river within the boundaries of the municipality of Bichmond, British Columbia.


Robert Henry Winters: I received this notice as I came into the house and I am, therefore, speaking from memory in saying that these dikes were turned over to the British Columbia government in the early part of 1950. In any event, their maintenance is the responsibility of the British Columbia government.


Tom Goode: Supplementary to the minister's statement, I would point out to him that in the last three years the federal government has invested some $250,000 in these dikes.


NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 25, 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. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easi):: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the adjournment of the debate on Bill No. 102 I was asking the minister to take under consideration the advisability and the necessity of the federal government following the lead of some of the provincial governments in either making grants in aid to non-profit organizations undertaking the construction of homes for old age pensioners or others in the low income category, or subsidizing these houses directly through the assumption of some of the interest costs. At the same time I was thanking the minister and approving of the policy of the government in that they had accepted in the past the principle that those who construct low rent housing for old age pensioners
[Mr. Martin.1

on a non-profit basis should be able to borrow money from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at the same rate of interest as the long term borrowing rate of the federal government.
I am pleased to note, Mr. Speaker, that in paragraph (c) of clause 4 of Bill No. 102 and clause 16, the government have seen fit to carry forward the principle which they established for a number of years in the old legislation. I want to thank the minister for that. I should like to point out, however, the effect of interest rates, even if one can borrow at the same rate of interest as the long term rate for the government itself.
The organization to which I have the honour of belonging in British Columbia pioneered this kind of work. They have borrowed six times from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I am not going to speak about the sixth time, because it occurred only recently and I have not all the particulars. I want to say that we are happy to have the money, and by the end of June we will have many more houses ready for old age pensioners on a low rental basis.
I am not quite certain whether I understood the minister when he answered a question just a few moments ago concerning loans that had been made, I believe, in Quebec.


Robert Henry Winters: In Ottawa.


Harold Edward Winch: Did I understand the minister to say that, in part, the loan concerned old age pensioners, for whom houses would be built on an average rental basis of $58 per month? There we have a clear indication of the need for federal action, either by direct aid or by lowering the interest rate, because I do not know of any old age pensioners or low income groups who could pay $58 per month. We do know, because it has been proven over a period of years, that if the provincial government has an interest, and the federal government gives an interest rate through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation equal to the government's long term rate, you can supply fully modern houses to people in the low income groups for $20 or $21 per month, on a self-supporting basis. That is being done in British Columbia, and being done I point out even with the high rate which does not enable you to do as much building as you would otherwise, or give the rental that you otherwise could.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to give the house the benefit of our accountant's report on the first five loans that we secured from the government. On project No. 1 we borrowed $10,000, amortized over 20 years, and the

interest rate was 3 per cent. By the time we pay it back it will have cost us in all $13,443. On the second project we borrowed $25,000 amortized over 40 years at 3 per cent, and that is going to cost us $43,262.40. On project No. 3 we borrowed $20,000 amortized over 40 years at 3 per cent, and that will cost us $34,610 by the time it is repaid. On project No. 4 we stepped it up and borrowed $60,000 amortized over 40 years, and the government established a rate of 3-5 per cent. We shall have paid back $111,940.80 by the time the loan has been paid. On project No. 5 we borrowed $55,000 and the interest rate was up to 3J per cent, amortized over 40 years. This loan will cost us $106,624. In other words, borrowing through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for old age pensioners on a non-profit basis, with a provincial grant of one-third and getting the land for one dollar from the municipality, we have borrowed $170,000 and will have to pay back $309,880.20. When we have to pay back that amount of money for this amount we borrowed, under the best terms the government gives, what then is the position of the citizen who wants to build his own home and has to borrow at 5-5 or 6 per cent?
I believe it can be said without question that not only is the down payment difficult but housing costs are high. I sincerely hope the minister will tell us some time just what use has been made over a period of years of that section of the housing act which gives him almost unlimited powers of research to try to bring down housing costs in Canada. All these factors, the heavy down payment, the high cost of housing, the interest rate and so on, hold back many people from building their own homes or building low rental homes.
I feel very strongly that, in view of the urgent need for houses in Canada both for home ownership and for rental, the government would be taking a very commendable and advisable step if it would do one of two things, either directly subsidize housing by a reduction of the interest rate to 2 per cent or grant a subsidy. This would provide a stopgap for the serious unemployment situation.
If the government does not feel it is possible to reduce the interest rate, then in the interests of housing, and of employment, they should extend to those who desire to construct houses in Canada the same provisions that have been established for years in connection with other types of houses constructed by limited liability companies or nonprofit organizations. This would enable people to obtain money at the long term interest rate of the federal government. It would
National Housing Act
mean at least a reduction of 14 or 2 per cent in the interest rate; and when you are borrowing for 25, 30 or 35 years the saving would amount to a great deal and would be an encouragement to housing construction in Canada.
So, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the minister, having established a good principle some years ago on one type of construction, will carry forward that same principle in the greater field of home construction in Canada, and either make grants directly in aid of home construction or reduce the interest rate to not more than the long term borrowing rate of the government.
I suggest this would be welcomed by every member in the house and by the people of Canada generally, and would amply demonstrate that we do have a progressive government and a progressive parliament.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Hollingworth) wishes to proceed.


Mr. A. H. Hollingworth (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to congratulate the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) and the government for introducing this new housing legislation which I believe is sound, progressive, and tailored to meet the needs of the Canadian people.
The two provisions which I feel will be of particular assistance in helping more people to acquire homes will be the lower down payment and the longer amortization period in which to pay back the mortgage. This means that people will have to pay less when the house is purchased, and will pay less in the monthly carrying charges.
I would also commend the government on making available loans from banks. I note this has been done in most, if not all, western countries, and it would seem to be the logical development of the Canadian banking system. Unlike my hon. friend the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), I am not a bit worried about the novelty of the idea. It seems to have worked successfully in other countries, and undoubtedly the elasticity and ingenuity of our banking system here will permit of its being of great assistance in the further development of the Canadian economy.
I am particularly intrigued by the fact that these insured mortgages can be used as collateral to be deposited with the central bank by the chartered bank, which in return will receive credit the same as for Canadian

National Housing Act
bonds. This is indeed far-reaching, and I believe takes into consideration in a brilliant manner the need for credit expansion in an ever-growing economy.
There is one thing, however, that does disturb me at the present time in this country, and that is the fact that the little man, the clerk or the factory worker, whose annual income is less than $3,000, cannot buy a home under the National Housing Act because the carrying charges comprise more than 23 per cent of his gross income. It seems to me fundamental justice that such a man should be able to own a house as well as anyone else. Accordingly, I have gone to some trouble to ascertain what 'other countries have done, having particular regard for this problem.
I find that in no countries have houses been built for potential owners in the lower income brackets, and it would seem that the reason for this is that the risk of carrying a mortgage on a person with a marginal income is too great. A resultant foreclosure would not only take away a person's house but would result in the loss of his hard-earned down payment. Of course some of my friends, particularly in the C.C.F., will say, "Why not give an outright government subsidy to this man?" One answer would appear to be that in many cases an owner's income might improve to the point that the owner would not need the government subsidy; and then, of course, someone would be helped who would not need the help of the government.
I think, therefore, that subsidized government rental housing is the answer to the particular problem I have in mind, and I say that the new bill covers this in clause 36, formerly section 35 of the act. There is provision for joint development of lower cost rental housing between the provincial and federal governments. This is not pure theory; it has worked in practice. My information is that 1,562 units have been built so far under this clause, which was section 35 of the old act. The breakdown is as follows: 292 units in St. John's, Newfoundland; 161 units in Halifax; 288 units in Saint John, New Brunswick; 105 units in Saskatchewan; 224 units under construction in Vancouver, and 492 units in Ontario.
This scheme may be carried out in two ways-either by the owners buying the houses, which will cost less because no profit is being made by the developer of the lands from the installation of package disposal plants and the like, or by the appropriate government body renting the

houses, which is what I am more particularly concerned with here. The dwellings may be either duplexes or row houses, such as they have in Newfoundland, or single family dwelling houses, which have been confined largely to Ontario.
The important point is this, that the dwellings in Newfoundland rent at $37 or $38 per month, and at rentals of $55 to $60 a month on a self-liquidating basis. That seems to me to be the concrete answer to this problem of providing housing for the lower income groups. However, and this is the important thing, the initiative must come from the provinces under the legislation, or more specifically those creatures of the provinces, the local municipalities.
It is all very well for people to say, "Well, why do not the municipalities do something about it?" Those members in the house who have served on municipal councils in the last few years will realize that the problems of municipal councils are tremendous, and that the greatest problem of all is to provide funds for financing local schools. Let us be frank about it. This is a provincial matter. And I might say I am pained and disturbed that my esteemed friend, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), got to his feet and complained that the bill does nothing about providing serviced land. I am sure he said that with his tongue in his cheek. Because my hon. friend knows-


Mr. Fleming:: On a point of order, Your
Honour might not have heard what the hon. member said, but I would point out he has just said that an hon. member in the house-and he was referring to myself-had spoken with his tongue in his cheek. I understand that it is entirely unparliamentary to suggest insincerity on the part of a member speaking in the house. I would ask that the hon. member be compelled to withdraw that remark.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member
for York Centre anything to say by way of explanation?


Allan Henry Hollingworth: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to use the expression jocularly or facetiously, but it seemed to me that the hon. member, as a competent and esteemed lawyer, would realize that something like this clearly came under provincial jurisdiction. Consequently when that remark was made as the most important argument in his speech on the bill, surely he realized that one should not take it too seriously.


Mr. Speaker:: What the hon. gentleman is complaining about is the expression which has just been used. My view is that when an hon. member feels that he should rise in his place and complain about an expression which has been used by another hon. member while he is speaking, the easiest way out for the hon. member who has used the expression is to say "I shall be glad to withdraw", and carry on with the speech.


Allan Henry Hollingworth: I shall be glad to withdraw. I was saying that the providing of serviced land must come on the initiative of the provinces, and I would respectfully suggest to the hon. member for Eglinton that he use his considerable influence with his provincial colleagues in Ontario to see that installation of services goes forward in the Toronto area.
Just last week several large subdivisions were rejected by the planning board of the township of North York because of the lack of services. Is the hon. member for Eglinton seriously suggesting that this bill before the house should provide services for subdivisions? Hundreds of houses cannot be built in North York at the present time, and hundreds of families cannot have homes because the provincial government in Ontario has not seen fit to galvanize into action the metropolitan council of greater Toronto to provide serviced lands. The hon. member for Eglinton knows that. Therefore I respectfully ask, why does he draw a red herring across this trail? Why does he not come out and admit that this is a sound, imaginative bill? Why does he not admit that the problem of serviced land-the No. 1 problem in our housing bottleneck-is the ultimate and direct responsibility of the provincial government?
Again in closing, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I hope the provinces, the municipalities, and the federal government will all work together vigorously under the provisions of section 36 and solve our problem regarding low-cost rental housing. I think the explanation I have cited proves it can be done, and I fervently hope that more action will be taken in the near future.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, this bill reminds me of a measure to produce babies and leave them on the street. True, it does have clauses in it which can produce the swaddling clothes and the baskets to house babies temporarily, but it does not do what I think is necessary, namely look after the growth and the life of the structures it proposes to bring into being.
National Housing Act
I feel, and my over-all criticism of the bill is, that it does not provide sufficient precaution to see that the initial expenditure, the initial investment in the structure, is adequately protected, and I propose to enlarge on that. Today, with the extremely high cost of living, it is not so much the initial cost of a house that is causing the trouble for so many people; it is the problem of maintenance and upkeep of the house. The No. 1 problem, as I see it, is to relieve the burden, including the tax burden, which falls directly on the home owner.
The first protection which I consider the bill fails to give is a mandatory clause dealing with town planning. True, in the section dealing with housing redevelopment there is a clause making the municipality submit a proper plan for the redevelopment of blighted or slum areas. But the regulations in the section dealing with new construction and new development with regard to town planning are of a permissive nature. In my opinion, permissive is not enough. I have seen all too many housing developments start off with inadequate zoning or planning and become not actually blighted areas but areas where properties have decreased in value at a rate far more rapidly than in an area which was properly planned.
Therefore my first criticism of the bill would be that provision for town planning and zoning for all new construction should be made more mandatory, and at least require it to have the approval of the provincial authorities or the municipal board in the province of Ontario, and through them the architects of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the town planners that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are using. That is the first point.
In that regard I think the remarks of the President of the United States are of some interest, because in dealing with this whole question of housing on January 26 he said that one of his provisions was this:
First, prevention of the spread of blight into good areas of the community through strict enforcement of housing and neighbourhood standards and strict occupancy controls.
Those of us who have seen the work that has been going on in the United States in regard to new development in the major cities can appreciate the importance being put on this question of proper planning. Therefore I feel that no new housing development should be started until, through planning, the future of the investment, no matter who makes it, will be as secure as possible and

National Housing Act that blight accelerated deterioration and the other dangerous developments which destroy the value of property will not set in.
It is all very well to have a beautiful, individually planned community; but if at some time in that planned community you are leaving it possible for somebody to come in and build a glue factory right next door, the whole value of that community will go down. In my opinion no new community should be created unless that protection is provided.
So much for town planning. The next criticism I have of the legislation-and I do not think this is so much the fault of the bill but rather the fault of the combines act-[DOT] is this. If the banks, who are not knowledgeable with regard to mortgages on real estate, which is an entirely new field to them, set up a company or some kind of organization in which all the banks could pool what resources they wished, and developed their own mortgage authority, it would probably be a good thing and certainly, I believe, would make for efficiency. But I doubt very much whether they would be able to do this because of the combines act, for I believe that banks getting together to form a company or trust to provide money for housing would probably contravene that act.
However, I would ask the minister to consult, if he will, with the law officers of the crown to see if that would be so, because there will be a lot of mortgage money not available if individual banks feel that in certain cases they have to provide for the servicing of mortgages in small communities, whereas if there was an association through which all the banks could co-operate I think it would be greatly to the advantage of the scheme. The United States system called the federal national mortgage association, or "Fanny Mae" to use the colloquial term, is a joint association and I do not know enough about it, but I feel it is providing a very desirable service in the United States.
Now I come directly to the cost of upkeep. Where the housing need is greatest is in the urban and particularly suburban or growth municipalities. My own is a case in point. In Toronto township, where I live, and in the part of Etobicoke township which I represent -two of the most rapidly growing townships in all of Canada-I would say that this year the assessments on property have multiplied between five and ten times. Some people will claim that while the assessments have gone up the mill rate also will go down drastically, and that is the devout hope of the Toronto metropolitan council. While the mill rate will go down, nevertheless the assessments have


gone up to such a degree that the net annual tax liability to the municipality by the home owner has in almost every case increased very substantially in the last three or four years. In most cases it has more than doubled since the end of the war, and in some cases it has not only doubled but trebled and quadrupled.
Municipal tax borne by the home owner is similar to a mortgage. You pay it or lose your property. Irrespective of your income, irrespective of your status or anything else, it is a direct liability on your prime security, that is your own home; yet the federal authorities, despite the fact that in the last budget they recognized the evils of double taxation and gave generous relief to the holders of Canadian common stocks and Canadian equities, are as yet blind to what I consider to be the most evil form of double taxation, namely taxation on the home of the Canadian citizen which must be paid but which is not considered when the individual home owner makes out his income tax form.
I have mentioned this before in this house, but I mention it again because I think it is only just that the municipal tax paid on a man's home should be a deduction from his income for the purpose of computing his income tax liability. But you will ask, "What about the man who rents? He has not that opportunity." But he has, because the landlord deducts municipal taxation and also the carrying charges, and in addition to that he amortizes over as many years as he likes the capital cost of the structure. The landlord, therefore, is by and large in a better position than the man who buys and owns. I feel that if we are going to encourage the man who buys and owns, then something along these lines must be done.
I am not going to go into the figures in detail in my own municipality, but I do want to say that the situation is definitely serious. If you undertake to construct a home on the basis of your income less the liabilities you have already undertaken, and if you have a tax liability which is constantly increasing, then your security is continually being whittled away by the continually rising costs of municipal government. I suggest that under these circumstances the first relief to the home owner should be in the matter of municipal taxation. I leave that for the moment, however, because I presume that will be one of the questions dealt with in the committee. Incidentally, I understand that municipal taxation is allowed as an income tax deduction in the United States.
My second point on the question of making it easier for a man to keep his home-and this is a problem I want to deal with-is that

I can see so easily the same conditions arising as in the thirties when a man bought a home, it deteriorated, and somebody along his street had a forced sale and sold at 50 or 60 cents on the dollar. What does that mean? It decreases the price of every single house on that street, because the forced sale regulates the price. I do not want people to be put in that position; therefore I am concentrating on making it easier to maintain the home.
Another way in which this bill is deficient is with regard to mortgage interest; not capital, but interest. In order to bring the man who owns his home into a position of equality with the man who rents, I believe that mortgage interest on a man's own home should also be allowed as a deduction from income for tax computation purposes.
Again the same thing holds true with regard to a man who builds a house and rents it. He can deduct the carrying charges. He can even amortize the capital cost, as he does. Then after the capital cost is amortized, he can sell the house	and	somebody else	willbe able to amortize	the	capital cost	on	thesame house. That is	the	situation if	he	hasbought for rental. I	do	not believe	that is
fair. I think encouragement must be given through the easing of the payments to keep the home. We have heard a great deal about insurance companies, banks, mortgage companies and everybody else asking so much in the way of interest and all the rest of it. The worst sinner or all is the federal government. It takes more from the income of the home owner than do all the other institutions combined. I feel that is the first place where relief should start.
The next point, of course, is the question -and I believe it should be considered as an aid to the municipalities, which aid would be passed on to the home owner in reduced taxation-of the sales tax on goods bought by the municipality. We have discussed this matter at some length, both in this house and elsewhere. I do not see why the federal government should tax the home owners of the township of Etobicoke $2,000 on a new fire engine which the township of Etobicoke bought and for which it paid $20,000 in order to provide the necessary protection for those homes.
An hen. Member:	Double taxation.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I think that is a case of double taxation. Perhaps it is small. Perhaps it is not as great as the others. Nevertheless it is a definite case of double taxation which I consider to be wrong and something adding again to the cost of owning and maintaining a home and family.
National Housing Act
The next point I want to mention is the question of the funded debt of the municipalities. Today municipal bonds are, by and large, bought on a 4J per cent, 5 per cent and sometimes, I presume, an even higher interest rate, possibly up to 6 per cent. I do not know of any at 6 per cent but I know of a great many at 5 per cent and 5J per cent.
What happens to the interest on the money that is lent to the municipality? The bonds are bought by individuals or by corporations and the interest goes to the individual or corporation. On that interest the individual or the corporation has to pay personal income tax or corporation income tax. Corporation taxation is about 47 per cent. Many people who buy municipal bonds are in the 50 per cent income tax bracket. This means that that bond yields the owner about 2 or 2J per cent. It yields the federal government the other 2 or 21 per cent. The home owner, however, has to pay the whole 5 per cent. Here is another case of double taxation.
The municipality must issue its debentures and its securities to yield a rate which is competitive in order that the bonds may be sold. The interest on those bonds must be paid by the home owners, through municipal taxation on property. There is only one source from which the interest on those bonds can be obtained, and that source is municipal taxation on real property. Yet the federal government, through the personal income tax and the corporation income tax, takes half the interest which the municipality must pay.
We have heard a great deal about borrowing money at 2 per cent. I do not know how it can be done in Canada, but I know how it can be done in the United States. Here again I want to make this suggestion on this whole question of housing. In the United States bonds of municipalities for improvement purposes can be and are issued free of federal taxation, so the municipal authorities in the United States can and do borrow money for from less than 2 per cent to 2J per cent. If a Canadian municipality were able to cut by half its cost of servicing its debentures, that is another way in which a saving could and would be passed on directly to the taxpayers, the owners of the houses in that municipality.
I should like to give an example of what is being done in the United States. That municipal debentures should be issued free of federal taxation is something which I think should certainly be considered here in Canada, because it does not violate any canon of banking that I know of; it seems to

National Housing Act be perfectly financially sound in the United States, and it has not caused any great financial upheaval. I want to give just one example. I obtained it out of the New York Times yesterday. It is that of the city of Durham, North Carolina, borrowing $2,225,000 for a sanitary sewer system. There are three maturities. There is one at $815,000 with a 2 per cent coupon, to yield between 1 [DOT] 4 per cent and 2 * 05 per cent. The larger one of $1,250,000 has a coupon of "l\ per cent, to yield 2-10 to 2-40 per cent. At the top of this advertisement is this notice:
Interest exempt, in the opinion of counsel, under existing laws from all federal income taxes.
The advertisement is dated January 27, 1954. We say that is a breach of our banking system. We say it is something which we have not done before, something which would be resented and objected to by the followers of the canons of sound money.
I thought I was a fair advocate of sound money, but the system under which we are operating is changing. This bill envisages as great a departure in Canadian banking as the banks going into the mortgage business. Surely if the bill envisages the banks doing this we can concede that it is not fiscally unsound for the municipalities to be given some relief, possibly the relief that is given them in the United States.
I hope the bill will be a success. Other clauses of the bill have been dealt with in great detail by members far more competent than I. But there is one thing we must preserve. When the proud parents bring the new baby from the hospital we have to remember that it is going to live for probably 20 or 21 years before going out on its own, and during that time it has to be fed, clothed and educated and has to have conveniences provided for it. The same is true of a house. It has to have provision of these essential services for 20 years at least before it becomes the outright property of its original purchasers. Every dollar which can be cut from their cost adds to the security of the owners. In my opinion the double taxation caused by the federal tax structure and regulations is the greatest destroyer of that security.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I wish to register my very great disappointment with the housing bill now before us. I have received considerable correspondence from my constituents also expressing disappointment with the proposals contained in the bill. I know they hoped, as many of us did, that when it was brought before the house it would make it possible for our people to build much needed housing.


When you consider the various angles of the situation and the desperate need for housing, I think everyone will agree with me that the government has failed miserably in introducing adequate proposals at this time. The preface to the bill reads as follows:
An act to promote the construction of new houses, the repair and modernization of existing houses, and the improvement of housing and living conditions.
In my opinion this legislation is a far cry from what is required to permit people in the various income brackets to build decent homes for themselves. I think it is a farce in that regard. The bill proposes to give the vested interests more security through the backing of the nation. At the same time people who will take advantage of it simply because of their desperate need for homes will be saddled with contracts the term of which has been extended from 20 to 25 or 30 years, and an interest rate which will be formidable. Later in my speech I want to document my statement that the cost to a home owner under this program will be fantastic.
I realize that each and every one of us has his own personal viewpoint on the matter of housing. I think the strength of the nation lies in its families and their homes. I believe the criterion of a good government is how it uses the total resources at its disposal, both taxes and natural resources, to raise the social and economic standards of the people. When we are facing a challenge throughout the world to what we call our free democratic system, I think it behooves us to give consideration to the most serious topic of adequate and decent houses for our people.
Today the ghosts of the hungry thirties are again rampant throughout the land. In some sections of our country we already have soup kitchens, and there are approximately 400,000 unemployed and jobless people. At the same time we have an abundance of lumber in our sawmills and lumber yards and adequate resources of every kind to build decent homes, but we find that provisions are not going to be made by the government of which the people needing homes will be able to take advantage.
As I say, each of us has his own ideas about what constitutes a decent housing program. In that connection I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), which can be found at page 1417 of Hansard for January 25. In this speech he took some exception to the remarks of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Jones) with respect to housing conditions in his constituency. The

hon. member for Kootenay East had this to say, as appears at page 1418 of Hansard:
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.
Sir, this bill is going to make housing very expensive for our people, and I do not think the statement that the cost of houses is excessive will enable the government to relieve itself of responsibility with respect to the removing of restrictions on the cost of living some time after 1945. Further on the hon. member had this to say about the excessive cost of home ownership:
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.
He goes on to say:
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.
First of all I want to say that I am one who does not believe it would be in the interests of our people if their houses had to be all of one type. I think it is everyone's right to have some individuality in his home.
Furthermore, in regard to automobiles, which are outside the scope of this debate, I am sure hon. members will agree that when you go into the higher priced automobiles you feel that you get more than a different colour or paint. The same holds true with regard to houses. What we are speaking of now, sir, is not the high priced home, but good homes of a decent standard for our people.
Then I should like to refer to a speech delivered by the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis) as recorded in Hansard for January 25, at page 1434. The hon. member said:
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.
I do not believe that is the sort of attitude we should have in the matter of houses. I do not believe we should have the proposition
National Housing Act
put' before hon. members of this house that people are going to have to put themselves in this position for 25 years, which is the amortization period suggested.
As I said before, sir, the incomes of many of our people are going down. I have here a report from today's Globe and Mail quoting Mr. Howard Harper in his presidential address to the Ontario soil and crop association. He said that farm income is down 16 per cent from 1949. In addition to that we have the statement that many people are in a price squeeze. This statement appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of January 26, 1954. Mr. H. H. Hannam is reported as saying that the drop in selling prices while production has remained high has placed Canada's 600,000 farm families in a price-cost squeeze which, in all likelihood, will be continued into 1954. We have the same situation all along the line. We have the jobless people and we have our farmers receiving lower incomes under present conditions.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, statistics which have been computed from figures released by the dominion bureau of statistics for 1953. I should like to place some of these on Hansard to indicate that there are many people who are not going to be able to take advantage of this bill. I think it would be of interest for me to go through the different brackets of income. First we have the grand total of those people who made out income tax returns, taxable and non-taxable, for the year 1951, of 4,102,170. There were 14.7 per cent with incomes under $1,000; 28-1 per cent with incomes between $1,000 and 2,000; 30-4 per cent with incomes between $2,000 and $3,000; 16-1 per cent with incomes between $3,000 and $4,000; 5-2 per cent with incomes between $4,000 and $5,000; 4-3 per cent with incomes between $5,000 and $10,000; 1 per cent with incomes between $10,000 and $25,000.
We found, sir, that persons with incomes under $2,000 make up 42-8 per cent of those making income tax returns. Persons with incomes under $3,000 make up 73-2 per cent of the total number making income tax returns in 1951. One can readily see from these figures that the bulk of our people are not going to be able to take advantage of this bill under any circumstances. Suppose there are some people who, out of desperation, will try to take advantage of the legislation that is proposed. When they go to the lending company they will want to buy a house. The lender will not say, "You are going to buy two houses" but that is in effect what the prospective home owner is going to have to do by the time he has paid for the house.

National Housing Act
Here is an example. On a house which has a $10,000 lending value, 90 per cent of the first $8,000 would be $7,200; that is the proposal made in the bill. Then 70 per cent of the remaining $2,000 would be $1,400, which would make a total of $8,600. If that were amortized over 25 years to compute the monthly payments, including insurance, it would mean a monthly payment of $56.13 or a total of $673.56 per year. Over a period of 25 years the home owner would have paid back, if he were that fortunate, a total of $16,839 or almost 100 per cent over the original amount of money which he borrowed. When you consider that, in addition, he would have paid his down payment, obtained the site for his house and furnished his house, you can see how far from the orbit of practicability the bill is now.
In conclusion I want to say that the bill strikes me as nothing short of a farce. I recall that in Biblical times the word "usurer" was often used in reference to these moneychangers. At the time they did not have the backing of the treasury of a great and powerful country, but today it would seem to me that is the situation. There are many safeguards for the investor, but there is no safeguard for the prospective home owner. My opinion could be summed up by saying this bill is a conglomeration of liberal mentality concocted into a capitalist bill which is going to be foisted upon an unsuspecting public. I hope that when the bill comes back from the committee we shall have something better than we have now.
(Translation):


Mr. Georges Villeneuve (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance attached to the question of housing, more particularly by the people I represent in this house, I cannot let the debate on the housing bill end without adding my own remarks.
The first observation I wish to make has to do with the protection of the family. In fact, the most important point in this regard is to ensure, first and above all, the protection of the family and more particularly of large families. Today, large families have trouble in finding shelter, somewhat like at the time when St. Joseph was trying to find a shelter for his wife who was expecting our Saviour's birth. Large families are always turned away when they seek a dwelling and, as a result, they have to live in the slums of our large cities. Yet, in our country, as everywhere else, the family is the source of the most important asset, our human resources. I note that the present housing legislation gives private enterprise the opportunity of

*working in the public interest. I therefore hope that our large families will be able to take advantage of this legislation to improve their condition.
I would also like to say a word about small towns and villages. In the constituency I represent there are no large centres of population, but each locality wishes to do its share to ensure the future of our country. Until now, small towns and villages have not received all the attention they deserve. However, I note that banks will now be able to make mortgage loans and that it will now be possible to help our small towns and villages expand, develop and take a deeper interest in the country.
Our small towns and villages are more important than ever, because we still have, in our vast country, wide open spaces, practically uninhabited, while other not so distant districts are overpopulated, and this is particularly true in the province of Quebec where one-third of the population lives in the southern part, while, in the rest of the province, the population is very inadequately spread. Well, if our small towns and villages can contribute to the development of the country through home ownership, I am convinced that in the future they will play an important part in the development not only of our provinces but of the country as a whole. As a matter of fact, when home ownership is made easier for those who live in small towns and villages, the economic structure is strengthened in the locality, the district, the province, and throughout the country.
I am happy to note that, from now on, We shall be in a position to expect greater benefits for local communities. I am also happy to see that this legislation favours the cooperative movement in the housing field. If there is one movement to which I pay special attention, that is the one. There is no better way of helping our workers obtain accommodation in the most economical way possible.
Now as to aid to municipalities wishing to improve their housing possibilities, I notice that a whole subsection of the bill is devoted to this matter. The federal government is willing to incur 75 per cent of the charges involved in subsidizing rental housing projects. I hope that the Quebec government will finally grant to municipalities their freedom, so that they may, in future, take advantage of this legislation, in view of the fact that, to my mind and in the opinion of many others, provincial autonomy is not at all involved in this instance. In fact, this is a contract made

up for a given period of time and I hope that the Quebec provincial government will help our workers and municipalities take advantage of the benefits of this legislation.
This bill provides for the improvement of the housing situation in three ways. It provides aid at the time of purchase, it provides for the locating of and finally for the alteration of houses or existing buildings. In this way, the door is open to prospective home owners; it is open to those who, in the past, were not interested in mortgage investments, which would have helped our low-income families to become home owners, or again those who do not wish to do so but who want, however, to live at all times in suitable housing.
Thirdly, the aim is to promote the conversion of existing houses. As a matter of fact, we can see here and there in certain communities some very nice and very large houses in which only three or four persons are living but which could shelter some twenty people if their owners had the means to convert them. Thanks to this act, our home owners will be able in the future to think about increasing the number of houses in our own communities. To me, that is a very interesting way of proceeding towards the solution of this very important problem.
What is more, under this act, the down payment on an $8,000 house will be only 10 per cent. Well, I think that is one way of helping and protecting the small wage earner. I do not know if it is possible in other districts to build a house for less than $8,000, but in my own district it is quite possible to do so. Since they will have to make a down payment of only $800, our people will be able to become home owners. It is absolutely necessary that our people remain property-minded, that is sacrifice-minded.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that this act will promote throughout the country, and particularly in my district and in my constituency, the building of a sufficient number of new houses to better help the development of the Canadian family.
(Text):


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: 
highest industrial wage earner in Hamilton is $72.75, or $3,783 a year, or a couple of hundred dollars less than the minimum requirement to purchase a $10,000 house.
Some of the charts which I have seen, which set out the various minimum salary requirements, show houses for as low as $8,000. I do not know in what city you would look for a new house for $8,000. I know you would not find one in Hamilton. I know you would be very lucky to find a house in Hamilton for $10,000; yet the minimum salary requirement to buy a $10,000 house is close to $4,000 and, as I said, the highest industrial average is at the rate of $3,783.
This reminds me of the instances I cited in this house last session with regard to the wages of postal employees. I showed that in two instances the postal workers were deemed to be undesirable risks because their salaries fell $100 or $200 short of the minimum requirements under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Housing Act, despite the fact that these people were government employees. Apparently no consideration at all was given to the fact that they might reasonably expect to have permanent employment, or as permanent as one can expect in these days. But this raises the point of who will benefit, unless these regulations are altered from what one is led to believe they may well be. It appears as though only those who earn over $4,000 a year, and have not previously had sufficient cash for the 20 per cent down payment, but can reasonably expect to raise the 10 per cent down payment, will benefit.
Earlier this afternoon one of the previous speakers gave some very interesting figures with regard to the percentage of people to fall within that category. In summing up he said that 73-2 per cent of those persons who filed income tax returns have shown their income as under $3,000 a year. I had previously made a note to the effect that fully 80 per cent of our wage earners could not hope to benefit by this legislation. Using the figures already given, it looks as though my original guess was not very far out. As a matter of fact it is probably a little on the optimistic side.
After all, Mr. Speaker, legislation which is designed to furnish more homes for the people of our country should have some realistic relationship to the wages earned by the people who will require these homes, and to the prospect of their being able to avail themselves of the opportunities offered by the bill.
It seems to me there are two or three things which might well be considered very seriously

in drawing up the regulations. One is the point I mentioned a few moments ago, namely, that some of these people are even now paying much more in rent than is recognized as a reasonable amount in terms of the 23 per cent limitation. Why is that? One reason is that they cannot find places in which to live without paying a great deal more than they should; another reason is, as the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) said the other day, that two, three and four members of a family are all contributing towards the cost of their housing accommodation, whatever it may be. In the case of young married couples, very often both husband and wife are working. In the case of those who have borne a family there are probably two or three children who have now reached the age where they are employed themselves. These young people within families also contribute towards the housing accommodation which they occupy, whether it be on a rental basis or whether they are attempting to buy their own home.
I submit it is only reasonable that the circumstances under which these people live should be taken into consideration. If a wage earner is in the $3,000 category, and if his wife and/or his children are supplementing the family income, then the gross amount of their earnings should be taken into consideration, particularly if these persons will agree to assume some responsibility in the matter of making payments. I can cite several cases from my own experience in which young people not yet married, and living at home, are helping their parents to liquidate the mortgage on the home. These same parents could not possibly have hoped to carry the load of home ownership without the help of their children. In turn, when these young people set up their own homes, I know they can reasonably expect to receive assistance from their parents who will still be in the earning class.
The difference between a ratio limitation of 23, 24, 25 and 26 per cent is very marked and it raises the question of the basis on which such limitations should be set. Who thought up the 23 per cent limitation in the first place? Why is it we should say 23 per cent is the proper figure upon which to base the calculation? I suppose we can all think back to the days of our youth when our parents told us we could afford to pay one week's salary for rent per month. That was the proper rent per month we could afford to pay for housing accommodation. But those days have gone. There are very few people today who are able to find living accommodation for one week's salary; and the few who
National Housing Act
do, I venture to say, are people who were probably fortunate enough to have purchased homes many years ago when they were not as expensive as they are today. They have paid off a large portion of their mortgage, and throughout the years, when they were paying off that mortgage, they probably did not have to pay 23 per cent; otherwise they could not have established themselves. Very few now are able to live in comfortable surroundings on one week's wages per month. However, as conditions change people adjust themselves to these changed conditions. They supplement their income in other ways. They cut their coat according to the cloth.
The actual difference between 23 and 24 per cent, say, at the $10,000 level is $160 in salary requirements. When you go up to the 25 per cent limitation you benefit by another $140, and when you go up to the 26 per cent you benefit by another $135. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if it should be said that instead of the 23 per cent limitation a proper limitation was 26 per cent, you would have the advantage of about $440, which would make quite a difference in the matter of eligibility in loans under the bill.
I hope the minister will take all these things into consideration when the regulations are drawn up, because I believe very firmly that the workability of this bill when it becomes an act, and the availability of funds for housing, will depend largely upon the requirements which are written into it. I would seriously urge the minister not to block off a large majority of the wage earners of Canada from participating in a scheme which is sorely needed in order to provide homes for our people.


Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of respect that I rise to make my contribution to the debate we have had and are having in regard to the new National Housing Act. I feel the act is a forward step in a field where the federal government is eminently suited to act, that is in the field of finance as applied to housing.
The debate has featured some criticism of the bill. We have been told that the down payments remain too high; that the monthly payments will be too high; that the proposed mortgage and salary requirements will be too high; and that even the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation standards are too high for those who wish to qualify under the bill.
With regard to these criticisms I feel and respectfully submit that certain considerations have been overlooked. First of all,

National Housing Act
all of the criticisms I have outlined basically provide for the protection of the home buyer. As to the monthly payment, based presumably on a 23 per cent ratio of the buyer's salary, it has been found, in the light of experience, and not only by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but by all other service organizations which have occasion to study the problem, such as the social workers and so forth, that a person should not spend more than a certain proportion-23 per cent to 25 per cent-of his income on housing. This is done to protect the buyer. I have often explained this in great detail to clients whom I have faced across my desk. There is no sense of their going into that project unless there is some hope of their carrying it through. Otherwise they will lose their equity or down payment, everything they had put into the house as they proceed with the purchase of it.
It has been said by the opposition that we have no right to assume how a person will spend his money. Obviously we have no such right, but we must, of course, work on the basis of averages and we are entitled to do so in this act. I will deal with the salary requirement a little bit later.
The second point I want to make is this. There has been an assumption that the old National Housing Act, as I suppose I can now call it, has been an abject failure. Nothing could be more wrong. We should look at the operation of the old act, because the new act is obviously an attempt to extend and to better the benefits of the old act. We should look at the old act to see how it worked.
In my riding of York-Scarborough, which is part of the Toronto suburban area-I only mention it to provide an example, and it is an area which is, as the hon. member for York-Humber so aptly described it, a pulsating, growing, suburban part of Toronto- we have had an increase in population over the last year of some 18,000 people in one small area alone. Eighty per cent of the 18,000 are people who are purchasing their own homes. Of those purchasing, the vast majority have purchased homes that have been built under the National Housing Act. The National Housing Act, as it now stands, has indeed been doing a tremendous service to the home buyers of Canada and we have no right to assume that it was a failure. We have every right to expect that the extension and the betterment of the act that is contemplated will be a further boon to

the prospective home buyers. Let me give a concrete example of what can happen under this act.
I act for a builder who builds in my riding. Recently, by which I mean in the late fall of 1953, he was able to produce a home which would sell for $10,050-it was a very nice masonry home-with a down payment of $2,050 and the balance of $8,000 under a National Housing Act loan. He advertised it one evening in the Toronto Daily Star. That was on a Friday. By Monday 33 houses were sold, and we had a waiting list as long as your arm for anybody who might cancel his order. That is what happened in one day or over one week end; 33 houses sold and people clamouring to purchase more.
I dare say that if, under the new act, that builder was able to produce a home for $9,000, to sell with a down payment of $2,000 and with a $7,000 National Housing Act mortgage, the prospective home buyers in the Toronto metropolitan area, of whom there are many thousands, would literally beat a path to the builder's door. I am not at all pessimistic as to the effect of the new act. There we could use a $7,000 National Housing Act loan, where the salary requirement would not be $3,860 a year but somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3,000 a year. We have no right to assume that the minimum loan under the act will be $8,000. That is not true at all. I feel that builders will have the ability to build houses to sell for less than $10,000 under the aegis of the new act, if two conditions are fulfilled. One of those conditions is, of course, that we must have a free flow of mortgage money. The second is that there must be available serviced land on which the builder can build.
As to the free flow of mortgage money, may I say this. Housing is not merely a question of putting roofs over floors, walls and cellars. It involves a complicated process of co-ordinating the efforts of the lending institutions, the banks, the municipal governments and the provincial governments to produce, in the end, and to maintain the structure in which the buyer will live. With a free flow of mortgage money the builder, instead of having to build houses in dribs and drabs of 23 or 33 at a time, will be able to plan ahead. If he can rely on a continuous and assured flow of money, naturally his planning will be more broad; he can work on a larger scale; his costs will be reduced and his efficiency will be increased. As I say, I have no doubt that, under such conditions, a builder will be able to build good houses-even in the Toronto area where we

have costs which are probably as high as if not higher than those anywhere else in Canada-for at least $9,000. I feci that the banks can, must and will take advantage of the new legislation so that the builder will be assured of a continuous and free flow of mortgage money. Let us hope that will be the case.
What about the question of serviced land? I feel that here we have a much bigger problem. By services I mean of course the provision of roads, water, .sewers, hydro, police and fire protection and, of course, that most costly of all services, namely schools. In a subdivision of about 200 or 300 homes you need a school that costs well-nigh half a million dollars. It is an extremely expensive proposition indeed.
How is the supply of serviced land controlled and regulated? In Ontario we have what is known as a planning act. Under the planning act a municipality has the power to declare an area to be an urban development area. If it does so, land that is affected by that declaration cannot then be subdivided until a plan of subdivision is registered against the title. The plan is drawn up and is submitted to the Ontario municipal board, which sends it out to about 13 different agencies for their approval. Then, if it is approved, it is sent to the municipality concerned and the municipality must, of course, also approve the plan. This is the procedure which the subdivider and/or the builder must carry out if he is to register his plan and commence building on the property.
What happens to that plan? I am afraid I have a particular interest in the Toronto area, and that is why I speak of it; but I think what I am saying applies generally throughout the country. The plans are presented to the municipal board and they are turned down not because it is bad planning or even unreasonable planning, or even that they do not want an area to develop in a certain direction. They are turned down because the cost of the services will raise the municipal debt to such a point that there will be too great a difference between the possible assessment on the houses and the debt itself. In other words, it is wholly a problem of municipal finance.
If we are to have sufficient serviced land on which builders may construct homes and take advantage of any free flow of mortgage money that may possibly be created by this legislation, then there has to be a frontal attack on the whole sphere of municipal finance by the provincial governments. They must try to provide a more equitable distribution of municipal taxes with respect to the
National Housing Act
provision of schools, roads, and hydro, water and other required services. Otherwise our whole effort in endeavouring to put this legislation into effect may go for nothing. With this bill we are endeavouring to set the play in motion. We are commencing an attack on the so-called housing problem. Let us hope that the other agencies involved, banks, provincial governments and municipalities, will not flinch and falter when it comes to their turn to carry the ball.


Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate, largely because I did not think I had any particular qualifications which would enable me to make a useful contribution. However, this does not necessarily seem to be a deterrent. As the debate progressed, it became more and more evident that the bill was unlikely to achieve the professed purpose, namely, to provide houses for the low income groups of our population. It is interesting to review the suggestions of the various parties in the house on this question. The government group quite obviously regards this legislation as the summum bonum, the acme of perfection, the apple of its eye.
I am not quite certain as to what the mechanics of legislation in this parliament are, but I suspect that the minister and his administrative assistants were probably the architects of the bill. It is probable that they then referred it to the cabinet for approval, and when approval was obtained the bill was drafted. It is to me extraordinary that there could be such unanimity of opinion about this bill among members opposite unless, of course, they had the advantage of a preview and the bill actually represents a consensus. However, I am extremely doubtful that this is the case, and I would suggest that if it is not the case this is surely a travesty of the democratic process.
With respect to our friends on the left, as might be expected they have come forward with their usual facile solution that the taxpayer should provide. They neglect to tell us, however, that the taxpayer is not only corporations, which of course are fair game, but the payer of the sales and excise taxes- in short, everybody. As a matter of fact I am astonished at the moderation of these gentlemen. When they suggested that the government lend money at 2 per cent, which incidentally is approximately half the rate the government would have to pay for it, they might just as easily have suggested that the taxpayer should provide the money completely free of interest. While they are about it, why not also suggest that principal payments be forgotten?

National Housing Act


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: Why do you not
suggest a practical plan?


Owen C. Trainor: All right, I will. Give me a chance.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: It will be good.


Mr. Lennard:: You have been here long enough not to get so hot under the collar.


Charles Edward Johnston: I never do.


Owen C. Trainor: Turning to the gentlemen farther left, they of course have their customary solution for everything. Why not print new money to build new houses?


Charles Edward Johnston: What do you
think the bill is doing?


Ernest George Hansell: Who said that?


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: That is exactly what the bill is doing.


Owen C. Trainor: I do not believe it is, quite.
It has not gone quite that far yet.


Mr. Rowe:: Paper houses.


Owen C. Trainor: This is a beautifully simple
solution, of course, but it has the natural objection that maybe those who are supplying the houses, both labour and material suppliers, would not be willing to accept payment in this type of depreciated currency. Incidentally, this sort of thing has been tried before. It is not new. If the hon. gentlemen are interested in a souvenir collection, I think they can still pick up for about a nickel a million marks in the legal tender of Germany of the 1920's. That shows what happens when you start to do this sort of thing.


Mr. Wylie:: You are being silly.


Owen C. Trainor: If we concede that the bill
will not meet the objectives for which it was designed, and the debate makes this self-evident, then I suggest it is incumbent on the house to seek alterations which give promise of achieving the objectives. In the first place, I think the validity of the fundamental concept of the bill should be examined. It assumes that individual home ownership is almost a sine qua non. I would dispute this basic assumption. How many families in urban localities have grown up and made their contribution to society in homes that they themselves did not own? It will be found that hundreds of thousands of the very best that this country has produced lived and lived well in rented premises.
I think that the emphasis in the bill should perhaps be shifted from home ownership to low rental housing. Mind you, I have no objection to the principle of home ownership. I would not favour altering the bill in any
rMr. Trainor.]
respect with regard to this principle. The bill provides for home ownership for certain groups of people. There is nothing wrong with individual ownership except that it is designed for those who wish it and, more particularly, for those who can afford it.
We shall have to concede that normal investment funds are not available for low rental housing largely because the return is too low and the conditions too uncertain to attract investment capital. Therefore I submit it is necessary to seek another agency. In this regard I should like to suggest to the minister that business and industry have the necessary social consciousness and sense of social responsibility to assume the burden of providing suitable housing for their own employees at a price they can afford to pay, provided, however, that this is not added to their operating expenses and consequently reflected in the price structure.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is definitely in the interests of industry and business, because obviously the welfare of their employees must be of interest to them. The bill provides also, in a limited way, for this sort of participation by industry by specifying the industries of mining, lumbering, logging and so forth. Why not enlarge this provision to embrace all industry? There would be no particular objection that I can see to doing this. As a matter of fact, it would be a great social experiment.
I can envisage, Mr. Speaker, the emergence of a new social pattern wherein industry and business would gladly assume the responsibility for providing decent housing for its own employees. Such a development would unquestionably be in the best interests of business, and being based on self-interest it would be guaranteed a successful operation. I would suggest that these funds be lent to industry by the corporation when, in the judgment of the corporation, it is evident that the applicant possesses the financial stability to insure the servicing of the loan over a considerable period of time, and of course with adequate safeguards as to the rate of rental and so on.
I should say that this suggestion is entirely my own. I assume full responsibility for it, although I believe it is in accordance with the political principles of the official opposition. I offer it to the minister free and without expectation of any credit, because I believe I see in it the germ of a new social experiment which would provide decent homes for thousands of our people which this bill, in its present form, does not provide. (Translation):


Mr. Leopold Demers (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the population of the county

which it is my privilege and responsibility to represent in this house, I readily support the bill now before us, the principle of which is merely in accord with the constant desire of the government to create for the Canadian people an atmosphere of security and welfare.
The administration of public affairs is a very intricate matter. However, in studying this matter more thoroughly and more objectively one notes that the things that seemed obscure, even mysterious, become clearer and more definite. Accordingly, a government conscious of its responsibilities and anxious to provide a sound administration for the people must take into account a certain number of factors which may be summarized as follows:
1.	To place upon our statute books laws which meet the highest aspirations of the people, from the moral, national, international and economic points of view and to take the necessary measures to ensure that these laws will be strictly enforced.
2.	To show decency and judgment in the spending of public moneys.
In my opinion, those are the two great factors which a serious, honest and responsible administration should bear in mind. Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that the government to which I have the honour of belonging at the present time take those factors into account, even scrupulously, whenever they make an administrative decision. Besides, the confidence shown by the Canadian people on so many occasions, was so clear, definite and unequivocal, more particularly in 1949 and 1953, that I do not feel it is necessary to comment further on the matter.
The present leader of the government, whom all men of good will in our country, and throughout the world, take pleasure in recognizing as the principal initiator of the North Atlantic pact, a pact I would qualify as "the greatest co-operative movement for peace in the whole world", once said that, in order to fight more successfully the pernicious and subversive ideas prevalent throughout the world, it was necessary for every member nation to take steps, within its own territory, to ensure more security, welfare and prosperity for all classes of society. Well, Mr. Speaker, once the hon. members of this house and of the Senate have enacted this bill, there will be a new law on our statute books, a humanitarian, social and eminently helpful piece of legislation, because the people of our own country will thus have an additional weapon with which to fight the communist doctrine, sym-
National Housing Act
bolic of the worst degradation of the human mind, which I still call a hideous octopus trying to infiltrate into our hearts and minds its fiendish tentacles in an effort to annihilate the best asset we possess in this country: our religious convictions, our way of thinking, our way of life, and our democratic principles. Moreover, this piece of legislation will enable a great many families to house themselves properly, a great number of Canadians to become home owners. Thus, a deeper sense of private ownership will develop in the individual, and our community spirit will grow at the same time as our love for Canada.
It is for those few reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I wholeheartedly support the principle as well as the terms of the bill before us. In conclusion, I most sincerely congratulate the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) for having taken, in 1953, the necessary steps in order that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation might make direct loans in the constituency I represent. Since then, in my constituency, hundreds of houses have been built, large families have come in and have succeeded in finding adequate housing. Thanks to the minister's efforts, I have every reason to believe that during 1954 the constituency which I have the honour to represent will continue its expansion in the field of housing.
(Text):


Mr. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the house for long at this time, but I want to deal particularly with one point which I would ask the minister and the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to look into. What I have in mind is a problem which confronts particularly the smaller municipalities which, thus far, have not been dealt with adequately. That is my main purpose in rising.
Before coming to that, however, I should like to say that I support the points made by speakers in the official opposition who have dealt with this bill, and would express the hope that the arguments and considerations they have placed before the minister and the house would receive most thoroughgoing and careful consideration.
In that connection it occurred to me that the fresh viewpoint put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor) was one that arrested attention and is deserving of serious study. As I understood him, the hon. member did not question the

National Housing Act
desirability of home ownership but said he felt that not all people in Canada wanted to own their homes. He pointed out that there is a considerable group whose needs would be met quite adequately by rental housing- in fact whose needs would be met better by the provision of rental accommodation than by the provision of accommodation available only on a purchase basis.
Then, if I understood him correctly, he went on to say that he felt perhaps there was not sufficient emphasis being placed on the provision of rental accommodation, and that attention was being directed almost exclusively to the provision of accommodation for purposes of purchase and ownership. He suggested that it behooved us to devote a great deal more attention to the problems of those whose particular requirements would best be met by rental accommodation.
If I understood correctly what he said in that regard, then I support fully his point of view. I liked, too, his suggestion that, inasmuch as the returns now available from money invested in this type of accommodation were not sufficiently attractive to produce large amounts of private money for that purpose, the role of government and of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as well as of the act, should be paramount in this field. He added that greater facilities are necessary along these lines.
I was particularly struck by his suggestion that in this field industry and business should be invited to participate, on the basis that they have a common interest and a common duty, along with the rest of the community and with the government, to see that adequate housing accommodation is furnished for those people who find employment in business and industry. I understood his suggestion to be that we might make funds available under the terms of the National Housing Act for the construction of such rental housing projects in which arrangements industry and business would participate. They would organize and take some administrative responsibility under the plan, thus making it possible to have low rental housing accommodation available for their employees. I do feel it is a matter in which business and industry should and would be willing to accept their fair share of responsibility provided, as the hon. member said-and 1 agree -that the cost of that program is not added to the overhead of business, thus increasing the prices of their products.
I think it would be possible to find ways under the rental accommodation provisions of the National Housing Act to work out such a program, in which the co-operation of

business and industry would be invited. I support fully the hon. member's suggestion that the minister and his officials should study the problem from that point of view, to find if a program along those lines could be worked out and put into effect. The hon. member, who is a new member in the house, deserves great credit for having put forward in this, his first session, this concrete suggestion, and one which, in all its implications, is fresh. What he has said should be considered as at least a partial solution of the tremendous problem of providing housing accommodation that now confronts this nation.
There can be no doubt that the problem of providing housing is one of the most serious confronting us. I need not rehearse all that has been said in that regard. I think more particularly, as I suppose all hon. members do, of the situation in my own constituency where even at this time families are living in accommodation which was provided for other purposes, and eight or nine years ago taken over on an emergency basis. After the war people were placed in that accommodation on the assumption that it would be used only as emergency shelter. They are still there, and living under conditions which are simply not good enough for Canadian people in these days.
I am not going to go into detail. I am sure many hon. members have in their constituencies so-called emergency shelter accommodation, consisting of-well, almost tarpaper shacks-temporary huts, erected on airports or adjacent to airports or army camps. This was never intended to be used as permanent dwelling accommodation. In it there are only plywood partitions to separate one end of the building from the other and to afford some measure of privacy for the occupants. Well, those of us who served as members of the armed forces during the war lived in some of those huts with plywood partitions, and we know exactly how much privacy there can be behind a plywood wall.
When one thinks of families having to dwell under those conditions, having to share bathroom facilities designed for occupancy by a group of men, such as would be found in army barracks, and realizes that this kind of accommodation is now being shared by women and children as well, one must conclude that it just is not decent in a country having the material prosperity and the potential living standards of ours.
That is what I have in mind when I say that there is no more important problem facing the country today than the necessity of

the provision of decent housing accommodation. That necessity is just as acute in the smaller centres as it is in the larger ones. I suppose it is natural that the needs of the big cities in this respect should be more emphasized in a discussion of this sort, because there are more people living in the big cities than in the smaller towns. But I am quite sure there is not a single member here from a rural area, and I doubt whether there is a member here from the cities, who would not agree with me when I say that in proportion to our population the need of housing accommodation is just as acute in the smaller centres as it is in the large ones.
I come from a riding in which there is no large city. Our biggest city, with its neighbouring municipality of North Kamloops and the immediately surrounding areas, has a population of probably 12,000 to 14,000 people. That is the biggest centre in my riding. The others are towns and villages of from about 600 to 3,000 people, and the rest of it is entirely rural. But in those smaller centres the need of accommodation is just as acute as it is in the larger centres in proportion to the population ratios that prevail between the two.
There has been brought to my attention the fact that, particularly in the smaller towns and villages, the facilities of the National Housing Act, as it stands at the present time, are not as fully available as they are in the larger centres of population. I suppose that would be natural if one considered only the facilities for inspection and the speedy arrangement of loans and so on. One could perhaps be reconciled to expecting that the processing of an application for a loan from a smaller centre would take longer than it would in a large centre where inspection and processing facilities are all immediately available. But it is not from that point of view that the criticism is directed. I am informed that in some of those smaller centres the down payment is substantially greater than what is required in the larger centres. I have figures given me from the village of Williams Lake, which is one of the typical centres of population in my riding. May I put it this way. A gentleman made a thorough study of what arrangements could be made to obtain building loans under the National Housing Act, and was informed that the minimum down payment required would be 30 per cent, not the 20 per cent which is available under the present act to those in larger centres. I am also informed that at the time this study was made 17 people indicated that they were prepared to
National Housing Act
take loans and go ahead under the National Housing Act, but when they were informed the down payment required would be 30 per cent not one of them went ahead with his application.
I understand the reason given as to why a higher down payment was required was that there was no industry located in the town in question. Well, of course, on that point I would most certainly take strong objection to that being used as a reason for requiring a higher down payment in a smaller centre. I would say that the difference in security, the risk, both moral and physical, as between property in big towns or cities and small towns, from that point of view, is so negligible that it does not form the basis of a difference in down payment of 10 per cent. In fact I would say that the moral risk is somewhat better in smaller communities than in larger ones. Certainly it is just as good, and in a good many respects the personal security involved is more satisfactory because there is not such a change in population in smaller centres, or shifts of population, as there are in the larger centres. As far as the application of any such argument to the actual village in question-Williams Lake-is concerned, I would point out that it is a very substantial distribution point, serving a large area, and that although it is true there are no heavy industries, no manufacturing industries in that area, with the exception of saw mills, its standard of income compares favourably to what it would be if the whole population were dependent upon industry itself.
I am further told, Mr. Speaker, that even the 30 per cent down payment was not quite all that these people would be expected to put up. In fact it was indicated that the home builder there would have to put down 40 per cent of the total cost, and that the nigger in the woodpile was the provision that the down payment was a minimum one, and that apparently there is some discretion to the corporation to increase that down payment in cases where it considers it necessary.
I am not familiar with all the details of the regulations and the application of the legislation, but I am putting this forward as a statement made to me by responsible people of this place after what I am satisfied was a thorough investigation. I do not know the reasons why the conditions that they report to me should exist, but I am putting it before the minister as a condition which is most serious from the point of view of smaller centres, and which places them at a
15S0

National Housing Act
very grave disadvantage in comparison with larger centres in obtaining loans under the National Housing Act.
As I said, I am quite certain that no one living in a smaller centre, and being a reasonable person, would expect them to be equal in all respects; and the difficulties of administering it in smaller centres might create some obstacles, and would be expected to make it slightly more difficult for them to obtain the same treatment as they do in larger centres. But this tremendous disparity is not justified and, I am quite certain, not necessary. Therefore I would ask the minister to take a look at the matter himself and to have the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation take a look at the situation, because I am quite certain that it is not necessary that such discrepancy should continue. I would also ask him to take a look at the situation with regard to the inspection facilities and other facilities which it is intended to provide to smaller centres in dealing with such applications for loans as may be approved.
The minister has implied that 4,000 branches of the chartered banks of Canada may well become lending offices under the new National Housing Act, in which case of course there would be a lending office in every community where there is a branch of a bank, so that even although in the past the lending companies, which have been confined pretty well to the life insurance companies, have not made loans in smaller centres because they have not had offices there and no inspection facilities there, I suppose it might well be that if in fact the branch banks are authorized to make loans for housing purposes there will be a lending office right there. I rather doubt-and here I agree with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming)- whether, particularly in its initial stages at any rate, the banks will authorize every one of their branches to be a lending office and to approve and process loans right there. Therefore, it seems to me, there will still be a very real need for providing adequate inspecting, lending and negotiating facilities for these smaller communities, and I would ask the minister to bear that problem in mind and, by changing the regulations under this act, or by amending the legislation itself in this connection, to eliminate this difference in the down payment required, so that, so far as is possible, reasonable, and consistent, smaller communities are placed in no less advantageous a position than big communities in getting loans for house building under the National Housing Act.


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened for quite a long time to this

debate and there are a few remarks I should like to make though I do not wish to take up very much time of the house.
I would like to remind hon. members that this housing situation over a period of approximately twenty years has gradually been shifted from the place where the legislative jurisdiction lies to the place where there is no legislative jurisdiction. The proper place for housing and exclusive legislative jurisdiction is in the province; it always has been and always will be, I presume. But gradually, because of a state of national housing emergency, the federal government has stepped into a field which is not properly its own, but which it was forced to step into because of national needs.
Housing has gradually become in the public mind synonymous with Ottawa. I might just remind hon. members that all we can do to assist in housing is to give financial assistance. We have no legislative jurisdiction over land, property or civil rights. If we had jurisdiction over property, particularly land, we would be in a very different position in regard to the former section 35 of the act relating to land assembly. Unfortunately, in my own province of Ontario the provincial government, which has that legislative jurisdiction, has taken very little interest in the problem of land assembly. I bring that up because today everyone we talk to about housing feels that this is our job, that it is Ottawa's job and the job of the federal government. I suppose we must admit that in a sense it is our job because we have taken the responsibility and have done the work.
Our expanding economy and expanding population can, I think, be compared somewhat to a small or a new company. When a new company is formed in a period of expansion it always finds itself undercapitalized. That is our situation today in Canada. We are a new nation expanding very rapidly and to an extent at least we are undercapitalized. There is really not quite enough money to go around and do all the things we are trying to do in this country and we have to make some arrangement whereby certain amounts will flow into certain fields for certain purposes and other amounts will flow into other fields.
It has become quite obvious in the last few years that in so far as housing is concerned we do not have enough money available. There was not sufficient money available for the borrowing public to build sufficient houses, though that of course is the

National Housing Act
purpose of this new act which is being intro- The only other way to make money avail-duced at the present time and which in itself able in Canada is by additional taxation and is merely a compilation of the old with I do not believe the public want to pay any certain new provisions added.	more taxes.
It is to be hoped that by allowing the banks to enter this field under the particular circumstances designated in the bill more money will become available. It is quite obvious from the act that 25 per cent less loans will be available from the former lending institutions and it is hoped to more than make that up by loans from the money made available by the banks.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Twenty-five per cent more per mortgage.


John William Gordon Hunter: Yes, which obviously means 25 per cent less loans from the former lending institutions.
Extending the terms of repayment reduces the down payment to some extent. The question as to what is the proper percentage for down payment will never be satisfactorily answered because there are very different views on that point. There always have been and probably always will be though I think views will change when the lending institutions realize that this country is able to produce a stability of economy and can keep away from these former depressions which we suffered in the past, or at least we are all hoping we can keep away from them. That in turn is bound to be of some psychological significance to the lender over a period of years. At the present time the lending institutions or the lenders still remember that we had a bad depression, and they still remember that during that depression values dropped drastically, and that unless a person had a sizeable stake in a house or a sizeable investment in his home he was very liable to say: "I have lost my investment and I will just clear out". That is what happened in many cases during the depression.
If it be true that by the expansion and contraction of credits and by maintaining our exports we are able to produce a stable economy, then it is quite obvious that this is going to have a psychological effect on lenders generally over a period of years and they may then be willing to take smaller down payments.
Many people today say that they should be able to obtain loans on much smaller down payments, say of $1,000. That may be their view, and maybe it is correct, but the point is that the people who are lending the money are not lending their own money but that of policyholders and depositors and they have to take a fairly conservative point of view.
I have heard a number of speeches in which hon. members have estimated the housing shortage in this country. But again I would' remind hon. members, as I did last year, that these estimates are very difficult to arrive at with any accuracy. The only possible estimate is on the act as it stands at the present time. Under the law under which we are operating at the present time, what is the measuring rod by which we estimate how many real purchasers we have in this country? How many people are really in a position to buy a house under the present law? As the law is changed you may find more people in a position to buy houses, but it is quite obvious that the only possible estimate that can be considered accurate is how many people under the present situation and under the present law are in a position to go out and buy a house, and how many of them are going to buy houses. Many people might like to buy a house but they are not in a position to pay for it and therefore they cannot be considered' under the head of housing shortage. They must be in a position to pay for a house and wish to buy. In regard to these estimates I have the gravest suspicion because I know how difficult it would be to get information which would be really accurate on the subject.
The question of the interest rate is something with which, I suppose, people will never be really satisfied. It is quite clear that unless you make the rate of interest reasonably attractive the lenders are not going to make loans. They will simply put their money into another field where the rate of interest is sufficiently attractive. The only way around that is to start subsidizing the lenders and as soon as you start that you are running into the question of discrimination, because those who are going to get the benefit of these loans will in effect be subsidized by taxpayers' money and obtaining a favour which has not been available to those who already are buying their own homes and are paying on an economic basis. I think that such action would' cause deep resentment throughout the country and I for one would not want to see it because it would cost the taxpayers a very large sum of money. You cannot manufacture a lower rate of interest. Somebody has to pay for it. As money becomes cheap the rate of interest will go down but that will depend on whether money ever does become cheap.

National Housing Act
Another thing I was interested in was the accusation that in this bill there was a centralization of power. I think that statement has some merit. Certainly there is a centralization of power. I do not see how you can have it otherwise. It is quite true that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are going to have the task of administering the bill and working with the bank and they are going to have to pass judgment on the loans made by the bank, because the lender is simply going to send the application over to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for its report and valuation, and' if it is accepted and the report is favourable and the borrower wishes to go ahead that would be the final valuation. The lending value would be apparent, and the administration will go on through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
So in that sense there is no question about it that there is a concentration of administration there. The whole question is this. What alternative would you have? If we are going to get the banks into this thing, it is quite clear at this point that they are not in a position to enter into the mortgage business and to establish mortgage departments on their own. Good mortgage men are extremely scarce. The banks have not had sufficient experience to enter into that field. If we forced them to do the administration of this business, we would be in the position, I am afraid, where we would get very few loans for a long time from the banks. Therefore the 'only logical way of doing it was to let Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation do this administrative work. That could be the subject of some criticism.
I think the main thing we have to bear in mind and which I think the officers of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will have to bear in mind-as I know they are bearing it in mind-is the efficiency of their administration. If these loans in any way get bogged down with red tape, it is going to be a source of irritation to the borrowing public, or the people seeking housing, and a tremendous source of irritation to the builders; and the builders are, generally speaking, the people who produce most of the housing. Builders have a tendency to dislike anything like Central Mortgage anyway, because Central Mortgage has a number of regulations which are made in an effort to produce good housing. No builder wants to be curtailed any more than is necessary. He naturally wants to get into the field, build as many houses 'as he can and sell them as quickly as he can for as much profit as possible. Any interference


by Central Mortgage would naturally be resented by the builder because it might possibly diminish his profit and it might cause him to do a great many things which he might not otherwise do. But that cannot be helped. In our free enterprise, we like to keep it free but it cannot be so free that we are not getting good houses.
I think that Central Mortgage is a highly necessary organization. I think it is run efficiently. I think that is true to date and we hope it will be so in the future. If Central Mortgage is able to provide efficiency of administration for these new loans, I think we are going to see a development in the lending field such as we hardly even expect at this time. I think we will see a tremendous amount of lending for housing. I am hoping indeed that we can meet the needs of the public of this country to a much greater degree. I think that this act is a splendid step forward. It is progressive. It is going to do a task that is highly necessary. Possibly it should have come a little bit earlier. Who is to say? It is difficult to do this sort of thing because you cannot, just overnight, order people to lend money. You have to get them to agree to it. You have to have their co-operation. Until you have their co-operation, you are not able just suddenly to put something on the statute books and say, "This is the way it will go". Until you have had preliminary discussions with the banks and the lending institutions generally and have worked out some system which is agreeable to them, and which they will accept-it may not be the final system and it may not be the best system in the end but it is the one that you can put into force at the present time-you are not in a position to enter into a new field of legislation.
These agreements have been worked out. The new legislation has been introduced. I think it will do an excellent job. I do not think it is the end of this thing. I think as public opinion veers and varies, and as the lending institutions realize what is happening in this field, we shall find coming along amendments which in time may produce more and better housing yet. But under the present set-up and under the present psychology of the lending public, I think this act is a magnificent step forward. I must say that to the minister and to the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation I extend my sincere and genuine congratulations.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part briefly in this discussion, I do so partly out of surprise that

the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) should have been swept away by the vision of this new social experiment that was proposed a short time ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor). I can understand someone coming from a place like Winnipeg not having heard of or not knowing much about the company-town idea. But I must confess that I find it hard to understand why a native son of the province of British Columbia should allow himself to be moved by any such suggestion today. Obviously the hon. member for Winnipeg South cannot have had, as some of us have, much experience of the company-town idea as it existed in its heyday 30 or 40 years ago in British Columbia.
I happen to have had some experience of that idea, as have many other people in British Columbia. We consider that the sort of economic and social vassalage which that state of affairs brought about is something we should be moving away from. I for one would be prepared to oppose this idea most vigorously whenever-as runs the classical phrase-it rears its ugly head. I am surprised that it should exist even in the ranks of the modern Progressive Conservative party. I should like the hon. member to realize just what it means when people live in a place where their whole pay cheque goes back into the coffers of the company through their payment of rent for a company house and their payment to a company store for their groceries, food and clothes; the sort of pressure that can be brought to bear upon people to pay exorbitant prices for commodities; and the threats that have been made with regard to the security of jobs if the company facilities were not patronized 100 per cent. To put it quite frankly, I am surprised that it should be suggested that we should return to these things.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member knows very well that it was not suggested; but I do not suppose there is any use in asking him to realize that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Even if the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) is not aware 'of the fact, I would say that, by and large, in British Columbia the more enlightened industrial corporations of today are moving away from this idea of a company town.
I have given a little bit of study to the section of the act that was referred to, namely section 17 in part II, which reads as follows:
The corporation may, with the approval of the governor in council, make a loan to a borrower engaged in the mining, lumbering, logging or fishing industry, to assist in the construction of low or 83276-99J
National Housing Act
moderate-cost housing projects in areas or localities that are adjacent to or connected with the operations of the borrower.
I might be moved to agree that there might be some circumstances in which provisions such as those should be implemented. Without attempting to prolong this debate to any great extent, however, I should like to express my opinion that if the provisions of that section were reversed, the situation would be more in keeping with the best interests of the people of Canada today. In other words, I feel that the time has come when, through legislation-housing legislation, if necessary- those interests in this country to whom we entrust the right to develop our natural resources, those interests which accept the responsibility for raising the capital to develop those resources, should, along with that responsibility, accept some social responsibility with respect to providing the necessary housing and other community facilities. Those funds should be considered to be something to be used under a public trust, either by an incorporated community or by some other form of democratic organization. If the bill were to propose anything along these lines it would be more in keeping with the dignities and rights of Canadian citizens. That would be the case if it made such people as are referred to in this section responsible for providing funds to, shall we say, the housing corporation rather than the provision being the other way around as in the present act.
(Translation) :


Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of extending unduly this debate. However, I would not like to see it come to an end without making my modest contribution and expressing the views of the electors I have the honour to represent.
After hearing with much attention and interest the numerous arguments put forth on the subject, I have come to the conclusion that this bill will not bring any help to the humble worker or average wage earner. True, the down payment will be lowered, but the monthly payments on capital and interest will vary from $56 to $59 per month, depending whether the borrower plans to repay his loan in 25 or 30 years. When one knows that in the city of Quebec the average weekly earnings of the worker are under $50, one must come to the conclusion that the purpose of this legislation is not to help the worker, but rather those who earn $4,000 per year. That is to say that parliament is asking us to enact legislation aimed at improving the
1564	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
condition not of those who could profit by it, but rather of those who do not need such legislation.
There can be no question that there still exists a housing shortage in Canada. Our cities are still covered with slums which are a constant menace to public health. We must evidently find a fair and logical way of remedying the problem.
Although I am confident that the government wants to improve that alarming condition, I am compelled to state that this bill will not fulfil the aim for which it was introduced.
I know of no average wage earners like those living in my constituency, who will be in a position to benefit from this legislation and become home owners. It is not only a matter of being financially able to make the down payment and repay the capital and interest; in addition, the home owner will have to heat his house, pay municipal taxes, look after the maintenance of his property and provide for repairs that will have to be made sooner or later.
Large families living in slum conditions had hoped that the government might decide to legislate in order to enable them to move into more suitable dwellings.
They had also hoped to be able to live as true human beings. Their revenue is small, even though what they accomplish by their toil is essential to the economic prosperity of their country. They do their share generously in that field and they should be entitled to receive from the government a little more consideration, if not more decent treatment.
In this twentieth century, in a country like ours, endowed with all kinds of resources, I cannot understand this increase in slums, where large families are forced to live in cramped quarters. I know what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, because those shacks made of scraps of sheet metal and wood where people are forced to live are all too numerous in my constituency. And, during our severe Canadian winters, passing by those dreary places, I often say to myself: How these poor people must shiver with cold and suffer in their souls in these miserable quarters which people in more fortunate circumstances would not even wish to have as a kennel for their favourite dog!
In my humble opinion the legislation, in its present form, is nothing less than a gigantic farce perpetrated upon the working class. Everybody seems to agree when it comes to speaking out against communism, or loathing
[Mr. Dufresne.l

this pernicious philosophy but, unconsciously perhaps, we legislate in such a way as to support its propaganda.
Now that I have the opportunity, I hope I may, in a few minutes-I will only be three or four minutes and I hope the hon. members will not object-


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I wish, then, to offer with regard to this bill a few suggestions which, to my mind, would be such as to correct this serious situation.
I am in favour of the immediate establishment of federal grants for building materials, in the proportion of 90 per cent. Let there be no misunderstanding in this regard: these grants would necessarily be converted into mortgages.
Middle class people having but a small amount to pay for their materials would then be in a position to carry out the building of their house with the co-operation of relatives and friends.
In the suburbs of Quebec, several workers have already taken advantage of this suggestion, so that they have been able to build themselves, for about $8,000, a most adequate duplex from which they will be able to earn fairly substantial revenue. In this way, with a lot acquired through their own sacrifices and about $1,000 down payment, a large number of workers will be able to become happy home owners, without having to assume an indebtedness of $10,000 which they would not be in a position to clear before 25 or 30 years.
Why not also provide in the act some measure of help for those who, at the present time, are bearing the burden of a heavy debt because they wanted to have a house of their own?
Would it not be possible, under this legislation, to have the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation take over certain mortgages already existing with several insurance companies or lending institutions and which have to be repaid within 10 or 15 years? Let me give an example. Here is a workingman who has saved enough money for a down payment on a house and for the land on which to build that house. However, he had to borrow $8,500 from an insurance company, and he has to repay that loan over a period of ten years. The insurance people have made him buy from them an insurance policy as security for the mortgage to the amount of $5,000, and the borrower must pay each month a $12 premium. This worker is

then obliged to make monthly payments of about $107. To this must be added municipal taxes amounting to $450 per year, $200 for heating and the upkeep of the said property.
How can anyone expect that this worker will not get discouraged or that he would not be in danger, in case of illness or unemployment, of losing the savings which have cost him so much work and such heavy sacrifices.
I hope that the government whose responsibility it is to legislate for the people will consent to make, in the bill we are now asked to approve, the changes that are required if the government really cares to help those who are in need of such help. If we do this, we will then have found, as I have already said, one of the most efficient means of fighting the subversive ideas which are much too often bred in the slums and the distressed homes I mentioned earlier.
Democracy should not be an empty word nor a matter for propaganda in parliament. It must really exist. Let us legislate for the people if we want our people to have, towards our parliamentary institutions, the respect they deserve.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I must explain that earlier the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) had asked the house for permission to carry on after six o'clock. Since there was no objection, he was doing so with unanimous consent.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first chance I have had to discuss housing since the minister has become responsible for this important branch of government. While I plan on making some critical remarks regarding the proposal before the house, I should like to say that members of this group will be supporting the measure, because it will provide some housing. It will be better than no legislation at all. But I really do not think it is good enough for Canada in this day and generation.
I would like to express my sympathy to the minister. I feel that, being well qualified as he is in engineering, and with his vision
National Housing Act
for the future, his colleagues in the cabinet are taking advantage of his youth and his good nature by having him sponsor a bill of this type.
When one considers the performance by Canada during the war years alongside our record in housing since the war, I think he cannot be satisfied. It is just ten years ago since the well-known Curtis report was presented. That was on March 24, 1944. I think it would be well for us to remember something of the plans for the brave new world that was to dawn as soon as the war was over.
This committee summarized its findings by pointing out the following:
Canada has lagged behind the example of European countries, of Great Britain and the United States in providing greater governmental assistance for housing as a matter of welfare and public concern. These substantial reasons put housing into the forefront of domestic post-war plans. The subcommittee believes that the provision for housing will have to include home ownership, home improvement, slum clearance, low rental projects and rural and farm housing.
And later on it says:
It seems indicated that special attention in the advance preparation of plans should be given to low rental housing and farm housing, in which this country has had little or no experience to date; and also that home and farm improvement should be made ready the most urgently in advance, because of its immediate applicability to the first period of demobilization . . . The committee places in the forefront of all housing projects the matter of town and community planning. Town planning is essentially the matter of using land in its most efficient and socially desirable way. Many people regard town planning as a matter of parkways, arterial roads, and similar measures. But town planning should mean the utilization of all land in terms of long-range and carefully considered objectives. Obviously, this process must extend beyond the more or less arbitrary boundaries of our present cities and unite with organized rural planning wherever appropriate. The institution of at least the essentials of town planning is both preliminary and basic to housing developments. The committee, therefore, regards it as a step which must be taken at the earliest possible moment in preparation for post-war housing projects;-
And so on. The two points stressed by the committee as requiring top priority were low rental subsidized housing and rural housing. Some of my colleagues in this party have discussed the question of low rental subsidized housing, and I do not propose to go over the ground that they have covered sa well. But I do wish to say that it has been a well-established principle in all countries that the community pays a very high price for maintaining run-down slum areas in our large cities. It has been a false economy for Canada through many years to fail to deal with this question.
I know we have made a start. But, again, when we compare the performance of this

National Housing Act
country during the war, when millions of our young people were in the services and when we were supplying munitions for our army as well as those of our allies, with the pitiful performance since the war in tearing down and burning these disgraceful slums found in every large centre of Canada, what we have done is not so impressive, and we cannot be satisfied with it.
I hope the minister sponsoring the bill will bring in legislation next year and every year to indicate that he is making some progress with the cabinet in getting that measure of support which would ensure that the federal government would lead the way, in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities, in the provision of low rental housing. This would be subsidized, of course, to make it possible for those people in the lower income brackets to have decent houses.
I think it is only fair that when a country is making heavy appropriations for the building of large industrial plants, at the same time adequate provision should be made to provide living quarters for the people who work in those plants.
When the debate opened a week ago today I was on my way to Uranium City and Eldorado. It was 62 degrees below zero the day we reached Eldorado, and it gave me pleasure to note that the federal crown-owned corporation did not expect the people working for it in the far north to rustle logs to build log shacks. Excellent living quarters have been provided for the people working on that northern project.
When in all parts of Canada large expenditures, into the millions, are being made to provide new equipment and plants, either the companies building the plants or some government organization, whether municipal, provincial or federal, should see that comfortable living quarters are made available for those working in the plants.
The present legislation is open to criticism therefore because it does not make adequate plans for the clearing of slums in the cities [DOT]of this country. Looking through the speeches of hon. members who have taken part in the debate I have found very little comment concerning rural housing. I cannot accuse the government of ignoring the problem completely. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has issued a publication known as "Housing In Canada", which purports to be a factual summary for the third quarter of 1953. I find in it information about housing operations conducted by a number of branches of government.
For instance, I find that under the Veterans Land Act houses have been provided for

some people who might be regarded as living in rural areas. Then, under the Canadian Farm Loan Act I find that loans were issued for new structures as follows:
New Structures;
Year	Number of Loans
1945		 53
1946		 57
1948		 62
1949		 86
1950		 71
1951		  64
Then, I have figures to show the building of new structures under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. They are as follows:
New Structures;
Year	Number of Loans
1945		 232
1946		 375
1947		 387
Then there is another table setting out the number of farm units in Canada on which the gross mortgage loans on real estate have been approved by lending institutions. This information is given having relation to the type of loan. The table indicates that in
1947 the number of loans on farms stood at 1,704, while in 1948 it was 1,738. The year
1948	was the big year. Since then there has been a drop. In 1949 it was 1,579; 1950, 1,550; 1951, 1,368; and in 1952 it had fallen to 1,170. That is a start, Mr. Speaker, but certainly it is not a very impressive performance.
May I refer again to the Curtis report. It visualized a post-war housing program that would result in 100,000 farm units being built. It referred to the deplorable housing conditions on the farms in all provinces in Canada. In the report of the Curtis committee, I find there is a table giving the percentage of the farm houses of the various provinces without bathing facilities. The figures are as follows: Prince Edward Island, 93 per cent; Nova Scotia, 91-4 per cent; New Brunswick, 93-0 per cent; Quebec, 93-2 per cent; Ontario, 89-3 per cent; Manitoba, 96-8 per cent; Saskatchewan, 96 [DOT] 1 per cent; Alberta, 95 [DOT] 7 per cent; British Columbia, 76.5 per cent. Without flush toilets, 91 [DOT] 9 per cent of the farm homes in Canada were without these facilities in 1941, prior to the writing of the Curtis report.
Some of the suggestions made at that time should have received sympathetic consideration from the minister in charge of this department. The report says:
The wisest course would seem to be the setting up either of a special rural division of the national housing administration, or at least a farm housing advisory committee which would include representatives from the Department of Agriculture. This procedure would not be incompatible with the existence of a rural housing committee within the Department of Agriculture, which might give special attention to housing and other farm facilities in their broader relations to agricultural efficiency.

I checked with the bureau of statistics to see whether they had information from the 1951 census on rural housing conditions according to federal constituencies, but they informed me that the information is not being compiled in that way; now it is being compiled on the census divisions. Therefore the last statistics that are available with respect to my own constituency are the 1941 census which gives interesting information. The value of the owner-occupied dwellings on the farms-these are the valuations placed by the farmer himself and by the census taker, who was a neighbour-are as follows. These are 1941 figures. The C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan does not take the credit or the blame. These are the figures: $656 for the farm and $813 for the non-farm. I am not suggesting that there are not houses that are worth a good deal more than that, but they appear to be the average values on the sample that was used when the census was being taken. Houses needing external repairs amounted to 42-2 per cent in the country and 34-4 per cent in the villages; houses that had furnace heating numbered 2-4 per cent; houses that had running water, * 1 per cent, just one out of a thousand. Apparently there were not enough flush toilets on the farms in Mackenzie to warrant an entry. There is a blank here. Number of houses with electric lights, 1 [DOT] 7 per cent; refrigeration, ice or mechanical, 3 * 8 per cent; radios, 52 * 3 per cent; automobiles, 25-2 per cent; telephones, 13-9 per cent; and one person out of a thousand had vacuum cleaners. It is pretty obvious that with that sort of housing available in the rural parts of Canada there is a field here in which the government of today should have been making ambitious plans, to make sure that the rural standards should be brought up to the standards found in our cities.
Reports from government agencies now indicate that we have a recession. Whether it is a major or a minor recession remains to be seen, but the number of persons unemployed in Canada at the moment apparently is higher than it has been at any time since the war. It should be pretty obvious that an ambitious housing program would be one of the finest projects that the government could undertake. If we could carry out the suggestions made in the Curtis report, that we wipe out the slums and embark on a low-rental subsidized housing program and solve the rural housing problem in Canada, there would be employment for carpenters, plumbers, tinsmiths and plasterers. There would be a market for a very large volume of building
National Housing Act
materials. That would be one way that Canada might avoid the effects of mass unemployment that we had in the 1930's. Therefore, I submit, the minister should give careful consideration to the suggestions which have come from this side of the house, and before the bill comes back for third reading incorporate these suggestions in it.
I was interested in a paragraph in the memorandum submitted to the government by the Canadian Congress of Labour on December 10. They drew attention to the fact that the speech from the throne promised:
. . . measures to increase and broaden the supply of mortgage money so that more people with moderate incomes will be able to find facilities to enable them to build their own homes. This is welcome information, but it does not get to the root of the problem. Helping people with "moderate incomes" is no doubt desirable. But helping people with low incomes is even more desirable, and much more urgent.
I regret very much that the minister has not made provision for a housing program that would make houses available for people in the low-income brackets. In conclusion I should like to endorse the proposals presented by my colleague, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), that the federal government should undertake to make money available for housing at 2 per cent. My neighbour, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor), was critical of this proposal, but interest rates are determined by government policies. No one can deny the fact that investment in housing for the Canadian people would be a safe investment that should not require any higher interest than 2 per cent. The amortization period should be extended to 30 years.
When my wife and I set up housekeeping some 24 years ago we built a house, and I am quite sure that that house, after it has been used for 24 years, would sell for a good deal more than it cost 24 years ago. It is of frame construction. If it had been built of brick or stone the life would be longer; but, certainly in our part of Canada, a frame house that is kept painted can be expected to last for 40 or 50 years, and still be quite liveable. Therefore, having the house amortized over a period of 30 years is not unreasonable. The loans should be 90 per cent of the lending value. That is also reasonable. There are a great many people in Canada who want to own their own homes, and they could pay for their homes if given a start. The government of this country should take a chance on giving them a loan up to 90 per cent of the maximum lending value of $12,000. The government should

National Housing Act also have something to say on the very large quantities of building materials that are now going into theatres, bowling alleys, hotels, and other places of recreation. The building materials that are available should be used to a greater extent in providing houses for people of moderate incomes and those in the lower income brackets as well. I hope the minister will give most careful consideration to these suggestions and incorporate them in his bill.


Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak at this time may I say I feel that almost everything has been said from almost every angle connected with this bill, and since I do not believe in repetition I will make my remarks very brief.
I merely rise to deal with a group of people who I feel are perhaps being overlooked and not getting the attention they deserve in connection with this bill. They are the real estate appraisers, the members of the appraisal institute of Canada and also the American institute of real estate appraisers. These people are highly skilled in their field and over the past few years have been conducting appraising and inspection for the lending bodies. During that time they have built up considerable office staff and equipment and under this bill there seems to be no place for them, because as I understand it the appraisers of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will do all the appraising that is necessary. I just want to draw this to the attention of the minister in the hope that in some fashion he will find some place for many of these skilled people who have done a really good job during the past few years.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, the house may take some comfort from the fact that I am not going to make a speech but merely rise at this time to ask a question. It arises from the minister's statement on December 16 where he said, as reported at page 999 of Hansard:
However, it is proposed that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation shall continue to make loans to limited dividend companies and companies engaged in primary industries-
This is the part I am concerned with.
-and, under some circumstances, to persons who are unable to secure loans from approved lenders.
These are the people with whom, it seems to me, most of us as members come in contact, those persons who for some reason or another, perhaps on grounds of a mere technicality, may not qualify and will be unable to get their loans from approved lending institutions.


The minister may recall that a couple of years ago when building bogged down in northern Ontario under the joint loan plan, I recommended at that time that the government proceed with the direct loan phase of the legislation, and it was some time after that that the regulations were changed, and in areas containing a population greater than 5,000 these direct loans were made. From my personal experience in the north, and I speak only from personal experience, that was the only thing which did assist in getting more houses built. I would like to ask the minister if he would tell the house the amount of loans made in 1953 under this direct loan phase, and I would like to know if it is the government's policy to expand or restrict this phase, because I certainly believe the government through the corporation should stand ready to make such direct loans in substantial volume where necessary and where the approved lending institutions fail to do so.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member
for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard), I believe that nearly everything that can be said on this bill has already been said. However, since I come from a population centre of Canada where the housing situation is bad and has been bad for a long time, it might be considered strange if I did not say something in this debate.
I believe I am speaking for all the members of the C.C.F. group when I say that while we feel there are many grave shortcomings in this bill we are going to vote for it because we believe it is an effort to meet the present situation, although we believe it is not being met in the way it should be. I believe the government will have to give more attention to the building of low rental homes, because some people will never be able to get sufficient money in advance for a down payment, and these people, may I add, are paying exorbitant rents now for very inferior accommodation. But there is also the fact that in a city like Vancouver there are many people for whom the ownership of a home would be a liability. These are the people who have no steady employment in one place. They are here for a couple of months and somewhere else for the next couple of months, and then they travel somewhere else after that. Anyone can understand that a home for such people, and there are a great many people in my province in seasonal employment, even if they could afford a down payment and afford to buy a home, would be a liability. They must always be in a position where, as soon

as one job finishes, they can pull up stakes and move to the locality where the next job may be.
I am therefore convinced the government will have to give more attention to the building of low rental homes because private enterprise will not provide that kind of accommodation. As a matter of fact, I was rather surprised to hear one of the members on my right criticize the government for going too far in the housing business, and to hear it claimed that the prospects should be made more attractive to private enterprise.
I want to tell this house, Mr. Speaker, that private enterprise has never yet anywhere in any country provided housing for those who need housing most.
My first view of the older countries of Europe was in connection with the slums in which the working class of those countries lived, and I compared that with the splendor in which royalty and the owning class lived. That is the picture in every country in the world where governments have not concerned themselves with providing housing accommodation. In this new and rich country the growing slum conditions in every big city is proof positive that private enterprise cannot provide homes for those who need them most.
While we are going to vote for this bill we are quite satisfied it will no more meet the situation that confronts the people of Canada in the matter of housing than the various housing acts that have gone before. That is all I wish to say. I hope the genial Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) will pay attention to what I have said, not because I have said it but because it is a correct picture of things as they are.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) mentioned direct loans. There are a few small villages in my riding. In each of these villages it has been found impossible to get loans for the purpose of building homes. The lending companies will not go in there and lend these people the money with which to build. Personally I feel that something definite should be done -and I know that is the feeling of the people in these villages, in the chambers of commerce and the various councils-and that this bill which the minister is trying to put through will not be complete unless in it some provision is made whereby loans can be made to people in these small villages in order that they may build.
These villages are all growing in size; they are getting larger every day. Better houses would and could be built if direct loans could and would be given by the government. At
National Housing Act
the present time those who are building in those villages are, in most cases, people who have come from the city. They have retired and have come from the city in order to live in these villages or they are people who have been unable to build just where they wanted to build in the city and, because they wanted to get away from traffic noise, have moved to the small villages. In many cases they come back to Peterborough to work. They are people who have good positions- some of them have extremely good positions- but they cannot get these loans. When the minister speaks, in closing this debate, I wish he would give us some idea as to what is to be done with regard to these people.
(Translation):


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on the housing situation, before the end of the debate. During the discussion, some members who support the government have commented upon the housing program put into effect by the province of Quebec, particularly with regard to the various acts having to do with the housing problem.
I am pleased to remind the house that the province of Quebec benefits at present from the most generous legislation there is in respect to small homes. It is so because the province of Quebec has passed, with respect to housing, an act under which anyone who builds a house may be granted a direct loan from the provincial government in the sense that part of the interest the new owner has to pay on the mortgage is paid back to him; because of this provision, that piece of legislation is one of the most generous there is in the field of housing in the whole of Canada. The province of Quebec has lent many millions of dollars, thus contributing to lighten the new home owner's crushing burden of carrying charges.
It is all very well to say that the federal government is passing legislation in order to make it easier for small owners to obtain the credit required to build houses, but one must not forget that the main obstacle put in the path of prospective builders of houses is the excessive burden of carrying charges. The builder of a house finds that the rent is too high, that this monthly payment cannot be met.
The province of Quebec having undertaken to pay back part of the interest to the prospective owner of a small home, the owner is in a position to borrow a larger amount of money without being crushed by excessive carrying charges.
Various government members from the province of Quebec have claimed that the

National Housing Act government of that province was putting obstacles in the way of various municipalities by failing to take advantage of loan facilities offered by the federal government in the field 'of municipal services, through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, thus preventing those municipalities from opening up new residential districts. Well, I must remind the house that the present rate asked by the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation on loans to municipalities for the purpose of providing municipal services is much too high. The legislation has been a source of disappointment in the province of Quebec because most municipalities can borrow money from ordinary sources at a much lower rate of interest; that is why, in the province of Quebec, municipal authorities have refused to take advantage of this legislation.
Now, much has been made of the fact that the province of Quebec has not seen fit to take advantage of those sections of the National Housing Act that would have enabled her to do away with slums. Well, Mr. Speaker, as far as that matter is concerned, I hope that the two governments will come to an agreement. As member for the city of Three Rivers, where the most crammed housing conditions are probably to be found, where families are more huddled together than anywhere else, I believe that there is a lot of slum clearing to be done. However, I am rather disappointed when I realize that the present legislation does not bring any improvement in that respect and that it still remains practically impossible for most municipalities in Quebec to take advantage of the sections of the housing act relating to slum clearance. As a matter of fact, it is provided in the act that both the federal and the provincial governments may provide money for slum clearing purposes. Unfortunately, the municipalities are not in a position to accept those gifts from the federal and provincial governments, as their financial situation does not enable them to become real estate agents or to undertake projects of that kind.
Which means, in fact, that the real crux of the matter in so far as the housing problem is concerned is not that our municipalities have trouble getting credit, but that they are quite without the means to face their obligations.
Our municipalities are poor and each time one of them attempts to benefit in some way from the terms of the present act, it is almost immediately faced with bankruptcy and put under the obligation to appeal to the provincial municipal board in order that its debts may be guaranteed by the province.


To my mind it would be a relatively easy matter to solve these problems if each level of government-federal, provincial and municipal-had distinct and well determined sources of revenue. Our municipalities are in a deplorable financial situation and until a conference is held once more to draw a dividing line between the various federal, provincial and municipal fields of taxation, I believe that the housing problem will remain acute in this country.
It is to be regretted that in a country as rich as ours, where there is no lack of building materials and where people will go to any length to become home owners, the present government can find nothing better than to introduce, every two or three years, new legislation which, no doubt, contains a few improvements but which is no solution to the problem as a whole.
In my opinion the government could do better. The problem could be solved, if not once and for all, at least in an equitable fashion, if only the question of sources of tax revenue of the various governments were once more examined and settled on a basis of justice and fairness for all.
(Text):


Mr. H. P. Mang (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure most people in Canada will realize that the government that preceded the present one did a great deal towards solving the housing problem in Canada. We see evidence of that on all sides as we pass through cities, towns and villages throughout the country. Our cities are expanding at a terrific rate, and a good deal of the housing expansion has been aided by the national housing program of the previous administration. On that evidence, I think every fair-minded person will admit that to be so.
The present administration, seeing that a wider field must be covered, has made a very serious attempt to expand this service and provide still more housing. I realize, as I think we all do, that the bill has not yet been finally hammered into shape, and that the discussion that has taken place here has been by way of offering suggestions to those members who will sit on the committee which is going to finish the job. We hope that the outcome of their work will be such that the housing situation we have had during previous years will be improved.
Having said that, I want to point out that I believe there are many areas in Canada which are in a position similar to the one in which I live. I come from an entirely rural

area extending from Regina to the Manitoba boundary in the region south of Qu'Appelle river valley, and it is one of the predominantly agricultural areas of Saskatchewan. As a matter of fact, it is a pioneering area, and we have developed agriculture along all lines. We have a great cattle population, a mixed farming area, and south and west of Regina some of the finest and largest wheat fields to be found anywhere in North America. The riding is predominantly agricultural, and there is not one city in the whole area. It is served by towns, villages and hamlets, and there is a demand and need for housing in all the towns along the main line and spur lines of the C.N.R. In these towns and villages there are people who work in garages, with the implement companies, who operate service stations, teach in the schools and do all those things which service that agricultural area.
I am afraid that in these cities-I am thinking of cities all the time because my constituency extends almost up to the city of Regina-in these towns and villages, the level of earnings of these people is not such that they will fit into this scheme. While the committee is hammering the bill into its final form, perhaps it might give consideration to the lower income people who are providing these services for agriculture in my riding.
As far as the rural people are concerned, there are families with two or three sons. One son may be married, and he can get hold of some land, but he cannot build a house. After he has secured his equipment he probably does not have the down payment on a house. With the amount of the down payment being what it is now, I do not think that the bill, as it stands at the present time, will go very far in helping these people. I offer the suggestion that it would help a great deal if the down payment could be made of such a size as to cover the fees for processing the papers and take care of the insurance which is also being amortized. Perhaps that is too drastic. It will make the down payment low but it would be a great help. Many of these workers who provide these services have a hard time saving $800 or $1,000. By the time the end of the month comes their cheque is gone to the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker and so on, and they are waiting for their next cheque.
My suggestion is that some very concentrated high-priced thinking, if I may call it that, be put to work on the question of lowering the down payment. I am not saying anything about lengthening the period of amortization. That is the way business is done, and 83276-1001
National Housing Act
I do not think a man who wants to have a home of his own is going to be particularly concerned about that. As long as he is investing his money in that home it will still be all right with him even if it takes him 25 years to pay off his debt. The reason why I suggest lowering the down payment is that repayment is guaranteed in any event. It is all sewed up. Under this situation the lender cannot lose. The money is there, and that is why 1 advocate lowering the down payment. I am just putting forward this view as a suggestion because, as I said when I began my remarks, 1 realize that the bill is not in its final form.
(Translation):


Mr. Lionel Bertrand (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take only a few minutes to praise the government for having introduced this bill, and I wish to congratulate the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) on the way in which he presented this piece of legislation.
Speaking here on November 30, I urged that small cities and rural municipalities be granted the right to benefit from the new legislation. Up to now, as everyone knows, the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, as well as lending companies, were reluctant to grant loans outside large centres; so much red tape was involved that the applicants, getting tired of delays and evasive answers, withdrew their claims.
In my opinion, the housing legislation must be accessible to all, wherever they may live, as long as they comply with the basic conditions and provide the necessary guarantees of repayment.
I believe the act will have good results and will attain its object only if all taxpayers can take full and equal advantage of it.
In the second place, newly-wed couples should get help under this new legislation. If a young family man wants to take advantage of the act and if his situation offers the guarantee required under the act, his application should get special attention. Young married couples are just starting in life and have long years of married life ahead of them. By helping them to become home owners not only do we make them savings-minded and provide them with the opportunity to save, but we also make them cling all the more to this land of ours and help them become better citizens.
To make home ownership available to the greatest possible number of people is a social duty, and the government is to be congratulated on the efforts it has made to that end.

National Housing Act
As for myself, I believe this new legislation will promote the development and prosperity of Canada.
(Text):
Mx. Speaker: If the minister speaks now, lie will close the debate.


Robert Henry Winters: I wish to thank all hon. members, Mr. Speaker, who have taken part in this very interesting debate. That a considerable amount of interest has developed in the subject of housing is well evidenced by the fact that some 53 speakers have participated in this debate. If one can call this a speech in rebuttal, it will make 54 speeches in all. I wish to say a word of thanks especially *to those members on this side of the house who have been so generous in their commendation of this legislation, and in their support of what the government believes is a measure which will go a long way towards helping housing in Canada.
The legislation before the house now is intended to increase the number of houses built each year. We hope to provide assistance to enable Canadians in the low and moderate income brackets to acquire suitable accommodation. I may say that it is intended to improve upon legislation which, since the middle of 1945, has encouraged the construction in Canada of over 730,000 housing units, which is a record unsurpassed in any other country. This Bill No. 102 is designated as an act to promote the construction of new houses, the repair and modernization of existing houses and the improvement of housing and living conditions.
Despite what some hon. members opposite have said about this bill, it is an honest effort to improve upon legislation that now exists, and which has already seen a great record of accomplishment. In 1953 alone, there was a record number of about 105,000 starts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the minister will agree that not all were under the act.


Robert Henry Winters: I readily agree with that, Mr. Speaker, and I have said so. This is an effort by all Canadians who are concerned with the house building business, encouraged, aided and abetted by the government under the terms of the National Housing Act.
I should like to refer to some of the remarks made by some hon. members. Since there were over 50 speakers, I am sure hon. members will understand that I cannot reply to each one of them. I am sure hon. members, too, will agree with the remarks

of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), who said that many of the points were repetitious but were made for the purpose of emphasis. Many of the points that were brought up were raised on more than one occasion. At the outset I would particularly refer to the speech of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), which I thought was a constructive contribution to the debate. As usual, the hon. member had done his homework thoroughly and had analysed the legislation fairly well. He was not able to see it as the forward-looking legislation which the government considers it to be, but I am sure as time goes by he will realize that it is. He took some two hours, well taken, to state the views of the opposition, but some 20 other hon. members from the Progressive Conservative opposition felt that this legislation was so comprehensive it was incumbent upon them to state the views of their party before the debate wound up.
The hon. member referred to the extension of credit, which is the main purpose of this legislation. It was the fear that mortgage money would not continue to flow at the level required for the high rate of house building now attained in this country, which led to these other steps being' taken. I am in complete agreement with his statement that to sustain the financial requirements of a program of 100,000 units in Canada, there must be either an expansion of direct lending or some other means found to attract mortgage funds. This is the very purpose of the bill, as was stated today by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Enfield), in a splendid contribution to the debate.
I am sure the hon. member agrees with me that it is better to attract mortgage funds from other sources than to expand direct lending by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Regarding the maximum sales price, to which he also referred, I wish to confirm that it is the intention to continue the maximum sales price arrangement. This technique, of course, is not without its troubles. I believe the high level of loans proposed must be accompanied by this limitation. It would be most unfortunate if the increase in the amount of mortgage loans had the effect of an increase in the sales price so that the home owner required as large a down payment and ended up with more mortgage debt.
The hon. member expressed the opinion that part I of the National Housing Act has been as fruitful as any piece of legislation enacted by this parliament or which is likely

to be enacted in the ordinary course of events. The principal purpose of this legislation is to ensure that part I remains effective. We are attempting to cope with the danger that, in its present form, it would become less effective under the developing circumstances. I mentioned this when introducing this legislation.
The hon. member dealt at some length with the implication of steps taken by an approved lender to claim under the insurance policy. He stated that if a mortgagee permits arrears of interest to accumulate beyond six months he is running the risk of losing the benefit of the guarantee with respect to any additional arrears. Perhaps I should clarify this condition. The bill provides that the amount paid in the insurance policy shall include interest at the mortgage rate for six months, and at the mortgage rate less 2 per cent for the ensuing 12 months. The bill also provides that when three months' instalments are in arrears the lender shall report to Central Mortgage the steps being taken. This, I think, is a prudent provision because the insurer is entitled to some indication, not only of his probable losses but also that the lender is being prudent in the administration of the account. Providing such notification is given, then the approved lender qualifies for the interest which runs from six to eighteen months.
If such notification is not given, then the interest included in the payments of the lender is limited to six months at the mortgage rate. This requirement of notification at the end of three months does not imply that foreclosure must be instituted at that time. I would think that in most cases the mortgagee would inform Central Mortgage that they were nursing the account along in the hope that the borrower would cure the default. Under the present joint lending arrangements, there is a similar requirement for notification at the end of three months. In this respect the new bill represents a change only to the extent that interest from six to eighteen months is dependent upon Central Mortgage being notified of the steps being taken by the lender. The hon. member pointed out that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation becomes the sole arbiter in respect of standards and quality of construction. To the extent that present inspections of lending institutions are checked by Central Mortgage, this is presently the case.
I appreciate the reservation of the hon. member. However, over the last few years it has been necessary to superimpose compliance inspections by Central Mortgage upon
National Housing Act
inspections carried on by lending institutions. There is a wide variation in the sufficiency of present inspections, and the new arrangement will have the benefit of uniformity. Furthermore the banks are in no position to do compliance inspections.
The hon. member then went on to deal with the possibility that progress advances will not be handled expeditiously by Central Mortgage. In the case of present lending institutions, they will make their own progress advances, and there will be no change. I do not share the hon. member's view in this respect. In support of this, I point out that houses built under the defence workers' plan in Toronto have been completed more speedily than average joint loans in that area.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), who was the official spokesman,
I presume, of the C.C.F. party, made a speech which followed well the philosophy which is representative of that party. He was concerned with subsidized housing and he said that nowhere in the legislation did he see provision for subsidization. Well, I know that my hon. friend just for the moment overlooked section 35, which has been on the statute books since 1949, and which has been applied in many provinces across this country to enable the people who cannot pay economic rentals to obtain satisfactory accommodation. Perhaps he misunderstood the section in this present bill which continues to provide that three-quarters of such rent reduction fund is borne by the federal government.
Under this legislation there are already 1,562 subsidized rental units in six provinces, the average subsidy unit per month is $17.91, and the share of the federal government on such subsidies is $13.43.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) made reference to housing for elderly persons, a subject which comes up from time to time in this house. I share his favourable view upon the project to which he refers. However, he said all these projects have been made possible by cash subsidies- on the initial cost of construction-from the province, and goes on to say that there is no other subsidy involved in the operation of these units.
I would point out to the hon. member that all of these units were financed under section 9 of the National Housing Act, and I am quite sure that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) would support me in saying that loans under the National Housing Act and, as well, subsidies from the
1574	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
government of British Columbia have made these units possible. In that respect I thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for the remarks he made on that subject this afternoon.
I just wish to add, in passing, that I thank the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) for the gracious manner in which he withdrew his reference to an employee of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, made at a time when he was obviously misinformed as to the qualifications and the employment of that employee.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made a quite substantial contribution to this debate, within the confines- of the socialist philosophy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That makes it a really worthwhile contribution.


Robert Henry Winters: The government, however, believes in making it possible for private enterprise to do as much of the job as possible and then-and only then-for the state to participate. The hon. member suggested that the only possible solution for those in the middle and lower income groups is a low rental housing program, with an element of subsidy in it.
May I remind him, as I did the hon. member for York South, that this legislation exists and that there is subsidized low rental housing in Canada. I am sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would be the first to agree that local participation is necessary. The federal government participates, as he well knows, to the extent of 75 per cent of the capital cost, and operating losses, looking to the province and/or the municipality for the remaining 25 per cent.
The hon. member will recall that a project of some 800 units in the city of Winnipeg was placed before the ratepayers last October. I would agree with him that there is need for such a project in Winnipeg; but the ratepayers decided otherwise.
All through this debate there have been inferences that the federal government can do anything in the field of housing. We have listened to some hon. members ask for lower standards of housing. We have listened to other hon. members say that the housing program is entirely too small, and that the federal government should build twice as many houses.
I would remind hon. members again-and I refer to the splendid speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hunter)-that whereas stimulation and [DOT]assistance for housing can come from the TMr. Winters.]

federal government, in the final analysis it is the municipality which decides the amount of housing to be built.
Then, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) expressed the views of the Social Credit party. The hon. member brought to my attention a clause in the mortgage deed to create remedies upon default at the end of one month. The member goes on to imply that at the end of that time the owner loses all equity in his home. Let me remind him that the equity of redemption is not automatically lost by virtue of a clause in the contract. Action must be taken in the courts. It is the invariable practice of our judges to do everything in their power to protect the owner's equity of redemption.
The hon. member suggested that we make money available to municipalities and they in turn lend it to home owners. This seems to be a variation of the suggestions of socialist members who wish Central Mortgage to provide money directly to all home owners. I would remind the hon. member for Bow River that immediately after world war I exactly what he proposes was done by the federal government in lending $25 million to municipalities in Canada, with a guarantee by provincial governments. The results, which are a matter of record, were far from happy.
The hon. member for Broadview made what I believe was an extraordinary speech. He is not in the house this evening, and I am sorry for that. I hope that later on he will be here when we have an opportunity of expressing our views on this measure. Twice during the course of his remarks he termed this legislation a gigantic bluff. Then he went on to say, among other things, that there is no indication that there is going to be any more mortgage money available than is available at the present time. I think I should perhaps remind the hon. member that the purpose of authorizing the banks to extend insured loans is to make more mortgage money available. The hon. member suggested that we will all agree that the cheapest house that can be bought today, financed under the National Housing Act, is one costing $10,000. He then went on to indicate the income requirements to carry the mortgage on such a house.
I have just checked with Central Mortgage, who tell me that in 1953 approximately 25 per cent of the houses for home ownership were below $10,000 in cost. He took the example of a $10,000 house, and gave the impression that anybody with an income of less than $3,860 a year need not apply for a loan under the National Housing Act.

Mr. Speaker, some houses during the past year were built for $8,600 under the National Housing Act, which when applying the 23 per cent formula can be acquired by an individual with an income of $2,600 a year.
In dealing with ratio of debt service to income he suggested that the individual be allowed to spend more than 23 per cent of his income on the carrying charges on his home. There is nothing to prevent that happening.
The hon. member for Broadview has apparently been somewhat mixed on this subject. The point at issue is an opinion of mortgage lenders, not only Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The mortgage risk becomes undesirable when there is a mandatory debt service in excess of 23 per cent of the income of the borrower. It is merely a modern manifestation of the old rule that a man cannot normally afford a monthly rent of more than one week's pay. I think it would be doubtful kindness on the part of the government to ask anybody to carry more of a debt burden than he could normally afford.
The hon. member suggested further that Central Mortgage alter its building specifications to allow less costly types of construction.
I would suggest to the hon. member that he have a good look at the building requirements of the city of Toronto, for example, and then come to his own conclusions as to whether much could be accomplished as a result of this suggestion. He also suggests that the amortization period should be lengthened to 30 years. If he will refer again to the bill, as I am sure he has done-and, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see him in his seat now-he will see that for home ownership, loans may be made up to 30 years.
The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) spoke of the Lowren Housing Company, to which I had occasion to refer earlier today. I pointed out that this project in Ottawa was made possible by loans under the limited dividend section of the act, which provides accommodation for people at reasonable rentals; and to the extent that housing is required in the city of Ottawa for families of lesser incomes within the facilities of section 35-that is section 35 of the old act-the federal-provincial arrangements are available to the province and the municipality, just as they are to the province of Quebec, to reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and earlier today by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne).
The hon. member for Regina City said: "We are the only ones in the country to suggest subsidized housing." He then went on
National Housing Act
to say that the government chose to ignore the representations on the need for subsidized housing. I of course cannot agree with his statement because the federal government introduced section 35, which provides for subsidized housing. I am sure the hon. member does not wish to create the impression that provision for subsidized housing does not exist under the National Housing Act. As a matter of fact, it was we who suggested section 35 to the Saskatchewan government back in 1949. The main impression I gained from the speech made by the hon. member for Regina City was that he carried his philosophy to the point where he believes it is the sole responsibility of the federal government, on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, to provide not only a home, but a brand new home for every Canadian, whether he wants it or not. That is an objective that I am sure would be viewed with great interest by the taxpayers, and especially the many who have already bought and paid for their homes. I venture to suggest that there are a number of hon. members in this chamber who have never built a house for themselves but are still adequately and comfortably housed, and I, Mr. Speaker, am one of them.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) opened his remarks by calling the legislation a delusion, a mockery and a snare. He concluded his remarks by saying that he could not see his way clear to vote against the bill. He referred to the requirement by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for houses of 1,150 and 1,200 square feet. No such requirement exists, Mr. Speaker. Houses are financed by Central Mortgage even below 800 square feet, always provided that room sizes meet standards. The hon. member says that he sees nothing in the world wrong, for example, with houses of 750 to 800 square feet. A man with a wife and four children might have a rather different view.
I now refer to the speech of the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Vincent), who also raised the question about whether or not the province of Quebec is eligible to participate under section 35. This is the section enabling the federal government and the provincial governments to participate under the 75-25 per cent partnership arrangement. I wish to assure him that Quebec will be welcomed into that arrangement at any time the government of Quebec sees fit to take such action.
The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) referred to the slum clearance provisions of the bill and asked whether they were available in the larger cities. The hon. member cited circumstances in a city which he left

National Housing Act
unnamed, but which I presume to be Saint John, and asked whether the arrangements were available there. I refer to that simply to tell him-and I am sure he would be interested to know it-that conversations are under way with that city toward the clearance of substandard housing in the centre of the city. In fact, one of the undertakings now under discussion is the widening of Main street at the westerly approach to the new viaduct. The hon. member for Royal, I know, would join with me in welcoming the clearance of the unsatisfactory housing conditions in that area.
The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) said that this legislation will result in putting a larger number of people under a larger amount of debt over a longer period of time. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the end result of this legislation. There is not a single member who spoke in this debate who did not ask for just that. I have always said, and I wish to remind the house, that a low down payment is not an unmixed blessing. It adds to the debt burden, and the longer period of amortization simply increases the period over which the debt must be paid. But it does have the effect of enabling people with lower incomes to get a foothold toward the acquisition of new homes.
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) said that the legislation was a cruel hoax. I presume he will vote against it, although his party expressed themselves as being for the legislation.
I would refer to the speech made by the honourable and gracious member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken). It was her maiden speech in the house and I wish to congratulate her on her effort. She said that no government should debar anybody from getting a house, and with that of course I agree. This government does not seek to debar anybody. This is enabling legislation designed to help people to acquire houses. And, Mr. Speaker, I do not recall many, if any, instances, in the hon. member's constituency where credit-worthy borrowers have not received loans.
The hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) was unique in saying that the legislation was generally satisfactory. Then we come to the speech of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Maedonnell) and sure enough he again said that the government is probably doing the right thing, but doing

it in the wrong way. He said it twice, but most pointedly at page 1419 of Hansard, where he remarked:
Everybody has to approve of that, but of course it is possible to do the right thing in the wrong way . . .
He then expressed his great haunting fear of bureaucracy, his fear that we were by this legislation giving Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation too much power under the terms of the regulations. Well, Mr. Speaker, nobody likes a bureaucracy. But I do not think parliament would take very kindly to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation failing to implement the specific wishes of parliament. It is the government's intention to take for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation only the authorities necessary to give effect to the expressed wishes of parliament. For example, there is no use in specifying a 90 per cent loan with a 10 per cent down payment if the act is administered in such a way that lending institutions can make loans of a lesser amount and a higher down payment. There is no use in aiming at the lowest possible rate of interest if the act is so rigid as to require by legislation the charging of a higher rate than might otherwise be possible by regulation. There is no use in directing Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to see to it that a given standard is maintained for new housing in Canada unless Central Mortgage and Housing is given the powers which enable it to achieve that result. I think Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been doing a splendid job in interpreting the government's wishes in the field of housing but it is not the government's intention to give Central Mortgage powers beyond those required to do their job.
The hon. member for Greenwood expressed some fear about Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation establishing the lending value. I thought I had dealt with that subject when I presented this legislation. The banks have no facilities for appraisal at the present moment. Moreover, it is considered by the government that Central Mortgage must be the agency to establish the lending value so as to ensure the maximum loan being made available. There has been no opposition from the banks and the life companies in this respect. The hon. member also branded this legislation as "state socialism" and said it left so little to be done by private enterprise.
I would like to generalize for a few moments, Mr. Speaker. Several hon. members have said that by insuring loans we would

be protecting the lending institutions and nobody else. But, Mr. Speaker, by insuring loans the government hopes to do two essential things: (1) to ensure a continual flow of mortgage money and (2) to safeguard Canada's banking system by guaranteeing the security, liquidity, and negotiability of insured mortgages. Our banking system in this country is regarded by Canadians and by the world as being sound, and we must take the steps that are necessary to maintain that confidence. This insurance is a guarantee to the banks, and the guarantee to the lending institutions. When hon. members say, as they have said, that this is a guarantee to the banks and to nobody else, I think they are making a mistake. The potential home owner who is seeking a mortgage loan under this act is almost certain to be at the same time a depositor in one of the chartered banks of Canada. It seems to me that when the government is guaranteeing mortgage loans it is guaranteeing that fundamental requirement of confidence in our banks. At the same time there is a guarantee of the deposits of people in all income groups who are able also by virtue of this insurance provision to obtain mortgage loans under this legislation. Our concern as a government is not to insure the banks and protect them against loss as such, but rather to insure the banking system generally and consequently the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are depositors and entrust the bank with their savings.
The socialists fear this measure as "a sellout to capitalist exploitation". That was the theme that ran through the speeches of hon. members in that group. The hon. member for Nanaimo, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, went so far as to brand it as a "cruel hoax". The Progressive Conservatives on the other hand, led by the hon. member for Greenwood, said this was state socialism. The member for Broadview said on January 22, as reported at page 1373 of Hansard:
It seems to me that this is simply another example of this government's drift toward socialism, a government which is so fond of professing its adherence to the principles of free enterprise.
Then later on in the same speech, and as reported at the same page, he got a little bit mixed up and said this:
It is guaranteeing the loans anyway, so it might as well go whole hog and make the mortgages available to the people who want them for the purpose of building houses.
Which is exactly what would be done under what they call state socialism.
With the C.C.F. on the one hand saying it is a sell-out to capital exploitation, and the
National Housing Act
Progressive Conservatives asserting it is state socialism, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that once again the Liberals have found the middle-of-the-road course, the moderate course, Mr. Speaker. I know this will appeal to the majority of Canadians as being the right one.
During the course of the debate we heard about the housing accomplishments in the United States which have been substantial; in Holland which are very creditable; and in Brazil which I know less about. These hon. members gave one the impression of extolling "in enthusiastic tone, all centuries but this and every country but his own". But the situation in the United States is worth thinking about. Housing there is very different from housing in Canada. In the border states conditions are somewhat similar to ours and the type of housing required is like ours. But when one gets south of the Mason-Dixon line, there are very few basements, far less heating is required; houses are less expensive; they are easier to erect; and different types of building material can be used. Therefore, when we attempt to compare the United States' effort directly with the Canadian effort, these factors must be considered. It was pointed out during the debate that the United States target for next year under President Eisenhower's proposed legislation is to be one million units. Our production in 1953 was about 105,000 starts. Their population is eleven times ours; their gross national product	is over sixteen	times	ours;	so	if
their effort were related directly to ours in terms of population their production would be 1,144,000 houses, and if measured in terms of gross national product would be 1,664,000 houses. In other words our effort in this country compares very favourably with the United States. It compares very favourably with any country in the world.
Now,	Mr. Speaker, I	would	like	for	amoment	to take a look	at the	bill	in	itsentirety	and I want to	make	it clear	to
the hon. member for Broadview, the hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Nanaimo, and the hon. member for Regina City, and all these people who have said very harsh things about the bill, just what it is they are criticizing. I would remind hon. members that this bill contains the provisions that were in the other bill. The important change is in part I, which is the major change designed to improve the legislation.
Hon. members have said there is no change. Section 7 (1) (k) is a new section to facilitate
1578	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
home extension. Section 14 is a re-enactment of the rental insurance with which hon. members are familiar and which has done so much to provide rental accommodation across this country. Section 16 is the limited dividend section under which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation can and does make 90 per cent loans for a maximum of 50 years at the government borrowing rate of interest. Section 23 is the slum clearance section. Section 24 is the home improvement and home extension loans section. Section 36 is the re-enactment of old section 35, the federal-provincial partnership section. Section 38 is the defence workers section. Section 40 is the direct loans section. In reply to my friends the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) and the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser), I can now give them the assurance that the direct loans provision will, if parliament wishes, be re-enacted. The direct loans provision has resulted in some 6,750 home ownership loans in over 800 communities in Canada since it was enacted a few years ago.
Then we have part V of the act which was put on the statute books by parliament and which is for the purpose of housing research and community planning. The purpose of that section of the act is to raise the standard of housing in Canada. I point out that part, Mr. Speaker, because during the debate so many hon. members demanded that the government permit Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and house builders generally to build a lower standard of house than parliament has directed it to allow. The hon. member for Broadview terms this a gigantic bluff. The hon. member for Calgary North calls it a delusion, a mockery and a snare. The hon. member for Regina City terms it a bitter disappointment to which he is opposed, containing as it does subsidies sections which he loves so dearly. The hon. member for Nanaimo terms it a cruel hoax. In doing so, they must remember that they were referring to the whole bill and not just any one part of it. When they say they oppose the measure, I would point out that they are opposing those sections of the measure which seem to harmonize so closely with their own often-expressed philosophy. I presume that, when they vote against the measure, they will be prepared to bear the consequences of their vote. When the hon. member for Broadview was speaking and termed as a gigantic bluff legislation which is designed to improve upon legislation which last year achieved in this country a record of about 105,000 starts, one must wonder what language he would have used to refer to the 20,000-house effort in 1933 under a Conservative government.
EMr. Winters.]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is well to remind ourselves again just what this legislation has done and what might be expected from this improved legislation. Stimulated by the various provisions of the legislation, Canadians, under Liberal governments, have built over 730,000 houses since the middle of 1945 and established a new record of about 105,000 starts in 1953. In its present form the bill is designed to produce still better results. It represents the best efforts of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and other government departments, the lending institutions and the banks, who have worked together well, long and hard in order to produce a mutually satisfactory arrangement that will work. I am sure that these people would not take too kindly to statements that they were participating in a gigantic bluff, a snare, a mockery, a delusion or a cruel hoax.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not want
to interrupt the minister but, before he concludes his address, would he allow me to ask him a question at a convenient point?


Robert Henry Winters: Go ahead.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This is what I want to ask
the minister. He has not yet mentioned the question of interest. I wonder whether he can add anything to what he said, when speaking on second reading a week ago, about the interest rate? Has there been any development in negotiations since then? The second point is this. Will it be understood that the banking and commerce committee will have a free hand to make in the legislation whatever changes commend themselves to the committee?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, the committee is the master of its own destinies. I would hope that it will give to all members full opportunity to express their views and to make them clear to all witnesses. I can add nothing to what I have already said about the interest rate, which, under the legislation, is to be established by regulation. There is still no legislation, so there cannot be regulations; and I am unable to tell the house what the interest rate will be.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was referring to the negotiations that are going on. Can the minister tell us anything further about them?


Mr. Sinclair:: Sit down. You have had your say.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the permission of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) to ask a question. I asked the permission of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters).


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I saw that the hon. member was seeking, from the minister who had the floor, permission to ask another question but the minister did not take his seat, thereby indicating to the hon. member that he was not accepting this question. I think the minister has the floor and should carry on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Without interruption by the Minister of Fisheries.


James Sinclair: Do not lose your temper again.


Robert Henry Winters: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this bill may fall short of our expectations. I do not think so; at the same time it may exceed our expectations. I hope so. We do not guarantee infallibility in its administration. However, I can assure the house that this is an honest effort to make it easier for Canadians of moderate incomes to build homes. It is a sincere attempt to further the government's efforts -and I refer again to the title of the bill- to promote the construction of new houses, the repair and modernization of existing houses, and the improvement of housing and living conditions.
Mr. Speaker, I heard no clear expression of attitude toward this legislation from the members of the Progressive Conservative opposition. The hon. member for Broadview termed the entire legislation-including the slum clearance section, the limited dividend provision, the federal-provincial agreement provisions and all others-a gigantic bluff. The hon. member for Calgary North termed it a snare, a mockery and a delusion. The hon. member for Regina City called it a bitter disappointment. In view of the fact that they have used those terms and because other hon. members have said similar things about this legislation-legislation which I consider to be more comprehensive and all embracing than any similar act enacted by any other sovereign parliament in the world, I think we should know just where hon. members stand. I would therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you would be kind enough, when putting the vote, to call for the yeas and the nays.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: I think it is the unanimous opinion of the house, Mr. Speaker, that tomorrow we should discuss external affairs.
For that purpose, we have devised a procedure which will be of this nature. After the orders of the day have been called sufficiently that hon. members have put all their questions which precede that order, the motion will be made that the house do now adjourn. By consent that motion will be debatable, and will be withdrawn when the debate is concluded so that there will be no vote on it. It will supersede the five o'clock interruption, in case the debate continues past that hour. If it is not concluded by ten o'clock, the house will adjourn as usual and the debate will automatically end at that time.
If, however, the debate ends before ten o'clock we shall proceed with the consideration of the Criminal Code in the committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 29, 1954