1956-04-23

Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Friday, April 20, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will have noticed by the newspapers that the negotiations at the United Nations wheat conference are drawing to a conclusion. Although some details remain to be determined, it is evident that an international wheat agreement will emerge from the conference.
The minimum price will be $1.50 per bushel and the maximum price $2.00 per bushel, for No. 1 northern in store Fort William/Port Arthur. This represents a nominal reduction from the present range of $1.55-$2.05.
The quantities have yet to be finally determined. There will be a proportionate reduction in the shares of all the major exporting countries, members of the present agreement, that is, the United States, Canada and Australia. It is expected that the Canadian quantity will be reduced from about 150 million bushels to about 100 million bushels.
At the opening of the second session of the conference and before there had been any discussion of prices, the United Kingdom stated that it did not intend to be a member of an international wheat agreement along the present lines and withdrew from the prices and quantities negotiations. All other importing countries, members of the present agreement, continued to participate and are expected to sign. All the major wheat exporting countries, Argentina included, participated in the negotiations and are also expected to sign.
Because of the relatively small quantities, the new international wheat agreement will
not be as effective as the Canadian government had hoped it would be in stabilizing prices and markets. The farm advisers to the Canadian delegation, representing the six major farm organizations of the prairie provinces, agreed with the government, however, that notwithstanding inadequate quantities Canada should continue to participate provided there was no substantial reduction in maximum and minimum prices from those included in the present agreement.
The agreement requires to be ratified by the participants and will come into full effect when ratified by countries representing two-thirds of the quantities. Any country will have rights to withdraw if the membership and the quantities in the agreement as ratified are not satisfactory to it.
A full statement will be made by the secretariat at the conclusion of the conference. Arrangements will be made to have that statement tabled when it is received.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Dickey) if he is in a position to give the house any information as to the total amount of wheat involved in the present international wheat agreement and what shares are to be apportioned to the other exporting countries?


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, no; I think that will be made quite clear from the statement by the secretariat to which I referred.



VETERANS BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LOANS ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act to provide that a loan under the act is a guaranteed loan if the application therefor is made within the periods specified, even though the loan itself was made at a later date.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADA LANDS SURVEYS ACT

Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canada Lands Surveys Act to provide that the members of the board of examiners shall be remunerated on an annual basis; also to authorize the treasury board to fix the fees to be paid to special examiners.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(Translation) :


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 69-Mr. Gagnon:
Copy of all payrolls and lists of materials with regard to work carried out at the wharf of St. Alexis de Grande Baie, Chicoutimi, Que., in the years 1953, 1954 and 1955.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I stated there were no secret orders in council still in effect. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked me how order in council P.C. 3486 of July 4, 1951, had ceased to have effect. That is the order that I referred to in the house on March 26, 1953, and about which I said on Friday that it depended for its validity on the Emergency Powers Act and when that act expired the order in council ceased to have any effect.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to a series of groundings of ocean-going ships in the St. Lawrence river this spring and particularly to the statement of Roger Arcand, veteran Quebec city pilot, who stated, as reported in the Gazette of April 23, that authorities were starting navigation too early on the St. Lawrence and are running great risks in pushing shipping so early.
Will the cause of the. grounding of the two ships Georgian Flame and Pindar on

April 22, and previous groundings of other ships, be investigated by his department?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it would be correct to say that' there has been a series of groundings of ocean-going ships in the St. Lawrence river this spring; however, I did see the report in this morning's paper and the statement to which the hon. member has just referred. I have asked the officials of my department to ascertain what are the facts and to make such investigation as seems desirable at the moment.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker,-


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, before the minister goes on I would like to ask whether we will have a report from him in this connection later on?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unwise to anticipate the facts of the matter. When I have learned what they are, and if I think a statement' should be communicated to the house, I shall make it; otherwise, the subject could be discussed when my estimates come before the committee.



ST. CLAIR RIVER-INQUIRY AS TO SINKING OF ORE CARRIER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, on Friday the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) asked me a question concerning an ore ship that had sunk in the St. Clair river.
I am now informed that on Thursday night, April 19, the S.S. A. M. Byers and the S.S. E. M. Ford were in collision in the St. Clair river about a mile below Russell island.
The S.S. A. M. Byers sank in about 17 minutes in a position almost parallel to the centre line of the channel, which at that point is approximately 800 feet wide, and the wreck lies astride the international boundary line. The United States coastguard took charge and stopped traffic until a survey had been made by the United States corps of engineers and traffic was resumed at two a.m. on Saturday.
I am given to understand, although our report has not been confirmed, that traffic is moving through in single file. I might add that I have had a more recent report to the effect that traffic in both directions was resumed over the week end. Salvage equipment is on the site, preparatory to lightering the Byers' cargo and raising the vessel.
Both vessels are on United States registry and there were no Canadian pilots on board. The responsibility for the investigation into the collision will rest with the United States coastguard.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: I should also like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I would like to know whether all the commercial planes used in the freight lift to the D.E.W. line going from Mont Joli are under inspection and certification from his department?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite unable to give an answer to such a question without notice. I shall take my hon. friend's question as notice and make such inquiry as is necessary to give him an answer.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, notice of which has been given him. Will the minister undertake to afford the house the opportunity of discussing the estimates of the finance department at least a few days some time before May 31?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the significance of the date that my hon. friend has given, but I will be glad to accommodate him if it can be worked into the legislative program.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say when the report of the Fauteux commission on parole and remission is expected?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would think it would be available within the next fortnight.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would like to ask a supplementary question. Does the minister think, then, that action will be possible this session?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, Mr. Speaker, before saying anything about that I would like to see the report.

On the orders of the day:


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to my previous question to the Minister 67509-200
Inquiries of the Ministry of Justice, may I ask the minister if he will bear in mind that if action is not taken this year it will mean that people will languish unnecessarily in jail after a weary year's delay?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I question whether my hon. friend's present inquiry is of the type that is appropriate to be asked on the orders of the day; because I would take issue with the conclusion which he has just expressed, and if I were to answer his last question intelligibly I would have to relate at some length the reasons why.



INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In the light of the statement read by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) indicating a very drastic reduction in Canada's sales under the international wheat agreement, I wonder if the minister could give some lead to the farmers as to whether or not they should review their seeding plans for wheat for this year.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have always indicated to the house on every occasion when it has been possible to do so that we have always been in the habit of giving the farmers all the information that is available and permitting them to arrive at a conclusion as to what they should do on their individual farms. I would not like to suggest to them that they should take any particular action as a result of the announcement made, but I am sure they will have a good look at it and do what they think is wise.



PEYOTE BUTTONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Baillefords):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the Department of National Health and Welfare consider peyote buttons to be a menace to the health of anyone chewing them or drinking any concoction made from them? If dangerous, what action will be taken to prevent their entry into Canada?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of his question. Peyote buttons contain at least

Trans-Canada Highway Act nine alkaloids and in large quantities they can be harmful and indeed have caused death among the Indian population. All substance considered as drugs before being allowed entry into Canada must be labelled in accordance with the Food and Drugs Act. In addition to the present statutory requirements concerning importations, we are giving consideration to imposing further restrictions.


Mr. Coldwell:: Except for medical purposes.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ACT AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR HIGHER CONTRIBUTION TO COST OF HIGHWAY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 19, consideration in committee of Bill No. 214, to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act- Mr. Winters-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 2-Limitations.
Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, after checking Hansard for Thursday I rise to correct a wrong impression created by the figures given by the minister in connection with the distances involved in the Big Bend, Rogers pass and Jumbo pass routes. I am quite sure that the figures were given quite unintentionally in that form but they are apt to cause a false impression in the minds of hon. members and people throughout the country. The minister gave the length of the Big Bend route as 196 miles from Golden to Revelstoke, the Rogers pass route as 88 miles from Golden to Revelstoke, and the Jumbo pass route as 234 miles. However, he did not mention the fact that this is the distance between Mount Eisenhower and Revelstoke, which makes all the difference. A fair comparison would be to give the distances for all routes between Mount Eisenhower and Revelstoke, which would be as follows:
Big Bend	
270	milesRogers pass	
168	milesJumbo pass	
234	miles
Those figures give an entirely different picture so far as distances are concerned. On reading Hansard further I noticed some rather confusing remarks which had been made by one or two members. I wish to re-emphasize the fact that we are not suggesting this route or that route; we are simply asking that there be a proper and adequate survey of all routes before a final decision is made. So far as the Jumbo pass route is concerned, all that we have to date is a walking reconnaissance undertaken by an engineer of the provincial government. On the basis of that walking reconnaissance he made a preliminary report to the minister of highways in British Columbia.


I am rising again on this question because it is an important matter to the people of southeastern British Columbia. They are very concerned about it because they believe that no final decision should be made until there is a proper survey of all routes. You might say that the request that has come from all the chambers of commerce and boards of trade and any number of farmers' institutes and other organizations was reaffirmed on April 14. Did the hon. member for New Westminster wish to make a comment?


Mr. Hahn:: I just wanted to know whether each individual had written to you.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A good number have written to me, but I am representing the views of my constituency and, in this case, the majority of all members of all parties. It is not a partisan matter; it is a district matter; and there are no party politics connected with it. Anyway, these requests that have come during the past two or three years by members or organizations were reaffirmed on April 14 at the annual convention of the associated boards of trade of southeastern British Columbia, held at Invermere. There again they passed a resolution urging a thorough survey of this route before any final decision is made and, I understand, they communicated their wishes again to the provincial government and possibly to our minister in Ottawa.
I feel that many members of the house are misinformed on this question and I feel to some extent the minister has not all the facts. I do not get up here and just talk eyewash, as some people to my left do; I am talking about what I know of the wishes of the people I represent. In order to place the facts before the house, and for the sake of the record, I am going to read briefly two or three paragraphs of a brief prepared by Mr. Boyd C. Affleck, a very prominent engineer in Nelson, who has had long and successful experience in the construction of highways, irrigation systems, industrial plants and things of that sort, and also a lengthy and successful career as a British Columbia land surveyor.
I might point out that this gentleman is taking a thoroughly objective point of view. He is a most ardent supporter of the Social Credit government of British Columbia and he is viewing this question as a good citizen and an engineer with long experience in the district and with some knowledge of what he is talking about. I shall quote briefly from his brief in order to get the record straight, as there is a good deal of misunderstanding and confusion. This is what he has to say in concluding his brief, in connection

with this subject, after making a reconnaissance survey over this route:
Some cost estimates have been made by government highway engineers, both dominion and provincial and will be quoted, but the writer is not able to reconcile them, or to determine what items each estimate includes or excludes, or whether they include or exclude the same items. They are, however, interesting.
A federal government engineer has estimated the cost of rebuilding the Big Bend route to trans-Canada standards at $50,916,000. A provincial government engineer has estimated the cost of the same work at $27,300,000. It does not appear that either has included the cost of completing the Kicking Horse section, from Stephen to Donald, which may roughly be guessed at $10 million more. Taking the mean of the two estimates and adding the Kicking Horse estimate, gives the figures of $49,108,000 for the possible cost of this route.
For the C.P.R. route, the comparable estimates of the two engineers are $2,148,000 and $22 million in both cases again ignoring the cost of completing the Kicking Horse section. By the same process of reasoning as before, which is about all one can do, the resulting estimate for this route is $35,074,000.
For the Jumbo pass route only the provincial government engineer's estimate is available amounting to $35,875,000. He has estimated on a highway from Golden, instead of from Mount Eisenhower but perhaps there would be no great difference in the cost involved. He estimated the cost of the summit tunnel at Jumbo pass at $10 million, which does not seem to adequately evaluate the recently developed tunnel driving economies of tungsten drills, multiple jumbos, delayed action blasting and power mucking, which have revolutionized tunnelling practice in the last few years and have reduced costs immensely.
The writer is informed by a tunnel expert that under the favourable conditions existing at the site, the probable cost should be less than half that estimate.
The board of trade explorers who traversed the Glacier creek valley on two occasions, both before and after the engineer's reconnaissance together with several old time trappers, differ very sharply with him on his appraisal of its road construction difficulties which are, in their opinion, not serious.
To summarize:
Big Bend route, length 270 miles, estimated cost $40,108,000.
C.P.R. route, length 168 miles, estimated cost $35,074,000.
Jumbo pass route, length 234 miles, estimated cost $35,875,000.
It is apparently believed by provincial and dominion officials that on account of the large sums that have and are being expended in the Kicking Horse canyon, the trans-Canada highway is thereby irrevocably tied down to that route and that any discussion of routes west must use Golden as a key point, rather than Mount Eisenhower.
He goes on to summarize the whole purpose of his brief and representations and says:
The whole purpose of this brief is to urge the citizens of British Columbia and their government to investigate this new concept of the Jumbo pass route with the same thoroughness with which the two other routes have been investigated. It deserves it.
Trans-Canada Highway Act
I mention that, Mr. Chairman, because this gentleman does not speak just for the sake of talking. He is a highly qualified engineer indeed.
I want to mention another matter before I sit down. According to the British Columbia papers Mr. Evan Jones, deputy minister of highways for British Columbia, informed the British Columbia tourist council last fall, I think it was in October, at its annual meeting that Rogers pass definitely would be the future link between Revelstoke and Golden. Here is an interesting thing. Here is the deputy minister of highways of British Columbia making a definite announcement before a British Columbia body as to the route of the trans-Canada highway in that section. Yet the Minister of Public Works for Canada apparently has not been informed of the announcement made by the deputy minister of highways of British Columbia. That seems very strange to me. I should like the minister to inform the house if he has any other correspondence from the minister of highways of British Columbia that would indicate that the prior announcement made by the deputy minister of highways with respect to the route of the trans-Canada highway in British Columbia is correct.
I hope the minister can give us some information in that respect because the matter has us all a bit concerned. To show the interest in the matter, I should like to read an excerpt from an article in the Nelson Daily News of March 12, 1956. The article is headed, "Windermere Board Continues to Press for Jumbo Pass Highway." It reads in part as follows:
Invermere-Windermere district board of trade functions on the theory that "you can't keep a good project down."
That is why I am on my feet again today, Mr. Chairman.
In spite of numerous rebuffs on the proposed Jumbo pass highway, the organization bounces back with renewed enthusiasm and strong faith that given a fair survey the Jumbo pass route would stand on its own merits.
In the same spirit, Mr. Chairman, I again ask the minister to use his good offices to make representations to the minister of highways of British Columbia for a fair and adequate survey of the Jumbo pass route before a final decision is made with respect to this very important matter.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: I only have
a couple of questions. One of them has to do with the observation made on the last day we discussed the bill by the hon. member for St. Paul's. It has to do with the correct wording of subclause 3 (b) of clause 2. He asked the minister to consider whether the clause might not be amended to read

Trans-Canada Highway Act "the total length" and I think the minister replied that he was satisfied that it meant the total length and that it needed no further amendment. In reading subsection 3 which follows, one finds that it deals with the incorporation into this plan of highways already constructed. It again appears to me that there is some substance in the remarks of the hon. member for St. Paul's, and perhaps the minister might repeat the statement that this does definitely include the total length; that is in subsection 3 (b) whether he has considered the suggestion of the amendment. That is one thing I should like to ask the minister.
Then, I am wondering what reason there is for subsection (4) of section 2 which states:
No contributions or payments shall be made under this act,
(a)	after the 31st day of May, 1961.
This would appear to be some form of limitation, as we know it in the law. I can understand the significance of the clause dealing with the construction time, but is there any particular reason why we should set a time limit on the payment? After all, it may be the federal government's fault that payment is not made upon demand by the provinces, yet this section would appear to be mandatory and there would be no opportunity for the provinces to get payment after that date. If the reason for nonpayment were of their own making I could understand that, but there is the possibility "that there may be some omission on the part of the federal government which would push the provinces past this date. 1 find it difficult to understand why that particular subsection is going in the amended act.


Mr. Winiers:: Mr. Chairman, in answer
to those questions I would say that in subsection 3 (b) the length means the total length. I again checked with the law officers this morning and they assured me that the wording in the bill is all right and conveys the intention we have in mind in that respect.
Subsection 4 (a)-it was considered by the treasury officers that there should be some cut-off date. When the provincial governments met with us it was agreed that the termination date for the work would be December 31, 1960. We all agreed that there should be an adequate period allowed for the provinces to submit their accounts for payment. At that time we suggested the end of the fiscal year, March 31, 1961 and I think the provinces all thought that was all right. But then, when the agreement went out to them in draft form, we exchanged some more views with provincial officials and with our own treasury people and it was agreed that if we allowed an

extra two months they could get their accounts in and we could service them; that was agreed upon.


John Borden Hamilton: They are
satisfied?


Robert Henry Winters: I believe they are satisfied.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Are we on
clause 3?


The Chairman:: No. Shall clause 2 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Limitations.
Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to ask the minister one question with regard to this section as it pertains to standards and specifications. I see that the clause says: ... in the opinion of the minister, it meets the standards and specifications prescribed by an agreement made with the province under section 3.
I take it from that that there are specifications, that the federal government haS specifications for building the trans-Canada highway. Is the only specification the 18,000 pounds per single axle?


Robert Henry Winters: No, there are specifications attached to the agreement known as schedule B, which sets out the basic geometry of this trans-Canada highway.


Charles Edward Johnston: What do you mean by the "basic geometry"?


Robert Henry Winters: It specifies the width of the paved surface, 24 feet; 10 foot shoulders on either side; it gives the load carrying capacity; it sets out the sight distances, both horizontal and vertical; it defines the curvature and the gradients. I think that is about all. There is also the thickness of the pavement.


Charles Edward Johnston: What does the minister mean by the load carrying capacity?


Robert Henry Winters: As I said last Thursday, it is specified at 18,000 pounds axle loading.


Charles Edward Johnston: Are there different sets of specifications for each province? What I mean is, does each province submit to you the specifications that they are going to use in regard to the thickness of the final coat, the thickness of the subgravel coat, asphalt bound and so on?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes, they do, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wonder if the minister would table for us the specifications in that respect for each of the provinces, so that we will have some idea of how the trans-Canada highway compares in each of the provinces and whether or not we consider those specifications will be sufficiently strong to carry even the minimum 18,000 pounds per

axle. As I pointed out to the minister the other day, I am quite satisfied that the trans-Canada highway will not be sufficiently strong to carry the loads that we hope and expect it will. If we had some idea of the specifications that were being employed by each of the provinces, it would enable us to better judge what the condition might be.


Robert Henry Winters: Well, the specification that has been mutually agreed upon is included in schedule B and is the one that applies to all the provincial governments participating in this agreement.


Charles Edward Johnston: This schedule B does indicate the specifications, practically speaking then, in all the provinces?


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


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Aggregate limited to $250 million.
John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could correct my arithmetic here but I am wondering if, in fact, he has gone far enough in the amount of money that has been provided under this clause. I understand that this increases the amount from $150 million to $250 million. As I listened to the minister the other day, and after checking Hansard, it would appear that he has paid out about $80 million so far on this type of construction. He has indicated that the regular amount to date is running at the rate of $20 million a year, which would total another $100 million, and that the provision in the amending act will cost the federal treasury some $10 million to $15 million per annum. If you take the maximum amount that is set up here, that is another $75 million, of course it totals an amount greater than the $250 million provided. Is the minister quite satisfied that this amount is going to cover the completion cost of this highway or should we expect he will have to come back and ask parliament for additional money?


Robert Henry Winters: This estimate, Mr. Chairman, is based on what I might say is our revised concept of what will constitute the completed trans-Canada highway. At the outset we contemplated a highway from one coast to the other built or rebuilt completely to trans-Canada highway standards. Now we have said that where there are sections of the road already paved, but which do not quite conform to trans-Canada highway standards, we will not ask that they be torn up and rebuilt. They may be embodied as part of the trans-Canada highway, but under those circumstances the provincial government would not claim and would not be paid for
National Housing Act
them. This is only an estimate with that in mind. Whether it will be finally adequate five years from now, I am not sure. This is only an estimate and I hope it will be sufficient but I do not guarantee that we will not have to come back to parliament and ask for more money.


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


Robert Henry Winters: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure for the further improvement of housing and living conditions and for that purpose:
(a)	to provide for payments of contributions to municipalities in order to assist in the clearance, replanning, rehabilitation and modernization of blighted areas, up to twenty-five million dollars and such other amounts as may be subsequently authorized;
(b)	to increase the amount of a home improvement loan that may be guaranteed under part IV of the National Housing Act, 1954; and to increase the aggregate amount of home improvement loans that may be guaranteed, from one hundred and twenty-five million dollars to two hundred million dollars;
(c)	to increase the aggregate amount of all loans in respect of which insurance policies may be issued under part I of the act from two billion dollars to four billion dollars;
(d)	to provide five million dollars out of which to pay expenses of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation incurred in carrying out its responsibilities under part V of the act relating to housing research and community planning;
(e)	to provide fifty million dollars for federal-provincial land assembly and housing projects; and
(f)	to provide for a number of administrative and other changes deemed necessary for the more efficient administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, at this time I will restrict my remarks to the resolution which confined itself to those features of the proposed bill which require the expenditure of public funds.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How about a vote now?


Robert Henry Winters: When the bill is before the house for second reading it will be appropriate for me to make a more general statement.
In 1954 parliament enacted a new National Housing Act containing many of the features

National Housing Act
of the previous legislation, but making important changes relating to loans for home ownership and rental housing by introducing the insured loan technique. Banks were first introduced into mortgaged lending in Canada through the new act and during the year 1955 they were responsible for half the loans committed under the National Housing Act.
In 1955, 127,000 houses were completed and 135,000 were started. This is an all-time record for house building in Canada. About one-half of this large program was financed under the act.
Since the end of world war II almost one million new houses have been built, largely on the perimeters of our cities. There is now increased public concern for housing conditions in the interior of our cities, and it is with this subject that the proposed legislation mainly deals.
The first item on the resolution deals with the redevelopment of substandard areas in municipalities. It is proposed to amend the act in two ways; first, by widening the scope of the legislation so that the redevelopment of cleared areas may be undertaken by private enterprise as well as by public authorities; and second, by providing a more flexible arrangement for the financial assistance offered to municipalities by the federal government. The basis of federal financial participation will remain the same; that is, up to one-half the net cost of acquiring and clearing the area to be redeveloped.
At present the legislation applies only to an area that is to be used either for a low or moderate cost rental housing project or for any federal, provincial or municipal public purpose. The proposed legislation will remove this restriction so that each area cleared may be redeveloped for the purposes for which it is best suited. These may include the uses that are specified at the present time in the act; or the whole or parts of a cleared site may be sold to private enterprise for residential, commercial or industrial uses. Since the purpose of the act is to provide and improve housing, there will be provision, of course, that the effect of any redevelopment will be to improve housing conditions in the community.
At present the federal government may make a grant to a municipality to assist it in acquiring and clearing an area to be redeveloped. The amount of the grant, as I have indicated, is limited to half the difference between the final cost of acquiring and clearing the area, and its sale price or value when cleared. Under the present statute the federal share was therefore paid only after the operation of acquiring and clearing had been completed. Under the proposed legislation the

federal government will be authorized to contribute to a municipality half of the total cost of acquiring and clearing the area, through contributions made during the process of the acquisition and clearing. When the project is disposed of, the federal government will share with the municipality in what is recovered from the sale or other disposition of the cleared area. These two changes in that part of the act which deals with redevelopment are, I feel, of great importance. The prospect of redeveloping a blighted area into a commercial or perhaps industrial area which may be more appropriate to the district and at the same time more productive of revenues will, I believe, encourage a number of cities to participate in urban redevelopment projects. The prospect of having the federal government share the financial burden virtually from the inception of a redevelopment project should provide an incentive as well.
The home improvement provisions of the act are being amended. The resolution refers to an increase in the amount of loan made by approved lenders that may be guaranteed for home improvement purposes. At the present time the amount which was established in 1948 is $2,500 for improvements to a single dwelling and $1,250 for each additional unit in the building. It is proposed that new provisions will authorize the corporation to guarantee a loan up to $4,000 for the first dwelling unit, and $1,500 for each additional unit, and the maximum period of amortization will be extended.
It is proposed that the aggregate amount of loans that may be guaranteed for home improvement purposes be increased from $125 million to $200 million, in order to look after additional loans which are now being made at the rate of about $30 million per year.
The resolution deals with the aggregate amount of loans made by approved lenders that may be insured by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under part I of the act. The present limit is $2 billion. The proposal is to increase this to $4 billion. Since the introduction of the insured loan system in the 1954 act, an amount of almost $1 billion had been committed by the end of 1955. At this rate, the present limit of $2 billion would be reached by about the middle of next year.
The resolution calls for the provision of funds for the activities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under part V of the act. This part of the act deals with housing research and community planning. It is now provided that funds can be drawn from the consolidated revenue fund up to a limit of $5 million. This limit will be continued

but the new legislation* will provide for expenditures under this part of the act to be brought before parliament periodically.
The resolution also calls for a revote of the $50 million at present provided by the existing legislation for federal-provincial land assembly and housing projects. The proposed amendment will simply bring the method of accounting into line with normal government practice.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to say the minister's statement does not enlarge very greatly the information contained in the resolution. He has indicated that his statement was to be confined to those aspects of the bill which are of a money nature and require the introduction and adoption of a prior resolution. I think for that reason, since the bill is to contain obviously other amendments to the National Housing Act, I should reserve until we have the bill any comments which may more properly be made on second reading.
I have only two observations to make in general on the resolution as outlined by the minister. In the first place, the house is being asked to approve a considerable enlargement in the funds appropriated by the act for housing under the various parts of the act. The house has never been penny-pinching in its approach to the housing problem.
As to the other feature of the bill which the minister indicates is designed to add greater flexibility to the provisions of the act for its scheme of dealing with the problem of blighted areas, I am sure that the house will be glad to approve in principle any effort to make these provisions of the bill more flexible and more efficacious for the purpose of clearing blighted areas.
This is the first occasion in the last two years that there has been an opportunity for a discussion of housing. Hon. members will recall the extended debate which we had in March 1954 when the new housing act was introduced and discussed on second reading, and then after it was reviewed in the banking and commerce committee when it came back to the house. This is the first occasion since that time that the house has had an opportunity to discuss housing and to review the results achieved under the new measure which has now been in effect for two years.
I should like to make some passing observations on the developments in this field since the new act came into being. I begin by reference to the retirement of Mr. David Mansur, the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, late in the year
National Housing Act
1954. I think all hon. members of the house would like to acknowledge and pay tribute to the devoted service rendered by Mr. Mansur under the very heavy responsibility that fell on his shoulders in the post-war years as president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
It was the good fortune of many hon. members of this house to come into close contact with Mr. Mansur, not only in relation to housing problems that they sought to discuss with him, but also in two sessions when the standing committee on banking and commerce had Mr. Mansur before it as a witness in reviewing housing administration. It is not unfair to say that Mr. Mansur made a profound impression upon the committee not only by his wide knowledge and his thoroughly co-operative attitude but also his forward-looking views. I am sure that in leaving the presidency of Central Mortgage, and Housing Corporation to follow a private career Mr. Mansur carries with him the gratitude and good will of all hon. members of this house.
The second matter worthy of comment is, of course, the high volume of house construction which the minister has mentioned. In 1955 it reached an all-time high of 127,600 houses. There are perhaps four factors that enter into the high volume of housing construction that are worthy of comment.
The first is the participation by the chartered banks in mortgage financing. They have done so on a very extensive basis. When this matter was before the house two years ago there was still some question in view of its novelty as to how far the banks would participate in the new scheme of insured mortgage loans. Perhaps the views of the bank were adequately summed up by Mr. Atkinson on the occasion of his retirement from the presidency of the Canadian Bankers Association last June when he said, as reported in the press:
"There is no doubt,'' he said, "that financing homes under the National Housing Act now is an accepted and integral part of Canadian banking."
Forty per cent of the total number of housing units approved for loans under the National Housing Act are being financed by the chartered banks. "Bank participation," he said, "is a notable contribution toward easing the housing problem throughout Canada."
The second factor, sir, is an ample supply of mortgage money available for loans on new construction of houses.
The third factor has been a relative stability in building costs. There have been some slight increases but as compared with the previous period it has been a period marked by relative stability.

National Housing Act
The fourth factor arises from the fact that there have been no severe, prolonged or overall shortages of building materials. All these factors have entered into the record rate of house construction in 1955.
There has been one other factor that is not so cheering in its results, and that has been a rapid rise in land costs. It has been particularly marked in the urban areas. In my own city of Toronto it was pointed out by Mr. Bates, the new president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in his submission to the Gordon royal commission that land values had quadrupled since the war in the areas where housing construction is proceeding most actively at the present time.
Another factor has been the very uneven distribution in housing need and consequently the uneven distribution of the building program to meet it. In this field national averages, after all, are not nearly as significant as they usually are because here we are dealing principally with a need that takes its most acute form in the large urban areas and on their fringes. It is there that the largest increases in population have been occurring.
It remains a fact, as we in this part of the house pointed out two years ago in the debates on the new bill, that the housing problem constitutes a very severe test of the financial strength of municipalities. There is still a lamentable dearth of serviced land, particularly in the areas of greatest need, and this is today the major bottleneck in the path of construction to meet the need.
The municipalities on whom the burden of providing services for land normally falls are literally at the end of their revenue resources. The federal government has within its power the solution of this serious and critical problem, but it continues to withhold that solution. It leaves the responsibility to the provinces, which of course created the municipalities, and at the same time in large measure it continues to absorb their sources of taxation.
I affirm again as on previous occasions that the solution rests within the power of the federal government. The federal government is not coming forward with any solution of this problem, which is not going to be solved without remedial action on the part of the federal authorities. It is to be hoped that this type of action will come soon.
Another feature of developments has been that most of our new housing has been constructed for sale. There is still relatively little construction for renting except in the case of apartment houses, and by and large these have been of a rather costly and in some cases 
palatial nature. Tftere has been little housing constructed for renting within the reach of persons of modest income.
Next, the prices of houses are still very high. The present prices place them beyond the reach of many people who are in need of housing.
Next, the down payment still remains very high. It is still too high for many people who need housing, and the extent of that down payment still depends, in large part at least, on the lending value determined by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The maximum loan, of course, was increased when this act was brought into effect two years ago; in the case of any house constructed for owner occupancy, to $12,800.
Another feature which follows from the last one I have mentioned is that the provisions of the act in part I are being confined in their benefits more and more to persons with better than average incomes. The figures are rather significant. If you look at the average gross family income of home-owner borrowers you will see that in 1953 under the former act that average was $4,961. Those are the persons who have received the benefit of being able to borrow under the provisions of part I of the National Housing Act. In 1954, the year in which the new act was in effect for approximately eight months of the year the average gross family income of home-owner borrowers under part I had increased to $5,382. In 1955, for the first half of the year, that average gross family income had further increased to $5,447.
It is quite obvious that if those who are qualifying for loans under part I of the act to build owner-occupied houses are persons with an average family income at the middle of 1955 of $5,447, persons of modest income are deriving little or no benefit from the provisions of part I of this act. It seems to me that that is one of the serious problems which confront this house today in connection with the provisions of this act and its administration. If anyone here pretends that one of the purposes of this act is to provide assistance for persons of modest income in acquiring homes, then certainly that purpose is not being achieved. Under present conditions, under present provisions of the act and under present administration there just is not any chance whatever of that purpose being achieved. Let us look the facts in the face.
The next factor relates to inspections. When this legislation was under consideration two years ago some of us expressed grave concern that under the new insurance scheme there would be such centralization of inspections under Central Mortgage and Housing

Corporation that delays would be inevitable. Unhappily that has been the fact. The centralization of these inspections in Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has resulted in very long delays and increasing bureaucracy.
My next comment is with regard to the effective rate of interest charged or permitted under the various parts of the act, and in particular under part I dealing with the interest rate on mortgages on houses constructed for owner-occupancy. When the new act was brought into effect by proclamation on March 19, 1954, the effective rate was set by order in council 410 at 5J per cent per annum. On February 16, 1955, under order in council 213 that rate of interest was reduced by one-quarter of one per cent to 5i per cent. The rates under other parts of the act were likewise reduced one-quarter of one per cent. This was in keeping with the trend in interest rates throughout the country and in the face of an abundance of money available for mortgage lending.
On March 22, 1956 by order in council 466 the government has moved all of these interest rates up again by one-quarter of one per cent. The interest rates applicable to loans under part I of the act are now back at 5J per cent. I am led by this increase in the rate by government decision to ask: Is the government seeking to reduce the rate of house construction in Canada? One recalls the experience of 1950 when in the immediate post-Korea period the government sought to restrain house construction for a period of a year or two. If the government seeks today to restrain the rate of house construction then I think they ought to say so.
Certainly there was no such suggestion two years ago when the new act came into effect. On the contrary, the government indicated at that time that their hope and expectation as a result of the introduction of the insurance provision were that there would be an increase in the rate of house construction. There has been no statement from the government since to indicate any change in that policy or that outlook. Indeed the minister has taken some satisfaction out of the high rate of house construction in 1955 and its carryover into 1956. I recall that the Minister of Finance spoke to similar effect in his budget speech.
I am bound to point out that an increase in the interest rate normally has the effect and usually is intended to have the effect of restraining house construction. I think the minister owes it to the house to explain the evident contradiction between the policy of 67509-201
National Housing Act
his department in seeking to maintain a high volume of house construction, perhaps even to increase it, and the financial policy of the government in seeking to apply by fiscal measures restraint upon what they choose to call inflationary forces.
What is the government's thinking in this regard? The Minister of Finance does not come out and say frankly that the government is seeking by this increase in the interest rate to restrain house construction, but for what purpose is the increase in the interest rate put forward as it is as an antiinflationary measure? What purpose is it to serve in this context? It seems to me that barring a frank statement from the government we have here another example of befuddled thinking. There is evidence of contradiction in the policies of the two departments. Let us have from the government a clear statement of what its objective is and then we will be in a position to judge.
I should like to turn now to another matter. The act confers very wide powers upon Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and in this respect administration becomes increasingly more important as the act in a sense becomes more stabilized in its provisions. Administration can mean the difference between effectiveness in carrying out the provisions of the act for the purposes for which parliament intended them, on the one hand, and setting at nought, in part at least, the provisions of the act, on the other hand.
The act vests administration in Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as the agent of the government and in this chamber the government must accept responsibility for the acts of administration, the omissions or failures of its agent. Therefore I think it is important at this point that we should give some thought to an examination of the administration.
In my observations upon that administration as I have sought to follow it I propose to test it by the experience in the city of Toronto. In the construction going on in that city and in the fringe about the metropolitan area there lies perhaps the widest opportunity in Canada today for testing the administration of the provisions of this act under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The conclusions which my review of that administration has led me to are that the corporation is becoming increasingly bureaucratic in its attitude and behaviour. There is increasing evidence of an ivory tower complex and in some respects that bureaucratic attitude is verging on the autocratic. The corporation is becoming more and more remote from the people and their problems.


Robert Henry Winters: Is the hon. member going to cite examples?

National Housing Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: I hope I shall have time to do that. I do not wish to take up a lot of time of the house, but if the house will permit me I should like to give examples, because I am just as concerned as is the minister to see the administration of the act made as effective for its intended purpose as is possible because, when the act was introduced and enacted, there was a wide measure of agreement in the house on its objectives. We may not all have shared quite the same expectations from different aspects of the changes, but it has always seemed to me that it was the earnest desire of the house that in enacting the provisions of this measure the utmost efficacy should be expected in their administration. I am saying what I am about to say now, not because I take any satisfaction in what I find in the attitude of the corporation, or those particular aspects of its attitude which I have mentioned, but in the hope that in saying something about them here it may perhaps have some corrective effect.
I was saying that it is evident that the corporation is becoming too remote from people and their thinking, that it is closing its ears to the thinking of the people and, to that extent, in its attitude is becoming unrealistic in many particulars. The result has been delays and the loss of valuable time with respect to projects that were undoubtedly urgent.
Now I should like to illustrate. I turn to the city of Toronto. I mention first of all the leading venture in the field of public low rental housing for all of Canada, for I conceive it so to be: the Regent Park North project. If the house will permit me, I should like to say I have had a personal interest in this matter since the year 1943. As a member of the city planning board in Toronto in that year I had with my colleagues on that board the privilege of fathering the first proposal for the redevelopment of the site on which the Regent Park North project was since constructed. I regard it as the outstanding success in public low-rent housing in Canada today. It cleared an area of 42 J acres, chiefly of blighted houses: the area bounded by Parliament, Gerrard, River and Dundas streets. The land assembly was carried out by the city of Toronto, and under the provisions of section 12 of the old act the federal government contributed half of the cost, that is to say, half the difference between the actual cost of the land assembly and the price at which it was turned over to the housing authority, which has managed it since. That was the only federal contribution to this project. This was not a project carried out under what later became section 35 of the 
Housing Act. It was a municipal project carried out with substantial assistance from the province of Ontario. As I say, the federal government's contribution was confined under section 12 to half of the cost of the land assembly.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Could the hon. member say what year that was?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Of construction? Actually the first family moved in in April 1949, but the project was first put forward, I might repeat, in 1943. After the war there was a municipal plebiscite held on the question whether the city should proceed with it, and it was endorsed by the Toronto ratepayers. The management was placed under the Toronto housing authority. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has never had at any time, and has not today, any part whatever in the management and operation of this project.
Here is the record. When finally completed, by the end of this year there will be 1,289 housing units constructed, largely of the block apartment type. Only a few remain to be completed. Those units house approximately 5,000 people, including 2,000 children under the age of 16 years. I think the management has been conspicuously successful. The project has been fortunate in having as its manager Mr. Frank Dearlove, an official long in the service of the city of Toronto, with excellent experience and, I might say, great devotion to the success of this project.
I think it is an interesting answer to any who have inherent fears in regard to projects under ownership and management of this kind, that administrative costs to date have been less than five per cent of the revenue. Arrears of rent since the first family moved in, in April 1949, amount to just $68. That has indeed been a remarkable record. A recreational program is provided in the area under the city parks department. In my opinion, much of the undoubted and unchallenged success of this project has been due to citizen interest, and that is why I am so concerned that in projects undertaken, studied or managed by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation we should never lose any opportunity to maintain and encourage citizen interest. It is the healthiest factor that we can introduce in a situation of this kind, in my humble opinion.
In the first place, I have mentioned the plebiscite. It was brought before all of the Toronto voters. In the second place, the Toronto city council has maintained at all times an active interest in the project, its management and its success. The members

of the housing authority placed in charge have been devoted people, and 1 think a great deal of credit is due to them. However, in addition to these factors, there was a high measure of citizen interest maintained in particular by certain organizations. I mention in particular, because I well know of their interest and its beneficial results, the Women Electors Association. Here again, if you can get women citizens interested in a housing project and maintain their interest, I do not think you could have any healthier type of interest. One of the major contributions that the women electors association made to the success of this project was the service of the late Mrs. Bessie Luffman, a prominent member of the Women Electors Association, following her appointment as a member of the Toronto housing authority. Her death a few months ago terminated a life of high service to the cause of housing and other beneficial pursuits in the city of Toronto.
I bring this before the house now by way of illustration of some of the things that have happened since, with respect to other proposed projects where the course of development has not been nearly as happy as the record that I have just given.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Before the hon. member goes on, would he permit another question? Could he give us any information regarding the number of people who were housed in that area previously and anything about the rents that are being charged?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I am coming to the matter of the rents. So far as the number of persons who were housed in that area before the project was undertaken is concerned, I might say that the number housed today is substantially greater. I think my hon. friend's study has gone to the point of showing, as certainly experience has shown, that where adequate measures with sound planning are undertaken to replace a blighted area in many urban centres-


William Alfred Robinson: I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Ellis:: We in this group-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but I suppose it would take me seven or eight minutes more to review this particular project. If it is the wish of hon. members of the committee, I suppose I could make my remarks later.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
67509-201J
National Housing Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the experience in all these cases has been that where a blighted area is redeveloped and reconstructed it is always possible to house more people in the area and house them infinitely better than you could before. That was the experience in the Regent Park North area. I shall say a word later about the matter of rents and the approach to them.
The Regent Park North project obviously forms a most valuable pilot project with respect to any similar undertakings, and I would commend it strongly to the government as such. But I do not find that the lessons derived from the success of that project have been applied too sympathetically by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I come now to deal specifically with a proposed new project in an area lying immediately south of the area covered by the Regent Park North project. It is bounded by Dundas, River, Sydenham and Regent streets, and is known in Toronto as the Regent Park South project. It would involve the clearing of another blighted area for redevelopment. The city has been making excellent progress in acquiring the land for this purpose. As the partnership provisions of the new act now apply in dealing with blighted areas and their redevelopment, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is in effective control of the proposed redevelopment. But, unfortunately, the record of what has happened has been a record of delays. I wish to be fair about this. I do not say that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is entirely responsible for the delays, but I think a fair review of the record will show that the principal measure of responsibility does rest upon that corporation, and consequently the government must accept it.
Let me give some examples quickly in passing, because I do not wish to delay the committee, of what I think are evidences of rigidity in the attitude of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It is inevitable, where any governmental body has power and administrative responsibility such as are cast upon Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under legislation like this, that there develops a tendency, people being human, towards a bureaucratic approach. I am sure that the minister will be vigilant at all times and I urge him to be vigilant to correct any evidence of any growing attitude of that kind that he finds.
In the first place, whereas in Regent Park North construction proceeded on the basis of block apartments with very good results, what is proposed in connection with Regent

National Housing Act
Park South is tall apartments plus row housing. The reason given tor the construction of row housing is that they wish to have families with children on the ground level or close to it. But, sir, I point out that construction of a lot of row housing in that particular area in the old heart of the city is unrealistic. In time a lot of row housing is likely to turn into the old familiar terrace housing with small enclosed yards and houses with exposure only at the front and rear. I think there is a very grave danger that in years to come row housing is likely to give rise to blighted areas again, particularly when the management and upkeep of row housing will not be, to the same extent, at any rate, in the hands of those who have the responsibility for overseeing the project in other respects. The experienced officials of Regent Park North have recommended against row housing, but their advice has not been given effect to by those who are now carrying forward the proposed Regent Park South project.
In the second place, when Regent Park North was constructed enough boiler space was provided to heat the Regent Park South project today if it is proceeded with, and I am informed it was proposed to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that it should be so used, but the proposal was rejected by that corporation. They insist upon separate heating facilities being provided for the Regent Park South project.
In the third place, I am informed that the administrative offices for the Regent Park North project are adequate for the provision of administrative services for the Regent Park South project, but that idea again has been rejected by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They want the administrative offices for Regent Park South located in Regent Park South although the two areas are contiguous.
In the fourth place, there is the problem of management. I have no doubt that the very capable management that has made a success of the Regent Park North project could with a little encouragement assume the management of Regent Park South, but again I am informed that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation insists upon strictly separate management. The minister shakes his head. I can say to him that is my information. We must all agree, I think, that the success of these projects will depend upon the availability of well trained management personnel. That has been one of the major factors in the success of Regent Park North and I hope its importance will not be overlooked in connection with Regent Park South.
In the next place, I come to the matter of the income regulations with respect to the

occupants of these two respective housing projects. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has insisted upon a different basis of calculation in this respect. Let us look at the provisions that govern the determination of rents in the Regent Park North project. In the first place, income is determined on the basis of including the income of the head of the house and $10 per week for every other earner in the family. In the case of Regent Park South, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation insists on including the total income of all members of the family plus the family allowance. There you are creating a disparity at once and I think that some friction is necessarily bound to follow.
In the second place, in determining the maximum income permitted to occupants of Regent Park North $4,200 was the maximum determined except in the case of former residents of the area who were accorded priority. In the case of the proposed Regent Park South project the maximum is determined at $4,404.
Let us turn though to the minimum income provisions. In the case of Regent Park North no minimum income whatever was stipulated on the part of the housing authority. Indeed, an effort was made to use that project to meet need on the basis of need. In the case of the proposed Regent Park South project the regulations administered by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation require that every tenant must have a minimum income of $150 per month. In other words, need does not count. No person is going to be admitted to an apartment or a house in that project unless he has an income of $1,800 a year to begin with.
I understood, Mr. Chairman, that the reason that parliament was being asked to approve the provisions relating to federal-provincial partnership in connection with the redevelopment of blighted areas when we enacted the provisions of the new act in 1954 and the provision of the old section 35 of the National Housing Act some years earlier, and when we made substantial appropriations available for the purpose, was to meet a social need. We do not justify measures of this kind simply on the bare bones of economic considerations. We look at broader social considerations in approaching legislation of this kind.
Here we have a situation where an important project, being studied now as a project under federal-provincial partnership, is to have a term attached to it that will deny any occupancy in this project to any tenant who cannot satisfy Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that he has an income of at

least $150 per month. Now, the effect of that is going to be to exclude everybody whose income is less than that. As I understand it, that is not carrying out the purpose for which parliament enacted this provision. If I do not correctly understand the purpose of parliament in adopting this provision, then I hope I will be corrected soon. A stipulation of this kind certainly does not carry out the intent of this legislation as I understand it to be.
Now, sir, all these differences introduced between the proposals for the Regent Park South project and the provisions attached to the successful Regent Park North project, have resulted in delays. I do not say Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is solely responsible for them, but I do say Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has not escaped a high measure of responsibility in connection with them. In particular, there has been no attempt to encourage the interest and participation of citizen groups. Indeed, some of the citizen groups that were most keenly interested in the Regent Park North project have developed a feeling now in response of the attitude of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is not interested in their participation; that it is taking a "hands off" attitude with respect to citizen interest. In any event the result of it all has been that there has been a discouragement of citizen interest. It is not enough that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should put beautiful plans on paper. There are some things with respect to a project of this kind that are just as important, and in my opinion more important, and citizen interest on the part of intelligent civic groups is one of those more important considerations.
There is just one other matter I shall mention in conclusion. It is the experience of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company in connection with the proposed construction of a housing project for aged persons at Lawrence Heights in the suburbs of Toronto. This company is a limited dividend housing corporation organized by the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, which set out to construct 128 suites for aged couples at a cost of $722,000. It was to be a low rent project in the township of Etobicoke. The result of long delays, for which again I believe the principal responsibility must rest, upon Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has been that the whole project has now reached the point of frustration. This story was told in last Saturday's issue of the Globe and Mail by Lex Schrag. After inquiry I think I can say to the house that his review of the steps in this unhappy episode is fully justified by the facts.
National Housing Act
He said:
Looks as though red tape and metropolitan Toronto's fair wages practice could scupper Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company plans for senior citizens' low rent apartments in Etobicoke.
The company was formed two years ago. Metro had bought land in Etobicoke. The company bought sites from Metro for 128 apartments, and began dickering with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
It was expected CMHC would make a loan covering 90 per cent of the project's cost, recoverable over 50 years. First, though, CMHC wanted to know the cost. So an architect was engaged to draw plans and make an estimate.
Tenders were called, and the contract for the apartments was let to the lowest bidder. The contract was sent to CMHC at Ottawa. Got pigeonholed, and nothing happened for several months. After some pressure had been put on by Metro, officers, the plans were dug out of the pigeonhole-
A variety of CMHC supervisors and inspectors went over the project, and suggested minor restrictions and changes. Reams of correspondence were accumulated. Then it was decided that the contract was too low to conform to Metro's fair wages practice.
The original estimate had been based on the going price of similar structures in Toronto and so, apparently, had the accepted tender. Under the fair wages practice, Metro officials sit down with officers of the Toronto Builders' Exchange and union officials, and decide what labour costs and rates are to be.
The delay in getting work under way hadn't helped the project to conform to this practice, and the original estimate, apparently, wasn't based on all-union labour. So the housing company had to ask Metro for more money. And then CMHC said it would put up only 90 per cent of the original estimate.
Besides which, CMHC decided it wanted another 25 feet easement-or ground space-around the apartments. So back the company officers had to go to Metro.
Meantime, the contractor whose tender had been accepted was getting decidedly restive. He couldn't keep his men and equipment tied up for a job that didn't get going. It now looks as though the contractor will have to be released, and new tenders called.
So the story proceeds.
Now, sir, I have brought these matters to the attention of the house because of the concern that I am sure all hon. members share that measures enacted by parliament shall, in their administration, be made effective for the purpose for which parliament enacted them. Here, it seems to me, is a case where Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has fallen into some errors which are perhaps natural temptations attending any governmental body under such circumstances. But we can see the results of too much rigidity; too much bureaucracy; too much of the ivory tower complex; too much of the feeling that the experts in the ivory tower know more than the citizens who are on the spot and face the situation firsthand.
In raising these matters here today, I do not do so with any degree of satisfaction. I do so

National Housing Act
rather in the hope that, with the assistance of the minister, measures will be taken to correct this attitude and to see that no delays are permitted to arise that are attributable to rigidity and a bureaucratic approach. Rather let us hope that a frank review of the administration as we see it in a concrete situation

and this is the first opportunity we have had in two years for that purpose, -and what is said in the house may act in some degree as a spur upon the responsible officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and that they may be encouraged to put behind their duties in administering the provisions of this act the fullest determination to make these provisions effective for the purposes for which parliament enacted them.


Alfred Claude Ellis: When the National Housing Act was before parliament in the session of 1953-54, Mr. Chairman, the C.C.F. members made certain objections to certain aspects of the legislation, pointing out their inadequacy and the failure of the act to meet the housing needs of the average Canadian citizen. Hon. members will recall, and I think our members were refreshed the other evening when the minister once again had all members of the house rise and be counted on a particular bill, that at the time the National Housing Act was passed, he made rather caustic comments about the critics of the legislation. The time which has elapsed since the passage of the present National Housing Act has vindicated the criticism which we made at that time. Indeed, we have found that the case if anything was a little understated.
In speaking in the budget debate the other day I placed on record a table showing the participation by various income groups under the National Housing Act, and without labouring that particular point I wish to point out that since 1948 the percentage of those in the relatively high income groups under the National Housing Act has gone up while, on the other hand, the percentage of those in the relatively lower income groups has gone down, so that the criticism which we made to the effect that few, if any, Canadians earning less than $3,800 a year would benefit under part I of the National Housing Act, has certainly been substantiated in the intervening period of time. Indeed, we find that of Canadians earning less than $3,500 a year there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4 per cent who have obtained any benefit whatever from part I of the National Housing Act.

It seems to me that when we are discussing the resolution now before us we have to consider the housing need and the likelihood of the legislation proposed by the government making any worth-while attack on the problem. We have to provide for home ownership wherever possible, and, of course, that is not being done as far as low income groups are concerned under the present part I of the National Housing Act. It seems to me that the greater percentage of Canadians ought to be in a position where they can purchase their own houses. It is quite clear that under the present National Housing Act that is not possible for a great percentage of Canadian citizens. If those Canadians who are earning possibly now under $4,000 a year are unable to benefit from part I of the National Housing Act, then it is quite obvious that some other measures are going to have to be taken if we are to see that our Canadian people are adequately housed.
We have suggested on numerous occasions that what we need in Canada, apart from a program to provide for greater home ownership, is legislation to provide for low-rental housing for the vast number of Canadians who by the nature of their jobs are not in a position to establish themselves permanently in one locality, or are not in a position to purchase a house at the present time. I know that the resolution before the house states that this measure is designed for the further improvement of housing and living conditions. Inasmuch as the resolution seeks to explore and to do something about this broad question of housing, it is the type of legislation we are anxious to see proceeded with at the present time. But we are going to have to put the same test to this proposed legislation as we did when the amendments to the National Housing Act were brought down in 1954. We are going to have to examine the housing picture in Canada and see how closely the legislation comes to meeting the needs of the Canadian people at the present time.
One thing I think we should settle at the outset is that housing is not merely an economic problem; more and more Canadians are beginning to realize that housing is a major social problem. Indeed, in the very excellent brief presented by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospect they state in chapter 2:
Because of its fundamental place in a modern industrial economy and because of its deep social implications, housing is a matter in which governments at all levels are inevitably and intimately involved. The provision of housing has some of

the aspects of a public service, inviting governmental participation and community action for reasons of economic policy and in pursuit of welfare objectives.
Therefore, we cannot consider the housing program from purely economic aspects. We have to consider the necessity of doing something about our shocking housing situation in this country from the aspect of social welfare and the effect it is going to have on the health and happiness of the Canadian people. Humphrey Carver, in his book, "Houses for Canadians", brings out the point I think quite clearly. He says:
The severity of the housing shortage must be measured in terms of human distress. Children and adults crowded into small quarters cannot escape from the frictions and frustrations occasioned by too close and too constant proximity. The humiliation, squalor and ugliness of obsolete and temporary housing leave their permanent mark upon the occupants.
All sorts of evidence has been advanced as to the social implications of housing and the folly of continuing to ignore this basic problem. Indeed, public health officers from one end of Canada to the other have from time to time emphasized the importance of housing on public health. The medical health officer in the city of Regina, in his annual reports to council, has placed great stress on housing conditions and on more than one occasion has described housing as the biggest health problem in the world today. Indeed, one cannot separate inadequate housing from the general problems of social welfare and public health; hence, any program designed to alleviate our housing problem is also one that is going to meet in large measure social welfare and health needs in Canada.
Of course, this is not something new. As far back as 1943 the Curtis report emphasized time and time again the social implications of poor housing and pointed out the incidence of tuberculosis in good housing areas was 25 per 10,000 population, while it was 64 per 10,000 in poor housing areas. The same situation applies in so far as infant mortality rates are concerned. They were 58-3 per thousand live births in good housing areas and 121-8 per thousand live births in poor housing areas, which is a shocking waste of human life, much of which could be prevented if decent housing conditions prevailed.
John Boyd Orr, in his excellent pamphlet entitled, "Housing and Health", quotes a United States investigator who stated that after a very close examination of both British and United States health statistics, the death rate from nervous and nutritional diseases showed a fivefold difference in areas
National Housing Act
where people were adequately housed as compared with slum areas.
In the field of juvenile delinquency the social problems were so immense that they could only be met by doing something about our housing situation in Canada. I believe that we as a parliament should be setting forth cur ultimate objective for a housing program. You know, there are too many people in the country who look upon the housing problem in terms of meeting an economic demand in the typical free enterprise fashion. They say, "Well, here is a particular need, and we are out to meet the need", as determinated by the ability of the people to pay a particular price at a given time for a certain commodity. The argument is that there are so many people in Canada who at present-day market prices are able to buy homes and therefore if you meet that demand the problem has been solved. I suggest that we have to look at the problem from an entirely different point of view, that the ultimate goal of a proper housing policy for Canada should be the provision of modern, structurally separate dwelling units of adequate size and decent quality for every family household and individual requiring them.
As I pointed out, the major flaw in the thinking of many government leaders today is that they continue to think of housing purely in terms of economics, failing to take into consideration the wider social aspects of this great problem.
We in the C.C.F. certainly believe that housing should be based on actual needs and that a supply of housing ought to be dependent on the requirements of those who at present are in need of adequate housing.
During my talk on the budget I referred to the fires which had occurred in the Ottawa area and throughout the country generally during the past few months and suggested that a great deal of this shocking loss of life could have been averted if something had been done to provide more adequate housing. Indeed, many of the most serious fires have occurred in substandard dwellings where there is faulty wiring and there are faulty heating units. The only way in which we are going to provide for a greater measure of safety against the recurring loss of life from fires is to provide homes built according to certain minimum requirements. These requirements would include adequate and proper heating units and wiring, and so forth. Until we do that we are going to be continually faced with this problem of loss of life as a result of fires.

National Housing Act
Now, Mr. Chairman, in assessing the housing problem in Canada at this time I was quite interested in the joint submission placed before the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects by the trades and labour congress of Canada and the Canadian congress of labour. In the section dealing with housing in their excellent brief, they point out that there are three aspects to the housing problem in Canada.
First, of course, is the question: What is the housing need and how many dwelling units are required in Canada at the present time? Second, what is the physical capacity of Canada's building industry? Third, what is the ability of Canadians to purchase housing?
As far as the first aspect is concerned, I think one must recognize that there are two factors to consider. The first of these is the annual need for houses to take care of net growth of new families in any one year. Second, we must consider the need to replace dwellings which have been removed during the year through fire or demolition.
The brief presented by the two labour congresses suggests that there are about
85,000	new units required each year in order to meet this first demand; that is, the annual economic demand for new houses. In addition to that there is a tremendous backlog of housing which will have to be met if we wish to make any frontal attack on our housing problem.
There may be some dispute as to the actual size of this backlog, but the joint labour brief suggests that there is a need for approximately 500,000 new dwellings plus the need for some 123,000 dwellings to replace rural dwellings in substandard condition. It might be said that the maximum figure suggested is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 623,000.
We know that the greatest portion of this need will be to take care of the vast number of Canadians who are doubled up; that is, who are living not as single family units but with in-laws or friends through economic necessity. It is computed that it would require some 370,000 new dwellings in order to provide single unit dwellings for Canadian families in the urban areas of this country. In addition to the 370,000 dwellings required to meet that particular need there would be in the neighbourhood of 140,000 units necessary to replace urban substandard or slum housing.
If you add those figures you will find that they total over half a million, representing the number of dwellings which are needed in Canada. If you add to that the number of

substandard rural dwellings which will have to be replaced, you would have to add another 123,000, thus making a grand total of 623,000 dwellings.
As far as the doubling up is concerned, I note that a few years ago Mr. Mansur suggested a certain amount of this doubling up was voluntary. In the brief submitted to the royal commission by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, however, they do admit quite candidly that the doubling up is not through choice but is rather through economic necessity. Indeed, the congresses' brief places on record certain statistics which prove quite conclusively that those families with low incomes are the ones forced to live in overcrowded conditions and to share accommodation with other families.
The brief points out that where the head of a family is earning over $6,000 a year the percentage of families not maintaining separate households was only 1-43 per cent; for those with an income of $4,000 to $6,000, it was 3 [DOT] 1 per cent; for those earning between $3,000 and $4,000, it was 6-17 per cent; for those earning $2,000 to $3,000, it was 10-64 per cent; for those in the $1,000 to $2,000 bracket it was 14-7 per cent and for those receiving less than $1,000 it was 19-46. In other words the lower the income, the greater is the economic pressure on families to double up and share accommodation. I think anyone can readily see from the standpoint of public health alone that this situation is not one which should commend itself to the government.
In relation to the figure of 623,000 which I suggested represents the number of dwellings necessary each year to take care of our natural growth, perhaps one should make certain allowances. There might be a few families who prefer to live doubled up. Also, there may be some dwellings which are slated for replacement but which with extensive alterations and repairs might be made habitable again. But even making allowances for these factors I think one could agree with the joint labour brief that 400,000 dwellings is the barest minimum of the housing backlog facing the country at the present time. At the present rate of home construction, bearing in mind the number of starts and completions last year, it would take 10 years to counteract that backlog. I suggest that the legislation which the government is bringing forward must do something to accelerate the elimination of this tremendous backlog.
In dealing with the question of Canada's physical capacity to meet our housing problem I thought that two years ago the minister suggested that we have a capacity for around
135,000	dwellings per year.

3X79


Robert Henry Winters: I was referring to a statement made by the Canadian construction association.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I think the figure would seem to be quite accurate. I understand that last year there were 138,000 starts and some 128,000 completions, which indicates that last year we did meet the yearly requirement so far as housing is concerned and nibbled away to some small extent on the backlog to which I have been referring. However, a great deal will have to be done if we are going to bring about some amelioration of the conditions existing in the country at the present time.
Of course the major factor is the ability of people to pay for housing. I have dealt with part I of the National Housing Act and have pointed out that under its terms anyone earning under $4,000 a year could not hope to benefit under the provisions of the act. I think the latest figures reveal that the cheapest N.H.A. house is something in the neighbourhood of $11,700. If that figure were amortized over a period of 25 years at the present rate of interest it would require an individual having an income of at least $4,000 in order to enter into a contract to purchase a home under that particular section.
I repeat my question: What is the government proposing to do to extend the provisions of this act to those who earn lower incomes? Does the government feel that home ownership is primarily the prerogative of those who earn $4,000 a year or more, or does it feel that some measure should be taken to provide home ownership for those earning incomes much lower than the present minimum figure required under the N.H.A.?
It seems to me that that is the crux of the problem. We have to provide home ownership possibilities for a much greater number of Canadian citizens than are provided for at the present time. For those whom we cannot serve from the standpoint of home building or home purchasing some provision will have to be made in the way of low rental housing. If that entails an element of subsidy, then we must face up to that question. Apparently we have no hesitation in subsidizing business generally. Our tariff structure is perhaps the biggest form of subsidy in existence. This house has been called upon to subsidize the gold mining industry, the argument being that a whole segment of the population is vitally concerned. Surely housing is important enough that the government should consider the absolute necessity of providing a greater measure of assistance for those in the low income brackets.
I realize that sections 16 and 36 of the National Housing Act contain certain possibilities, but I would remind the minister that
National Housing Act
while the rentals possible in connection with low rental housing projects may seem low to a great many Canadians-it would seem a low rental to many of us-I am sure that there are many Canadians to whom $58 or $60 a month would not be a low rent. Certainly it is low in comparison with $125 or $150 a month. Low rentals, such as would be possible under section 16, are simply relative. To a vast number of Canadians such rentals would represent a high rent.
The minister will recall that when the N.H.A. was under discussion before I referred to a project in the city of Ottawa and I quoted from an editorial which had appeared in the Ottawa Citizen which pointed out that even if that project were completed it would not meet the needs of a great many Ottawa citizens whose salaries are quite low, that they would not be able to qualify for accommodation in that particular project. A few minutes ago the hon. member for Eglinton pointed out that the limits set on occupancy in particular low rental housing projects denied access to a great many low income earning Canadians.
It seems to me that we have to accelerate our program and shift the emphasis from assistance for those with relatively high incomes-I use the word "relatively" because there is a difference of opinion as to what constitutes high income-and in this connection I agree wholeheartedly with the joint submission by the labour congresses to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, and I quote from page 115 as follows:
But we are most strongly in favour of more public, subsidized low-rental housing under section 36. More of this is urgently needed. This, and cooperative housing, are the only methods which will provide decent housing for the people who need it most. On the whole, hitherto, our national housing policy has concentrated on helping people of moderate, or more than moderate, income. It is time for a shift in emphasis.
We now have before us a resolution purporting to bring about an improvement in housing and living conditions in Canada. There are six sections to this resolution but even with the minister's statement we do not know what is involved. We shall watch carefully to see whether the government is taking cognizance of the need for assistance to Canadians in the low income brackets. It is all very well to boast, as the minister did earlier in the session, about the number of starts made last year and the fact that we are now finally catching up to current needs, but so far the government has done little or nothing to provide for the housing needs of Canadians with low incomes. We shall watch this proposed legislation most carefully. I want to ask the government whether it has learned

National Housing Act
from its experience under the previous legislation and whether it now realizes the necessity of shifting the emphasis toward the provision of housing for those people in Canada who need it most.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, we in this group welcome the opportunity of again being able to discuss Canada's housing legislation. In 1953 when the housing act was first reintroduced for a complete revision we expressed our opinion that the act did not meet the needs of the people. From what I have heard of the discussion up to now I am not too satisfied that this present resolution is going to do a great deal more in that respect.
I was interested in what the hon. member for Regina City had to say because I agree with what he says about low rental housing. However, I wonder whether the figure of
623.000	as the number of dwellings being required is a true statement of fact.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The hon. member will realize that I was quoting from a brief submitted by the labour congresses. If he is taking issue with that figure he should take issue with the congresses' brief.


Frederick George Hahn: I am not questioning the fact that 623,000 dwellings are required in Canada. I am just questioning whether they took into consideration the fact that thousands of people today do not want houses under the National Housing Act. They want to own their own homes, and they want to own them completely, without owing anybody. I do know that the Canadians of former years certainly wanted to build homes and I am satisfied that they did not want to borrow money to do so. I would say that the figure of 623,000 would be quite accurate if they could get homes at the prices at which they want them and are willing to pay for them, and with the down payment which they are prepared to make on them.
I am not disputing the fact that we could use 623,000 new homes. We could probably use more than a million new homes if every person in this country who owns a home were asked if he would like to replace it with a better one. But there are thousands of people living in homes today-some of the
623.000	referred to by the hon. member for Regina City-who, if you asked them specifically whether they wished to change their homes for new ones and go into debt for $6,000 or $7,000, would say offhand that they were not interested. They would say, "We want to own our home. We own this one and we are not interested in going into debt any further at this time."
However, that does not exonerate this government from the responsibility it has with

respect to the low-rental homes in this country. In 1953 I spoke to the resolution, and at that time I indicated that I felt there was a large group of home owners in this country who needed legislation that would cover financial assistance for home improvements that was not being afforded under the terms of that act and that would be desirable in so far as they were concerned. I think I repeated that argument later when the act was again brought before us for revision. Now I feel satisfied that in this present resolution and the explanation I heard I find very little that would indicate that this is going to be taken care of.
Speaking specifically to the resolution, I see in paragraph (a) that we have the following: ... to provide for payments of contributions to municipalities in order to assist in the clearance, replanning, rehabilitation and modernization of blighted areas, . . .
That is most desirable, so much so, in fact, that I would endorse it 100 per cent; but I am not satisfied that under our present scheme of things it is going to be taken advantage of very freely, by reason of the fact that the municipalities that should take advantage of the act are those which are growing most rapidly. They are in the unfortunate position of not having sufficient funds to do that very thing. They are the municipalities that are actually more in need of financial assistance, rather than giving it to anyone else.
The reason for that is quite obvious. Their populations are growing very rapidly, and therefore there is a greater demand for public utilities and public services in those particular areas. They require new sewage works, more sidewalks, roads and policing and the other services that we find in these communities. The people in those areas, because they are progressing so rapidly, are those who are spending more in income tax, and the corporations are spending more in corporation tax. Of course when the inhabitants die they usually have more money; therefore more death duties as well are collected. Those very communities are sacrificing in two ways. They represent the wealthier sections of the country. That is where you have tfie greatest need for housing. Financially they are turning more and more money into the coffers of the federal government and are receiving less and less in return.
It seems to me that these areas certainly want to help all the other areas. There is no denying that. But they require a greater degree of assistance when it comes to making it possible to alleviate the housing conditions within their own areas, largely by reason of the fact that I indicated earlier, that they are the quickest growing and represent the wealthier districts within the country but,

because of our equalization of taxation laws, they are also in the most difficult position.
These municipalities do not know where to get the money. When I listen time and time again to the pleas for more housing and more money from this government, or any other government for that matter, I wonder exactly what the source of this revenue is going to be, unless we change our economic methods within this country. I would say that some recognition must be made of that.
I was thinking particularly along the line indicated by the hon. member for Regina City with respect to getting this financial assistance. We have members in this house who damn this government and anybody who considers that United States capital should come into the country. If we as taxpayers are going to build pipe lines with Canadian capital, build up our industries with Canadian capital, and try to build our houses as well, with a program such as was outlined by the hon. member for Regina City-and in this connection they will probably speak in this debate along the lines that we need 623,000 dwellings in this country-I am satisfied we are going to have to change our economics. It is just not possible to carry on in the present fashion of saying no to investment capital and anyone else who is trying to help us in one way or another.
I was thinking particularly-and I noticed this with some interest and some anguish, I might say when I read it-of an item in the Vancouver Province of Saturday, April 21, on page 23. I just want to refer to one paragraph, because it would have such a detrimental effect upon housing if that is what the hon. member thinks. This is an article datelined Washington, D.C. It states:
What's the fuss about U.S. "imperialism"?
. . . They are considering, as in the commerce department, whether the U.S. government shouldn't publicly advise American businessmen of the extent of that feeling in Canada against U.S. control of industry, and advise some judicious methods for dealing with the problem.
If we are going to refuse that, then where are we going to get money to help our housing schemes along? I say that is the most important factor and must be kept in mind all the time. These things are interrelated and they must be remembered as such.
I turn to paragraph (b) of the resolution. It says:
-to increase the aggregate amount of home improvement loans that may be guaranteed, from one hundred and twenty-five million dollars to two hundred million dollars;
Of course that would naturally follow, in view of the fact that we have this modification in the earlier part of the resolution, if
National Housing Act
it is taken advantage of and we have further investment in housing in the area. I am wondering whether the minister would, in the course of his answers, indicate to the house what effect the insurance clause has in the act itself and whether or not we have lost much-we would not have lost, of course, but whether there was much demand on the insurance fund-


Robert Henry Winters: There has been none.


Frederick George Hahn: -and the exact sum that was involved, in view of the effectiveness of that legislation for the past year or two and the fact that we have an insurance clause which carries a high interest and which provides that the premiums will be paid or that the rents will be paid. Then I should like to know, since we have such a buoyant economy, whether the fund had any drawings on it whatsoever.
The fourth part of the resolution has to do with housing research and community planning. That too is very important. The hon. member for Regina City mentioned that many homes were destroyed by fire during the past year. That is a most unfortunate condition and one that in my opinion is not absolutely necessary. However, no matter what our housing regulations may be, there is an onus of responsibility upon the householder himself. I am satisfied that the minister or his officials cannot go about the country policing homes in order to see that householders do not overload their electrical circuits and outlets with too many appliances.
So far as the construction of new homes is concerned, we as legislators have a responsibility to see to it that inspections are made to ascertain whether or not the regulations are being complied with, so as to be absolutely certain that new homes are as fireproof as possible. We should see to it that there is as much non-inflammable construction as possible, foolproof electrical conduits, simplified heating and everything else that will prevent a recurrence of the fires that took place in the Ottawa region and in Ontario last year which caused millions of dollars of damage. That is a most important fundamental in the building of new homes.
So far as old houses are concerned, advantage should be taken by people of the new act, and the only way that can be done is to make its provisions known as widely as possible to those citizens who own old homes. I am sure that many of these people, if funds are made available to them at a nominal rate of interest and they are given a longer period of time in which to repay, would take advantage of the provisions of the legislation to change the wiring of their

National Housing Act
homes so as to make it possible for it to carry the load it is expected to carry. We probably would not have a repetition of the disastrous fires we have had during the past year. Our responsibility does not end with the amending of the legislation. We have a greater responsibility to let people know that the act is being changed and that it will be possible for them to take advantage of its provisions to alter their homes in such a way as to make them safer.
I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has received certain correspondence from such organizations as the Vancouver housing association drawing his attention to the plight of many citizens in the poorer groups who are unable to house themselves properly. I refer to old age pensioners, our senior citizens, those who come specifically within the low income bracket. Those individuals and others with incomes of $4,000 a year or less are the ones who require a greater degree of help. I have, for instance, an editorial from the Vancouver Province of December 14, 1955, headed, "Needed-An Under $10,000 House". In my estimation that is one of the greatest needs in housing development today. We need such homes for the proper housing of people in the low income group, houses that will be built according to proper specifications. Incidentally, I am quite satisfied that if the research bureau were to investigate the matter further they would find that it was practical and possible to build a house to meet the specifications set out under the National Housing Act and which would at the same time cost less than $10,000. The editorial reads in part as follows:
Amendments to the National Housing Act next year-
That is this year.
-will take the emphasis off suburban building and encourage the reconstruction of older areas inside the cities. This is good. It is good for the suburban municipalities, which have been struggling to keep up with the demands for roads, water mains, schools, policing and all the other services for subdivisions that have been sprouting like mushrooms.
Dealing with that portion of the editorial, the very fact that the suggestion has been made that we should now rehabilitate certain sections of our cities where for various reasons houses have fallen into a state of disrepair merely indicates the necessity of taking advantage of the existing facilities. In this case the water mains are already there, the roads are there, the sidewalks are there and the sewage disposal units are there. Yet these sections of our cities are not being used to the best advantage. It becomes necessary that these areas should be used to better

advantage. Every available plot of ground must be used to advantage in these areas that are growing so rapidly. Possibly certain areas should be used, and rightfully so, for recreational purposes.
However, as I indicated earlier there has been a tremendous growth in the suburban areas in those parts of the nation where there the degree of growth has been greater possibly because of prosperity, and those areas are in great need of assistance. Possibly we can cut down the amount of that assistance by rebuilding certain of the older areas where facilities are already available. The editorial goes on to say:
By and large, N.H.A. has operated until now at the two ends of the housing scale. It has built homes for the ranch style and patio set with incomes of $6,000 and upwards, and it has done a certain amount to encourage community housing for those with low earnings or small pensions.
The words used there are "a certain amount to encourage community housing." That part of the editorial again causes me to pause, because I feel that therein lies the greatest need that we face in Canada today. I should like to refer to a recent issue of the Vancouver Province, that of Saturday, April 21. On page 18 there are some photographs of various homes in the Vancouver area showing what national housing has done. Underneath there is an article by Jack McCaugherty entitled, "Tiny Pensions Doom
42,000	to Live in Unfit B. C. Hovels." That, Mr. Chairman, is an indictment of the people of this country. Why should this newspaper, which has a circulation of over 300,000, be in the position of being able to tell the people of this country that some 42,000 people are doomed to live in unfit British Columbia homes? I do not intend to read the whole article, but the first portion of it is as follows:
Thousands of Vancouver's older citizens are tucking themselves away in the dark corners of the city, forced into run-down housing that isn't fit to live in. They have no choice. Their pensions won't buy anything better. Like the old lady who lived in a backyard garage without water and plumbing. The snow blew in through wallboards during winter. She had to share the bathroom in the landlord's house. If the landlord went away for the week end, the house was locked up, and with it the toilet facilities.
Or like the basement "suite" that rented for $35 a month with windows so small the lights had to be left on all day. And when it rained, the entrance was flooded, and pensioner tenants had to wade in.
Or the old woman who lived in a former stable. In cold weather the landlord shut off the water, fearing the pipes might freeze and burst. But rent was still $20 a month.
These are cases recently checked in Vancouver by housing groups.
They are examples of the plight of thousands of almost-forgotten senior citizens who with limited

income are forced to take dark, damp, unserviced quarters that give little comfort for their declining years.
A few non-profit societies have given this area some comfortable low-rent units for aged citizens. But the projects don't begin to meet the need.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that article is selfexplanatory, so I shall not comment upon it any further. I would only suggest to the minister that he take into consideration not just the economics of the situation, as was suggested by the hon. member for Regina, not just the fact that we need 623,000 homes in this country, but the fact that we do require homes as quickly as possible for a certain group of citizens who are, practically speaking, being starved to death. I daresay many of these people have found an undesirable way out. These people need attention, and the best attention we can give them today is to make a home available to them that will be a credit to our nation.
One paragraph in the brief which the minister is supposed to have received from the Vancouver housing association in October, 1955, reads as follows:
With the removal of rent controls in British Columbia, the following rent increases demanded of pensioners were reported:	From $25 to $42.50
(widow), from $21 to $45 (couple), from $25 to $42.50 (widower), from $17 to $30 (widow).
Some of these people in British Columbia are more fortunate in that they are eligible to get assistance under the means test. They may get as high as $60 per month. If the rents paid by these people compare with the rents paid by the people in other parts of Canada, then they do have too little left upon which to live. The brief goes on to say:
Any steps taken to increase the supply of low rental housing for this group will at the same time increase the real value of the pension and reduce the pressure of demand for a higher pension.
I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that if the minister were to discuss this subject with the Minister of National Health and Welfare he would find that gentleman in agreement with the view that if the housing authority could possibly make homes available to these elderly people at low rentals, then the demands for a higher pension would be somewhat offset by the amount which these people had left to buy their food and clothing.
Then there is another group which is mentioned in this brief and to which I should like to draw the minister's attention, as he may wish to make some comment about
National Housing Act
them. I refer to the families in receipt of social assistance. One paragraph in this brief says:
Average rents paid by families in receipt of social allowance in the city of Vancouver are considerably in excess of the minimum rental payable by working families admitted to public housing projects.
Note the significance of that, sir. The rental paid by these people is considerably in excess of the minimum rental payable by working families, yet these people are on social assistance and the taxpayers are helping to pay that rent. The brief says:
Yet for these rents they can often only obtain accommodation which jeopardizes their physical and mental wellbeing. A recent sample study of families of three persons or more in receipt of social allowance in the city of Vancouver showed that nearly half were living in accommodation which was seriously substandard or overcrowded.
Therein, Mr. Chairman, lies the problem we have today in respect of housing. I would submit that we do have to use our research branch to plan our communities with only one thought in mind at this time, and that is to see that these people in the lower income groups have housing made available to them at low rentals. I must conclude by saying that what Canada needs is a serviceable $6,000 to $8,000 home.


Mr. Pearkes:: I welcome this opportunity to say a few words to this committee, and I endorse the general remarks which were made by the hon. member for Eglinton. It is my intention to call particular notice to the housing conditions in suburban areas rather than to discuss the details of construction in the cities. I notice that the principle behind this resolution is to further improve the housing and living conditions in this country. Obviously, we are all in favour of any measure which will improve those conditions. My principal concern is whether the present resolution foretells a bill which will go far enough to meet the situation as it exists now.
During the Easter recess when I visited my constituency, large numbers of people made representations to me expressing concern over the housing situation. This number included not only the reeves of municipalities but also representatives of service clubs, bankers, real estate agents and those who were home seekers.
Immediately following the cessation of hostilities at the end of world war II there was a large number of homes constructed on Vancouver island. After a year or two the rate of building and the granting of permits declined. According to the figures I have available the lowest ebb was reached in 1951. Since that date the curve has been rising

National Housing Act steadily, with the result that today the level is back to the rush year of 1946 and demand is as high as ever.
While the demand is high it must also be noted that the price of the home has also increased. The cost of home construction on Vancouver island today is at least one-third greater than it was in 1946. This results from increased cost of labour and materials, the rising value of land, the cost of surveying and the cost of providing the various services. The result is that loans under the National Housing Act are no longer available to the individual of moderate means.
When I say the individual of moderate means, I am referring to employees at the shipping yards, for instance, the dockyards of Victoria and even municipal employees. I have an instance of a police constable who was in steady employment at $300 a month, but he failed to qualify for a loan which he required-it was quite a moderately priced house-because he was not able to come within the 23 per cent ratio. In fact the increased costs due, as I said before, to the cost of labour and materials, are putting a great many would-be house owners out of line and out of reach of a national housing loan. Every time there is an increase in the mortgage payments a few more people are put out of reach of those loans. It is all very well to say that in certain cases you will allow a little more than the 23 per cent, but that does not really compensate for those astonishing costs of construction.
One thing which has sent the cost of construction sky high is the requirement of certain specifications as laid down in the regulations. These specifications seem to have been drawn up on a national basis and are not sufficiently flexible for the particular agents of Central Mortgage and Housing to adjust to the various locations across the country. The same kind of construction is not necessary on Vancouver island as is required in the colder parts of Canada. When you find that in a small house of 850 square feet with a basement you are asked to put insulation in the basement walls it adds to the cost, and it is quite unnecessary in the milder climate of Vancouver island. Therefore I feel that something should be done to adjust those specifications in order to make them more applicable to the different parts of the country.
In my constituency at the present time there is a great demand for additional houses. Many of the people want small houses rather than a larger type of house which seems to be required by Central Mortgage and Housing. The price of a small house, if it meets all the specifications which are demanded by Central


Mortgage and Housing, soon gets out of reach of people who are anxious to live in suburban districts. We find that some of the larger estates which had acreages of from three, five to seven acres surrounding them are now being divided up. The children are grown up and have gone to live elsewhere, and the house has become too much for the elderly couple to maintain. They would like to divide up the estate, or perhaps it is a farm in the fringe area between the rural part of the island and the urban home districts.
When these estates or farms are subdivided, the purchasers make inquiries as to whether it is possible for them to obtain a national housing loan on the property. All too frequently they are told it is not possible because the area is not being serviced. No sewers are laid in that area. The district may be several miles away from the central part of Victoria. The lots may be of considerable extent, an acre, or something of that nature, but still they are not approved areas because there is no prospect of sewerage being established in the area, and septic tanks will not be approved.
Of course if someone wants to build a house without getting a National Housing Act loan there is no objection to their building and using a septic tank; but in those small subdivisions which are being offered there is the restriction that they cannot have a National Housing Act loan until sewerage has been put in. The municipalities simply have not the funds to develop those fringe areas with the services required.
Therefore it seems to me that something is required more than is indicated in this resolution, some legislation which will enable and encourage the building of small houses in the suburban areas, something which will give the opportunity either to the company that is going to develop the subdivision or the municipality to put in the requisite services. Frequently in my district water has been laid on. There is plenty of water available, but there is not the opportunity to put in the sewerage system that is required because of the heavy rock formation.
Then there seems to be a tendency on the part of Central Mortgage and Housing actually to discourage the building of houses. People are in need of accommodation. It is of little use to say, "You may build a house in the already built-up area" when the individual requires a house in the suburban area. The tendency seems to be to insist upon every vacant lot being built upon in the urban areas before any assistance will be given to the construction of houses in the suburban areas.

An impression is created in the district of greater Victoria that houses in the suburban areas are being discouraged because Central Mortgage and Housing have taken over a large tract of land in the city of Victoria which was at one time reserved for an airport. The particular land is not attractive from the point of view of ideal residences. It is rather low-lying and flat. While it would be very suitable for business construction, it is not the type of location that the majority of people who are anxious to build houses on some part of Vancouver island desire. If these suburban or fringe areas are being discriminated against in order that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation may dispose of their lots in the area which is known as Lansdowne park airport, I feel that is not right. There should be an easing of the strict restrictions which are now placed on the construction of small subdivisions which have been developed in the Gordon Head area, around Royal Oak and along the Wilkinson road.
It is particularly the problem of home construction in the suburban areas which I wish to draw to the attention of the minister this afternoon.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, I was one of those who two years ago took a rather dim view of the National Housing Act to the extent of voting against it, because I felt at that time that the act as then presented to the house was not going to deal with the real housing problems of the Canadian people.
I would have been pleased, Mr. Chairman, if by now, after that act has been in operation for two years, I could have been proved wrong and that the housing needs of the Canadian people had actually been met. Unfortunately, of course, that is not the case.
I was interested in reading the tenth annual report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to find on the first page this paragraph:
The Canadian people have shown an unmistakable preference for the single detached house as a place in which to raise a family and to spend leisure time. The possession of a house and a piece of land has been an aspiration and a motive in life. Fortunately the earning power and the productive capacity of the nation have made it possible for a new generation of Canadians to realize this desire. About 70 per cent of new housing has been in the form of home ownership.
That is rather interesting, Mr. Chairman, when we consider that the houses of the type which are built under the National Housing Act are, as has been commented upon several times this afternoon, confined to those people with incomes of $3,600 or more a year. I find on looking at the figures
National Housing Act
brought out by the bureau of statistics that the vast majority of the Canadian people do not fall into that category at all. I looked at the list of the various categories of incomes, and deciding to bend over backward to be perfectly fair about this I eliminated those getting incomes of less than $1,000 a year for the purpose of this discussion, because I imagine that the bulk of these are young people in their first jobs probably living at home. They are not likely to be the ones who are building houses.
Even when we do not take those into account I find that out of three million workers earning more than $1,000 a year in Canada, 2,400,000 of them earn $3,000 or less and therefore are completely out of the picture with regard to building houses under the National Housing Act. What it really amounts to, Mr. Chairman, is that this 70 per cent of new housing which is spoken of in the report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been built for some 10 per cent of our population.
It has been suggested that large strides have been made in overcoming the housing shortage in Canada, but that contention does not seem to be borne out by the brief which was presented by the planning board, heads of departments and officials of the municipality of metropolitan Toronto to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects, because I find in that report on the housing situation in the city of Toronto we have this statement. They point out that the existing shortage is some 25,000 units. In the period between 1955 and 1980 it is calculated they will require some 460,000 units. They have some other figures dealing with the age of the houses that are in existence which I think would probably increase the requirements for housing there. We find that many of them will be 65 years old by 1980 and the majority of them may be well over 100 years old by that time. These are units that are still considered as useful and usable housing.
The report has this interesting statement to make, too, Mr. Chairman:
Both the typical apartment units being constructed and the suburban houses appear to be available to only a relatively small segment of the total population. In 1954 median wage or salary income in the area appeared to be less than $2,900, and less than one quarter of the wage and salary earners received more than $4,000. It is doubtful that these levels have increased by more than a few per cent since then. Nevertheless, the minimum going rental for new 2 bedroom apartments in the city is around $135, and in the suburbs it is around $105; average rentals are, respectively, $150 and $120. Even allowing for multiple wage earners in many families, it is unlikely that as many as 10 per cent of the families in the area can afford to pay even the minimum going rentals for new apartment accommodation.

National Housing Act
It would appear from that, Mr. Chairman, that not only is the 70 per cent of new housing which consists of single homes confined to a very small percentage of our population, but that a very large part of our rental housing projects which have been going up is also confined to people in the same income bracket. Pointing out the situation in the Toronto area, the report says:
Nor can the majority of the area's families afford to buy single-family houses in the suburbs, which constitute the bulk of the area's supply of new housing. Minimum qualifying income for an N.H.A. loan on the cheapest sale unit which is currently available in the Toronto area-semidetached houses in Scarborough selling at $10,500- is $3,600; with a working wife in the family, the minimum qualifying income for household heads is at best $3,100 or $3,200.
I think these figures show conclusively that while the National Housing Act might have been extremely useful to the more fortunate segment of our population which is in the minority, it has been completely useless with regard to meeting the housing requirements of the vast majority of our people. One does not need to look at reports of this kind to know what the situation is, and one does not need to look outside the city of Ottawa to realize that many people are living in dwellings which are unfit for human habitation.
Mention has been made here on several occasions of the appalling record of fires in this city. It is perfectly obvious, when one reads of the districts in which they take place and when one sees the pictures of the dwellings, that these are substandard dwellings that should have been abandoned long ago. The people within them, of course, fall into the category of those in an income bracket who cannot afford either to rent decent rental accommodation or to build an N.H.A. house.
I was interested in the comment the minister made when he opened this discussion, and I hope he will correct me if I misunderstood him. I understood him to say that the act was to be widened in such a way that the federal government's contribution toward land assembly and the clearance of slum areas could perhaps be applied to an area part of which at least might be devoted to the assembly and clearance for industrial purposes. Was I correct in that?
That immediately raises the question in my mind as to what is going to become of the people now living in those areas. What provision is going to be made to provide them with some reasonable alternative for the habitations they are now in, if areas that are going to be assembled under this act are going to be taken out of housing and placed in industry? I think that is an all-important problem to be considered.

As the hon. member for Eglinton pointed out, in the Regent Park development in Toronto more people were housed than originally lived in the area. I suggest that if the policy enunciated by the minister is to be carried out and if an area is to be cleaned up at the cost of available housing accommodation, because part of the area is to be put to industrial uses, some provision will have to be made for those who may lose their accommodation. The minister shakes his head. That would seem to indicate that the area would be large enough to provide a sufficient number of apartment houses to house as many as or more than the number of people now living in the present housing units. I did not notice the minister suggesting that there is to be a limit to the amount of an area that might be devoted to industrial purposes.
While I am on this question of apartment house construction may I suggest that there is an urgent need for some supervision with regard to the type of apartment construction now going on in some of our city areas. Perhaps these apartment buildings were not built under the N.H.A., but buildings have been constructed which never should have been allowed to be constructed. I have been spending my week ends lately visiting two members of my family, one of whom lives in Toronto and the other in Montreal, both living in comparatively new apartment houses. I venture to say that those buildings are nothing short of a disgrace. In one instance the building was built only two years ago, in the other instance five years ago. The rentals being paid could be paid only by people getting at least the $4,000 per annum which has been suggested as the minimum for building under the N.H.A.
Many of these areas now being built up will degenerate into slum areas before very long. I suggest that the federal government should be taking vigorous action in conjunction with the municipalities, much more vigorous action than is suggested by the words of the resolution now before us. I suggest that perhaps we should take a leaf out of the experience they have had in Great Britain. When I was there two years ago I was much impressed by the extent to which the public authorities, both the central government and the county councils, in conjunction had embarked upon the provision of low rental housing for the people of Britain.
While admittedly much of that housing would appear to us as being hopelessly outmoded in design, this was not true of all parts of Britain. I was particularly pleased to find that in the remote parts of the west highlands of Scotland, where my ancestors came from, they had some excellent housing

projects, in some of which I stayed, which were built with a combination of county council and central government funds. If the people of Britain are able to undertake enterprises of that sort in order to take care of their people, then a much wealthier country such as Canada should not be falling behind in that regard.
I suggest that the figures we have from such organizations as the municipality of metropolitan Toronto indicate that so far the National Housing Act has not even begun to cope with the problem of housing the Canadian people. While it may be true, according to the report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that the Canadian people have shown an unmistakable preference for single detached houses, I suggest that for the vast majority of the Canadian people that is like having a preference to become a millionaire. It is very nice, but it is something quite beyond their reach. Experience shows that they are just not going to get it. The result is that we have to pay some attention to alternative types of housing.
I find the trend toward apartment dwelling quite unpleasant. I would not like to live in an apartment, but apparently that is to be the fate of many of our people. If that is so, then there should be some real effort made to create apartment house developments of the proper type. I have been impressed with the unfortunate position in which many young couples are placed through having to live in apartment houses in our large cities. I really do not know how they manage to raise their children, because there is only one place for the children to play; that is on the sidewalks.
I suggest that our municipalities should be encouraged and aided by the federal government on most generous terms to develop apartment house units which would provide some of the amenities that go with living in detached houses, which is the hopeless ambition of many Canadian people according to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I suppose the resolution we have before us represents one slight faltering step toward improving an act which in the last two years has been demonstrably so deplorably weak.
I should like to see the act much stronger than it is, and I would be able to vote for it with much more vigour if it were. I think this new legislation is going to fall short of doing what all reports tell us has to be done. Why the government is hanging back, I do not know. I suggest that before very long alternative fields of investment for public funds are going to be one of the major problems of this government, and I can think of no field that is more worthy of their attention and serious consideration than that
23, 1956	3187
National Housing Act
which is offered by a real attempt to grapple with the housing problem of the Canadian people.
I hope we are not going to hear any more about our proud record of building houses in Canada when we are faced with facts such as those presented by the metropolitan council of Toronto, when we are faced with economic facts such as are presented by the bureau of statistics, which prove beyond any doubt that the present housing act is incapable of housing the Canadian people. It may be that we have built over 100,000 housing units, but let us see whom we have built them for, let us consider what income brackets have been affected. I am strongly of the opinion that in a matter like housing we should be starting at the bottom, we should be making sure that there will be no longer in Canada families living in the sort of houses we find right here in the city of Ottawa, houses which are so defective in construction that they result in disastrous and fatal fires. Such houses constitute a most disgraceful and broken down slum area, such as can hardly be equalled in any city in Canada.
These are the problems which this government does not seem to want to tackle. It wants to tackle the rehousing of people with fairly adequate incomes on a sound actuarial basis by guaranteeing bank loans that are going to be paid back anyway because the people have sufficient income. I suggest that we should get right back into the public housing business; we should realize that the housing of the Canadian people is the responsibility of the whole community in Canada, and we as representatives of that community should be pressing for amendments that will be wide and strong enough to accomplish that purpose.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I hesitated a little to rise at this time, because I said to the minister at noon that I would not say anything unless I knew what I was talking about. So I am under quite a disability here this afternoon.
I should like to repeat at this time the tribute that was paid to Mr. Mansur for the work he did as head of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as it was echoed by the hon. member for Eglinton. As a matter of fact I should take particular pride in it, because Mr. Mansur has moved to York West and is presently engaged there in helping us along with real estate development in my own constituency. As a matter of fact his choice of York West may have been motivated by the fact-and I think the hon. member might confirm this-that we have probably as much housing going on there under the provision of his statute as anywhere in Canada.

National Housing Act
I was thinking this afternoon that there is some type of change in this house in connection with the discussion of housing; not that I have been here so long, but there was a certain degree of urgency about it in previous years, and that seems to have disappeared to a great extent. As a matter of fact I do not hand out congratulations very often on a general basis, and I can only feel that if that sense of urgency has disappeared from this house to a great extent then the minister himself should be congratulated, because he must have had a good deal to do with alleviating that previous feeling that it was most important that many things be done for housing in general. So I congratulate him in connection with the strides that have been made in housing. I feel they have been giant strides, and the figures that have been given indicate that we are going a long way toward solving this housing problem.
I should not like to go along with some of the suggestions I have heard this afternoon about rental housing. I listened to the hon. member for Nanaimo as he talked about the great public housing we need now. I think we probably do, but it seems to me that the thing of most vital importance in connection with housing is the construction of individual homes. The home is the place where the lifeblood of the nation is best fostered. As long as we have good, strong homes contained in individual housing units, to a great extent we are going to have a great and strong Canada.
When we talk about all these people who require housing, there is a group of people about whom we have been forgetting. I think they are the forgotten class. We attempt to cover the whole sphere as well as we can, but it seems to me that the people who are really feeling the pinch at the present time are the white collar workers. They are the people who seem to contribute to every fund that comes along-it does not matter what it is-to unemployment insurance, and so on, and they are also the people that do not seem to get anything out of anything. So I feel they are the people for whom we should see what we can do in connection with broadening the scope of our activities in our housing program.
We heard the hon. member for Regina City talk about doubling up. I do not think it is voluntary. It may be voluntary to the extent that a great many of the landlords are doing it voluntarily because they must have that income in order to meet the rising cost of living, which is reflected for them to a great extent in the rising municipal taxes. It is most important that we do not make that type of living compulsory if we can


possibly avoid it. Of course for the other party to the doubling up, about whom we have heard, it is compulsory from their standpoint because they cannot put together even the small amount that is required now in some instances as a down payment under the act.
So I do not think people can be considered as doubling up voluntarily. I think it is a compulsory solution for them. Believe it or not, I think it applies more to that group of salaried white collar workers who, as I say, seem to be feeling the pinch all around in connection, with the rising cost of living.
I might mention as well that I am just wondering about the question of the interest rate, which I see fluctuates a little. I think the minister's interest rate is probably tied down to the rate set by the Bank of Canada for loans to the chartered banks, and they in turn are passing it on. The same type of financing is reflected also in this particular legislation. However, there appears to be little reason for that fluctuation. I have been told it is required to be raised periodically because building materials are in short supply, and that is one way to do the job.
As long as housing is required, as it is, there seems to be little reason for a guaranteed loan to be fluctuating. I might mention that when it fluctuates upward and a man is told, "This year you are going to pay 5| per cent instead of 5 per cent, or 5J instead of 51 per cent", remember that when it is dropped down next year you do not do anything for him because even under the best mortgage legislation he would have to go five years before he could refinance and have his interest rate dropped. So when you raise it and say, "We are doing this in 1956 because certain things are in short supply", then we are penalizing that man for a minimum period of five years.
I might go further. There are other loans that are granted by the regular companies and are tied closely to the plan that is covered by this legislation. Some of them are even for 15-year periods, and you put your name on the dotted line for the whole period. If you wish to refinance, you may do so in five years; but the cost of renewal, the cost of renegotiating the loan, imposes a penalty of a raise in interest, perhaps carried on for a period of ten years, if you wanted to spread it out.
With respect to these guaranteed loans, I feel, for instance, if farmers could get an interest rate of 5 per cent, there is no reason why this type of loan should not be acceptable to the lending institutions when we once and for all set the rate at 5 per cent and saw that it stayed there. There would be no

particular penalty then on anyone for any particular year in which he might have acquired his home.
There is one thing to which I shall be referring as I go along. It is that to a great extent we are not putting up this money. It is not something we are taking right out of the federal treasury and handing around to help people. No; we are guaranteeing it. I think a few of the previous speakers have asked the minister to tell us how much we had to take out of our pockets to make up these guarantees. I should think that, with conditions as they are, this has not cost the federal treasury very much. So I do not think we can sit back smugly and say we are doing a great deal about housing and that it has cost this government a good deal of money.
When we talk about increasing the amount for home improvement loans from $125 million to $200 million, and increasing the amount of loans in respect of which insurance policies may be issued, from $2 billion to $4 billion, we are guaranteeing that much more money, but we are not paying it out of the federal treasury.
Another item that is dealt with in the resolution, which is certainly of vital importance in the area of metropolitan Toronto, is the problem of land assembly. In my opinion this is probably the place where we require the most aggressive action, because if we do not move quickly in connection with the land assembly program the land will slip through the fingers of province and dominion or municipality and dominion. The cost's will be so great that the net amount for which we may be responsible will be staggering.
If you talk to people about the cost of house construction at the present time I think you will find that by far the most important item in the fast developing urban areas is the cost of land. You even hear it said that in the case of homes costing maybe $12,000 there may be $3,000 of that amount tied up in the very small plot upon which the home is erected. Therefore if we really want to do something to promote the cause of maintaining the prices of homes at the lowest level possible, this is the direction in which we must look in order to carry out the program. I think it will be found that over the last couple of years labour costs in the construction industry have been pretty well stabilized and are not going up too rapidly. The same is true of material costs. Therefore it will be most unfortunate if the advantages of all the new developments in home construction, the new types of articles now in use that cut the cost of materials and the labour-saving devices now used in construction, are lost in a
National Housing Act
general increase in land costs. I shall probably refer to this item again in summing up.
Then there is the question of the down payment. I do not think you can have homes for nothing. I think you have to put something into a home. I think you have to have a sense of ownership. If the down payment is going to be so infinitesimal that it does not matter whether you walk out of the home the next day and say that the government can take it, then you are not going to have a very firm base for home ownership. Therefore there must be a down payment of substance that will bring about the retention of that sense of home ownership which is required in order to encourage the people who own the homes to spend time fixing up their gardens and doing all the many things that you see being done in every urban centre. You see people building their own garages, building their own driveways, putting up their own picket fences and painting them, and a person has to have a real sense of ownership to go ahead and do these things.
I think the down payment could be reduced a bit in the case of the higher priced homes, but I certainly would not' like to see the situation develop here that I have seen in United States advertisements. There the amount a person must put into a home has dropped to the point where I do not think there can be any pride left in home ownership. I think back to the time when I bought my first home and the down payment was $250. I might say that was under the original act too. But at that time that down payment represented about 10 per cent of the total cost, and there was a real feeling that you had worked hard to get something and you were going to continue to hold it.
Then there is the question of the qualifications for home ownership. We have been talking about the amount of money that must be earned, and I cannot help but think that we are going to have to take another look at the question of dual family income. It seems to me that if we do not we are making a mistake, because the dual family income is being used to buy a television set, a new refrigerator, a new combination radiophonograph. Surely if the dual family income is available and is being used to provide these amenities, we would be very much better off if it were used to provide a firm basis of ownership in a home. I suggest to the minister that he take another look at the qualification required and the restrictive type of legislation we now have with respect to including the income of a wife in connection with the down payment and the carrying charges.
3190	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
There is another point I should like to deal with. The resolution refers to research, and the fact that we are going to provide about $5 million for that purpose. I took a look at the amount we are going to guarantee under the legislation and it is about $4 billion. I have done some figuring, and the amount to be spent on research comes to approximately [DOT]125 per cent. I assume that includes all the contests held for architects in order to get the right types of houses designed, and that it also includes the planning for the various communities.
If there is any place we have fallen down, and fallen down badly, I think it is right there. I do not think we have made proper use of these facilities. I am concerned that in spite of the fact that contests are held and plans are designed, I can still go out and see row upon row of the same type of housing being built, I think one hon. member said that this might result in our having further blighted areas in years to come.
I would say that we should take advantage of the research personnel we have available. It seems to me that if we took full advantage of them we would be able to have communities with homes of different types of construction and possessing an individuality that would result in their continuing to have a good resale value in the future. Remember that if we fail in this respect the person who will suffer is the actual home owner.
I shall only be about two minutes more, Mr. Chairman. I could finish now; otherwise we could call it six o'clock.


The Deputy Chairman:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Borden Hamilton: I say that in that respect we have not taken full advantage of the services of architects. Giving a prize for the development of some design is a very good thing, but we should make more use of architects. It might be that it would mean the addition of a couple of hundred dollars to the price of the individual house, but if in the long run there was a retention of that value in the house I would say that would be spending money wisely. It seems to me that what is required is that when one of these communities is planned the government should take the lead in seeing to it that we do not have the same type of construction apparent everywhere.
There is one further item, the position in which our municipalities find themselves as a result of the large-scale housing developments now taking place. I hope I will be forgiven for saying this, but it seems to me that no matter what subject comes up I can


find evidence of stress in our municipalities in attempting to handle the problems created by the influx of people into the municipalities and the new buildings that are going up. I have suggested and am going to continue to suggest various means whereby we might do something for the municipalities. The other day I talked about the federal government assuming some obligation for education. It seems to me that right here is a real opportunity to do something about the problem of education costs.
There are a multiplicity of developments which are controlled almost solely by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Immediately these developments take place the question of the capital cost of the construction of educational facilities arises. Here is an opportunity for the federal government not to guarantee something but to pay for something. It seems to me that if we could assume the capital cost of the construction of educational facilities in these new areas as they came along, it would be a great step forward. The vehicle is available and we should make use of it.
If I could sum up, sir, I think I would propose a five point program for us to carry out. First of all we should fix the rate of interest at 5 per cent. It is still going to be a good loan for these institutions, and it is going to help the people who really need help. Second, I would say we should make that down payment as low as possible but still retaining that sense of ownership that is required so that everybody is going to be proud to be a home owner. Third, I would say we have to make a wider basis for calculating the income of the family. As I said before, if the dual family income can purchase things that are not as important as houses, then let us see if we cannot make some changes there.
Fourth, we should have an aggressive land policy. We are going to have to go far afield to get land, and we are going to have to do it quickly or it is going to be too late. It is going to cost too much. We should, as soon as possible, set aside the land that is going to be needed for urban areas. Lastly, we should provide some real relief for the municipalities by taking those areas in which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is going to develop communities and seeing that land is set aside for school facilities. Let us see if we cannot assume the capital cost of construction of these schools.
Someone will say that is going to interfere with provincial rights. We can make grants, and the municipalities can retain control. In this way they could get these schools which they so badly need.

Thank you for allowing me to speak after six.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I followed the debate with a good deal of interest this afternoon. I was very glad when the hon. member for Eglinton was able to take some time to describe the very interesting project which has been completed in Toronto. I think it is a great pity that more hon. members cannot boast of similar projects all across the country.
My interest in this subject goes back some years. I find that my first speech on housing was made back in 1942, but on June 21, 1943, I referred to the picture that was being presented to the world by such well-known people as President Roosevelt of the United States as he described the slums which had existed in his country for many years. He said, as I quoted him at page 3844 of Hansard of June 21, 1943:
The program of clearing slums and providing decent homes for the ill-housed of our nation in the years before the war laid the foundation for the intensified housing effort necessary today. The job of clearing the slums, which your conference helped to begin, of necessity must be reduced substantially for the duration. With the scarcity of building materials we can now afford to build homes only in defence areas. But the goal of a slumless America must be preserved.
The hon. member for York West stressed the fact that most Canadians would like to have their own homes and gardens, and there is no quarrel with that; but the hon. member for Nanaimo pointed out correctly that the great majority of the Canadian people just are not going to have the good fortune to have their own homes or their own gardens unless the governments-and I say "governments" because municipal and provincial governments as well as the federal government must face this problem-take more interest in the problem of housing. Unless governments take more interest in the problem of housing a very large number of our citizens are condemned to spend most of a lifetime in dangerous housing quarters in the crowded attics of our cities.
I remember when Mr. Nash, who was then the minister of finance in New Zealand, visited Ottawa early in the war. He captured our imagination with two challenges. One was to the effect that everyone in New Zealand who joined the services would find himself when the war was over no worse off financially
National Housing Act
because he joined, and those who remained at home would find that they would be no better off financially because they remained at home. He also said then it was their goal to see that in New Zealand every family had a home and every citizen had a room which he could call his own, where he could close the door and say, "This is my room".
I am sorry we have not made greater progress in Canada in reaching that sort of set-up. I am sorry the Minister of Public Works is not more ambitious. I understand that he has no special desire to be the prime minister of this country. I think that is a great pity. If he had that sort of ambition I am sure he would be doing a much more imaginative job than he is doing, because I can think of no single thing that a minister of the crown could do than really tackle the problem of rural and urban housing in Canada, harness our great resources toward the clearing away of slums and the providing of the type of housing which we can expect from our lumber and other resources which are here in such generous supply.
The hon. member for York West was about to launch a very eloquent appeal, I thought he was going to say, on behalf of the neglected group in our economy. I was all ready to shed tears for the old age pensioners because I thought that was the group he had in mind, but he went on to discuss the white collar group, a group that probably does not need a great deal of sympathy in this particular set-up.
While I think we are all happy that a large volume of better houses is being built in Canada I think on the whole those who are taking advantage of the facilities the minister provides would have been able to provide better housing on their own. I know they would have had to pay higher interest charges; they would have had to make higher down payments, but they would have had better housing. They would have had less money available for television sets or new cars or some of the other very desirable things that people want and do have nowadays. By and large those who have been able to take advantage of the facilities we have do not require a great deal of sympathy, but the large sector of our people who are not earning or are not receiving enough to qualify for loans under the legislation do require our sympathy.
I am sure many hon. members have read "Fourteen days as an old age pensioner" by William MacEachern, reprinted from the Toronto Daily Star. I suggest that the Minister of Public Works, since he is a public-spirited citizen, might take a couple of weeks sometime and just see how easy it is to get desirable living quarters on the sort of money



S192 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
National Housing Act
that an old age pensioner has. This young chap took $20, half a month's pension, and then proceeded to find the sort of quarters he could obtain. In this paragraph he describes the place he finally settled on. It happened to be a $5 a week proposition. He said:
The room was in an old, tired-looking bungalow in the Broadview-Queen district. It smelled like an old maid's trunk-the pungent, hygienic smell of mothballs, but it was a clean smell. The room was clean, too, although it looked cold and unlived-in. There were old lace curtains on the window and a frayed rug on the floor.
I knew I couldn't do much better for $5, but I thought I'd better look around a bit before I took it. I told the owner-his name was Tommy and he was an old age pensioner, too ("I'm 72", he said, but he didn't look any more than 50) 

that I thought my grandfather would like it and I would bring him down tomorrow and help him move in.
The young chap said he was negotiating on behalf of his grandfather. With respect to the $6 a week room he had this to say:
The $6 place was on Parliament street, above a jam factory. A sickening, clammy smell of warm jam hung in the air. I followed the owner up a stairway into a darkened hallway. He gave a light switch a few fast clicks. "Guess it doesn't work", he said. "We'll have to get that fixed". (The same routine was repeated a dozen times before the day was over).
The room was dark and dingy; one lonely bulb hung from the ceiling and the only window was so small you could look out of it only one eye at a time.
The room looked big because it hadn't any furniture-just a table and an ashtray. "We'll put a bed in here for him," the man said. "We can dig one out of the pile in there". He pointed to a store room across the hall where broken chairs, ruptured mattresses and other iron and wooden stuff was stacked in a wild heap.
Then he described the worst place he visited. He said:
The worst place of all was on Dundas street. Here I had to pass through a pitch-black hallway, through a room piled high with boxes, pots and pans, old stoves, broken-down iceboxes, through another hallway and down a ladder. We weaved around several water tanks and furnaces, ducked under a network of dripping pipes, and into a low-ceilinged, windowless dungeon. The "room" was cold and damp and there was sweat on the concrete walls.
There was no radiator, just a battered-up electric affair. The bed was mussed and the sheets looked mouldy.
The owner said he wanted $7, and I shuddered. I wouldn't live there if he paid me $5. What would I do if a fire broke out?
Then he described some of the places that were available in Toronto, the only possible living quarters that anyone whose limit was $40 a month could expect to find. I am sure no one in this chamber is very proud of the fact that a large sector of the Canadian people are sentenced to live most of their lives in the sort of quarters described so vividly in "Fourteen days as an old age pensioner".

In the same city, in "Toronto the good", you read a very different story. In Maclean's magazine Toronto is described as the world's fastest growing city. I am referring to this, Mr. Chairman, because I think the government has waited far too long in taking the sort of action that must be taken in connection with land assembly questions to prevent the kind of thing that is happening.
The story in Maclean's of March 17, 1956, entiled "The fastest growing city in the world" tells about a woman named Sarah Palk who had some land that had been in the family for about 70 years. It had been bought for a few cents an acre a good many years ago. It was sold at what seemed to be a very high price, $145,000. The buyer then added another $50,000 to the price and sold it for $195,000. The next buyer was not satisfied with peanuts and he turned it over for $355,000.
In view of that type of speculation in connection with property and housing it is small wonder that many people find themselves obliged to pay fantastic prices for property. The piece of property I have just referred to increased in price from $145,000 to $355,000 within a short space of time.
This article also tells about one of the shrewdest real estate people in Toronto who a short time ago offered for sale a piece of property for $70,000. After his death it was sold for $250,000. I do not think anyone can argue that this type of turnover or profit has been achieved as a result of the sweat and tears of any individual. Many of these larger centres have attracted speculators who have added fantastic, fictitious and exorbitant prices to the real value of property.
I have knowledge of a deal involving friends of mine in the Hamilton area which took place just before Easter. This involves a new house that had been built on property which had been farm land three years ago. I do not know what price the farmer received for the land, but my friends paid $3,500 for quite a small lot, scarcely large enough for a vegetable and flower garden. They paid $3,500 for a small piece of farm land on which their house was built, which means an enormous capital gain on the part of some speculator.
When I spoke about housing during the war years I was able to refer to the fact that in countries like Holland, Sweden and Denmark they took the necessary precautions 100 years ago to ensure that speculation did not enter into and increase the cost of housing. I think it is a great pity that the minister has not used more imagination and given greater leadership in an effort to halt developments such as those described in

Maclean's of March 17. I think it is correct to say that these conditions apply to every major city in Canada.
At the time I visited my friends in Hamilton I also visited some farm friends in Ontario who are feeling the impact of this type of development. A gentleman who sold a farm for $150,000 for a subdivision along the Queen Elizabeth highway moved back from that area and offered a young couple $65,000 for a farm which they had bought just a few years ago for approximately $20,000. It is very disturbing for young people who are trying to earn an honest living producing food for the nation to have these speculative offers made to them. Someone who knew something about the increase in land value in the Toronto area and who was interested in making some money in a few years would be able to anticipate that the farm which sold for $65,000 today might well be worth two or three hundred thousand dollars a few years later.
I submit that this is having a very disturbing effect on our economy. Within a few miles of nearly every rapidly growing city in Canada a fantastic increase is taking place in the valuation of land. This in turn is passed on to the house builders, and presents a real hardship to them as they try to meet the increased cost of insurance and of servicing property out of their limited earnings.
The minister told us something about the achievements which have been made in the field of new housing. I am very glad that an increasing number of Canadian people are able to look forward to having new houses. This will result in their vacating houses which will be made available to other people with lower incomes.
Over the supper hour I again looked at the figures for the distribution of non-farm income in Canada. I find that the median income

which means that half the people get less than this figure and half the people get more-by provinces is as follows: Atlantic provinces, $2,089; Quebec, $2,730; Ontario, $3,109; prairie provinces, $2,395 and British Columbia, $2,759. In view of the incomes I have quoted the minister will realize that well over half the people in Canada can never hope to take advantage of the housing facilities that are available.
I think one would not need much of an imagination to agree with the hon. member for Eglinton when he was discussing the costs involved in the new housing project in Toronto, particularly when you take into consideration the costs in that area for juvenile delinquency, tuberculosis and fire hazards. I feel sure that anyone who is in Toronto 50
National Housing Act
years from now will be able to demonstrate quite clearly that the people of our day made a sound investment in clearing away slums and providing desirable quarters for an increased number of people who are now living in the Regent Park area.
Just yesterday I visited Iroquois and saw what has been done there in the way of building a new community. There is nothing especially spectacular there, but they are allowing more ground for construction. I noticed that every house in the new town of Iroquois is going to have a chimney from the basement to above roof level. I am sure this one innovation in building practices in that community will result in an almost total elimination of fires in the Iroquois area.
When you take into consideration the loss of life in Ottawa through fires, it seems a great pity that the minister along with the civic and provincial authorities cannot proceed with the establishing of slum clearing projects in the capital city so that when people come here, as they do, from all over the world the minister will be able to demonstrate to them what has been accomplished as the result of co-operation among the three levels of government.
In terms of providing a stimulus to business I think it will be readily agreed that housing in Canada is a field wherein we can provide employment. Here is a way in which employment can be provided for the lumbering industry and the plumbing and building supplies people. Only 56 per cent of rural homes have electricity; 75 per cent of rural nonfarm homes have electricity, while 99 per cent of urban homes have this convenience. When it comes to running water, only 32 per cent of farm homes and 46 of non-farm homes have this convenience. Then when we come to the question of installed bath or# shower, telephone, mechanical refrigeration and so on, the statistics as to the use of these necessary conveniences, at least in the opinion of most Canadians, would suggest that here is a field where the minister could provide assured employment for a large number of Canadians for many years to come.
It will hardly be during the time of the minister as a minister of the crown that the housing problems of Canada will be solved and the goal which President Roosevelt mentioned back in 1943 realized. A slumless America is not likely to be realized during the minister's time unless we make a great deal more progress in the next ten years than we have in the last ten years.
Mr. Simmons:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks in support of this resolution will be brief and will be confined to the National Housing Act in so far as it applies to the Yukon Territory. The rising number of applications for

National Housing Act
loans clearly demonstrates the effectiveness and success of the legislation as it applies to the more populated areas of Canada. In the Yukon and other places in northern Canada it is a different story, but one which can and should be remedied at once.
The government has indicated its intention to encourage and co-operate in various ways in the development of the Yukon Territory, and has specifically indicated its intention to develop the Yukon Territory by the encouragement of home building and home ownership in the new subdivision planned for the east side of the Yukon river adjacent to the city of Whitehorse. The cost of building dwellings in the Yukon exceeds the cost of building similar or like dwellings in any other portion of Canada save the Northwest Territories.
Recently I discussed this problem with an official of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, with regard to the application of the National Housing Act to the Yukon, particularly in view of the prevailing construction costs, and urged that an adjustment in the appraisal be made to recognize the cost of construction in that area and to be in line with representations of the Whitehorse board of trade and other interested organizations and individuals.
I find that during the fall of 1955 cost surveys were conducted throughout Canada by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and from the results of this survey new appraisal rates were computed. I understand that those new appraisal rates were put into effect just prior to the end of 1955. My understanding is that the basic appraisal rate which is now in use for the city of Whitehorse will in the majority of cases result in loans to applicants equal to the maximum loans allowable under the legislation.
As you know, the National Housing Act limits the allowable maximum loan on any dwelling in relation to the square footage of the unit, with an over-all allowable maximum of $12,800. For instance, a 1,000 square jfoot frame bungalow built according to standard specifications in Whitehorse would qualify under the legislation for a maximum loan of $10,250, plus the insurance fee of 2 per cent. The appraisal of the unit may provide for a larger loan, but the amount allowable would be limited to $10,250.
The act requires that the gross debt service ratio in respect to the home owner or home purchaser should not exceed 23 per cent of the gross income of the home owner or purchaser. In some circumstances the approved lender may with the concurrence of the corporation approve a borrower where this ratio

is exceeded. Therefore the income of the borrower has a direct bearing on the amount of loan possible.
I want to point out that living costs in the Yukon range from 30 to 50 per cent higher than outside, and by that I mean the more populated areas in the provinces, while building costs are from 40 per cent to 50 per cent higher. Only a modest home can be built in Canada for $10,000 and by the same token $15,000 is required to construct a comparatively modest home in Whitehorse. Add to this the cost of a lot at say $1,500 and you are left with a $16,500 expenditure. I can assure you that this will not provide lavish accommodation.
The obvious remedy should not be too difficult, and that is to have the valuation on which the loan will be calculated based on Whitehorse prices. This would automatically give a maximum loan of $12,800 to anyone building, let us say, a $15,000 home. I believe I can best illustrate this point by quoting an editorial which appeared in the Whitehorse Star, which reads:
Peering from the deep shadows of tar paper shacks and old log cabins-and from well-built homes too-is a large population of would-be housebuilders. Many have a thousand dollars or so socked away in the bank, careful dollar piled on careful dollar, which they hope will serve some day as down payment on a clean, bright and cheerful home for themselves and for their families. But, alas for these northern citizens, most of them may be denied the early benefits of government assisted construction under N.H.A. terms. Reason for roadblock in the path of their wishes is the application of figures based on outside construction costs to Yukon N.H.A. loans. Using these standards, houses rise like fireweed outside, fertilized by the reasonable down payments of ordinary citizens but, in the Yukon, where builders quote costs as much as 40 per cent higher than outside, ciitzens in similar circumstances to their outside cousins cannot raise the necessary cash for the initial payment-or will be able to do so only after years of saving.
Here's how it works: the lending value for a house and lot (in other words the amount of money at which N.H.A. assesses lot and building planned by the would-be borrower) say the authorities, "Will be a reasonable cost of building the house plus a reasonable cost for the land."
Unfortunately this "reasonable" cost means reasonable outside cost. Maximum loan value is calculated at 90 per cent of the first $8,000 of the lending value and 70 per cent of the balance In the case of a single house. Maximum loan for a single house is $12,800.
For instance, on a lending value of $10,000 a down payment of $1,400 would be required. For a $12,000 house, $2,000 would be required. But loans are also controlled on a square foot basis. Under this arrangement, the maximum loan available for a house containing floor space of 750 square feet is $8,000 and for each square foot in excess of 750 the loan may be increased by $9 a square foot up to $12,800.
This is where the trouble lies for the Yukoner. Take as an example the 750-square-foot, by no means lavish house that might be built outside for $8,000. Cost of this in Whitehorse, figured at

40 per cent higher than outside, would be $11,200. However, under N.H.A., there is no provision for this increased cost. The Yukon man-of-the-house must pay the difference himself. On this $8,000 house, as approved by present N.H.A. standards, he will be required to put up a down payment of $800. In addition he will be required to pay the difference between $8,000 and $11,200 which is $3,200, making a total of $4,000 from the family bank account before work can be started on the house. Hard times indeed.
What is being sought under leadership of the board of trade is not an increase in maximum loan available ($12,800) but an increase, for the Yukon, in assessment of lending values. A house is going to cost more here than outside so why not adjust lending values to suit Yukon costs, That is, permit the would-be homeowner to borrow up to the real cost of the house he plans to build here, not force him to borrow on the basis of building a similar home outside.
We hear frequently from government sources the word that "Canada's eyes are on the north." If this is so then there is no reason why there should be a lowering of N.H.A. eyes when it comes to Yukon home-building. Homes are the foundation upon which orderly northern development must be built from here on in.
It has been found that inspectors from Alberta are prone to evaluate dwellings constructed in the Yukon in accordance with the price structure and cost of building in the province of Alberta, which price structure and cost of building is approximately 40 to 50 per cent lower than the price structure and cost of building in the Yukon.
Last month a senior head office official of the corporation and the regional supervisor from the west coast visited Whitehorse. At that time meetings were held with representatives of the city and other interested organizations to explain the operations of the National Housing Act. No doubt the corporation now realizes the problem with which the people of the Yukon are faced, and it is to be hoped that their recommendations for amendments to the act or regulations will be in line with existing conditions; otherwise the building of dwellings will be seriously curtailed if not rendered entirely impossible.
I am sure all hon. members heartily agree that Yukoners should not be penalized to this extent when a few minor amendments to the act or regulations could easily rectify the existing situation. I am sure the minister is sympathetic to the cause and will find some solution to the problem.


Mr. Hamilion (Noire Dame de Grace):: think all levels of society in Canada, and most of the people of Canada, are prepared to admit that the need of individuals to own their own homes is very basic in our society. To the extent that it is met, to the extent that we can make home ownership available to more and more people, we establish a stable base to our society and, to some extent at least, a shelter from whatever adverse conditions the community may encounter.
National Housing Act
When we think in terms of home ownership, we think almost always in terms of the little plot of ground and the single house unit, and that is a very necessary concept. But those of us in the larger cities, and perhaps particularly in the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec, are very conscious too of the need not for individual unit housing development, but for the construction of apartment units and consolidated units which contain accommodation for many families.
We are particularly conscious-and this will be the tenor of my short remarks tonight -of the need for rehabilitation of our rundown areas. I often wonder whether people generally have any idea of the living conditions in a genuine slum area, the sort of area where, whether you go into it by day or by night, as one city councillor in Montreal phrased it last week, you see two-legged rats and four-legged rats. The four-legged ones, of course, are those that are familiar to us all. The two-legged ones would perhaps have been decent, honest and helpful human beings had it not been for the warping of their characters, the crimes they have committed and the back alleys down which they have been led as a result of the circumstances under which they live.
One could go on and outline the conditions in slum areas, but it is hardly necessary. However, we should remember that one of the main reasons for the development of these slum areas has been the natural desire of a large section of our population to live close to their places of work. That is particularly so in the large cities, where transportation difficulties are quite a problem, where it is becoming, indeed, quite a costly business just to get from your home to your place of work if you have to go by a mass transport system of any kind whatsoever.
These people do not want to be moved from the area in which they are located. It is true that they would like to have better housing, but apparently they are prepared to stay there even at the very great inconvenience of the type of accommodation with which they have to put up. In Montreal, for example, just recently there was a survey in one of the most run-down slum areas of the city. To the amazement of everybody who was there-because one tends to think of everybody as wanting to move out of the centre of the city and into little houses on the outside-83-7 per cent of the people in that area wanted to be relocated there, in terms of a new housing development, a new slum clearance project that was then under consideration. Eighty-four per cent, practically the entire bulk of the population, wanted to stay right there where they were

National Housing Act
close to their work, where they were close to the centre of the city, where the facilities they knew so well, their churches, their stores, their schools and so on could all continue to be available to them.
That, to my mind, puts a tremendous emphasis upon one aspect of this legislation which is to come before us, and that is that it should fully provide for slum clearance and the redevelopment of slum areas in the major cities of this country. I know there has been considerable activity in that connection under the existing act, and I think it has been welcomed by all of us. It is well to remember, however, that in the case of this particular project in Montreal, which seems to be coming to fruition quite rapidly, the cost of acquiring the land itself is going to be between $4 million and $5 million for this one single project, and there are 13 of these projects all equally necessary in that one city. Montreal, of course, is the oldest city in the country.


An hon. Member:: What?


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: It is
the oldest major city in the country. I shall correct myself in deference to the gentlemen who come from cities of great antiquity but perhaps not quite so large. Montreal is the largest city in Canada which is also of great age. It has a vested interest, almost, in slum clearance. I think that is why so many of us will follow the development of this bill, in order to see that it does contain provision to meet some of the problems that face our municipality.
I return to this question of slums and slum clearance. Slums are not just run-down housing areas. It is unfortunate that so many people think of them in that connection, and feel that money spent on slum clearance and on the redevelopment of a housing area, on building good houses in what is now a slum, is not spent too profitably. That is the attitude of a great many people. They forget that the slum is a tremendous financial drain on the entire community. I was interested last year to read a lengthy editorial in the Montreal Gazette of March 14, 1955, from which I will select only one paragraph pointing up this particular fact. Speaking of this slum area in Montreal which is to be redeveloped it had this to say:
The cost to the city of such an area-and the more alarming cost in terms of human suffering- is immense. Juvenile delinquency in the area is nine times higher than in the city as a whole. Crime among adults and complaints of all kinds are also strikingly higher. And the cost in human lives may be looked at in another way. The streets in this area are so narrow for the traffic that moves through them that the accident rate is three times higher than for the city as a whole.

Here is a representative slum area. Juvenile delinquency is nine times higher than the average for the city. Traffic accidents are three times higher. From there you can go on to add other things such as the disorganization of a family when it is forced to go into one or two rooms as housing for the father, mother and three or four children. It is a breeding ground of prostitution, gambling and all sorts of crime.
One rather striking illustration is found in another comment on this situation made by the Montreal board of trade. It refers to the slum area as "the training ground of the first offender" and goes on to say:
The costs to the community of bad housing and the slum are tangible and measurable. The effects, in ill health, discouragement, neurosis, and stunted mental and physical growth, cannot be aggregated in any statistical sense. But beyond this, the slum is a direct financial burden upon the city. On the one hand, expenditures on public health and hospitals, social agencies, police services, reformatories, jails, fire prevention, and mental institutions, are greatest for the population of bad housing areas; on the other, the share of tax revenues which such areas contribute to the city is disproportionately small. It costs governments, and society generally, more to maintain slum areas than any other parts of the city.
Then they go on to refer to a report made by the metropolitan housing authority of Cleveland before 1935, and it is interesting that with respect to the statistics compiled in Cleveland they say:
The operating loss sustained by the city, county and welfare agencies concerned, for an area 20 blocks by three blocks in size, and housing 22,236 persons, was $2 million, even without allowing for taxes unpaid during the year. For the city alone, the taxable value of the area was $10-12 per capita as compared with a cost liability of $51-10 per capita.
In other words, we see that the slum area is one of' the most costly burdens on any municipal administration today. I think we in Montreal have good reason at the present time to appreciate some of what has been accomplished by the operation of this particular legislation. After a great deal of backing, twisting and turning a preliminary report was prepared by a committee under the chairmanship of Paul Dozois of our executive committee and sparked by a very remarkable woman, Mrs. R. G. Gilbride. We then had another look at the matter. We re-examined it with the help of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and I think a great deal of credit is due to their representative in Montreal, Mr. F. F. Field.
We then had another municipal committee on the matter headed by the city councillor Mr. John Sullivan, and just last week city council decided to authorize going ahead with this particular project. But that is only one of 13 that are vitally necessary in the

city of Montreal, and I know that not only those of us in the house but the citizens of Montreal are waiting for the details of the bill. The resolution is rather broad and vague in its generalities, as is perhaps necessary, and we will be waiting for the details of the bill in order to make quite sure that it is going to enable the municipalities of this country to carry out their slum clearance projects and the development of decent housing conditions so badly needed at the present time for the majority of our citizens in these run-down areas.
I ran across a quotation this afternoon that I think is particularly pertinent to the history of this type of legislation in the house. I hope that perhaps it will spur the minister on to greater effort. It is a quotation from a speech made by a rather famous Canadian, Edward Blake, at Aurora in 1874. At that time he said:
It is the function of ministers-we know it and I do not quarrel with it-to say nothing that can be caught hold of, nothing in advance of the popular opinion of the day, to watch the current of that opinion, and when it has gathered strength, to crystallize it into acts of parliament.
As far as I have been able to see, Mr. Chairman, even though the steps taken to date have been in the right direction the housing legislation of the government has been at least one step behind and very often more than one step behind what was necessary for the development of our country and the provision of the housing facilities that we badly needed. It has been a case of crystallizing something into an act of parliament after the need had become so evident that it could not be avoided.
I would simply express my final hope that when the bill comes down it will be a forwardlooking piece of legislation that will cover not only our immediate requirements but will make some provision for our needs for a good many years to come.


Mr. Goode:: Mr. Chairman, I will take but a very short time. It is very seldom I have a complaint to offer to the minister but this time I do have one. Coming as I do from the most beautiful part of British Columbia-


Mr. Sinclair:: Since when?


Tom Goode: -where everybody wants to live, may I say that I think this complaint is well founded. To understand the situation we must understand that the city of Vancouver has reached the ultimate under its own resources as far as housing is concerned, and so has the city of New Westminster to the east of my riding. Therefore my people have the only land available for housing in the lower mainland of British Columbia.
67309-202J
National Housing Act


James Sinclair: Did you ever hear of the north
shore?


Tom Goode: Never heard of it. During my time in the house Burnaby has grown from a population of something like 20,000 to around 85,000, and Richmond from a population of some 12,000 to something around 25,000. In both municipalities there is little in the way of sewage disposal systems except septic tanks.
As the minister knows, there are many hundreds of applications for new homes to be built under N.H.A. Burnaby is not suffering too much, but the municipality of Richmond is. As the minister knows, until the last four or five years that municipality consisted mainly of beautiful farms of many hundreds of acres each. Today this farm land is gone. It has been subdivided into lots for sale to people who want to build homes. These lots are not too high priced. As the hon. member for Mackenzie said today, the contractors are not trying to get big profits. They want to assist the municipalities in building homes for the people of Vancouver who want to come and live there.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is not co-operating to any great extent. In the municipality of Richmond there are three large subdivisions being developed, and those subdivisions are looking after their own sewage disposal systems. There is full co-operation between the contractor and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The point I want to bring to the minister's attention is the fact that the contractor who wishes to build 10 or 25 homes, who owns the land and sells it to people who want to build homes, is in a very different position. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is stopping him from building homes. Mr. Pickersgill, who is the director in Vancouver, is a very fine gentleman and co-operates to the full. He must work under instructions from Ottawa, however. I know of no civil servant who will co-operate with the municipalities as well as Mr. Pickersgill does. I have no complaint against him. But I have a complaint against someone somewhere along the line, because the people in these subdivisions have been told they must construct their own sewage disposal systems. The minister is putting the man who is building 21 homes in the same category as these people who are developing large subdivisions, and that cannot be done. These people who want to come to Richmond to live bought their lots on the understanding that they were going to be allowed to build, but now your department will not allow them to build their homes.
It is true that there are too many septic tanks in Burnaby. I admit that; and there

National Housing Act	.
are too many in Richmond. However, you cannot stop housing in my riding. I ask the minister, when he rises to speak on this resolution, to tell me and the people of my riding that they can go ahead and build the homes they want to build.


Mr. Bryson:: The few remarks I have to make will deal with loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for housing for the senior citizens of this country. I hope after listening to the very sad stories that were told by the hon. member for Mackenzie, the minister will be so conditioned now that he will listen to what I have to say. I think it goes without saying that there is a tremendous need in this country for housing projects to take care of our senior citizens. While these projects fall mainly into three categories, it is with only two of these categories I wish to deal this evening, and one in particular.
Apparently the government, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is not prepared to make loans on institutional types of buildings for our senior citizens. I am not too well disposed toward that type of building myself. I do not think it adds much to the welfare of our senior citizens in their later days. 1 believe the best projects which are being sponsored by Central Mortgage and Housing through these loans are the self-contained units and the hostels in connection therewith. These projects are very commendable. Certainly, the terms and conditions under which these loans are granted are very generous.
At the same time, it seems to me there are places where this institutional type of building might be a necessity. In those cases it is difficult for me to understand why the government will not make loans to limited dividend companies who want to construct buildings of that type. After all the provincial government concerned must underwrite the mortgage, and in addition the senior citizens who occupy these buildings pay rent for the space they occupy. It is rather difficult, therefore, for me to understand why the government is so averse to making these loans through Central Mortgage and Housing on these institutional type buildings.
As I said a moment ago, the government is prepared to lend money for the erection of self-contained units where such projects are sponsored by municipalities which set up limited dividend companies for that purpose. These self-contained units are for aged married couples within the community. I think it is a wonderful idea, for it enables a couple in advanced years to move into such quarters in the community in which they have spent the greater part of their lives.
IMr. Goode.]
At the same time it is rather difficult for me to understand why the government is not prepared to advance money on the hostel type of building for single aged men and women. Certainly I can understand that it would involve a considerably greater sum of money. However, as I said the provincial government concerned underwrites that obligation to Central Mortgage and Housing. I cannot see why there should be discrimination against the aged single people of this country. I should like the minister, when he speaks on this resolution, to make some comment on that aspect of the matter.
I said there was a great need for housing of this type. While I have not the statistics for all the provinces I do have a few statistics with regard to the position in Saskatchewan. I imagine the statistics for other provinces are quite comparable. In Saskatchewan the percentage of persons 65 years and over, in relation to the total population of the province, is 9 per cent or approximately 74,000. Of those 74,000 there are 24,243 in receipt of welfare assistance, and there are a few 70 and older who are getting the old age security supplementary allowance. In other words, 34 per cent of Saskatchewan's citizens of 65 years or older are in receipt of welfare assistance. Of the 24,000 some odd in receipt of extra assistance than is normally provided under old age assistance, 40 per cent are single persons. It is rather difficult, therefore, for me to understand why the government has not seen fit to make loans for buildings to house this particular category of aged citizens.
As I said a moment ago, the terms and conditions for loans on self-contained units are adequate. As a matter of fact I think they are very generous. In my own province this is the situation. The government will provide 20 per cent of the cost as an outright grant to any organization that wants to set up a limited dividend company to undertake such a project. Then Central Mortgage and Housing will make a loan for 80 per cent of the remainder. I think that is correct.


Robert Henry Winters: Ninety per cent.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Ninety per cent of the remainder at 3| per cent interest for a period of 40 years. Certainly nobody can question the generosity of those terms. One would think that at once there would be a great deal of interest in such a proposition when there is such a need for housing projects of this nature throughout the country. Yet what do we find? We find that, in spite of those very generous conditions, organizations and communities are not taking advantage of them as I am sure the minister and all of

us would like to see them do. As a matter of fact, in Saskatchewan in 1954 there were only 14 such projects undertaken, and some of those were undertaken without benefit of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loan for a very specific reason. After all, it is not too logical or feasible to build a self-contained housing project in which you are going to place aged married couples in the community if you are not going to make adequate provision for the remaining consort when death separates a couple.
The government is prepared to authorize the building of hostel type buildings in conjunction with those self-contained units, but the regulations are quite limited, and it is because of those limitations that organizations and communities have not been too anxious to take advantage of the loans that are made through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Yet in the province of Saskatchewan during the last year or two, because of some misunderstanding, because of some misinterpretation of the act, and quite honestly I think, the government was prepared to permit them to go ahead on the understanding that the province originally had of this section of the act, namely that as far as the hostel type of accommodation was concerned, it was widened, and the province of Saskatchewan is now authorized until the end of June this year to allow for greater accommodation in the hostel type of building in conjunction with self-contained units.
Because of that, in the province of Saskatchewan some 30 of those projects are well under way as against 14 in 1954. I am sure that if these same conditions applied in other provinces of this country there would be a great deal more interest in this type of housing for our senior citizens. Therefore I would ask the minister to give the greatest possible consideration to allowing communities to build hostel type accommodation in connection with these other self-contained units, so that half the so-called hostel type accommodation would be occupied by two single persons and the remainder, which under the act must now be left vacant in the event of the death of one of the aged couples in the self-contained unit, be used in this way. Let the community place single aged persons in the remaining space on the understanding that they would vacate that space when one of the remaining consorts from the self-contained units had to be looked after.
In the province of Saskatchewan we have a great deal of interest because of the existing conditions as they apply in that province. I would suggest that they should apply in every other part of Canada, and I would ask
National Housing Act
the minister to give the most serious consideration to incorporating those changes into the act as soon as possible.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr, Winters:: Mr. Chairman, there are perhaps one or two comments I should make before the resolution does carry. At the outset I would like to thank hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for York West, for their kind remarks about Mr. Mansur, who did a magnificent job in setting up Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and running it for the better part of nine years, and by so doing rendering a great public service. At the same time I wish to pay my compliments to his successor, Mr. Bates, who in the 18 months or so that he has been president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has already shown that ability which made him so effective as a deputy minister of fisheries. I am quite confident that as time develops he too will make a greater contribution to the public service of Canada.
I also wish to thank hon. members for the constructive nature of the debate today on housing. I am quite sure it reflects to the country at large that all hon. members are interested in and acutely conscious of this very important problem.
The hon. member for Eglinton, as usual, expressed some very good points. He asked the question as to whether or not the action taken by the government recently in increasing the interest rate by one-quarter of one per cent means that the government is trying to discourage housing by taking the same steps that we were obliged to take at the time of the Korean conflict. The answer to that is no. This move cannot in any way be construed as such, and certainly that was the furthest thought from our minds at that time. The interest rate that must be set is the one that will attract sufficient mortgage money to the market to enable us to achieve a good level of housing.
As the hon. member knows, this year is likely to be the greatest year in Canada's history in terms of capital expenditures and demands for money. There were indications that the supply of mortgage money from the banks and lending institutions was slowing down. It was thought it might dry up; and it became necessary, in the light of rising interest rates, to increase our interest rate to 5J per cent, which is what it was established at in the first instance in 1954.
It has always been the practice of the government to try to achieve the lowest interest rate possible in the interests of the borrower and still attract enough money to

National Housing Act
the market to achieve a high level of housing. I think the hon. member for Eglinton will recall that when we set the interest rate in the first instance it was a period when rates were declining. We waited in order to obtain the lowest possible rate, and I think perhaps he was surprised that we were able to establish a rate of 5J per cent at a time when many people thought it would be somewhat higher.
Then he mentioned Regent Park North and compared it with the development of Regent Park South, and used it to criticize what he said was a growing trend toward bureaucracy in the operations of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Regent Park North was the first and the largest slum clearance project undertaken in Canada. It was undertaken in the heart of Toronto, in a place that lent itself admirably to a slum clearance project. That was before the federal-provincial approach was developed. The result was that the municipality, with the help of the provincial government, built the housing on land acquired and cleared jointly by the municipality and the federal government. The federal government advanced a total of about $1,300,000, which represented half the cost of acquiring and clearing the land. The provincial government at that time put about $1,000 into each unit for a total of 1,289 units, and their contribution was therefore just about the same as the federal government's contribution. There was close co-operation between the housing authority and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at that time in setting up the scales of rentals and their relationship to income. I am sure the hon. member is aware of the close co-operation that did prevail with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at that time.
The hon. member then used that as something of a standard to compare adversely the development of Regent Park South in which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is more directly involved through the medium of section 36 of the National Housing Act. There again Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will pay half the cost of acquiring and clearing the land. They will pay 75 per cent of the cost of completing the housing project of some 750 units on the cleared land, and will then pay 75 per cent of the net deficits or the subsidies involved.
That project has been developed under the guidance of a committee composed of representatives of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the provincial government and the municipality of metropolitan

Toronto. On the committee has been Mr. Dearlove who is the man to whom my hon. friend referred this afternoon in such deservedly warm terms-


Donald Methuen Fleming: But his recommendations have not been adopted in connection with the Regent Park South project.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps not in toto, but his advice and guidance were valued and I am sure that much of it was used.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am well aware that Mr. Dearlove was a member of the committee to which the minister has referred, but the views of Mr. Dearlove on the various matters I discussed this afternoon were not adopted by the committee, and I think it is unfortunate that more weight was not attached to his views in the light of his experience and success in the operation of the Regent Park North project.


Robert Henry Winters: 
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask if the loan was approved on the basis of 90 per cent of the original tender or on the basis of 90 per cent of the eventual cost? The minister will recall that there was a difference. The first tender was the one approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for its 90 per cent contribution, but subsequently that tender had to be set aside and the eventual cost will be greater. Is Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation prepared to contribute 90 per cent of the higher cost?


Robert Henry Winters: On that particular point, Mr. Chairman, I do not have the answer now. It has been approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but I have not seen it recently. I shall look at that particular aspect of it. I would like to assure the hon. member that such differences as appear to exist at this time in the approach to these two different projects, Regent Park North and Regent Park South, will be ironed out as we go along.
The hon. member said that in the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation there is developing a bureaucracy which has almost advanced to a state of autocracy. I can say to my hon. friend in the same spirit in which he said Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has become more bureaucratic, that it is not becoming more bureaucratic. Every effort is being made, in fact, to obtain the views and opinions of people and to get as close as possible to the people whom Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is trying to serve.
I think one evidence of that is the local housing authorities with local management. Another is the close relationship that obtains between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the housebuilders' association of Canada. That relationship has been fostered
National Housing Act
through the establishment of liaison committees which operate on a district basis, and which also have access to the head office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the personal invitation of the president. There is the community planning association with which the closest co-operation obtains. There has been an advisory panel set up to advise on the training of planners. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation endeavours to obtain the advice of the people it serves and to get as close as possible to them.
My hon. friend from Regina City who I must say gave a very good speech, again within the confines of socialist philosophy, dwelt, as I thought he would, on the need for houses for people of low incomes. I think that is a pretty valid position for him to take. I would say in reply that in 1955, for example, there were 132,000 new housing units completed in Canada including conversions, against family formations of something of the order of 80,000, which means there has been a gain on the backlog of over 50,000 units. When you couple that with the fact that there is nobody in Canada who is not housed in accommodation of some sort or other, it can be seen that the movement to the new houses has left a great many houses vacant which do come into the possession of the class of people the hon. member for Regina had in mind when he spoke.
In addition to that there is the expansion of the home improvement sections of the act which are contemplated by this resolution. They give people in this salary group an opportunity to improve their homes and thereby improve their accommodation.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Would the minister then suggest that the government's policy is to allow this trickling-down process to take care of the housing needs of people in the low income groups?


Robert Henry Winters: I never did say that the government's policy was to provide a new house at once for every Canadian citizen. The Liberal government's policy is to provide adequate housing for everybody, and we are travelling just as rapidly as we can in that direction. I must remind my hon. friend of something he knows already, and that is that the act provides for subsidization. That is being applied, as the hon. member for Eglinton said today. There is an opportunity to make wider use of that provision but that is up to the municipalities and the provinces. The federal government stands ready to co-operate.
I think I have answered some of the questions raised by the hon. member for York West, who suggested a fixed rate of interest.

National Housing Act
I think that would be rather impracticable in a fluctuating money market. We have to compete for mortgage money, and we must set the interest rate at a value which will attract sufficient mortgage funds to the market.
The hon. member put considerable stock in equity in a house, just as I do. I believe his thinking is much the same as mine, and that is reflected in the act. We try to keep the down payment as low as possible, having in mind on the other hand the need for equity in the house and bearing in mind also that the lowest possible down payment is not always the greatest service that can be rendered to a borrower, because it simply means that he is being saddled with higher carrying charges. That is one of the biggest obstacles that can be placed in the way of a greater level of house building for those who need houses. The problem of land assembly which he mentioned is a very real one, and we have been giving a lot of consideration to it.
The hon. member for Yukon cited the problem that obtains in that northern country. I am able to give him some encouragement by telling him that we are looking at it by way of studying the regulations to see to what extent they can and should be changed to meet the conditions he mentioned.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond raised a problem which seems to be a little more acute in his particular constituency but which nevertheless prevails right across Canada; that is, the need to build housing on adequately serviced property. I know the particular problem which confronts him in the low lying areas of Sea island, Lulu island and other places in that constituency. We had the problem up about a year ago and with his help and co-operation were able to move forward by allocating available building approvals to builders in the area. I am sure that in the same spirit of co-operation between him and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the builders we will be able to continue the high level of building there.
The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort spoke about the use of the limited dividend section of the act in Saskatchewan. I must say that this is one province in which good use has been made of that section. The provincial government has asked that the provisions be broadened to provide for a certain amount of hostel accommodation, and that has been done. The only difference is in the matter of degree. The Saskatchewan government asked Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide for one hostel unit for each self-contained unit in a limited dividend project. The matter was given a great deal of consideration and the board of

Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has now made a proposal which I consider reasonable. That is they will provide a maximum of one hostel unit for every two self-contained units in a limited dividend project.
I think there was some question in the minds of the Saskatchewan government about the cut-off date. We had set June 30, I think it was, but we informed the Saskatchewan government of that date last August so it seems to me they have had considerable opportunity to be appraised of the ruling laid down by the board of the corporation and adjust themselves to it.
That concludes my remarks. There are a number of points of details which I think could be taken up with advantage when the various clauses of the bill are being considered.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, there are some brief remarks that I should like to make on points raised by the minister in his reply.
First of all I should like to say a word about the interest rate and the recent increase in it. I point out that the increase in the interest rate is directly attributable to the policy laid down by the central bank and imposed by it upon the chartered banks. This is not at all a case of the effective rate under the act automatically adjusting itself in the ordinary course of the play and interplay of economic forces, adjusting itself to supply and demand; this is purely and simply a case of an increase in the rate being brought about by the action of the Bank of Canada.
Therefore it seems to me that here we have a fundamental contradiction in government policies. The minister has declared the desire of the government to see the house construction rate maintained and if possible built up to a further record this year, but the fact remains that another branch of government, the central bank, then the chartered banks in turn and now the government itself in connection with the interest rate on these loans, have increased the rate. This is all the result of government action. I still say that there is here a contradiction in government policy.
In referring to the Regent Park North project and the Regent Park South project in Toronto the minister made no comment upon a circumstance which it seems to me is of considerable importance. In the Regent Park North project there was no requirement as to minimum income of tenants, but in connection with the proposed Regent Park South project Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation proposes that there shall be required a minimum income of $150 a month

for every tenant. As I tried to say this afternoon, that seems to run counter to any concept of the provision of housing accommodation to meet a need.
It seems as though the aim of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in establishing that minimum requirement is to prevent any financial loss. They are concerned about making the project pay its way. I had thought that a higher consideration here was the meeting of need of families whose need of housing accommodation of this kind is well established. How the government justifies the imposition of that minimum requirement in relation to income on those who hope to qualify as tenants in the Regent Park South project I have yet to learn.
Next the minister sought to establish by assertion that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has sought public participation and interest on the part of citizen groups. I can only say to him that whether or not that has been the avowed purpose of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials, the fact is that they have created on the part of citizen organizations which played a leading part in bringing about and sustaining the success of the Regent Park North project the impression that their interest is neither sought nor wanted by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I think, in view of what the minister has said, it is not unreasonable to ask the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to take more concerted measures to show their desire to have participation on the part of these interested civic organizations, because there cannot be any question at all about their intelligent interest in these projects, and it is altogether desirable that there should be understanding and co-operation between them and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I was surprised at the minister's remarks about the degree of consultation and cooperation that he says exists between the housebuilders and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That remark did indeed surprise me, because I have in my hand a press clipping from the Globe and Mail of September 27, 1955, in which we find the following:
Charges were levelled last night at a meeting of the 600-member Toronto metropolitan home builders' association that the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was:
Adding $500 to $1,000 to the price of each new house by imposing and enforcing a growing list of regulations governing construction;
Appointing inspectors to inspect inspectors, and alleging infractions of regulations where infractions did not exist;
Handicapping contractors by arbitrarily and unfairly holding back advance payments on mortgage money;
National Housing Act
Attenpting to drive the small builder out of business.
"They are making us put Cadillac trimmings on Ford products," said Louis Rice, chairman of the association's C.M.H.C. liaison committee.
Then we read further:
Over the past year, C.M.H.C. rules and regulations have added $500 to $1,000 to the price of each house.
I am well aware that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials, when these charges were made public, undertook to make a denial the following day. But when the minister says that there is close co-operation between the two, I think it is only correct that this information should be brought before the house, because it does not sound t<* me, in the face of those charges, even taking account of the denial that followed on the part of C.M.H.C. officials, as though there is any great degree of co-operation disclosed, at least in that press report.


Robert Henry Winters: Let me say a word on that. That clipping I believe, speaking from memory, arose out of the remarks of only a few delegates to that convention. I do not think a resolution ever came forward. It had to do with the inspection standards. There were some who felt the inspection standards of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation were too rigid. The officials of Central Mortgage went to the meeting the next day and said they would be delighted to have discussions on all the points. I believe it was the general consensus of the meeting, even before the officials of Central Mortgage got there, that the position of Central Mortgage was one that should be defended rather than criticized.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As I have said, I was well
aware the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation did not admit these charges were justified. Indeed, there was a denial of them. I simply come back to the minister's assertion of co-operation existing between housebuilders and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Robert Henry Winters: It does.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well, it must exist in other
quarters within the body mentioned, namely the metropolitan home builders association, than those of its members whose comments were noted in that particular press report.
This is my final comment. The minister has not touched on the point that was raised earlier, that is, the fact that those who are able to qualify for mortgage loans under part I of the housing act are to an increasing degree those of substantially above-average incomes. It may be that as the act is at present constituted some of this is inevitable, but at any rate it seems to me the

National Housing Act
point ought to have the attention of the government and is worthy of comment on the part of the minister.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has not attempted to deny this. As a matter of fact one of its publications in this respect attracted some comment, for in it appeared an indication that the immediate effect of the amendments in 1954 to the National Housing Act was to:
-enable potential borrowers in the higher family income ranges to obtain more expensive houses for a smaller cash outlay.
Then I read further in the quotation the following:
The average gross family income which includes the total income of all dependents of a loan applicant in addition to his own income, was $5,477 under the new act in 1954 compared to $4,961 under the old act in 1953.
Under the new act, 53 per cent of these borrowers had gross family incomes of $5,000 or more, compared to 37-7 per cent in 1953.
Borrowers in the family income group of under $4,000 represented 15-5 per cent of the total under the new act compared to 25-4 per cent under the old act in 1953.
So the evidence is undeniable-indeed it is readily conceded by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-that in the past few years, whether it is the result of the new amendments or the result of other factors that would have made themselves felt whether there had been amendments in 1954 or not, the benefits under part I of the act have been moving more and more in the direction of higher income families, and the proportion of families in the income levels below $4,000 who are deriving benefit under part 1 of the act is constantly shrinking.
It seems to me that this is a fact that cannot be viewed without a degree of concern bordering on alarm. This is not to suggest that these benefits should be withdrawn from those in the group earning $5,000 and over, but I think it calls for some concerted examination of the fact that these benefits are not accruing, under the present provisions of the act and the administration, to those whose incomes are less than average.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister one question, Mr. Chairman? The regulations laid down under the act are having the effect of excluding permanent officials of the municipalities from service on the boards of limited dividend corporations set up by municipalities. Recently in the city of Toronto this had effects that I think are very regrettable, for last April-just a year ago today, to be exact -four welfare officers who were serving as directors of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company, which is a limited dividend housing

corporation set up under the authority of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, were asked to resign from the board of directors of that corporation because of a ruling given by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that, as public officials of the municipality, they were not entitled to sit on the board.
I am aware of the regulation in that respect, but, it seems to me that there should be some re-examination of such a regulation. 1 find it difficult to see sound reason for excluding completely, from the board of one of these limited dividend housing corporations set up by a municipality, some of the permanent officials of the municipality. There may be some very competent men there who are capable of continuing on such a board from year to year. From my own experience I would say it is altogether desirable that there should be some of the elected representatives in the city council sitting on such a board. There should be some representation there for the sake of establishing liaison.
My own experience in that respect, when I sat for three years as the representative of the Toronto city council on the city planning board, convinced me that liaison of that kind is altogether desirable. But that does not touch the point I am raising now, namely the exclusion of the permanent municipal officials. Often there are some very competent officials who have a great deal of knowledge and experience, and f think that knowledge and experience can be put to very good use when these persons are permitted to serve on the boards of limited dividend housing corporations set up under municipal auspices.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Winters thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 215, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INCOME TAX


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 8, to implement an agreement between Canada and the Kingdom of Denmark for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.
He said: Mr. Speaker, you will note that this is a bill to implement an agreement between Canada and the kingdom of Denmark for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax. I draw that to your attention because of the fact that previous

agreements with other countries also included succession duties. Succession duties are not a part of this agreement.
The purpose of the bill is to give legal effect in Canada to the agreement which, as a result of negotiations and subsequent exchanges, has been reached between the government of Canada and the government of Denmark for the avoidance of double taxation and the establishment of rules for reciprocal fiscal assistance in the matter of income taxes, which agreement was signed at Ottawa on the 30th day of September, 1955. The provisions of the agreement are similar in their effect to those contained in the agreements which Canada has made with the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, New Zealand, France and Ireland. It is designed to avoid double taxation and also provides for the exchange of information.
By means of an exchange of reciprocal tax credits the country of residence gives credit for the tax imposed by the country in which the income has its source. As in the other agreements, taxation by a state of the trading profits of an enterprise of the other state is limited to those attributable to the (permanent establishment of such enterprise in the first mentioned state. In addition, certain specific provisions are made regarding the profits from the operation of ships and aircraft, and the exemption from tax of exchange teachers and students.
I suggest the important part of the bill has to do with the schedule, and when we get into committee and come to the discussion of the schedule I shall be very happy to give such explanation as may be required in answer to any questions that may be asked.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, any bill that will contribute anything toward the avoidance of double taxation is bound to attract the sympathetic interest of those of us who sit in this part of the house. As this measure follows in form similar agreements with a number of other countries I shall not prolong my remarks on second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I wonder whether the minister would tell the committee why it was not possible to extend this agreement to include succession duties as well as income tax.


James Joseph McCann: It was not requested by the state of Denmark.
67509-203J
23, 1S5S	3205
Canada-Denmark-Income Tax Agreement


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was the Canadian government not prepared to seek an agreement to avoid double taxation with respect to succession duties?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, we were, if it had been requested, but I do not know that succession duties are a part of Denmark's system of taxation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know either, but it should be possible to find that out. The mere fact that the Danish government did not initiate a request for the inclusion of succession duties within the scope of such an agreement is, it seems to me, no reason why the Canadian government should not do so.


James Joseph McCann: Well, I probably can give a little further explanation on that when we come to the different articles.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think it arises with respect to any particular article because the articles are, of course, confined to income tax.


William Alfred Robinson: Clause 2 refers to the
schedule.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not in the schedule, Mr. Chairman. This clause is the one on which the point should be answered.


William Alfred Robinson: I should think the question might more properly be answered under clause 2, which refers to the schedule.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is nothing in the schedule about succession duties, Mr. Chairman. That is my point.


James Joseph McCann: My officials tell me that the Danish government did not ask for it and it was not suggested by the Canadian government. If they had asked for it, we were prepared to take the matter into consideration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can only express regret that the Canadian government left the initiative in this matter entirely to the Danish government, and that the Canadian government did not itself put the proposal forward. If it is a good thing to enter into an agreement with Denmark to avoid double income tax surely it is an equally desirable thing to enter into an agreement with that government to avoid double taxation in respect of succession duties.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Agreement approved.
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I make a suggestion with respect to clause 2. I think we followed this practice in connection with the agreement with Ireland last year. Clause 2 would have the effect of giving approval to the agreement which is attached as the schedule. May I suggest that we might turn to the
3206	HOUSE OF
Canada-Denmark-Income Tax Agreement schedule at this point before approval is given to clause 2. It would be rather illogical to approve clause 2, thus giving the schedule approval and the force of law, and then turn to the schedule after that. There are a few questions I should like to ask on the schedule.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed by the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On the schedule.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are several provisions of the agreement, Mr. Chairman, on which I should like a little further comment from the minister. These questions arise largely because of the departure from the form of the agreement with Ireland, which is our last precedent for an agreement of this kind.
The agreement with the Republic of Ireland was approved by chapter 10 of the statutes of 1955, and the articles to which I should like to refer now are those which indicate some departures though they may not be wide departures from the provisions of the most recent precedent. In most respects the present agreement with Denmark follows almost verbatim the language of the agreement with Ireland, but there are some few differences and they give rise to my questions.
For instance, in article III we have the expression used in the first paragraph, "the profits of a Danish enterprise", and in the second paragraph the expression, "the profits of a Canadian enterprise". If we refer to the corresponding section of the Irish agreement of last year, we find the expression there used in both cases, "the industrial or commercial profits of any Irish enterprise." Then also there is the provision that there should not be a tax unless certain conditions obtain.
Now, what is the reason for the change in language? Last fall in the Irish treaty we had the expression "industrial or commercial profits" and now in this agreement we have the unqualified word "profits".


James Joseph McCann: Article III provides that a Danish enterprise will only be taxed in Canada with respect to industrial or commercial profits to the extent that those are attributable to its permanent establishment in Canada. The same rule applies reciprocally wih respect to the industrial and commercial profits of a Canadian enterprise in Denmark.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister excuse me? The minister is using the expression "industrial or commercial profits" of a Canadian or Danish enterprise. The language of the article is simply "the profits" of a Danish or Canadian enterprise. Last year in the agreement


with Ireland we had the expression, "industrial or commercial profits" of an Irish enterprise and the "industrial or commercial profits" of a Canadian enterprise. What is the reason for the change in the language now?


James Joseph McCann: Although there is a change there, Mr. Chairman, I submit that it means exactly the same thing. Perhaps if I read the whole of the explanation it might bring it out. This article provides that a Danish enterprise will only be taxed in Canada with respect to industrial or commercial profits to the extent that these are attributable to its permanent establishment in Canada. The same rule applies reciprocally with respect to the industrial and commercial profits of a Canadian enterprise in Denmark. The fact that a company resident in one country has a subsidiary in the other country would not of itself subject the parent company to taxation in the other country on its industrial or commercial profits.
The mere purchase of goods by an enterprise of one country in the other country does not result in a profit subject to tax in the other counfry.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about the position of investment profits? I am still puzzled by the change of language here. While the minister says it means the same thing, I am not at all sure that the word "profits" means the same thing as "industrial or commercial profits".


James Joseph McCann: They are both profits.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, they are both profits, but it is a question of the breadth. With the word "profits" there is obviously no limitation, but last year we had the expression used, "industrial or commercial profits". The minister seems to treat the two as synonymous, but I remain unconvinced.


John Borden Hamilton: There is a question on article I, item 2. The wording is as follows:
This agreement shall also apply to any other taxes of a substantially similar character-
I wonder if the minister might tell us if the legal officers have considered whether or not that section might be void because of uncertainty. It is dealing with a domestic statute which I think is quasi-criminal in nature, and I feel that any expression of that type might not be effective in our courts.


James Joseph McCann: I think that arises from the different types of taxes in Denmark which are given different names. This article contains a specific reference to the respective taxes to which the agreement applies. In Canada it applies to income tax, including

surtax, and in Denmark to national income taxes, intercommunal income tax and communal income tax. The intercommunal income tax is a tax imposed by the state. Although the communal tax is imposed by the municipalities of Denmark, nevertheless the rules regulating such local taxation on income are settled by a law of the state which has authority to bind the municipalities and to include these local taxes among those subject to this agreement. They are, therefore, included by virtue of the authority of the state, even if they are municipal taxes. This article also provides that the agreement will apply to any substantially similar tax which may be imposed by either government during the time the agreement is in force.


John Borden Hamilton: I think that explains it. In other words, the similar tax would have to be, in Canada an income tax of some kind, and in Denmark would have to come within the three descriptive types mentioned.


James Joseph McCann: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have not (Juite finished with article III in this agreement. There is a final paragraph here which has no counterpart in the agreement with Ireland. Will the minister explain this particular paragraph and indicate why there is a departure from the scheme of the Irish agreement?
23, 1956	3207
Canada-Denmark-Income Tax Agreement-
Mi. McCann: I am told this is covered later, and it has to do with a withholding tax on income in the form of dividends, interest, rents and royalties, which are not from sources within its territory, by a resident of the territory of the other party, if such income is not attributed to a permanent establishment in the territory of the first party. While these agreements with the dif-fent countries are generally very similar, they are not exactly word for word, and the hon. gentleman is comparing this one with the last one we had before the house in February, 1955. I do not know if there is any further explanation I can give.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take the St. Lawrence seaway authority resolution first; then the branch line of the Canadian National Railways in New Brunswick second; the transport control resolution third; the Northwest Territories Power Commission fourth, and the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice fifth.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes past ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Question

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Gillis: 1.	What percentage of the cost of the St. Lawrence seaway will be borne by the United States?
2.	Is the Canadian or the American government giving any consideration to an eastern entrance to the St. Lawrence seaway?
3.	Is either the Canadian or American government giving any consideration to the construction of the Chignecto canal as an eastern entrance to the St. Lawrence seaway?
4.	Has the government discussed the matter of the Chignecto canal with the United States in its relationship to the St. Lawrence seaway?
Answer by: Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of
Slate for External Affairs):
1.	Most recent estimates of expenditure on both the power and navigation aspects of the St. Lawrence seaway indicate that the United States will bear 43-4 per cent of the total cost of the project. It is estimated that the
United States will bear 30-2 per cent of the navigation project and 50 per cent of the power project. This calculation does not include the sums expended by either country on existing works, such as the expenditure by Canada on the Welland canal.
2.	The eastern entrance to the seaway is considered to be the point where dredging begins in the St. Lawrence river to permit navigation. The Canadian government is not giving consideration to changing this definition nor, as far as we are aware, is the United States government.
3.	The Canadian government is not giving consideration to the construction of the Chignecto canal as an eastern entrance to the St. Lawrence seaway. We have not been informed of any consideration given this matter by the United States government, but such consideration is unlikely as any canal through the Chignecto isthmus would be wholly in Canadian territory.
4.	The Canadian government has not discussed with the United States authorities the matter of the proposed Chignecto canal in relation to the St. Lawrence seaway.

Tuesday, April 24, 1956