1956-04-26

Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with United States nuclear tests in the Pacific the house might be interested to learn that the United States department of defence is today making the following announcement:
Canadian and United Kingdom representatives have been invited to attend a nuclear detonation in the forthcoming test series at the Eniwetok proving ground.
The invitations were issued under the terms of bilateral agreements entered into on July 21, 1955, with Canada and the United Kingdom for exchange of atomic information for mutual defence purposes.
The nuclear detonation for which these invitations have been issued will be after that attended by U.S. news representatives and civil defence officials, about May 1.
I can add that Canada has accepted this invitation and a representative Canadian group will be in attendance.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, today the government has decided to extend the provisions of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act for two more years, 1957 and 1958, at the same rate. A resolution and bill to implement that extension will be brought before the house at an early date.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question in connection with the experiments which have been carried on at McGill University in the field of brainwashing. In the light of the minister's earlier answer to a question on this subject on April 17 1 wonder if the minister's brains have been washed so that he has forgotten he was minister in the years 1954 and 1955. However, 67509-209
if his brain has been set at rest on this subject I should like to ask if he has learned from his own department sufficient of what was going on to be able to clear up certain other discrepancies which appeared in that answer which he made.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, in view of certain reports which have appeared in the press I have made inquiries and I have practically no amendment to make to my statement of the other day. I may say that that statement was based on information from my officials. Notwithstanding the omniscience of certain press people, may I say that this experiment was initiated in September 1951 and was completed in the early days of 1953, and a report was issued in that year. This was all before my time as minister. There were other experiments carried on at McGill following that date, but they had nothing to do with changing the mental attitude of persons to which I referred. I notice the same gentleman accuses me in the press of having made an understatement of the case, but it occurs to me that in view of the number of overstatements we get from the other side of the house my statement may help to balance things up.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question of which I have given him notice. Can he take the house and the country into his confidence in the matter of increasing the interest rate? I am moved to ask this particularly by a statement in this morning's paper-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have asked the question. I am moved to ask it because of a statement that the premier of Ontario thought that the Canadian economy has been jeopardized because of federal government tinkering with interest rates.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will repeat my question. Will the minister take the house and the

Inquiries of the Ministry country into his confidence and explain the reasons for the increase in the interest rate?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can explain the reason for the increase in the interest rate very briefly. The interest rate of the Bank of Canada, commonly known as the bank rate, is of course just another interest rate. It is the interest rate at which the central bank will loan money to certain institutions, and that rate has to bear some reasonable relation to other interest rates.
It happens that the rates of all the central banks, at least that of the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries, have been raised substantially in the past 12 months. Our bank rate did not keep pace in the sense of matching the increase, but it nevertheless had to be increased from time to time for the same reasons as the other countries increased theirs. My recollection is that in the United States the bank rate has gone up four times in the past 12 months; I think ours has gone up just four times. In the United Kingdom the bank rate is already over 5 per cent, as compared with our 3 per cent.
This is all public knowledge. The reasons for it are as have been given, that we cannot maintain an artificially low interest rate for the central bank when other interest rates with which there must be competition are rising, and correspondingly the Bank of Canada does change its rates from time to time for that reason.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Has not the bank rate primarily to do with our local conditions, and does that mean that the government believes there is a serious threat of inflation?


Walter Edward Harris: The bank rate cannot possibly be fixed solely with regard to our local conditions, unless you think in terms of our local conditions being divorced from world trade. Naturally, our affairs in Canada are affected by the affairs of other countries, and that will bring a reaction on our trade and our demand for credit. When that demand does exceed certain available supplies, the bank rate will naturally go up, and that without regard necessarily to local conditions. Nevertheless, I think the hon. member knows, and I think all the members of the house know, that there is such a demand for money in Canada at the moment that interest rates are rising and are bound to rise.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Might I ask a supplementary question? Was the increase in the central bank rate not a deliberate

policy to encourage a general rise in interest rates in Canada, as is now taking place with the chartered bank rate?


Walter Edward Harris: I think the hon. member for Assiniboia was trying to make a speech, and I doubt very much if he expects or really believes that any servant of the government of Canada would take an attitude such as he describes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is it a matter of government policy to have the central bank interest rate increased in order to generally raise interest rates in this country?

On the orders of the day:


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask my question in a different form? Is the recent increase in the interest rate charged by chartered banks not a direct result of the move by the central bank to increase its rate?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, except for the limitation in the Bank Act with respect to the rate of interest beyond which the banks cannot lend money, the government of Canada has no control over what they do with respect to interest rates.


Hazen Robert Argue: You forced them to increase their interest rates.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Did
I understand the Minister of Finance to say that the government of Canada exercises no control over the financial system of the country? I thought the central bank was established for that purpose.


Walter Edward Harris: What I said was that we do not control the borrowing rate that the banks set for their customers except in so far as we put an upper limit on it in the Bank Act. That, I thought, was an answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia.



CANADA EVIDENCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has any consideration been given to amending the Canada Evidence Act so that microphotographic film would be taken as proof of records of municipal governments?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Since my hon. friend did not give me notice of this question and since it deals with a matter of detail, I shall take his question as notice.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Oxford asked when the elevator in the peace tower would be back in operation. The answer is that it will be in full operation tomorrow.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: May I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether, since a major international civil defence exercise is planned for this summer, members of this house will be called upon to co-operate in the evacuation plan if the house is still in session?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Having in mind the date of the exercise to which my hon. friend directs my attention, I do not know whether I am to construe from his question that this is an indication that we are going to be here in session as a result of his persistence. In any event, the matter which he raises is as he would expect, fully under consideration.



JUDGES ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
.	H isT eJPedient to introduce a measure to
th,e .hedges Act to provide salaries for four additional judges of the superior court of Quebec eddituma1 judges of the supreme court of British Columbia.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, it might, I think, shorten the discussion if the minister would just tell the committee in general terms the nature of the request and the reasons for it. X know in my own province there have been requests and I imagine the same is true of the province of Quebec, but perhaps we might have the details. '


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, as hon. members are all aware, in our judicial system in Canada the provincial legislatures determine by provincial legislation the number 67509-2091
26, 1956	3289
Judges Act
of judicial vacancies that there are from time to time upon provincial courts. Where the business of the courts increases to the point that an additional number of judges are necessary the required provincial legislation is passed to create these additional vacancies. After the additional vacancies have been created in this way we here at Ottawa take the power by an amendment to the federal Judges Act, such as is being ushered in by this resolution, to make appointments to fill these new judicial vacancies in provincial courts.
In the present case the amendment covers two additional judges to the trial division of the supreme court of British Columbia and four additional appointments to the superior court of the province of Quebec. I have satisfied myself by inquiries that there is ample reason for the provincial legislation being passed to create these vacancies and that it is necessary that we should take the power by means of the legislation to which this resolution will lead, to fill those vacancies in due course.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect to the two additional appointments being provided for the province of British Columbia, when were those requested? My recollection is that last year provision was made out there for one additional judge and that a request was made for one additional judge. My recollection may be faulty but it seems to me that the request for the second judge must be somewhat more recent. Could the minister confirm that impression; or if I am wrong, can he tell me when the request was received?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: So far as we are concerned, Mr. Chairman, the request does not really become too effective until the provincial legislature has actually passed the legislation. As I am sure my friend the hon. member for Kamloops himself is aware, that legislation was proclaimed within the last two or three weeks. In other words, we had been having correspondence with the attorney general of British Columbia and with the chief justice of the court in British Columbia prior to that time but we were not in a position to take too great cognizance of that until the actual vacancies had been created and the provincial act passed to that end had been proclaimed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was just this spring, then.


Mr. Castleden:: Can the minister give the house a breakdown of the number of supreme court cases by provinces and also the number of cases per judge over say a five-year period?

Judges Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I could possibly do that. I secured from the chief justice of the trial division of the court in British Columbia a statement as to the number of cases they had been considering during the past 12 months. However, I do not feel that I have the authority to demand of those provinces which are not requiring additional judges information as to how many cases they try. In a matter of this kind my authority is pretty much related to satisfying myself that in those courts in which additional judges are being asked for there is really a need for them. Moreover, I question very much whether the comparative statistics which my friend the hon. member for Yorkton is seeking would reveal much because a great deal depends upon the nature of the cases as to how long they will take. Mere numbers in two parallel columns would not necessarily indicate that a number of cases in the one column would take up more time than the same number or even a greater number in another one.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, I believe that such a table would indicate, in a general way, the case load of the judges in the 'various provinces. It might turn out that "there are just as many supreme court cases per judge in other provinces. From what the .minister has said I take it that the request has come just from the two provinces, namely British Columbia and Quebec. In the province of Quebec at the present time, how many supreme court judges are there?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: At the present time there .are 44. But as an indication to my hon. -friend of how lacking in comparability statistics of that sort would be, may I just say this. In the province of Quebec they do not have-as they have in my hon. friend's province-any county court judges at all. Apart from magistrates and small debt cases, all of the cases which are tried in the province of Quebec go to the one court. ;Hence, if one were to take a comparison ;such as my hon. friend indicates, it would lend to mislead unless one made allowance for the difference in circumstances. When one had done that, I am afraid the statistics would have to be so heavily qualified that they would not mean very much.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, I still submit that if we could have the statistics with regard to the number of supreme court cases for each of the provinces for say the past five-year period, that information would indicate whether there has been sufficient

increase in the case load to warrant an increase such as this in the judges for each of those provinces. That is the figure I was after.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I can give my hon. friend the figure as to the number of actual court days that were spent by the judges of British Columbia, month by month, during the past 12 months. I think that is a better test. For the real question is this. Out of the total amount of time which all of the judges of the court have available, how many days do they necessarily spend in court considering these cases-not how many cases do they try. In one instance you may have a case, a jury trial in a civil action, that may last for two weeks. You may have another case that lasts for two hours. They each appear in the statistics as one case, but to say that they are comparable would be quite wrong. If my hon. friend would like me to put it on the record, I could give him this breakdown of British Columbia court room time. I think however, for the purposes of the committee, a statement which I have here from the chief justice of the court as to just what conditions are with the existing number of judges would be of greater service. If my hon. friend would like me to do so, I would not burden the record with all of the chief justice's statement, but I would be very glad to read the more relevant sections of it into the record.


George Hugh Castleden: Such a statement concerning the number of days spent in court by supreme court judges would, I think, be of value. I think it would be perhaps of even more value to know how that compared with the number of days spent by each judge or the average number of days spent by judges say three years ago and thus ascertain whether there is an increase in the work which would warrant the increased number of appointments.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is right to a certain extent. Certainly we should satisfy the members of the committee that the increase we are asking is really necessary. I do not know of any better way of establishing that point than by putting before the members of the committee the conditions which were prevailing in the court at the time the request was made. I think perhaps to that end, if this meets with the approval of the members, I might quote from this report from Chief Justice Sherwood Lett. He says this:
Members of the court are, and have been for some time, overworked. All the judges have accumulated reserve judgments which, sitting as they are from day to day, they find impossible to dispose of with the promptitude which should

prevail if the interests of litigants and the convenience of members of the bar are to be taken care of properly. The situation is unhealthy for the administration of justice and embarrassing to the judges themselves. Litigants are being unreasonably delayed.
The population of the province has increased rapidly in the last 10 years and this increase has been reflected in the work of the court, not only in greater Vancouver but also in Victoria, New Westminster, Nanaimo, Prince George, Vernon, Kelowna and Penticton. The government has recognized the growth of population in centres such as these by the construction of new court houses at several of the points mentioned and at other places, such as Courtenay and Chilliwack.
The work in Vancouver has increased on both the civil and criminal sides. We have, as you know, a continuous assize in Vancouver.
Now, my hon. friend from Yorkton could contrast that with his own city where they would not dream of having a continuous assize to dispose of cases. They have an assize a few times a year to dispose of the cases, then there is a long gap before the next assize.
I continue to quote from the report:
We have, as you know, a continuous assize in Vancouver, and the criminal trial list is very much congested. Seemingly, in both civil and criminal work, there are many more long trials than a few years ago.
That is another indication that the statistics of a few years ago and the statistics now would not mean very much by comparison. It is the length of time that the members of the court have to spend which is the real criterion as to whether or not additional judges need to be appointed. I again quote:
To illustrate, in the last year we have had one civil case of more than eight weeks' duration, another of four and a third of 18 days. We have had regrettably more than the usual number of murders and every murder trial lasts for several days at least. Cases dealing with narcotics also appear to be on the increase. In Victoria, which in days gone by had little litigation, the volume had markedly increased.
Nanaimo, which formerly took only two or three days a month at most now has to be judicially serviced much more frequently. The assizes and the civil work there require a judge on an average of seven to 10 days a month.
New Westminster requires the services of a judge almost every day except Fridays. The last criminal assize extended for almost eight weeks and the current criminal spring assize is heavy, and will probably continue for some weeks more.
The work in the Yale judicial district can no longer be handled by the attendance of a judge for one or two weeks twice a year. We still have semi-annual assizes at nine points in the interior of the province, but, in addition to that, it is now necessary to allocate a judge to do civil work in the interior at least two or three times each year, which takes a judge away from Vancouver from two to four weeks on each occasion. It is impossible to keep abreast of the work in Vancouver with two or three judges away on circuit a great deal of the time.
26, 1956	3291
Judges Act
Then, he goes on:
The number of applications in chambers in increasing, and, as many applications are lengthy, the chamber judge is not available for trial work.
Divorce actions in Vancouver and New Westminster average over 30 a week.
The trial of custody of children cases (inclusive of the perusal of reports from the superintendent of child welfare), reports to the court of appeal and reports to the remission branch of the justice department take many hours of judicial time.
The pressure of work from day to day results frequently in oral judgments with which judges themselves are not satisfied and the accumulation of reserved judgments which judges find it impossible to deal with promptly, to the dissatisfaction of litigants and the profession.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, to my satisfaction at least the case which the chief justice has put up in this memorandum from which I have quoted is a pretty unanswerable one.


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to know
whether a similar situation might not be true of cities like Toronto, Hamilton, Sarnia, and Edmonton, all of which are growing also? Can the minister assure the committee there has not been a similar increase? Perhaps the supreme court judges may be overloaded in those cities. That is the point I was making.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There is one point I am wondering whether my hon. friend really appreciates; and it is this. Before these matters ever get to the floor of this house at all it is necessary for the chief justice of the provincial court to convince the provincial attorney general and the provincial government that there is a state of congestion of the cases in his court. The provincial legislature has to amend its provincial laws before there is any occasion for our introducing any legislation in this chamber. Therefore I would assume that if, in relation to Hamilton and Toronto and the other places to which my hon. friend has referred the members of the Ontario legislature have not as yet seen fit to create more vacancies, they must feel they are being well served at the present time.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: As a matter of fact in the province of Saskatchewan I am of those who believe that there should be an increase of two judges on the Queen's Bench, but strangely enough the government of Saskatchewan, with apparently ulterior matters in view, brought in legislation within the last two years to reduce the number of Queen's bench judges there by one. If a vacancy takes place or one of the judges dies, then the number of Queen's Bench judges will be reduced by one because of the fact that the government of Saskatchewan thought that if one of the present judges were to retire or die, a certain person, now a member of this

Judges Act
house, might be appointed as a judge. I mention that. It does indicate that the decision made by the government of Saskatchewan was not based entirely on considerations relative to the demands of justice or to the necessity of justice being attained with maximum speed.
As a member of the bar of British Columbia I do feel that the request from that province is a reasonable one and is necessary in order to do two things. One is to permit judges to catch up with the tremendous amount of work they have. For some reason or another litigation has increased there tremendously in recent years.
Secondly, to ensure that justice is done at the earliest possible date. One of the major considerations in the administration of justice, and this has been said quite often, is that not only shall justice be done but that it be done expeditiously. There has been a great piling up of cases and I know that this applies in the province of Quebec where the number of judges has been insufficient to meet the increasing demands of litigation, and there is a need to increase the number on the bench.
I suggest also to the minister that in filling these vacancies regard should always be had to assuring that the best possible members of the bar are secured to fill the vacancies. It is important that justice be done at an early date, but it is equally important that justice shall in fact be done. The best lawyers available, without regard to political affiliations, should be appointed to these positions.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Chairman, I was rather surprised that the hon. member for Prince Albert should make a charge on the floor of this house that the Saskatchewan government is allowing political considerations to enter into the appointment of additional judges in that province.


John George Diefenbaker: They have reduced the number.


George Hugh Castleden: The hon. member indicated a possibility of some member of this house being appointed to the queen's bench. I am rather surprised that such a charge should be made against the members of the Saskatchewan government and it is unfortunate that they are not here to defend themselves in this place. I can assure the hon. member and this committee, and I think the Minister of Justice will support me in my statement, that as far as the provincial government is concerned they have always endeavoured to have the highest quality of justice that could possibly be made available to the people of that province. That has always been their

aim. I certainly do not like the implication that the provincial government's policy is based on some political motive.


Mr. Holowach:: Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the legal profession which has as its symbol justice, and its true administration, nor is it necessary to be a member in order to appreciate that those who serve in our judiciary are filling a most important place in our complex society. I feel that as long as the Canadian people enjoy liberty and justice the profession of law will continue to be a great one and have the esteem and respect of all our people. We all know that in a free country such as ours the administration of justice is absolutely essential to our survival, especially today when we see philosophies of life and government which are not only challenging our way of life but actually denying justice to countless millions.
As I see it, parliament and a judiciary system composed of men who are honest, impartial and learned, are the true guardians of the principle of justice for the Canadian people. We should always try to strengthen our judicial system and in doing that I think we should keep two requisites in mind. First, we should make our selections from those who are of the highest calibre, impartially and irrespective of the political affiliations of the candidates. Secondly, we should constantly re-examine the needs and requirements of these people in order that there may be the maximum speed in the administration of justice.
I notice that this resolution provides for the appointment of four additional judges to the Superior Court of Quebec and two additional judges to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, as well as the fixing of their salaries. It would seem that the bringing in of this resolution was motivated by the necessity of clearing up a backlog of cases. If that is so, then the resolution is most timely. We should remember that when we delay justice we are denying justice.
As far as the salaries are concerned, I am not just sure what they will be and perhaps we should be told. I do not know what amounts are allocated for the judicial system in Canada. It may be found upon examination that in the light of recommendations from the judges themselves these salaries are inadequate. I think proper salaries in this field are most important because they would bring forth the best effort and at the same time make our judges financially independent.
I do not know what process is followed to meet the needs and the recommendations made by our judiciary, but the point I make is that somehow or other those needs and

requirements and recommendations should be brought forcibly to the attention of the public and hon. members of this house. I do not think that is being done and I do not think we have enough information on it. I read a most interesting report of an address given by William P. Rogers, deputy attorney general of the United States, at a testimonial dinner for Judge James C. Connell, Cleveland, Ohio, on November 17, 1954, and he had this to say:
I want to propose to you here tonight a plan which I believe holds great promise for the future of the judicial system. I believe that a primary need of the federal judiciary today is an effective way to speak to the congress and to the people of the United States. The judiciary needs a voice possessing strength and prestige to speak effectively. That voice is, in my opinion, the voice of the chief justice of the United States. I believe that the chief justice should be invited by concurrent resolution at the beginning of each session of congress to address a joint session of the house and senate. At such a joint session of congress the chief justice could effectively present to the congress and the people of the United States not only the needs and problems of the federal judiciary, but give a broad and comprehensive picture of the performance of the courts in their vastly important function of doing justice between man and man and between the government and its citizens.
There should be, and I believe that there is, no partisanship in the matter of providing adequate facilities for our federal judiciary. In the past the fault has not been with congress. The fault has been, in my opinion, with the procedure whereby the needs of the courts are not fully presented to the entire congress and the people.
The judiciary holds neither the power of the sword nor of the purse. But if, as we believe, justice is the chief concern of men, then the instrumentalities of justice-our courts-must be assigned a truly co-ordinate position in our governmental scheme. They should enjoy in greater degree than they now do the opportunity to declare and to make known their problems, needs, and plans for more effective performance of their vital functions in our society.
I do not know just how akin that problem raised by Mr. Rogers is to our own case, but I think it offers food for thought. I am pleased to say that we in this group are in full support of this resolution and at this time we should like to express esteem and best wishes to those whom this resolution will affect. We feel confident that those who are responsible for this resolution have given careful consideration to the matter of these appointments with the view that we add eminence to our judiciary.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Garson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 252, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
26. 1856	3293
Veterans Loans



VETERANS BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LOANS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 23, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Harris-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
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.
Walter Edward Harris: This is a quite simple amendment which has been recommended to the house because of a little difficulty we ran into in connection with the administration of the act. As I think hon. members will recall, the government said during the war years that it would provide a guarantee to banks for certain loans to be made to veterans of professional or business standing, in order to re-establish them. The loan was to be guaranteed if made within ten years from, I think, May 1 or March 1, 1945, or ten years from the date of the discharge from the armed services of the veteran.
We found last year that there were cases where the ten years was running out. The veteran had applied for a loan, but there was sufficient time lag between the application and the final determination by the bank to make the loan that in fact the ten-year limit had run out in the interval. This was no one's fault. There would be a normal time for the banks to investigate the loan and to have it certified through the Department of Veterans Affairs that the applicant was in fact a veteran and entitled to the benefit of the guarantee. So, in order to overcome the possibility-in fact, the actuality, as it turned out-that a veteran might apply in what he would consider sufficient time to obtain the advantage of the guarantee, and yet not receive it because of the lapse of the ten year period, we are suggesting to the house that we might amend the act so that the date of his application would be the date that would be used to determine the ten-year period. In other words, if a veteran applies any time up to the last day of the ten year period and the application is subsequently granted, the government will guarantee that loan to the bank.


George Hugh Castleden: What is the last date?


Walter Edward Harris: The last date is either ten years from, I think, May 1, 1945, or ten years from the date of his discharge from the armed services, whichever is the later.


George Hugh Castleden: Does that include Korean veterans?

Veterans Loans


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Mr. Brooks:: We appreciate the explanation by the minister. I might say that there has been very little veterans legislation before the house; this is the first amendment to any veterans act that we have had this session. I do not think it indicates altogether that it is not necessary to have a few amendments to some of the acts; in fact, I could suggest a few myself, and probably will later on.
This act has been quite a popular one with the veterans, and perhaps there will be some disappointment that the act is now at an end. The purpose of the act, as the minister has told us, was to encourage the Canadian banks to make loans to veterans at a comparatively low rate of interest-up to five per cent, I believe-to establish themselves in business and professions.
As the minister has told us, this is a simple amendment. It simply extends the time of the loan where the application was made before the time had expired. As a matter of fact, the date of expiry was January 1, 1955, and this is almost May 1, 1956. My criticism of that would be that it has taken almost a year and a half to make this amendment to the act, and there must have been a good many applications which could have been made in that time.
I should like to ask the minister how many veterans will be affected, how many applications have been made and how many are pending. If we take the report which it is provided shall be presented each year to the house, on or after March 31, we find in the latest report that, as I say, this has been quite a popular act with veterans. There have been 7,371 applications approved, and the loans have totalled almost $15 million.
I note that in the year 1954-55 there were 218 applications. This Act provides for applications from Korean veterans as well as from others. I should also like to ask the minister how many Korean veterans are included in this number of 218. I might also ask, since this is a popular act with the veterans and is giving great assistance in establishing many of them in business and assisting them in business, why the act is not extended for a further period of time to allow more veterans to borrow money under the act in order to set themselves up in business. It has been of great benefit.
As I understand from the report the department has issued, there has been very little loss as far as the government is concerned. The veterans have been making their payments quite regularly, and it would seem that it was of great assistance to them. To show just what benefit it has been to the
[Mr. Castleden.l
veterans, I should like to quote from the latest report by the Department of Veterans Affairs with respect to loans under the act to March 31, 1955. This report shows the following purposes for which loans were made and the number and total amounts thereof:
	No.	Amount
Purchase of a business 	1,544	$3,564,566.51Purchase of an interest in partnership or capital for new partnership 	1,590	3,390,662.22Purchase of machinery, tools, instruments or other equipment 	1,483	2,459,221.30Repair of machinery, tools, instruments or other equipment 	12	14,675.80
Then we have construction, repair or alteration of, or making additions to buildings or structures, 693, and the amount involved is $1,406,494.48. The last item is purchase of motorized units, 1,060, and the amount involved is $1,372,641.19. The total amount is $12,208,261.50. As I stated a moment ago, there has been an increase in that amount to over $14 million. In view of the fact that there have been so many applications for benefits under the act and in view of the fact that the administration of the act will have to continue for a number of years because, I take it, the Korean veterans will have ten years in which to make their applications and in addition there will be considerable amounts to be collected over a number of years, it seems to me that the act might be amended to continue for some time, perhaps for five or ten more years.
I should like the minister to answer some of these questions. How many will be affected by the amendment? Will it mean any reduction in staff? How much has had to be written off for bad debts resulting from nonpayment by veterans? How much longer does the minister estimate the act will have to be continued in force in order to provide for the Korean veterans and the collection of debts? I do not think there is anything further I wish to say regarding the legislation, but I should like the minister to answer the questions I have asked.


Walter Edward Harris: On the first point I accept the hon. member's dates as being correct, that for those who were discharged before the 1st of January, 1945 the time limit of the legislation ran out some 12 or 14 months ago. The first case we learned of where there were any adverse results was in October so that I take it no one had applied prior to then who had had the ten years run out on him between the date of application and the date of granting of the loan. That was the first case, as I say, where we found that

this situation obtained, and we decided in that month to recommend this amendment to parliament.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is October of last year.


Walter Edward Harris: Last year, 1955. This is intended to cover all future cases, of course. The other information that the hon. member has asked for will be given on second reading. I do not have it at the moment. With respect to the Korean veterans, the amendment of course applies to them as well, as the hon. member has said, so that at the expiration of their ten year period they will have the additional time that the amendment grants between the date of application and the granting of the loan.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What effect will it have on the staff?


Walter Edward Harris: The staff can handle this without any addition. We in finance do keep our staff down. We do not think that any additional staff or expense will be required to administer the act in the foreseeable future.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I did not contemplate there would be any addition to the staff. I wanted to know if there would be any reduction in staff. There will be less work to do.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think we can reduce the staff, although I will certainly look into the matter. It is a very minor job compared with others that we do and I think it is looked after by two or three civil servants who have many other duties as well.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There is another question I asked the minister with reference to extending the time. I do not mean for those whose applications are already in, but since this is a popular piece of legislation I should like to know if there is any disposition on the part of either the veterans affairs department or the minister's department to increase the time from five to ten years for the benefit of applicants who might like to have assistance in setting up a business.


Walter Edward Harris: This, of course, brings up a rather fundamental question of policy. The purpose of the act was to see that veterans were re-established, not to go further and provide some kind of assistance to them throughout their lifetime. I realize that one may argue for the latter case, but this legislation was one of the many measures which were designed to see that veterans had an opportunity very quickly to obtain assistance in order to get started in business. I must say I am only surmising but I think I can say that the number of applications had 67509-210
Veterans Loans
been declining steadily except for those that are coming up in respect of the Korean veterans.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There were 218 last year.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, but that would probably be because some realized that it was the last year. It would not be our intention to extend the time unless there are very good reasons for it. I would be glad to hear any argument advancing reasons but it would have to be based on a continuing advantage to a veteran whose circumstances did not require him to take advantage of the legislation in the past ten years.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It was done, I might say, in the case of the Veterans Land Act.


Walter Edward Harris: I realize that.


Mr. Herridge:: I want to say a few words on the resolution which provides, as the minister said, for a simple amendment to the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act. I suppose you might term this resolution as a form of legislative tiddledywinks. Anyway, I have a personal interest in the measure. I was present at the Canadian Legion convention in Vancouver in 1944 and was one of the members of the committee that helped to draft the first resolution that suggested legislation of this type to the government of Canada. I remember the discussion on the legislation in 1946 when it was introduced and in the veterans affairs committee. I also remember the debate on second reading on August 8 of that year.
At that time I think most members of the house who spoke on second reading of the bill thought that it would perform a useful service for a good number of veterans. I think experience has proven that correct, although there have been some criticisms. My experience in my constituency, and I can only speak of what I know, is that it has been of assistance to a considerable number of veterans in becoming re-established, particularly in very small businesses. I understand the department is solely concerned with qualifying the man. It issues a certificate establishing the fact that the veteran concerned is qualified to receive assistance under the act and the administration of the act is the responsibility of the officials of the banks.
While, as I said, on the whole I think it has been a most successful piece of legislation, I have found a few instances where I thought the positions of the officials of the banks were rather rigid. There was a somewhat too severe and rigid assessment of the risk. I have only a very few cases but I have some of that type. I am going to illustrate by mentioning one. There was a veteran in a small

Veterans Loans
town in my constituency who had operated a small business very successfully for ten years since his return from overseas in 1946. He had a property. The land was valued at not less than $10,000 and might have been worth two or three thousand more. There was a mortgage on the property for $3,000. The man applied to the local bank manager for assistance in the form of a loan under the act. The local bank manager considered the matter, thought it was an excellent risk and recommended the granting of the loan to the veteran concerned. However, apparently loans of that size have to be endorsed by the senior officials at the district offices in Vancouver.
After some consideration the official concerned-possibly the superintendent of the bank in question-refused the application for the loan and the veteran was obliged to go without it. I went into the case thoroughly. I discussed it with other prominent business men in the constituency and with the bank manager concerned. It was a first-class risk. It was a loan to a veteran who for 10 years had proven himself to be a successful small business man who owned property-I have reference to the land alone, not the store itself-which was worth at least three times more than the amount of the loan he asked for, which was $3,000. At that time the loan would have been of great assistance to the veteran. Even the local bank manager could not tell me why the district authority had rejected the loan.
I have been informed that while the Department of Veterans Affairs is not directly involved in the administration of the act, the officials are concerned in following up in order to ascertain how the act functions. While on the whole I think the administration of the act has been satisfactory, I think the percentage of instances of a too rigid assessment of the risk involved is sufficiently high to justify some further consideration by the Department of Veterans Affairs. I therefore recommend that the senior officials of the bank and the senior officials of the department go into this question. If it is gone into carefully and if they get information from across the country, I am quite sure they will find that in some cases, as I said before, there is a too rigid assessment of the risk in connection with the loan concerned.
Second, I would certainly support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Royal to the effect that the government should give consideration to extending the life of the act. It has proved to be beneficial. It has functioned, shall I say, more smoothly as the years went along. The loss involved has been very small indeed. I do not know the figure but I understand that it is very small;

I refer to loss on account of loans guaranteed by the government. The act has been performing a good service. I cannot see any reason whatever why the government should not give consideration to extending the life of this piece of legislation which has proved to be so successful and which has been of benefit to many veterans in this country.


Mr. McLeod:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this measure. We are certainly in favour of the resolution. As to the act itself, we believe that it has been beneficial and that it has been the means of assisting many veterans to become established in business. It is perhaps assisting a group that we might put on a basis comparable with that of those who are receiving assistance under the Veterans Land Act. Of course, not all our veterans wish to become farmers. If they desire it, I think they should be allowed the assistance necessary to establish themselves in any other worth-while business. But I would certainly support the two members who have just spoken, namely the hon. member for Royal and the hon. member for Kootenay West, in asking that the act be further extended. I cannot see that it is anything short of discrimination against those who do not wish to become farmers if they are to see their rights cut off whereas those who wish to apply under the Veterans Land Act are still able to get assistance. The request for this extension is, I believe, a reasonable one. I am sure the minister will give it further consideration while the act is being amended.
As to the need for this amendment, it arises out of the fact that the original act was not correctly worded and its purpose is to give the necessary protection in cases where loans have not been processed prior to the time of expiry of the period specified. Hence, outside of the fact that we are making a plea for a further extension of this act, we are in wholehearted support of the amendment and appreciate the fact that it is being brought forward at this time. However, we cannot stress too strongly the need for it to be continued. I happen to know of a young veteran who upon discharge from the services-he had several years of service-went into private employment and then, after a few short years, decided that he would like to become established in a business. He had some money of his own but not sufficient to make a complete purchase of what he had in mind, something that his training both in the army and in subsequent employment had educated him up to. He was at a loss to become established in this way. While the minister mentioned that the number of applications is steadily diminishing, I suggest that situation might be

owing to the fact that so many of these veterans realize that it is hopeless to make an application. I still think there are many who would like to avail themselves of this act in order to become established in business. I should certainly like to see further serious consideration given to an extension of the period in which the act is effective.


Mr. Pearkes:: Is a Korean veteran who
re-enlists in the regular army still entitled to make application for this loan, no matter how many times he may re-enlist in the regular army?


Mr. Lapointe:: I understand that is the
present position.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: When would his time commence? Suppose he was in the army for eight or ten years. Can he make application after he is discharged from the army and then continue for another period of ten years?


Hugues Lapointe: There seems to be a conflict there. As a matter of fact, that matter is being considered at the present time. If is is necessary that changes be made, it is proposed to make them.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then in reply to my question in which I referred to a man who re-enlisted, the answer is that it is not definite that he can get a loan now? Can I get an answer instead of a nod of the head?


Mr. Bennett:: Mr. Chairman, the Korean
veteran is entitled, as I understand it, to the benefit of this act upon his discharge because this act reads "ten years after his discharge". The fact that he is discharged makes him entitled to the benefits of this act. That seems to give him in some cases the preference over some other veterans. As the minister says, that question is being considered at the present time. The man who kept on with his service after the Korean war, as I say, by the fact that he takes his discharge later on may become entitled to the benefits of this act because this act says "ten years after the date of discharge". As the minister says, the matter is presently being considered and there may be amendments to bring them more in line with the way that other veterans were treated if that is necessary. But of course hon. members will be given notice of them.


George Randolph Pearkes: It will be borne in mind
that there are still troops in Korea?
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Lapointe (for Mr. Harris) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 253, to amend the Veterans Business and Professional Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
67509-210J
Canada Lands Surveys Act CANADA LANDS SURVEYS ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING REMUNERATION OF EXAMINERS

George Prudham: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
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.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, briefly the purpose of this resolution is to introduce a bill to amend the Canada Lands Surveys Act in so far as the remuneration of the members of the board of examiners for dominion land surveyors and the secretary thereof is concerned, and in so far as the fees to the special examiners who are appointed under the act are concerned. The first board of examiners was established some 81 years ago in 1875 under the authority of the Dominion Lands Act of that date. Over the years there has been a need for amendments to the act to meet changing conditions, and this resolution proposes another change to bring the method of payment of the board of examiners into line with conditions as we find them today.
In looking over the files it has been very interesting to follow the reasons for the changes that have been made from time to time. I think it would be advisable to put a statement on the record so that in future years it will be there for reference, and although this would probably be more properly made on second reading of the bill I should like to put it on the record now.
By the first amendment it is intended to remunerate the members of the board and the secretary on an annual basis rather than by a daily fee as now provided under section 7 of the act, which fee is conditional upon the attendance of the board members and of the secretary at meetings of the board called for the purpose of examining candidates, or for any other purpose, or who attends as a special examiner at an examination. A great portion of the work required from each member of the board consists of the setting and marking of examination papers, which work is done by each member individually. The members of the board hold a certificate of the highest class and, in addition to being dominion land surveyors, are also dominion topographical surveyors, which
3298	HOUSE OF
Canada Lands Surveys Act certificate requires a very wide experience in scientific surveying operations. As a matter of fact, only 32 have qualified as dominion topographical surveyors since 1875, whereas 828 have obtained their commission as dominion land surveyors since the same date.
The chairman, the members and the secretary of the board are all civil servants who have a full-time job to do, with the result that the duties imposed upon them because of their appointment to the board are over and above their normal daily duties and consequently this extra work, I am informed, has to be done outside normal working hours. The board members, because of the type of work that they have to perform-here I wish to refer particularly to the setting up of examination papers and the marking of those papers-can more conveniently and in a more satisfactory manner perform that work individually. The result of this is that the bulk of the work is not done at meetings for which the fees provided in clause 7, as it now stands, could be paid. For many years the members of the board have considered themselves as attending a meeting as contemplated by the act when performing the type of work mentioned, and were paid on an estimated number of sittings based on the average number of days during which the member has to work in setting up and marking the examination papers rather than the actual number of meetings at which they attended. I am informed that the meetings where the board may sit as such are from five to six annually. If the board members were to be compensated on the basis of these five [DOT]or six meetings, the compensation would not be adequate considering the amount of work required to be done.
Because the number of candidates may vary from year to year with the result that the work may increase or decrease from year to year, it is intended by this bill to provide for a remuneration at an annual rate to be fixed by the treasury board on the recommendation of the civil service commission. Based on the experience of the past and on the volume of work to be done, this basis of remuneration seems more equitable and more logical under the circumstances.
With regard to the second amendment which deals with the fees payable to special examiners I wish, for the benefit of those who might not be familiar with the operation of the Canada Lands Surveys Act, to briefly explain how and when such special examiners are appointed. First of all, under section 8 of the act, the minister may, upon the recommendation of the board, appoint qualified persons as special examiners to examine candidates. Special examiners must be either
tMr. Prudham.l

dominion land surveyors or provincial land surveyors duly qualified under the laws of the province in which they will preside at examinations to be held therein.
Generally speaking, surveyors who are not civil servants are only appointed special examiners when surveyors of the government are not available to hold the examinations or when the cost of sending a surveyor from Ottawa to the place of examination is considered greater than the cost of the appointment of a local qualified surveyor. Special examiners as a rule are appointed when examinations are held at centres other than Ottawa.
Section 9 of the act now provides that a special examiner is entitled to receive $25 for each day's sitting of examination at which he presides, together with his actual living and travelling expenses. It is known that the prevailing tariff rate of land surveyors associations or corporations in the several provinces of Canada is not the same in every province. According to figures shown to me recently, the prevailing tariff rates vary from $25 to $50 per day. Hon. members will easily understand the difficulty encountered on certain occasions in obtaining a special examiner at the rate of $25 per day, as set out in the act, when the prevailing rate in the province may be much higher than that. The provincial tariff rates vary from time to time, with the result that a fixed fee as now established renders the operation of that part of the act extremely difficult. By this amendment it is-therefore intended to have the fee payable to special examiners fixed by the treasury board in order to give the obviously required flexibility to the operation of this section.


Mr. Green:: Would the minister tell the committee the number of dominion land surveyors registered at the present time, and also whether there has been an increase in numbers as a result of the opening up of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon? As I understand it, a surveyor, to undertake work in these districts in Canada, must be a dominion land surveyor, although there may be some provision by which a provincial land surveyor can do that work. Most of this surveying work in Canada naturally would be done in the provinces. For that work I take it that it is unnecessary for a surveyor to be a dominion land surveyor. When the dominion owned the natural resources in the western prairie provinces I presume there was a much bigger demand for dominion land surveyors. Will the minister give us information along these lines so that we may have some idea of just how important these amendments will be?


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I have not the statistics of the actual number of dominion land surveyors at the present time. I have a list of the candidates for the last five years, which will give some indication of the number who are coming in. In 1951 there were 61 candidates; in 1952, 53; in 1953, 115; in 1954, 87; and in 1955, 93.
Since the resources were returned to the provinces the provinces have qualified their own surveyors under a corporation, or whatever happens to be the recognized authority in the provinces. However, we do conduct the surveys on Indian lands and on other crown lands.


Howard Charles Green: Even in the provinces?


George Prudham: Even in the provinces, although it is not essential. We can use a provincial surveyor to do that work. In the Northwest Territories the dominion land surveyors are the recognized authority for the surveying and the registering of the surveys. For that reason, we know it is necessary to have this system of qualifying dominion land surveyors until such time as the territory might become a province or more than one province and set up its own authority.
The standard of qualifications for dominion land surveyors is very high. I believe that the various provincial corporations relate their qualifications to the standard set by the dominion land surveyor authority. At the present time we have great difficulty in maintaining a sufficiently large staff to do the work required. I am not sure of the figure; I think we have only about 18 on our staff at the present time, and they are spread out over a vast area. There is no doubt that we have a backlog of work.
During the last year we endeavoured to recruit some additional surveyors for our staff. Out of 500 letters sent out we had only one recruit. It is a problem that we face in other branches of our work, to be able to induce people to work for the rate of pay that obtains in the government when private industry is willing to pay enough money to get the people they need. Perhaps that answers my hon. friend's questions. If I have missed any I shall be glad to answer them later.


Howard Charles Green: I have just one further question. Can a provincial land surveyor do survey work in the Northwest Territories or in the Yukon?


George Prudham: No; it is required to be done by a dominion land surveyor under the act.
Canada Lands Surveys Act


George Randolph Pearkes: Does the same board of examiners conduct examinations for hydrographic surveyors?


George Prudham: No; they conduct examinations for the topographical surveyors. The-hydrographic surveys do not come under' dominion land surveyors. They have a different type of work. I am not sure that there is any association that controls their standards other than our department. We do all the hydrographic work, and the work has to be up to the high standards that have been set by tradition. We inherited that from the British navy originally and we still use some of their old charts and we endeavour to keep-up the high standards; but I am not able to say whether there is any examination for hydrographers. I can get that information iia about two minutes by referring to the official gallery.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: I have a question more for the purpose of obtaining information than anything else. Do the engineers in the minister's department do work other than surveying in the national parks? What I have in mind is this. Do they do the surveying and the engineering for the location of bridges in the national park? Do they do soil testing and that sort of thing having to do with putting a bridge in a certain place?


George Prudham: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: That would come under the Department of Public Works?


George Prudham: Public works.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have one question, for information, naturally. Are there many land surveyors in private practice who want to qualify as dominion land surveyors?


George Prudham: Oh, yes. I think the best evidence of that is the number of candidates we have every year. While we have only 18 or 20 on our own staff, we have had over 115 trying the examinations. That does not mean they all pass. It is rather a stiff examination, but I think I can get that information if my hon. friend is really interested in the number who qualify each year. I shall get that information and send it to him.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What is the probable advantage to a land surveyor in private practice in obtaining his dominion land surveyor's certificate?


George Prudham: Well, as I understand it, there is only one university in Canada that gives a diploma in surveying.


Howard Charles Green: Which one is that?


George Prudham: Laval. My colleague, the Minister of Public Works, disputes that. That

National Housing Act
is my information. A dominion land surveyor certificate is a high attainment in the surveying field in Canada, and many people naturally aspire to that qualification. It enables them to go into private practice. It is the highest standard they can reach in that particular line. Many people start in our surveys in the summer time and work as part-time employees to earn money to continue their courses in universities. Right on the ground they learn the elementary principles and become interested and decide to carry on and get their certificates. I think that is the main inducement.


Howard Charles Green: Can a dominion land surveyor practise in any of the provinces without obtaining qualification as a provincial land surveyor also?


George Prudham: No; he has to take out his provincial certificate also.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Prudham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 254, to amend the Canada Lands Surveys Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



HOUSING


Robert Henry Winters: the second reading of Bill No. 215, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill before the House is to effect several important amendments to the National Housing Act, 1954. Before dealing with the principles of these amendments it might be helpful if I first made some remarks which would put these legislative changes into the broad perspective of the whole housing situation in Canada.
Governments at all levels are inescapably involved in housing because of its social implications and because housing is an integral part of our whole economic growth. The government of Canada has played an active part in housing affairs since the introduction of the Dominion Housing Act in 1935 and particularly since the introduction of the National Housing Act of 1944 and the establishment of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in 1946. In aiding the production of housing we have been guided by the principle that it is appropriate for the government to stimulate housebuilding and to fill certain needs that could not be met in the ordinary ^housing market, but that government should
fMr. Prudham.]
not assume responsibilities which could effectively be borne by private enterprise. We have also had in mind that there are certain aspects of housing affairs which are properly the concern of the national government while other matters are constitutionally the responsibility of other governments.
The aid offered by the federal government has been essentially of two kinds. Indirect aid to enlarge the housing market has been achieved by the government's sharing in mortgage loans up to 1954 and subsequently by insuring mortgage loans offered by lending institutions and banks. Direct governmental aid has taken several forms, for example housing was built for the families of veterans during the post-war emergency and, in the present period, low rental housing is constructed by the federal government in partnership with provincial governments. At the present time about half of all the housing being built in Canada is aided by the national government, either directly or indirectly.
In the last ten years Canada has accomplished a gigantic task in housing its expanding population and in reducing the pressures on our housing accommodation. This year we will celebrate the building of the millionth post-war house. From one end of the country to the other, every city and town has been transformed by the growth of new suburbs on their fringes. Nearly three million Canadians live in these new suburbs with their new shopping centres and schools and churches.
Before the war housebuilding had proceeded at the rate of about 38,000 units annually. Now more than 100,000 families are moving into new homes each year. In 1955 housing production reached the new record of 127,000 completions. This great acceleration of building has been accomplished through the enterprise of housebuilders and through the productive capacity of the industries which supply building materials. More than 300,000 workers are now employed upon the production of building materials and on the building of houses. In these past ten years more than $8 billions has been invested in housebuilding by Canadian financial institutions, our insurance companies, banks, loan and trust companies, together with the personal savings of a multitude of individual home owners.
While many different kinds of housing have been built, both for sale and for rent, the Canadian people have shown an unmistakable preference for the single detached house as a place in which to spend leisure time and to raise a family. We are fortunate that the earning power and the productive capacity of the nation have enabled so many to realize

this desire to own a house and a plot of land. About 70 per cent of new housing has been in the form of home ownership.
The typical new suburban home has about
1,000	square feet of living space, usually all on one floor level, and a place for the family car. Since this normally requires a 50-foot lot, our modern suburbs now accommodate no more than four families to an acre. This demand for living space has placed a severe strain upon the whole structure of local government. The suburbs have spread far beyond the boundaries of central cities and so the task of providing streets and sanitary services and schools has been imposed upon municipalities that, in many instances, had little previous experience and few resources for this purpose. In many of these areas community planning had not been completed in advance of the tide of suburban growth. It is not surprising, therefore, that some new suburbs lack the quality of good design which might have been achieved if our cities had grown at a more leisurely pace.
Mr. Speaker, the National Housing Act is a comprehensive and flexible piece of legislation. From time to time parliament has approved new measures and amendments to meet fresh and changing situations. One of the most important changes was made in 1954 when the system of loan insurance was introduced into the act.
The most important function of the national legislation has been to encourage a steady flow of mortgage funds. Until 1954 this was largely accomplished through the joint loan system by which the federal government provided 25 per cent of the amount of each loan, the balance being provided by a lending institution. Under the 1954 act the federal government no longer contributes a share of the loan but insures the lender against loss. With this measure of protection the chartered banks and Quebec savings banks entered the mortgage loan field for the first time. By this means there were made available for investment in housing the savings of the Canadian people.
From the borrowers' point of view, the participation of the banks has had a value beyond the absolute increase in the quantity of mortgage funds. The extensive branch system of the banks has added about 4,000 new points where a borrower can seek a house loan. Many of these branches are in areas where there were previously no private sources of loans under the act.
The 1954 act also aided borrowers by extending the period of amortization and raising the amount of the loan.
The new act came into operation in March 1954. From that time to the end of 1955
National Housing Act
nearly 90,000 National Housing Act loans were committed for the construction of more than 103,000 housing units. The total value of these loans was more than $977 million, of which the banks loaned more than $472 million for the building of more than 50,000 units. The insurance companies and other lending institutions continued to play their traditional important role and accounted for
53,000	units with loans totalling $500 millions.
In 1954 there were about 97,000 housing starts in urban areas and in 1955 the urban starts were close to 107,000. Most of this increase in numbers took place through the National Housing Act and is attributable to the mortgage investments of the banks.
Another evidence of the benefits of the 1954 act is the decline in the number of occasions on which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been called upon to make direct loans. It has been our policy that where private lending arrangements are not available, borrowers could enjoy the benefits of the National Housing Act by direct access to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In 1953 the corporation made loans of this kind for nearly 3,400 housing units, but in the two years since the new act came into effect a total of only 1,200 units have had to be financed in this way.
The principal result of the housing activities aided by the national housing acts is to be seen in the new suburbs of our cities where so many families have been able to acquire homes. There is another aspect of our housing affairs, however, to which we should now, I believe, give greater attention. While the suburbs have been spreading into the surrounding countryside, many changes have overtaken the existing housing in the interiors of cities. In old residential districts some houses have been replaced by apartment buildings and many have been converted to boarding houses and other uses. From a whole century of house building Canadian cities have inherited a stock of housing which is caught in the relentless process of deterioration and obsolescence. The growth of cities has placed new demands upon the hearts of urban areas, with increasing traffic, growing commerce and a changed pattern of living. But during the last 10 years the prior need to build new suburbs did not permit any concerted action to conserve and replace the existing stock of the nation's housing.
There are now more than 3 * 8 million housing units in Canada. Two-thirds of these are more than 25 years old, more than half a million are more than 50 years old, and about 10 per cent of all our housing is more than 75 years old. This used housing

National Housing Act
which shelters the majority of our population is an important part of our national wealth. Unfortunately it is a form of wealth which does not improve with age and use. The stock of housing must inevitably decline in physical condition and usefulness unless there are effective measures of conservation and unless steps are taken to replace what is obsolete in our housing inventory. The last census showed that in our major cities alone there are as many as 100,000 housing units which are in a serious state of disrepair and which lack reasonable sanitary arrangements for healthy living. The residential districts of every city are in a process of decline. In most cities there are areas where deterioration has reached a condition that can only be rectified by complete redevelopment.
For the conservation and rehabilitation of housing, home improvement loans are available so that individual houses may be kept up to date and adapted to new uses. Where more drastic measures are required there are provisions in the National Housing Act to aid cities in the redevelopment of blighted districts. Since the legislation of 1944, grants have been offered to municipalities which acquire and clear substandard areas. To rehouse families living in those areas, loans have been available to limited dividend corporations and the federal government has been ready to go into partnership with provincial governments to build low rental housing.
The bill now before you is largely concerned with the redevelopment and conservation provisions of our legislation. The amendments to the act are designed further to encourage redevelopment and to give more strength to the renewal of the older parts of our cities, both through public action and through private enterprise.
The initial difficulty in the redevelopment of blighted areas is, of course, the high cost of land. In any city the oldest and poorest housing is mostly to be found close to the city's commercial and industrial centre where land has acquired a relatively high value. To meet this difficulty the present legislation provides that the federal government may make grants to municipalities up to 50 per cent of the estimated costs of acquisition and clearance, after taking into account any payment to be received in the disposal of the land. At present these grants are available only when the cleared land is to be used for a public purpose or for housing, either through sale to a limited dividend corporation or a life insurance company, or through the transfer of the land to a federal-provincial partnership. It is through these

arrangements that the city of Toronto undertook the acquisition and clearance of land for the Regent Park North project, and now proposes to acquire land for the Regent Park South project where housing may be built by federal-provincial partnership. Also St. John's, Newfoundland, has undertaken a project of slum clearance and rehousing under the act.
The simplest and most direct action in redevelopment is to clear an area of poor housing and to build new low rental housing on the same site. No doubt there are many places where this would be quite appropriate. However, there may be more appropriate uses for these sites. In some cases the process of blight has in fact occurred because commerce and industry have already invaded a residential area or because the neighbourhood has been disturbed by the heavy flow of traffic in and out of the central district. In these instances the land might properly be devoted to commercial or industrial purposes and perhaps some part of the land could be used to aid in the solution of the city's traffic problems. If the cleared land can be replanned and sold at a reasonable price for such purposes, the present residents might be rehoused elsewhere, both more economically and in a more suitable location. We cannot assume that expensive central area land is always the most logical place to house low income families. The use of such high cost land may make it necessary to house families at a high density or without adequate open space.
On the other hand, the reverse situation may occur. There may be occasion to convert non-residential land to housing purposes. Some cities have blighted areas of underdeveloped land of miscellaneous uses, including but a small proportion of housing. The location of such land might make it eminently suitable for housing purposes.
It is proposed to amend the act in recognition that urban redevelopment should be part of the continuous process of growth and change in urban land. Cities do not grow only by additions at their outer margins; central areas must also grow in their internal proportions and land uses. This view of urban redevelopment, as a vital part of a community's growth and regrowth, has led us to the conclusion that private enterprise might in some instances appropriately join with governments in bringing new life into the older and blighted areas of our cities, helping to restore them to a sound, productive place in a city's economy. We propose, therefore, that the federal government's aid to municipalities should not be applied exclusively to the redevelopment of sites for low rental and moderate rental housing.

I need hardly add that, since we are dealing here with housing legislation, this federal aid to municipalities would be available only for urban redevelopment projects which would have the primary objective of improving housing conditions, either through the elimination of poor housing or the provision of new housing. As part of the agreement between the government' and a municipality, arrangements would be made for the adequate re-housing of all families living on a redevelopment site, so that no hardship could occur. In fact there would probably be few cases in which the clearance of blighted areas would not be accompanied by the building of some low rental public housing, either on the same site or elsewhere.
There can be no simple formula for redevelopment that can be applied to all the variety of circumstances in our cities,-each unique in its history, topography and local character. Each city must make its own plans in the light of its own special problems and ambitions. The federal government's aid must be flexible in its application to a variety of situations. There are, however, two principles that may well have universal application.
First is the principle that land should generally be redeveloped for its highest and best use. If the value of blighted land can be realized through sales for commercial or industrial use, in conformity with the city's official plan and with satisfactory arrangements for rehousing the present residents, then the local and federal taxpayers should not be expected to subsidize land costs for a lesser economic use.
It may sometimes be appropriate to use blighted land near the centre of a city for private residential construction to house those who work in the city's business centre; this might well be regarded as a higher and better use than public low rental housing. Redevelopment should have the effect of converting land to its most effective function within the changing organic plan of the city.
The second principle is that redevelopment is not likely to be effective unless areas of substantial size are acquired and replanned, so as to establish a new neighbourhood character. The original lot subdivision in a blighted area is unlikely to be suitable for new residential or commercial building. Traffic considerations are likely to demand changes in the street plan. It should be the purpose of redevelopment to revitalize the city by converting interior parts to a form as up to date as the new suburbs. A municipality will usually have to exercise its powers of expropriation to acquire sufficiently large tracts of land and to round out workable sites.
National Housing Act
The federal government would not enter into agreements with municipalities for redevelopment aids unless it was clear that the redevelopment proposal was in harmony with an official community plan. The government would be particularly encouraged to give aid to municipalities which had instituted a farsighted and systematic process for conserving the condition of residential areas and preventing the spread of blight.
The amendments to the act introduce a new form of financial aid to municipalities to assist in carrying out this more dynamic policy of urban redevelopment. At present the federal redevelopment grant is a fixed sum, calculated on the final cost of acquiring, clearing and disposing of the land. The grant represents half the expenditure that would otherwise be borne by the municipality. It is now proposed that the federal government would make contributions towards a municipality's costs of acquiring blighted areas, at the time of acquisition, on a dollar for dollar basis. Agreements with municipalities would provide that all or part of the cleared land would be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of. The federal government would share proportionately with the municipality in the proceeds of the ultimate disposition of the land. In this way the bill provides for the return of public funds where redeveloped land is turned over to private ownership. It cannot be assumed, of course, that there will be an immediate market for the sale of cleared land. In an interim period arrangements might be made for leasing, with the municipality and federal government sharing the revenue. The legislation would entitle the federal government to enter into the arrangement that would be most beneficial to itself and to the municipality.
I need hardly point out that the federal legislation can only remove some of the road blocks in the path of redevelopment. It is not in our power to take direct action. The initiative must remain with municipalities. Furthermore we would not enter into agreements with municipalities except with the approval of provincial governments. No doubt it will be necessary for provinces to grant to municipalities further discretion in the use of redeveloped land in order that they may enjoy the benefits of the proposed legislation. There is, of course, full opportunity for provinces to share with the federal and municipal governments in the costs of redevelopment.
Redevelopment is never likely to be an easy process. Local governments cannot disturb the owners of private property without careful preparations and sincere examination of the benefits which would accrue to the community. A period of intensive study is

National Housing Act
therefore required before any redevelopment actions can be taken. Already several Canadian cities have undertaken such studies, or are now making arrangements to do so. The city of Toronto is now carrying out an intensive examination of its older residential areas through an arrangement between the federal, provincial and city governments. Requests have quite recently been received from four other major cities for aid in conducting such studies. For this reason we are proposing an amendment to part V of the National Housing Act. This part contains the authority for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide financial assistance in studying housing conditions and the proposed change would clarify the present authority for making grants to municipalities to aid local investigations of housing conditions.
With increased interest in these activities we are also proposing that parliament should be kept more closely informed of the expenditures that are made under part V of the act for community planning and research. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is authorized to conduct, encourage and assist investigations into housing conditions and for sponsoring programs of research, education and technical development which may improve the planning and design of housing in Canada. The act now provides that for these purposes cumulative expenditures up to $5 million may be made from the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment will provide that from time to time parliament will be informed of the work that has been accomplished and will be asked to vote sums of money which will restore the corporation's authority for such expenditures.
Now I would turn for a moment to home improvement loans. While provision for such loans was in the federal legislation prior to the enactment of the 1954 act, it was not fully operative until February 1, 1955. Under this part of the act, that is, part IV, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation gives to a bank a guarantee against loss as the result of a loan made for the purpose of improving or extending a home. At present a loan may not exceed $2,500 for improvements to a single house, and $1,250 for each additional housing unit in the building. It is proposed by the new legislation to increase these amounts to $4,000 for a single house, and $1,500 for each additional housing unit in the building.
From the first of February 1955 to the end of the year, loans totalling $27 million were made by banks under this part of the act, the average loan being $1,250. Twenty-four thousand houses were involved.
Under the same part of the act, so-called "home extension" loans can be made and
guaranteed. It is proposed to discontinue the provision in this part of the act; or more accurately I might say it is proposed to discontinue the terminology, because under part I of the act there is already provision made for insured loans for the purpose of effecting improvements to existing residential structures which will result in the addition of self-contained housing units. Such a loan may be for a greater amount than that allowed under part IV, secured by a mortgage and amortized over a longer period of time. We do not think it necessary or desirable that provision relating to this type of loan should be in part I as well as in part IV.
Under the revised legislation the fact that improvements result in the creation of a self-contained unit in an existing house will not make the loan ineligible as a home improvement loan. The present limitation of $2,500 for the first unit and $1,250 for each additional unit was established in 1949. The proposed increases to $4,000 and $1,500 will, I believe, permit home owners to undertake the extensive improvements required to modernize older houses and to increase space in others. This is in keeping with our policy of providing measures to assist in arresting the deterioration of older houses and improving them where feasible. The present five-year term of amortization of the loan is being extended so that, if borrower and lender agree, it may be as long as ten years.
Mr. Speaker, the bill contains a few minor amendments to the National Housing Act which are introduced to clarify the administrative procedures of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I do not think it necessary to refer to these, since no important questions of principle are involved.
In conclusion I would like to remind you that this year marks the completion of a ten-year period during which the national housing legislation has been administered by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In administering the policies determined by parliament the corporation has played a great and valuable role in its relationships with the housebuilding industry and with the financial institutions which invest in housing. Allowing for the differences of opinion that must arise in the normal conduct of a business so varied and widespread in character, I think I can report that these relationships have been continually harmonious and constructive.
I wish to use this occasion to pay tribute to the splendid work of the housebuilders, in our large cities and small towns, who have made this past decade a period of tremendous
TMr. Winters.]

progress in housing. There now lies ahead of us a period of even greater growth of Canadian cities and towns. In this growth and redevelopment our national legislation will undoubtedly be a major factor.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: Mr. Speaker, three days ago at the resolution stage preceding the introduction of the present bill we had an opportunity of debating housing in general. As far as I am concerned, the debate that was held on Monday affords me an opportunity of making my remarks today rather briefer.
The minister has stated that the bill which he has submitted contains several important amendments. I think I may say at once, Mr. Speaker, that the bill contains no great surprises. While I am not going to discount the importance of any amendment in relation to a subject as important for all the people of Canada as is housing, I do not think it could be said that the changes made in the act are in any respect of a major character. Certainly they are not major when viewed in the light of the kind of changes that were made in the scheme of the act two years ago. There are some changes that come in the category of normal revision in the light of needs that arise in the administration of any measure. There are some provisions that are designed to make other existing provisions of the act more flexible and more useful, particularly in relation to such important matters as urban redevelopment. Then with respect to all of the various parts of the act there is an increase in the amounts of money made available.
Last Monday I made some comments of a general nature with regard to the type of amendment that was indicated in the minister's statement on the resolution. I said that the house has never at any time taken a penny-pinching attitude toward any measure that promised any alleviation of our housing problem or contribution to its solution. I think that will be the attitude the house will take with respect to the present bill. Moreover, any measure that will make the provisions of the act more flexible will, I think, command sympathy on the part of the house. It is not easy for the parliament of a nation that extends across a continent to make legislative provision to meet every possible situation with regard to a subject as important, intimate and varied as is housing. Consequently, the administration of any such measure plays an important role in the success or failure of the measure. We of Her Majesty's loyal opposition of course intend to support the bill. We intend to try to evaluate the bill. We shall look to those charged with the administration of the bill for the production of the kind of results
National Housing Act
that we think we are justified in expecting when we place such wide powers and such ample sums of money at their disposal.
Housing is going to continue to play a major role in the development of Canada. All of us take satisfaction in the volume of house construction last year and the year before; but it is well for us to remember the facts. While we applaud the fact that, as the minister said, this year there will be built in Canada the one millionth housing unit brought into existence since the war, let us not forget that we entered the post-war period with a substantial backlog of housing need and that with all that has been accomplished, particularly in recent times, we have on the whole just about met the new need of housing which has arisen since the war. Account must be taken of the increased population due to natural increase and to immigration. In this post-war period, with all the opportunities we have had, we have done little, if anything, more than keep abreast of the net family formation in Canada, with its resultant need of additional housing units. This is no time to be resting upon our oars or to be taking any smug attitude toward housing.
In the submission recently made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the Gordon royal commission investigating Canada's prospects for the next 25 years, the corporation has recognized the extent of the housing needs that must be met by new construction in the period of 25 years that lies before us. In its calculations the corporation has estimated that in that period-that is to say up until 1980-there will be an increase in our population of 10,500,000 persons. According to their estimate, the population will be 26,500,000 by 1980. It is estimated by the corporation that our urban housing stock must double within that 25-year period. In other words, it will be necessary to construct
3,400,000	new houses at an estimated cost or, as it is put, a possible cost of $35 billion. Further, according to their figures, it is estimated that prospective owners will provide $15 billion of this sum and that mortgage lenders will provide the balance of $20 billion. These are gigantic figures even for a country with a developing economy like Canada. In the face of needs of that kind that will require to be met in the period that lies before us within the lifetime of many hon. members of this house, let no man content himself with the thought that this problem has been disposed of or that the records of the past two years are going to do more than point the way and emphasize the necessity of maintaining a dynamic rate of home construction in the future. Canada needs housing.

National Housing Act
It is well that we bear in mind at all times the fact that we rely principally upon private enterprise to meet the need of housing in Canada. The role assigned to government, as far as home ownership is concerned, is not an exclusive role by any means in the legislative mechanism for the construction of houses in Canada in the total scheme with which we concern ourselves in this house. It is well, sir, that we should not depend simply upon governmental auspices for the meeting of this need. On page 7 of the most recent statistical publication of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation entitled, "Canadian Housing Statistics", for the fourth quarter of 1955, we are reminded that of the total housing starts in 1955 numbering 138,276, there were 68,593 being built without any form of government assistance. This is just about an even half of the total.
Again, in the matter of the provision of mortgages for home construction we do well to remind ourselves that we depend upon other sources than those directly associated with the National Housing Act for the provision of a very substantial amount of mortgage money to assist in home construction. On page 15 of the same statistical publication we see that in the year 1955, according to table 20, there was provided a total of mortgage loans of all kinds aggregating $1,170,712,000, and of that total loans on new non-farm residential construction aggregated $850 million. The conventional loans on other property aggregated $320 million, so there was still a very substantial volume of money going into mortgage investment to assist in financing home ownership with which N.H.A. had nothing to do.
The minister, in the very comprehensive and interesting statement which he read to the house today, has not dwelt on some of the factors which emerged in the course of our discussion during the resolution stage three days ago as factors that are impeding the results that had been hoped for as a result of the amendments introduced from time to time into our housing legislation, and particularly the amendments of 1954. I think I should say to the minister, and to the government, that we intend, so far as opportunity offers in this house, to keep these matters before the government and before the house. I believe their importance is undeniable.
For instance, the minister has not said anything today about the subject of family income and how it determines the rate and extent of lending under part I of the National Housing Act for the construction of houses for owner-occupancy. If we are to hope for a wide diffusion of the benefits of this legislation within the Canadian popu-
lation there will have to be other measures taken than have yet been taken, in order to make the benefits of lending under part I of the act available to persons with modest incomes. I remind the house that the trend in the incomes of those who are qualifying for loans under part I of the act has been steadily upward. The new legislation of two years ago has not had the effect of reducing the average family income of those qualifying for these loans, or, in other words, of making the benefit of mortgage loans under part I of the act available to persons of lower average family income than those who qualified for them up until the amendments of 1954 came into effect. There is a very real problem, Mr. Speaker.
No one, I am sure, is going to advocate that people should embark upon home ownership or load themselves up with an intolerable burden of debt far beyond their means or their prospects to meet. But if the purpose assigned to part I of the National Housing Act has the validity assumed by all who supported it in this house two years ago, and that includes all parties, then we must find some more effective remedy than has yet been applied if the benefits of home ownership are going to be extended to persons of modest income. I remind the house that in 1953 the average family income of those who qualified for mortgage loans under part I of the act was $4,961. In 1954 that average had increased to $5,382. In 1955 that average had increased further to $5,447. It cannot be pretended therefore, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation, in seeking to make mortgage loans available under part I for the construction of new homes for owner occupancy, is making them available to persons of modest income. We just cannot make any such pretense.


Robert Henry Winters: May I ask the hon. member if he would be kind enough to tell me the first of the three figures he mentioned?


Donald Methuen Fleming: For 1953?


Robert Henry Winters: There was one, 1949 was it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was a figure for half of the year 1955, namely $5,447. I notice the figures are shaded down a little in the statistical publication to which I referred earlier, and which has just come out. I think they must be using a different basis of calculation than the one that was in use earlier, because the figures I have used were drawn from government sources. But whether or not there is some slight difference in the basis of calculation, the figures appearing in this most recent statistical issue of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation illustrate the

same trend. In other words, the families who qualify must have larger incomes than a year ago, and they then had to be larger than the year before that. I think this must be a matter of general disappointment, and it is something that must not be overlooked by the government. It is something that, in my view, is going to require some form of redress. The bill now before us does not offer anything by way of redress to meet that particular problem.
The second matter about which no mention was made in the minister's statement today is the matter of interest. Now, the matter of interest affects government assistance of all kinds under all parts of the act. It is, I suppose, of particular concern to those individuals who are borrowing money on mortgages under part I of the act. The effect of an increase in interest rate necessarily is to make construction more expensive, to increase carrying charges, and to that extent to reduce the volume of home construction that would otherwise be attained.
Certainly the importance of the interest rate on the volume of home construction was recognized two years ago when the banking and commerce committee studied very intensively the provisions of the new act of 1954. For that very reason we questioned the numerous witnesses who appeared before us at no little length in regard to the outlook for increases or decreases in the effective rate of interest.
It is the declared hope of the government- indeed the minister reiterated it on Monday -that a high volume of house construction should be maintained; but at the very same time as it is professing that hope the government is participating in a policy of raising interest rates. Indeed, the government cannot escape its responsibility in this respect. In his reference to this subject on Monday the minister suggested that the increase in interest rates was simply the result of the interplay of the forces of supply and demand in the money market. Well, sir, it is a good deal more than that because, while last fall there may have been some slight diminution in the volume of mortgage money available for investment, there was nevertheless a very substantial volume of money available. But the Bank of Canada, which obviously does not act in these matters without regard for government policy-indeed, it acts in concert with government policy and is the fiscal agent through which government policy is implemented in such circumstances-introduced a series of increases in its discount rate. The first of those increases was introduced on August 5, when the Bank of Canada increased the bank rate from 1J per cent to 2 per cent. On October 12 it increased it from 2
National Housing Act
per cent to 2J per cent, and on November 18 from 2i per cent to 2J per cent.
There was a reference to this subject in the house this afternoon during the question period, and the Minister of Finance then sought apparently to give the impression that the part played by the Bank of Canada in bringing about an increase in the interest rates on commercial loans through the chartered banks and other loans such as mortgage loans was simply a result and not a cause. Well, if that is the view of the Minister of Finance it is high time he reexamined the facts, because the government did not wait for an increase in the interest rates on loans of all kinds to be brought about by the interplay of the forces of supply and demand in the money market. Rather, the fiscal agent of the government, acting in pursuance of government policy, chose to introduce a series of increases in its discount rate, which were followed, and were intended obviously to be followed, by increases in the interest rates charged by the chartered banks on commercial loans, and necessarily by increases in the interest on mortgage loans.
The government cannot escape responsibility. It may well be that if there had been no Bank of Canada, or if the Bank of Canada had taken no action of this kind, there would have been some increases in the rate of interest on loans. But, Mr. Speaker, let the government not pretend that it had no part in bringing about those increases in interest charges. The government had a part, and the increases initiated by the Bank of Canada were a cause. They were not the only cause, but they do not escape the quality of cause. They are not just effect, as the Minister of Finance sought to picture them today.
It is not the fault of the Minister of Public Works. I quite realize that he wishes to see a high volume of house construction maintained, but to the extent to which interest rates applicable upon loans under the various parts of the National Housing Act are increased the responsibility does rest upon the government, because to a substantial degree these increases are the result of government action taken through the Bank of Canada.
Let me be fair in saying that, sir. To the extent to which action of that kind is warranted to meet inflationary forces, then we shall want to look at it in equal scales and to weigh any measure that is taken for the professed object of restraining inflationary forces; but the government does not yet acknowledge that they have any serious problem of inflation. The Minister of Finance had amazingly little to say on that subject in his recent budget speech, and in anything

National Housing Act
that has been said since. Therefore house construction in Canada is going to feel the effects of the increases in the interest rates.
I wish to say that the government ought to be fair, frank and honest with the house and say what it is that prompts them in looking at such inflationary forces as exist today to take those measures. If inflationary forces are present let them say so, and let them relate what measures they are taking to their objectives in meeting inflationary forces; but as long as they are going to go on commending the boom and saying precious little, if anything, about inflationary forces, then we shall continue to argue that increased interest rates are going to have the effect of reducing in some measure the construction of needed houses in Canada.
Sir, the effect of this increase in interest rates is going to make itself felt in relation to house construction in more ways than just by its direct effect in increasing the rates effective under the provisions of the act. It is having that very direct effect and it is going to have an even more acute effect in its bearing upon the ability of the municipalities to participate in the role assigned to them under the scheme of the National Housing Act in relation to house construction. I shall have a word to say about that in relation to the next subject which, it seems to me, has not been adequately recognized in the remarks by the minister today. It is the financial problem of the municipalities.
It is true that today the minister at least recognized the existence of what he called a "severe strain on the structure of municipal government" which he intimated had been cast upon it in relation to housing needs. Well, sir, it is going to take more than a phrase of that kind to grapple effectively with a major bottleneck that is impeding the construction of houses in Canada today in volume adequate to meet need, particularly on the fringes of the urban areas. For bear in mind, sir, that while we are dealing with figures in the aggregate for all of Canada, we cannot average housing conditions over the whole of Canada or apply national statistics as such to local situations.
This is a problem that is very acute in its proportions in the great urban areas and on their fringes; and, sir, I say, as I affirmed in speaking on this matter on Tuesday, that we are not going to have an effective solution of the housing problem in those areas to which I have made special reference unless something is done to meet the financial problem of the municipalities concerned. That is not going to be met unless the federal government offers redress, because this is a problem beyond the revenue resources of the

municipalities; this is a problem beyond the revenue resources of the provinces.
The proven inadequacy of the revenues of the local governments to meet their problems in relation to housing has been made more acute by reason of federal policy in relation to interest rates in recent times. Hon. members of the house by this time are aware of the statement made yesterday by Premier Frost of Ontario in relation to the effect upon provincial financial problems and municipal financial problems of the increase in the interest rate brought about by decision of the federal government and implemented through action taken by the Bank of Canada. The Globe and Mail of this morning, reporting his speech following a conference with representatives of metropolitan Toronto, contains the following:
The Canadian economy is being jeopardized because of federal government tinkering with interest rates, Premier Frost charged yesterday.
And further:
Almost all of Ontario's 1,000 municipalities, and the province itself, are in the same position, the premier declared, and the situation has only been aggravated by money becoming more difficult and expensive to borrow because of federal action.
Let no one within the federal government pretend that they can escape responsibility for the increasing gravity of the financial problems of the municipalities. While this financial problem of the municipalities has wider connotations and ramifications than those brought about in the housing field, nevertheless it is bound to be felt in very acute form in relation to the need of housing. Therefore I say that the responsibility in relation to this problem is going to be laid where it belongs, that is on the doorstep, or, if you please, on the shoulders of the federal government.
It is an unchallengeable fact that the municipal financial problem in Canada today, which affects municipalities in this country by the thousands, cannot be met without effective federal action to assist them in enlarging sources of revenue or relieving them of some burden of responsibility now cast upon them.
The fourth matter that was commented upon on Monday, and which it seems to me the minister has not adequately answered, dealt with the administrative side. The great and lamentable delays that have occurred have resulted in the loss of precious time. I urge again upon the minister with all the earnestness at my command that he put behind this housing legislation and behind Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as the agent of the government all the drive of which he is capable. We may as well save our breath and not spend time passing

legislation unless there is going to be put behind the administration of such legislation such drive as we have not had hitherto.
On Monday I pointed to some of the cases in my own city of Toronto where delays, although not entirely attributable to the lack of action on the part of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, showed quite clearly that a substantial measure of responsibility does rest on Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This relates very directly to the subject which I have no doubt occupies a principal place in the thinking of hon. members in regard to the measure now under discussion. I refer to the hope of more rapid action in slum clearance in Canada.
I hope there is not an hon. member in this chamber who is going to pretend that we have no slums in Canada today. If any hon. member thinks there are no slums in Canada today he has not visited areas of our substantial urban centres. Today the minister did review some of the things that are needed in relation to the development of municipal plans and programs in regard to slum clearance. Obviously there must be on the part of municipalities a substantial measure of concern reflecting itself in municipal initiative in connection with these matters. We agree with that; but in my humble submission it is folly to talk about the initiative that rests upon the municipalities in connection with these matters if the municipalities are going to be hamstrung in the matter of revenues. What is the use of talking about municipal initiative in relation to the clearing of slums in our urban centres if the municipalities concerned are denied adequate revenues for those purposes?
The great difficulty and the great drawback about the National Housing Act in relation to slum clearance is that nothing can be done without co-operative action on the part of all three levels of government concerned. It takes only one level of government dragging its feet in these matters to thwart any hope of effective action in regard to slum clearance in any particular place. When you try to get three governments together, when you have to bring them on common ground, not only in regard to the purpose of slum clearance in an area but in agreement on the many details which enter into plans for slum clearance, then you have a problem indeed to begin with.
No one in this house is so innocent as to believe that where action on slum clearance depends upon co-operative and concomitant action on the part of three levels of government, you are going to have any great measure of speed in dealing with them. But
National Housing Act
if the federal government is going to continue to say, as the minister said today, that any attempt to grapple with the problem of slum clearance or redevelopment in our urban areas depends upon municipal initiative then it is high time the government said at the same time that it is going to make it possible for the municipalities to take the initiative by seeing that they shall have adequate sources of revenue for the purpose, which they have not today.
In the meantime, as long as these delays continue we are going to be witnessing the same things that have existed since there have been slums; that is, human decay, moral, physical and mental. Every hon. member of this house has a responsibility in relation to taking measures about slum clearance. It is not enough that we should attempt to hide behind any choice coined expression about "municipal initiative". If the present legislation is inadequate for the purpose, and I think it has shown itself to be, then something better must be devised.
We welcome the changes that are proposed to be introduced into the National Housing Act by the present bill. I commend the changes.that are introduced with respect to the slum clearance provisions of the act. Anything that offers any contribution at all toward this problem on a sound basis is bound to command the sympathy and, I trust, the support of the house. Greater flexibility in these provisions is afforded by the present bill, and to this extent it is altogether commendable; but even with these changes we have not yet discharged our full responsibility in relation to slum clearance and in relation to the cost in humanity as well as in dollars and cents that characterizes the existence of slums.
I made some reference on Monday to the benefits that have been achieved through slum clearance in the Regent Park North project in Toronto. Other benefits have flowed from that project than simply improvement in housing conditions. There are those secondary benefits that have been achieved and that are noteworthy and praiseworthy; the reduction in health, police and other municipal expenses. These are net savings that are afforded as the result of slum clearance and redevelopment.
The minister struck today a note that will, I think, be echoed throughout the house, when he indicated that our plans for slum clearance ought to be viewed as part of a general municipal planning program. The areas it is sought to redevelop cannot be detached or isolated from the rest of the city; they should be seen as part of a well integrated municipal program. But I still say that we have to do

National Housing Act
much more in view of the extent to which measures of this kind await the exercise of municipal initiative.
Therefore I say in conclusion that while all members of the house will cheer the extent to which the home builders of this country have achieved records within the last couple of years, we find it necessary to warn the government that this is not the time to be smug; this is not the time to rest upon our oars; we are far from having solved the housing problems of this country. Demand is keeping up with supply, even at the increased rate of construction. In the statistical study I mentioned earlier, Canadian Housing Statistics for the fourth quarter of 1955, issued by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we find on page 5 this statement:
The demand tor new dwellings kept pace with the supply.
That was a record supply; yet demand kept pace with it. A tremendous volume of home construction is going to be required in the years ahead of us to keep pace with the increase in the Canadian population and the development of the Canadian economy. Let us never regard this as a problem that admits of a static approach. What is required on the part of all levels of government, and not least of all on the part of the federal government, as we must make it our business to remind them, is a dynamic approach to a challenging national problem.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: In the resolution stage the problem as we see it was set forth, and it was suggested that in studying the bill we would have to judge it in the light of its ability to meet the situation in Canada in so far as housing is concerned. I must say that, whilst there are commendable features in the legislation, the government has not indicated through this bill that it is taking the type of action which present conditions warrant.
I note that when the original National Housing Act was passed it was in its broad outlines an act to promote the construction of new houses, the repair and modernization of existing houses, and the improvement of housing and living conditions. Since the time the first act was passed it has been possible for us to look at the situation in Canada and determine the effectiveness of the National Housing Act in dealing with Canada's housing problem.
First of all we have to consider that there are two aspects of the housing problem, as we might describe it. First there is the question of meeting the demand for new houses, that is, the aspect of constructing houses. Second there is the housing problem in so far as health standards are concerned,

that is, the removal of obsolescent houses and houses that do not measure up to community health standards.
I think the minister on a number of occasions has taken considerable pride in the fact that there has been stepped-up activity in home construction during the past year. He referred on Monday last to the number of starts made last year, and suggested that we are now making inroads into the backlog of housing, but in making that statement he is, of course, very conveniently overlooking vast areas of Canada's housing needs which have not been touched up to the present time. I asked him a question with regard to the government policy, as to whether the government felt that the way to solve the housing needs of people of low income is to build more expensive houses and let the people on low incomes take the hand-me-down dwellings. The minister suggested that it was not government policy to provide a new house for everybody in Canada.
I believe the minister has made a number of references to demands of members in this group that we undertake a large-scale housing program in Canada. He has suggested that we are impractical, that we are being too idealistic, but I want to remind the minister that there have been many authorities in this and other countries who, upon examination of the housing problem, have made suggestions quite similar. As a matter of fact the white paper on housing in Great Britain in March of 1945-and I suggest that these people were not being too impractical-set out three objectives in their housing policy. It said:
The government's first objective is to afford a separate dwelling for every family which desires to have one. For this purpose it is estimated that some three quarters of a million dwellings are needed.
The second objective is to provide for the rapid completion of the slum clearance and overcrowding programs which were already in course of execution before the war. To remove houses already condemned as unfit and to abate overcrowding condemned since 1935, a further half million houses are needed.
The long-term objective of the government is to secure a progressive improvement in the conditions of housing in respect both of standards of accommodation and of equipment, and to attain this objective by a continuous program of new building. This continuous program must include provision year by year for any increase in the number of separate families, the needs which arise out of redistribution of the population, and the replacement of obsolescent houses.
We have been urging upon the minister a policy much in line with the United Kingdom white paper on housing issued in 1945. We need not go to Britain. One need only consider remarks by members of this government

at the conclusion of world war II. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had something to say on this subject. He said:
Adequate housing for the Canadian people is one of the major tasks before us. The utmost effort will be directed towards meeting this need and the resources of the country will be used to this end . . .
I do not feel it is necessary to read all of what he said, but there is a very pertinent sentence further on which reads as follows:
We believe that houses should be constructed commensurate with the high standard of living at which we are aiming.
There is the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggesting the very thing in 1945 that we are saying today. There is nothing inconsistent in our desire for adequate housing in this country; and when the suggestion is made that there is a lack of reality in a policy which aims at adequate housing for Canadian citizens it seems to me that the government has come a long way downward since 1945. The Minister of Trade and Commerce went on to say:
This will involve new houses for families with low income who cannot afford to pay economic rentals.
That is the Minister of Trade and Commerce speaking in 1945. In an article appearing in Public Affairs of October, 1947, the Minister of Trade and Commerce had this to say along the same line:
The dominion government recognizes the need of adequate housing as Canada's most pressing social problem and one of the most serious of all public problems.
Further on he points out:
In the absence of agreement on dominion-provincial relations made at that time, the provisions made in the National Housing Act, 1944, respecting low rent housing, subsidization of such housing and slum clearance have been allowed to stand unchanged. The hard core of the problem, low rent housing, has been barely touched.
These are the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Here was the broad objective of the government. It was to be the aim of the National Housing Act to accomplish certain purposes. Oh, what a change has taken place in the government thinking since that time. Of course it is like a lot of other things. In 1945 we had other commitments and promises made by members of the government. We were going to have a health scheme. We were going to have provisions for full employment. A great many things were promised the Canadian people at that time, but apparently housing and many of these other worth-while and forward-looking proposals made by the federal government at that time have fallen by the wayside.
National Housing Act
They were made at a time when I believe the government were a little leery. They had lost a number of by-elections and had not fared too well at the polls. I think perhaps the political situation at the time, certainly the political climate of the country, more or less thrust upon the government the importance of at least making a stab at promising worth-while policies. The Minister of Public Works makes light of the suggestion that after all it is not beyond the realm of possibility to have a housing program that will provide homes for Canadian citizens. I say that the government has certainly changed its attitude on this matter within recent years. I suggest that the minister and the other members of the government should go back over the statements made a few years ago and reconsider their present stand on many of these matters.
The legislation now brought forward will, as the hon. member for Eglinton pointed out, accomplish some useful purpose so far as it goes, but we are faced with the same old problem. Here is a job which needs to be done. However, the government will just go so far, and judging from past performances with respect to legislation we have not here the type of legislation we should have.
At the outset I said there were two aspects to the housing problem, the question of construction and the question of the replacement of dwellings which are unfit for human habitation. What has been done? The minister boasts of the number of starts and the number of completions last year. All right; we will grant that the Canadian construction industry had a banner year and that so far as those who are in the market to buy houses are concerned a great deal was accomplished last year. But the central problem which we have to come back to time and time again has not been faced up to, the question of the provision of housing for the people in Canada-and they constitute a great mass of our population-who are on incomes which will not permit them to purchase homes under part I of the National Housing Act.
This has been brought to the attention of the government a number of times. It has been pointed out that under part I of the National Housing Act there is no chance whatever for a vast number of Canadian citizens who are working steadily, have more or less permanent employment, but whose earnings are not sufficiently high, to purchase a home under the act. I suggest that the minister owes it to members of the house to state the position of the government in this matter. Does he feel that the government has no responsibility toward people on low incomes?

National Housing Act
Does he feel that no effort should be put forth to provide home ownership for that group?
Of course, the minister will immediately say, what about section 16, what about section 36 of the National Housing Act? He will say that provision has been made there but, as the hon. member for Eglinton has pointed out, the initiative is placed on municipalities which are already overburdened. It is like a great many other things. We had a discussion last year on the grade crossing legislation, and the same situation obtained there. It is all very well to say to a municipality, "Well, if you will come along and put up so much money we will accommodate you and put up a certain amount." If the municipality lacks the funds to do anything it means that the matter stands and nothing whatever is done. That is precisely what has happened.
I know that under section 16 a limited dividend company has built a certain number of suites in my own city, but perhaps the only reason those suites were built under that section is the fact that the limited dividend company had as a wholly-owned subsidiary a construction company. If it were not for the fact that they were also in the construction business they likely would not have built under section 16. I think the minister must agree that, admirable as he may feel the aim is, the results are far from satisfactory.
I had hoped that there would be substantial changes to enable municipalities to be better able to enter into agreements with the government for the purpose of providing low rental housing. Incidentally, I think the joint labour brief presented to the government by the two labour congresses, now the Canadian Labour Congress, pointed out the fact that the most admirable part of the National Housing Act was the one which, in their opinion, the government had played down. They said there was very little publicity given to those sections to which I have just referred, and that the government apparently was not going to be too much concerned if municipalities were not in a position to rush forward and take advantage of the provisions of the National Housing Act.
The situation simply is that the municipalities do not feel they are in a financial position to engage in the type of construction activity envisaged under those sections of the National Housing Act. I would say that we must try to sell this problem to our people. I mean that the need for new and more adequate housing is something we have to impress upon all our people, our provincial governments and our municipal governments. I want to be fair in that respect. But when you find, as you do in this country today, that the municipalities are overburdened and mill rates are

skyrocketing, it is not likely under those circumstances that the municipalities will undertake the type of work which the government presumably expects they will undertake under this legislation.
It seems to me that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is quite well aware of this great lack in government policy. I should like to quote an extract from page 24 of a brief prepared by that organization. It is under the heading, "Needs of Low Income Households" and reads as follows:
There are some kinds of housing requirements which are not satisfied through the normal operation of the housing market, either through the production of new housing or through handing down used housing. The need to provide housing for low income households, particularly large families and old people, is likely to call for special attention during the coming years.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the personnel of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are quite well aware of the problem. I think the difficulty is the unwillingness on the part of the government to permit them to do the type of job for which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was, I presume, originally created. Rather than enlarge the scope of their activities, there seems to be a tendency on the part of the government to curtail or to clip the activities of that government agency.
It seems to me that this trickling down process that was referred to in the joint labour brief to which I made some reference in a question to the minister on Monday last certainly fails to take into account the need for the replacement of houses which for reasons of public health should be replaced. In other words, it is all very well to say that if someone earning $4,500 a year builds a new house and he moves out of a cheaper house, that will enable somebody earning $3,500 to move into that house. Eventually you will get someone living in accommodation which is unfit for human habitation. While that procedure may, in the actual provision of dwellings-if we use that term very loosely- provide some sort of accommodation, it is not the type of accommodation we should tolerate in a modern community.
On Monday last I stressed the relationship between public health and other social problems such as juvenile delinquency and so forth and Canada's lack of an adequate housing program. In taking this callous attitude, and saying that the solution of the problem with respect to the housing needs of the low income people is to allow them to take the cheaper houses which are discarded by those in slightly higher income groups, I think the government is failing to meet the health needs of this nation.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the ultimate objective of the housing program has been set forth quite adequately in a book which I referred to the other day and which is entitled "Houses for Canadians" by Humphrey Carver. I understand that to this book which resulted from studies made in the field of housing, contributions were made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a department of the Ontario government, and the city of Toronto.


Robert Henry Winters: I gather the hon. member knows that Mr. Carver is an employee of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Alfred Claude Ellis: Yes, I am quite aware of that fact. At page 123 in the chapter on "The Ultimate Housing Problem" we find this statement:
The ultimate objective of the national housing program should be the provision of a decent dwelling for every Canadian family.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we have been saying throughout. I made that statement in the debate on the amendments to the National Housing Act in 1954. The statement was made the other day at the resolution stage. The minister seems to feel that we are being unrealistic, that we are asking for too much. We are asking for the type of policy which the minister's own advisers suggest as the ultimate objective. To continue with this statement:
From this it follows that the crucial and ultimate test of the effectiveness of housing policy is the condition of the worst housed families in our communities.
I would pause at this moment to suggest to the minister that if he wants to apprise himself of the housing situation in Canada he should not be looking just at statistics of new housing starts, housing which ranges anywhere from $11,000 to perhaps $30,000 or $50,000 or even higher, but that he should take the advice of his advisers and judge the situation in Canada from the standpoint of the most poorly housed in this country. If he did that, I am quite sure there would not be on the part of the government the same smugness that is revealed at the present time. This statement continues:
The task will not be completed until obsolete housing has been removed and every Canadian family has been given the opportunity to enjoy healthy and satisfying living conditions. It is a task which undoubtedly requires all the technical ingenuity and administrative skill which the Canadian people possess.
Of course the weakness in so far as government policy is concerned is this. Perhaps the Canadian people have the technical ingenuity and administrative skill, but unfortunately they have not the type of government which
National Housing Act
can channel that skill into the type of housing program that will satisfy the need.
As I suggested earlier, Mr. Speaker, the amendments in the proposed bill, as far as they go, are certainly worthy of support. But once again I say that if the government feel that this nibbling away at the problem or going as fast as they feel they will have to go in response to pressure is the answer to the housing problem, I think they are extremely shortsighted. I should like the minister to inform members of the house as to what is the ultimate policy of the government. The minister has told us that he does not believe that the provision of housing for every Canadian is a practical thing, or certainly is not government policy.


Robert Henry Winters: No, I did not say that.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I should like the minister to give us an idea as to whether the government agrees with the ultimate objective as outlined in this book?


Robert Henry Winters: Why don't you read what I said in reply to you when the resolution was before the house?


Alfred Claude Ellis: I have the reply at hand.


Robert Henry Winters: Read it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: As recorded at page 3201 of Hansard we find this:


Robert Henry Winters: I never did say that the government's policy was to provide a new house at once for every Canadian citizen.


Robert Henry Winters: Read the next statement.


Alfred Claude Ellis: He continues:
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.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Claude Ellis: We have had many indications of Liberal speed. If one were to make the statement that the Liberal government is travelling with equal speed in the provision of a national health plan, I suppose some hon. members opposite would applaud.


Robert Henry Winters: Tell me any other country in the world that is doing better.


An hon. Member:: Half a dozen.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, one could go into this matter quite fully and point to countries like Great Britain, which lost homes through bombing during the war years, and the policy there. They had a much more serious problem than that which we face in Canada. Our problem in Canada, apart from indecision and unwillingness by the government to do anything in former years, has been complicated only by a comparatively slight increase

National Housing Act
in population. Populations have increased in many other countries which are facing housing needs.
I suggest that the minister might go back and read an article which I think was referred to in debate at the time the National Housing Act was passed in 1954. I believe it was written by Sidney Margolius. It was an article which appeared in Maclean's magazine and it gave a summary of housing activities in various countries, including Great Britain, the United States and a number of European countries. The conclusion the writer arrives at is that we have nothing to be proud about in our housing record. I cannot recall the exact heading of the article at the moment but it was quite indicative of the fact that, in his opinion, Canada was falling far behind other nations with respect to the provision of adequate housing.


Mr. Philpott:: You are two or three years behind the times.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I know the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) is the leading government apologist in these matters.


Elmore Philpott: Show me a country that is building more houses per capita than we are. We are building more houses per capita than any other country in the world.


Alfred Claude Ellis: If the hon. member thinks that is correct, then I suggest he can get up during this debate and put on the record his attitude toward this matter. He can tell us his side of the story. I am sure he will have to go a long way before he will be able to justify the lack of decision and apathy of the government toward the provision of houses. Again I say the crux of the problem is not merely one of construction. It is a question of getting rid of a great deal of obsolescent housing in this country.
I am not going to take the time, Mr. Speaker, but I could quote from this book references to minimum standards for house construction. I see a reference to materials being non-inflammable, and so forth. I have made reference to the disastrous loss of life, particularly of children, in fires, many of which are attributable in large measure to faulty construction. I know that a short while ago a summary of the findings of a coroner's inquest appeared in one of the Ottawa newspapers, which revealed that pressed paper had been used in the partitions of one house. Such a house would go up in flames in a matter of minutes and it would be almost impossible for anyone inside to escape. That is only one aspect of the problem.
If the minister or any supporter of the government feels proud of the government's

record in so far as the removal of substandard housing in this country is concerned or the provision of the decent type of housing that is envisaged in this report, and I presume the type of housing to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred in 1945 and 1947, then I suggest they get up in the house and tell us just what the government has done to provide low rental housing for people on low incomes, and what the government has done or proposes to do now toward the elimination of slum areas from Canada.


Robert Henry Winters: Many members could do that.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take too long in speaking on this matter on this occasion. I have dealt with it nearly every year since the National Housing Act has been in existence, and for many years before that. I have discussed the subject on every occasion on which it has come up in the house. I think the minister is well aware of some of the criticisms I have made.
I do want to say that since this minister has taken over these duties he has given a very attentive ear to some of the criticisms that have been levelled at him. I do say, too, he has not always been so antagonistic as some of the other ministers appear to be when suggestions are offered to him. I am sure that on many occasions he has investigated some of the complaints, and that as a result a better housing program is developing.
Certainly I can recall that when the housing program started after the war, and for a number of years following the conclusion of the war, there were undoubtedly poor types of houses built. But my purpose in speaking at this time is not to go back and review all those conditions. I do not think the government should be too complacent about the number of homes that have been started or the number that have been completed. I know the minister has told us how many starts there have been and that there were 127,000 completions. I think that is a fairly good record. I am not criticizing the government from that standpoint. I think there were 135,000 starts. I do not want to be critical of the government in any case in which it is not deserved. I only criticize them when criticism is justified.
While the 135,000 completions seem to be a very worth-while accomplishment, and as I said a moment ago it is, we should remember that even though there were that many completions last year it does not even begin to catch up with the backlog. According to the builder-contractor statement I put on the

record last year, and I am speaking from memory, our backlog amounted to about 250,000 a year.


Mr. Byrne:: That is not correct.


Mr.   Johnslon@Bow River: National Housing Act
time, or shortly alter, that the Royal Bank suggested that they were going to make loans for 5 per cent. I do not know whether they made any loans at that rate of interest, but it was certainly advertised that that was going to be done. Nobody can say that the Royal Bank is not a good business organization. If that bank could lend money at 5 per cent a few months ago, then the mortgage ' companies could do it; but you never hear of a mortgage company offering to reduce the interest rate voluntarily. You always hear of them raising it as soon as they have the opportunity. At this time I will not discuss the methods used by some mortgage companies in extracting payment from clients. I have brought it up in the house before. The methods that some companies use are not commendable.
On March 22, 1956, the rate of interest was increased again to 5-J per cent. The very fact that we allow the rates to fluctuate shows that we are discriminating. Why should a man who took out a loan a year ago pay 5.1 per cent and a man taking out a loan today pay 5J per cent? Remember, these are government-guaranteed loans. I do not believe the minister has told us yet-he can correct me if I am wrong-that the lending companies have lost money by lending money under the National Housing Act. In fact I am quite sure they have not. The government may have had to pay some losses, but I doubt that. The losses would be very small in any event, and I wish the minister would indicate what the figures are. Under the National Housing Act the mortgage companies just cannot lose. I have often wished that I had some field in which I could lend money on a guarantee like that.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Me, too.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: My hon. friend says, "Me, too". Who would not jump at a thing like that? You cannot lose. It is not a gamble; it is no bet. Every six months or so the government says, "You can hoist the interest rate a little bit". I have always maintained, Mr. Speaker, that during the war and just after the war the national housing plan was never inaugurated to build houses. The primary purpose was to provide a field of investment for the lending companies, and they have done remarkably well ever since.
I am not going to take any more time on this occasion, Mr. Speaker. I do want to say that the minister has done pretty well in his job, but he should not be allowed to sit there too complacently and not get a few jolts once in a while to bring him to his feet. I want to commend him on the way

he has looked after the job and, with a little prodding now and again, I think things may go along fairly well.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. R. E. Reinke (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 215 as presented by the minister is extremely important in every one of its clauses, but there are two or three to which I wish to refer in particular. Under the existing legislation the clause dealing with the redevelopment of blighted areas in cities stipulates that the end use shall be for low rental, moderate rental or public use. The new bill removes that limitation, and the land may now be put to the use best suited to the purposes of the municipality and the federal government, as agreed between them.
I congratulate the minister upon bringing in these revisions of the National Housing Act. The policy of the Liberal government has always had as its expressed purpose the improvement of living conditions for Canadians generally. Apart from our tremendous welfare program, which is costing the Canadian people a great deal of money, I believe the housing legislation has done more to improve living conditions in this country than any other piece of legislation. This legislation provides a ways and means for Canadians to enjoy their most important stake in the country, the ownership of their own homes.
The minister told us this afternoon that this year will see the completion of the millionth house since the National Housing Act was brought into being. In Ontario during the past ten years 350,000 housing units have been completed. This program of home building has been possible because of the optimistic outlook of the Canadian people, their desire to own their own homes, their desire to invest their savings in homes and their confidence in Canada. Aside from all these factors I maintain that there is only one reason that people have been able to achieve home ownership, and that is the National Housing Act as provided by this government. That legislation assists in the lending of money and, second, guarantees loans so that money shall be available for those who wish to own their own homes, which in turn encourages the building industry.
I should like to mention this evening a project which is being contemplated in

Hamilton. To my mind it is a rather tremendous project, because it involves the expenditure of $1,700,000. The plan is to provide sufficient land for the construction of a new civic centre, including a city hall. The building is to house all corporation offices now scattered throughout the city. In addition parking will be provided for those who may wish to use the facilities of the city hall and the adjoining centre.
The city has expropriated about 60 pieces of property for this civic centre, which by the way will adjoin the new federal building. Included in those properties are a hotel, a factory and a lumber yard, the remainder being dwellings. The factory and the lumber yard are probably out of place in this particular area. All in all there will be approximately 4J acres of land once the project is completed. It is proposed to provide office accommodation to the extent of some 100,000 square feet, and the landscaping will beautify this particular section of the city.
What is more important in my opinion is that off-street parking for 500 cars will be provided for those doing business in the municipal building or in the vicinity of the federal building. There is a recognized need for off-street parking. I am afraid the Minister of Public Works will say that the federal government is not concerned with off-street parking, and I am inclined to agree with him, but I do submit that it is our responsibility to provide off-street parking in the vicinity of public buildings in towns and cities across Canada. From reports I have seen apparently that is being provided here in Ottawa.
The new federal public building in Hamilton is six storeys high and cost over $3 million. It houses the income tax, the veterans affairs and practically every other department of the federal government with the exception of the post office and customs. However, parking space for only 24 cars has been provided, which I think is a rather shocking situation. I do not blame the present Minister of Public Works, because this building was started before he took office, but someone is responsible for this condition. I am rather inclined to blame the city council of Hamilton and its planning board for not providing a by-law dealing with off-street parking. They force the owners of apartment buildings and theatres to provide parking for their tenants and customers, but there is no by-law covering this other type of off-street parking. Two wrongs of this nature do not make a right and I submit that it is our responsibility to provide this parking. Parking for civil servants is provided in Ottawa and it should not be any different in any other city in
National Housing Act
Canada. A report appearing in the Ottawa Journal of Saturday, April 21, reads:
Parliament's joint senate-commons FDC committee is studying Ottawa's mid-town parking problem, and will file recommendations for its solution.
Variously terming the situation ''appalling", an "unholy mess", and "all but hopeless", the committee spent a lively two hours in discussing just how bad it was.
General Howard Kennedy, chairman of the FDC, was emphatic in a statement that "the FDC has no business in the parking business".
The committee shrugged off that disclaimer, but listened intently when he reported that the provision by the government of 7,000 free parking spaces for the civil service had contributed more than anything to the lack of parking for the public.
The article goes on:
The parking issue was raised by Senator Tom Reid, Liberal, New Westminster.
"When the old wartime temporary buildings on Wellington street are demolished, the land should be used for parking," he said.
"That hasn't been considered; and anyway, the provision of parking facilities is a municipal responsibility," replied General Kennedy.
"It's a problem on which the FDC should take the lead," argued Alexis Caron, Liberal, Hull.
Further on it reads:
"But don't FDC or national capital plans include the construction of a two-level underground parking lot on the site of the Daly building?" asked Dr. Rudolphe Leduc, Liberal, Gatineau.
That was so, agreed General Kennedy, going on to specify that the plan was to park 200 cars construction costs being estimated at about $3,000 per car.
He thought it might be done within ten years.
Mr. Speaker, you may wonder why I bring this question of parking into a housing discussion, but I do so because I believe that we as a federal government are in a sense, in the parking business whether we like it or not. In dealing with this resolution on the clearance of blighted districts, I would particularly bring to the attention of hon. members that we have a new federal building in Hamilton in the vicinity of a project of this nature, which comes under this bill; the city is providing parking, and we are not.
I do not wish to stand here and criticize without offering a solution to the problem. The minister in his bill provides for 50 per cent assistance to municipalities for the clearance, replanning and modernization of blighted areas. If the intent of this bill to clear blighted areas could include off-street park-ing-and I see no reason why it should not, if the end use is beneficial to the community -then I think I am perfectly in order in bringing it to the attention of hon. members.
In Hamilton we are clearing land to the extent that it is going to cost us $1,700,000. If we could obtain assistance to the extent of half of that amount, it would mean that the

National Housing Act
city would receive assistance amounting to $850,000. I maintain that the city then should take action and expropriate property so as to provide parking for our federal government building in Hamilton under the provisions of this act. It may cost us another $200,000 to provide this parking, but with the federal government sharing 50-50 in the cost the city's share would then be $100,000. The end result would be that the corporation would have assistance, say, amounting to $850,000. They in turn would lay out $100,000, and we would have parking facilities for both these projects.
However, the most important problem to my mind still remains. After this land is cleared for whatever use it may be put to, the problem remains of relocating those who will be obliged to find other accommodation. Reference was ipade this afternoon by the hon. member for Regina City and, I think, the hon. member for Eglinton to a brief from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects. To my mind the points in this brief are so important and they outline the situation so well that I feel they should be put on the record, if that has not been done already. I read from page 32 of this document, which I think has been placed on the desk of all hon. members. It says:
Most of the housing which is ripe for withdrawal is adjacent to the commercial and industrial hearts of cities. It includes a good part of the 100,000 houses now in need of major repair in the larger urban centres. It also includes houses in adequate condition which may have to be destroyed in the process of redeveloping blighted neighbourhoods. All these houses lie in a transitional belt of mixed land uses where small businesses and industries have invaded residential blocks. The land has taken its value from its potential use for commercial purposes. The cost of acquiring blocks of blighted land in Montreal and Toronto may well exceed $250,000 an acre, this price representing the value of land and existing buildings together with payments for the disturbance of businesses.	In such areas
there are, of course, already streets and services some of which can be incorporated in subsequent redevelopment. In considering the re-use of the site for housing purposes the acquisition cost of $250,000 an acre may be compared with the present costs of serviced land in suburban areas, about $2,000 an acre for raw land and $8,000 for serviced . . .
The objective of such redevelopment is both to eliminate substandard housing and to improve the housing circumstances of those living in such areas.
I maintain to those hon. members who have questioned the policy of the government with respect to housing that this is the policy of the government, to eliminate substandard
[Mr. Reinke.l
housing and to improve the housing circumstances of those living in such areas.
The act of clearance by public agencies brings with it an obligation to secure suitable accommodation for those who are displaced.
I am referring particularly to this problem which I mentioned earlier.
Some displaced households may be able and willing to find their own accommodation. But it must be assumed that the majority will have to be rehoused by a public agency, either on the site or elsewhere, in new housing provided for this purpose. And-
This is important.
-since the majority of households in blighted areas cannot meet the costs of new housing, public action is required to build and operate and pay subsidies on new accommodation . . .
To what extent should central blighted areas be redeveloped to house low-income families?
It goes on to point out the various factors.
Whatever may be the answers to these questions there remains the obligation to rehouse the present residents of blighted areas to be cleared. They must be rehoused in a manner and in a location that will make them effective contributors to the economy and life of the community and this must be done at the least possible cost to the taxpayers. Perhaps these aims may best be achieved by relocating some families on suburban sites and by releasing some central sites for other purposes.
I maintain that our most crying need today is for low-rental housing. I have discussed this very important matter with members of the board of control in my own city. They can provide a few more homes in the already existing project for 500 rental homes that we have in Roxborough Park, but this is not sufficient.
The brief from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation goes on further and expresses the needs for low-rental housing, referred to today by the hon. member for Regina City. I shall not read all of it, but it says:
Estimates of the need for low-rental housing depend upon the criteria that are used. The greater part of the doubling-up occurs amongst low-income families and most of the dwellings in need of major repair and lacking essential sanitary facilities are occupied by low-income families.
The need to satisfy the housing requirements of old people has begun to appear as a new problem arising from the greatly increasing proportion of elderly people in the population. With increasing age and reduced earning power many people either do not wish to maintain their family home or are unable to do so. They are not in a position to undertake mortgage payments on smaller dwellings and with increasing infirmity they require more services and special arrangements.
But here is the important point in this report, as I see it:
Action taken to provide housing for low-income families and for old people will depend upon the climate of public opinion. Public funds cannot be used to build low-rental housing and to subsidize rents unless the public believes there is a condition that needs correcting. Furthermore,

there must be resources of local administrative skill and initiative to stage such housing operations.
In Hamilton-and I refer to Hamilton because I am familiar with the picture there- we are providing, with the co-operation of the Department of Public Works, 450 low-rental homes. These homes are being provided by renovating and relocating the balance of the wartime houses that remain in the city. They are being removed and relocated in one specific part of the city called Mohawk Gardens. These four and six-room houses are going to rent for as little as $45 a month. This amount will pay all costs including mortgage interest and principal, administration charges, taxes and upkeep.
As I said before, in this type of operation the Canadian taxpayer pays nothing. I do not think the Canadian taxpayer understands that is the case with regard to low-cost housing. It costs him nothing. I hope that persons now owning their own homes will realize this fact and will not criticize those who are a little less fortunate than they are and cannot afford to acquire homes of their own. I hope they will not resent the wherewithal being provided so these people can have decent living accommodation.
As I said before, there is a crying need for low-cost housing across Canada. First of all the municipality has to determine the need. A year ago, and I trust I may use my own city as an example again, we decided to determine the need for low-cost housing. A survey was made throughout the city, which was conducted by the university there. When the report was brought down it was found that there were over 1,000 families living in substandard conditions, some of them to my mind rather shocking, some of them actually deplorable. In nearly every case these unhealthy and shocking conditions were brought about by the fact that the wage earner was in the low income category.
In the bill now before us we are asking parliament to provide $50 million for federal-provincial land assembly. Here again the federal government is paying 75 per cent of the cost of assembling land. The money is returned to the respective governments after the land is sold to the home owners, and this arrangement eliminates land speculation completely, which means that houses can be provided for possibly as much as $1,000 less.
In my own city the federal and provincial governments have taken action and have purchased hundreds of acres of land in the vicinity. They are going to provide thousands of lots under the plan whereby the federal government is paying 75 per cent and the province 25 per cent for the land. If I may refer to Ontario, I understand that in that 67509-211
National Housing Act
province there are about 14,000 such lots ready for the public, and the ultimate program will amount to something like 30,000 to 35,000 serviced lots.
I say now that I believe, in fact I know, it is the responsibility of municipalities across Canada to take some action with respect to housing. We have legislation on the books to provide low-rental housing for municipalities. We even have the legislation necessary to subsidize low-rental housing. But the federal government cannot force the municipalities and the provinces to come here, and it cannot go to the municipalities and force them to allow homes to be erected on property within their confines. These people have to take action. They have to come here and ask us. In my estimation that is where the responsibility lies. First of all they have to determine their needs. I maintain that if they do not take such action they are certainly committing a breach of trust to their electors.
In Hamilton we have determined our need. We took a survey. I call upon the city, therefore, to make an application to the federal government, which will pay 75 per cent of the cost. Let us have another 500 low-rental homes in Hamilton. The same program should be carried on throughout the whole of Canada having regard to the need in the respective cities. The municipal share in this type of low-rental housing is only 7J per cent. It is a pittance, and is repaid to the city. They do not lose the money. It is repaid to them in rentals. But we cannot build these houses unless they apply to us.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer before I sit down. Under the National Housing Act mortgagors or borrowers have the privilege of paying back an additional amount not in excess of 10 per cent of the original amount of the mortgage after the mortgage has been in force for one year. A similar amount can be paid off after the mortgage is in effect for two years. After three years the borrower has the privilege of paying off the whole mortgage or any part thereof on any monthly instalment date, provided he pays a bonus of three months' interest on the amount paid off the mortgage. This means that after three years the mortgagor can apply any extra amount he may wish against the mortgage on his home and the mortgagee cannot refuse to accept the payment. It may be $10, $50 or $100 a month, whatever the mortgagor decides he can pay.
In this way a thrifty home owner who finds that he has a little extra money can reduce his indebtedness more quickly than he would normally. I realize that private mortgages do not come under the scope of the National


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Hamilton South with a good deal of interest. I regret very much that he was not a participant in the debate on Monday last, because the minister might have paid some attention to the constructive suggestions he has made. In his statement this afternoon the minister used some words that sounded familiar. In the annual report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation I read some expressions that are similar. It begins as follows:
In the last 10 years Canada has accomplished a gigantic task in housing its expanding population. Almost a million new homes have been built.
That has been changed slightly. But listen to this:
They are to be seen in every town from coast to coast.
That is news to me. I have five towns in my constituency. I am not going to go out on a limb and say there are no houses which have been built there, but I will be surprised if there are houses which have been built under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in all these towns. I do know a number of people who tried to get loans under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but who were turned down. I think of one, namely the superintendent of our local school.


An hon. Member:: In every province but Saskatchewan.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister did not say "in every province but Saskatchewan". Our superintendent of schools had an outstanding record with the air force. He has a salary similar to the salary he would have if he were in the city, and he was quite prepared to make the required payments, but he was turned down. I will therefore ask the page boy to take this over to the minister, and when we get into committee he can probably tell us how many houses have been built in Carrot River, Hudson Bay, Kelvington, Preeceville and Sturgis under N.H.A. The minister has the records. I have not. However, I will be surprised if he can report that there are five houses which have been built in that area. Further on this report says:
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.
That is news also, though on examining it carefully one finds it does not suggest that all Canadians who want that sort of housing

and a piece of land have been able to get it. However, it does say this:
About 70 per cent of new housing has been in the form of home ownership.
The minister should have gone on to say that more than 70 per cent of the people in Canada will never have a chance to own a piece of land or a home of their own unless we have some drastic changes in the housing legislation which the minister is bringing forward.
In the bureau of statistics publication entitled "Distribution of non-farm incomes", I find that 17-2 per cent of Canadian families receive over $5,000. We have 15 per cent who get less than $1,500 a year, 34 per cent who get under $2,500 and 47 per cent who get under $3,000. Hence we have altogether about 83 per cent of the people in Canada who fall below the $5,000 per year which the minister will agree one should have if one is to embark on getting a piece of land at the fantastic prices being asked now and building a modern home. All across the country we find that the situation is the same. The Flin Flon Daily Miner came to my desk while I was awaiting my turn to speak. In it I find a dispatch from Cranberry Portage which reads in part as follows:
-housing is at a premium, yet people are living in places that have at one time been condemned, or should be condemned.
Diphtheria broke out here last fall-now it's T.B. Since school began last September, it's been one thing after another . . .
What is worrying many is the number of places being lived in that have or should be condemned. A prominent citizen of the community told of a "shack" as he described it being condemned a few years ago by a police magistrate in the company of a health nurse. It was reoccupied three days after the order and has been ever since.
I realize that the 17 per cent of the Canadian people are able to look forward to having a piece of land and a new house. I am told by some of my colleagues that Vancouver is the finest place in the world in which to live, that housing costs are low there because lumber is so cheap and it is not necessary to insulate as it is in other parts of the country. In Tuesday's Vancouver Sun I find that you can get a new N.H.A. home there with three bedrooms for $16,500. Here is a snap. You can get this property for $9,100. Here is another one, with five rooms, at $13,500. This one is described as being spectacular. This home has everything, completely modern, five-room, and it is going for only $10,500. Here is another new N.H.A. home at $13,900; and so it goes on down the list. There are almost two pages devoted to these houses for sale in the Vancouver Sun, and which cost $12,000 or $15,000, or more.
67509-211J
National Housing Act
They are being occupied by the 17 per cent of the people who are getting $5,000 or more.
I find that there are other conditions in Canada. I happened to run across a copy of the Toronto Daily Star last fall. This is dated Saturday, November 19. I tore out this sheet. In it there are two good housing stories. One is by Robert Nielsen. It is headed "Real dividends of housing are happier human beings". I might say what is well known, namely that this paper is famous for supporting the present government on every possible pretext, but sometimes some things are written that are slightly embarrassing. This article reads as follows:
Few large cities in North America have built so little public housing as Toronto, which can show only the 1,289 units of Regent Park North completed to date. In this respect Toronto is typical of Canada as a whole, for there are scarcely 4,000 units of public housing in the dominion. One major reason is ideological: Public housing is often denounced as "socialistic".
I suppose that is the minister's way out. The article continues:
It is therefore something of a paradox that the United States, more hostile to socialism, more committed to private enterprise than perhaps any nation on earth, has a history of 18 years of federal aid to public housing, during which some 300,000 subsidized units have been built.
The minister simply cannot argue that Canada has a good record. If you multiply the 4,000 built in Canada by 15 you get 60,000, so that compared with 300,000 they have five times as many low-rental subsidized housing units in the United States, by population, as we have in Canada.
Then here is another story by Monroe Johnston on the same page. It says:
At least 8,000 Toronto families are doomed to live in blighted or slum housing unless metro Toronto awakes to the need for more low-cost rental housing.
These 8,000 families have signed their names to the waiting list for Regent Park North, Toronto's one and only public housing development.
Later on it points out that the Regent Park development, which was started more than 10 years ago, is a show place. Previously this was one of the most blighted areas in Toronto. The people in the area were paying $36,000 in taxes. They are now paying in taxes $240,000, and in addition to paying all operating expenses and taxes they have repaid over $200,000 toward the capital cost.
When I spoke the other night I referred to the article entitled "Fourteen Days as an Old Age Pensioner," by William MacEachern. I did not explain that he is a fine looking young chap who appears to be in his early twenties, who spent 14 days trying to find out how old age pensioners live. He budgeted $20 for two weeks. Some hon. members have asked me about this article, and I am sure the Toronto
3322	HOUSE OF
National Housing Act
Star will be only too glad to send to anyone, as they have to me, a reprint of the articles by MacEachern. I am sure some of the older people in the constituency would appreciate the effort that was made by this young chap to find out what sort of quarters could be obtained.
I read a couple of extracts the other night, and I shall refer to a couple more. Here is one:
Off to one side was a little cubbyhole of a kitchen where an old rusted stove leered out at me.
The owner concentrated on the bathroom-it was a huge bathroom, almost as big as the main room-as the apartment's main selling point.
He made passing reference to the kitchen, the view from the tiny window (the back of a used-car lot) and the quiet neighbourhood, but extolled at great length the virtues of a private bathroom for an old man like my grandfather. "Of course, he'll have to go upstairs to take a bath but he won't mind that," he said.
Our inspection was interrupted by a great whirring noise. It shook the walls and the ash tray on the table rattled.
"Oh, that's just a printing press in the next room," he explained. "Your grandfather won't have to worry about that; it's usually broken down."
I asked him how much he wanted for the room. "Well," he said, "if your grandfather's willing to pay for the gas, I can give it to him for $6.50."
I told him I'd talk it over with grandpa and come back the next day if he decided to take it. Outside again the fresh air felt good.
Here was a place on George street:
I almost broke my leg when it crashed through a rotten step. The windows of the house were broken and it looked deserted, but I knocked anyway.
The dirtiest and thinnest man I had ever seen came to the door. He had a ring of egg yolk around his mouth and what I could see of his flesh was so caked with filth I'm sure nothing short of a skinning could have cleaned him.
The room was just as dirty; the floor was black and crusted, the curtains were torn and hung squint-eyed on the windows and the pattern on the wallpaper had been obscured long ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Did hon. members give unanimous consent to have this pamphlet put on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Then perhaps the hon. member could now give us his views.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If I had your permission I should like to finish this sentence.


Mr. Sluder:: It was a socialist house with a socialist in it.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the best noise I have heard from the cabinet benches in a long time.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: In all seriousness I think if any member of this house would spend two weeks in any city in Canada trying to find


living quarters for $20, and then have money left for food, there would not be any interruptions such as I have had this evening.


Irvin William Studer: What is Saskatchewan doing about it?


Alfred Claude Ellis: More than any other province.


Irvin William Studer: They build theatres.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I realize that hon. members on the other side are rather sensitive about the shocking conditions in regard to housing that exist in every part of Canada.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: And particularly in Saskatchewan.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think it is not surprising when they read again-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We will do our own reading.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -the Curtis report of 1944 and find the picture presented of the brave new world we were to have, the clearing of our slums and the subsidized housing we were going to provide for our heroes.


Irvin William Studer: That is what Douglas said in 1944.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: We have done very little. The minister boasted about the fact that Canada has the best record in the world-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -so far as house construction is concerned.


Irvin William Studer: Per capita.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Per capita. The minister is wrong, as is the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer).


Irvin William Studer: More socialist statistics.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Why not make a speech of your own on housing?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, before going to Germany about two years ago I was given, by the German embassy, a copy of a book entitled "Germany Reports". I am sure that anyone who has been to Germany since the war will agree with me that an amazing job has been done in rebuilding the devastated cities.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Not a socialist government over there.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have not suggested it was, but I am about to give the minister some information that he should examine before he goes out as far on a limb as he did this afternoon.


Hazen Robert Argue: He does not like to get it sawn
off.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think we should not forget that more than 2,250,000 homes, or over 20 per cent of the dwellings within the area of the Federal Republic of Germany were totally destroyed by air bombardment. By the time the fighting ceased another 2-5 million houses were seriously damaged. In some cities like Cologne, 75 per cent of the dwellings were destroyed. The same was true of Essen.
As I said, anyone who has been to Germany will marvel at the ingenuity, the industry and imagination which has been displayed in that country as the people have tried to provide some place for their families and themselves to live. According to this table on page 181 of "Germany Reports", I find that on the basis of completed dwellings per
10,000	population, Australia and Norway come first with 96; the German republic is third with 91; the United States is fourth with 72; Sweden is fifth with 66; Switzerland is sixth with 57; Netherlands is seventh with 53; and Canada is in eighth place.
I agree that Canada's position is still worth while, but in the light of the fact that we have done so little with our cities we should not be proud. We have great resources of material and manpower, and when you consider the increase in our gross national product, the fact that we have only 4,000 low-rental subsidized housing units in all of Canada is something no Canadian can speak of with pride. Therefore I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the policies which were worked out during the war and which were understood to be sound should be accepted in connection with housing. Whatever is physically possible should be made financially possible.
Another book which I am not going to deal with at this time is one which hon. members might read with profit. It is entitled, "My First Seventy-six Years", and was written by Hjalmar Schacht, a former president of the reichsbank in Germany. He is not a socialist.
I am not quoting him because he is a socialist, but he was asked to take over a responsible position in Germany when they were in their wildest period of inflation back in the early 1920's, when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was there. He can tell us about how difficult it was for the people in Germany at that time. Then Hitler also asked Mr. Schacht to take a similar assignment when countries all over the world were in the midst of a depression.
Schacht sold the idea to Hitler that there were two important things to do, namely provide better housing for the people and provide roads across the country. These are two responsibilities of the Minister of Public Works. It was pretty obvious that tackling
National Housing Act
the housing problem in Germany was one of the major factors that made it possible for Hitler to get the support which he later used to plunge the world into the second world war. But it was sound economically for Germany in the early 1930's to face up to the slum conditions in that country and embark on an ambitious housing program so that every family in Germany could look out of their windows and see new and better houses being built and better conditions being provided for the citizens of that country.
My time is running out. The late hon. member for York South was our expert on housing. He made a very valuable contribution to the discussion when the act was up for review some years ago. The suggestions he made then are still sound. He offered criticism of the failure of the minister to tackle this problem with a view to providing the best possible housing in all parts of Canada, apart altogether from making an attractive investment return for people who want a high return on money invested.
The problem should be attacked from the point of view of providing better housing for the people. The late Mr. Noseworthy's last suggestion was that the government should not pass the buck to the municipalities. Surely the municipalities and the provinces already have greater burdens than they can meet with their diminishing resources. In a recent analysis showing how we distribute our tax dollar the Canadian Bank of Commerce pointed out that we give only 12 cents out of every tax dollar to the municipalities; we give 14 cents to the provinces and 74 cents to the federal government. The municipalities and the provinces have not the wherewithal to embark on national programs, but the federal government has all the machinery.
If a third world war broke out the federal government would not have any difficulty whatsoever in raising unlimited sums and embarking on very ambitious programs, as was demonstrated during the second world war. It is not good enough for the minister to say that after all this responsibility must be accepted by the provinces. It must be accepted by the federal government. With the taxation and resources the federal government has, with the facilities of the Bank of Canada, with the ability to plan for full employment and to raise standards of living, the federal government must take its full responsibility in this important field.


Elmore Philpott: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to some remarkable statements from across the way today, but I think the most amazing was the statement of the hon. member for Mackenzie that

National Housing Act
there had not been any building whatsoever in several of the towns in his own constituency.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Under the National Housing Act.


Elmore Philpott: I can remember when this new housing act was before the banking and commerce committee three or four years ago, when one C.C.F. speaker after another arose and said these were wonderful low-rental provisions and asked, "Why have you been hiding your light under a bushel? The government ought to be censured for not letting everybody know that all you had to do was to have a local tie-up, and you could have an unlimited amount of low-rental housing." Therefore I really do not know why the Saskatchewan C.C.F. government has not long since taken advantage of this low-rental housing business and built some of those much-needed houses in the constituency of the hon. member for Mackenzie.
This afternoon the hon. member for Regina City paid me the compliment of saying I was the chief government apologist. I certainly say there would not be any easier task than to be the chief government apologist for this National Housing Act, when the figures plainly show that Canada is building more new housing than any other country on the face of the earth.


Alfred Claude Ellis: What figures?


Elmore Philpott: According to the figures given just a minute ago by the hon. member for Mackenzie, Canada stood about fourth on the list.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Eighth.


Elmore Philpott: The plain fact of the matter is that Canada is building many more houses this year than the highest figure given in the German paper quoted by my hon. friend. Like my hon. friend, I think I know a good deal about the new housing in Germany because I myself have been in Germany several times since the end of the Hitler war.
The first time I was there I saw the whole country all smashed down as he described it; but I will say this. While I take off my hat to the Germans for their energy in rebuilding the buildings which were destroyed in the conflict which they themselves had precipitated, 1 venture to say there is not an hon. member in this house who would condone the methods which were used in the rebuilding of Germany. I myself have seen people working two whole shifts in a single day, a day job and a night job. As late as 1951 I have also seen in the great city of Hanover hundreds of people sleeping every night in the public railway station because there was no housing for them to live in.

Therefore I would say, Mr. Speaker, that while I pay all tribute to the great energy of the Germans and what they have done, let us be fair to this act. Let us not be ashamed of the fact that Canada has been able to bring down a National Housing Act that in one respect is the best in the entire world. It has provided more new single dwelling houses for the people rather comfortably off than any other country in the world has been able to provide.


Alfred Claude Ellis: What about those who are not comfortably off?


Elmore Philpott: Hon. gentlemen on the other side sometimes take unto themselves too much virtue. You would think we on this side were not eager and willing to make a good act better. We are offering amendments right now to the National Housing Act which will greatly improve the facilities for slum clearance in Canada. Some people do not like the term "slum clearance". I remember when we brought in the new act we had to change it to blighted areas. I do know that if we had had this act on the statute books last year when the civic elections in Vancouver were held the local vote would have been different, and we would now be well under way with the reconstruction of the downtown area which is needed so badly.
I am not going to stand up here tonight and say that in my opinion the National Housing Act is doing everything we had hoped it would do when we framed the act. Of course it is not. We know perfectly well that we had high hopes about the provisions of the act which were designed to facilitate the construction of unsubsidized rental housing and subsidized rental housing. As I said just a minute ago, we had speaker after speaker and we had representatives of the great trade unions in Canada ask what was the matter with us, why had we not let everyone know how easy it was to initiate the construction of these low-rental housing schemes.
In my opinion the rate of construction of rental housing since we passed the new act has been disappointingly low. I believe it will remain disappointingly low until more organizations, until more municipalities, until more trade unions, until more church groups, until more racial origin societies take the actual initiative of undertaking the construction of low-rental housing projects.
The hon. member for Mackenzie was talking about housing in foreign countries. Apart from the privilege of going to Germany again last year, I spent considerable time in the countries which in my opinion have the finest

housing projects in the entire world. I refer to Norway, Sweden and Denmark.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Socialist governments.


Elmore Philpott: Answering my loud-spoken friend the hon. member for Regina City, may I say that I went to the chief town planner of the city of Stockholm, who showed me over a period of several days some of their masterly housing projects. At the end of that time he said to me, "I will venture to say that you are thinking the reason we have these wonderful projects is that we have a socialist government." I said, "Oh." He said, "Let me disabuse your mind because in 1903, before the ordinary people of the city of Stockholm had the vote, hard-headed businessmen who then ran the city of Stockholm and who were good conservatives-not Progressive Conservatives, who are Conservatives going backward-bought all the land for many miles around the city of Stockholm." I had the privilege of seeing a model city of 30,000 or 35,000 people which is being built as a complete entity this year, and which was possible because of the foresight of those old conservatives.
I know the socialists are always ready to boast about their achievements, but let us give credit where credit is due. The credit for the great advance in housing in Sweden is due to those hard-headed businessmen who happened to be conservatives.
I must say that the Scandinavian countries are ahead of us in the construction of low-cost unsubsidized rental housing. They have more rental housing than we have. They have not so much room as we have, and they have to go in more for apartments. I saw beautiful apartments in this city I was talking about with about the same space that I have in the Tiffany in Ottawa, yet the rental was only $45 a month. I am not going to say how much I pay for fear the landlord will boost my rent again. The thing is that in Sweden the rentals are very much lower than they are here in Canada.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How much would that cost in Ottawa?


Elmore Philpott: I said I was not going to tell, but it would be several times what it would cost in Sweden. I think we gain nothing by denying the fact that under the housing scheme which they have been able to operate in the Scandinavian countries they have been able to provide for their people rental housing at a lower cost than we have provided it here. However, let me say for the benefit of my hon. friends opposite who are always one jump ahead of themselves that we must remember that the whole wage scale and the
National Housing Act
price scale is lower in the Scandinavian countries. When you pay a carpenter in Scandinavia one-half or less of what you pay a carpenter in Ottawa, naturally you are going to get lower-cost housing.
There is one other respect in which the Scandinavian countries are ahead of us, and that is in the provision of special apartments for their old age pensioners. I saw thousands of beautiful apartments in Sweden, I saw many in Norway and I saw thousands of beautiful units in Denmark, which for my money is the happiest and most contented country in the entire world. I went in to see an old lady of over 80 years of age who had been born in Germany but who was getting an apartment in Copenhagen for $4 per month. When her husband was still alive she and her husband paid only $6 a month. All through the Scandinavian countries I saw evidence of the admirable planning which they have used and the great care they have shown for the benefit of their older people.
Just today I had a letter from an old lady 80 years of age, and it was this letter that made me remember the old lady in Denmark. This lady came originally from Saskatchewan and she is now trying to live in British Columbia on $40 a month, as she still has three months to go before she will be eligible for the $20 supplement. She cannot go back to Saskatchewan and get the supplement there because she would have to be there a year before she would be eligible. She is paying a rental of $7.50 a week. I think the mathematics of the thing speak for themselves.
I believe it is the responsibility of every Canadian, not just those who have the honour to sit in this house, to spend more time and energy in getting local initiative lined up for the construction of low-cost rental housing projects, and above all to get local initiative going in the design of housing schemes for old age pensioners. Many of the branches of the Canadian Legion have reserves of well over $50,000, and any branch of the Canadian Legion or of any other organization having such a reserve could swing without any further ado a housing deal running into hundreds of thousands of dollars. They could supply low rental housing for veterans receiving war veterans allowance, and all that sort of thing.
I submit that is the missing link which it is the duty of every hon. member in this house on every side to try to remedy. We must have more local co-operation to get these low-rental housing schemes for old age pensioners under way.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate-

National Housing Act


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Whatever changed your mind?


Frederick George Hahn: I am pleased that you asked. The reason I changed my mind was that the last day this was discussed a number of speakers took part in the debate, such as the hon. member for Mackenzie, and raised certain problems in respect to housing for the needy and the aged particularly. Because of the policy of this particular government it was impractical for the minister to answer as to why we were unable to have the housing for which we were asking. That caused me to rise again today to see whether we could not at this time at least try to excuse the government for its inactivity in this particular field.
I do not intend to repeat any of my arguments-it is not necessary in such a broad field-but the last day I drew to the minister's attention certain difficulties that people in the Vancouver area had experienced in respect to finding housing that would make it unnecessary for them to do things that we as a society should not condone. At that time I referred to certain articles in the Vancouver Province to show their plight. 1 did not enlarge on it in any shape or form because I felt it was unnecessary to do so, and it is not my intention to do so now.
However, certain hon. members, such as the hon. member for Vancouver South, indicated that it was the responsibility of provinces and societies and certain of the individuals in the city of Vancouver and other areas to bring about the means of financing housing for the senior citizens and those who are in need. I was rather surprised to hear that, because I am satisfied that the old age pensioners of the city of Vancouver and the citizens of Vancouver would not agree with him that they had the means in that city to go ahead and use the facilities under the present act.
We have accepted a responsibility in British Columbia to our senior citizens and assist financially the people of that province more than any other province, because we have a greater number of aged citizens per capita in that province than any other province in Canada. Certainly the city of Vancouver, the district of Surrey Delta and the whole of the lower mainland, including New Westminster and the city of Victoria, have far more senior citizens per capita than has any other part of Canada, and for that reason the problem is accentuated in that particular area.
Let us stop to consider that our province is paying more to help those people than is any other province. I am speaking of the needy, those who get $40 a month only and are not earning over and above that, those who are

actually in need of this housing more than anyone else. That province is therefore not in a financial position to go ahead and assist in the particular building envisaged in the act as it now stands.
Possibly there may be some members in the house who would suggest that the province should not necessarily assist them in this way but, the cost of living being what it is today, this is merely a cost of living bonus. Hon. members who live in British Columbia know that, and I am satisfied that this applies to every area of Canada. They must realize there is not sufficient money left, out of the paltry pension cheques these people get, to house them. There are those who have suggested-as I believe the hon. member for Hamilton South did-that the municipal districts are shirking their responsibilities.
In introducing this legislation the minister, as recorded on page 3168 of Hansard of April 23, had this to say:
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.
That is the smallest portion of the cost. All the other utilities and all the other factors that a municipal district must look at are the major portion of the cost to the municipality. In regard to this matter of acquiring property, frequently the municipality has the property already and does not have to acquire it. The clearing of brush and so on in those areas is a nominal factor; it is not the expensive one. The fact remains that the cost of utilities and of providing the services required in an area such as that is the expensive item, and must be kept in mind as such. For that reason I maintain, as I did the other day, that this act does not go far enough. Basically the fact that we expect municipal districts to step in and pay their share sounds fine, but it is not the answer to the question.
The hon. member for Mackenzie drew to our attention a certain housing plan. I think Schacht was the name of the man who introduced the financing of the scheme in Germany, to which the hon. member for Vancouver South took exception. He did not tell us how this was financed. The whole thing is integrated. If we are going to carry on in this fashion and suggest that we require more housing, we must find the means of financing.
The minister has my sympathy in that respect. I know he is trying to do his level best to give everybody in this country a house. I think I indicated as much the other day when I said that 623,000 was not the true number of people in this country who actually

wanted homes. I would repeat that, because of the reasons I gave the other day; but there are these people in the country today who do need homes. Whether they are communal homes of some kind, or individual homes, such as we build in New Westminster, or apartments of some sort, the senior citizens and the needy of this country require a cheaper house.
On Monday, when I spoke to the resolution, I quoted from an editorial in the Vancouver Province. I did not use the whole of the editorial because I did not think it was particularly necessary. I felt that the minister was quite familiar with the situation and would probably make some comment on the substance that was proposed, but I do wish to quote from another part of the editorial, for it bears out something I said the other day and I believe it should be taken note of. It is this:
The solution to their problem, it seems to us, is not principally a financial one, for mortgage terms have to be realistic and these people are not asking for a subsidy from the public purse. It will be found, rather, in the encouragement of new methods of construction.
We have to find new methods of constructing homes. There must be other ways whereby we can build a home that is going to cost less than $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000. Certainly when we have a society that is capable of doing so we should be able to find responsible bodies that are willing and prepared to do so.
In the course of the discussion the other day I also raised the question of fire hazards in homes. I did not deal with that question to any great extent then, but it is my intention to spend some time on it now by reason of the fact that I should like to point out to the minister that I do not believe there is a citizen of this country who is not fully aware of the fire hazards that face us today. I have had communication with one of my constituents who first drew the question to my attention.
In order to show you how these people think and the terms in which they are thinking-and you may rest assured that this man is not alone in his views-I should like to put on record what he had to say. The letter is not too long and it is my intention to read it, because I think it is something with which every member of the house should be thoroughly familiar.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am very sorry to rise at this juncture but may I point out that I do not think a discussion of fire hazards actually is entirely relevant to the bill under discussion. I realize that several members in the course of their remarks have referred in passing to the fixe 67509-212
National Housing Act
hazard in connection with housing. I do not wish to be unduly harsh with the hon. member who has the floor, but he has indicated he intends to spend a certain amount of time on fire hazards, and I think if he does so he will be departing from the principle of the bill.


Frederick George Hahn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your statement very much. I shall not read the letter. Instead, I will draw the attention of the minister to this fact, that the legislation does cover the renovation of houses and there are certain conditions that have to be taken care of. One of them has to do with the fire hazard. The fire hazard must be taken very careful note of.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that you find it is improper for me to read this missive, but I may refer to a graph this man has prepared as the result of certain questions he had me put on the order paper so he could get a true picture of the fire situation in Canada today. I may say that this honourable gentleman-I believe I can say he is honourable-has taken it upon himself to show how fires have increased. He has tried to analyse the statistics and has come to the only possible conclusion, that these fires have occurred as a result of the faulty construction in our homes today.
For instance, he takes each of the various provinces and his graph shows explicitly that the fire hazard in this country remained at a fairly constant level from 1926 to 1937. From 1937 on the number of fires in each province mounted. The reason for that was that people who built homes during the depression did not have sufficient finances available to put proper equipment in them, and today that equipment must be changed. The electrical equipment, outlets and other wiring, were of such a nature that they were not heavy enough to carry the load. Let me quote some of the figures I have here. We find an increase in all Canada from approximately 13 deaths per million to a maximum of 40 deaths per million in the years 1951 and 1952.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Again I am sorry to rise but I really feel, having heard the hon. member for several minutes now, that he is directing his attention to fire hazards and fire protection, whereas we should be directing our attention to the principle of the bill which, as the hon. member can readily see, deals with amendments to the National Housing Act. I hope the hon. member will co-operate with me in dwelling more particularly on the principle of the bill.


Frederick George Hahn: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I know I am not supposed to refer at this stage to the clauses of the bill but

National Housing Act
I would point out that clause 1 which repeals paragraph 16 of section 2 of the act and substitutes a new paragraph therefor reads in part as follows:
(16) "home extension loan" means a loan or a purchase of obligations representing loans or advances of money made before the first day of July, 1956, by a bank or approved instalment credit agency for the purpose of financing the alteration of, or the making of additions to, an existing home . . .
I contend, sir, that if you change the wiring in a house you are certainly making alterations to it. If I may proceed, I only have ten provinces to deal with and it will not take me long to put on the record these findings in respect of fires.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must realize that the length of time or otherwise is not an element. I am here to attempt to enforce the rules of the house and, as I said, the remarks he has been making are directed more to fire hazards, in my opinion, than to housing. If he wants to dwell on alterations to houses or the building of houses, certainly I am not going to prevent him; but I really feel that to deal as he has been doing, with the question of fire hazards and fire prevention is not relevant to this discussion.


Charles Edward Johnston: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that you have referred to the construction of houses and the bill deals particularly with renovating houses. There is a clause which deals with that matter. I suggest there is nothing more pertinent to the construction of houses and their renovation than how the wiring is installed and the general construction of the renovation, and to discuss these matters certainly should be in order. I would think it would be far more in order than to talk about houses being built in Germany.
The hon. member for New Westminster is dealing particularly with the legislation and showing how these renovations should take place. If you bar an hon. member from speaking about the methods that are to be employed, what use is there in discussing the legislation? I would think the hon. member would be entirely in order.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, in my own province we find there are a goodly number of houses which are very inadequate. I have seen these homes when I have had the task of delivering groceries to some of them. Most of the flooring was nothing like typical flooring as you and I understand it in our homes today. It was merely-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: A wigwam.


Frederick George Hahn: The hon. member for Kootenay East is quite right when he says it would
(Mr. Hahn.]
possibly have been better in a wigwam. I interpret his remarks as meaning that. Many of these areas have typical tarpaper shacks which are nothing but fire traps. If we are going to provide adequate facilities so we will not continue this increase in the death rate by fire from 10 per million to 40 per million, as has happened in the past 20 years, then I say it is most necessary that the act should be changed to let these people make use of the property they already own on which to build a home, because they have a right to own a home even as you and I.
As I indicated earlier, it does not matter which of these people we speak about in this fair dominion. The fact remains that we have thousands and thousands of homes which are not habitable in the true sense of the word, or places in which we should expect ordinary Canadians to live. It does not matter whether you go to the province of Alberta, where their fire losses have increased from 10 persons per million in 1937 to 51 or so per million in 1952. These things must be taken note of by this government. These are the hovels in which these senior citizens of this country live.
Why do they live in them? Because as I indicated in an earlier debate, when I pointed out the situation through the figures of the dominion bureau of statistics, those figures showed that it required $6.94 per week for one of these individuals to live. That would be some $30 per month. That allowed them only $10 a month for habitation and clothing as well. That is quite impractical. How can we as citizens of this country expect any of them to live on in these homes or so-called homes when for all practical purposes they are nothing more than virtual hovels.
I would again urge the minister to look into the possibility of whether it is not possible to get the research departments working at finding some means whereby we can build a cheaper home suitable for these senior citizens and those who are in need.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have this week received from my constituency two letters which have a bearing on this bill. I should like to put at least part of them on the record as I think they would be of constructive interest to the minister. They call attention to what, to my mind, is a weakness in the act which could be rectified. If this were done it would not only strengthen the act but would help these people mentioned by the last two hon. members who have spoken, namely the old age pensioners and those in the lower income groups, to get homes.

There is a group that is entirely ignored in the present act. I refer to those people who are still single, namely bachelors, spinsters, widows and widowers. There is no provision for a collective home for that group of people. I think this group should have special consideration under the act. In Oliver, British Columbia, the citizens realized the difficulty in getting proper accommodation, especially under the National Housing Act. They therefore got together and devised a scheme whereby they would provide a home for the senior citizens, and one worthy of the name. I have a letter from the Oliver and district senior citizens' society in which attention is drawn to what they think the federal government should do to assist them. They say:
What we do ask is that the federal government should permit a grant or loan under the National Housing Act equal to one-third of the cost of building, that loan to be at a low interest rate and repayable over a long period. Three and a half or four per cent per annum could be termed a low interest rate as things stand today.
Then further down they go on to say that the community's share of this building is one-third, which is practically collected now and the provincial government is donating a third toward the building as a gift. The community feel that the federal government should at least come through with a third of the amount in the form of a loan at a low interest rate, but under the act as it stands there is no provision for that. I think this group of citizens should be taken care of, and I think the government is being let off the hook fairly easily when they have the provincial government putting up a third, the community a third, and they are only asked to lend a third. I suggest to the minister that the plight of the single people of Canada be given consideration.
Under this scheme in Oliver they will have a housekeeper. The unit cost of looking after the old age pensioner will be considerably reduced because he will be in one building, with one heating system and one system of operation-cooking and everything else-instead of about 20 separate little shacks or separate homes in which they live at the present time. Not only would their cost of living be cheaper per individual but it could be a real blessing for these people, because some medical care would be given to them. They would enjoy home comforts. More than everything else, what old people need is companionship. Such a home would provide companionship.
I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver South mention something similar that was already in operation in Sweden, where rent is $4 a month. If they can do that in that part of the world, I am satisfied that we 67509-212j
National Housing Act
in Canada could do something similar. But here is a start at little cost to the government; in fact it is at no cost at all. It merely means changing the act to allow a loan to be made to this co-operative community effort. It is a non-profitable organization. The profits that accrue, if any, go back into the home in the way of comforts and a better standard of living.
I think this is an ideal way for the smaller towns of Canada, whether they are in British Columbia or in Ontario, to house these people. I believe we should encourage community efforts of that type, where a community shows the initiative of getting the idea, getting the funds, and shows a real sympathy for their old people and a desire to provide them with a decent home. I know the municipalities will help, but they are hard-pressed and there is a limit to what they can do. Hence in the case of Oliver the municipality has turned the matter over to the citizens, and they are taking the part that is normally taken by the municipality. I would urge the minister to consider changing the act in order to provide that loans of that type could be made available to these communities.
The other letter to which I referred comes from the reeve of Summerland, a very prosperous little town in British Columbia and similar to several other towns in our province. We are not seriously troubled with blighted areas. Probably the towns are too new for that. We have small areas that we tabulate as blighted areas; nevertheless, there are areas that could in time develop into blighted areas if we do not prevent their growth. To this end the government could give substantial help directed toward seeing that proper town planning is carried out, and that funds are available to carry out those plans.
In the case of Summerland there is an undeveloped area that can be bought fairly cheaply and developed at a reasonable price, provided the facilities are available such as water, light and so on, which the municipality would be obliged to supply. That is the problem with respect to the municipality taking part in this scheme. They are hard pressed for money, and unless some help is given them they cannot take part in it.
I should like to read part of what the reeve has to say. They are hoping to get enough money to develop domestic water, which will be a self-liquidating project, of course. At present if they served this district with water the cost would be prohibitive and they could not afford to give the service. But if, as he points out, they were able to borrow

National Housing Act
money from the government under the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act at 2 per cent they would be able to carry on. Then he goes on to say this:
You are most likely aware of the town planning group in Ottawa and the efforts in the various provinces. This is largely building for the future. With the abundance of space in Canada this group is endeavouring to establish less crowded cities and towns.
However, once we spread out a residental area we increase the costs. It is useless being idealistic on one hand and not practical with money resources on the other. In other words if the federal cabinet believes in town planning they could assist the municipalities considerably if aid under the Municipal Improvement Assistance Act were made available only for improvements to new areas.
That is the message I have to give to the minister from both these organizations; that he give careful consideration to assisting the municipalities to take care of their pensionable old age people and in the development of new areas. I am satisfied we could get some action if he would take up with the cabinet the reopening of this Municipal Improvements Assistance Act to make 2 per cent money available, because about two years ago the Minister of Finance intimated that he was not against the reopening of the act if the desire was there. I can assure you that the desire is there, and the reopening of the act would help develop the areas I referred to which are now handicapped because the municipalities cannot impose upon their inhabitants the heavy penalty of costly money for developing new areas.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melforl):: I feel that I must not let this opportunity pass without once again saying something about housing for senior citizens, which comes under section 16 of the National Housing Act. I should like to refer to the comment made a short time ago by the hon. member for Vancouver South, when he suggested that some of the sections of the act were being modified and improved. Certainly this is one section of the act which, rather than being improved, is a step backward.
I feel that we in this country, as in possibly a good many other places, have failed to accept our responsibility toward our senior citizens. I am sure that the least we can do is say to them, "If you are prepared to pay rent for decent housing we shall provide the money with which to build the decent kind of housing you deserve". That is all the senior citizens are asking from us. They say, "You provide the housing and we will pay for it through rentals each month". Surely, we can at least accept our responsibilities to these people who have given so much, who have pioneered this country over the years.
(Mr. Jones.]	-	_ j J [
i pointed out recently, and I am not going to refer to what I said during the resolution stage, that under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation we in Saskatchewan are going ahead at a very fast pace in erecting low-rental housing for our senior citizens. I was very much disappointed to learn that, because of the very small change in the act, the new provisions will not permit other provinces to follow the example of Saskatchewan. I think I am correct in saying that during the last year Saskatchewan has had 30 or so housing projects under way, and there are a great many other communities who want to go ahead with similar projects by forming limited dividend companies to provide housing for their senior citizens.
I am in favour of this type of housing for our senior citizens. I do not believe in taking our senior citizens away, as is done in some cases, and placing them in so-called institutions where they are cut off from friends and relatives and forced to live under circumstances which add nothing to their comfort or welfare. The type of project provided under section 16 is admirable in that respect.
When he spoke recently the minister agreed that Saskatchewan had done a very good job in this respect. The only difference is that Saskatchewan is able to provide adequate hostel accommodation for the remaining consorts. It is the degree of occupancy that means the difference between going ahead with these projects for self-contained units and not going ahead with them. I am sure there has been a great deal of interest shown throughout this country and the United States in what has been accomplished in my own province. As a matter of fact, the chairman of the subcommittee on housing of the committee on banking and commerce of the House of Representatives in the United States has been communicating with the department of social welfare in Saskatchewan asking for full details as to what we are attempting to do there in conjunction with loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They are showing a great deal of interest' in that. It is unfortunate that other provinces in this country are not able to go ahead on the same basis. It is equally unfortunate that after June 31 of this year even the province of Saskatchewan will not be able to continue with this type of housing.
The other evening when I questioned the minister concerning this problem he said he was satisfied that the new act was going to be fair and would meet what he believed to be the particular conditions that existed. I should like, for a moment, to tell you something about this operation in my own province. It is all very well, Mr. Speaker, to say

that you are going to provide housing for senior citizens to enable two aged people, a man and his wife, to move into a house, but what are you going to do about the remaining consort? Are you going to say that person can continue living in the house or that he or she has to find other accommodation?
I suggest that person cannot remain in that self-contained unit, and for a very good reason. We estimate that two people can live in a self-contained unit for somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40 a month, and that of course is the amount of the old age pension. The experience in Saskatchewan proves fairly conclusively that the self-contained unit can be rented for $40 a month and the mortgage to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation can be paid off in 40 years. As I said a day or two ago the 90 per cent, and the long-term low interest rate that is being offered by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for this type of housing, are very generous. However, when one of the partners in the marriage dies, then of course you have to still charge $40 per month for the same space, and certainly the money cannot be forthcoming if the remaining consort is to exist on his pension.
So we have been able to convince the government that if they will allow us to build, in conjunction with the self-contained units, hostel accommodation for the remaining consorts, one hostel bed for each self-contained unit, and we are able' to double up in the use of half the hostel units, we can get by very nicely. We must remember also that the construction costs of the hostel unit are considerable. When you take into consideration that you have to provide cooking facilities, laundry facilities and supervision it adds up to a very considerable expense. However, if we are able to place enough people in the hostel units we believe we can rent those hostel units for something in the neighbourhood of from $55 to $60 a month, and so the proposition becomes feasible. But under the act as it now stands-and it is going to aPPly in the province of Saskatchewan after June 31 of this year-we find that in spite of the optimism expressed by the minister the other evening, instead of one hostel bed for one self-contained unit, we are only going to be allowed to build one hostel bed unit for every two self-contained units.
What does that mean? It simply means that eventually you are going to have two people vying for one bed in the hostel unit. On top of that, the act stipulates quite clearly that 50 per cent of the hostel units must be left vacant in the event that this 50 per cent will be needed for remaining consorts some time in the future. So you
National Housing Act
have the fantastic situation of a very elaborate and costly hostel set-up with five people in it.
For instance, you build 20 self-contained units, but under the act you can have only 10 hostel bedrooms. If you are to allow only one bed in each hostel bedroom, as the act calls for, and if you have to leave 50 per cent of the hostel bedrooms empty, you will be asking five people to pay through monthly rental the whole cost of that hostel project in order to pay off the mortgage to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The unfair part of it is this. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is not prepared to lend money to a limited dividend company for the hostel project unless the mortgage is underwritten and guaranteed by the province. When the province is asked to guarantee the mortgage for a hostel type project I fail to understand why Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation should have any hesitancy whatsoever in allowing ample provision to be made for single people to go into that project.
I was very disappointed to learn that instead of carrying on on even a limited basis of one hostel unit for one self-contained unit we now find-and of course it was in the act previously-that a limited dividend company is allowed to build only one hostel unit for every two self-contained units. That, of course, makes the whole proposition completely untenable.
I hope that before we get through with this legislation the minister will give the greatest consideration to broadening the terms and making it easier for people in the communities throughout this country to make some reasonable attempt to do something for the senior citizens so that during their declining years they may be able to have some of the amenities of life which they have not been able to obtain for themselves prior to this time.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will conclude the debate.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, it will take me perhaps fewer than 10 minutes to conclude if the house is prepared to have me go on.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the minister unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Henry Winters: First of all I would like to thank all hon. members who took part in

National Housing Act
this debate today. One thing did seem clear, namely that almost everybody, if not everybody, thought the legislation had merit. The only difference was in the degree of merit they associated with this measure. I think even those who did not see much in it at least conceded it was a step in the right direction and asserted that if we kept going in that direction long enough and far enough we would achieve the goal which I said was the Liberal aim, namely to provide adequate housing for every Canadian.


Alfred Claude Ellis: If we live long enough.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member for Eglinton as usual gave a speech for which he had done his homework very well. He raised some very good points. I do not propose to deal with them at length, but they were points that deserve an answer and I shall endeavour to say a few words on them.
He remarked about the fact that the average income of qualifiers under the National Housing Act has gone up. He quoted from Canadian Housing Statistics, fourth quarter, 1955, published by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which states on page 5 that whereas in 1954 the average income per family was $5,065, in 1955 it had gone up to $5,207. In explanation of that I will say that, as the hon. member will recall, in 1954 the statute was changed and, among other things, it provided for a lower down payment. That, too, is reflected in the same paragraph which shows that the average down payment was $2,821 in 1955 as compared with $2,993 in 1954, while on the other hand it refers to the fact that the gross debt went up in those two years from $918 to $934.
But by way of explaining the higher family income required I should say that at the same time the down payment was decreased the total amount of the loan was increased from $10,000 to $12,800 a unit, which pretty automatically means that the incomes of families qualifying for the higher loans are at higher levels. A reference to pages 21 and 22 of the same publication will clearly demonstrate what I mean.
Table No. 30 on page 21 shows that prior to 1954 there were no loans at all over $10,000, whereas in 1955 there were 26,245 loans over $10,000 which brings up, of course, the average level of loans and the average income required to qualify for those loans. If the hon. member will refer to page 22, table 32, he will see that the loans have increased all across the board. More people on low incomes qualified for loans, and, of course, more people in high income brackets qualified for loans. While in 1954 only one person with an income under $2,000 qualified,

in 1955 the corresponding figure was 15; between $2,000 and $2,999 the figures for 1954 and 1955 are 252 and 475, respectively. All throughout those income groups the number of loans has increased in those two years. In the group $10,000 and over, in 1954 the total number was 633, and in 1955, 1,249. So I think mathematically it is quite easy to demonstrate that while the average family income required to qualify for a loan went up, both at the higher end and at the lower end, there was a much broader band of Canadians qualified. That in itself is one of the reasons we were able to achieve a record number of houses built in 1955.
My hon. friend again raised the question as to why the interest rate had to be increased recently from 5] to 5J per cent. I think there was doubt in the hon. member's mind as to whether this was done as a deterrent to a high level of house building. Again may I assure him that that was not the case. This was simply an effort to attract to the market sufficient mortgage money to achieve a high level of house building. We could have kept the rate of interest at 5 J per cent, but we would not have built a sufficient number of houses. I suppose you could carry that to the extreme and say that 100,000 houses with interest at 5J per cent is better than no houses with interest at 5 per cent. We set the rate at a level which would attract money to the market.
The hon. member thought that we were relying too heavily on municipal initiative in the development of housing projects. There again I think perhaps I have more confidence in the municipal level of government than he and some other hon. members reflected this afternoon. I shall attempt to give more background on that a little later.
The hon. member questioned the administration of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and I think he had in mind again the Regent Park South development. I am bolstered in that supposition by an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail this morning which rather asserts the same position. Perhaps I could give briefly a few dates and developments in connection with the project to support my argument that there was no undue delay.
On December 15, 1953, the Toronto board of control passed a resolution requesting federal-provincial partnership participation in Regent Park South. Preliminary investigations by the province, the city welfare and treasury departments and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation local officials were completed by August 19, 1954. There were no administrative delays, but considerable

information had to be gathered. In September, 1954, the province was advised of federal approval in principle, subject to certain details being further investigated. A committee consisting of 12 nominees of the province, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the city was then appointed. Families were interviewed, properties appraised and an architectural program was outlined in detail. A report was issued on March 8, 1955.
In April, 1955, the province accepted the report and agreements were immediately negotiated, both for a grant under section 23 and a federal-provincial project under section 36. The agreements were signed in July, 1955. In the meantime the city had initiated expropriation proceedings and architects were appointed. Since then action has proceeded along two parallel lines. The city has been negotiating for and acquiring title to properties. The corporation, through two firms of consulting architects, has been pushing ahead with the design of this $8 million construction project.
There certainly have been no delays in the development of a site plan and building plans. It has been necessary, of course, to consult with the provincial authorities and also with the city, particularly the city's planning board. We are now at the stage where the city may soon be expected to call for tenders for the demolition of the first group of buildings, and as soon as the land is cleared Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be ready to call for tenders for the construction of the first housing units. The time taken to develop plans for a project of this magnitude is not out of line.
I should like to say a few words about the speech by the hon. member for Regina City, who quoted some statements made by my predecessor the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, who did such a magnificent job in housing as he does in all other fields of his activities. The hon. member argued that we had not progressed since that date, but I would remind him of the various changes we have made in the statute, all of which in one form or another have enabled us to go further with our program of public housing. The federal-provincial section 35, now section 36, was put on the statute books in 1949; slum clearance sections were further developed in 1952, and this present bill is to enable us to go further in that direction.
The hon. member also said he did not feel the municipalities could take the initiative and see these projects through. I should like
National Housing Act
to read him a list of a number of municipalities in which there have been subsidized projects for people in the low income brackets. These are:
Newfoundland-St. John's.
New Brunswick-Saint John.
Nova Scotia-Halifax.
Ontario-Amherstburg,	Arnprior, Brockville,
Dunnville, Fort Erie, Galt, Goderich, Midland, Owen Sound, Port Arthur, Renfrew, Sault Ste. Marie, Smith Falls, Stamford.
Saskatchewan-Moose Jaw, Prince Albert.
British Columbia.-Vancouver.
There are other municipalities which have initiated federal-provincial projects, but I will not take the time now to name them. I might say, however, that we have been unsuccessful in developing a project in Regina, where we had high hopes that one would develop. It was put to the ratepayers of Regina, who turned the proposal down for reasons best known to themselves.
The hon. member for Bow River stated that he was fearful that this legislation provided not a means for obtaining loans for house building, but rather a field of investment for the lending institutions. It may be that the lending institutions regard this as a field for sound investment, but at the same time I know he is well aware that had it not been for the lending institutions and the banks who came in under the provisions of the 1954 statute we would not have achieved the high level of house building we have today.
The hon. member for Mackenzie made a rather strange speech in the course of which he stated that he had visited Germany, and advocated that I follow in the steps of Hitler.


Hazen Robert Argue: Nonsense.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I know the minister wants to be fair. I said that housing was one of the methods that Schacht had recommended when he took over the presidency of the reichstag in the early thirties and the ministry in charge of housing and road construction. Those were two of the things which Hitler did in Germany, but I certainly did not suggest that the minister should in any way mimic Hitler.


Robert Henry Winters: It seemed to me that was the logical conclusion for one to draw when the hon. member said that much of the success achieved by Hitler in Germany was due to the high level of housing that he had been able to attain there. I am just wondering what will happen if he takes a trip to Russia.
Then the hon. member told us about activities in other countries which leads me to recall the line from Gilbert and Sullivan,

National Housing Act
which I think I quoted once before and which I think he may remember. The lines are:
He praises with enthusiastic tone Ail centuries, but this, and every country but his own.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Sing it.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member for New Westminster suggested that we do everything we can to find ways of building better and cheaper houses. With that I am fully in accord. We have already set up committees to study that particular problem and are in the process now of establishing an advisory committee of citizens from across the whole country, who will give us the benefit of their advice based on local conditions, in an endeavour to use Canadian materials and resources to the best advantage in building cheaper houses and better houses, having in mind as well the very serious fire problem that he raised.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Hamilton South and the hon. member for Vancouver South for the very splendid and constructive contributions they made to the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-"Home extension loan".
Progress reported.

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take the estimates of public works and agriculture, and on Monday our supply motion.


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

[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. Dufresne: 1.	Who was awarded the contract for the construction of the drill hall at Drummondville, Quebec, and at what price?
2.	What are the names of those who tendered and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	How much did the drill hall cost when completed?
Answer by: Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Defence Production:
1. John F. Wickenden Company, Limited, Three Rivers, Quebec, in the amount of $265,600, plus the assignment of the contract for the structural steel in the amount of $18,654, a total of $284,254.
Question
2.
Contractor	Amount of tender
John F. Wickenden Company,
Limited	 $265,600
Newton Construction Co. Ltd.,
Sherbrooke, Quebec	 268,551
Benjamin Robidas, Drummondville, Quebec	 270,000
Yvon L'Heureux, Beloeil Station,
Quebec	 274,657
Albert Biron, Drummondville,
Quebec	 279,987
The Tower Company, Limited,
Montreal, Quebec	 321,300
R. E. Stewart Construction Co.,
Ltd., Sherbrooke, Quebec ....	332,005
3. Additional work was added to this contract after the award resulting in a final cost of $307,812.

Friday, April 27, 1956