1957-12-17

Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to inform the house that an arrangement has been worked out under which the directors of the Howe Sound Mining Company have agreed to keep the Britannia mine open on a reduced operating basis for a further period, which it is hoped will be at least six months. The parties to the arrangement are the dominion government, the government of British Columbia, the company and the mine workers. I am informed that a telegram has accordingly been sent from New York this morning to the mine management at Britannia.
As the house knows, for some weeks we have been holding discussions with the company, the men and the provincial government to see what could be done to avoid a shutdown of the mine with the disastrous consequence which would follow for the 700 men and their families who would have been thrown out of work as a result. It should be emphasized in fairness to the company that at no time have they ever either directly or indirectly sought governmental assistance or intervention. They have, however, shown throughout a highly commendable readiness to postpone a shut-down which their own experts urged them to make in order to carry on discussions in an effort to arrive at a solution which will keep the men at work notwithstanding that they were and still are incurring substantial losses.
At the time these discussions commenced the hope was to keep all the men at work. However, on December 3 the company advised that a further recommendation had been received from their consultants, as a result of which their directors had no option but to decide that it would be in effect an abuse of their property and a breach of their responsibility as directors to continue full scale mining operations under present conditions. We were, therefore, faced with a decision of the company that, effective today, these operations would be discontinued.
They were prepared, however, to consider an arrangement to continue operating on a
reduced scale if some assistance were forthcoming. This arrangement involves a complete reorganization of their operations, but will provide for the continued employment of between 350 and 400 personnel.
Although we were naturally disappointed that it was no longer possible to keep all the men at work, it was still most desirable to do everything possible to keep something over half of them in employment. I am very happy to be able to say that this has now been achieved.
The company has agreed, on the assurance that the assistance detailed later will be forthcoming, that it will reorganize its operations and continue work on the property in order to provide employment for between 350 and 400 personnel, thus avoiding a lay-off of the whole working force at a time of year when it would be virtually impossible for them to secure alternative work.
A substantial part of the company's operating cost is incurred in the expense of operation and maintenance of their townsite and the provision of services to the houses occupied by their employees, all of which are owned by the company. It is our thought, therefore, that the contribution of government should be founded on the basis of assistance in meeting these costs of supplying and servicing accommodation. On this basis, it has been agreed that if the two governments will provide a total of $20,000 per month for up to six months the company will continue its operations on the reduced scale referred to, and will continue to provide accommodation for the 350 to 400 personnel employed for such period as may be practicable.
As regards the amount of assistance to be provided by each government, it has been agreed that, if parliament approves, 80 per cent will be paid by the dominion government and 20 per cent by the government of British Columbia. I should say that the exact figure of percentage is subject to confirmation which we expect to receive very shortly, but it will be very close to the figure I have just mentioned. The men have already made, and will continue to make, a substantial contribution toward helping to solve this problem. The company will continue to incur substantial losses in the immediate future.
The government recognizes that what is proposed is unusual, but this is an unusual situation. Here is an industry in an isolated

Labour Conditions
locality, all of whose workers live in a company-operated and company-owned town. If the mine were to close now, not only would the employees be unable at this time of year to secure alternative employment but they and their families would be without accommodation. It is true that the plan which is proposed to keep the mine open for a few months involves only about one-half the workers, but it may nevertheless be possible -and this has yet to be worked out-to find some method of providing winter accommodation during the remainder of these winter months for those who unfortunately will have to be released from work.
This plan will thus not only maintain men and their families in employment and accommodation over the winter months when there would otherwise be no hope of finding alternatives for either, but also marks a unique co-operative effort to find a solution to a pressing problem, with contributions being made from four sources; the two governments, the men and the company.
With regard to the company, I should like to emphasize that for the last several months the mine has been operating at a loss of between $60,000 and $80,000 a month. Even with the assistance now to be provided and work being continued on a reduced scale, losses will continue to be substantial. It seems to me that the board of directors and the management are due a sincere expression of gratitude for their contribution in agreeing to keep the mine open under these conditions.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the government will in the very near future be submitting a specific proposal to parliament to authorize the payment of $16,000 a month, or such other proportionate amount as will finally be agreed to with the province of British Columbia, toward defraying a portion of the costs of keeping the Britannia mine open for a period of up to six months.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: May I ask
the minister a supplementary question. Are these payments contingent on the price of copper remaining at the same level, or will there be a provision that if the world price of copper rises then these payments from public funds will cease?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The payments are not contingent on the price of copper remaining at a fixed level. The government has indicated its willingness to enter into a commitment for up to six months. The company has entered into a commitment to keep operating for as long as may be practicable. If the price of copper should fall I would assume the company would have another look at the situation.

If the price of copper should rise, then I would assume that the need for assistance will be proportionately lessened, but that would be a matter for further negotiation.


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: May I ask a
supplementary question. I note that the minister said that assistance will be given by the government particularly with respect to housing the workers of Britannia mine. Will the government give similar assistance to the workers in the automobile factories of Windsor, who as of last week numbered about 16,000?


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a supplementary question. If the hon. member would like to have it answered I will call orders of the day and we will take the question as having been repeated. Does the minister wish to deal with it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of course I cannot speak for the government on a general proposition of that nature. I was entrusted by my colleagues with the responsibility of negotiating some arrangement whereby we might enable these men to continue in employment for the winter. As I have pointed out, the situation here was that if there was closure of the mine not only would there be discontinuance of employment but there would be men thrown out of accommodation in an isolated community a week before Christmas. It was with that unique situation in mind that we have been able to find a solution to that particular problem.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Will the minister then give assurance that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will not dispossess a great many of our automobile workers?


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to ask the minister a question related to the statement he just made. Does the minister expect to be able to make an early announcement regarding what will be done about ensuring that those who are not remaining in the employ of the company for the time being will be able to continue to reside in the houses they now occupy?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that is a matter which is still under consideration, and as soon as any solution of that problem has been found we will be glad to announce it right away.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Does the minister anticipate that something will be settled soon with regard to that matter?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can only say in answer to that question that we are quite aware of the emergent nature of the situation and will treat it as such to the best of our ability.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to advise the house that I have just been handed a copy of a telegram received in my office, which advises me that the provincial government of British Columbia confirm that they are prepared to share in the cost of keeping the Britannia mine open on a temporary basis to the extent of 20 per cent up to a maximum of $30,000. On the basis of the figures so far available to me I am satisfied that the maximum would not be reached and that therefore we can expect a 20 per cent contribution from the province of British Columbia.

On the orders of the day:


Donald Ferguson Brown: May I direct a question to the Minister of Justice and another to the Minister of Public Works. First of all may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can he tell us whether the operations of the Britannia mine are carried on in his constituency?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, acting in my capacity as a member of the government, I regard myself as having a responsibility to the whole dominion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East.


Donald Ferguson Brown: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works.


Mr. Speaker:: Afterwards; I have recognized the hon. member for St. John's East.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: In view of the announcement made earlier by the Minister of Justice, will the minister advise the house whether a similar policy will be adopted by the government for other minerals such as zinc and lead, which are facing a problem similar to that of the Britannia mine and which today affect very seriously my own constituency of Gloucester and other areas in northern New Brunswick?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps my answer to that question must be somewhat the same as the answer I gave a little earlier, namely that I was entrusted by my colleagues with the responsibility of negotiating in the particular case of the Britannia mines. I am therefore unable to give a general answer to such a question, except that I know I can speak for my colleagues when I say, as I think we have demonstrated, that we are fully aware of the serious consequences of unemployment and that we are determined to
Inquiries of the Ministry take every action within our power to meet and to prevent unemployment from arising.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Then may I ask a supplementary question. As the Minister of Justice does not seem to be in a position to answer the question, could the question be answered by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois), since it comes directly under his jurisdiction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has had a reply to his question, and I do not think he can repeat the question to another member of the government.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour based on the unemployment figures released at ten o'clock this morning by his department and by the dominion bureau of statistics.
In view of the alarming increase in unemployment and the corresponding decrease in the employment figures, and in view of the interest the government has shown, through the announcement made today by the Minister of Justice, in doing something about unemployment, can the minister say whether the government is taking any steps to speed up the winter employment program to which the Minister of Labour made reference in the house on November 20?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can assure the hon. member as well as the house that we are continually, each and every day of the week, trying to push this winter program as quickly as possible. We are trying to interest all people, including organizations, municipal bodies and provincial governments, in participating in promoting winter employment. The result, of course, remains to be seen when the time arrives in the spring.



LEAD AND ZINC-INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TAKEN TO PROTECT CANADIAN INTERESTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask an "in view" question of the almost "out of view" Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, but before doing so I want to bring to the attention of the house what unity amongst British Columbia members can do and also how commendable it is that the agreement respecting Britannia

Inquiries of the Ministry mine has been arrived at as the result of concessions by all parties concerned.
My "in view" question is this. In view of the serious threat to the economy of the base metals industry in the proposed increase in the tariff on lead and zinc entering the United States; in view of the increasing concern of the one-third of the employees of the industry who face the dire possibility of losing their jobs early in the new year, and in view of the fact that it now appears that only the strongest diplomatic pressure will persuade the United States government against action to increase these tariffs, will the minister inform the house of the definitive steps being taken by the government to protect Canadian interests?


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I received a copy of this question just a few minutes ago. I have already answered a question on this point, I think from the hon. member for Kootenay East. I shall look into it further to see whether anything could be usefully added to what I have already said as to representations being made.



U.S. RESTRICTIONS ON CANADIAN EXPORTS TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister now prepared to answer the question which was posed on Friday, December 13, respecting shipments to the republic of China? There were two notices of motions then.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No. I will have to take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.



REPORTED PURCHASE OF 1,500,000 BUSHELS BY AUSTRALIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce took as notice a question regarding the possible export of Canadian wheat to Australia. Can the minister now say that negotiations have been concluded with Australia, or at what stage negotiations are; or can the minister say how much wheat may be exported to Australia in this regard?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The answer is that I have no further information on this than I had the other day, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Herridge.l



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the increased use of the Hudson bay route, is the government considering expansion of the wharfage facilities which it is reported limit the use of the port of Churchill?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. I might, first of all, say that berthage space at Churchill was enlarged this year to accommodate coastal vessels at a cost of approximately a quarter of a million dollars, and I am advised by the national harbours board that during the past season the facilities were quite adequate to accommodate the traffic.
Any future development of the port will be made known in the usual way through submission by the government of recommendations to parliament.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday last the hon. members for Burnaby-Coquitlam and Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare raised the matter as to which provinces had signed agreements with the federal government to provide for the recent increases in old age assistance benefits. I am now in a position to give the house the following information.
Seven provinces have signed agreements, effective November 1, 1957, with the federal government in connection with increases in benefits provided not only under the Old Age Assistance Act but also under the Blind Persons Act and the Disabled Persons Act. These provinces are British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I have been informed that four of these seven provinces- New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan-actually paid the increased benefits in November. Another, Nova Scotia, apparently provided the increases in some cases, but the majority will be paid later with effect, of course, from November 1. I might point out that since these three programs are administered by the provinces, the latter have the responsibility for deciding when the increases are actually implemented.

As far as the remaining provinces are concerned, my department has received a verbal communication from the province of Quebec indicating its intention to share in the increased payments under these programs, and Newfoundland has also telegraphed its agreement. We have as yet received no communication from Prince Edward Island in this regard.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, of which I have given him notice. Can the minister tell us what is the cause of the delay in proceeding with the federal-provincial housing projects announced several years ago for the city of St. John's? The second part of my question, sir, is: can the minister inform the house when a start is likely to be made with these projects?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. There are two projects in mind for the city of St. John's.
One project consists of 46 subsidized housing units, which is to be built on land in the central area of the city which has been cleared with the aid of a federal grant of $15,000 under section 23 of the National Housing Act. The site is part of a larger area which has been earmarked for redevelopment.
The other project consists of approximately 155 subsidized rental housing units. Tenders were called late in 1956. One bid only was received. It was rejected, as it was too high in relation to the original estimate. Ever since that time further proceeding with respect to those two projects has been withheld at the request of the government of Newfoundland.



WINDSOR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Essex West now. I just wanted to have an interval in order to make it clear that an hon. member could not stake out a claim for a second question by mentioning it when he was asking his first one.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Ferguson Brown: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In doing so, may I commend the Minister of Justice for this very laudable attitude of representing-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Donald Ferguson Brown: If hon. members do not want me to compliment the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, that is quite all right. I wished to commend the Minister of Justice for his farsightedness in representing all of Canada. Now may I ask the Minister of Public Works if he will recommend to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that similar assurances be given to the tenants of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the Windsor area that they will not be dispossessed because of unemployment?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, last week some of the members of the cabinet had the privilege of meeting with Mayor Patrick of Windsor and the mayors and reeves of other municipalities in the Windsor metropolitan area. In the course of that meeting His Worship pointed out to me that there was some question of eviction actions being taken by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Windsor. I promised him that the matter would be looked into at once, and that if any such actions were being taken, they would be stopped. That was done last week.



MANITOBA-REQUEST FOR HOUSE CONSTRUCTION ON INDIAN RESERVES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: May I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the urgent need for suitable houses on Indian reserves in the province of Manitoba, is the minister prepared to recommend a winter program for the construction of suitable houses on Indian reserves as part of the winter employment program referred to by the Minister of Labour?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of my recollection we do have provision for a house construction program in the estimates, and I believe a portion is allocated to Manitoba. It was not, I believe, conceived as a special winter program, but I am very grateful to the hon. member for his suggestion and will certainly take it up at once with the officials of the department.

Inquiries of the Ministry BRIDGES



CAMPBELLTON-CROSS POINT    ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resiigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister inform the house if the government of the province of Quebec has now joined with the government of the province of New Brunswick in accepting in writing this government's proposal to build the Campbell-ton-Cross Point bridge?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been a very persistent advocate of action in connection with the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge, and I am very pleased to tell him today that the province of Quebec has now agreed to co-operate with the province of New Brunswick and with the federal government in order that this bridge may be built.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport, a copy of which was sent to him yesterday. Could the minister advise the house as to any proposed shipbuilding program presently planned by the Department of Transport, and as to when such a program will become operative?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


George Harris Hees: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice yesterday of his intention to ask this question, and I have the following reply:
Early in January we are going to call for tenders for the construction of six ships totalling in cost approximately $10 million. These will be as follows: A supply and buoy vessel, also fitted to carry out search and rescue work, for use on the west coast. A supply and buoy vessel, also designed for icebreaking, to be used on the Atlantic coast, gulf of St. Lawrence, northern and other waters where necessary.
Two supply and buoy vessels to replace existing ships at present on duty in the maritimes. A lightship for the St. Lawrence river. A work vessel and tug for use by the St. Lawrence ship channel division.
In addition to the foregoing new construction, the Department of Transport will also call for tenders early in January for the conversion of two L.C.T.8's to fit them for

the transportation and handling of dry cargo and bulk fuel for the Foxe basin D.E.W. line sites. At present one of these vessels is in the maritimes and the other on the St. Lawrence. The approximate cost of converting these two vessels is expected to be about $1 million. Also, about the end of the first week in February my department will call for tenders for the construction of a small ferry to operate between Pelee island and the mainland.
I should like to add that the labour content of these projects I have just listed is approximately 3i million man hours for Canadian workers. Contracts should be let about five to six weeks after tender calls, that is during February, for all but one of these vessels, and orders for materials and other work placed immediately thereafter. In placing contracts, account will be taken of the desirability of spreading this work among various shipyards, and of the promptness with which the work can be undertaken by the various shipyards so as to assist winter employment.


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Following the explanation given by the Minister of Transport, could he tell the house that the same program was prepared, as were the plans, by the previous government?


George Harris Hees: If there is any credit due to
the previous government I would be very glad to give it.


Maurice Bourget: Why did you not say so?


George Harris Hees: I think the important thing
to all hon. members of this house and to the workingmen of this country is that the program is going ahead now.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingale):: I would like, if I might, to ask
the minister a supplementary question. Is it proposed that the government of Canada should operate the ferry between Pelee island and the mainland?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the present plans are that we will call for tenders for an operator of the ferry.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport arising out of his statement about a ship being constructed for use on the Atlantic seaboard and northern waters. Will this ship be employed to service bell buoys and light and whistle buoys in Newfoundland waters, or is the construction of another ship being contemplated for that service?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would speak to me afterwards I will give him the full details as to what these various ships are going to do.



IRON ORE COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday the hon. member for Saguenay asked if the Minister of Transport had approved a directive given by the Iron Ore Company of Canada to the effect that English will be the only official language used for railway operation on the railway between Seven Islands and Scheffer-ville.
The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no. The Quebec, North Shore and Labrador Railway comes under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners and consequently is subject to any regulations laid down by the board under the provisions of the Railway Act as enacted by parliament. I am advised that the board has, on the application of the company, approved the use of the uniform code of operating rules. This is the rule book used by the major railways all across the country ever since there has been uniformity in railway operation in Canada.



ST. BONIFACE, MAN.    REFERENCE TO ACCIDENT AT LEVEL CROSSING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Denisel (Si. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport of which I believe he has already received notice. It has to do with a railway line crossing the Windsor park community in the city of St. Boniface, Manitoba. Having regard to the near catastrophic accident which occurred at a level crossing on this railway line last Friday, the 13th, would the minister give the assurance that he will use his influence with the board of transport commissioners in order that they may make the necessary regulations to try to avoid similar or even worse accidents?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister wants to deal with the question I will resume my seat, but it strikes me as being out of order to ask the government to try to influence the board of transport commissioners, who have the responsibility for dealing with this matter.


Louis Deniset: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question I asked a minute ago, could I simply ask the minister if he will look into the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to be directed to the Acting Prime Minister, of which I gave him notice. Can the minister tell the house if the government has received a request from the government of the United Kingdom for consent, under the tripartite agreement on the peaceful uses of atomic energy, to the publication of information regarding the recent successful laboratory experiments at Harwell in controlled fusion explosions of hydrogen? If so, what was the response of the Canadian government? *


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for sending me notice of this question. The Canadian government has not received any such request from the government of the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the second part of the question is not applicable.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. What consideration, if any, has been given to applying the provisions of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to the province of British Columbia?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the P.F.R.A. did do
some work in British Columbia in years past. It was discontinued something over a year ago, I believe, and no consideration has been given to re-entering the field as far as the P.F.R.A. is concerned in British Columbia.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government through the house leader. I should like to know if the government would not speed up the answers to questions now on the

Inquiries of the Ministry order paper. I am informed that there are some 47 questions that remain unanswered. There are as of today five starred questions that are unanswered, and I am sure there are a number of orders for returns that have not yet been tabled. I think it is customary in the last days before the adjournment for the Christmas recess to ask the government to speed up answers to questions so that hon. members may have the requested information during the recess. I wonder whether or not the house leader would give consideration to this question.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I strongly suspect that hon. members will be busy with other occupations during the Christmas recess and will not be studying these answers to questions. However, we will be glad to bring down just as many as we can. I would point out that there have been 297 questions asked on the order paper, and if only 47 remain unanswered we have answered 250. That is not too bad.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that British Columbia and many other provincial civil servants and hundreds of thousands of other workers have a holiday on December 26, Boxing day, will the government consider granting this holiday to federal civil servants as well?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is probably aware the half day before Christmas and the half day before New Year's have already been granted as half holidays for federal civil servants. Subsequent to that announcement being made a letter came to my desk requesting that Boxing day be made a holiday. Since this would probably have involved recalling the two half days it was thought it was a late date at which to consider the matter for this year. Whether or not any other representations have been made to the civil service commission I could not say at this moment, but it is my opinion that time does not permit of changing the policy for this year.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: You had better change your opinion quickly.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY STATEMENT AS TO EFFECT OF IMPOSITION OF TOLLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Welland asked the following question:
Would the government give consideration to making a proper survey of the effect on our Canadian economy of the proposed tolls on the St. Lawrence seaway? I ask this question having in mind that the tolls set should have no discriminatory effect against Canada or any industry in Canada.
In reply I can assure the hon. member that a desire to achieve the objectives he has mentioned in his question is the very reason why the present committee which is dealing with the seaway tolls is making a very intensive investigation of all aspects of this matter. The members of this committee are fully cognizant of the necessity of having a toll structure which is not discriminatory against Canada or any industry in Canada, and which takes full account of the effect of the proposed tolls on the Canadian economy.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to an inquiry directed to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce on Saturday by the hon. member for Port Arthur as to safety precautions observed during the testing of the Trans-Canada pipe line.
The board of transport commissioners advise that the testing on the Trans-Canada pipe line is made in accordance with section 8 of the American standard code of pressure piping, which requires that during tests suitable steps shall be taken to keep persons not working on the testing operations out of the testing area, and the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines company had adopted the policy of sending their land men ahead of the testing to warn all residents immediately adjacent to the line that they are testing. In cases where people are considered to be living too close to the pipe line for safety the company insists that these people move out until the test has been completed, and pays all bills in connection with their moving.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether since his reply to me on Saturday he has now received representations from farm organizations asking that Bill No. 237 be referred to the agriculture committee? Is the minister prepared to reverse his decision and have the bill referred to that committee after second reading?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I have received two or three telegrams along that line, but I am not prepared to reverse my decision in regard to referring the matter to the agriculture committee.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It arises out of his answer to the hon. member for Assiniboia that he would not consider sending Bill No. 237 to the agriculture committee. In view of the violent reaction against the bill by farm organizations, would the minister consider withdrawing the bill from the order paper, revamping it to meet the requests of the farm organizations, and reintroducing it after the holiday season?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this violent reaction about which the hon. member speaks. It is true that I have had a few telegrams in connection with the bill, but if any action is necessary with regard to revamping the bill I think it can be taken without the necessity of leaving it until the new year.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary
question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was just about to say that the question asked with respect to the bill and the supplementary question both appear to me to be out of order. I would ask hon. members not to ask further questions about the bill, as it will be the subject of debate shortly and they will have ample opportunity to say what they like about it at that time. There seem to be a great many people who want information on other matters today.
Inquiries of the Ministry



MAPLE SYRUP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received a request from l'union catholique des culti-vateurs de Quebec, or any other organization, asking that a support price be applied to maple syrup?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. As a result I was able to have my files searched, but I could find no written communication requesting this action, and I do not recall any having been made verbally.



INQUIRY RE STATUS OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON LAND USE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ovide Laflamme (Bellechasse):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me; I have been attempting for half an hour to rise and address a question. I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister tell the house if the important special committee of the Senate on land use established by the former government will continue to function?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and give an answer tomorrow or the next day.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, December 5, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare asked a question regarding possible action by the government to assist fishermen who have suffered severe storm damage to their lobster traps. I apologize to the hon. member for straining his patience to this extent and for the long delay in answering, but I think he will understand that some inquiry had to be made on the spot, and that takes time.
Officials of the department have investigated the situation locally and reported the estimated extent of the damage to me. As hon. members are aware, this is a recurring problem and these fishermen have the opportunity of insuring their traps against storm damage under the fishermen's indemnity plan. It is reported that 172 fishermen, representing approximately 18 per cent of the total in the affected area, had taken

Inquiries of the Ministry out this insurance. These fishermen are now making claims which will be given immediate attention. In general, losses appear to have averaged some 30 per cent of traps set, although there has been great variation in this average figure. It is also reported that most fishermen have additional traps which were not in the water when the storms occurred. Thus they will be able to carry on fishing despite their losses.
In view of all these facts the government does not consider it necessary to take special action at this time. Any fisherman wishing to protect himself against future possible losses may take advantage of the insurance offered under the indemnity plan. I might add that no request for such action has been received by the department.



CRIMINAL LAW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Benoit Chabot (Kamouraska):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is it the intention of the minister to amend section 150 of the Criminal Code so the definition of the word "obscene" will be more precise, clearer and more definite?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice of his question. I replied to a similar question on October 18, as reported at pages 125 and 126 of Hansard of that date; but since that reply I can say now that the Department of Justice is giving serious consideration to this question, along with consideration it is giving to a number of proposals that have been made for amendments to other sections of the Criminal Code.
It is not possible to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code at this session of parliament. It may be possible to introduce such a bill at the next session. I can assure the hon. member that when such a bill is introduced it will contain any amendments that appear to be necessary to improve the effectiveness of section 150 of the code in preventing the publication, distribution and circulation of obscene literature.
It may be that at that time it will be found desirable to set out in the Criminal Code a new definition of the word "obscene". However, that question can only be determined in conjunction with all the facts that are being considered in connection with other proposals we have received and that have as their objective the making more effective of all the legislation we have dealing with obscene literature.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. B. Paiierson@Fraser Valley: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has any firm agreement yet been reached between the government of Canada and the government of the province of British Columbia for the construction of the Cassiar-Stewart road?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works handed me this notice when I came into the house. I have to speak from memory, but I think it is accurate. There has been no firm agreement signed yet. The minister of mines of British Columbia wrote me near the end of October suggesting four amendments to the agreement, and I wrote back in the first week of November assenting to two of them, I think, and demurring on two others, and that is the last I have heard of it.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, of which he has been given notice. Is his department considering or exploring possible sites for the development of power in British Columbia other than on the Columbia river?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The answer is yes.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Has the present government indicated to the province of British Columbia that it is prepared to enter into an agreement on sharing costs with that province in respect of the building of a dam on the Columbia river?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I can refer to Her Majesty's speech from the throne on October 14. The following statement was included:
My ministers are pressing for a favourable settlement of international problems in connection with

the Columbia river to clear the way for a joint program with the province of British Columbia to develop the immense power in the waters of this river.
I think this statement was ample indication that this government was prepared to consider a joint program with the province of British Columbia. The aid could presumably be financial or otherwise, dependent upon the wishes yet to be made known by British Columbia.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources or to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I am sorry I have not been able to send them notice, and they may wish to take this as notice. Were the Inverness coal fields overlooked in a survey of potential sites for maritime thermal power development? If so, will the minister take steps to rectify this oversight?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice and look up the report to see if that field was overlooked.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth -Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he received a communication from the Halifax master mariners club saying that in their opinion the published reports on the grounding of C.G.S. Baffin have cast rather serious aspersions on the master mariners of our area? If so, is he willing to do now what they are asking, and what I asked him on November 20 last, namely have an investigation or inquiry made under the Canada Shipping Act?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have not received any such communication.


Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: May I ask the minister whether he will take note of the second part of my question and have an investigation made under the Canada Shipping Act?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry



COASTAL TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport seems to be in an even more friendly mood today than usual, and I should like to ask him if he is in a position to give the house any further information with respect to when we may expect that the report of the royal commission on coastal trade will be available for our study.


George Harris Hees: No, I am afraid I do not know.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if, as a result of the conference which I understand was held last week in his department with officials of the departments of health of the various provinces, the minister is in a position to say when we may anticipate some announcement from him with regard to progress being made in concluding agreements with any one of the six consenting provinces respecting hospital insurance?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, great progress was made last week at this technical conference. All I can say at the moment is that the conference is being followed up by further communication.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the minister say whether or not as a result of that conference there is to be a conference of ministers before the reconvening of the dominion-provincial conference, which I understand is anticipated some time in the new year?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I cannot say; not
necessarily.



AMENDMENT OF LEGISLATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a supplementary question. Can he say whether, as a result of the conference held last week to which reference has already been made, he anticipates that legislation amending the Hospital

Inquiries of the Ministry Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act will be presented to parliament at this session?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Only as intimated by the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, to the effect that the six provinces provision will be withdrawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are
discussions under way with the six agreeing provinces or any others concerning the inclusion of mental and tubercular hospitals under the act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: There have been no further discussions other than what took place at the dominion-provincial conference.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the matter may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if we are correct in assuming that the only amendment to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act contemplated by the government is that with regard to the provision of payment where six provinces have schemes in force? Is that the only amendment the government has in mind?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Aside from this matter being government policy, Mr. Speaker, it is the only amendment concerning which we have given definite notice of action.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the government prepared to reimburse the C.B.C. for the $3,000 damages awarded Dr. Robbins for the C.B.C. television broadcast in February, 1956?


Hon. G. C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the C.B.C. operates within its own budget out of moneys allocated to it by parliament plus commercial revenues, and I am sure they will make such allocation of those funds as they see fit.


Mr. Speaker:: That seems to be a proper question to bring up on the estimates rather than at this time.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monlmo-rency):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the declaration made at the inauguration of the airport at Quebec by the Speaker of the Senate, does the minister think the airport building, which of course is under the control of his department, is a consequence of Mr. Duplessis' policy?


Mr. Marler:: Collaboration raises its ugly head.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, that question sounds like one I will have to take as notice. I will try to work out an answer for the hon. member.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister of Fisheries if he has received a petition from the fishermen of Musgrave Harbour, Doting Cove, Ragged Harbour, Ladle Cove and Aspen Cove urging construction of a work which would provide urgently needed employment and at the same time be beneficial to the fishermen?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, if such a petition has arrived it has not been brought to my attention yet. It may have arrived recently.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister give it careful consideration if it has?


John Angus MacLean: I certainly will because, where it is in my power to do so, I am very interested in providing employment for people who may be unemployed in Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the minister.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


James MacKerras Macdonnell: the third reading of Bill No. 199, respecting the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, December 4, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Green-Mr. Courtemanche in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954 to increase from two hundred and fifty million dollars to four hundred million dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act; and also to provide for the reduction of down payments.
Howard Charles Green: When this resolution was before the committee on December 4 I gave certain figures with regard to the amount of loans which had been approved under the agency loan plan. These figures will be found at page 1879 of Hansard. I thought it might be helpful if I brought those figures up to date today before hon. members deal with the resolution.
As of December 13 the total loans approved numbered 11,951, covering 15,456 units. The total amount was $146,072,339. In addition there were potential commitments-this is as of four days ago-amounting to $21,740,000, making a total of $167,812,339. The starts under the agency loan plan as of December 13 were as follows: British Columbia, 288; Alberta, 1,265; Saskatchewan, 258; Manitoba, 349; Ontario, 4,701; Quebec, 1,269; New Brunswick, 80; Nova Scotia, 110; Newfoundland, 10, or a total of 8,330. The branch offices report that construction is starting as quickly as possible after approval and that cancellations are likely to be few in number.
I have figures also by way of comparison of the results under this agency loan plan and under the insured loan plan, which is the normal National Housing Act procedure, for the third quarter of 1957. These figures are as follows. For insured loans, third quarter of 1957, the average income of the borrower was $5,943; the average income under the agency loan plan is $5,003, a decrease of 15.8 per cent. The average down payment under the insured loan plan in the third quarter of 1957 was $3,921; under the agency loan plan it has been $2,548, a decrease of 35 per cent. The average amount of loan under the insured loan, third quarter of this year, was $10,913; the average amount under the agency loan plan was $9,875, a decrease of 9.5 per cent. The average dwelling cost under the insured loan was $14,615 and under the agency loan $12,423, a decrease of 15 per cent.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin my remarks by complimenting the minister upon the lucidity of the explanation he gave the other night when this resolution 96698-157
National Housing Act
was first considered by this committee. 1 thought he explained very clearly the objects he had in mind, and no doubt because he was anxious to have the resolution adopted with the minimum of debate he avoided repeating the more controversial statements he made earlier in this session in reply to questions on orders of the day.
I want also to thank him for the generous and complimentary references to his predecessor, Hon. Robert H. Winters. We in the official opposition, and particularly those of us who were associated with Mr. Winters in the previous government, know how sincerely interested he was in the whole question of housing and how fully he devoted his effort and attention to this problem. I believe that some of the statistics to which I should like to refer presently are an eloquent testimonial to the success of the policies for which Mr. Winters was responsible.
I should like to say also to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, how much the members of the official opposition appreciated having an opportunity of discussing the question of housing with Dr. Bates of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and two of his officials. They were good enough to answer many questions which were put to them and they added materially, I think, and I might also say in a very kindly way, to the sum of our knowledge on this subject.
I now come to the resolution before this committee, Mr. Chairman, which hon. members will recall first appeared in Votes and Proceedings on November 25. This, of course, was the first official intimation the members of this committee had of the intention of the government to introduce amendments to the National Housing Act. I should like to point out, however, that the Solicitor General had, as early as November 8, publicly announced outside this house the government's decision to present a bill to encourage the building of new houses. Having for so long listened to Conservative members who claimed that under the last government the rights of parliament were being ignored, and recalling the numerous Conservative promises to restore parliament to its former greatness, I can only say now that I am much surprised that the first announcement of this legislation was made, not in the speech from the throne, not in Votes and Proceedings, but in an address made in Montreal nearly three weeks before this resolution appeared on the order paper.
The words the Solicitor General used on that occasion are not without interest. I shall read from he Devoir of November 9 an extract from the report of his speech. Here is what he is reported as having said, and

National Housing Act
as it is in French, but I shall translate it so the minister will fully appreciate the significance of his colleague's remarks:
(Translation):
The hon. Minister of Public Works is shortly to introduce a bill which, according to the Hon. Mr. Balcer, will promote home building. The Minister of Finance, on his part, is said to have in mind another bill which would settle the matter of interest rate and facilitate the borrowing of money.
(Text):
As there is no simultaneous translation, Mr. Chairman, I shall translate his words as follows:
The Minister of Public Works will shortly present a bill which-according to the Hon. Balcer-will encourage the building of houses.
I point out to the Minister of Public Works that his colleague was just about three weeks ahead of him in making this news public. But then, Mr. Chairman while that is what the Solicitor General said of the measure now under consideration, he also continued as follows:
The Minister of Finance, on his part, has in mind another bill which would settle the question of the rate of interest and facilitate the borrowing of money.
This last item is a most interesting bit of news, and as the matter is very closely related to the subject of this resolution on housing, I hope the Minister of Public Works, before this debate is concluded, will advise the committee more fully as to the project announced by the Solicitor General on the occasion to which I have just referred. The minister himself, in his explanation of the purposes of this resolution, said nothing either with regard to the rate of interest or with regard to any further legislation to facilitate the borrowing of money.
The presentation of this resolution affords an opportunity for a review of what has been accomplished under the legislation which it is now proposed to amend. I feel that for this purpose I should go back to the time when the National Housing Act was adopted in 1954. I have no intention of reviewing all that was said at that time but I think I might quote what was then said by Mr. Winters in presenting the resolution on which the National Housing Act was based. As reported at page 998 of Hansard for 1953-54 he said this:
The main object of the legislation is to broaden the supply of mortgage money by making that form of investment more attractive, increasing the number of lenders and making more funds available for mortgage lending.
Before coming to examine the extent to which this object has been achieved I should like to remind hon. members of the fact that mortgage lending in Canada has always suffered from a peculiar disability. I may add that I speak of the matter in the light of some
[Mr. Marler.l
personal experience, having been closely connected with mortgage lending in Montreal during the approximately 30 years I practised law before becoming a member of this parliament.
The peculiar disability to which I have just referred is that in good times industry, using the term in the broadest sense of the word, competes actively for the investor's capital and offers a more negotiable security than a mortgage on a house, while in bad times builders are not anxious to undertake the construction of large numbers of houses, buyers are scarcer and the demand for mortgage money falls off. It is in the light of this competition for the investor's dollar that we may now take a look at what took place after the National Housing Act came into operation early in 1954.
Hon. members will recall that under the former legislation it was the practice for joint loans to be made by the lending institutions and C.M.H.C., that is to say the major part of the funds were advanced by the lending institutions and only a smaller part by C.M.H.C. itself. Upon the introduction of the new act joint loans were abandoned, and a plan under which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would insure the mortgage loans made under the act by the lending institutions was substituted for it. In this way a National Housing Act mortgage was made more attractive as a form of investment, more secure and incidentally more easily negotiable.
Moreover, by adding the chartered banks to the list of approved lenders not only was the number of lenders significantly increased, but a substantial volume of additional funds was made available for mortgage lending.
I think most objective people would fully agree that the main object stated by the former minister has been achieved during the period which has elapsed since the act came into operation, because it is a fact that in that period both the volume of new residential construction and the amount of mortgage lending on new housing have attained unprecedently high levels. Up to the end of 1952 the number of new dwellings started in any one year had only once exceeded 90,000 units. That was in 1950. It was only in 1953 that for the first time the total of new dwellings started exceeding 100,000.
In that year, commitments by lending institutions to make mortgage loans also attained a new high level. Conventional mortgage loans amounted to about $119 million, while loans under the previous National Housing Act amounted to about $314 million, making a rather impressive total of approximately $433 million in all.

Though 1953 was a record year both as to the number of new dwellings started and as to the amount of mortgage commitments made, higher levels were attained in each of the succeeding years 1954, 1955 and 1956 under the housing legislation adopted early in 1954. Thus, according to "Canadian Housing Statistics", published by C.M.H.C., new units were started as follows: in 1954, 113,527; in 1955, 138,276; and in 1956, 127,311. Mortgage commitments were as follows: in 1954, $670.6 million which, Mr. Chairman, I would point out, includes some carry-over from the former practice of making joint loans; 1955, in which the total was $892.4 million or more than twice the record established in 1953, and in 1956 the total reached some $700.1 million.
It does seem to be a fact that the 1954 legislation gave a positive stimulus to the building of new homes. There was a substantial increase in the number of homes financed by means of conventional mortgages but an even greater increase in the number of new homes financed under the new National Housing Act. It is a fact that in 1955, the best year we have known so far, when more than 138,000 new dwelling units were started, over 65,000 were financed under the new legislation.
So that in the circumstances it seems reasonable to point out that the principal purpose of the new legislation to increase the number of houses built each year was fully attained in the three years in question.
I know, of course, that the number of dwellings started in 1957 is below the corresponding period of 1956 and even less than the number started in the peak year of 1955. But I suggest that if a tendency had not developed to look on 1955 and 1956 as normal years for residential construction, the number of starts in this year 1957 would be regarded as fairly satisfactory. It seems abundantly clear that the number would have been larger if there had not been such a strong demand from other borrowers.
But I might say that it was not so very long ago that a good number of people in Canada were wondering whether a continuation of the intensive activity in the building of new homes such as existed in 1955 would not bring about a serious inflation of building costs and indeed of the other costs associated with the building of new homes.
I cannot help thinking that the slowing down in 1957 of the building of new homes, though it may have brought hardship in some quarters, will be considered by fair-minded people as a good thing both for builders and for home owners. There has been a period of consolidation which made it possible for
96698-157i
National Housing Act
home owners who wished to sell their homes to do so on not unsatisfactory terms, and for the development of a more substantial and solid demand for new housing units as they were built.
As I said a moment ago, another purpose of the new legislation was to increase the flow of mortgage funds by widening the group of approved lenders under the act. That this purpose has been fully achieved is demonstrated by the significant contribution that has been made by the chartered banks to the financing of new residential construction. The statistics as to mortgage lending published by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation show that in the period from 1954 to 1956 the banks approved mortgage loans to an aggregate amount of nearly $650 million, to finance the construction of some 67,230 dwelling units. I understand, moreover, that in the current year, the banks are fully carrying out the commitment to lend $150 million to which the former minister of public works referred in the House of Commons early in the present year.
I appreciate, just as do other hon. members, that this is a lower rate of lending than prevailed in 1954 and 1955 when the banks started in this field of investment, but whatever may be the amounts currently being loaned by the banks, even the short experience that the last few years have provided has amply demonstrated the wisdom of authorizing and encouraging the banks to make insured loans under the act and to put at the service of prospective home owners the extensive facilities which the banks have in many centres large and small across Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to overlook the fact that we are at this moment more directly concerned with the question of the amount that may be advanced to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act, because this is one of the two objectives of this resolution before the committee. The present authority contained in the act places a limit of $250 million on the amount of these advances, and it is of course the moneys advanced under this authority that are used by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make loans under the National Housing Act when it considers it expedient to do so.
In connection with these loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under section 22 of the act it is interesting to note that in the three years 1954, 1955 and 1956, through loans made under the National Housing Act by lending institutions amounted to more than $1,500 million. Central

National Housing Act
Mortgage and Housing Corporation itself loaned less than $65 million. In other words in that period, in which new high levels of home building were established, the financing of the construction of new dwellings was left almost entirely to the lending institutions, that is to say to the life insurance companies, the trust, loan and other companies, and the chartered banks, and they provided a record volume of mortgage money.
Now, in the first half of 1957, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has played a more active part in mortgage lending, and I understand that as of July 1 about $100 million of the amount authorized by the act had been committed. Since the present gov-ernnment has been in office Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has given further commitments for an aggregate amount of about $150 million, so that as the minister explained the present authority of $250 million has just about been used up. It is only natural, therefore, that further funds should be placed at the disposal of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and of course the purpose of the resolution is to place at its disposal a further amount of $150 million.
Mr. Chairman, to this proposal the official opposition has no objection, because it is obvious that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation must not be left in a position of having no funds available for new construction, and accordingly we shall support the resolution which is designed to make possible the continuation of policies laid down in the National Housing Act, which hon. members will recall, was sponsored by the previous Liberal government.
However, I think I should point out to the present government that it would be very unfortunate if it were to create the impression that it is going to assume the responsibility of providing all the funds that are needed for new housing. This is a responsibility which rests upon other shoulders as well, and I hope the government will not in any way discourage other lenders from actively participating in meeting present needs for housing in the same way as they have done in recent years. In fact I might go even further and suggest to the government that it should, in ways which are open to the government to act, endeavour to persuade the lending institutions that this is a function which properly they should discharge.
Before I leave this subject of increasing by $150 million the funds available for loaning by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I should like to bring to the attention of the minister another comment made by his colleague the Solicitor General. Le Devoir of November 9 reports his remarks

as follows, and I think I should quote them even if it is necessary to translate them, because I think they are the sort of pearls that should not be lost sight of:
(Translation):
Later, referring to the $150 million recently placed at the disposal of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the speaker stated that these credits would all soon be used up, because there were only $28 million left by now. He said that this was only a palliative, but that the crux of the matter would soon be settled by appropriate legislation.
(Text) :
In substance, what the Solicitor General said in speaking of the $150 million which the government had already placed at the disposal of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was this was only a palliative, but that the crux of the matter, the fundamental problem, would soon be settled by appropriate legislation. Well, I suppose after hearing the words of his colleague the Minister of Public Works will realize that he is just accomplishing a routine formality in asking us to increase these funds by a matter of $150 million, but I hope before the debate is over he will tell us just what further legislation he has in mind to which the Solicitor General's description of "an immediate palliative" would not be considered to apply.


Howard Charles Green: You bad better ask him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is he?


George Carlyle Marler: Of course if he were in the house I would be delighted to have him explain just what he meant, because it seems to me this suggestion is that what we are doing at the moment is merely to give the poor patient a shot in the arm, but that what we are really going to do is reset all his bones and bring him to life by some other legislative process. I must say this intrigues me enormously and of course, as I indicated earlier, I am also very much intrigued by the thought which the Solicitor General expressed that the Minister of Finance-who unhappily is absent this afternoon for good reasons, as we all know- actually had in mind doing something to bring down interest rates and also to facilitate the borrowing of money.
I know there are many people who would like to acquire the secret knowledge necessary to have this new facility made available, but perhaps the minister will enlighten us, when he speaks further on this subject today, as to what are the broader plans such as were announced by the Solicitor General.
I now come, Mr. Chairman, to the second object of this resolution, the question of the reduction of down payments. This, as the minister has explained, has to be done by

increasing the amount of the loan, and the minister has told us that instead of the loan amounting to 90 per cent of the first $8,000 of the lending value and 70 per cent of the lending value in excess of that $8,000, the amendment will enable borrowers to obtain a loan amounting to 90 per cent of the first $12,000 of lending value, and 70 per cent of the lending value in excess of that amount.
The minister put on Hansard a table showing the effect on down payments and the change in the ratio between the loan and the lending value, and it appears from that table that the change will reduce the down payment by $400 in the case of a house having a lending value of $10,000 and by $700 in the case of a house having a lending value of $15,000. We shall not oppose this change in the act which will afford some modest relief although I do not think the relief itself is particularly substantial.
It seems to me that the present difficulty with regard to the down payment does not arise from the way in which the amount of the loan is arrived at under the present provisions of the National Housing Act but from the practices that are being followed by lending institutions in their appraisals of the security. I think the statistics published by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation fully bear out this contention. If we examine the statistics we find that the total average estimated cost of a one-storey single family dwelling has risen from $12,479 in the first quarter of 1955 to $14,725 in the second quarter of 1957 but during this same period the average loan under the National Housing Act on this type of house has risen, I think, from $10,147 to $10,900. This means that the down payment, that is the difference between the total cost and the amount loaned, has increased in the space of 27 months from $2,332 to $3,825, a jump of nearly $1,500. If I understood correctly the figures which the minister gave earlier this afternoon they would seem to show that this difference between the cost of a single family dwelling financed under the N.H.A. and the amount of the loan is now about $3,925.
I am going to leave those figures because I have not had an opportunity of digesting them but the point I would like to emphasize is that although the cost figures which are given in table 49, which table gives the building costs, are figures submitted by the applicant himself. I fully realize that he may be prone sometimes to exaggerate his costs, but leaving out this factor of understandable exaggeration I would like to say, from my own experience with lending institutions, that ever since the National Housing
National Housing Act
Act was first adopted they have followed very conservative methods of valuation.
If less conservative methods of valuation were followed and lenders were to bring their appraisals more closely to the actual amount usefully expended by the builder the problem of the down payment would just about disappear. I want to emphasize that I deliberately use the words "the amount usefully expended" because I do not think there is any reason to include in the security expenditures which do not produce value. I contend that useful expenditures do produce value to an amount corresponding to the amount of those expenditures. I would suggest that the lending institutions should take greater note of the actual amount usefully expended in the building of a new dwelling rather than to rely solely on a process of estimation and experience.
Let us look at the case from another aspect. As I said a moment ago, the average estimated total cost of a single family dwelling in the second quarter of 1957 was $14,725 according to table 49. Even on the present loaning basis the loan ought to be $11,907.50 but the statistics show that the average loan is only $10,900; in other words, in the average case the loan is about $1,000 less than it ought to be. Having regard to the fact that the loan is insured under what I think are not ungenerous terms I believe the government would be well advised to examine further into the appraisal being made to see if they are not at the root of our present difficulties with regard to the down payment. I believe that more can be done to reduce the down payment by realistic appraisals than by changing the present ratio between the loan and the lending value.
I see that my time is running out, Mr. Chairman, and there are just two other points to which I should like to draw attention. The first is the phenomenal increase in the cost of land. Table 49 of the Canadian housing statistics for the second quarter of 1957 shows that for a single one-storey dwelling the land cost has increased from $523 in 1947 to $2,273 in the second quarter of 1957. This I think is very disquieting because the factor of the land costs makes homebuilding so difficult for people of modest resources and adds so much to the cost of the completed unit. I cannot help thinking that this is a factor which ought to receive serious consideration so as to see whether it would not be possible to reduce this element of the total cost and to determine what are the primary causes that make the cost of land such a large element of the total cost of a completed dwelling.
It does seem to me that perhaps land speculation is a cause and another cause may

National Housing Act
be the high cost of providing the local improvement services; but whatever may be the cause it is a subject which ought to receive close attention and I would suggest that the fullest inquiry into the matter should be undertaken either by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or some other competent body.
The second point I want to mention arises from the facts which appear in table 24 of the housing statistics which gives the range of the borrowers' incomes. The minister in his remarks the other night and indeed again today referred to the average income of borrowers under the National Housing Act and as reported at page 1878 of Hansard of December 4 said:
I was very much surprised to find that the qualifying income for the average National Housing Act loan made by approved lenders in the month of September of this year was $5,350. The average income for borrowers under the National Housing Act was $5,829.
The act and the present regulations undoubtedly encourage to a greater extent the building of homes for borrowers with higher incomes than for borrowers in the lower income brackets. Table 24 which I mentioned just a moment ago shows that of the 149,472 borrowers in the four years 1953 to 1956 inclusive all except 1,391 had incomes of $3,000 or more. In the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I ask if the time has not come for us to do something more for borrowers with incomes of less than $3,000. I cannot help thinking there would be a great deal to be said for a review both of the present standard of construction and of lending practices in connection with small homes. With such an objective in mind I feel it might be possible to design plans for homes which would be smaller and which would cost less than the average dwelling financed under the National Housing Act. I am convinced that by so doing we would be performing a useful service for a segment of the Canadian population which has perhaps not received as much attention as it deserves.
I fully realize, Mr. Chairman, that the statements I have just made in connection with the appraisals, in connection with the down payment and in connection with doing something for people in the income class under $3,000, might lend themselves to the question, why was this not done before? Well, Mr. Chairman, time does not permit me to deal with that question at all fully, but I think there is a good explanation. The observations that I have made, Mr. Chairman, have not been intended in any sense as being critical of actions of the government. I think it has not had adequate time to accomplish the changes that would have to be brought about

to meet with the objectives that I have just outlined, but I do think the suggestions merit consideration.
I know that my time has run out, Mr. Chairman, but I wonder whether I might have one or two minutes more?


Howard Charles Green: Go ahead.


George Carlyle Marler: In his remarks on the resolution itself, Mr. Chairman, the minister informed the committee of the intention of the government to amend the present regulations so as to raise the ratio of debt service to the home owners income from 23 per cent to 27 per cent. The 23 per cent, as hon. members will recall, translates into percentage figures the old adage that a man should not pay for his housing more per month than one week's salary. The proposed change would permit a borrower to qualify for home ownership with less income than that. Of course, the wisdom of making the change can only be determined by experience.
I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that this does not form part of the resolution and is essentially a matter for which the government alone must accept responsibility. But I hope the minister will note from table 24, to which I referred a moment ago, that the statistics show that the average debt service to income ratio in the six periods which the table covers has never once exceeded 19 per cent. Therefore, it may well be that the change in this figure may not be very significant. I appreciate the danger of arguing from averages; that is, from the general to the specific, and I merely wish to conclude on that point, Mr. Chairman, by saying that this is a matter of government responsibility and we are not called upon to express an opinion on it.
If I might conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we favour the adoption of this resolution but I do hope that the points I have drawn to the attention of the minister, namely the need for more realistic appraisals, the cost of serviced land and the need to give more attention to home ownership for applicants in the lower income groups will receive the careful and solicitous attention of the government.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss this most important subject of housing at this session, more particularly in view of the rather disquieting answers we received to questions earlier in the session regarding legislation to amend the National Housing Act. I was most pleased to learn, irrespective of the manner in which the announcement was made, that notwithstanding the minister's answer to me on October 21, that the government did not

intend to bring down any amendment this session, they have seen fit to do so. I think the determination on the part of the members of this house, particularly the members from the opposition side, to stay on the job to discuss whatever legislation we could urge the government to bring down, is borne out by the fact that we are now discussing something which, in the earlier stages of this session, the government did not propose to bring down.
The previous speaker expressed a point of view which I think is definitely a little late in coming from a spokesman of that party, particularly in view of the fact that, as the hon. member pointed out, the cost of the average house under the National Housing Act had been going up year by year. Apparently the previous administration turned a deaf ear to pleas which we had made that some consideration be given to the Canadian citizens who are earning salaries less than $4,000 a year.
The C.C.F. position has been made clear on this matter over the years. We have called on the government to enact housing legislation to take care of the housing needs of all Canadians. We have argued that if priorities are to be given, then top priority should be given to Canadians in the lower income brackets. We find that the amendments to the National Housing Act which were passed in 1954 do not materially alter the situation. We still find the situation where, according to the minister's own figures, the average income increased over the years. For example, in 1955, the average income of a recipient of a loan under the National Housing Act was $5,023 per annum. In 1956, that had risen to $5,312. In the first quarter of 1957, it had risen to $5,615 and in the second quarter of 1957, to $5,829. The minister gave us a figure a few moments ago which indicated that in the third quarter of this year the average income had increased to $5,943. Therefore, the situation is becoming materially worse. The National Housing Act has tended to move farther away from the class of people whom we believe the housing legislation should serve first and foremost.
We in the C.C.F. have pointed out to the government that the ideal objective ought to be home ownership. It would be a very healthy situation in Canada if a great percentage of our people were to own their own houses. Certainly nothing has been done by the government in this legislation toward realizing that objective. However, apart from the home ownership provisions, we have always recognized the fact that there are a large number of Canadians who, because they receive incomes so low, irrespective of whatever provisions might be made in the National Housing Act for home ownership, would not
National Housing Act
be able to qualify. Then, again, there are sizeable numbers of Canadians who have jobs of a temporary nature and who are required occasionally to move from city to city for whom home ownership does not appeal. In order to serve the needs of that group of our population low-cost rental housing is the obvious answer. And yet, I recognize that there are provisions in certain sections of the National Housing Act with respect to limited dividend housing corporations and the like to provide so-called low rental housing; but there has not been too much activity in this field. Furthermore, the rents charged under no stretch of the imagination can be termed low.
The previous speaker referred to the general rule of thumb that a family is not able to, or should not be required to pay more than a week's salary, or roughly 20 per cent of their income for housing. What do we find? According to the statistics made available by the Department of National Revenue publication, Taxation Statistics of 1957, we note that of those making returns in Canada, whether they were taxable or non-taxable returns, 62 per cent of our people earned incomes of less than $3,000 a year. As a matter of fact, we know that there are well over a million and a half Canadians who earn incomes of less than $2,000 a year. If you accept the principle of one week's salary, or roughly one-fifth of the salary, as being the amount which a family can afford to spend on housing, then it is easy to see that if a person earns less than $3,000 a year he can hardly afford to pay more than $50 a month for rent. Those Canadians who earn less than $2,000 a year can hardly afford to pay more than $35 a month.
When we consider that this situation affects the majority of the people of Canada it is quite easy to see that the so-called low rental dwellings which have been made available are beyond the reach of the majority of the people of Canada. As a matter of fact, when the National Housing Act was amended in 1954 I referred to an editorial that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen at that time in which it was pointed out that a certain limited dividend housing corporation in the city of Ottawa, which was constructing so-called low cost housing, was charging rents well beyond the reach of a great percentage of the citizens of Ottawa.
Therefore, when the minister speaks of low cost housing, whether it be for home ownership or for rental purposes, I think we have to examine what he means by low cost housing, because certainly the type of housing which has been provided under certain sections of the National Housing Act has not resulted in rentals which the great percentage

National Housing Act
of the Canadian people can afford to pay. Thus, many of them are forced to live in substandard dwellings. The overcrowding that exists is something which must give us great cause for alarm.
It would appear obvious that the government ought to have given serious consideration to the whole question of low rental housing. I realize that in many instances the initiative is not being taken by municipalities simply because municipal taxes have reached such a high level in so many municipalities that they are loath to take any action which may conceivably bring about an increase in the mill rate, no matter how lofty the purpose may be. The result is that many municipalities with serious housing problems are not taking the initiative. In my opinion the fact that the sections under part II of the National Housing Act dealing with low rental housing have not been used nearly to the extent that might reasonably be hoped indicates the need for close attention on the part of the government to the provision of changes in the act to encourage a much faster rate of construction of low rental dwellings in Canada.
Apart from the question of low rental housing, with respect to which I realize the government can to some extent point the finger of blame at municipal bodies and provincial governments, there is, of course, the question of part I of the National Housing Act having to do with the encouragement of home ownership. Here again the statement we have made over the years that over 80 per cent of the people of Canada are unable to obtain any benefit whatsoever from the National Housing Act has been borne out by the statistics. As a matter of fact, the figure of 80 per cent which we have used was a little low. According to statistics issued by the Department of National Revenue, actually over 81.6 per cent of the people of Canada are earning incomes of less than $4,000 a year.
When we consider the average income of the recipient of a loan under the National Housing Act, we begin to realize the failure of the act to come to grips with the most important part of the problem. I appreciate the minister's concern about this matter. I note that in his statement on December 4 he said, as found at page 1880 of Hansard:
Quite frankly, I should like to be able to help an income group even lower than those who will be helped by this legislation.
I note that the minister is quite frank in admitting that the legislation does not provide for the low income groups. At another point in the minister's statement he referred to people in ordinary circumstances. In view of the statistics I have put on the record, I believe you can hardly describe people who

can qualify for a loan under the National Housing Act as being people in ordinary circumstances. It is true that their incomes might not be described as large but when you consider them as part of the general over-all population you realize they are people of more substantial means than the vast majority.
I also note that in his statement the minister pointed out that the amendments to be brought down in the bill will deal with the reduction of the down payment. This, of course, is something in which we have always been intensely interested. I think hon. members will recall that year in and year out we have advocated in the House of Commons a housing policy calling for a down payment of 10 per cent. But I would draw to the attention of the minister that along with our proposal to decrease the down payment to 10 per cent there was a companion recommendation that the interest rate should be reduced proportionately. If you reduce the down payment without at the same time reducing the interest payment you are going to add to the final cost of the house. While I recognize that under the circumstances it is most important to lower the down payment in order to include a larger group of people under the terms of the act, I can see no reason why the government did not take steps at this time to bring about a reduction in the interest rate.
I note the reference the minister made to the amendment to increase the amount of money which may be appropriated out of the consolidated revenue fund to be used by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in direct lending and that the amount is to be increased from $250 million to $400 million. Hon. members will recall that when the act was amended in 1954 the members of the C.C.F. group deplored the direction in which our housing legislation was moving. We pointed out with some alarm that the transfer of a greater measure of responsibility for housing from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation into the laps or to the tender mercies of the conventional lending institutions would bring about grave results, and indeed it has. I suggest that the very fact these amendments are being brought in today indicates an awareness on the part of the government that the private lending institutions have not measured up to the job which we expected them to do in 1954.
It is very difficult, as the hon. member who preceded me said, for housing to compete successfully in the money market with other forms of building and commercial ventures. In his statement the minister referred to the

trend towards larger loans and larger incomes on the part of recipients of loans under the National Housing Act. As found at page 1878 of Hansard he went on to say:
There is some reason for this trend because it is a good deal easier to handle a large loan than it is to handle a small one and I think some preference has been given by the different institutions to the larger loans.
Of course, that is the very point we tried to make in 1954, that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as a responsible agency of government seeking to deal with a social problem would be able to take cognizance of this fact and certainly would not give preference to those with higher incomes simply because it was more convenient or less trouble for them than to handle smaller loans. Yet, if we turn housing over to private enterprise how can we expect anything else than the very procedure which we have witnessed in recent years?
I suggest to the minister that it is the failure of the conventional lending institutions to provide the mortgage money needed for housing that has made this legislation necessary. Why this money was not made available is difficult to understand because, in the amendments brought down in 1954, there was an overly generous insurance provision which guaranteed the whole transaction at the expense of the borrower. Any risk, therefore, which would normally be involved in the lending of money was removed. It is very difficult to understand why sufficient money was not made available by the lending institutions to provide for this housing, if that is the problem as the minister suggests it is by the very fact this amendment seeks to increase the amount of money made available out of the consolidated revenue fund from $250 million to $400 million.
We are quite pleased to note that the government is putting greater reliance on Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and is recognizing the fact that if we want to get the job done properly we have to take the responsibility ourselves for doing it. I suggest that the additional moneys made available to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will enable them to do a better job. Now, the amount involved of course is quite interesting. If we recognize the enormity of the problem facing the country at the present time, we begin to realize how little the amount is in terms of the general need. I note that the minister, in his statement of December 4, pointed out that of the additional moneys provided for by the amendment, $100 million would be taken up in loans on lower cost housing. He suggested that perhaps a lesser amount of from $50 million to $75 million 96698-158
National Housing Act
would be lent by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under other sections of the National Housing Act.
When we consider the tremendous need in this country for low rental housing, we realize how little is involved compared with the general over-all need. Unless the minister can assure the committee that the amount of money presently being made available by the conventional lending institutions will be maintained or increased, then it will simply mean we are going to increase the amount of money available for direct lending to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If the conventional lending institutions, under the insured plan, are going to reduce the amount they make available, then in the aggregate we are not going to be very much farther ahead. I believe this is something to which the members of the committee have to give careful consideration. I do not feel we can accept the assurances of the statement made by the minister that certain results are going to accrue from the passage of this resolution.
The hon. member who preceded me pointed out this very important question of the relationship of actual construction costs to the lending value placed on the dwelling. These two figures, of course, do not coincide and this involves an additional expense to be financed by the home purchaser. I would urge the minister to give serious consideration to the introduction of amendments that would bring the legislation in line with need. When I speak of "need" I am thinking in terms of the needs of people who are earning less than $3,000 or less than $3,500 a year.
The minister has stated that people can get a home with a down payment of $1,000 if they are earning $3,450 a year, but I think we will have to wait to see just how many people are able to get loans when they have incomes of $3,450. Even if we were to accept the results envisaged by the minister, we are still faced with the blunt fact that the majority of the people in Canada are excluded from the provisions of the National Housing Act. As a matter of fact, if one takes the $3,500 figure one finds that 73.1 per cent of the people of Canada earn less than $3,500 a year. Even if the legislation which the minister proposes to bring down is as good as he claims it is, it is still going to exclude almost three-quarters of the Canadian people.
I suggest that that is not good enough. I maintain that people who are earning incomes of only $3,000 or $2,000 a year are more in need of assistance under the housing act than any other group of Canadian people. I do not wish to trespass on the time of the committee, but I do want to refer briefly to the suggestion made by the hon. member

National Housing Act
for St. Antoine-Westmount concerning the part played by land costs. I mention this particularly in view of the fact that I have recently received a communication from the city council of the city of Regina in which they asked me to intercede with the government in order that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation regulations might be relaxed to the point where many areas in the city of Regina, now serviced with sewer and water and which are presently excluded from the lending provisions of the National Housing Act, might be included.
In my own city there are many people wishing to buy homes who are obliged to pay up to $2,000 for a lot. At the same time there are lots owned by the city of Regina which could be sold for $450 or $500, but which do not qualify under the regulations laid down by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. These lots, therefore, under the terms of the act, cannot be made available for housing. I would suggest to the minister that serious consideration be given to some modification in the regulations to permit those areas in my own city, which are serviced by sewers and water and which are presently beyond the pale so far as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is concerned, to be brought in at the earliest possible moment. This would make it possible to provide lower cost homes because the lots on which these houses would be built would cost much less than lots which might be purchased in other parts of the city.
Apart from the fact the legislation ignores the needs of at least 70 per cent of our people, the most glaring fault in the legislation is the failure of the government to do anything about interest rates. If people who want to buy homes under the National Housing Act are to be saddled with a tremendous debt brought about by excessively high interest rates, then of course the task of home ownership is going to be made that much more difficult. We in the C.C.F. have always argued that any reduction in the down payment should be accompanied by a reduction in interest rates. We feel that the failure of the government to introduce such a provision is the most serious flaw in the legislation coming before us. Therefore, in order to correct the situation, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That the resolution be amended by deleting the period after the word "payments" and by inserting at that point the following words: "and for a reduction in the rate of interest that may be charged by lenders under the act".
This resolution would then read, Mr. Chairman:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954 to increase from two hundred and fifty million dollars to four hundred million dollars the aggregate amount that
[Mr. Ellis.1
may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act; and also to provide for the reduction of down payments, and for a reduction in the rate of interest that may be charged by lenders under the act.


The Chairman:: The hon. member will give me a few minutes in which to study the amendment.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to Your Honour that this amendment is not in order. It would involve an increased charge on the government's funds and any such proposal as this would have to be brought in by a resolution duly sponsored by a minister of the crown. I submit to you that it is entirely out of order under the rules of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
Minister of Public Works amazes me again. The amendment does not, in my submission, create or increase any charge on the government. The amendment suggests that there should be a change in the act reducing the amount of interest that may be charged by lenders under the act. That word "lenders" was chosen quite carefully in the drafting of this amendment, having in mind that in subsection 21 of section 2 of the National Housing Act there is this definition:
"Lender" means a loan, insurance, trust or other company or corporation, trustee of trust funds, building society, credit union or other co-operative credit society authorized to lend money on the security of real or immovable property and a bank.
The amendment makes no reference to additional government expenditure or to interest on money lent directly by the government. It refers only to money lent under the act by private lenders as defined in the legislation. There is in the act section 4 which gives the governor in council power by regulation to prescribe the maximum rate of interest and the formula is spelled out. I need not read it in full just now. The whole point, Mr. Chairman, is that this amendment has nothing to do with increasing the charge on the government in any way. It deals only with that section of the act which enables the government to fix a maximum rate of interest that the private lending institutions may charge.
I see the Minister of Public Works getting to the edge of his chair. If he has any other points, I shall be glad to deal with them. Perhaps while I am on my feet I might as well answer any point that might occur to him. It is perfectly correct, as the minister said, that a private member cannot move an amendment to a resolution of this kind if the private member's amendment involves a charge on the government. But this is an amendment that refrains from involving any charge on the government and is simply an

amendment under the terms of citation 440 of Beauchesne's third edition which reads as follows:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the house with the Governor General's recommendation upon which a committee of the whole is set up cannot be amended. Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution.
I might point out to the Minister of Public Works that I have before me two instances of amendments being moved to resolutions of this kind. Of course I have chosen my instances with care. In both cases the amendments were moved by Conservative members of the House of Commons. One case was only a short while ago. On April 16, 1956, there was before the committee of the whole a resolution preceding a bill to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act. The minister will recall that the subject under consideration was a certain 90 per cent provision. The Conservative members on the opposition side of the house were not satisfied with the way in which that 90 per cent provision was to be applied. The hon. member for Kamloops, now the Minister of Justice, moved:
That the resolution be amended by adding thereto after the words "not exceeding 10 per centum thereof" the following words:
"the portion of the highway to which such increased payment is to apply to be designated by the province."
That is found at page 2980 of Hansard of April 16, 1956. A question was raised as to whether this amendment was in order and this initial ruling was given by the deputy chairman, Mr. Applewhaite:
I might say that at the moment it does not appear to me that this proposed amendment would extend the financial commitment of the crown.
He made one or two other comments and then he said this:
However, at the moment, before asking the committee to vote, I would be willing to consider the matter further. At the moment I am not refusing to accept the amendment.
After three or four pages of debate, in which both substance and point of order are intermixed, Mr. Applewhaite returned to the matter as recorded at page 2986 and said this:
If the hon. member will permit me to interrupt I might say that there is a maximum provided in the resolution; that the aggregate of all expenditures under the act may be increased to a maximum of $250 million. Therefore I do not think it is possible for the amendment to increase the commitment. I have accepted the amendment.
Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?
The amendment was voted on. It was negatived by a vote of 74 to 38. The important point, Mr. Chairman, is that the present Minister of Justice-and I note with interest that he is now consulting the authorities-found it possible on that occasion to move an 96698-158i
National Housing Act
amendment to a resolution preceding a money bill, provided that it did not go beyond the financial commitment involved in the resolution itself.
The other instance that I have turned up goes back a number of years; but one must go back a number of years in order to find what happened when the Conservatives were last in power. I find that on March 29, 1932, Mr. Bennett had before the committee of the whole house a resolution preceding the bill concerning the unemployment and farm relief act of 1931. There had been an extended debate. This was one of those unhappy sessions in which closure had been used, and most of us in this house know what happens to tempers under that situation. But at any rate, when the house got into committee on the resolution preceding Mr. Bennett's bill it had become necessary, because of the passage of time, for the resolution to be amended. Let me admit readily that the amendment that was moved was proposed by another minister of the crown, namely by the then minister of justice, Mr. Guthrie, but Mr. Guthrie did not produce any royal recommendation for this amendment, arguing that it merely changed the terms of the resolution without increasing the financial commitment. There was a lengthy point of order debate in which such stalwarts as Mr. Mackenzie King, Mr. Ralston, Mr. Ian Mackenzie and others took part, with our late good friend Mr. R. B. Hanson in the chair as chairman of the committee of the whole house. But Mr. Hanson stood his ground that the amendment was in order and he used these words, as recorded at page 1505 of Hansard of March 29, 1932:


The Chairman (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury):: I would not think it involved a greater commitment. It is simply a change in terms.
After further objection by Mr. Ralston, Mr. Hanson went on to say:
May, at page 546, states:
"The approval or the reduction of the expenditure under consideration, or a modification of the terms and conditions of the charge thereby created, are the matters specially entrusted to such a committee, and to these objects amendments are directed."
Now I have looked up that citation from May and I may say it goes on to say that amendments of this kind can be made only if they do not increase the financial commitment. Mr. Hanson simply said:
That is sufficient, I should think.
I would like to point out that after a lengthy debate on the point of order was over, the ruling was accepted that the amendment was in order and it was passed by the house on that occasion.
So there, Mr. Chairman, you have two instances where a resolution preceding a money bill has been open to an amendment

National Housing Act
provided the amendment only changed the terms and did not increase the financial commitment in any way.
I submit that the amendment that has now been moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Regina City, does not increase the commitment in any way. It merely does to a greater extent what the minister's resolution already does. The minister's resolution seeks to change the terms of loans under the National Housing Act. My colleague's amendment makes a further change in those terms without involving one cent of additional commitment so far as the crown is concerned. It is a very simple proposition, Mr. Chairman, and I do not think the Minister of Public Works should think that every time someone on the opposition side of the house moves an amendment he should just stand up and say it is out of order.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, with regard to that last remark I really am amazed at the nerve of some people's children when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre thinks I have a lot of nerve if I get up once or twice and question an amendment that is moved, but since the hon. member himself gets up every day and sometimes two or three times a day on points of order I think I have a long way to go before I catch up with him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who
raised this one?


Howard Charles Green: However, I do suggest that on two points this amendment is out of order. In the first place the hon. member has argued that this amendment would not make any financial commitment and he went on to say that these loans were made by lending institutions. Well, some of them are, but at the present time nearly all of the loans made under the National Housing Act are being made directly by this crown corporation, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I just read earlier this afternoon that something over $167 million of government money was committed under the plan which was announced by the present government. Now you could hardly have a case in which an amendment more directly affected crown money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has
the minister read the amendment?


Howard Charles Green: Of course I have read the amendment. The hon. member need not try to school teacher me like that. He seems to think he is the mentor of this house. He had a chance to be the Speaker, and probably a permanent Speaker, but he chose to remain with his party and carry on as a very active

political partisan in the house. Now let him not suggest that the rest of us are not even doing him the courtesy of reading his amendments.
Then on the second point I have this to say: This amendment fails for the reason that it is indefinite. An amendment must be definite and must have a definite connection with the resolution which it is seeking to amend and with the legislation behind that resolution. I would like to point out that section 4 of the National Housing Act 1954 is one which provides for interest rates and the power therein given is to the governor in council to set by regulation a maximum rate of interest. Now this resolution has the words "and for a reduction in the rate of interest that may be charged by lenders under the act." The act leaves it wide open to a lender to charge as low a rate of interest as the lending institution may wish, and the only legal provision in the act is that the governor in council can set a ceiling over which those interest rates cannot go. So I submit, Mr. Chairman, that in seeking to tack on this amendment to the two other provisions already contained in the resolution the hon. member is proposing an amendment which is not at all relevant. You will notice the difference-


Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Chairman, five o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: You will notice the difference in the section which provides for the down payments. There is a definite provision for the figure; the resolution brought in by the government properly deals with that matter. Therefore I submit, Mr. Chairman, on these two grounds the amendment is out of order.


Henri Courtemanche: When the house resumes at eight o'clock I hope to be in a position to deal with the point of order raised by the Minister of Public Works.
It being five o'clock the committee must rise in order to permit the house to take up private and public bills.



CRIMINAL CODE


Wilfrid Lacroix: the second reading of Bill No. 13, to amend the Criminal Code (subversive activities).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prevent communism from extending its propaganda activities in this country. For the last few years the communist party of Canada and the Soviet embassy in Ottawa have been using the mails to pour out floods of propaganda originating in Russia and

designed to establish international communism. I have here a pamphlet entitled, "The Fortieth Anniversary of the Great Social October Revolution", essays by the propaganda section of the Marxist-Leninist Institute, which openly advocates world revolution in favour of a socialist and communist system in all nations on earth. Those pamphlets have been sent to all hon. members of this house, to a large section of the Canadian population and they have been more particularly distributed in the province of Quebec. It seems to me high time that the necessary steps be taken to stop this active propaganda which is likely to contribute to the creation of communist cells whose spying is bound to be detrimental to us in the event of a war against Russia.
It will perhaps be claimed that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are keeping an eye on communist activities in this country but- and I want to stress this point-they will be powerless against the infiltration of communistic ideology among the poor, the unemployed and even among certain so-called intellectuals. All of these, once converted by that propaganda might do us considerable harm in case of war with Russia.
I have already submitted this bill on various occasions when I was sitting on the government side. Everybody here knows its contents. This year I have introduced changes to make it identical with an act passed by the United States government which, according to Mr. Edgar Hoover, chief of the federal bureau of investigation, has proved most effective in curbing communist activities.
I should like this afternoon by keeping my remarks brief to avoid taking up too much of the only hour reserved to a study of this bill so that hon. members who favour the adoption of the bill may vote before the house has used up all the time reserved to the consideration of public bills. I would therefore ask those who are in favour of the bill simply to abstain from any prolonged discussion which would rule out all possibility of this bill going through for otherwise it would drop down to the bottom of the order paper.
There is nothing to prevent us from approving the bill on second reading and then referring it to a committee of the house which would consider and even amend it should the committee feel that it falls short of the objective I have in mind. I strongly object, however, to any attempt to kill it by protracted discussion which indeed would prevent a committee of the house from giving it further study for what I am seeking through this bill is to prevent communist propaganda
Criminal Code
from spreading in our country at a time when the taxpayer is being heavily burdened precisely to face this enemy.
It might perhaps be suggested that if this bill were to pass it would lead to a breakoff of our diplomatic relations with Russia. This would be a misconception because the United States, in spite of their having adopted similar legislation, still have an ambassador in Moscow. I may add that the former leader of the opposition, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), has often advocated in this house legislation against the communist party.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, regardless of how laudable we feel this type of legislation may be, that is the purpose to which it might be put in connection with the safeguarding of our institutions in this country, I believe it has some serious shortcomings in its ability to root out the type of person who might eventually be prosecuted under it. It seems to me that by far the best way to ensure that the type of person who would be subjected to prosecution under the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code would be known to the public would be for us to continue to see that they are out in the open, subject to public scrutiny in the ordinary course of our daily living.
In connection with the amendments proposed by the bill which is before us it would be almost impossible to determine what constituted a totalitarian dictatorship. As a matter of fact before I rose to my feet I was just in the process of going to the table of the house to see if it were possible to find even a dictionary definition of the term "totalitarian dictatorship". I am almost certain that no reference to it would be found in any legal dictionary and it seems there would be such wide latitude in the interpretation of the phrase "totalitarian dictatorship" that it would be impossible to maintain a prosecution under the particular section of the Criminal Code which the bill before us seeks to add.
It will be observed that almost all the subclauses in clause 1 which seeks to insert a section to be known as section 62 (a) following section 62 of the Criminal Code contain a reference to the term "totalitarian dictatorship". I have not had an opportunity of consulting the Criminal Code in this respect but I am almost certain that this term is not included in the original definition section.
As I said the whole intent and purpose of this section would go for nought if we were to get into any degree of difference of

Criminal Code
opinion about the meaning of these words. The words appear in subclause (a) of clause 1 as follows:
(a)	attempts in any manner to establish in Canada a totalitarian dictatorship-
In subclause (b):
(b)	performs or attempts to perform any act with intent to facilitate or aid in bringing about the establishment in Canada of such a totalitarian dictatorship;
In subclause (c):
(c)	actively participates in the management, direction, or supervision of any movement to establish in Canada such a totalitarian dictatorship;
In subclause (d):
(d)	actively participates in the management, direction, or supervision of any movement to facilitate or aid in bringing about the establishment in Canada of such a totalitarian dictatorship;
Subclause (e) reads:
(e)	conspires to do anything made unlawful by this subsection,-
This of course again refers to the terms of the subclauses I have just read out. It seems to me that if we are in any doubt as to the proper definition of the key words in this amendment we could not expect any successful prosecution under it. As a matter of fact it reminds me somewhat of some of the legislation we had in the immediate postwar period. The wartime prices and trade board was asked to prosecute people for sales of various articles, which had formerly been under price control, at prices which were unreasonable and unjust. If you refer back to decisions of the Supreme Court of Ontario at that time you will find that the learned justices determined that it was impossible, under those circumstances, to interpret the words "unreasonable and unjust".
I might say, sir, that we have a habit of describing certain types of governments as being totalitarian dictatorships. On the other hand, from time to time, we seem to be able to get along with them; we seem to meet with them around the bargaining table and successfully carry out negotiations of various kinds for the general betterment of conditions throughout the world. It might be that with this type of designation we would run into continuing trouble in attempting, in these very serious times, to arrive at some method of communication with governments which might be described in the terms used in this bill.
I think it will be agreed, sir, that this legislation involves not only the descriptive words to which I have referred, but the second clause, section 154A, having to do with the use of the mails for the distribution of literature, in fact, represents the same kind of thinking. You will note that this section reads:

Everyone who posts, or causes to be posted, for transmission or delivery by or through the post any communist newspaper or any newspaper the purpose of which is to establish in Canada a totalitarian dictatorship the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination or control of, any foreign government, foreign organization, of foreign individual . . .
Here again, sir, we find the use of the same words "totalitarian dictatorship". As a matter of fact, sir, we are asked to include in the Criminal Code the word "communist". I would respectfully suggest that there is even some doubt in my mind whether the Criminal Code contains any reference to or definition of the word "communist". I think, sir, that what we may be trying to achieve may be fairly important in so far as the government of the country is concerned. I know, that you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that we receive through the mails almost daily in the House of Commons literature of the type which my hon. friend has attempted to describe in this section. Sometimes I have thought it is not the type of literature which should be posted through our mails, but at other times I have felt that I would be a great deal happier if I knew or was able to read the thinking of people who disagree so violently with us as do the people who have used the mails for this purpose. Taking it all into consideration, sir, I have felt that perhaps we may have a better understanding of some of the other sides of the questions which come before us daily in the exercise of our government powers.
But you can see, sir, the problem which would face the Post Office Department in attempting to supervise or police-and I think it would fall to them to do this particular job-the literature of this kind which is coming through the mails daily. First of all, I assume it would be almost impossible to screen all the literature that comes through in this way. If it is picked up on spot checking, as they used to do with some of our mail during the last war, it would be necessary for the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) on each occasion to refer the particular item or piece of literature to the Department of Justice and to the law enforcement officers. Then, of course, we would get into the problem of determining what is the true meaning of "communist" because, as I say, I do not think it is defined in the code. We would be up against the question of determining the meaning of the expression "totalitarian dictatorship" and I am afraid, we would find we would be hopelessly entangled in legislation which would not bring any real protection to the Canadian people.
There is no doubt in my mind about what the hon. member is attempting to accomplish.

It is just as great a worry to us as it is to him. Whether, as a result of this legislation being placed on the order paper, it may mean that more serious study will be given to this particular problem will be for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) to decide. I do not think that anything but good will come from it, and perhaps we can look the situation over thoroughly with a view to seeing if some kind of legislation may be devised to better take care of this particular situation.


Mr. R. H. Small (Danforlh):: Mr. Speaker, when the bill first came to my office and I had a chance to read it over I immediately said that its purpose was good. After thinking over the purpose that it was intended to accomplish I saw the situation in a different light. This thought ran through my mind. From the time the revolution took place in Russia, when violent changes were made, what have we accomplished by the methods we adopted to see if we could frustrate, handicap or defeat communism as we know it? In the early days of the advent of communism in this country we did not take it very seriously, because we did not think that communism could for one moment gain a foothold in Canada. I still think there is no possibility of communism gaining a foothold in this country. Communism gets a foothold in a country only where there is poverty and where people are living on subsistence levels. Be that as it may, it is a very serious situation that we have to consider. If we become complacent about it and just take for granted that it is not going to make any advances in this country, then it becomes a real danger; but I do not think that situation will arise or even make any serious progress.
I can remember some individuals in Toronto who were of the communist complexion in the early days and the methods they adopted to advocate the cause of communism. The inroads they made at that time were not too serious. There was a John Macdonald and his wife who were quite active in the labour movement in Toronto. They took a very prominent part in the trades and labour council of Toronto. They were advocating the policies of bolshevism as it was called in those days. There were a good many academic discussions about bolshevism, Leninism, Trotsky and so on and what parties would comprise communism at that time. But it soon became apparent that no parties were to be allowed in Russia and that communism was a philosophy, and in a way, operated without any parties.
Mr. Macdonald and his wife were both very admirable people. They were respected because of their education and their high
Criminal Code
standing in the community. They were accepted generally throughout the city, particularly in the labour field. But they were not aggressive enough for the communists. They were not possessed of the spirit of the Lenin and Trotsky segment of communism and ceased to take a very active part in communist affairs in Toronto.
Then Mr. Tim Buck was put in charge. I can readily realize what the hon. member has in mind when he refers to the progress they are making because in my own union we did not take too serious a look at the situation and we ended up by finding that the president and secretary of our union were avowed communists. They were representing our particular union at meetings of the trades and labour council of Toronto.
That was also the time of Jimmie Simpson, one of the outstanding labour men of that day. In fact, he was at one time a controller in the city of Toronto. He came to me and said that the communists were making certain inroads into the trades and labour council and asked me to do something to help to get our union back on the rails. I had not taken an active part before but I proceeded to do so then and it was not very long before the two officers were removed and we were back in control. The influence of the communists should not be taken too seriously. But it does take the co-ordinated effort of all who believe that inroads can be made if we become complacent, as I mentioned a moment ago.
In the course of events it was not very long before we put Mr. Tim Buck in his place. He carried on as their leader and he did enlist some outstanding men such as Charlie Sims and Stewart Smith. They embraced the communist philosophy and at one time the city of Toronto even had a communist controller and three communist aldermen, something that we did not believe it was possible for them to attain. But we contained them and kept them in their place until the war came along. Then they went underground and that is something I want to emphasize in connection with what the hon. member is trying to accomplish through this legislation. He desires to defeat the communists completely and wipe them out and that is where the danger lies so far as the legislation is concerned. It is not possible to wipe out any organization to the extent that the hon. member has in mind. You will drive these people undergound and when you do they become more dangerous than if they are out in the open. If they are out in the open you can watch them, trace them and trail them and you have a better understanding of what they are planning.

Criminal Code
In Toronto such members of the communist movement as Joe Salsberg, a very affable and clever fellow, and A. A. Macleod succeeded in becoming members of the legislature of Ontario, and they always presented their very best front. They took advantage of every slight depression or adverse conditions to advocate the cause of communism, but at no time were we unable to contain them. As soon as the ban on communists was lifted they were back in their old circles and engaging in their old activities and it was much easier to keep them under control and observation.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are doing a remarkably good job of keeping these people under observation. Under the control of that organization they will be kept where they rightfully belong. The hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) referred to the fact that the literature which reaches our desks is rather annoying. I used to take it as it came to my desk and throw it in the wastepaper basket as not fit to be read but lately I have started to read it. Over the years this literature has been coming to my desk through different avenues. The branding of a man as a red or a communist was sufficient for people to say that he was a person who ought to be ostracized and that no consideration should be given to that movement. A lot of good people in this country have been branded as communists because they have had advanced and radical ideas. They have been smeared when they advocated something for the general good and have been called reds or communists or given some other appellation that indicated they belonged to that ideology.
Even Jimmie Simpson was classified and branded as a red in his early days in Toronto but he turned out to be one of the most sincere and ardent advocates of the poor and the labour people of Toronto. At the time of his unfortunate end by accident he rated very high in the city of Toronto. Yet at one time he was classified as a communist.
As I said, I have taken the trouble to read some of the literature that has come to my desk and I find there is a lot of good subject matter. Mind you, I would say that about 75 or 80 per cent of it is just tripe and does not come anywhere near the ideals of the people of this country with regard to the right of the individual to freedom of thought, freedom of assembly and to follow the dictates of his own conscience. Nevertheless, I feel we are capable of containing these people and should not be above reading some of these articles.
I recall one I read last week, which I thought was interesting. The writer was talking about sports and how sport had got

into the realm of professionalism. He referred to the methods followed in the days when we were young when sport was primarily a game and people took part for the fun of it whereas now those taking part in rugby, hockey and other games dress in armour as if they are going into a battle. The writer pointed out that if sport is to be what it should be it should get back to being an honest game in which everyone can indulge, have fun and receive the physical training and so on that appeal to people's common sense.
The mere fact that it has been branded as communist literature does not mean that we should not read it. I went through a lot of it and I found that there were worth-while articles. The fact that this literature emanates from a particular group is no reason why we in this house should brand it as something that should not enter the country. After all, I think we should pride ourselves on the fact that we can keep our own philosophy, our own ideals and our way of life, even though this literature might be available.
While I would like to go along with the legislation suggested by the hon. member, I do know that in the past we have never been able to accomplish this objective and drove the communists underground. We proved that during the war. Even the investigation induced by Gouzenko, when Gouzenko, tried to tell us what was happening in our country. Finally he had to appeal to the prime minister because everybody was sceptical. An investigation was conducted and we found out what was going on. All this took place because we drove them underground. Had we allowed them to operate in the open, we would have been able to pick them off when we wanted to do so.
There was a group operating right in the Russian embassy in Ottawa and they were doing so because we had driven the communists underground, one also sat in this house. I think under the circumstances, knowing the way they have operated in the last 25 or 30 years since the Russian rebellion, we should leave them out in the open where we can observe them. We want them to be where we can see what they are doing and where we can get them if they are trying to upset the government of the day through subversive activities.


Mr. D. J. Walker (Rosedale):: I want to compliment the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. LaCroix) on the very sincere and very eloquent, if very short, appeal he made. I want to tell him through you, sir, that every one of the hon. members in this house sympathizes with his objective and

appreciates what he has in mind. But, Mr. Speaker, it is only a question of what is the best means of attaining the same end. No one can question the sincerity of the hon. member who has moved this resolution. Nevertheless, must he not realize that since 1950, when this very problem was debated so vehemently in this house, conditions have changed very materially. I am open to be convinced by my hon. friend that the legislation which he suggests should be put on the statute books; I have an open mind.
I could not help but refer to the words of the then prime minister, now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent), as found in Hansard for 1950, page 2086:
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are many Canadians who do not believe that there is ideological warfare going on and that there has been for a number of years a conflict between communism and Christian civilization. I am sure that there are very few Canadians who do not wish to see that war won by Christian civilization. It is a matter of opinion as to what are the best methods to be adopted to prevent the spread of communism in our country. I firmly believe that it has diminished over the last few years.
Now, those words were spoken in 1950 when there was one scare, one alarm, after the other. The then prime minister believed the problem had diminished, and if that was so in 1950 might I suggest to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency it is doubly so at the present time. Indeed, today the threat has receded in Canada to such an extent that one can only wonder whether there is a threat at all. All the prominent communists with the exception of Tim Buck, who recently had his way paid to Russia to meet with the communist party, have disappeared. They have at last been forced to find work. One finds them in different capacities, as waiters, shoe shiners and other vocations in which they are earning their daily bread.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that they no longer espouse a cause which is popular. It seems to me it might be a mistake, and I say this with the greatest deference to my friend, to bring in legislation at this time since there is no real desire for it. After all, the communist thrives on opposition. Everybody thrives on opposition, and without opposition people often disappear because of the futility of the cause which they espouse. I cannot help but think that nobody would be more delighted than the communists themselves to have a bill such as is before the house passed. It would give them fresh incentive, fresh hope, because then they would have some opposition which would unify them and would tentatively drive them underground where they could carry on their dire work.
They are in retreat, they are rent in twain. They have nothing in common. They have
Criminal Code
not even a doctrine in common. How different it is since the death of Stalin. Until that time communists were united in their common belief Stalin was a superman, almost a god on earth, and that communism itself was a sound doctrine. With the passing of Stalin and the explosion of the myth which was Stalin, we find the communists in Russia terribly divided, and this situation is reflected amongst the communists in Canada. Rent in twain as they are, without any fixed ideal, without any fixed objective, they are finally disintegrating and disappearing.
It is my respectful submission to my hon. friend, and in this of course I may be mistaken, that to make them prominent again, to make them popular again, even popular through the opposition that is being raised in this house against them, is exactly what they want. They are a badly disillusioned crowd. They believed in the principles of communism, but now they see there is no such thing as communism even in Russia. They say that they were the socialist states of Russia, but with the passing of Stalin they have found that it was one of the greatest autocracies, one of the greatest tyrannies of the world. Even the sincere communists in Canada have been disillusioned, disappointed and under the circumstances are ready to quit.
I think one of the most striking examples, Mr. Speaker-my hon. friend will perhaps agree with this-is that Her Majesty's minister for external affairs, running against a communist, was able to obtain over 10,000 votes against 212 for the communist. Even a dog catcher, without any experience in any affairs except that of dog catching could have done much better. In this world of ours we cannot afford to be narrow minded. We cannot afford not to heed the words of the hon. member, for whom I have so much respect. I have respect for him because he represents that other great race which forms an important part of our country. I say to him that he speaks beautiful English and I, in my stumbling French, will try to tell him what the situation is:
(Translation) :
It was well and truly spoken, sir, in terms worthy of the pulpit. I congratulate him and, with your permission I will now attempt to speak French. I hope I do as well in French as he did in English.
May I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that in the great fight which Canada has been waging against communism since the war, our greatest bulwark against that philosophy which at one time threatened us has probably been the province of Quebec and the great French Canadian people.
We like French Canadians for many reasons: their outlook upon life, pervaded with

Criminal Code
what is called "joie de vivre" (joy of living), their natural kindness, their courtesy, their good manners, their appreciation of the fact that there are greater and more important things in life than the mere accumulation of material wealth. For all those reasons, we esteem the French Canadians, but what we admire most in them is their steadfast, unshakable faith, and their deep, bitter enmity to the godless doctrine of communism. For all this, we raise our hats to French Canadians, one and all.


Mr. McCleave:: Hear, hear!


David James Walker: For all of this, hats off to French Canadians, without exception.
It is time we practised our French today. I will try even harder next time.
(Text):
You can therefore appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that we of the English speaking part of this house appreciate perhaps more than anything else in this house the contribution of the French Canadians to keep us on solid ground because never in the history of our dominion have we had a more solid, substantial body of 5 million French Canadians who, through thick and thin, through good weather and bad, have always wholeheartedly maintained their faith in the one Supreme Being and their hatred and detestation of communism. All of us appreciate that.
We know that communism, in its inceptions, and because of what it propagates and because of its very godlessness, is a hideous monster. It is a demon from hell incarnate. It is a blasphemer of God. It is the destroyer of millions in the image of God. By whom and for what purpose? By nations crazed with the lust for things material and with no thought of things spiritual. Have we not recently but staggeringly emerged from two of the most stupendous, blind and furious struggles ever known to the ages, to be met, when it is all over, by this communist threat which we are glad to see in this our dominion has faded out. It will continue to fade out, so long as hon. members of this house, of which the hon. member opposite me is a distinguished member, can guide the destiny of our dominion in such a way-above party, above race, above partisanship, above "isms" of every kind-so that we can keep this country prosperous, so that we can keep this country what Sir John Macdonald planned it should be, namely the country of the twentieth century where peace, happiness, bounty and goodwill are predominant. That is the best way in which to abolish the threat of communism.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, to bring this discussion down to the practical level, may I

say that the section of the Criminal Code, which I need not read to hon. members of this house-they are no doubt conversant with it-namely section 60 covers, I submit with great respect, every possible contingency which might be raised by the threat of communism. To my mind, speaking as a lawyer and speaking also as the parliamentary assistant to my distinguished friend and colleague the Minister of Justice, it is my respectful submission that there is at the present time no need for legislation such as this because section 60 of the Criminal Code covers every possible situation. But nevertheless if I am wrong in this submission, I am willing to be convinced. If my hon. friend, through his eloquence and that of his supporters, can convince me otherwise, then I am willing to be convinced that there should be an amendment. But let us all think well before we stir up and give fresh life and fresh hope to what is at present a very dormant cause.


Mr. F. C. McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, in rising, at this moment in this discussion I find a considerable degree of confusion. Certainly I am confused by a number of things about this debate. If I may be permitted to elaborate as to the nature of this confusion, may I say that I was under the impression during the recent election campaign that certain leading members of the so-called Liberal party laid claim to certain small "1" liberal principles. In fact, I recall from memory a statement made by the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent), then prime minister, in Winnipeg to the effect that he wished his brand of Liberalism to be worthy of the small "1" as well as the capital "L". I recall further the words of one who looks to be very promising in the forthcoming race for the leadership of the so-called Liberal party to the effect that he liked to think that over the years the capital "L" Liberal party has been the best embodiment of small "1" liberal philosophy. Certainly the suggestion that information of any description should be suppressed is not, I submit, consistent with any interpretation of small "1" liberalism. This afternoon, from the capital "L" Liberal side of the house we have such a suggestion. From this side of the house we have had objections.
May I refer to the principles outlined by John Stuart Mill, who was an important man in small "1" liberal circles, to the effect that everything in the way of literature is either all good, part good and part bad or all bad. If you apply suppression and censorship- which is what part II of this amendment

amounts to-to something that is all good, the good in it is lost. If you apply censorship to something which is half good and half bad, the good part of it is lost. If you apply censorship to something that is all wrong, you merely strengthen it by suppressing it.
These principles in part have been enunciated by hon. members from this side of the house who have preceded me in speaking on this matter. If I may be permitted to recall an article which I was asked to write for the week end edition of the Globe and Mail of June 9, I should like to do so. In the city of Toronto a Conservative candidate was asked to write on the Liberal party, 1957; and a Liberal candidate on the other hand, was requested to write on the Conservative party, 1957. I was fortunate enough to be asked to write on the Liberal party, 1957.
In that article, speaking again from memory, the conclusions I reached and the statements I made were to the effect that, by reason of their activities, the leaders of the so-called Liberal party had no right to lay claim to the honourable title or small 1 liberal. I suggested further that if voters on the following day or the day after that voted against or to remove the Liberal party they would not be deserting their party but would be voting against the leaders who had deserted them. This I submit is but one more piece of evidence of the fact that this party, which you may recall was originally known as the Liberal-Conservative party, has inherited the support of those people in Canada who believe in liberal principles and do not merely preach them.


Mr. F. C. Stinson (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all through you, sir, extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Walker) who has spoken with such eloquence on this matter this afternoon. I have had the pleasure of hearing that hon. member speak in a number of places and in great variety of circumstances and I can assure the house that the eloquence he has displayed today is indicative of the manner in which he may be expected to speak in this house over the years to come.
Now it is perhaps appropriate that a matter of this kind should be under discussion here this afternoon at the very time when certain leaders of the government of this country are in consultation with the leaders of the free nations of the western world who are attempting to work out programs under which the peace and security of the world may be maintained. While they are so engaged I think it is perhaps appropriate that we should be considering the kind of legislation which
National Housing Act
is proposed today and which is concerned with protecting the people of this country against the activities of those who might seek to bring us, through their actions within this country, under the domination of a foreign power.
I am pleased that we have this opportunity to discuss a measure which has to do with the liberty of the subject. In my constituency there are several thousands of Canadian citizens who have come to this country since the end of the second great war. I have the opportunity each weekend of meeting many of these people. I would like to tell hon. members of this house that while many of these people when they came here had in mind the building of a better way of life, from an economic and material standpoint, in most cases they came here to live in a country where they might enjoy freedom, the freedom which they had lost in the countries from which they came.
It therefore seems to me that when we consider legislation of this kind we must be very very careful in assessing the possible invasions of those freedoms which we now have with respect to our political activities. I have read the proposed amendment to the code with care and with great interest and I think it may very well be that the present provisions of the Criminal Code respecting those matters referred to in the proposed legislation may already accomplish in a very satisfactory way the objectives which the hon. member has in mind. I refer particularly to those sections of the code which define sedition and which refer to the offences relating to seditious activity and provide penalties for persons found to be guilty of engaging in such activities. I think that any of the activities which the hon. member plans to cover in the legislation he has put forward in his proposal this afternoon are already adequately set out in the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the offence to which I have referred.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: It now
being six o'clock the house will resume in committee of the whole the discussion of the resolution which was interrupted at five o'clock for private and public bills.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Green-Mr. Courtemanche in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954 to increase
[Stage Direction]
National Housing Act
from two hundred and fifty million dollars to four hundred million dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act; and also to provide for the reduction of down payments.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Henri Courtemanche: Before the committee rose at five o'clock the hon. member for Regina City had moved an amendment to the resolution respecting the National Housing Act in the following words:
That the resolution be amended by deleting the period after the word "payments" and by inserting at that point the following words: "and for a reduction in the rate of interest that may be charged by lenders under the act."
During the dinner hour I had an opportunity to read the remarks made by hon. members when they were discussing the point of order raised by the Minister of Public Works. I have also had an opportunity to study the authorities in regard to the relevancy of the proposed amendment and I would like to read those authorities to the committee. Campion in his introduction to the procedure of the House of Commons, fifteenth edition, at page 278 states:
The scope of amendment is limited by the terms of the resolution which has received the King's recommendation. Any amendment exceeding the terms of this resolution would amount to the exercise by the house of the initiative in expenditure which is constitutionally reserved to the Crown.
It should be clear that not only any increase in the amount of the charge recommended but any alteration in the objects to which it is directed, even if no additional charge is incurred, implies the exercise of such an initiative and is therefore out of order. The King's recommendation may be figuratively represented as drawing a line round the objects of expenditure set forth, often in great detail, in the recommended resolution. Any changes entirely within, or exclusions from, this circle are in order. But nothing may be brought into it from outside.
May in his fifteenth edition at pages 678 and 679 in discussing this point says:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand or recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications, expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea).]
Citation 439 of Beauchesne's third edition reads in part as follows:
The object of the resolution recommended by the Crown is to give the house a first opportunity to discuss the advisability of making a certain expenditure.
On the ground that the amendment attempts to impose a charge upon the crown, as the Minister of Public Works has stated, the amendment is of course out of order. On the other hand an amendment must have some meaning and must be relevant to the subject under consideration. I can find no provision relating to interest rates in the resolution before the committee. Therefore, basing my decision on the citations quoted above and on citation 344 of Beauchesne's third edition which in part reads as follows:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed-
I must rule that the amendment is out of order on the ground that it is not relevant to the resolution before the committee.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is indeed an extremely timely one and the Minister of Public Works is to be congratulated for bringing it in at this time. Hon. members I am sure will agree that over the past 18 months this house has heard many discussions on the problem of housing and the relationship of tight money thereto. It has been frequently said that one of the reasons the country was finding itself in the awkward position of having so many unemployed was by reason of the fact that we did not have any money allotted to our housing scheme as we had in earlier periods of relative prosperity.
It would be the tragedy of all time, and in fact it probably is, that the conditions apparent today in housing are such that we have thousands and thousands of people who are desirous of owning their own homes but who have been denied and are being denied the right to do so merely because they lack the financial means which makes it possible for them to partake in the terms set out in the National Housing Act and the regulations made thereunder.
The fact is, however, as I noticed with some regret that the proposed amendments to the act are not received throughout the country as enthusiastically as many of us supposed they would be. I have a clipping from a daily newspaper, the British Columbian, dated December 9, 1957, which is headed, "Few Benefits Seen From N.H.A. Changes" and which reads in part as follows:
The Conservative government last week handed the voters a bright, shiny apple in the form of amended N.H.A. regulations-

I am sure that sounds very gratifying to the minister but the paragraph continues:
-but it will take up to three months for the voter to discover the worm.
I recognize that this article might be somewhat biased in its views because it expresses only the thought of certain real estate agents in respect of the application of the act. However I think it warrants some consideration because these were the views of a group of real estate people who are a part of the over-all scheme of selling homes. After citing the above opinion of two prominent realtors the article continues:
Their findings were backed up at the weekend by the Vancouver real estate board, which termed "inaccurate and greatly exaggerated" first impressions of low down payments on N.H.A. homes. The city realtors said that the new loan regulations, aimed at creating employment, would actually have an adverse effect In the next two months.
They added that the promise of N.H.A. homes for from $1,000 for a $10,000 house and $3,200 for a $16,000 house was "not borne out by the facts".
People are going to be awfully disappointed when they try to buy an N.H.A. home for $1,000 down. There is going to be the complaint that the builder has grabbed up the extra money," said Mr. Williamson.
That is the thinking of a New Westminster real estate agent. Further on in the article I find the following important comment:
Mr. Noseworthy said that the lending value of a house was usually from $2,000 to $3,000 below the minimum amount for which the property could be sold.
In simpler terms, a contractor may put up a house for an actual cost to himself of $12,000. His N.H.A. loan will be based on this figure. He will sell the house for $1,500 to $2,000 more, which means the buyer will still have to make up the difference. At the most, the buyer's down payment will be reduced $800.
The two realtors said the Ottawa announcement had had an immediate effect on the New Westminster area housing market.
"Many realtors have had sales cancelled by people who think that in a couple of months they will be able to buy an N.H.A. house for $1,000 down," said Mr. Williamson.
Another realtor quoted in this article is a Vancouver realtor, a member of the Vancouver real estate board who said:
-false hopes that good homes can be bought here for as little as $1,500 down can only lead to disappointment.
This is a consideration which I feel the government should take under advisement, the fact that many people will be disappointed because they expect as a result of the announcement made by the minister they will be able to obtain a home for $1,000 down. It may be that the government through the regulations will take such remedial action as is necessary to make it possible for homes to be made available for $1,000 down and I would be delighted to see such action taken.
As I indicated earlier, the question of housing has been discussed very often in this
National Housing Act
house. The Minister of Public Works has been possibly one of the most loquacious in respect of housing needs and he is probably as familiar as anyone is with what he said. The Minister of Agriculture likewise had a great deal to say about housing, and because the Minister of Public Works might just not know what the Minister of Agriculture had to say from time to time I shall read what the Minister of Agriculture said on April 1, 1957, as reported in Hansard at page 2920:
I should like to turn to another matter, Mr. Speaker. One of the notable omissions in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance is any review of the present situation in regard to housing construction, or any measures designed to improve it. During the latter part of the 1956 session we had many indications that the tight money policy of the government was having, and was likely to have, very serious effects on the housing industry. The replies of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works to inquiries made in this house last summer, and again throughout this session, as to what measures were contemplated to prevent a great decline in house building were really nothing more than a sort of soothing syrup.
Of course, the Minister of Agriculture has been accustomed to using fine phrases in criticizing some of the actions that the former government took along similar lines. While I am delighted that there is to be an amendment to the act, I also must agree with the Minister of Agriculture that perhaps the terminology he used in the quotation I have just given might apply equally at the present moment.
The hon. member for Regina City proposed an amendment which was commendable in every sense of the word. The people of this country realize full well that the interest rate paid on housing loans eats up a great deal of the amount used as a payment on a house; but-and there is a "but"-a question comes to my mind immediately and it is a serious one because it is something that we have been up against in the past several months. If we reduce the interest rate, will money be made available by private companies to make it possible for a continued expansion in housing that we would like to see? It is a very serious problem. It is a fact that we can borrow money on the open market at probably 6 per cent to 7 per cent. But when it comes to housing loans, and we try to reduce the interest rate to a point where the people can afford to pay it, we find at this time the money is denied us. It is indeed a very serious problem. The government should make it its business to see whether it is possible to bring the interest rate permitted on all loans in the country to the point where the public would be in a better position to pay and get the money at the same time. I know it is a difficult question. I realize it full well because if the

National Housing Act
people or the lending institutions who have the money do not get the interest rate which they have the right to demand, then the money will go across the line to the United States or to someone else who is prepared to pay the interest rate.
The suggestion that the interest rate on housing should be 4J per cent is even unreasonably high because, since the Bank of Canada issues money at a lower interest rate, I believe the function of the bank should be to give Canada money at cost so that Canadians themselves would benefit thereby and not be paying an unduly large amount of their payments in interest in their endeavours to buy houses.
I did indicate that this question has been discussed frequently in this house. The lumbering industry in my province is in a desperate condition, which has been brought about by this and other factors. The fact that we have not a foreign market has affected it as well, of course, but the fact that the tight money policy had an adverse effect on housing loans made the problem just that much more acute. The effect has been that more than 50,000 men in my province who are dependent on a $500 million industry have practically lost their positions. Probably it is significant that in the change of government the former minister of trade and commerce, Mr. C. D. Howe, was not elected to this house. Probably the reason we have the present government is that he made statements such as the one I shall now quote which appeared in the Financial Times of February 15, 1957. The article is headed:
"Get Back to Normal" Howe Tells Industry Via Lumbermen
The article reads in part, and I shall not read very much of it:
And finally, and most significantly, the lumbering industry can not expect the government to do anything about it.
The reason we have had a change of government, Mr. Chairman, is that the lumbering industry expected the government to do something about it. If this housing plan that is proposed does not do all that we hope it will, then it is just going to be that much eyewash so far as the lumbermen in my own province are concerned. I am hopeful that it will be of considerable help. I expect it will be. I have said so before. If the people in British Columbia and in the rest of Canada are not in a position to find the down payment of $1,000 or more they will still be denied the right to buy a house and, of course, our industry will suffer. The relation of this problem to the unemployment situation has been well demonstrated, and it is one of the reasons why so many of us have

asked from time to time to have a change made in the present interest rate. We are hoping that it will do something for the industry as a whole.
One of the objections that I have to the present amendment-and I wish that the minister had gone farther-is that it means that a man can only buy a house-that is, a man who has a desire to get one-if he has an income of approximately $5,000. When we were discussing the income tax bill the other day the Minister of Finance indicated that there were some 3 million Canadians who had an annual income which required them to pay income tax on not more than $2,000. This afternoon the hon. member for Regina City quoted figures to show that 81.6 per cent of the Canadian workers earn less than $4,000 a year. This act, even as amended, is not going to be of any particular value to the people who are desperately in need of houses.
The problem of interest rates, which I mentioned a few moments ago, was also brought to the attention of the government in a brief submitted to the federal government by the 39th annual general meeting of the Canadian construction association on February 26 of this year. I recognize that another administration was in office at that time. I draw the minister's attention to pages 4 and 5 of the brief, where I find the following:
The housebuilding section of the construction industry has to date been most seriously affected by the present credit situation and the competition for investment funds.
I would say that bears out some of the arguments I presented earlier with respect to the impossibility of getting money at a lower rate of interest.
It is still too early to assess whether or not the recent increase to 6 per cent from 51 per cent in the interest rate for National Housing Act loans will be effective in increasing the amount of investment funds allocated for this purpose by the lending institutions.
We know as a matter of fact that increasing the rate to 6 per cent did not help. Despite all the hopes that the former administration had in that respect, no greater amount of money was made available for housing.
One certain result of the increase in interest rates, however, will be an added average expense of $900 to the homeowner spread over the life of the mortgage. In the association's submission to you a year ago it was stated: "... most of those with N.H.A. mortgages have annual incomes of $5,000 or more. Relatively few earning less than $3,600 a year finance the purchase of a house under the N.H.A. and yet the intent of the original national housing legislation was to assist those with modest incomes to own their own home."
That is a very pertinent statement. When the National Housing Act was put on the

statute books in the first instance its purpose was to give the man who wanted to buy his own home and who earned $3,600 or less the opportunity to purchase such a home. That is being denied today. I do not feel the present act is doing much to alleviate that situation or that the proposed changes will do so either. Despite the earlier statement respecting the point of view of the real estate agents, I am fully aware that even if we say to the individual that he can buy a home by paying $1,000 down it will be just as difficult for him to find $1,000 as $1,400. For that reason I commend to the minister's attention the suggestion made by the hon. member for Hamilton South respecting the rent-lease idea and also the suggestion of the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska who advocated following the same method used in the United States where a down payment of $400 on a $10,000 home is considered as sufficient.
X realize that there will be difficulties but the problem must be met. The objective in building homes is to provide homes for people who cannot afford the expensive type of luxury home because they do not earn enough to begin with or they have not even been able to save $1,000. In order to assist in financing I would urge the government to make use of the credit unions. Let the government make capital available to them so that they can make loans to their membership. In so doing the government will not only be helping the credit unions but also the individual who wishes to own his own home. I would say that the credit unions should have the same guarantee respecting housing loans as is now found under the insurance clause in the National Housing Act.
I should also like to draw the attention of the minister to a brief submitted to the former minister of public works by a large construction firm in the lower mainland of British Columbia. I am satisfied that when the Minister of Public Works hears the name he will recognize it. I refer to Greenall Brothers, a very well known firm. The management of the company was good enough to provide me with a copy of the brief and I should like to read parts of it and make certain comments with respect to the subject matter because I think this is going to be very pertinent not necessarily at the moment but in 1958 when we run into the problem of raising more money. The brief reads in part as follows:
May we say at the outset that we are not against the principle of credit restriction as we feel the need for some control is self-evident in every car lot and appliance house across Canada . . .
That is self-evident. In that regard may I suggest that if the government should consider implementing credit restrictions at
National Housing Act
some future date those credit restrictions should not be imposed against a major industry such as the housing industry, as has been the case in the past year and a half, but rather against the use of credit to purchase smaller items such as appliances and so on. I believe that today there is some $814 million on the books of various merchants across the land. If that money were put into housing it would provide homes for a good number of people. But there is a more important point. It is not too difficult for the housewife to wait an additional six months to buy a General Electric teakettle at $14.95 but it is a lot more difficult to do without a home as so many people are wont to do because they do not have the wherewithal to purchase a home and they have pretty well used up their credit in some other way. The brief goes on to say:
The Arm of Greenall Bros. Ltd., have specialized in the production of low cost homes for income brackets of up to $4,000-
I should like the minister to recognize that fact. This firm has made it their specialty to make homes available to those with incomes of less than $4,000. I continue with the brief:
The claim by C.M.H.C. that unsold N.H.A. homes in the Vancouver area constitute a surplus is not a valid one because the unsold houses are all at a cost level that effectively excludes the low income purchaser and we defy C.M.H.C. or any other body to show us unsold N.H.A. homes in the $9,000 to $11,000 cost range.
In keeping with that, Mr. Chairman, I have here a copy of the Financial Post of October 5, 1957 in which there is a table with the heading, "These Houses Didn't Sell." I find that 75 homes costing less than $10,000 did not sell. Between $10,000 and $14,999 there were 794, between $15,000 and $19,999 there were 671, over $20,000 there were 872 and there were 245 with regard to which the price was unknown. The total to the end of August was 2,657, and I would have you note, sir, that of the total of 2,657 only 75 of the homes costing less than $10,000 did not sell while 872 of those costing over $20,000 had not been sold or about one-third of the total number. The other figures are quite uniform, 794,671 and 872.
There, indeed, is the problem in a nutshell. The people who require assistance are not going to get it under the proposed changes in the act. Homes costing less than $10,000 represented only 3 per cent of the total number of homes still for sale at the end of August in the whole of Canada, a very nominal figure indeed. The brief to which I referred earlier continues in this fashion:
The need for housing of low income workers is well established and through our agents we have a large number of people signed up as home owner applicants who are patiently awaiting what appears

National Housing Act
to be a non-existent loan set-up in the iace of a definite housing shortage; it now appears that we will have to return their deposits.
In many instances these people have been refused loans. I have not checked into this question too closely, but as I understand it they have been refused loans on the basis that the contractor has money made available to him other than under the National Housing Act. A contractor may be building National Housing Act homes, he may use other money as well. Within a short time that particular source dries up and he is left without the means of carrying on the housing scheme because Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will not permit direct loans. The minister might care to comment on that later. I cannot vouch for the authenticity of this statement, but I did obtain that information by discussing the question with a building firm within the area. This seems to be part of the problem.
There is one other observation that this firm had to make, and I shall read again from this brief:
One of the most effective ways to control a wild building boom with its spiralling of land and building costs is to require that all sales be to home owner applicants.
I think that would be a desirable feature.
This would effectively cut out speculative building and stop over-production of housing units which are priced over the market.
Now, Mr. Chairman, because I am so short of time I shall not read any farther. Probably the minister has a copy of this brief available to him. If he has not I shall be delighted to send him a copy. I think it is one which should be carefully considered, because here we have one of the largest construction firms in the lower mainland of British Columbia giving us their views on the reasons why potential home owners are not able to purchase homes, that is individuals who are earning $4,000 and less. I believe those views are worth noting.
Just before closing, I have one further question. I should like the minister to comment on what our research laboratories have turned up in the last ten years which makes it possible to reduce the cost of building a house, either through a reduction in labour or material costs or a combination of both. I am particularly interested in that because I find we spend a great deal of time in this house discussing principal costs, interest costs and a thousand and one other things. We have spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars on our research branch, and I have yet to find a single item that has in any tangible way reduced the cost of construction to the potential home owners in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman-


Maurice Bourget: I hope the minister is not
closing the debate.


Howard Charles Green: No, I am not closing the debate. We are in committee. I thought it might be helpful if I dealt with the points which have been raised by the spokesmen for the three opposition parties. I have no desire to stop my good friend from making a speech.
When I introduced this resolution on December 4, I pointed out that the legislation would have only two effects. The first one was to make more money available for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The need for that additional money arose because our small home plan had been so successful. We had set aside $150 million for this purpose, and it was obvious that that money was going to be used up and further sums would be required. It was for this reason the government changed its plan and decided to introduce amendments to the National Housing Act at this session. When we were doing so, we decided we should at the same time amend the act to lower the down payments. There is a further change made by way of a change in the regulations, and that is to raise the percentage of a person's income which could be used to service a mortgage. This, of course, did not require any amendment to the statute.
I admitted on December 4, and I repeat tonight, that there are many other ways in which the Canadian housing policy could be improved. We are only too glad to get suggestions from any source, particularly from members of the house and also from firms such as the one to which my good friend the hon. member for New Westminster has just referred. Whenever we receive a brief it is given most careful consideration by the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We regard ourselves as being in business for the purpose of improving housing in Canada, and particularly housing for Canadians in lower income groups. However, this legislation before the house only deals with the two things; first of all, to make more money available and, secondly, to reduce the down payment.
There have been very worthwhile suggestions made by all three members who have spoken on this resolution today. The hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount made a very thoughtful speech. It was quite obvious he had studied this question very carefully. He pointed out one of the main problems worrying me about housing. It is this. Next year, where is the money coming from to provide for the number of houses that should be built? The government obviously cannot take over the business of providing mortgage money. It simply cannot be done. What has already been done this fall has only been

done in the way of helping to meet an emergent situation. The bulk of the money for houses in Canada must come from the lending institutions whose business it is, and from the banks. It is at that point that the argument advanced by the hon. member for Regina City this afternoon falls to the ground. He advocated, and he moved an amendment in support of his submission, that interest rates should be reduced.
There is nothing the government would like more than to be able to reduce interest rates on housing. If those interest rates are reduced to the extent that the lending institutions and the banks will no longer lend any money for housing, then we are in a real tailspin in so far as housing in Canada is concerned. This is one reason why housing has fallen away in Canada this year. These institutions could do better by investing their funds in bonds and many other types of securities than they could by investing them in mortgages. That is one of the reasons why mortgage money dried up to such an extent in 1957. Another reason, of course, was the tight money policy of the former government. I think perhaps they will now admit that that is one of the reasons that housing fell away. I believe that housing was hit harder than any other activity in Canada by the tight money policy of the previous government.


George Carlyle Marler: I think perhaps that is more debatable than what the minister said earlier.


An hon. Member:: It could not be more correct.


Howard Charles Green: It may be debatable. I am giving my opinion on the question. But there is the difficulty about lowering interest rates at the present time.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Will the minister permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Alfred Claude Ellis: How would the minister reconcile the statement he made just before five o'clock to the effect that the bulk of the money which would be lent would be lent through direct lending through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with the statement he made that we have to depend on the conventional lending institutions for the supply of mortgage money.


Howard Charles Green: In arguing that the amendment submitted by the hon. member was out of order I pointed out that the bulk of the money being advanced now is coming from government funds through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and that is actually the case. But that situation cannot go on forever. That plan has been designed to meet a situation which I hope will be temporary.
National Housing Act
Then the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount stressed the need for co-operation with the lending institutions, including the banks. I agree heartily with his submission. The hon. member for Regina City was critical of the lending institutions but my experience with this $150 million plan has been that we have had excellent co-operation from all of the lending institutions. It would have been quite impossible to get this $150 million out so quickly and to get houses started so quickly and thereby help to meet the unemployment situation if we had not had the closest co-operation from the lending institutions.
The hon. member for St. Antoine-West-mount also raised the question of lending values as did the hon. member for New Westminster. I agree that there has been a weakness there in the housing policy. Mind you, there is a reason for the position taken by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as there usually is for any of these policies that are adopted. In centres like Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Winnipeg and some other cities in Canada the prices of lots have been skyrocketing and the officials felt it was unwise to include in lending value the total market value of these lots in cities such as those that I have mentioned. I have given instructions that that policy should be looked into and revised and I think you will now find that the lending values in these centres will be higher and more in line with the actual cost of the land. This is a place where improvements could be made and I think that under our new policy they will be made.
Then the hon. member for Regina City asked a question. I may say that the hon. member also made a very thoughtful speech. He has put a great deal of time on this housing question. I noticed in the last parliament that he spoke very well on all occasions on housing. He said, "Why could not the lending institutions lend more of their money on small homes?" He pointed out my remarks on December 4 to the effect that they had found it easier to lend money on big homes. The reason that the government has been able to channel this $150 million into the smaller homes is that we put on restrictions. We said that the house can only be a certain size and that if the house is over that size, they do not get the loan. The ordinary lending institutions cannot do that; it is impossible for them to carry out a policy of that kind. Our $150 million has been spent only in helping in the building of small homes.
The hon. member also dealt with the situation in Regina City and I sympathize with him in this matter because I had that situation before me just this week. In some parts

National Housing Act
of Canada we are in trouble because we are insisting on lots being serviced with sewers. We are refusing to approve loans where there can only be septic tanks. In parts of greater Vancouver that does not make very much sense, in my opinion, and we are having another look at that matter. But in Regina the situation is exactly the opposite. There are lots which are serviced with sewers but they are in parts of the city where there are very old homes. There it has been felt that it would be unwise to build these new homes in among the old homes. Hence in Regina the policy has been exactly the opposite of what it has been in greater Vancouver. I had a letter from the city clerk of Regina just this week. The city council is complaining that we will not approve loans on these lots. Mind you, the reason that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials have taken that stand is that they are trying to help Regina to build up the city on the basis of good town planning. I pointed out that that is not really our business, that it is the responsibility of the city to decide on town planning. Instructions have been given-yesterday, as a matter of fact, or Saturday, I forget which *-that an official should go out to the city of Regina and look into this whole situation in the hope that we can change our policy and make loans available for homes on these lots. I agree with the hon. member that it would mean homes for people with smaller incomes and I am hoping that we can meet his complaint.
Then the hon. member for New Westminster said something about our plan being a lot of soothing syrup. I have here the figures up to four days ago and I should like to point out to him that in his own city of New Westminster this soothing syrup has meant 651 units being started, with loans of $6,228,610.54.


Frederick George Hahn: Is that under the present act?


Howard Charles Green: That is before we get these improvements to the act. That is under the $150 million plan which has been in effect only for the last 12 weeks. We have put right into his riding-or it will nearly all be in his riding-651 new units with loans of over $6 million. I am sure there are many other members who would like to have soothing syrup to that amount.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder if the minister, while he is referring to the British Columbia figures, would give the latest totals for the entire province? He made some reference in his speech on December 4 to the fact that British Columbia was-


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be very glad to do that because, coming from British Columbia myself, I have been very worried about the slowness with which builders there were taking advantage of this plan. When it was first announced, newspaper articles all said it was not half enough and it did lag quite a bit. But the total figures for British Columbia as of the 13th December were 1238 units for a total figure of $11,272,972.71. Now that deals only with approved loans and, for Canada, as of that date the total was $146,072,339. In addition there were potential loans of another $21,740,000 so that the British Columbia figure, including loans actually approved and loans on the way through, I should think would be close to $13 million or $14 million.
From now on, the west coast figures should go up much faster than anywhere else in the country because of the balmy climate there and other considerations.


George Carlyle Marler: No advertising please.


Howard Charles Green: The members from British Columbia will appreciate all those enviable advantages.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not the only thing that is balmy.


Howard Charles Green: I was greatly interested in a report in the Vancouver Province just a week ago today, to which I would like to draw the attention of my hon. friend from New Westminster:
"Housing Loans Soar in B.C."


George Carlyle Marler: S-o-r-e?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount will appreciate this article.
"Easier Money Boosts Sales''
The gloom which surrounded the housing industry earlier this year has rolled back as N.H.A.-insured loans hit new peaks and contractors report "amazing'' pre-Christmas home sales.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation figures show the dollar value of loans in B.C. in November hit $7,662,000-more than 500 per cent over last November's total of $1,300,000.
The number of loans was 661 against 108 in November last year, and the number of units involved lumped from 128 to 772.
Of the 772 units authorized this November, 628 were agency loans financed by the $150 million released by the federal government in September to revive the sagging home construction industry.
"There is no doubt about it,"-


George Carlyle Marler: Did the minister write this himself?


Howard Charles Green: This is good, yes; this paragraph is good.


George Carlyle Marler: We recognize the Machiavellian hand of the minister.


Howard Charles Green: This shows that the "sore" part was before June 10.
"There is no doubt about," said Ted Eoss, secretary-manager of the Vancouver Metropolitan Housebuilders' Association, "the change of government, the release of this money and the attendant publicity has revived confidence in the industry."
It has been like a shot of plasma into a vein. People aren't so worried about tight money and are buying homes again.
We are amazed at the number of new homes sold in the last few weeks. Usually people don't buy at this time of the year especially just before Christmas."


George Carlyle Marler: Miraculous.


Howard Charles Green: Coming from my own home town that is very sweet news.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that why the minister is not going home for Christmas?


Howard Charles Green: There are very few of those homes going up in Vancouver-Quadra.


George Carlyle Marler: Very discriminatory.


Howard Charles Green: May I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that we are very glad to have suggestions about ways of improving housing policy. Of course we think it is pretty good, but the problem is very complicated and will require the most careful study by everyone having any responsibility in connection with it. I hope that the committees made up of members of the respective parties who have been studying housing will continue to do so. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials will give such members every facility and then perhaps in the new session it will be possible to undertake a much wider revision of the National Housing Act.
In the meantime we are faced with this situation: We are asking for more money; we are asking to have these down payments lowered. We are right out of money now; we have reached the limit and we have got to get this legislation through. We have to convince the other place before they adjourn on Friday that the bill is a good one and I would be very hopeful for the co-operation of the members of this house in order that we may get these amendments written into the statute and made actual law.


Frederick George Hahn: Before the hon. minister sits down, I wonder if he could explain to the house exactly what the research department is doing, if anything. I understand there is an amount there and I was wondering just what we were getting for it.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member is referring to methods of building cheaper homes. That is a question which has also bothered me a great deal and, as he has said, there have been many attempts to lower the cost involved. I think the house builders of Canada, who have always been efficient, are steadily
National Housing Act
becoming more and more efficient but it does seem to be very difficult to prepare designs which will allow of a big decrease in the cost of homes.
For one thing every one wants all the latest improvements in a home. We are very conscious of this problem; it is one of the important jobs of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and whether it will ever be possible to make a drastic reduction in the price of homes, I do not know. There may be new materials devised which will bring about that result, but possibly people will continue to want better and better equipment in their homes and that may counteract whatever improvements may be found by research.


George Carlyle Marler: Before the minister concludes his remarks, could he tell us something about the grandiose measures of which the Solicitor General spoke early in November.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, probably the Solicitor General had in mind the steps we have taken. I think the results that have been obtained from the policy this fall might almost be described as grandiose.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Pie in the sky.


Mr. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question before he sits down. I wonder if the minister could tell the committee on what terms the lending institutions receive compensation when the loan is a direct government loan through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Howard Charles Green: In answer to that question I propose to quote paragraph 9 of the agency agreement for the administration of N.H.A. loans, the agreement made between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the lending institution or what is called an approved lender. Paragraph 9 states:
For the making and advancing of loans, the corporation will pay to the approved lender a fee of
(i)	$100 for each loan made In respect of a house other than to a builder;
(ii)	$90 for each loan made in respect of a house to a builder;
(iii)	$80 for each loan made in respect of one or more multiple family dwellings plus $10 for each family housing unit therein but not exceeding in any event a total fee of $300 for such loan; Provided that no fee shall be payable hereunder for a loan which has been approved but on which advances are made.


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the statement made by the Minister of Public Works when he introduced the resolution now before us. He said that the purpose of this measure in amending the National Housing Act of 1954 was to increase to $150 million the aggregate amount that

National Housing Act
On November 7, 1957, L'Action Catholique of Quebec city published a resume of a brief prepared by the local section of the Quebec retail lumbermen's association, endorsed by five provincial organizations of the district. Under the subheading "Municipalities" the brief stated:
The municipalities of the metropolitan area, and particularly of Quebec, should also intervene. The National Housing Act provides for loans and assistance from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for slum clearance. Through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation the federal government assume a large portion of the expenses incurred by the demolition of decrepit houses and the improvement of blighted areas.
A little farther on, under the subheading "The Province", the brief states:
The most productive part rests with the government of the province. It could have a most effective action on the present contingency ... by enabling citizens to avail themselves of the provisions of the national act as well as those of the provincial act.
In this connection, the brief states:
We do not see any justification in the attitude which insists that these two acts are incompatible. No one gains by it and the citizens of the province of Quebec lose a great deal.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, we find that the people of our province deplore, and rightly so, the fact that their provincial rulers have refused in the past to make it possible for their fellow citizens to benefit fully from the National Housing Act, as did other provinces.
I trust that the Quebec members on the government side, who are friends of the provincial premier, may at last convince him to help our towns and cities by making it possible for them to benefit from the provisions of the act, and thus bring about a solution to the crucial problem of slum clearance.
Before closing, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say to the minister that his words of commendation regarding the Hon. Robert Winters and the officers of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are fully deserved. I am convinced that they have each one within the scope of his responsibilities striven to find the most suitable solutions to promote and help the construction of new homes in Canada.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, we in the province of British Columbia were rather pleased when the minister was appointed Minister of Public Works. We do not know what type of engineer he is going to be and how he will work out as Minister of Public Works. However, with regard to the matter of housing, a subject which is of such vital concern, the people of British Columbia will always have a most sympathetic and understanding man as minister.
We have arrived at a time when we have to take a look at what is happening in the field of housing. For some years we had considerable difficulty with the former minister in that he continually refused to acknowledge that a serious situation was beginning to develop nationally from the point of view of housing shortage. For an explanation of that attitude on the part of the then government we have to look at a statement made by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe on February 13 of this year when he was reported as having said that the record suggested that we had been building more houses in Canada in the last few years than the current rate of family growth in the country appeared to warrant. I believe he had reached the conclusion that it would be in the best interests of the country if there was a slow-down in the rate of house construction, and that was rather evident from the policies that were being pursued.
I do not wish to indicate any opposition whatsoever to the resolution but I should like to examine the National Housing Act to some extent. I should like to pay tribute to the work that has been accomplished under the provisions of the act over the years. I hate to think of what kind of housing situation we would be faced with if the former government had not initiated the act, in 1945 I believe. I should also like to pay tribute to the officials. I feel that within the limits of their powers they have in the main done whatever they were able to do to make the act a success.
However, I do submit that the National Housing Act has not met the housing needs of the Canadian people. We have only to look at the statistics to see that that is so. We find that since 1945 there has been a growth of 4,517,000 in Canada's population. That indicates an approximate need for one and one-third million new housing units. I submit that that number is far in excess of the number of new housing units built since the war. I believe we have approached the million mark but we have not anywhere met the needs of our growth in population. I have here housing bulletin No. 35 of the Vancouver housing association dated October, 1957. It deals with the local scene and in the first paragraph they say:
According to provincial government estimates, the population of B.C. increased by 88,500 people or over 6 per cent during the year ended June 30, 1957. At 3J persons per household, this means a requirement of some 25,000 housing units. During this period 15,000 dwellings were completed, indicating a shortage of no less than 10,000 units in a single year.
This year there has been heavy immigration into Canada. I have the annual report here and it indicates that 164,856 people entered

Canada in 1956. I believe that the figures for 1957 will show that over 200,000 people have come to this country. If anyone cares to dispute what I have said, let me submit the problem to another test which to my mind is the acid test of whether the housing shortage is becoming worse or is being alleviated. I refer to the level of rents. I believe that the shortage of homes determines the level of rents, and we have not seen any major reduction of rentals since the war. The general movement of rentals has been upward and in my opinion that indicates beyond doubt that the situation is becoming worse instead of better.
The hon. member for Regina City went to some length to explain that the act has failed us in another respect. It has failed us in that the wrong people are receiving help from the government. I was very pleased to hear the minister express his sentiments when he indicated that he was most concerned about enabling people with low incomes to obtain housing accommodation. I submit to the minister that in the main the act has completely failed the people of Canada in this regard ever since it was first initiated.
I know that the theory can be put forward that if a rich man builds a home he moves out of his old home and therefore another housing unit has been made available so why should we worry about who gets the new home. To me that represents the philosophy of the crumbs falling from the table and the little people getting the crumbs, a philosophy to which I cannot subscribe. I think even the minister will agree that when the revenue of the government of Canada and the taxation of the nation are used to supply housing a responsible government will make every effort to make sure that government action will be the instrument to help those who really need help and that the National Housing Act should not be used to assist in the building of homes for people who can go to orthodox financial institutions and arrange their own financing. Where do the two-thirds of our people in the lower income category obtain money in order to secure housing? In order to show how serious the situation is I should like to place on the record a few advertisements taken from the Vancouver Sun of Saturday, December 14. Under "Money Wanted"; we find:
First mortgage 7 per cent, $3,250 buys $4,000 at $45 a month.
Farther down, there is another ad:
First mortgage, $2,000 bonus, $5,050 buys $7,050 first mortgage payable at $71.50 per month, 7 per cent.
Then, there is the address where you apply. There has been a long list of these advertisements for first mortgages at 7 per cent or
National Housing Act
more which are being discounted at 25 per cent or more, and second mortgages are worse. I have a letter here in which a man informs me that to get a second mortgage of $1,500 he signed a second mortgage for $2,000; he paid a bonus of $300; he paid a commission of $200, and he paid lawyer's fees of $38. There was paid out to him a net payment of $1,492. The interest rate was 7 per cent. I was very interested in noting that the terms of repayment were $61 per month. In other words, there was only a three-year agreement. Now, the ordinary people of Canada are being taken for a ride, a harsh ride and one that they can ill afford.
Here we have the government of Canada spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on housing and that money is not being made available to these poor people who are in such desperate need. I realize the minister would like to limit discussion on this resolution because he believes the matter is rather urgent. However, he is asking for an increase in the capitalization of this institution, and I feel that subject is weighty enough. The minister himself has indicated that at a later date he hopes to bring in a broad revision of the act and therefore a detailed reaction of the members of the house at this time might serve a useful purpose by making sure that when the complete revision of the act does come it will contain something that will be really worth while for the Canadian people. Food, clothing and shelter, we say, are the prime necessities of life. In dealing with housing, one is dealing with shelter and I think this debate is just as important as any wheat debate in this house.
The economy of my province depends very heavily on a prosperous housing industry. Not only is our population growing at such a rapid rate, largely because of immigration into the province that we have a housing need, but also, Mr. Chairman, half of our people earn their living directly from the lumbering industry. At the present time we have much more than our share of the unemployed of our nation. There is nothing of which I can think that is as helpful in relieving unemployment as a real shot in the arm for our housing industry.
The resolution, Mr. Chairman, calls for an increase in the amount of money allotted under section 22 of the act from $250 million to $400 million. I should like to say to the minister that I believe this committee would have welcomed the raising of that amount even higher. I see no reason why it should necessarily be limited to $400 million. After all, $400 million accounts for only 40,000 houses, in effect, and we are today building each year 100,000 fewer houses than our

National Housing Act
nation really needs. We in this group have long advocated the establishment of a national investment board which would look after such social needs as housing.
However, if the minister feels that he cannot go along with that, might I recommend to him that a national housing bond issue be made. I noted that the other day the Minister of Finance did not have any difficulty at all in having the latest Canada savings bond issue oversubscribed. As the hon. member for Regina City said, we should make some move to lower the interest rate to those who need homes. The issuance of a national housing bond series at' 3J per cent I feel would make a billion dollars available. The government might then turn around and let the people who need this money most have it at cost.
I feel the minister might also investigate whether or not greater use could be made of the credit union movement. Lately this movement has, because of the need of its members, gone to great lengths in supplying housing money across the country. I feel the movement has now reached the age and gained the experience which would warrant the government granting it more recognition and making greater use of this medium. It is obvious that private sources of mortgage money at modest interest rates are disappearing. They have been disappearing ever since 1951, ever since the great expansion in our industrial empire began to take place. The insurance companies and the mortgage companies have shown less and less interest in supplying the money needed in the housing field. I recall when the former government brought the banks into the housing field. They did this for an excellent reason, and the reason was that the insurance and mortgage companies were rapidly leaving the field. The banks had to be brought in because apparently at that time they were the only source available of investment money.
At that time we in this group warned the government of the day that bank investments in the field of housing would last only so long, and then would level off. Today the banks, in the main, are only investing in housing the mortgage money that is repaid, and they are only investing that percentage in housing that has a relationship to the growth of the assets of the bank. Once again we have reached the end of the rope. Some day the government will have to realize that unless they are going to exert some pressure on the existing institutions they will have to take over this responsibility of supplying money.
I was not very happy, Mr. Chairman, with the answer the minister gave to the question

asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I believe the question referred to the fees paid to approved lenders by the government when they handle government money. The minister read out a table of fees from an agreement. I am not going to argue with that reply. However, if the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway did not mean to ask this question, I mean to ask it. When the government supplies money to an approved lending institution at 3| per cent or 4 per cent-we do not know what the rate is-how is it that the lending institution in turn can charge the purchaser of a home 6 per cent? I never before knew of a table of fees. I hope the minister is going to reply to this question. Does the lending institution receive 2 per cent or 2J per cent on the handling of government money and, in addition to that, receive a fixed fee as well? If that is so, I feel that there is something wrong.


Howard Charles Green: On that point, Mr. Chairman, may I say that these fees are paid to the lending institutions only when they lend the money on behalf of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That has nothing to do with the ordinary loans which are insured under the insurance requirement.


Erhart Regier: In other words, I take it that this $150 million which the minister made available some months ago did not involve the use of the scale of fees?


Howard Charles Green: It is that money that was subject to a fee because the lending institution lent it out on our behalf. Under the ordinary insured loan, those loans are made in the name of the lending institution itself and the government or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation merely insures those loans.


Erhart Regier: From the minister's reply I take it that even though the purchaser pays 6 per cent and the cost to the government of this money is maybe 4 per cent, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation receives the remaining 2 per cent. Am I right in assuming that?


Howard Charles Green: 
Erhart Regier: 
Howard Charles Green: The purchaser pays 6 per cent.


Erhart Regier: What I want to know is this. What happens when I go to the Bank of

Montreal and obtain a National Housing Act loan. The minister has told us that he is now supplying this money to the extent of $150 million because they were unwilling to lend on, or did not have any more money to devote to housing. I take it they are getting that money from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for 4 per cent, or as the minister says 4| per cent. Yet I as a purchaser must pay 6 per cent. Then the minister says in addition to that there is a scale of fees.


Howard Charles Green: In addition to the figures I gave to the hon, member there is an administration fee of one-half of one per cent per year.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Does not the purchaser have to pay 2 per cent insurance?


Erhart Regier: I know that after I finished grade three arithmetic I went to grade four and then to grade five. Let us see if we can get a little bit more information. To my way of thinking 4| per cent plus jj of one per cent plus i of one per cent do not add up to 6 per cent yet. The thing I want to point out is this. In 1953 I took rather severe objection to the handling of government money as the situation existed prior to that provision, in that N.H.A. loans were supplied, 75 per cent by the lending institutions and 25 per cent by the government at that time. Government money was made available at cost to the lending institution. The lending institution added profit into that interest rate which was charged to the purchaser. That procedure, as the minister knows, was abolished when we amended the act.
At present we are again entering an era apparently where government money is being handed over or lent to the lending institutions. What I want to make sure of is this. I must say that the lending institutions and the banks especially have done recently a most remarkable job. The banks have reached many thousands of people in Canada which the lending institutions prior to that time refused to deal with. However, what I want to make sure of is that these institutions are not making a rake-off on the Canadian people's money and on these National Housing Act loans. If people lend out their own money, that is an entirely different matter from that of using the taxpayer's money for that purpose. I hope that later on we can get a little bit clearer answer to that question.
I have noted in the past considerable condemnation of municipal governments for their failures to take advantage of the provisions of the National Housing Act. I feel that in the 96698-159
National Housing Act
main these criticisms have been most unwarranted. I hope the minister, by means of regulation if he does not want to amend the act in that respect, will see whether things cannot be made much more attractive to our municipal governments across the country.
The hon. member for Regina City spoke of lots selling at $2,000 and said he thought that was an extremely high price. The minister knows full well that the average modest National Housing Act lot in his community and in mine is in price away over and beyond the $2,000 which the hon. member for Regina City thought was very expensive. If the municipal governments were given a little bit more encouragement I feel that many more of them would make lots available at a much more modest price.
The minister spoke of the down payment and he is also amending the regulations so that those devoting 27 per cent of their income towards meeting payments will be eligible. I think the minister was slightly contradictory on December 4 when he was asserting that this change in regulations would make more people eligible because, only a few sentences ahead of that, he admitted that naturally when you lower the down payment there is a larger amount owing and therefore the monthly payments are higher. Therefore, unless we amend the regulations, we shall be eliminating an even larger share of low income people. I just wonder why the 27 per cent was arrived at. Is the difference between 23 per cent and 27 per cent the percentage that is needed to keep the minimum income requirements at the same level as it was previously, or has there been any extra allowance in this change of the regulation? If that is so, then we might be guilty of misleading the people if we say that now more of them will be eligible because of this amendment.
The lowering of the interest rate proposed by the hon. member for Regina City would reduce the cost and would make more people eligible. I think that the principle is sound, as did the hon. member who preceded me. He pointed out a number of instances in which government money is being made available for all kinds of other interests in our nation at a lower rate. After all, housing is one of the basic needs of our Canadian people and there is no valid reason why this government should make loans to pipe line companies or any other industrial enterprise at a rate lower than that which the people of Canada are obliged to pay for housing.
I know that, if certain people had their way there would be a great deal of money available in the housing field. There is a very simple answer to the problem and that is to allow the interest rate to shoot away up high.
I hope that is not going to be the philosophy

National Housing Act
that this government will adopt, namely that in order to obtain this money they will have to raise interest rates so high that they begin to compete with industrial enterprise in our country. I think those days are gone forever.
I should like to make just a few proposals.
I think the minister's regulations need amending in such a way that no man continuing to live in the same community can become eligible more than once for N.H.A. approved loans. I have witnessed considerable speculation on the part of people earning a fair income who, being very eligible for an N.H.A. approved loan, will move into a new home and the minute they have moved in the house is listed for sale. They bide their time and they can make a few thousand dollars, and they then move out of that house and in a new N.H.A. approved-loan home.
I think that is something into which the minister might well look; I think it is an abuse for which this act was never intended.
I wish the minister would also order a comparison to be made as to why houses built under veterans legislation enterprises are so much more successful in meeting the real needs of the people than are those built under the National Housing Act legislation. I think there are many features of the veterans housing from which we might take a lesson.


Henri Courtemanche: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must advise him that his time has expired. Shall the resolution carry?


Howard Charles Green: I wonder Mr. Chairman, if by any chance this resolution could be put through this evening and then hon. members could speak on the bill either on second reading or when it is in the committee stage. Otherwise we may not be able to get it to the other place this week which will mean that this legislation cannot become law. As I have pointed out in my earlier remarks, we are already over the limits allowed under the statute as it stands at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: Although we have one or two members on this side of the house who do wish to speak on this subject, we would be willing to proceed as the minister suggests, provided we would be allowed to make speeches tomorrow at the second reading stage as if we were on the resolution.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This sort of suggestion has been made a number of times before, Mr. Chairman, and then when we get to second reading we have found that some of the broader aspects of the matter under discussion were difficult to discuss because of the question of relevancy to the strict terms of the bill. I hope that if the suggestion which the minister has made is agreed to, at least as far as he is concerned he will allow us
reasonable latitude in which to discuss the strong and the weak points of the matter, as we see them.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly raise no objection to discussion being on just as broad a basis as it could be under the resolution.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the understanding I had was certainly on that basis and I am sure that is what the minister had in mind, namely that speakers on this side of the house would want to have full latitude to discuss the bill as if it were on the resolution.


Frederick George Hahn: Just before the motion carries, Mr. Chairman, we in this group are likewise prepared to follow the suggestion of the minister on the understanding that we will be allowed greater latitude in discussing the bill than just the individual items called for in the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: have just one other question, Mr. Chairman. May I ask the minister if what he said a moment ago forecasts that if this resolution is passed tonight, we will take second reading of the bill tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, that is what I had in mind.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Green thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 238, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May we have the business for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we shall commence with this bill and then follow the order which I announced last night: Item No. 18 on today's order paper, a resolution dealing with the Unemployment Assistance Act; then item No. 2 on today's order paper, the house in committee on the bill concerning a branch line for the Canadian National Railway Company; item No. 3, house in committee on an act respecting the Hamilton harbour commissioners; then item No. 4, house in committee on an act to amend the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act; item No. 8, second reading of the amendment to the Pension Act; then resuming the debate on the second reading of Bill No. 16, an act to provide for annual vacations with pay, which is item No. 6 on today's order paper.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on December 2, 1957.