1958-05-16

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, May 16, 1958
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 16th May, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REFERENCE TO REPORTED STATEMENT BY PREMIER OF ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, the whole problem is still under active international consideration. There are a number of complicating factors that I would not like to comment on at the moment.']
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker,
I wonder whether the Prime Minister could indicate to the house if the forecast made by Premier Frost of Ontario as reported in today's paper-that there will be a resumption of the dominion-provincial conference before July 1-can be confirmed by the head of the government of Canada.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the forecast nor the report, and I have nothing to say at this time as to when a dominion-provincial conference will be reconvened.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The report to which my hon. friend refers is to the effect that the premier of Ontario stated that he expected the other $78 million from the federal government. The question I should like to ask is whether this is going to be discussed at a dominion-provincial conference or whether it will be a bilateral deal with the province of Ontario.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there have never been any bilateral deals as far as this government is concerned, and it is not intended to depart from the determination that there shall not be such. As far as expectations which may have been expressed are concerned, all I can say is that there has not 57071-3-10
been any consideration given as yet to the reconvening of a dominion-provincial conference, and the question is hypothetical.


Lionel Chevrier: May I pursue the question further, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether, if and when this matter is considered, the principle of equalization will be adhered to and the province of Quebec will receive the same treatment as the province of Ontario.


John George Diefenbaker: Every province will receive the same treatment whenever there is a conference.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the grave political crisis in France and the subsequent deep concern of the whole democratic world.
Would the Canadian government consider sending a communication to the French Assembly and to the French people expressing our good will and sympathy during these troubled times with an earnest invitation on behalf of our Canadian people that our great ally and friend remain in the democratic community of nations?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as far as the expression of such a hope is concerned I am sure that even without our assistance that objective will always be attained by the republic of France. As far as communicating with the president or with the assembly is concerned, I should think that such a step would be a most improper one for the government of Canada to take.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver East addressed this question to me:
Has the minister's attention been drawn to the report in this morning's Globe and Mall and Gazette that the central intelligence agency of the United States alleges it has a memorandum quoting the late E. Herbert Norman as saying that ... he

Inquiries of the Ministry would be called before a royal commission and would have to implicate 60 or 70 others?
Since that question was addressed to me I have read the items in the newspapers to which the hon. member referred. Then he asked this further question:
If so, could the minister inform this house whether such a proposal for a royal commission was considered by the government, or whether the appointment of a royal commission is now being considered to clarify the situation from the Canadian viewpoint?
To that part of the question I answer that there is no record to indicate that the government of the day intended before Mr. Norman's death to establish a royal commission. I add to that, with respect to the last part of the question, that the government now has no intention of appointing a royal commission to investigate the Norman case.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Fisheries. I hope notice of it reached him in sufficient time. Does the government intend to make a unilateral decision with respect to extending the present 3 mile offshore limit to 12 miles?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. It is one which perhaps should be more properly addressed to my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I think I can say that at present the government has no intention of making such a declaration. I might observe that it is hoped further international discussions may be held on this matter in the future toward the end of achieving agreement on the problem.


Frank Howard: Does the minister have any knowledge of any definite plans for additional discussions or is he merely expressing the hope that they will be held and we will enter into them?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, the whole problem is still under active international consideration. There are a number of complicating factors that I would not like to comment on at the moment.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has


the minister's attention been drawn to a Canadian Press report appearing in today's Globe and Mail to the effect that Mr. Isaacs, trade minister for Jamaica, speaking in Kingston, Jamaica, yesterday referred to the Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited, commonly known as NAFEL, as a dictatorial cartel which is doing great disservice to Newfoundland fishermen, and stated further that if Newfoundland fishermen want to continue selling codfish to Jamaica the Canadian government must smash this organization?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is giving the house information rather than asking for it. Can he not ask his question without so much statement of fact?


Chesley William Carter: May I ask the minister whether in view of this statement he will tell the house what steps are being taken to preserve the Jamaican market for Newfoundland codfish?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo very kindly gave me notice of this question. I have seen the article. I do not think anybody here would use the words "dictatorial cartel" with respect to NAFEL, or that there is any inclination on the part of this government, again using the words of the article, to "smash" this organization. NAFEL is an organization for the marketing of fish which was set up under the government of Newfoundland prior to entering confederation, and that arrangement was continued for a period of five years after entering confederation. It has subsequently been renewed from year to year with notice that it would be subject to termination.
We have had a number of meetings connected with this particular problem. The Minister of Fisheries, the minister from Newfoundland and myself have conferred frequently on this matter together with the appropriate officials, and have been making a study of the entire problem of the marketing of fish from Newfoundland. We have had conferences with representatives of the industry from Newfoundland, and intend to have a further conference with them in the near future.
The market for Newfoundland fish in Jamaica and other parts of the West Indies and elsewhere is very important. We want to do everything in our power to preserve that market, and we are prepared to discuss with the importers of that fish the changes that perhaps are desirable in the methods of curing and packaging and things of that nature. The whole subject is under active consideration at the present time. We will

do everything possible to maintain the market in Jamaica for Newfoundland codfish.


Chesley William Carter: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether any decision has been reached as to the fate of NAFEL, whether it is going to be allowed to continue or is to be replaced by some other body?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, that is under consideration. As I stated earlier, there was no intention when Newfoundland entered confederation to have NAFEL continue as it had been set up in the past. At the end of the five year transitional period an extension was made from year to year with notification that that arrangement might be terminated at a time that would be suitable to all concerned. We are considering the matter now, but no decision has been reached at the moment.



NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Revenue, who is more directly concerned with Nova Scotia. Has the government conducted any discussion with the interested parties on the reported action contemplated by A. V. Roe to suspend operations in the coal mines of Nova Scotia for a period of 25 days in order to alleviate the coal marketing problem?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no knowledge that A. V. Roe was contemplating suspending operations for a period of 25 days or for any other period. I am sure that if such a matter is being contemplated it will come to the attention of the government of the province of Nova Scotia and they will give such consideration to it as they see fit, and will also communicate with the government of Canada if such action is contemplated.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is the dominion coal board taking any steps to assist in the disposal of coal now being stockpiled in the Cape Breton area?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not up to the moment on that matter but I know consideration is being given by the dominion coal board at the present time to disposal of the surplus of coal that is available under the circumstances referred to by the hon. gentleman.
57071-3-101
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



REQUESTS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOOR PRICES FOR VARIOUS COMMODITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, knowing his oft-expressed concern for the welfare of all Canadian farmers and for the standard of living of those farmers, I want to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the agricultural price stabilization board received an application from the British Columbia fruit growers* association for the establishment of floor prices for apples? If so, will the minister inform the house whether favourable consideration is being given to this application?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The agricultural price stabilization board has received a request from the British Columbia fruit growers' association for assistance on the 1957 apple crop, and the board has agreed to consider this request when final returns are received. No formal application has been received for a support price with respect to the 1958 crop, but support prices for several fruit and vegetable crops, including apples, have been discussed with representatives of the British Columbia fruit industry.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture can tell the house whether or not consideration has been given as yet to the application by the Ontario wheat growers for a floor price, and whether or not consideration is also being given to the applications by the corn and soybean growers in western Ontario.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the answer to all these questions is yes. There have been several conferences among the representatives of the producers, the stabilization board and the advisory committee in connection with these three products.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Laurier asked a question that he had asked the day before.


Lionel Chevrier: And last year also.
140	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: The question reads:
Mr. Speaker, may I reiterate a question which I asked the Prime Minister yesterday in his absence. When may the house expect the report of the royal commission on coastal shipping?
Following the asking of the question yesterday I had this matter looked into, and I hope the report will be available to be tabled on Tuesday or Wednesday next.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister please advise if arrangements could be made for the temporary use of the False Creek fishermen's terminal by pleasure-boat owners during the coming centennial celebration in British Columbia, to the extent that such use does not interfere with the accommodation of fishermen?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The department is most anxious to take any action which will assist the city of Vancouver in its centennial celebrations, on the understanding that first priority in the use of the facilities requested will continue to be extended to fishermen. I shall look into the matter immediately to see if arrangements can be made to utilize space not required by the fishermen at the present time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question asked on Tuesday by the hon. member for Timiskaming, who inquired about the reported removal of the C.N.R. shops at Cochrane.
The management of the railway advise that the shop at Cochrane is a steam and not a diesel facility, and as such is not suitable for diesel maintenance work. In the dieseliza-tion program, which must be viewed against the broad background of system-wide operations, Senneterre, as the geographical centre of the railway division in that area, is the logical location as the diesel maintenance point.


Discussions have been held by supervisory officers with the appropriate labour union officers to explain fully the circumstances and to point out that it is necessary for the railway to keep up to date in technological and other forms of transport. Unless this is done the management feel it is inevitable that the railway would decline as a transportation agency and this, of course, would sharply reduce the employment opportunities for railway workers and accordingly would be against their long-term interests.
In the present transfer of work there, 17 employees are involved. Discussions have been held within the framework of the wage agreements, and when the discussions are concluded the employees will be in a position to declare their preference and take such options as are open to them.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if it is true that the ferry William Carson will be going into Port aux Basques in June of this year?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention that the ferry William Carson will use Port aux Basques as its Newfoundland terminal, but at the moment I am not in a position to say the exact date when that will commence.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the many inquiries that are being received from interested persons and organizations with respect to whether an estates tax bill will be proceeded with this session. As the minister will recall, at the last session of the house Bill No. 248 was given first reading, and a study was to be made of the whole field with the possibility of a bill being introduced at this session. Would the minister comment on the general situation?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change on the part of the government in its intention in this respect.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the hon. member for Vancouver East asked me a question with regard to the case of William Heikkila of San Francisco, as recorded on page 65 of Hansard. I should say by way of preface that the answer normally, I think, would be given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, but as the incident took place while I had responsibility for that portfolio and as the question was directed to me, perhaps it is appropriate that I should give the reply.
The arrival of Mr. Heikkila in Canada was in accord with an informal reciprocal arrangement between Canada and the United States with regard to the entry into and transit through each of our respective countries of deportees from the other. This informal arrangement provides that the deportee shall be under escort provided by the deporting country at all times during such transit. It provides also for advance notification and proper record of entry and departure, all of which I am informed were complied with in this case.
The arrangement contemplates also that the country of transit is under no responsibility in making arrangements for the accommodation of the deportee during transit. In this case our immigration officers advised the United States escorting officers that our immigration building was not available for the detention of Heikkila during the period between his arrival and the departure of the plane on which his passage had been booked. Apparently the United States officers then made arrangements for his accommodation in a section of the Vancouver city jail. Such arrangements were made directly, and no immigration or other federal personnel were parties to them.
I might say that this is the first time the existence of the informal arrangement has come to my notice, and has led us to order a study of all its implications.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 15, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Green-Mr. Sevigny in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act. 1954, to increase from four hundred million dollars to seven hundred
National Housing Act
and fifty million dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, at 10 o'clock last evening I had been mentioning some of the interesting information that had been given by the minister in introducing the resolution. Since that time, of course, I have been able to obtain yesterday's Hansard, so I do not have to rely on my notes which may or may not have been accurate. In his reference to increasing the 23 per cent to 27 per cent he made a most interesting disclosure. I read from page 117 of Hansard for May 15, 1958:
I believe it was increased from 23 per cent of a person's income to 27 per cent. The decision with regard to this proportion, of course, really rests with the lending institutions some of which I believe are still working on the 23 per cent basis.
What that means in essence, if I grasp correctly what the minister said, is that it is the private lending institutions who have control over the manner and to whom these public moneys will be lent. In fact the minister said that some of the institutions are still working on the 23 per cent basis. It will be most unfortunate if this house decides to loan public money to people to build homes, with which I am in complete agreement, and we then find that some outside financial interest has the final determination of the percentage bracket within which such a person is able to get that money.
In his usually humane and sincere manner the minister started off by showing an exceptionally fine attitude to the effect that the purpose of the government was to provide prospective home owners with the money to finance their own homes. I thought he was going to show a particularly fine socialist approach to home building, and that the government was going to go full speed ahead to provide this money and provide the means of owning their own homes to the people of this country. However, he dashed that thought to the ground pretty quickly when the so-called free enterprise thoughts in his mind came to the fore, for he said even though it is the policy of the government to help young Canadians to own homes and to do everything possible in that direction, nevertheless the government does not intend to become the main source of housing money but that the bulk of it would have to come from private lenders. He referred to the necessity of, I believe, finding $1,400 million and said that amount would have to be found somewhere for the purpose of home construction in this coming year.
We can only assume that the "somewhere" from whence this money will come is the same place from whence it has been coming

National Housing Act
in past years, that is to say from private lending institutions, financiers and banks. As the minister well knows from the past experience of both the Liberal government and his own government, and now from his own experience in administering his portfolio they will enter into the home building field to lend money only when they can profitably do so. If they find, as they have found in the past, that it is more profitable to put that money into other fields they will do so and will disregard the home building field.
The question therefore appears to be, how do we make it profitable for them? I believe it was in January, 1957, when the Liberal party was in office that the then minister of public works, Mr. Winters, discovered a way in which he could make it more profitable and lucrative for individual financial houses and banks to put their money into the home building field. That way was to raise the interest rate, and he accordingly increased it to 6 per cent. His remarks indicated that he anticipated that banks and other lending institutions would then be encouraged to make more loans under the act, which is precisely the same as the minister said yesterday except that he used different words. The former minister indicated that it was not possible or desirable to decrease the interest rate on home building loans to private citizens who wished to borrow money because, he said, if the government and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation decreased the interest rate it would then drive private lending institutions out of the field of home building loans; they would not lower their interest rate, which should be lowered, because they find it more lucrative to put their money into other fields.
The only possible inference we can draw from that statement is that the private lending institutions, banks and financial houses, are the ones who have control over the interest rate, and that applies on home building loans whether they come from public funds, as is provided in this resolution, or from private sources. If the government is going to be tied to the coat tails of financiers and lending institutions in establishing the interest rate, then when they decide not to put any more money into that field or when the federal government decides it cannot put any more money into that field, the only solution is to raise the interest rate from 6 per cent, which is the rate now existing, in order to draw in the required funds. All that will then happen is that it will increase the debt load on the people, the ordinary citizens who are buying or building homes, to an even greater degree than exists at present.
The minister wound up his statement yesterday with a flashing insight into the housing
[Mr. Howard.!
situation which had something to do with one or two of the comments made during the recent election. I believe he said that banks or other lending institutions have "caught the vision". I am quite sure they have caught the vision, Mr. Chairman, and it was not a vision which required the use of bifocals, either. It was the vision of high interest rates, the vision of the possibility of milking even more money from the citizens of this nation once they get into the position of being able to buy or own a home, and of creating the facilities for themselves and their families which we would all like to see them have.
Perhaps before going any further-this might be an anticipation based on a comment made by one of the hon. members of the Conservative party yesterday-and to allay their possible impatience, I should perhaps give our position on this resolution. This resolution is accepted by myself and this group but only with respect to the amount of money, not with respect to the manner in which that money will get into the hands of the people who want to build or buy homes, not with respect to the financial machinery as between this government, private lending institutions and banks.
I have in my hand some interesting figures as to just what this 6 per cent interest rate means, but before I quote them I would point out that, discounting the fact that the amount of money available under this section of the act has been increased, the attitude of this government is not one bit different from that of those who now sit to my left when they were in office. It is precisely the same. They said, "We do not want to compete with private enterprise. We are only going to step into the picture and use public funds when private enterprise, lending institutions and banks, decide they are not going to do it. We will then help them, will adjust the interest rate and make it more profitable for them." Even though, as the minister said, it is the policy of the present government to help young Canadians to own their own homes, I suggest that is only an incidental part of the attitude of this government. The main part is to the effect that they will help private lending institutions, they will assist them; and when they get into difficulty they will incidentally help the home owners.
With respect to the figures illustrating what this 6 per cent interest rate means I understand, and I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong, that the great number of persons taking loans under the National Housing Act take 25 year mortgages. There are some for less than that, but this 6 per cent interest rate, calculated as it is by Central Mortgage

and Housing Corporation or under the National Housing Act, means that a person pays back over a 25 year period an amount of $919.42 in interest for every $1,000 of original loan. By the first quarter of 1957 the average loan under the National Housing Act was $10,835, so taking the average and using the figure of additional interest of $919.42 per $1,000, we find that that person with a 25 year mortgage in addition to paying back the original loan of $10,800 odd pays an additional $9,951.83 in interest. He therefore pays almost the amount of his original loan in interest. It is a most disgusting drain on the purchasing power of our nation to force the people to pay money back at these usurious rates in order to buy homes.
There is one way in which we could combat these high interest rates. That is for the government to follow through with its original intention as expressed by the minister, when he said the policy was to help young Canadians to own their own homes. He should do this in a more forceful manner, in a direct manner and as a principal part of government policy instead of as an incidental part of this home building program, and the way to do that would be to use the facilities of government we have today in order to lend people their own money at interest rates comparable to what it costs to administer and provide the loans.
All we are asking is the application of the principles of credit unionism to the operation of our home building program in Canada, and for the establishment of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as a Canadian-owned or citizen-owned credit union lending people back their own money at interest rates which are not so high or so usurious as those charged by financial institutions and banks.
Another problem is raised by the number of people who require subsidization before they can possibly own or rent housing accommodation of any kind, people such as old age pensioners and those living on low fixed incomes. The only solution to this problem, to my way of thinking, is to subsidize the cost of providing these facilities to a greater extent than we do at the moment.
I do not wish to refer to the previous administration more than is necessary, but I think I must do so in this case because the former government was in office at the time a great deal of work was done under the National Housing Act, and a considerable number of homes and apartments were built while it was in office. The results of that program, generally, were most disgraceful not only to the government and to citizens
National Housing Act
who could not afford to buy homes, but to the nation as a whole. I do not know how much the figures have been changed since the 1951 census, but I should like to mention one or two of the latest statistics available in order to indicate something of the situation which then existed. It was estimated that in 1951 there were 450,000 homes which needed repair or remodelling and that 175,000 of these were overcrowded. Incidentally, that figure of 175,000 applies only to cities with populations of 30,000 or more and disregards all the people who do not have houses in cities with populations of 30,000 or more. Twenty-five per cent of the homes had no running water; 35 per cent had no indoor facilities, and 43 per cent had no baths or showers. Some hon. members have talked about vacuum cleaners, telephones and so on, but these are extra items.
If the government persists in its present attitude, tying itself to the coat tails of financial institutions with respect to how much money it will put into the housing field and juggling the interest rate at the desire and whim of the banks and other lending institutions, then its approach to this problem is no better than the approach of the government it superseded with the exception, as I said before, that the amount of money available has been increased. The general approach is no different.
I know many places in my own riding of Skeena-and I have just visited them- which are not included in the 1951 census because they form parts of communities which have a population of less than 30,000.
I may add that there is no community in the riding of Skeena which has 30,000 people living in it, and accordingly we are not considered in this particular part of the 1951 census. But I know many homes in Skeena which need repair. People have not sufficient money to repair them, and they cannot get it. They cannot get loans under the National Housing Act, even under its present provisions, except through a chartered bank, because private mortgage companies, trust companies and other institutions which lend money for home building in the province of British Columbia will not step outside the boundaries of the city of Vancouver with the exception, perhaps, of those places which they have entered in the southern interior. They will not go into northern British Columbia because they find it is not worth their while to invest their money in that part of the province. They find they can invest their money more profitably in Vancouver and other large urban areas than they could in other portions of the country which, nevertheless, have greater needs than have the

National Housing Act
large urban areas with regard to repairing homes, overcoming overcrowding and matters of that nature.
Maybe my remarks have been somewhat critical; nevertheless I believe they have been constructive. If they have been critical it is because we in this group have always taken a great deal of interest in housing, and because we have had some sorry experiences in connection with the operations of C.M.H.C. in the past. I am sure the minister is familiar with the criticisms which were raised by home owners in Kitimat, and I understand his department is dealing with this matter now if it has not done so already.
Again, if my comments have sounded critical it is because we have a keen desire to operate the machinery and finances of government for the sole purpose of assisting the people of Canada and for the putting into effect of what the minister claims to be the policy of this government, namely to provide the citizens of this nation with facilities to own their own homes.
Before I close I should like to leave one question with the minister. As recorded on page 116 of Hansard he said:
We made an agreement with the lending institutions of Canada, including the banks, that they would act as our agents in the placing of these loans for what we considered was a reasonable fee.
It may well be that the minister's interpretation of what is a reasonable fee differs from my own, and I should like to discover whether or not this is so.


Mr. Garland:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps my first remarks today should be words of congratulations to you on your election to the important post you now occupy. I am sure you will discharge your responsibilities in a manner that befits the traditions of this house.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this measure for several reasons. For many years I have had a strong interest in the general subject of housing and a keen awareness of its importance to our people. I recall that my first remarks in this parliament back in 1949 were directed to the subject of housing.
May I at once refer in a complimentary way to the splendid achievements in this field, and in particular to the job done by the government through its agency, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Those of us who have taken an interest in this subject are well aware of the various changes and improvements in the national housing legislation under Liberal administration down through the years to cope with changing conditions and circumstances. While this legislation did not always meet with the full approval of all of us I think all will agree that it has made

a tremendous contribution toward filling a very vital need in our country. As practical proof I need only remind you of the hundreds of thousands of homes that have been completed as a result of this national housing legislation.
We welcome this measure not only because of the great need that exists for improved housing in this country, we welcome it especially in view of the confusion which I believe has been created in the housing industry in these past several months. There seems to be a lack of clear-cut government policy on housing. When I questioned the minister yesterday I was hoping for some information that would indicate government policy. Instead I received a short explanation of the "vision". In respect to the matter I raise I suggest the only reason more money is being put into housing-if in fact more will be put in-is because of a slackening in the demand for money in more attractive fields rather than as a result of any government policy or action. I was hoping to have some comment on that yesterday; yet the minister, I suppose understandably, wants to give credit to the "vision".
There apparently is only passing recognition on the part of the government of the fact that the houses now being built are beyond the reach of the families who need them most. I noticed that the minister in his remarks made no reference to the increase in the price of lots, which have increased during the last few years by over 300 per cent as substantiated by government figures.
The minister says on the one hand that the government does not intend to supply mortgage funds, that the leading institutions are fulfilling this need to a greater degree; yet in this legislation the government is asking for more public funds than ever before. It would seem to me that the people of this country expect a clearer statement of government policy with respect to housing.
One of the prime requisites of a buoyant economy is confidence in government, but I believe the present government's policy leaves much to be desired in the field of housing. I do not wish to be unduly critical, but let us look at the facts. It is common knowledge that for the past several months housing has required substantially more financial assistance than was given by the government. Proof of this fact can be provided by the way available money was gobbled up by the industry. In the midst of this the minister, speaking to a convention of the building industry, reminded his audience that they should not look to the federal government to supply mortgage funds, and he

reiterated that view yesterday. This statement was made during the worst period of unemployment this country has experienced since the thirties.
Those of us interested in housing were curious to know what action the government did propose. If more money was not forthcoming, what was being done? What was going to be done to encourage the lending institutions to provide more funds? We looked for legislation at the last session, but none was forthcoming, nor apparently is any foreshadowed in the throne speech.
Then we moved along to early March and we had the comments of the Prime Minister on the subject of mortgage funds for housing. The Prime Minister's statement, of course, came in the midst of an election campaign, when I understand he was confronted by newspapermen who reminded him that housing money had been exhausted. He immediately replied that more funds would be provided, yet our construction industry has lost at least two months in a valuable building period. Here again is proof of the lack of government planning, to have this important segment of our economy held up as it has been for these past several weeks.
In my home city of North Bay I know from actual representations that have been made to me that several people are experiencing delays in their construction because of the lack of government funds for house building. I believe this delay was entirely unnecessary and is the direct result of the lack of government planning and foresight, or perhaps I should add "vision". If the government really believes that this construction will assist in relieving the unemployment situation why was sufficient money not provided months ago to save the needless suffering associated with unemployment?
Desirable though construction of new housing may be, it is not a cure-all for our present economic problems, which can be cured only by putting more spending money into the hands of our people by immediate tax reductions with special emphasis on tax relief in the lower income brackets.
This, Mr. Chairman, leads me to another aspect in the matter of housing. As always, the greatest need for assistance in housing remains with those in the moderate and lower income brackets. Surely this fact is apparent to all. Surely the people of Canada have a right to expect this government with its huge majority to do something about it. After all, conditions change and with these changes the needs of our society change. It will scarcely be enough for this government to get out the old "business as usual" sign in these fields in which they promised bold and courageous action if ever elected.
National Housing Act
The National Housing Act, introduced and improved upon over the years by the Liberal government, has served Canada well but it needs changes to meet the new conditions of 1958. I believe income requirements under the act should be altered, thereby making National Housing Act mortgages available to more Canadians. May I also suggest that National Housing Act valuation procedures be brought up to date to take account of the real values of houses in 1958. These and other measures should be taken to make it easier for our people to acquire new homes with lower down payments.
Surely there is room for imaginative action, for a study of the varied needs of our people in the field of housing. Housing design in this country seems to be based on the assumption that all families are the same size. It would appear that all houses are built to accommodate the husband and wife of a family and two or three children. Needless to say, much accommodation is wasted because we have failed to keep pace with this aspect of the needs of our people. Think for a moment of the accommodation needed for couples without a family. Think of the accommodation required by single people. Think of the need for smaller units for our elderly citizens. Yet every house that is constructed is built on the popular assumption that it will be occupied by this standard size family of four or five that I mentioned earlier. I would like to go into this matter in more detail, and perhaps I will have an opportunity to do so at a later date as I do not wish to unduly delay the passage of the measure now before us.
Another matter that deserves the immediate attention of the government is the rate of interest charged. I believe it is grossly unfair to have our low income wage earners competing with high salaried executives for the same loans at the same rate of interest. Further, I think the time has come when people in the lower income brackets should not have to compete with industry for mortgage funds. Surely it is the people in the moderate and lower income brackets who are in need of protection in this regard, and I believe the time has arrived when consideration should be given to lowering the rate of interest charged borrowers whose yearly income does not exceed $4,000. I consider it unfair that the government should make a profit by borrowing money from the Canadian people at rates ranging from 2J per cent to 3J per cent and forcing our lower income borrowers to pay 6 per cent. This is the time when a new look should be taken at this matter.
I believe further that consideration should be given to a longer period of amortization

National Housing Act
on loans made to the average and lower income borrowers. These are the people our legislation is intended to assist. That was the spirit of the legislation when it was introduced. However, increased costs and other circumstances have intervened, so I believe a thorough study of this aspect of the legislation should be made at the earliest opportunity.
The discussion of this measure also gives me the opportunity to remind the government of a matter I raised in the house last year, namely the problem experienced by many communities across Canada of under 50,000 population. Here we find the continual siphoning off of investment money to the large metropolitan areas. It is not my intention to go into this matter in any detail at this time, but I think all hon. members are well aware of this problem and are keenly aware of its seriousness and its detrimental effect on the development of our smaller cities across the country. I am sure hon. members are well aware of the attitude of many of our lending institutions which do business in every community in Canada yet refuse to lend funds in the majority of these same communities. I think, too, it is reasonable to expect that these companies will become even more selective in their lending practices in periods of economic recession such as we are experiencing at the present time.
I recognize the right and the responsibility of these lending institutions to invest their customers' funds to the best possible advantage, and I am not suggesting government interference or compulsion. However, I do suggest that there be discussions along these lines between the government and the lending institutions in regard to the sort of practice I have referred to, which I believe does retard the normal growth and development of large sections of this country. Too many times we see these lending institutions doing a substantial volume of business in our communities yet refusing to lend a dollar in these same areas where they are doing business.
In the field of housing this has meant one of two things; either the government must come to the rescue and supply the local needs, as they have been doing over the years, or our people are driven to rely on the mercy of loan sharks who extract exorbitant rates of interest and bonuses. Here again the people in the moderate and lower income brackets are more seriously affected.
Further, I believe the government should give encouragement to developing, in cooperation with the provinces and the municipalities, more serviced land. Surely no

greater contribution could be made to the people in the medium and lower income brackets than to make available to them for house building purposes as soon as possible reasonably priced and adequately serviced building lots.
I would like to refer to yet another aspect that has crept into our present-day situation. I have in mind the greatest single contributing factor to the unreasonably high prices of our so-called low-priced homes. I am referring to the cost of land, which is the real issue today. Too many times we have seen ordinary farm land turned into a housing development, with resultant overnight increases in land values running higher than 1,000 per cent. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not against regular profits, but I am against the use of public funds in the promotion of some of these high priced and high pressure subdivision developments which we have seen emerge across this country in the last few years. The government should take whatever action is necessary to ensure that public money is not used for this purpose in the future. The money we are discussing today should go into housing and not into the purses of unscrupulous land developers.
While supporting this legislation, I do urge the government to give more attention to the real needs that exist in providing better housing for our Canadian people. I believe there is a great opportunity for this new government to provide leadership in this important field.
(Translation):


Mr. Loiselle:: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to offer you my most sincere congratulations on your election to the post of Deputy Speaker of this house. We know, of course, that you will acquit yourself worthily of this task, even though it might not always be a pleasant one.
Mr. Chairman, I should also like to thank the electors of the constituency of St. Ann who have chosen me for a second time to be their spokesman in this house. This is, for me, an honourable task, one which I shall never fail to accomplish with pleasure whenever I have the opportunity of defending their rights in this house.
The question of housing, of slum clearance and of low cost housing is a matter of the very highest importance as far as I am concerned, representing as I do one of the oldest constituencies of the city of Montreal where about 70 per cent of homes lack a bathtub or shower or any number of those other facilities which are necessary in this day and age.

That is why I want to put forward at this time the views of the electors of St. Ann with regards to the National Housing Act so that all members of this house will understand the need of making it easier for people to take advantage of this act, by pointing out the evils attendant upon the existence of slums and suggesting the improvements that should be brought to the act. In any number of our streets there are houses whose main entrance opens on a back yard. In many cases people who live on the second or third floor of houses without a street door get into their dwelling by climbing flights of stairs which are little more than fire traps for these good workers and heads of households who, as often as not, cannot count all the members of their family on the fingers of their two hands. Those backstairs are their only exit and I wonder what protection those honest citizens have against fire and what facilities can be found in those houses. What encouragement is there for our youth? As I said in the last parliament, it is our duty to ensure comfort to our future generation, which is our greatest wealth.
A study committee of slum clearance in Montreal, which analysed the problem, marked out four slum areas in my constituency. That is why I fight and will continue to fight for the disappearance of those substandard houses, so that they may be replaced by low cost houses. What is the good of developing the city to the north, the east and the west and letting it go to pot in the south? That is why the provisions of the NHA must be more accessible and acceptable to the city.
The Minister of Public Works told us last night that it was the desire of the government that every Canadian should have his own home. I fully support also the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier when he said that we, on this side of the house, were happy to see the NHA fund increased by $350 million to reach a reach a maximum of $750 million.
However, the minister should not imagine that this addition will make the act perfect in every respect. Many finishing touches are lacking regarding the interest rate, which is too high, as well as the down payment and, moreover, with regard to the amortization period which should be extended.
However, for the moment, Mr. Chairman, I shall merely discuss the efficiency of the NHA with regard to slum clearance and low rental housing.
National Housing Act
During last session, when the Minister of Public Works had asked the house to vote some $150 million and approve a few minor improvements to the NHA, I had made a few suggestions which, in my humble opinion, would have made the legislation more attractive for cities and townships which are plagued with slums.
I do not wonder that the hon. minister has not agreed to introduce into the act the suggestions I had made during this discussion; however, I shall do so again today, and as long as I am a member of parliament, I will rise to submit to the government the changes I still think essential in this legislation.
I said at the last session, more precisely on December 18, 1957, when Bill 238, that is the National Housing Act, was before the house, that I could see no reason why the contribution of the federal government should be 75 per cent of the cost of construction of family units and only 50 per cent of the cost of expropriation of slums.
The raising to 75 per cent of the federal contribution to slum clearance would be justified. It would encourage many municipalities to clear up their slums and substandard housing.
I had also asked the extension of the credit facilities provided for in section 5 of the NHA for the implementation of paragraph (h) of section 33 dealing with studies concerning slum clearance in co-operation with provinces and municipalities. There is no reason why the federal government should not pay at least 75 per cent of the cost of such studies.
In the city of Montreal, the metropolis of Canada, there are many slum areas which are bound to be eliminated. At the present time one section is being cleared and, under the NHA, low priced sanitary housing units will be built there.
Thus, those blighted areas will be replaced by modern buildings inhabited by happy families. At a modest rental, compatible with the low income of poor families, those people will be provided with living quarters having windows in every room, to let the sun in, and equipped with all sanitary and modern conveniences.
I cannot understand, Mr. Chairman, why the Minister of Public Works should ask the house to increase by $350 million the sum available under the NHA, without improving

National Housing Act
that legislation and without making any change to encourage cities and municipalities to take advantage of that measure to improve the living conditions of some of their citizens who are housed in slums, a situation which should not be tolerated in a rich and young country such as Canada.
In support of what I have just said, Mr. Chairman, I have clipped an article entitled:
Necessary restoration in Montreal
which appeared in yesterdays' edition of La Presse. It is about a lecture given in Montreal by a member of the government who is well acquainted with the slum question, I mean the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Campeau), a former director of town planning for the city of Montreal, a man who had all the necessary opportunity to study the slum situation in Montreal.
Here is what the paper reports:
... at a meeting held in the parish hall of St. Nicholas of Ahuntsic, in connection with an embellishment campaign organized by the Montreal Property Owners' League, Mr. Campeau stated that we must tackle the slum problem, this real urban cancer . . .
It is indeed a cancer which, in cities like Montreal, has a tendency to spread. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I asked last year and am still asking today and shall go on pressing for the insertion of certain provisions in the NHA, in order that it may be made more readily available to municipalities, so that cities will not have to spend huge sums of money.
According to Mr. Campeau, speaking at the same conference last night, there are:
. . . about 2,000 housing units in Montreal which were built before 1870.
I do not know enough about it to verify this statement, but I do know that Mr. Campeau, who was director of the town planning service for the city of Montreal, knows what he is talking about. This means that those
2.000	housing units built before 1870 should have been demolished long ago.
Mr. Campeau also said:
At least 25,000 housing units are substandard, and
10.000	are slums.
Besides the 2,000 units built before 1870, there are, according to Mr. Campeau, 10,000 in the slum category.
It can therefore be considered that about 25,000 housing units should be torn down.
That is why I urge, as I said a moment ago, and shall keep on urging that this legislation be improved.

Now, I have a question I wish to ask of the minister. I shall ask it first in French, and then in English, because I want to make sure that the minister will understand it and give me a satisfactory answer. Is the hon. minister aware that the Department of National Revenue would like to acquire for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the site expropriated by the city of Montreal to carry out jointly with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation the low rental housing project called "Les habitations Jeanne Mance"? If so, does the Department of Public Works intend to cancel the contracts entered into with the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec in connection with the said project?
(Text):
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I put it in French and now I will put it in English so the minister can understand what I have said and so I may have an answer. Is the Department of Public Works aware that the Department of National Revenue would like to acquire for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the site expropriated by the city of Montreal to carry out jointly with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation the low rental housing project called l'habitation Jeanne Mance? If so, is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to annul the contracts entered into with the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec in connection with the said l'habitation Jeanne Mance?


Mr. Winch:: 
Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Chairman, I am entirely in accord with the resolution, which is now before the committee. I agree that the provision of the funds in question would be of great advantage to the citizens of Canada. I feel obliged to concur in one aspect of the matter which has been raised by members who have spoken previously. I refer to the fact that the lending institutions, as well as

National Housing Act
Central Mortgage and Housing, are reluctant to go into the smaller centres to make housing loans. I am not speaking only of the small villages, but I am speaking of the towns and smaller cities. We can understand their reluctance because, in the first place, the facilities for making loans and checking on building progress are definitely limited in these areas. On the other hand the intention in providing these funds is to enable all the people in the country to build homes.
It has been my experience that when a loan is provided in a small community-I think this has been the experience of many hon. members-the processing is considerably slower and the standards of living in smaller centres are different from those in such large cities as Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa. As a result the lending institutions just do not want to be bothered with these small loans.
That is all I wanted to say on the subject, because I am definitely in favour of the resolution and the provision of the money. However, I would ask the minister to make an effort to encourage the lending institutions to put out these loans in some of the smaller centres so that all the people will benefit equally.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, once again this morning I should like to thank hon. members who have been making these suggestions. Perhaps I could deal right away with some of the points that have been mentioned. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, as well as the hon. member for Nipissing, mentioned the need for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to take a greater interest in the smaller centres in Canada. I referred to that situation last evening, and I should like to assure those hon. members and other members of the house that I am very much interested in every effort being made to provide loans in the smaller centres. We will have a very careful look to see what can be done to improve this situation.
Then the hon. member for Skeena referred to Kitimat. There has been some trouble there with regard to the quality of the houses that were built, the money for which had been provided by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This crown company has no direct responsibility for the quality of the houses. We do, however, inspect them and as a result of that fact the owners do get the impression-I think honestly held-that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is guaranteeing the workmanship of the homes. The corporation does do its best to see that builders construct proper homes but in some cases, and Kitimat is a good example, some homes have not been properly built.

When I learned of this situation I happened, as a matter of fact, to be visiting Kitimat on political business-rather unsuccessfully, I might add-and I promised to have the executive assistant to the president go to Kitimat and look into the whole situation and endeavour to work out some solution. This has now been done, and I am hoping that as a result of his visit these people who have suffered will have at least some of their grievances removed.
Then the hon. member asked me for the rate paid to the lending institutions for handling the loans under the small home loans plan. Under the agency agreement between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the approved lender the latter receives for making and advancing a loan a fee of $100 for each loan made in respect of a house other than to a builder, and $90 for each loan made in respect of a house to a builder. Smaller amounts are paid in respect to multiple family dwellings. A fee of one-half of 1 per cent per annum on the principal outstanding on ownership loans and one-quarter of 1 per cent in respect of loans for rental housing is also paid to the approved lender for administering the loan.
Normally the non-recurring cost to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for each application to place as an ordinary insured loan is 1 per cent of the amount of the loan after taking into account the application fee paid by the borrower. The agency fees involve approximately an additional 1 per cent. On this basis, the total agency loan commitments of $260 million, which is the amount that has been loaned out to date, would involve processing costs to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation of approximately $2.6 million and fees to lenders representing a further $2.6 million. As the principal of the loans is a public fund the interest yield, of course, accrues to the government to offset these costs.
The hon. member for Nipissing thought the construction industry had lost too much time this spring because of money having run out. That statement was not accurate because some of the homes for which loans had been made under the small home loans plan had not been put under construction at the time. In other words there were many starts made during these intervening weeks when we have been short of money; and, as I pointed out last night, the lending institutions and the banks have taken on about 75 per cent of the applications which had come into Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but which had not yet been dealt with. The building figures still show that there has been no slump at all this year; building is going on at a very rapid pace, more rapidly than ever

before in Canada's history; and of course one of our main objectives is to avoid any such slump.
The hon. member for St. Ann really dragged in the Department of Public Works in connection with the Jeanne Mance development plan in Montreal. The Department of Public Works is not in charge of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This crown company merely reports through the Minister of Public Works and the president of the corporation has the status of deputy minister, so I am quite sure that if the Department of Public Works or the Department of National Revenue tried to stage a raid on a plan of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that raid would not be very successful, and we will not allow the Department of National Revenue to ruin the Jeanne Mance plan. I believe there is now some difficulty in connection with that plan, which has been brought about by a failure to agree at the municipal level, but has nothing whatever to do with the federal government.
Then the hon. member for Vancouver East, a very old friend of mine, mentioned the exorbitant rate of interest charged on second mortgages.


Harold Edward Winch: Also on first mortgages.


Howard Charles Green: I do not understand why there should be an exorbitant rate of that kind on a first mortgage in Vancouver if there is not something wrong with the proposal. I quite agree that such rates are charged on second mortgages, and there had been a great deal of that type of business going on before this small home loans plan was initiated. I am, however, confident that the plan has done a good deal to wipe out this sort of exorbitant charge, and in Vancouver under the plan there has been over $7 million loaned for 782 units, which is quite a lot of building in a matter of eight months.
The aim of the government has been and will be to extend these benefits just as widely as possible to people of modest income in this country. We are not a bit interested in the people who are well able to finance their own homes. Mind you, we are glad to see them build, but our aim is to help the Canadian with the small income. We will be trying throughout to extend these benefits further and further down the line to the lower income groups.
One big difficulty we face is that housing is getting more and more expensive. Moreover, as several hon. members have said, the land costs more. I heartily agree that there has been a tremendous increase in the cost of land. This is one of the very difficult problems which face us, and it is a problem
National Housing Act
which Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation cannot solve alone. It may be that with the cities of Canada growing as they are we just have to expect that land is going tn remain at a high price. But, as I say, this is a very serious problem and one which is giving us a great deal of worry.
All the suggestions which have been made will be given consideration and we will be very glad, also, to receive representations at any time even if they are not made here in the house. We are trying to help the Canadian people to get homes, or to help them get apartments at reasonable rates if they do not want homes, and government policy will be designed with those objectives always in mind.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, there are a few brief observations which I would like to make on this resolution. This proposed legislation will make available an extra $350 million of federal funds for housing. In December of last year, during the last session, we made available $150 million in addition to the $250 million which had been provided by the late administration prior to the election of June 10. With the passage of this legislation, the total amount of federal funds available for housing will have reached the unprecedented figure of three-quarters of a billion dollars.


Howard Charles Green: This is only under this one section.


Chesley William Carter: Yes, I understand that. Like other hon. members on the opposition side of the house I support this legislation, because I realize it is being put through as part of an emergency program in an effort to alleviate the unemployment situation and also to help counteract the serious down turn in our economy which Canada is experiencing at the present time. But since these funds are the taxpayers' own money, coming from the consolidated revenue fund, and since they are being provided for the purpose I have just mentioned, there is all the more reason to see to it that they are distributed in such a way as to provide equal benefit to all the provinces of Canada.
The unemployment situation and economic conditions in Newfoundland are the worst since the hungry thirties-worse, probably,, than any other province in Canada-yet though our problem is the greatest in Canada, Newfoundland will receive the least benefit of all from these funds. The minister has told us that the $400 million previously provided is practically exhausted. I would ask him, if figures are available, to place them on record so as to show how that sum of $400 million has been distributed among

National Housing Act
the various provinces. I am sure the figures will show that an unduly large share, proportionately, has gone to the wealthy provinces of Ontario and British Columbia and an unduly small proportion to the poorer maritime provinces, with Newfoundland receiving the smallest share of all.
This must always be the case as long as these funds are distributed on the basis of average income, because in the maritimes in general and particularly in Newfoundland we have proportionately poorer people whose average incomes are too low to enable them to benefit from this legislation under present regulations. An income basis may be a very convenient basis upon which to distribute these funds, but it is not altogether a fair basis because in most cases people in low income brackets have the largest families and consequently need bigger houses than people in the higher income brackets. Since the need for increased employment and improved economic conditions is equally great in all provinces, some more equitable basis of distribution should be found in order to enable all provinces to benefit equally from funds which are made available from the federal treasury.
When one considers the increasing demand for federal funds and the large sum of $750 million which this legislation will make available, one cannot help wondering whether our free enterprise system is facing up to its responsibilities in providing housing for our citizens. With the construction industry becoming more and more dependent on federal funds for housing, one wonders also how the federal government will ever be able to retrace its steps in this field. One thing is certain; the availability of federal funds for housing has greatly inflated the cost of housing and especially land values. Thus in solving, or in attempting to solve, one problem we are creating another.
In order to minimize these disadvantages, these detrimental effects, I believe federal funds should be used mainly for the provision of low cost housing for people whose income is below the national average. This would include low cost homes with no down payment and low rental houses for people who cannot afford to own homes at all. I am particularly interested in low cost homes for fishermen who do not require houses built to standard specifications, and I should be grateful if the minister would see what progress is being made in this respect.
Another way to offset the inflationary effects of federal funds for housing would be the encouragement of co-operative housing schemes. I have had some personal experience in this field, because I helped to organize

a veterans' co-operative group following the second world war. The members of this group were able to build homes at little more than half the contractor's price. I know that when properly organized a co-operative housing plan can be highly successful, and I urge the government to give every possible encouragement to this form of housing activity.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, three hon. members including my good friend the hon. member for Fort William have alluded to the difficulties encountered by small towns in obtaining loans through the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The minister has given us an assurance that he is going to do something about it, but I wondered if I gave a few examples of the difficulties that are experienced in my constituency it would assist him to see that it will take something definite and concrete to remedy the situation, and not just a general assurance on his part that the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have the best of intentions. I have discovered in the lakehead area that they have excellent intentions indeed and know the situation very well, but while they have not told me this I believe it is obvious that they are hamstrung by sheer economic difficulties.
When you are building housing there are a number of determining factors, including the going wage rates in the area for carpenters and other construction workers. It happens that in our constituency, which is roughly 600 by 300 miles in size, there is a scattering of small towns. Throughout these communities union contracts prevail pretty generally, so that carpenters' rates are well over $2 an hour. At the same time these communities are distant from any central point such as Port Arthur, which is tucked in the southwest corner and which would provide them with materials and other supplies necessary for house construction. I am thinking of plumbing supplies, concrete blocks and that sort of thing. In other words the main distribution point for our particular area is not in a good location to ship builders' supplies, let us say, to a high income community such as Hornepayne, which is roughly 340 miles from Port Arthur. At the present time Hornepayne does not have a single house provided under the National Housing Act, despite the fact that it is perhaps the highest income community in my whole constituency because it is a busy railway divisional point.
The situation is further aggravated in my constituency by the fact that we have in this isolated area a number of communities that have exceptionally good housing. These are what might be called company towns. For

example there is splendid housing at Mani-towadge in the centre of the constituency, which has been supported by the Geco mine. We also have Terrace Bay and Marathon, which are pulp and paper towns. Very enlightened company management influenced by the United States example have gone ahead and given the people a standard of housing that is superior to the standard obtaining in the city of Port Arthur. So we have existing in juxtaposition communities such as Gerald-ton, Beardmore and Longlac that have a very low standard of housing. As a matter of fact, I obtained figures which indicate that in the first six months of last year only four homes were built under the National Housing Act outside the city of Port Arthur.
The officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have been making serious efforts to extend direct lending in these communities beyond the lakehead, but so far they have not been too successful. The answer, as I see it, is that you cannot economically build a house in these distant communities that people can afford to pay for unless there is some form of subsidy- and let us not be ashamed of the word "subsidy"-that will give the people in these distant communities a chance to obtain satisfactory housing. In addition I feel there must be some change in the requirement regulations so that as far as actual land assembly is concerned there will be some provision for waiving certain of these requirements so that people in distant towns and municipalities that do not have services and facilities available can do something about it. This would be applicable particularly in communities such as Hornepayne.
The Nakina situation is going to be greatly aggravated this year because the Kimberly-Clark Pulp and Paper Company is going to construct not far distant from the town what will be in effect a model community. I feel very strongly that Nakina itself should have Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials in there doing something to improve housing within that community. At the present time the break-even point for a contractor under Central Mortgage and Housing terms in communities distant from supply centres, as is the case in Nakina, is pretty poor.
I could be mistaken in my interpretation of the difficulty, but the views I have expressed are those I hold as the result of talking to municipal officers in the constituency and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials in Fort William, whom I have found to be exemplary. I could not speak in higher terms of their interest and general devotion to their job.
National Housing Act
There is one further point in this connection. If you do present some form of inducement to build in the smaller and more distant towns, whether it is an advantage attached to the interest rate, an easing of the regulations or some form of encouragement to the municipalities, one final thing needs to be done and done much more. I am referring to the form of publicity that takes place in those communities. The kind of publicity that is most effective is that of having a representative of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation visit a centre with adequate time to acquaint the people in that community with what is available to them under the act. I suggest to the minister that it is impossible for the officials located in Fort William to travel east and west and really do a job in these communities in terms of selling the people on taking advantage of what is available under the act, in view of the size of the present staff. I would ask him to consider putting more men on who could launch a campaign of acquainting the people in the small communities with the minister's idea of modest homes. I would remind the minister that only 17 per cent of the loans made last year under the act were obtained by people living in communities of 5,000 population. This should be a spur and incentive to increased activity in this field.
Mr. Chairman, as there are one or two other matters I wish to speak about may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, before lunch I had completed the argument that I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister in connection with some steps that could be taken by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to improve the loans situation in the small communities. The other two things that I want to touch on briefly relate to the use of National Housing Act funds for dormitories and residences at universities. This matter was brought up by Mr. Brown, the then member for Essex West in the last house, and I know from reading the records of the university conference that it was an idea that was very close to the heart of the present Speaker of this house. I just hope that in the general consideration that the minister will be giving to this act he will find time to consider it again and try to implement

National Housing Act
this important means of helping our universities and colleges to go ahead with residence buildings through the use of National Housing Act funds. I know that at the present time [DOT]Canada Council funds are being used for this purpose on a sort of direct grant basis. I think right across the country the principle could be established in a general way and the funds used more in the form of general aid rather than the specific help that some colleges manage to get from the Canada Council.
The third point that I want to touch on deals with the question of a moratorium in connection with foreclosures. When he spoke in Windsor last November I understand the minister made the statement that there would be no foreclosures in any situation where a person was unemployed and unable to keep up with his payments; at least that is the record that I was able to find. We have one *community in our area at the present time that has suffered an economic downturn after a great deal of housing was constructed.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I point out to the hon. member that that reference was to *evictions.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Thank you, I stand corrected. I would like to suggest that an official statement on the way in which a moratorium on foreclosures could be developed, if made, would give a great deal of heart to certain communities where there has been an economic downturn. I think of mining communities such as Atikokan where the miners have *entered into the whole spirit of the community. They have settled down there and bought houses. They have been laid off. Other mines, for example, in the uranium ureas have been established and the officials have come into Atikokan and induced the miners to move. In some instances miners who have moved have had to sell out at a tremendous disadvantage. In other instances, they have stayed in Atikokan without work, hoping to be taken back. If they knew that they were protected by some regulation of the minister through the National Housing Act it would do a great deal for the confidence of the people in those communities. In certain instances where the people are out of work on a sort of temporary basis, if there could be some special consideration given by *way of a waiving of interest for a period it would be of great assistance to those people.
This concludes the remarks I wanted to make on this bill, except to congratulate the minister on bringing it in and also for giving *us the opportunity to bask in the general beneficence that he displays when he brings ihis bills into the house.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, if I rise to say a few words on the resolution stage of the bill I wish to say that it is not my intention to oppose the resolution. I realize and I fully understand that further sources of money are required if the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is to carry out its program, but I feel it is our duty as members of the opposition to offer some constructive suggestions which could result in a better and more practical application of the act.
Last year when a similar bill was introduced in the house I mentioned that even with the amendments which were then included in the measure it would not reach the objective that the bill had in mind so far as the Atlantic provinces were concerned. I recall also that when the Minister of Public Works introduced his bill, or rather when he made the announcement to the press before introducing the bill late in November of last year, made a statement to the effect that an additional $150 million would be made available for low-cost housing mortgages and that the changes to the act and regulations were being introduced partly to help maritime residents to take advantage of the scheme. I recall also that when speaking on the second reading of the bill I welcomed the additional amount which was then added to the fund and made available under the act as well as the provisions for reduced or lower down payments.
I well remember saying at the time that the changes would be of limited or of very little effect so far as the Atlantic provinces were concerned. In fact from April 1 to November 30 of last year only 240 loans had been approved by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the Atlantic provinces for a total amount of less than $2,225,000. I recall also stating at the time that during the same period loans for a similar amount were made in the city of Windsor alone.
Furthermore, during the debate I brought to the attention of the minister the brief which was submitted in September of last year to the minister, the government and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation by the national retail lumbermen's council. The minister assured me at the time that the recommendations in the brief were under serious study and consideration by officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I have the feeling, however, that even at this late date very few if any of the national retail lumbermen's council recommendations have been accepted or included in the standards and requirements of the National Housing Act.

Before this present resolution is adopted could the minister inform this committee as to the number of loans approved in the Atlantic provinces from January 1 of this year to, say, March 31 or even to April 30, if the figures are available; also the total amount involved to cover such loans.
Have the Atlantic provinces taken full advantage of this scheme which, according to the minister's own words, was further implemented when the government realized that there was a dark cloud of unemployment coming up over the horizon last fall. We are prepared to admit that there was a dark cloud of unemployment and that cloud has been hanging over the Atlantic provinces for at least the last seven or eight months.
Again, I cannot agree with the minister's statement to the effect that the people of the Atlantic provinces were directly to be blamed for not taking full advantage of the money made available to them for the construction of new houses by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Is it not simply because they cannot meet the high standards and requirements of the act? Is it not also because they cannot meet a gross debt service ratio of up to 27 per cent? We have in the Atlantic provinces a large number of wage earners whose income does not exceed $45 to $60 a week. They are the people who are in urgent need of new homes and they are the people who should and could be helped by the act if proper regulations were included in it.
It is mainly by a longer amortization period for the repayment of loans and by lower interest rates that housing can be provided for people in the lower income brackets. It may be that the government can be commended for having taken a step in the right direction by asking parliament to provide additional funds to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but the minister will agree that this does not go far enough and is not altogether practical. The changes made last year may have helped to some extent but we must admit that by increasing the gross debt ratio of the low income bracket wage earner from 23 per cent to 27 per cent we are not rendering a service to the person involved.
For example, the mortgage repayment per month on a $12,000 home, with taxes and based on a 30-year plan, would be about $80 a month. By using 27 per cent of his income a person earning $4,000 a year would qualify, but where will he get the money to meet his other obligations if he has to pay for his mortgage? That is why I say that a longer amortization period is required and by all means a lower interest rate.
If the Minister of Public Works is not in a position today to announce when we may
National Housing Act
expect a bill to readjust the interest rate on Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation loans, the Minister of Finance should at least comment now on the statement made by the Solicitor General to that effect and referred to last evening by the hon. member for Laurier. In order to be fair I would suggest that the act should provide for a special lower rate of interest for people earning less than say $4,000 a year. This particular class of people should not be prevented from owning their homes. For example, on a $12,000 home a rate of interest of even 4f per cent would bring the mortgage payment down to $64 a month from the present $80 a month under a six per cent rate of interest. The Minister of Finance has never missed a chance to take full credit for the releasing of money and the reduction in the interest rate by the Bank of Canada. Now that the discount rate of the Bank of Canada has reached a new low, now that, as reported yesterday, the Bank of Canada discount rate has been reduced to 1.79 per cent from 1.88 per cent just a week ago, there is no reason why the Minister of Finance could not introduce a bill immediately reducing accordingly the rate of interest now charged by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Only then will the act work effectively in the Atlantic provinces, and only by a longer amortization period and a lower interest rate will our low income bracket wage earners be in a position to take full advantage of this legislation.
(Translation):


Mr. Lessard:: Mr. Chairman, at the outset of my remarks, I wish to congratulate you most sincerely on your appointment to the position you occupy.
Sanitary housing is essential to the progress of a people such as ours. Times are no more when people are willing to be crowded into substandard houses which breed disease and cause serious social problems.
It is therefore inconceivable that this government should not participate more actively in slum clearance. I am myself a councillor of the city of Montreal in addition to representing here a heavily populated Montreal constituency where the housing problem is crucial. However, our municipalities cannot afford to clear slums without running into serious financial difficulties.
The present government, speaking through its candidates in the last election, promised help to municipalities in as large a measure

National Housing Act
as possible. Is it not time that the government keep its word by helping the municipalities to clear these slums? And this government aid can only be given in the form of financial assistance.
I regret that this has not been put to more use, in this connection, by the government. The central government will not solve the problem of housing by voting only $350,000,000 in order to facilitate new loans. In a constituency like mine, where families are attached to their parish, people are not ready to move away from one place to another which might not suit them. What should be done is to tear down and then rebuild on the same spot so that our fine families, attached to the constituency, will not have to move elsewhere.
I respectfully suggest that the central government should contribute at least 75 to 80 per cent of the cost of slum clearance to our municipalities. In addition to helping improve the housing situation, it would assist in solving the unemployment problem in each of our localities while giving our workers the opportunity of working to give our area a new look and keeping its population.
That is an important aspect that I wish to stress, and which I do not find in the bill now under consideration. I will vote for the bill but I find it incomplete.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Minister of Public Works to give serious consideration to the few remarks I just made and to act on them as far as possible.


Mr. Gour:: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief since I am in favour of the resolution under discussion at this time. I regret however that the amount put at the disposal of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is not any greater than it is. I would have preferred to vote $250,000,000 more to this body.
Another shortcoming in this proposed resolution is that the interest rate at 6 per cent is too high. The federal government should be able to lend money on easier terms than anybody else. It should be able to bring down the interest rate from 6 per cent to 5 per cent for a period of 20 to 25 years; otherwise the poor low salaried individual will have to pay his own home twice over before managing to own it completely. By this time he will have to buy another house since the first will be half broken down.
Moreover I think that the National Housing Act should be improved in order to foster

better co-operation between municipalities and provincial and federal governments with regard to the buying of land. The greatest injustice at this time is the fabulous price that people have to pay for a little lot of 50 feet by 100 feet or 50 feet by 80 feet, at prices running up to $2,000, $2,500, $3,000. Buyers are at the mercy of clever operators who bought up this land at a low price and make fortunes reselling it to low wage earners.
Moreover, agreements between municipalities, provincial governments and the federal government should provide for the servicing of land by the installation of sewers, water and sidewalks. The cost of this work should be shared by the three levels of government. With a policy such as this, houses would be more within the means of prospective buyers. To my mind it is the only way to encourage our Canadian fellow-citizens to be more Canadian, to be happier to live in Canada and also, at the same time spare those who work hard for low pay the necessity of paying rentals of $100 or more. Furthermore it would encourage them to recognize the advantages of democracy.
In conclusion I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) to be kind enough to consider the suggestions I have just made. I believe that the fact of increasing the amount of assistance to our population in connection with the purchase of lots and the installation of municipal services, without exacting small fortunes from the prospective buyers, would be to the greatest advantage not only of the municipalities but of the provincial and federal government as well. In fact, the price of lots and the cost of municipal services represent more than a third of the value of the property. A simple calculation is convincing enough. It comes to about $30 to $35 a month for 25 years.
I think-and I believe that all hon. members will agree with me-that it is preferable to sacrifice millions of dollars to build houses which will be useful to our fellow-citizens than to give them help in the manner here proposed. In fact, the way things are now, it is no longer unemployment insurance but rather a kind of direct relief, or dole, such as that of the years 1930 to 1935.
It would be much better to spend more money so that our workers, instead of getting token payments of $20 to $30 a week while doing nothing may have a job allowing them to live decently. This would be to the advantage of all Canadians and would stimulate the development of our country.

I support this resolution but I would do it with more enthusiasm if it were modified, because I believe that $350 million will not be enough for the construction of the housing units now required. This would give work to our people and would be much better than forcing them to be satisfied with unemployment insurance tokens which do not provide them with the money necessary to meet their own needs and the needs of their family.
I therefore hope that this resolution will be carried as soon as possible to the advantage of all the citizens of Canada.
(Text):


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, certainly all Canadians are very pleased at the attention that housing in Canada is receiving, because I think we all agree that the state of our housing has a considerable influence on the Canadian way of life. Sociologists, I suppose, would say that a great percentage of delinquency is directly related to environment which, in turn, is directly related to substandard housing conditions. We are certainly pleased to find that the government has seen fit, in a few short months, to make several commitments towards improving housing conditions in Canada.
We have seen that, in those countries where housing has been available to both the low income groups and others in a position to better afford housing, the way of life has been greatly influenced. Personally, I am not sure just what other measures are going to be taken in the housing field this session. We have hopes, and have been led to expect, that there will be something further to this measure we have before us because there are many other aspects of the housing question to be considered. We are aware also that in addition to making this money available the federal government, provincial governments and municipalities are going to have to take an increasing interest in housing conditions in our country. We have found that the sources previously available for financing housing are no longer available and the government has had to become more and more interested in housing. One of the problems, outside of the fact we need to make money available to potential home owners, is the fact that in the past we have tied the ability to obtain a loan to the applicant's level of income. This has worked untold hardships upon those in the low income groups.
Mention has been made of the difficulty people experience in buying homes in small
National Housing Act
communities such as towns or villages where the standard of housing is not up to that of our major cities. We have many towns that have housing developments which central mortgage and housing considers substandard but which are, in fact, all the people can afford to provide for themselves. These people face great difficulty in obtaining even that type of housing. We see them going to lenders who ask exorbitant interest rates, and even in cases where they are buying under the auspices of the National Housing Act they have to borrow the amount necessary for the down payment from private lending companies. These people, many of whom are in the low income or medium income groups, find it impossible to pay the rent required for a house that will satisfy their needs, and at the same time save enough money for any type of down payment. I think some consideration must be given to the government purchasing houses and renting them on a basis under which an individual may elect to buy the house at the end of a three-year period.
One of our major problems concerns young married couples. It would appear that a young married couple, having two or three children, are in a worse financial position than they probably will be at any other time in their existence. During the recent election we heard a great many promises made, some of them with respect to newly married couples. I think one of the places where these promises could be implemented quite satisfactorily would be in the field of housing. It is a fact that a young business executive or a young employee in a factory, particularly if he is married, is just starting his life and will be continuing to learn to fit himself for the higher positions which he will later enjoy.
While he is earning this lower rate he may need a two, three or even a four bedroom house and at that time his earning power will certainly be much less than it will be in his later life. He will not have the same necessity in later life to get money of this sort for he will be in a better position to afford adequate housing.
I think some consideration should be given to balancing payments somewhat along the lines of business insurance, where you pay a very low premium at the start with increases from time to time. In that case there is the question of the age requirement, while in housing there would be the requirement of the earning power of the mortgagee, which earning power would of course increase. I believe some such arrangement would enable

National Housing Act
our young people to supply their families with a much more satisfactory type of housing, particularly in cases where there are both boys and girls in the family, and where they could be supplied with separate bedrooms or at least adequate provision could be made according to the family's special needs. This in turn would do something to help our small towns where there is a distinct need today for the improvement in facilities for bringing up many of our children. Such a measure, I believe, would do much to correct many of the faults evident in our suburban housing projects.
There is another problem, so far as housing is concerned, and that is with respect to the mortgages which, under national housing, now run from $9,000 to $10,000 and even up to $16,000 per home. It is true that these are very nice houses which, according to the economists, would be suitable for a group having an income of between $4,000 and $5,000 per year. We are, of course, all aware that in the average wage-earning community in Canada the family income does not run that high in the normal course and it would appear that certain houses which were built for wartime needs are now increasing in value from their original $5,000 price to approximately $10,000 to $12,000 per house. If we were to revert to this type of low cost home building we might do much to assist many of the communities not now in a position to take advantage of national housing.
There is another problem under the National Housing Act which again arises from the young married couple becoming able to build a house but deciding, in this case, to do so out of income. They start with $1,000, put in a basement and finally, by borrowing from their friends and sacrificing everything else for a year or more, are able to put up the four walls. Then they find that before they can raise any kind of mortgage they are going to have to provide for the sheathing and other things all at the same time. They find they must borrow $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000 before they can complete the rudimentary necessities in their house so that they can move in and take advantage of the saving in rent. I know of many couples in my own area who have gone to people to raise small mortgages and who have been asked from 11 per cent to 12 per cent interest. Their banks and legal counsel have advised them that there must be sheathing on the house and it would not be possible to take a mortgage on a house covered with tar paper. They then discover they might as well have taken a mortgage, put up the sheathing and a satisfactory type of roof on the house and put in the plumbing and electricity in the first

place. They would not then have needed to borrow money at these exorbitant rates.
I believe there are occasions when very small sums of money could be advanced under national housing to help people in these circumstances without the strict specifications which the act now requires to be fulfilled. Such loans would be a very small part of the value of the house and would suit the needs of the many people in Canada who do not believe it is a satisfactory state of affairs when we mortgage our souls before we can own anything at all. They believe they should pay as they go along and I certainly think something should be done to help these people.
There is another complaint in connection with housing in general and that is the matter of inspection. We have seen many homes built where the rudimentary regulations as to good housing practices have not been enforced. We have seen lumber used that has never been dried, lumber that has been taken off the saw and sold to a contractor and he then puts it in a house. We have all seen cases, particularly with cupboards, where everything was nicely painted when the person moved in but very soon they could pretty nearly put the cups and saucers in the cupboards without even opening the doors. While it is not necessarily inferior material which is being used it certainly would not meet suitable building requirements with respect to its processing. We have seen door jambs with large cracks in them and many other conditions which are not satisfactory to a young home owner, who has not necessarily the ability to know whether he is getting full value when he buys a $10,000 house or whether he is getting only $6,000 value for his money. I think we should be very careful in protecting our people against some of the wiles of the contractors which they are currently practising upon us, the unsuspecting public.
Another problem is the matter of a suitable guarantee against disaster. We are all very interested in the youth of Canada being able to provide suitable housing for their families, but I think the government could legitimately require the inclusion of an insurance clause in these mortgages, particularly those of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which would guarantee that the family would not lose its home as a result of unemployment in an area which might be classed a disaster unemployment area, or because of the death of the breadwinner of the family. In the case of unemployment, payments could be suspended so that foreclosure would not take place and the family would not lose its equity.
I am sure the minister is familiar with this problem and also with another point

which I would now like to raise. That is with respect to the third classification under the housing act in respect to mining communities and other communities which are developing across the country such as Blind River, Elliot Lake and Bancroft. I am sure we are all very sympathetic with miners who are moving into these communities and we can very plainly see the results when the industry supporting the area falls on hard times. I can think of towns which were built up when mining was in its heyday, towns such as Kirkland Lake and others in the immediate vicinity, when it was expedient for everybody to build as is now happening in Blind River and Elliot Lake.
I think some consideration should be given to the future of these people who are in many cases engaged in an industry-and I refer particularly to the uranium industry- over which the government is going to exercise more and more control. I think we are all aware that if some day we should throw the contracts for uranium on to the open market many of these mines would have to close down and the communities which depend on them would go out of existence. I think that at the same time as we advance money through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to build homes in these areas we should give some guarantee that the young miners and their families who put their savings into these homes will have a house which is worth something 20 or 30 years from now.
We have houses in the town of Matachewan which 10 years ago were worth between $8,000 and $10,000 but which are available today for two or three thousand dollars. As I say, some consideration should be given to the position of these people.
Again, I should be interested to know what further housing legislation the government has in mind for 1958. According to my interpretation of the speech from the throne there is more to come in the housing field, and we certainly hope this is the case. Particular consideration should be given to guaranteeing the position of those people who have been unemployed for eight or nine months-and there are many people in this position in my own area-who are now faced with having to go to a bank, or to somebody else, in order to obtain money to protect their investment on a very short term basis. I doubt whether a third mortgage will be available, or whether it will be worth the paper it is written on, and in these circumstances I think the government should give some consideration to their difficulties. I believe the minister is sympathetic and I hope he will keep this question in mind if there are to be other
National Housing Act
developments in the housing field this year, because in northern Ontario, in particular, we are finding that a great deal of distress has developed among people who are buying homes in the new developments there; they are not sure that they will be able to recover even the money they have already spent on their housing.
We think, also, that the minister would be well advised to examine the over-all picture with regard to housing with a view to entering the housing field not only on a mortgage basis but also with respect to low rental housing so that people who need accommodation today, particularly multi-bedroom housing, could rent their homes and relinquish them when they were no longer needed, passing them on to others who had need of this particular accommodation while they themselves rented homes more suited to their new needs.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak on the resolution because I was under the impression that there was a certain haste about this matter because of the necessity of getting the bill before the Senate. I now understand, however, that the other place has now taken a recess and that the minister is not averse to a leisurely discussion on the matter.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, no. The Senate is meeting today at four o'clock, and I am hopeful we can get royal assent this afternoon. If we do not get the bill over by that time I am afraid it will be impossible.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will do what I can to limit my remarks. I am sure the house would not want to miss my words of wisdom. Mr. Chairman I might bring to your attention that I understand the Hansard staff have great difficulty in hearing us at this end of the house and it would be most unfortunate if they failed to hear every word we utter. Perhaps you would have that taken up.
I may say that the Minister of Public Works and 1 were at one time engaged in the first immense interest-free housing development which was ever undertaken by the Canadian people. I refer to the time when we were both digging dugouts together in front of Ypres. I think that was the first interest-free housing development by Canada.
I must say I was interested in listening to the minister's summary of the legislation, and the summary of recent happenings since the government took office. I am very glad he gave that summary because it was quite informative as to past and recent events, and also as to the present proposals. We support this resolution, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, although we think it is completely

National Housing Act
inadequate to meet all the housing necessities of the Canadian people. When the minister began to speak I really thought he had become a convert to public financing of housing in Canada. However when he was concluding his speech I thought he sounded like a bride who had flirted with an idea and then broken off the engagement.
I should like to bring one or two matters to the attention of the minister before going on to deal with C.C.F. policy with respect to housing. I may say that some of my friends are interested in the lumber industry, and I want to tell the minister that a good many firms in the lumber industry have been producing lately with very little margin; some have even been producing at less than cost in order to keep their staffs employed, though at the same time retail lumber prices across Canada have dropped very little. I think this is something which will bear inquiry, the increasing spread between the cost of lumber at the mill and the purchase price paid by the consumer. I have had this matter brought to my attention by a number of people from Saskatchewan who are interested in building and who are amazed to hear of the low price for which lumber is being sold by the lumber manufacturers in B.C.
I am very interested about the proposed housing redevelopment in Trail, and very glad the government made a grant toward the necessary survey. I hope the result will mean a satisfactory co-operative arrangement among the federal, provincial and municipal governments so that the present situation will be improved in the near future. I also wish to express my appreciation of the minister's attention to the Sunningdale veterans housing development. I am not going into the details but this is a matter which I had brought to the attention of the former government on several occasions and I appreciate very much the prompt way in which the minister tackled this rather thorny question and the co-operation he received from his officials. I had a letter two or three days ago from the president of the committee representing the veterans concerned expressing their satisfaction with the basis for the settlement of the problem.
Previous speakers mentioned the difficulties involved in the obtaining of loans in small towns and villages. I wish the minister and his officials would investigate that question. I have run into similar situations on a number of occasions and I am sure it is much more difficult to obtain these loans in the smaller places than the minister is aware of at present. I urge him to give the matter consideration and make it the subject of further investigation.

The question of inspection was also mentioned and this is a matter which in my opinion also requires investigation. I have seen some rather shabby examples of poor inspection over the years. I believe the minister has knowledge of one house that passed inspection by one of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation inspectors which I think personally was a damned disgrace. I mean that in the limited theological sense, Mr. Prime Minister. Inside of six months the cement began to powder off the basement walls and the plaster in the bedrooms, the dining room and in other places had begun to fall down. On the whole it was a pretty poor show and I think greater attention should be paid to inspection. I am not saying this has happened frequently but when it occurs it is a serious matter to the persons directly concerned.
Having said all the nice things I can possibly say at this moment, I want now to say a few words with respect to the failure of the present housing legislation to meet the needs of many Canadians. We in the C.C.F. consider that the provision of housing is a major responsibility of government. We look upon it as something in the nature of public utilities, the development of power, the provision of irrigation and conservation policies and things of that sort. This is the provision of legislation to conserve human beings and their dignity. We in this group are sometimes accused of having little regard for the value and dignity of the individual but on the contrary we base our whole outlook toward life on the concept of the great worth of the individual and the desirability of preserving his integrity and dignity. We believe it is necessary to have good housing if we are going to have good Canadians. We have to have good houses if we are going to have good homes. We must have good homes if we are going to build good Canadian citizens. Unfortunately at the present time we have large numbers of very poor homes in Canada. One does not have to go very far from these parliament buildings in order to And some slum dwellings in this area which are a disgrace at this stage in our history. We are not suggesting that we should do something for nothing but we feel the state should use its good offices to the full to ensure that each Canadian who is willing and able to work and accept his responsibilities with regard to debt obligation will have a modern and decent home in which to raise his family. I think I am quite right in saying that at this time the majority of Canadians do not have that opportunity.
To confirm that statement I want to read some official figures taken from the dominion bureau of statistics and taxation statistics.

The average income of borrowers under the National Housing Act in 1956 was $5,312. By the third quarter of 1957-the latest period for which figures are available when these calculations were made-the average income of borrowers was nearly $6,000, or $5,943 to be exact. It is interesting to observe that 91 per cent of those who filed income tax returns in 1955-the latest year for which taxation statistics are available when these calculations were made-earned annual incomes of less than $5,000. That is according to the taxation statistics of the Department of National Revenue published in 1957. Only 204 out of a total of 47,593 borrowers under the National Housing Act, or four-tenths of 1 per cent, were in the $3,000 or less annual income bracket in 1956. By the third quarter of 1957 those earning $3,000 or less comprised only one-tenth of 1 per cent of borrowers. Sixty-two per cent of all persons who filed income tax returns in 1955 earned annual incomes of less than $3,000.
Those figures in my opinion clearly indicate the inability of large numbers of Canadians to secure loans under our present housing legislation. Moreover, under the housing regulations an approved lender, I am told, is required to obtain special approval from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in making a loan to the applicant if the debt service is more than 27 per cent of the applicant's income. This means that at the present time, for example, a borrower must have an annual income of $3,450 to qualify for a $9,000 loan on a house. According to income tax returns filed in 1955, 73.1 per cent or about three out of four Canadian income earners made less than $3,500. This clearly demonstrates the inadequacy of the present housing legislation. We can contrast that with the huge amounts we spend on defence expenditures. We heard recently of the expenditure of $200 million on aircraft that may be obsolete very quickly. We all know it is not the fault of any individual that a great deal of this vast defence expenditure is on equipment which becomes obsolete very quickly under present world conditions. However we in this group feel that if we can afford these vast defence expenditures we certainly should be able to afford the expenditure required to provide the necessary housing of adequate standards required by Canadians who are willing and able to work and accept their responsibilities. I am not one who is in favour of giving something for nothing.
I have no regard for a healthy lazy person and would not raise a hand to help such a person if he were in good health and capable of providing for himself and I believe that
National Housing Act
view is generally accepted in this group. However, we are anxious to give all Canadians the opportunity of obtaining the housing they require. On that account we in the C.C.F. have a policy with regard to housing which we believe would go a long way toward meeting the situation at least under present circumstances. I propose to read that policy to the committee so it will be on the record:
In order to change this deplorable housing situation, a C.C.F. government would:
(a)	Issue loans, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, directly to the borrower and set up a special revolving fund (a fund that completes in time the circuit between loans and payments) for that purpose:
(b)	Make such loans bear a fixed interest of 2 per cent:
That, I understand, would cover the cost of administration and make a reasonable allowance for possible losses and so on. It simply means in effect that we would provide the loans at cost. I continue:
(c)	Make the amount of the loan 90 per cent of the lending value up to $12,000.
This aspect of C.C.F. housing policy which the C.C.F. have been urging for some years was finally adopted by the Conservative government in the last session of parliament. I continue:
(d)	Increase the amortization period to 30 years instead of 25;
(e)	Establish a rental subsidy fund to provide low rental housing for Canadians in the lower income brackets who cannot afford to buy or build houses, even under the most favourable conditions;
(f)	Make grants to the provinces to be turned over to the municipalities for the purpose of constructing schools and other public facilities which are a heavy expense, and often indeed, a prohibitive one, on the municipality undertaking a new housing project. In this way, the municipalities would be able to take advantage of the provisions of the housing act.
Those are our proposals with respect to a housing policy under the present circumstances. All of our group are intensely interested in this question but I wish to make a personal suggestion. This is an extremely serious problem to all low income earners. In my opinion this is a problem that should be tackled as a result of a thorough examination of the question as the result of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, the municipalities, those supplying materials, the construction industry and the labour groups engaged in the construction industry. This is something that everyone has to make a contribution toward in an effort to design a policy which will make it possible for those low-income earners who are denied decent housing at the present time under present legislation to acquire houses. All these people should

National Housing Act
get together, investigate the problem and cooperate in what I would consider would be a vast and worth-while national program and objective.
(Translation):


Mr. Deschatelets:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on the resolution now before us. Like all previous speakers,
I am happy of course that additional funds are being made available to prospective home owners.
However, since we are going through a period of unemployment and since, under a Conservative government, this period of unemployment is likely to last several years, like several other members on this side of the house, I am sorry that a fine opportunity was missed, not only to reduce unemployment through a house building program, but also to allow low income people to buy houses and thereby solve the housing problem. We must not lose sight of the fact that building costs have sky rocketed and that present interest rates on mortgage loans put NHA loans way out of reach of low wage earners. Some of the previous speakers quoted figures showing that most people who apply for loans under the act at the present time have incomes in the neighbourhood of $5,600. I do not think that, in the circumstances, it can be said that we have managed to make housing available to the low income group.
While I repeat that I am glad that this legislation is being introduced and that under the circumstances, it will no doubt be helpful,
I must however recall the fact that those people now at the helm were the very ones who held us responsible, when we were in power, for the high interest rate at present in force on mortgage loans.
The previous speaker raised a point which I had intended to raise myself. This point should be thoroughly examined if the housing problem is to be solved on a national scale.
There is a provincial housing act in Quebec. It is true that over there the interest rate on mortgage loans is not as high as it is under federal legislation. On the other hand it does not provide guarantees such as are provided by the federal legislation, but it does reduce the interest rate, if it does not do away with it completely. In any event there is one thing that we should not forget, and that is that the city of Montreal, as well as other large cities in this country, have thousands of substandard dwellings. We will therefore have to conclude that this is a national problem and in trying to solve it we should seek a formula providing for an equal sharing of costs between federal, provincial and municipal levels of government.
[Mr. Herridge.I
You may ask what municipalities can do to solve the housing problem. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) mentioned that in his speech. What would be the good of legislation providing for easier loans, lower interest rate and amortization costs, etc., if on the other hand land speculation is allowed to continue? I believe that a formula acceptable to all three levels of government would perhaps be the logical solution since it would achieve the result we are looking for, that is home ownership for the worker and the low income group.
I do not want to delay the passing of this resolution. Those were the general remarks which I wanted to make but, again, I want to point out that the very ones who, when we were in power, criticized us about the interest rate on mortgage loans, have not found it possible to reduce the interest rate in present circumstances.
However, I believe we will have another opportunity to deal with this matter, which is one of the most important for the great majority of the electors of our country who are low income earners.
Mr. Chairman, I should like in closing to remind the house that over a million houses were built when the Liberal party was in power, that is to say up to June 21, 1957.
I believe that together we should try to improve the existing act so that it may become increasingly easy for the low income earners to buy small houses.
(Text):


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, my remarks on the resolution will be exceedingly brief as most of the points I intended to cover have already been mentioned. However, there is one point about which I am not too sure in my own mind at the present time. In the speech from the throne there are certain remarks which could lead one to believe that there may be two prongs to the proposals respecting the National Housing Act. In the speech from the throne there is reference to a vigorous program of house building and again a reference in these words, cooperate fully under the authority of the National Housing Act in further projects for slum clearance." I am not sure whether the resolution before us today deals with only one or both of these aspects.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to the hon. member that redevelopment plans are not undertaken under this particular section.


Murdo William Martin: This particular
measure has to do strictly with the building of houses.


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: In that case I can leave the majority of my intended remarks for a future occasion when the opportunity will arise. The only thing I should like to say at the present time has to do with the point raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West. He referred to the cost involved in building one airplane for our defence. On many occasions we have found that as soon as we have spent the money the particular plane has almost immediately become obsolete and we have had to proceed to build something new and better. I was wondering whether as a nation we could not look at our housing program in a somewhat similar light.
What do we do with these airplanes when they become obsolete? Do we keep on using them knowing that they are obsolete and dangerous or do we scrap them and get something that is worth while? If that principle were carried into our housing program I think it would give us a good idea of what should be done with regard to housing. Some hon. members may recall that during the last session I made reference to some of my personal experiences as a municipal fire-fighter both in answering calls to fires and in making inspections of houses on a door-to-door basis with the purpose in mind of eliminating causes of fires before they actually happened and trying to close the door before the horse was stolen. I think that is one aspect of housing that should be pursued with all vigour.
To give one illustration, houses built as recently as 20 years ago were ideal examples of modern house construction at that time, but let us consider the number of electrical appliances that have come into common use in the last 20 years and we will see what some of the problems are. At the time these houses were built they were wired in what was considered to be a proper and adequate manner sufficient to handle all requirements at that time and possibly in the then foreseeable future. But because of the development of appliances in a very short period of time we now find that what was adequate 20, 10 or even 5 years ago is today a danger to life and limb.
I believe that is something that should be taken into consideration and watched very carefully in the construction of the houses that we hope will be built under the measure we are dealing with today. I hope that the inspectors and the people in responsible

11J
National Housing Act
positions will pay particular attention to this aspect so that the houses built today will not become liabilities on their communities in 5 or 10 years time.
(Translation) :


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, while listening to the debate on this resolution, I thought that certain things should be said, particularly at a stage where we are afforded much more latitude than when we are discussing the bill itself.
As the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) said the other day, we have found that, since the adoption of this legislation, i.e. since 1954-which in no way reflects the attitude of the present government-the main beneficiaries of the act have been the large corporations, particularly large contracting firms in metropolitan areas and the large centres of this country, where profits, while legitimate if you wish, are paid by the small buyer who needs a house.
I wondered if there were no means of making government loans more accessible to the small buyer, because the main objective of the government since 1954, an objective which, to my knowledge, has not changed today, has been to give easy access to home ownership to the man of limited means. We are about to lose an item of wealth. In cities like Montreal, for instance, property is centralized in the hands of a few individuals and the large majority of residents are tenants. When house ownership is thus centralized among a few owners there is always the danger that we shall have no slum clearance, but an increase of slum areas, because the large real estate owner merely wants to get a profit out of the housing he rents and is hardly interested in the appearance, and even in the sanitary conditions of these lodgings.
Now I believe that the government should try to make home ownership more readily accessible to the small people than to large contractors who are merely interested in acquiring property for purposes of speculation.
As one of the previous speakers was saying-I have forgotten who it was-the main people whom the government should try to interest in home ownership, should be young married couples who have their whole lives in front of them, who plan to raise a family, and who will need a home, not only for a few months but for years. They are the ones we should help take advantage of these loans. Above all, they should be advised not to build one-family units, which in times of recession become a danger since they have to keep on making their regular payments, pay their taxes, amortize their mortgage and pay the

National Housing Act
interest, which is all very difficult tor them to do in the circumstances. But if we helped them build two-tamily units, so that they could count on someone else to help them meet their obligations during hard times it would help them keep their property.
In Hull, a wonderful residential district was built with the help of these mortgage loans. Then, all of a sudden, a zoning law was enacted whereby two-family units were forbidden. For a certain difficult period these people had great trouble making their payments, so much so that many of them had to put their house up for sale. Then, those who are buying these houses will soon be in the same fix.
There are always a lot of people who do not wish to become owners but who nonetheless want to live in a decent house, and this helps the owner pay for his house and keep it.
In order to achieve such a purpose, I believe the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) was right in saying this morning that in this age of technology, the department responsible for these loans should have experts study the method of building a decent house at a low price, a practical house which could be resold at a still cheaper price. This is in line with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) to the effect that some arrangement should be made between the federal, provincial and municipal governments in order that individuals may be prevented from buying a farm at such a low price as to enable them to parcel them out in lots for resale at $1,200, $1,500 and even $3,000, which lots might have cost only $50 or $60.
I am not criticizing the act, as I am in favour of it, but I think it could be improved. If the department would buy the land, subdivide it and put the lots up for sale, larg contractors would not be afforded the opportunity of making high profits, and the small borrowers would be the ones to benefit.
Now there is the matter of interest rate. The interest rate, which is 6 per cent, is of course too high. I pointed this out at the time it was raised, two years ago. I said then that the interest rate was too high, and I repeat it today.
That is the way I have felt about it all along, and always will.
We often have occasion to criticize the government of the province of Quebec, and perhaps with reason, but the government has achieved things which I admire, notably its policy of helping the small home owner by refunding to him about 3 per cent on the

interest he has had to pay <5n his building loan. Under the National Housing Act, the interest rate is 6 per cent.
It is still being claimed, as it was at the time, that the purpose of the 6 per cent interest rate was to encourage lending institutions and banks to grant loans. Well, I think that when the loan is granted by the government itself, through one of its departments, the money should be loaned at no more than 3 per cent. When the loan is made through a bank, the federal government should pay the difference between 3 and 6 per cent, so as to help those who need it most. In fact the object of all this legislation is not to encourage the making of huge profits, but to foster home ownership, and if we want to encourage people to own their own homes, we must help them to do so.
Everybody agrees that no one should pay more than the equivalent of three years' salary for his house. A man who earns $3,000 should not buy a property of more than $9,000 for he runs the risk of losing it. Consequently, if the interest rate were reduced, he would have a wider choice. This is especially true of the man who has or is likely to have a large family; he could then afford to buy a home in which to raise his family under normal conditions.
Somebody spoke a moment ago about slums in Montreal. The fact is that there are slums in every part of this country, and the object of this legislation is precisely to get rid of slums.
I am convinced that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) means well when he asks the house to vote a further amount of $300 million; we are going to vote this amount. I think each and every member wishes to comply with his request. However, I hope the suggestions we are offering to improve the act itself will be seriously considered by the hon. minister, because we do not make them with the idea of slowing up the passage of the bill, but to give easier access to home ownership to the small man in this country.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: I hope the committee will not think that in intervening once again on this subject I am doing so with the object of holding up the resolution. Such is not the case, and far from my mind, but there are a number of points that have arisen in the course of the discussion as explained by the

minister and others upon which I should like to dwell as briefly as I can. I can assure the minister that just as soon as the resolution moves into the bill stage we will do everything we can to hasten the passage of the bill.
However, I did want to place on the record some suggestions and some reactions of mine to what the minister said earlier in the debate. These have to do with interest rates, the cost of land, and if I may for just a moment I should like to mention urban redevelopment. I realize that the latter is a matter which, strictly speaking, may not perhaps be entirely in order. But on the other hand, since we are discussing the act itself we are provided with an opportunity to discuss certain other relevant sections of the act. I should like to say to the minister, with respect, that I feel he misunderstood entirely what I said yesterday on the subject of housing. He seemed to have the impression that I had taken him to task for certain things, if I am to judge by what he said at page 131 of Hansard. I quote:
He said-
Referring to the hon. member for Laurier.
He began ... by criticizing me very severely for having the government do all the lending. He said: You should let the private institutions do this lending:	you are going too far; you are
getting the government into this field too deeply.
I did not say that. If the minister will look at the remarks which I made, he will find I did not criticize him in any way whatever. But I did sound a note of warning that perhaps the government should be cautious and not go into this field too deeply. I feel that the statement I made then was entirely in accord with the facts, and perhaps I might just repeat this brief statement which appears at page 125 of Hansard'.
I shall not deny that the loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have had a I?6*	e^ec* on ttle building of new homes
but the facts as to mortgage lending in Canada last year make me wonder whether the government's intervention in this field, hitherto occupied almost exclusively by private institutions, has not merely had the effect of encouraging these institutions to seek other forms of investment for their funds.
Again, on the next page, I added:
I realize the difficulty in establishing that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation activities account for the reduction in private investment and therefore I shall not attempt to labour the point any further. However, it will be sufficient for me to state and to draw to the attention of the government the dangers of it coming to occupy a preponderant or overdominating position in this field.
I think, as I remember the discussion then, the minister agreed with that because he seemed to shake his head affirmatively.


Howard Charles Green: I will have to keep my head still, I can see that.
National Housing Act


Mr. Pickersgill:: That is a very hard thing to do.


Lionel Chevrier: The statement that was made, let me assure the minister, was not in criticism of himself and not in criticism of the crown corporation, but was made as a warning that it might perhaps not be a good thing if the government went into the field too deeply.
If the minister will allow me to say so, I think he went much too far in the statement which appears at page 116 of Hansard of yesterday, when he said:
We had not been in office very long before we found that there was a rapid falling off in housing construction across Canada.
That statement is just not according to the facts. With all respect to the minister, the statement is inaccurate and all he has to do to see its inaccuracy is to consult his own figures. If he will look at the statistics as prepared by Canadian housing statistics and the crown corporation for the fourth quarter of 1957 in table 1 on house building activity he will see that in the month of January, 1957 there were 1,454 starts. In February they rose to 1,773, in March they rose again to 3,441, in April 6,148, in May 8,695 and in June, 1957, to 10,177.


Mr. Pallell:: What were they in 1956?


Lionel Chevrier: I can give the figures for 1956. My hon. friend is interested in interrupting me probably because the facts do not agree with what the minister said, but this does go to show the inaccuracy of his statement. The point I was trying to bring out was that housing starts were greater during the first quarter and part of the second quarter of 1957 than they were when the present administration took office and by the month of June starts had reached the figure of 10,177. Never again according to these statistics did they reach that high figure, in fact, the starts in January, 1958, that is of this year, were away down to 3,945, and the present government had then been in office several months, which goes to indicate the statement is far from accurate.


Howard Charles Green: What were they in January, 1957?


Lionel Chevrier: In January, 1957-1 put that on the record-they were 1,454.


Howard Charles Green: They were 3,945 in 1958.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, that is correct, but the point I am making is that the minister stated before you had been in office very long there was a rapid falling off in housing construction. It is just the other way around and the actual increase in starts began to take place in February, 1957, rising to the high figure of

National Housing Act
10,177 in June and they have never again reached that point according to these housing statistics.
Another statement of the minister's was that lending institutions were advancing money reluctantly because of the tight money policy then in effect and that this tight money policy was hitting the building industry harder than any other industry in the country. That brings me to a discussion of the interest rate. The interest rate being charged at the present time is exactly the same as it was when we were in office and when the high interest rate was described by the hon. gentleman opposite as tight money-


Howard Charles Green: No, no; I was referring to the fact that under the tight money policy of the former government the banks, in particular, and the other lending institutions simply would not lend to builders for the construction of these small houses.


Lionel Chevrier: I am dealing with the statement as it appears in Hansard and, of course, if my hon. friend wants to correct it he is free to do so, but I know when he dealt with this question he certainly interjected a very strong political note. I detected it from the start; of course he started off in a very friendly manner as he always does but he waxed political after a little while and perhaps succeeded in interrupting to an extent the progress of his legislation. That is why I objected as I do now to these two statements and the point I am trying to make is that we today have the Minister of Finance talking easy money and the Minister of Public Works, in charge of housing, practising tight money.
The mortage rate, as I understand it and as I am informed, for home ownership under the National Housing Act was established at 6 per cent. We established that rate over a year ago and it has remained at 6 per cent ever since. I understand that the formula when establishing the rate is that it should not exceed the interest rate on long-term government bonds by more than 2\ per cent. Long-term government bonds have now fallen off and I believe their rate is under 3 per cent, which means the National Housing Act rate could go down to 5J per cent or perhaps even 5J per cent.
My colleague, the member for Hull, made a point in that he suggested perhaps a compromise or an arrangement might be made between the provincial and federal governments such as obtains in certain parts of Canada today, but we on this side of the house believe that the fall in the interest rates is the result of a decline in confidence and a decline in investment since my hon.

friends opposite took office, and that when there are no alternative investments the lending institutions would lend at a lower rate than the present one. I know it is not necessary to point this out to the minister but I would like to put on record one fact and that is that every one per cent of interest that must be paid on the principal of the mortgage substantially increases the amount of income which the prospective home owner must have in order to be accepted as an approved buyer of the mortgaged property.
The change in the regulations recently adopted has alleviated the situation to some extent but it cannot alter the fact that interest costs are the major items which enter into the calculations.
The regulations require, broadly speaking, that the income of the prospective buyer shall be of such amount that 27 per cent will cover the interest on the mortgage, the amortization of principal and the taxes, so it follows that if the interest rate is higher than it need be a number of buyers with limited means are excluded. Thus a reduction of $50 in the interest cost would reduce the amount of income required by nearly $200. A lower rate offers obvious advantages in that it would increase the number of persons who could qualify as approved buyers.
A great deal has been said in the course of the discussion with respect to housing development and construction in smaller centres and something has also been said of urban redevelopment. There is at present a great need for redevelopment in our cities to rehabilitate blighted or substandard areas. Very little has been done in this field in Canada up to now because such projects are extremely costly. Municipalities are hesitant to embark upon such programs, either because they do not know that they can receive federal assistance for such a purpose, or because they feel that the provision of the National Housing Act in this respect does not go far enough.
We think positive steps should be taken to inform the municipalities more adequately about the federal assistance available to them for redevelopment projects. Moreover, we on this side of the house would improve the provisions of the act, particularly sections 36 and 23, so as to encourage municipalities to take greater initiative in this field than they have done in the past.
At the present time section 36 of the National Housing Act provides that the federal government can undertake in collaboration with the provincial governments or their agencies-that is to say the municipalities-projects for the acquisition and



IB, 1958

[Stage Direction]
development of land for housing purposes and for the construction of houses.
The federal contribution to the financing of these development projects is 75 per cent of the cost, therefore the federal government does not share in the cost of such items as roads, sewage and waterworks related to those projects. We should like to see a provision in the act which would include those works which are essential parts of any redevelopment project in the cost shared by the federal government.
There is also another section of the act- section 23-providing for federal assistance to the municipalities to help in the clearance, replanning, rehabilitation and modernization of blighted or substandard areas. The slum clearance work contemplated under this section is merely a preliminary step toward redevelopment or rebuilding projects defined in section 36. However, the federal contribution to the financing of this preliminary work is only 50 per cent of the cost. We would like to see the federal contribution as provided under section 23 of the act increased from 50 per cent to 75 per cent so as to make it similar to that provided under section 36, because the work contemplated in those two sections constitutes two phases of the same programs.
Finally, these sections of the act, apply only at present to residential housing projects. In several cases, however, the blighted or substandard areas should not be used for housing purposes but should be transformed into commercial districts or into municipal parks. We should like to see abolished the present restrictions on the nature of redevelopment projects which qualify for federal assistance and would extend such assistance to redevelopment projects for commercial and other purposes as well as housing where this is advisable.
Then there is the question of land costs. I am pleased to see that the minister intends to give this subject some thought and consideration. I realize, as he does himself, that the crown corporation is certainly not directly responsible for this situation, but it has a particular interest in the problem in that if the costs continue to rise the position in so far as the crown company is concerned will become more and more difficult. I am sure that if an investigation were made into these costs by the president of the corporation, either alone, or through his officials or in co-operation with the municipalities and the provinces, it might be possible to find some method of reducing costs in this field.
There was also the question of appraisals.
I hope the minister will find it possible to say a word on this subject. Perhaps he has done
National Housing Act
so, but I did not notice. Toward the end of my remarks yesterday I asked whether he could not say something on that subject. Perhaps if he does not wish to deal with it now he could reserve his remarks until we come to consider the bill. I just wanted to make these remarks not in any desire to hold up the legislation but with one desire only, namely, to be helpful.
Howard Charles Green: In reply to the last subject raised by the hon. member for Laurier, we shall try to arrange for a discussion at as early a date as possible on the estimates. Since the hon. gentleman and I had a brief exchange about the number of starts, I have received the figures from the officials for the months January to April inclusive. Last year-1957-there were 12,816; this year, 1958, they are almost doubled at 24,946.


Lionel Chevrier: Has the minister the figures for 1956?


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid not.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Has the minister the figures for the Atlantic provinces for the same period?


Howard Charles Green: No.


John Richard Garland: Perhaps the minister would care to comment on the subject I was dealing with yesterday. Is it not a fact that the high rate of construction during March, April, May and June of last year used up the great bulk of the private money that was available and thus necessitated the present steps which the government has taken?


Howard Charles Green: No, I believe the statement I made in my speech yesterday afternoon was correct, and that housing in Canada was falling off in the early part of last year.


Lionel Chevrier: The facts are exactly to the contrary.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: How can the minister
justify the present rate of 6 per cent when this rate was established while the interest rate of the Bank of Canada was 4.3 per cent, and it is now down, as announced yesterday, to 1.79 per cent? Furthermore, how can he reconcile the statement which was made by the Prime Minister in Calgary, as reported in the Calgary Herald of March 15, that his government had put $300 million into house building with his present policy, and with the claim that the government had reduced the interest rate from 4.3 per cent to 2.89 per cent, which it was at that date. The government is taking credit for reducing interest rates generally. Why not apply this to mortgage loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?

National Housing Act


Howard Charles Green: 
Hédard-J. Robichaud: The Prime Minister certainly tried to connect the new money for house building with the rate of interest current at the time. He certainly tried to connect those two things, making a political question out of it, and that is clearly indicated by the statement I have just taken from the Calgary Herald.


Howard Charles Green: I think the rates to which the Prime Minister was referring were a different set of rates, not the rate based, as we have to calculate our rate, on section 4 of the act.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The Prime Minister certainly did not make that clear in his statement. He had some other ideas at the time.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Lionel Chevrier: I have a question to ask but I can leave it until we come to the bill.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Green thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-10, to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave.


Howard Charles Green: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Advances out of the C.R.F. to make loans and pay losses.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, earlier I put on the record some figures having to do with house building activity in 1957 and I believe the minister has that table before him. In view of the rise in the number of starts from January to June 1957 would the minister say whether that is not some indication that private loans were gradually being forced out of the field?


Howard Charles Green: There is no indication whatever that private loans were forced out by the small home loan plan. Actually it was brought in to fill a gap which had been left by the withdrawal of the lending institutions.


Lionel Chevrier: Before this measure was put in the form of a resolution what was the percentage vis-a-vis government money and private enterprise money in the field of housing?


Howard Charles Green: I do not have those figures with me. I could get them from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and give them to you.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no intention of holding up the measure because of that but I would be interested, and I am sure the committee would be, as to the progress that was made in the approximate amount of money invested by the government in the field of housing and that invested by private enterprise, let us say in 1956, 1957 and the first quarter of 1958 or that part of 1958 for which the minister has figures. I take it the minister has not that information available today.


Howard Charles Green: I would be glad to get that information for the hon. member.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister explain to the committee the procedure in transferring moneys from the consolidated revenue fund to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and whether it is transferred as a lump sum or as the corporation requires the funds?


Howard Charles Green: It is transferred as the corporation requires the funds.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In view of the statement the minister made last fall when he asked this house for an additional amount of $150 million and when he said this sum would be used partly to help maritime residents to take advantage of the scheme, and also in view of a statement which he made at a later date to the effect that the money was there available and if demands were not made responsibility for that rested with the people in the provinces, could the minister not give us an indication now as to how many people in the Atlantic provinces have taken advantage of this additional amount of money which parliament has voted under the National Housing Act?


Howard Charles Green: There was not the same use made of the small home loan plan in the Atlantic provinces. There was not the building of homes going on there and the demand for this money was not as great in that area.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Can the minister give any indication as to the amount that was used in the Atlantic provinces? Was it 5 per cent, 10 per cent or less of the amount made available?


Howard Charles Green: It is not a question of the
amount that was made available. The whole sum was made available all over Canada. Actually the amount loaned in the hon. member's province of New Brunswick was $1,867,245.46 under the small home loan plan.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: What period does that cover?


Howard Charles Green: That is throughout the whole period of operation of the plan since last August. The number of housing units in New Brunswick was 191.


Chesley William Carter: Could the minister give the same figures for Newfoundland? How many houses have been financed out of public funds?


Howard Charles Green: There were 64 units in Newfoundland involving a total of $717,279. I would point out, however, that in Newfoundland the city of St. John's has had a greater benefit proportionately under the federal-provincial low rental plan than any other centre in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But that is not under this legislation.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, on May 13 in reply to a question I asked the minister said that the fund has not been exhausted and there still remains a small amount. I wonder if the minister could indicate in round figures how much money is in the fund at the present time that has not yet been used. I have another question that is related to the fund not having been exhausted. I believe it was yesterday the minister indicated in his remarks that over the past several months he had to curtail the program first of all in regard to apartment buildings and in the last month in regard to small units. Is the minister able to say how many millions of dollars would have been spent if curtailment of the program had not been necessary. I think the minister will know what I am after. How many housing units were not built that would have been built had there been no curtailment in the program?


Howard Charles Green: The amount committed as of May 9 was $392,073,613. I am not very good
National Housing Act
at mental arithmetic but I am sure the hon. member could calculate much more rapidly than I could just how much that leaves in the fund. It is very nearly $8 million. At the time we suspended the loans under the small home loan plan there were applications for close to $50 million. As I said earlier in the debate approximately 75 per cent of those loans were taken up by the lending institutions and the banks so there is no question of the construction of these homes having been stopped. Once we get these funds we will be able to deal with the applications which have not been taken over by the lending institutions and the banks. I would remind the hon. member, however, that some of these applications may not be acceptable and the applicants may not qualify.


Erhart Regier: I thank the minister for his answer. Since $50 million worth was on application at the time he had to curtail the plan and 75 per cent of that he believes has been taken up by the lending institutions it means that 25 per cent has been delayed in implementation. This indicates there has been a delay in the construction of 1,750 units assuming they had all been approved.
It is fairly reasonable to say that because the minister on February 1 did not ask parliament for money when the government knew it was going to be running out of money there has been a delay in housing starts to the extent of at least 1,000 units. It is regrettable, and I wish the government had taken advantage of the good will that existed at that time in the house and the anxiety that the house was expressing to supply him with that amount of money so that there would not be an interruption and needless unemployment.
In his answer to my first question he says that I am good in my arithmetic, but he also says $392 million has been expended. At the time we voted the money last year I believe Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation had exhausted its funds. So far as I know the government placed the extra $150 million into the fund, which they had authority to do, when they inaugurated this program and for which they did not need the sanction of the house. We then supplied by legislation another $150 million. These two amounts added together mean that the government and parliament put $300 million more into the fund during the time of the Conservative government's tenure of office, and yet he says expenditures reached $392 million. Does this amount of $92 million mean that this money has come back by way of repayments of loans, or where did the money come from?

National Housing Act


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member is too suspicious. I explained yesterday that the original legislation provided $250 million. About $100 million of that had been spent before we took over, leaving approximately $150 million. That $150 million was allocated largely, not entirely, because it also had to provide for the loans in small centres and for the loans to limited dividend corporations and to primary industry. That $150 million was allocated for the main part to the small home loan plan. Then, when we found that more money would be required we came to the house and asked for it last November. When the last parliament was dissolved there was no indication that we would run out of money before the new parliament was summoned.
What happened was that in the spring months the applications for loans increased by leaps and bounds and at this point I am a little suspicious myself. I think that many of the lending institutions and probably the banks were simply shoving off applications onto the small homes loan plan which should have gone under the insured loan plan under the National Housing Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly what the hon. member for Laurier said.


Howard Charles Green: I think they were doing it; I think that is what was happening. We did not expect that that would take place and the money ran out a little earlier than we had expected. We were not trying to deceive the house in any way.


Erhart Regier: Would the minister care to explain. He has now said the $100 million was exhausted when his government took office. Then $150 million was added to the fund.


Howard Charles Green: No; the $150 million was in the fund. We simply decided it was not being used by the former government for any plan of the type of the small homes loan plan. We initiated this new plan and decided to use the $150 million for that purpose.


Erhart Regier: Will the minister explain how he could spend $392 million if he had at his disposal only this $150 million and the $150 million that was voted by the House of Commons. Where did the other $92 million come from?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member is not as good at arithmetic as I thought he was. The $100 million had already been spent before we took over. The figure of $392 million-odd includes the $100 million that had been spent before we took over last June.


Erhart Regier: That answers the question but I do want to clear up the record at least in

my mind and perhaps in the minds of a few other hon. members. The record of the Conservative government house-building program is not $392 million, then. Part of that $392 million had been expended already by the previous government.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think any Conservative has claimed that we have provided $392 million. The figures I have always heard are $300 million, which figure is accurate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister permit me to ask what is probably a very stupid question? The minister as a lawyer would probably regard it also as a very ignorant question. I looked at the explanatory note very quickly and I could not make out from it whether this was a revolving fund or whether once the loan was repaid to the corporation the money had to be paid back to the government. In other words, I wondered whether the payments on the mortgages as they come back to the corporation can be used for relending? I admit there would not be very much repaid yet.


Howard Charles Green: That is a very sensible question; I am somewhat surprised, but it really is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then we are both surprised.


Howard Charles Green: My understanding is that the money is paid back into the corporation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And can be lent again?


Howard Charles Green: And can be used by it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister by chance the amount of the repayments that have been made, the replenishment of the fund that has come about from the repayments? I assume that the $100 million that was lent before the hon. gentleman became a minister was lent over a period of years and that there might have been quite a considerable amount of it repaid. I was just wondering whether he had the figure or whether it was readily available as to how much had been recovered in that way?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Chairman, I have not that figure but I will be glad to get it for the hon. member.


Lionel Chevrier: May I go back to the question on starts. In view of table 1, it occurred to me it might be possible for the minister to tell me how many starts were financed by public money in June, for instance, when the peak was reached, and how many by private enterprise? It may be that the minister has the figure.


Howard Charles Green: I think the hon. member will find the answer to his question, at least in part, in table 18. I have not had time to check it but I have had a note from my

officials saying that this information is contained in table 18 on Canadian housing statistics for the last quarter of last year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have another question which may also not be a very bright one but I think I might put it to the minister. If I caught the figure that the hon. member for Laurier gave, there were approximately
10,000	starts in June before the present administration took office or just at the time they took office, or before those new loans were initiated, in any event. In other words, all of those starts must have been financed by private money.
That figure of 10,000 has never been reached again in any month since, during which period the government has been making very considerable loans. Therefore it would appear that the peak of private lending was reached in June, that private lending has been going down steadily ever since and that in so far as the figure has been kept up it has been kept up by public lending. I think that is obvious and I think that the minister will agree.
In other words, that would seem to suggest that there has been a falling off in private lending ever since the peak was reached in June, which would seem to confirm what the minister and the hon. member for Laurier both said, that they were a little concerned about the possibility of public lending driving out the private lenders. But my question is a rather different one. I had understood, perhaps not from the Minister of Public Works, that the Minister of Finance had declared that we were in a position of tight money in June and that since this government came in money was easier. It would appear to me that if money was tight there would be less lending for housing and if money became easier there would be more lending for housing. Yet it would seem from the statistics that there was private money to finance 10,000 starts in June and that there has never been private money to finance anything like that number ever since. In the first place, perhaps the minister might say whether he thinks my analysis is correct because we could differ about it, and then he might explain why in this new era of easy money there was less private money available for housing.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid the hon. member is not correct. The first breach that was made in the wall of the tight money policy so strongly supported by the former government was the making of $150 million available for housing about the end of August. I think that was the first relaxation of the tight money policy and the real test was whether or not builders across the country could get money for building. I think that it was to
57071-3-I2i
National Housing Act
some extent, perhaps quite largely, difficult for them because the banks were under instructions not to lend money. I really do not believe that the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate can derive very much comfort from the 10,000 figure in June of last year. If he can, perhaps he will feel better but I do not think it proves very much.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not looking for comfort from the minister, I was looking for light. Perhaps the minister would not mind my coming back to this point to see if I can get a little light. The minister suggested, and this puzzles me even more, that the making of $150 million available out of the treasury was creating easy money. I had understood from the Minister of Finance and from other members of the government that easy money was created by reducing interest rates and making more money available from private lenders. I thought the hon. gentleman had campaigned against the Social Crediters and not in favour of them. Surely for the government to go into direct lending is not relieving tight money; it is substituting printing presses or something of that sort for the normal operations of the money market.
It does seem to me that the minister should have a better explanation of why it was that after we got into this new era of easy money there was less money available for housing from the private institutions than there was when we were in office and there were 10,000 starts as there were in June with no government lending but all private lending. That is the point that I do not think the minister has explained.


Howard Charles Green: The real comparison should be between the months of June in the respective years. That would tell the story. June, of course, is normally one of the very best months of the year for starting the construction of homes and I think that is the reason the figure was 10,000 for June of last year.
I would be very much surprised if it is not
20,000	in June of 1958.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister has an interesting point. I would not be at all surprised if he might be right but I wonder whether 10,000 of that figure will be represented by private lending resulting from the easy money or whether most of it will not be as a result of this direct government lending. That is my point. What I was trying to find out was what the minister really meant by this easy money having produced more housing because it would appear from the statistics to have produced less.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the minister's answer to a question about collections. He said that there was a

National Housing Act
revolving fund within Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If so, I presume it is a very small revolving fund. But over a period of years and in view of the investment by the corporation in housing there must be an increasing sum available from loan collections. Has the minister any idea as to what the amount of collections would be last year, which money would be available to be reinvested in new housing?


Howard Charles Green: I have not got that figure. It will be going up, of course, as time goes on and the mortgage repayments start to come in. The hon. member knows that they are comparatively small in the earlier years.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the minister Will not mind if I come back to the interest rate again because he and I practically put the same statement on the record a moment ago. However, there is just one discrepancy which I should like to see cleared up. I said that the rate had been established some time ago at six per cent and that my understanding of the manner in which the interest rate was fixed was that it was done under a formula whereby the rate should not exceed the interest rate on long term government bonds by more than 2\ per cent. I said that according to my information long term government bonds had slipped and I believed their rate to be under 3 per cent.


Howard Charles Green: Four per cent.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister rose and said they were four per cent. I sent for the Financial Post and that is not the position. If I read correctly the government bond investment schedule appearing here it is more like the statement which I put on the record. It may be that there is a particular form of bond that bears interest at the rate of four per cent but I think the house and the minister will agree that the average bond which is bought on the market or which has been held by investors for some time certainly does not give a yield of four per cent which would indicate that if that formula is correct the interest rate should be below six per cent.


Howard Charles Green: The information I have from the officials is that the yield on a 20-year theoretical Canada bond as at the beginning of the month was four per cent and that figure is set by the Department of Finance.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand it is not on the 20-year series but on the average purchase of bonds in the investment market.


Howard Charles Green: It is described as a 20-year theoretical Canada bond. I know the calculation is made in the Department of Finance.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, the reply which I received a few moments ago from
the minister to the effect that only 191 units were approved in New Brunswick during the last month makes it quite obvious, as I said earlier, that the scheme is not altogether practical in New Brunswick or the Atlantic provinces generally. Can the minister tell the committee if Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation can supply plans and specifications for low cost units? What I mean by low cost units is the type of units which would meet the needs of fishermen or low income wage earners such as those I mentioned in my remarks earning from $45 to $60 per week. The type of home I have in mind is one which is worth from $5,000 to $6,000.
I understand such plans are available for Newfoundland. If so, would it be possible for fishermen from other Atlantic areas or low income wage earners, to write central mortgage requesting information, plans or specifications of houses? Could they be advised that such plans are available? Am I correct in intimating that such plans are available for houses of this type?


Howard Charles Green: I am not sure of that. I do
not see any reason why they should not be.
I find I have given the committee wrong information. These repayments have to be made to the receiver general by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to pay off the debentures which are owed to the treasury, so the fund is not a revolving fund after all.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question of the minister? During the course of the debate I suggested that he might comment on the announcement made by his colleague concerning the construction of housing in Montreal, wherein he stated that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works would both introduce legislation. The Minister of Public Works has introduced his legislation, which I presume his colleague had in mind, but I think the hon. gentleman gave some indication that there would be a reduction in the rate of interest. I quoted from Le Devoir, and I do not want to quote that again, but I notice the minister did not comment on that statement when he spoke.


Howard Charles Green: I know of no such plan. It may be that the newspaper report is incorrect.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister if he has any idea as to the number of men who would be employed in the field of housing under this expenditure? For instance, I presume some study must have been made by the government since they have been in office concerning the number of people who would be employed in the construction of homes, having regard to the funds already voted



IS, 1958

[Stage Direction]
in the month of November last year. Is the minister able to indicate that, and relate it to what is being voted now?
Howard Charles Green: Employment would run about four men per unit for a period of six months. In addition to that, of course, there would be people making furniture, fixtures and producing lumber-all the other occupations incidental to housebuilding.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Would the minister have available the figures showing the number of units which have been built under central mortgage plans and which are now unoccupied or for sale? There must be certain sections of the country where there is an excess of housing units, which units are unoccupied and available for sale. Has the minister any figures showing that?


Howard Charles Green: No, the homes built under the small homes loan plan have been selling very rapidly. I gave figures yesterday for completions to the end of April. The number was 1,722. The hon. member will realize from that figure that a great majority of those homes have not yet been completed. There seems to be a very strong demand for the homes, and this has been the situation all along.


Lionel Chevrier: Before I ask my question, may I thank the minister for the interest which he has shown in the question of land costs and the manner in which that item has risen. Has he or his officers, since the debate has been in progress, given any consideration to what kind of remedy, investigation or inquiry could be made by the crown corporation to the end of assisting in that respect?


Howard Charles Green: The corporation has been following this situation very closely ever since I have been minister, and even before under my predecessor, the Hon. Robert Winters. This is one of our most serious problems, and it is one for which we are not directly responsible-


Lionel Chevrier: I realize that.


Howard Charles Green: -and which we cannot control; that is the awkward part of it.
National Housing Act


Howard Charles Green: Not only Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation but also provincial governments, municipal governments and housing authorities all over Canada, are very much concerned about this question. They are all working to find a solution. One method which has been followed is land assembly projects in which the dominion and provinces share. There are quite a number of those across the country.


Harold Edward Winch: There are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister in view of his statement because I think they are of importance. I am particularly interested in an explanation of the minimum amount that a person could have under the regulations as a steady income in order to apply for a loan under the act. Before the minister answers that, Mr. Chairman, I see that, according to routine proceedings, it now being five o'clock we should proceed to the next order of business.


The Deputy Chairman:: I was just about to draw the attention of the committee to that fact. Shall I rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt
proceedings, but so far as we are concerned, we would be prepared to proceed with this bill now.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I am certain we all appreciate the desire to proceed with this measure, but personally I do feel it is of the utmost importance that, at least on a nominal basis, we maintain the rights of members. It only takes a few minutes.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Harold Edward Winch: Is
it proper for me to ask, as a point of information, whether or not the bill we are discussing now could go before the other house some time this day if we proceeded?


Lionel Chevrier: I was wondering if there was not some formula by which the corporation, in consultation with the municipalities, could not have a study made to ascertain if measures could not be taken in that respect. I realize it is not a matter that is under the jurisdiction of central mortgage, but they are so keenly interested I was wondering if there was not some way, in their dealings with the municipal authorities, other public bodies or even private enterprise, of finding a means of controlling the situation?
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public
Works): The unfortunate part, of course, as I explained to the representative of the hon. member's group and to the hon. member for Laurier, who is the house leader for the Liberal party, is that if this bill does not get through this house today it probably cannot go through for ten days or two weeks, and also there was a chance that it could go through the Senate this afternoon. There would still be that chance had the bill been passed, but now of course that is quite impossible.

The Address-Mr. Allard Mr. Winch: Is there time to do that today; is there time for it to go through the other place this day?


Howard Charles Green: I cannot speak for that place.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Frank Howard: I wonder if I could have some information from you, Mr. Speaker. If we allow these orders to stand, to what would the house revert, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The house would revert to the business that was interrupted for private bills.


Harold Edward Winch: Could it go to the Senate in time, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot answer that. NATIONAL HOUSING ACT



AMENDMENT INCREASING AGGREGATE AMOUNT AVAILABLE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Green -Mr. Rea in the chair:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Housing Act, 1954, to increase from four hundred million dollars to seven hundred and fifty million dollars the aggregate amount that may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection 1 of section 22 of the act.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: the third reading of the biU.
Bill read the third time and passed. SPEECH FROM THE THRONE



CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Lafreniere for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Pearson, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Argue.
Harold Edward Winch: On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the rights of the members now having been protected and this having taken only a few moments, can you state whether, since the 
address in reply to the throne speech is now about to be debated, it will become part of the ten days allocated to this debate?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think there is any need to make a decision on that point at the present time. When the time arrives for voting under the rules the decision will be clear, but I will consider the point raised by the hon. member.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday night, before moving the adjournment of the debate, I had the opportunity to tender you my congratulations on your recent appointment. Today, I hasten to state that we are certain that you will fill this post, as you did before, with dignity and competence.
When expressing my feelings of admiration, I am not forgetting the hon. members for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) and Spadina (Mr. Rea) who were recently appointed, respectively, chairman and deputy chairman of the committees of the whole.
Moreover, I congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Lafreniere and Mr. Nielsen), because the two hon. members for Quebec-Montmorency and the Yukon, while residing in entirely opposite areas, have several qualifications in common, like their youth, their dynamism and perspicacity, both of which are necessary to any man engaged in public affairs.
I also take this opportunity today to thank publicly, on behalf of the province of Quebec, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) who has kindly appointed two other members from our province to his federal cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, my remarks will bear on three aspects: constitutional, economic and cultural.
In the economic field, it is an undeniable fact that our problems are very numerous. Besides, it is for this reason that, on June 10, 1957 and March 31, 1958, the people of Canada changed teams so that these problems might be solved.
The root of these problems lies in inflation, unemployment and a too great economic dependence upon the United States.
The causes of these problems are both remote and immediate. Among the remote causes, we could mention the political pattern of Canada which is, as it were, a challenge even to geography.
We know that whereas the Canadian territory extends over a thin band from east to west, our economic regions run north and

south. It will be said, that this diversity might be beneficial in due course for the Canadian nation. That is true but, at the present time, it is such as to give rise to varied and aggravated problems because of the dispersion of a small population over a vast territory. The settling of this Canadian territory of ours has cost a great deal, and it is not, as yet, an economic operation.
Among the remote causes of the problems facing this country, we might add the absence of co-operation and of an inefficient co-ordination in economic policy between the federal, provincial and municipal governments. Whereas the present federal government is prepared for deficit financing, because of the present economic needs, the provinces are still aiming at surplus budgeting.
Among the remote causes of the problems facing this country, a great many are related to the Canadian confederation itself, such as, for example, the sharing of powers and the presence of two principal races within our borders.
Mr. Speaker, we might well ask if the Canadian constitution which was written in the year 1867 has not become a strait jacket for the 1958 economy.
Among the immediate causes of our problems, we find unemployment and inflation. I will make no attempt at this time to enumerate every reason for this economic recession, far from it. I will merely list the causes of economic recession which were brought about, undoubtedly, by the last Liberal administration:	credit restrictions,
the maintenance of heavy taxes, a surplus budget when economic needs called for the contrary, mass immigration-in June 1957, one immigrant entered the country every 90 seconds-accumulation of surpluses, too great an economic dependence on our neighbours to the south, the dumping of textile products. And we also have waste in government expenditures.
Our problems in Canada cannot be solved along a straight line but rather as a whole. Indeed, they must not be considered separately, far from it. They must be considered as a whole because they are interrelated, they bear on one another just as the spokes of a wheel bear on the rim and insure its smooth running. When a spoke fails, all the other spokes are weakened in proportion and the rim can break on the run. If one of the spokes is too long, the whole wheel is unbalanced to the point of endangering the driving.
So, the solution to our problems in Canada are well summarized in this principle which our government and our eminent leader, the
The Address*-Mr. Allard right hon. member for Prince Albert, have applied since coming to power on June 10, and which they continue to apply for the prosperity of the Canadian economy. This principle consists in putting and leaving as much money as possible in the hands of the Canadian taxpayer while stepping up large public works.
This wiser economic method is not new. It is as old as the centuries which have put it into use. In fact, in Rome, in the early days of the republic, senators Appius and Flaminius applied that economic method when they constructed the famous Appian and Flaminian ways.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate our government and our right hon. Prime Minister on their planning to apply that most efficient economic doctrine to the solution of our Canadian problems and I would ask them to be kind enough to consider the problem of our municipalities and that of our school boards and to determine whether it would not be possible for them to pay municipal and school taxes on their buildings and even to eliminate the 10 per cent tax on all purchases made by the municipalities and the school boards.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, among Canadian problems there is one which concerns my own beautiful constituency of Sherbrooke, that is the textile problem. The textile industry is rated second among Canadian industries, according to the number of employees engaged in its operation. There are 725 factories in our country located chiefly in Ontario and in Quebec. Whereas 52 per cent of all Canadian manufacturing industries are owned by outsiders, 80 per cent of the textile industry belongs to Canadians. It is, therefore, our own industry, built up with our own funds and through our own initiative.
In the province of Quebec this industry, to be found in 354 establishments, supports 20 important towns and provides work for over
47,000	workers. In Quebec the textile industry is the second largest job provider in the province. In Sherbrooke, there are 14 factories which employ 44.1 per cent of the workers, both male and female. 1 have ascertained that since 1951 the population of Sherbrooke has increased by 17.3 per cent, but that textile employment has declined by 18.2 per cent.
On discovering so much uneasiness and unemployment in our textile industry we must expose the profound and remote causes. Nothing satisfactory was done by the former Liberal administration since 1935, either to adjust the customs tariff or to prohibit the import into Canada of foreign products which

The Address-Mr. Allard flood our markets and paralyse production in our own industry. More especially, during the past 10 years, the former Liberal administration has been giving free rein to foreign competitors and, in a blind and improvident manner, has left our Canadian market at the mercy and whim of imports coming in from Japan, the Indies, Italy, England, West Germany and the United States.
It is very commendable to enter into collaboration, but it should never be done at the risk of sacrificing our economic freedom and becoming a victim and slave to enterprising countries. How can one expect Canadian industries to compete with foreign products when the cost of production is not to be compared? In Canada the average hourly wage is $1.20, whereas Japanese and Hindu labourers work for between 12 and 15 cents an hour. By allowing imports of this kind the Liberal party has for many years openly encouraged what is commonly known as dumping. By "dumping", we mean the great quantity of surplus imported merchandise which is allowed to enter Canada.
During the course of the twenty-third parliament and under the high direction of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) the government ordered that an investigation be made by the federal commission on tariff rates in order to study the whole Canadian textile industry. Since the brilliant victory of March 31 last, the representatives of the Prime Minister in the eastern townships have met at Sherbrooke in order to form a special committee to study economic and industrial problems.
I had the honour to be elected the first president of this special committee. Therefore, in the name of the members of this committee and also in the name of those who are directly or indirectly interested in this highly important industry in our country, I propose to my government the following possible solutions:
1.	A complete revision of our tariff rates, the imposing of which should take into consideration the Canadian consumption.
2.	The possibility of imposing customs duty, per square yard, instead of on weight per pound.
3.	The abolishment of preferential tariff for the Indies.
4.	To step up customs supervision.
5.	To revise, in the law, the definition of the word "dumping" so that the price of the imported product will include the total cost of production, plus a reasonable margin, covering selling and administration costs, and profit.
6.	To form, in the heart of this federal commission on tariff rates, a permanent committee to study the problems of the textile industry.

7.	To ascertain that the textile products launched on the Canadian market be labelled in such a way as to indicate clearly both the quality and the place of origin.
8.	To request that an economic survey be made of the nature of our exports and imports, in order to arrive at a better balance of our commercial exchanges with other countries.
9.	To suggest that an economic orientation council be formed, in the heart of the United Nations, or a like organization, to co-ordinate production between the interested parties.
10.	To form, if possible, a special committee in the House of Commons to study this problem which is both urgent and national.
Such are the conclusions I submit most respectfully.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, on the constitutional level we should say that this is a matter which is at the source of all our Canadian problems. We must indeed govern under the constitution in this country, and comply with the legislation we pass in this house, and doing so, we must keep in mind the spirit which moved the fathers of confederation.
As I said a few moments ago, because of economic conditions, and following the economic ups and downs which have marked the years since 1867, we may wonder whether it would not be wise to amend the Canadian constitution in some economic areas. Well, as long as this constitution of 1867 is not amended with the assent of all and every party concerned, we must, in opposition to the Liberals who undermined and sometimes ignored it, respect our Canadian constitution. I sincerely believe that the Conservative party, which presided over the birth of confederation, is the one which will restore in our country the confederative spirit. And it is precisely the feeling which the present Prime Minister expressed, on November 19 last, in this very House of Commons, when he said: "Ottawa has ceased to dictate its will to the provinces."
In 1867, the two principal races and the four provinces of the time met together in order to establish a central government and entrust to it certain tasks, fields of action and problems which were then common to those provinces, such as money, mail and external affairs. The provinces reserved for themselves particular fields of action and privileges which are outlined under section 92 of the British North America Act.

In so doing, the Canadian provinces, and all those which joined them later in that confederative spirit, founded what we call Canadian federalism. Canadian federalism is essentially a system of autonomous governments, that is to say governments, federal as well as provincial, which are absolute masters in their respective and exclusive fields, and those governments must co-operate in fields of common interest, such as agriculture and immigration, as prescribed by section 95 of the British North America Act.
Those are the principles which the courts have confirmed several times. Let me recall the judgments of the Privy Council to this effect, particularly in the aeronautic case, the Great West Saddlery case and Edwards case, in which it was laid down as a principle that a great majority of the Canadian people can not live by state subsidies, that, in peacetime, the national interest can in no way justify the intervention of the central power, that the provincial governments are autonomous and absolute masters in their exclusive fields, and that no government has the right to do indirectly what it is prevented by law to do directly.
Well, Mr. Speaker, when the Canadian provinces formed the Canadian federation in 1867, they did so not with the intention of renouncing their own subsistence and vitality, far from it, but rather to ensure their own vitality and we can find an indication of this in the preamble to the British North America Act, from which I quote the following:
And whereas such a Union would contribute to the Welfare of the Provinces . . .
Well, Mr. Speaker, is it not logical to believe that national prosperity cannot exist without the prosperity of the provinces and municipalities which compose the Canadian nation? In order to recreate that Canadian reality, that constitutional reality, should the government not consider handing back, in a certain proportion and gradually, the direct taxes which belong to the provinces in accordance with paragraph 2 of section 92? Thus the provinces would have the financial means of fulfilling their own obligations, the federal government would be in a better position to enhance and improve its own fields of action, members of Parliament could study further the complex problems of international politics, which raise in the souls and hearts of all those who keep abreast of them a deep concern, as the world goes through-as we all know and feel-a very critical phase in international affairs.
The Address-Mr. Allard
In the cultural area we must endeavour to foster what I would call national understanding. Our fine country would grow in the social and economic fields if all Canadians shared the same feelings and sought the same objectives.
I am sorry to have to say so today, but during the last election campaign in the province of Quebec I saw the Liberal party attempt to appeal to racial, language and religious prejudices. This party, which was so strong an advocate of national unity, was the very one who attempted by all kinds of insidious means to pit Canadians one against the other. We must deeply regret such antinational and antidemocratic attempts.
Mr. Speaker, in the 23rd parliament, as well as in the recent election campaign and again last Tuesday night, I heard the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) insinuate that the province of Quebec was divided against itself. Well, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Laurier used the word division, my eyes automatically turned to the other side of the house and, to the exclusion of that part of the gallant Progressive Conservative team, I see before me, on the other side of the house, that they are not only divided but diminished, contracted and almost eliminated.
The hon. member for Laurier, who has been living in the province of Quebec for a few years only, seeks to represent the aspirations of that province but he should not forget that Quebec has an amazing memory, that it is a province which remembers.
We remember, Mr. Speaker, that the present member for Laurier when he represented a constituency from another province and was a member of a federal Liberal government was the one who fought for many years against the construction of a railway line in the province of Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member is being utterly misinformed as regards what he has just said. I must tell him that I have never been opposed to considering the building of a railway in the province of Quebec, as he claims. On the contrary, I endorsed such a project and I was actually the one who introduced the bill in the House of Commons. It is the members opposite, i.e. the Conservatives, who delayed adoption of the bill at a certain stage. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to require the hon. member to withdraw what he has just said.

The Address-Mr. Allard
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Although a great deal of latitude is allowed a member making a speech, it seems to me that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) was saying that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) had delayed the passage of a railway bill for the province of Quebec. I do not know that that is a matter that he should be asked to withdraw. I will ask him to keep within the rules of debate.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, who is a new member, but he states that as a representative of an Ontario constituency I had delayed and opposed the passage of a railway bill for the province of Quebec. That is simply untrue and he must accept my statement.


Mr. Speaker:: In the course of the debate the hon. member will have the opportunity to put the statement right. There does not appear to be anything in it that is a reflection on his character.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to pursue the point unduly, but a member certainly has the right to defend his conduct which is clear according to the record. I say now that I did not at any time delay the passage of a railway bill for the province of Quebec; on the contrary, I introduced the bill in this house and encouraged its passage. I say now that the hon. member should accept the statement I am making.


Mr. Speaker:: Certainly the hon. member is correct in saying that his statement should be accepted when made in his place. I am sure the hon. member for Sherbrooke will accept the statement of the hon. member for Laurier. It was not the sort of statement which in my opinion a member should be asked to withdraw. If the hon. member for Sherbrooke is in error the hon. member for Laurier has the right to correct the error, which he has done, at the end of the speech, unless it is a point of real privilege. Perhaps that will satisfy the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: I bow to Your Honour's ruling, of course. I am not going to enter into a discussion, but I think the hon. member should accept the statement I have made because I may not have an opportunity in this debate to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure he will accept it; he will follow the practice of the house.
(Translation):


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in the last part of my speech, we should try to establish in this country real national understanding. In 1867, Canadians wanted

to create a national entity. They did want to create this entity by stressing the equality between all citizens. In 1867, the prime minister of the Canadian confederation, the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald stated that, in this country, there were no more victors nor vanquished, no majority nor minority, but that all citizens were equal. During the recent election campaign, the present Prime Minister expressed the same feelings, i.e. not the policy of a group or of a province, but a national policy, a democratic and Canadian policy. The Prime Minister advocated that same principle in Halifax, Vancouver, Montreal, Sherbrooke and in all Canadian provinces. And that is why we now see, in our great land of Canada, different mentalities, different races, religions and, as a result, different economic attitudes.
Canadians must attempt to find a common denominator and in so doing they will manage to find formulas that make for balance between each group and each area.
For a number of years the Liberal party preached national unity. If we are to give its proper meaning to the word unity, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that word cannot be applied to the peculiar characteristics of our country. We know that unity means loss of identity and assimilation. In this country every group, every race, while wishing to live within a magnificent and rich Canadian mosaic, also wishes to conserve its respective characteristics and traditions.
This is the way in which I look at national understanding. What I mean is that Canadians of different races, different religions, different traditions, should wish to live together and tolerate each other good humouredly. That is what I call national understanding. After we have reached, in the very near future I hope, a higher degree of national understanding, it will become easy for our government to adopt officially a distinctive national flag as well as a national anthem.
In order to favour the quick blossoming of this national understanding, our government should entrust the Department of Citizenship and Immigration or any other appropriate department with the following functions:
1.	To favour contacts between Canadians of various areas;
2.	To set up a publicity campaign so that Canadians may know one another better;
3.	To inaugurate low cost interprovincial travel at specified periods of the year;

4.	To encourage an increased exchange of university students between various provinces during the summer months;
5.	To invite federal members of parliament to give lectures in various provinces.
(Text):
Last year, Mr. Speaker, the present government organized French courses for the English members. I would suggest that this year the government should organize English courses for the French members so that the Canadian nation will understand that parliament and our party are desirous of bringing about national comprehension. I have submitted these considerations in the hope of contributing in a modest way to the fulfilling of my most ardent wish, a happy and prosperous Canada.
(Translation):


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arthabaska):: Mr. Speaker, my first words in this house, in this first session of the 24th parliament, will be to congratulate you on your appointment to your present functions and to congratulate the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Sevigny) who has been elected Deputy Speaker, as well as the new ministers and all the members returned in the last election.
I would have liked to congratulate in a particular way all the members, especially those of the province of Quebec, but I must make some reservations since there are members from the province of Quebec who have been elected not by the popular vote but according to an electoral method which we call the corrupted practice of vote buying.
You had a sample of it a few minutes ago when the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) spoke. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) visited the eastern townships before and during the election campaign, and a statement of his was reported by La Tribune of Sherbrooke, on March the 24th, 1958, when the people were invited to elect Conservative candidates to represent them in Ottawa, and he ended with the following words:
Send me Maurice Allard in Ottawa if you wish the nation to know where Sherbrooke is-
A noteworthy fact is that mention was made that the Prime Minister intended to entrust him with an important post.
I could read other reports published in La Tribune where a group of defeated members of parliament and candidates in the eastern
The Address-Mr. Boulanger townships met to ask the right hon. Prime Minister that a portfolio be attributed to the member for Sherbrooke. Unfortunately, his intervention-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not in the position of one who is making his maiden speech and I might recall to his mind that the subject under discussion is the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia and seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West which deals with planned economic policies and trade.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: I submit to your decision, Mr. Speaker, and I shall change my speech in order to speak of economic fields from which we anticipated a better standard of living. Among those, there is one in which I am particularly interested and that is the field of agriculture.
Following the rapid development of new marketing conditions and new agricultural methods, I am convinced that the field of activity to which we will have to turn our attention in the next few years is the field of agriculture. There is no one in a better position to appreciate that than the Liberals who were in power until 1957. Indeed, the Liberal government in the last 22 years it was in power had managed to improve the lot of the farmer in a sure and constant way by the passage of legislation which has never been proved valueless. It is over this period that we have seen an increase in the sale of agricultural products which in 1936 were estimated at $536,000,000 as against $2,600,000,000 in 1955. During the same period we saw exports increase from $200,000,000 to $1,346,000,000. I could give you other figures such as those on the value of agricultural machinery which rose from $3,250,000,000 to $6,800,000,000.
Investments in livestock, farm buildings and machinery increased from $4,700,000,000 to $10,100,000,000. I could continue to quote figures. However, it will be sufficient for me to state that over this period progress has been constant and sure for the farmer. I will not claim, however, that the Liberal government had found remedies for every ill nor solutions to every problem. This goes to show how complex is the agricultural problem. Still, the Liberal government had neglected nothing that could bring about the adoption of a fair policy.
It is at that time that a Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects was estab-

The Address-Mr. Boulanger lished to make, among other things, a special study of agricultural prospects.
It is also in 1955 that a committee was appointed to make an investigation of land use. This committee is still at work and we hope that it will conclude its work before a change of government.
We have, however, the report of the Gordon Commission and it is in the light of the conclusions of that investigation that I am making my remarks and suggestions.
I doubt whether the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) will attach much importance to my observations. It is his privilege as it was when he substituted another legislation for the Agricultural Prices Support Act. He makes me think of the premier of Quebec: anything coming from the Liberals is bad and must be destroyed, but their ideas can be implemented later on, under some other formula.
What impressed me most in the Gordon Commission report was the large difference between the value of the commodities sold by western farmers and those sold by eastern farmers. I have compiled a few figures which I am going to quote to show that eastern farmers have much lower incomes than western farmers.
Under the heading "Income of $250 and under"-excluding part time farms and farms operated by religious institutions-I find the following percentages: in the province of Newfoundland, 72.1 per cent of the farmers sell $250 worth of products or less; in Prince Edward Island, 15 per cent; Nova Scotia, 43 per cent; New Brunswick, 43 per cent; Quebec, 21 per cent; Ontario, 12 per cent; the western provinces 7.8 per cent.
Under the heading for sales of $250 to $2,499, we find somewhat the same percent-

ages: Newfoundland, 21.7 per cent; Prince Edward Island, 59 per cent; Nova Scotia, 41 per cent; New Brunswick, 41 per cent; Quebec, 47 per cent; Ontario, 34 per cent; the prairie provinces, 45.2 per cent.
Again according to the same survey, we see that the highest sales fall in the category from $2,500 to $20,000; in this respect, the western provinces come-
(Text):



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the temporary extension of seasonal benefit periods under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1959.

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house what is the business for Monday?


Howard Charles Green: On Monday we shall take the throne speech debate.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 19, 1958