OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., B.A., L.Ph., PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY 1948
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 20, 1948


[Stage Direction]
Mr. PAUL E. COTE (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies, in English and French, of order in council P.C. 1907, of April 29,	1948, amending unemployment
insurance benefit regulations, 1947, to provide that after May 31, 1948, Monday shall be the day upon which a claim week shall be deemed to begin. It is expected that this uniformity will work out much more fairly for those covered under the act.


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to inform the house of what I consider to be an important milestone in the progressive development of the Canadian postal service. Everyone no doubt has seen the recent speculation in the press concerning the inauguration of what is known as "all-up" mail service. All-up mail service is an arrangement whereby letter mail, whether prepaid at air mail rates or not, is accorded air conveyance within Canada, if its delivery to the public can thereby be expedited.
I am glad to announce that we have reached a satisfactory conclusion to our extended negotiations with Trans-Canada Air Lines and that it is hoped to inaugurate all-up service over its network on or about the first of July, 1948, on an experimental basis to ascertain whether such service can be maintained in Canada at reasonable cost and with the desired degree of efficiency.
It is our intention, beginning on that day, to route by air, whenever it is advantageous to do so, all letter mail bearing four-cent Canadian postage for delivery to any place in Canada. We shall, of course, also continue to carry all mail by air which is prepaid at air mail rates of postage.
Any letters weighing more than one ounce, that is, letters which require more than four cents postage, will be transmitted by air only if they are prepaid at air-mail postage rates; otherwise they will be sent by surface transportation as at present. It was considered advisable to set a limit of one ounce on letters which will go by air because there are many unknown factors involved in the scheme.
An ordinary envelope, 94 inches by 44 inches, weighs about a quarter of an ounce with one sheet; with two sheets it weighs under half an ounce; with seven sheets the weight is under one ounce. A smaller envelope, 64 inches by 3f inches, with two sheets weighs about a quarter of an ounce; with five sheets, slightly over half an ounce; and with nine sheets, under one ounce. So that more than ninety per cent of all letters will not have to be prepaid at seven cents.
We hope to be in a far better position to decide after the experimental period is over what further extensions could be made without endangering the success of the project.
That is, generally speaking, the scope of the significant step which we propose taking on the first of July this year. We hope to be able to extend the same scheme to all other feeder lines which now carry air mail only, but we have not as yet completed our consideration in this regard. I shall defer my remarks on that matter to a later date.
I would like to mention that we also propose to introduce various improvements and extensions in the case of mail services in the rural areas. We appreciate that rural areas may not feel the benefit of the all-up mail service to the same degree as the more populated centres. We therefore propose to continue the extension of service to the rural population, a thing we always keep in mind in the Post Office Department.



AERONAUTICS ACT


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: Pursuant to section 6 of chapter 28 of the statutes of 1944, which is an act to amend the Aeronautics Act, I table herewith copy of order in council P.C. 3141 of April 6, 1948, amending the air regulations.
Questions



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. KNIGHT:: 1.	Have freight rates over the Hudson Bay railroad on commodities other than grain been raised during the recent year?
2.	If so (a) why; (b) how much; (c) in what respects?


Mr. KNIGHT:: 1.	Were recent reports correct in stating that ocean freight charges between Churchill and British ports had been reduced?
2.	If so, what was the amount of the reduction ?
3.	What is the ocean freight rate on a thousand feet of lumber (ship load quantities) (a) from Churchill to a British port; (b) from Halifax to the same port?


Lionel Chevrier: In view of the fact that I answered these two questions during consideration of the estimates of my department the other evening, I wonder if the hon. member would be willing to drop them.


Mr. KNIGHT:: I agree with the minister in regard to the first question but not in regard to the second one, which as a matter of fact asks something quite outside of his department.


Lionel Chevrier: As far as that question is concerned the hon. gentleman can get the information just as quickly and as easily as I can, because I would have to get it from the shipping companies. I think the purpose of placing questions on the order paper is to obtain information which an hon. member cannot get elsewhere.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The purpose of the question, as far as I am concerned, is that the answer may become a matter of public record. That is why it was placed on the order paper.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not in a position to give the answer, because I have not the information, and neither has the government.
I woidd have to obtain it from the ocean steamship companies, and I suggest that my hon. friend can get it from them as well as I could.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Questions dropped.


GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCTION-PRIVATE CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Mr. MENARY:: What percentage was private capital investment of the gross national production in Canada for each of the years 11)45. 1946, and 1947?


Mr. McILRAITH:: The following table
shows the percentage which gross private capital investment was of gross national product in Canada, for 1945, 1946, and 1947:
Percentage of gross
Gross domestic	national product
investment	1945	1946	1947New housing* .... New construction	(ex-	1-8	2-9	3-5cept housing)	and	new machinery equipment! ....	and	5-6	8-5	12-0Investment in inven-	tories 	-2-5t	3-3	5-9Total 	4-9	14-7	21-4
*Does not include construction by Wartime Housing Limited.
[Includes investment by private business and publicly owned public utilities.
tThe value of inventories declined in this year.


MINING-NEW INVESTMENT IN DURABLE PHYSICAL ASSETS
Lewis Menary: What is the estimated new investment for mining in Canada for the year 1948 in durable physical assets excluding, if any, direct government investment, and what was the actual, or if not yet available, estimated actual for the years 1945, 1946, and 1947?


George James McIlraith: Estimated expenditures on new investment by the mining industry in Canada in durable physical assets excluding any direct government investment:
1945	
$16-7	million1946	
33-6	million1947	
66-3	million1948	
76-6	million	(forecast)


POSTAL SERVICE-SALARIES OF LETTER CARRIERS
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	What was the schedule of salaries paid to letter carriers in 1938?
2.	What increases in salaries have been granted such persons since 1938?
3.	What steps are being taken at the present time to increase salaries of letter carriers?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	$1,020-81.140-81,260-81,38041,500.
2.	The effective dates of the increases and the increased salaries paid were as follows:
1st July, 1944-81,200-81,320-81,440-81,56081,620 plus cost of living bonus.
1st April, 1946-$1,320-81,440-81,560-81,680-81,800 plus cost of living bonus.

Questions
1st September, 1946 (consolidation of salary and cost of living bonus)-$1,644-$l,764,$1,884-$2,004-82.124.
1st October, 1947-$1,620-11,740-SI,86041,980-$2,100-82,160.
The adjustment effective 1st October, 1947, provided that employees in receipt of salary at the rates of $1,644-$1,764-SI ,884 would receive an immediate increase of $216 per annum, those at $2,004, an immediate increase of $156 per annum and those at $2,124 an immediate increase of $36 per annum.
3.	No further action is being taken at present.



CHARTERED BANKS


Lewis Menary: What was the total amount for all chartered banks in Canada of (a) loans for capital investment; (b) cash reserves, as of December 31, 1945, 1946 and 1947?


Mr. BELZILE:: (a)	Not of government record. The Bank Act does not require the chartered banks to make returns concerning loans for capital investment.
(b)	Deposits by chartered banks with the Bank of Canada and Bank of Canada notes held by chartered banks:
December 31,	1945	$684,064,748December 31,	1946	
742,330,862December 31,	1947	
720,070,193



IM MIGRATION-CHINESE

Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	How many wives and families of Chinese Canadian citizens have been allowed entry into Canada during the past two months?
2.	Has the immigration office been opened and staffed in Hong Kong?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	None for the two months prior to May 1. Records for May not yet available.
2.	Yes; office reopened April 6, 1948.



DESERONTO POST OFFICE-BOXES

Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Has any report been made to the Post Office Department regarding a large number of post office boxes being out of order in Deseronto post office?
2.	If so, what steps are being taken to remedy this situation?
3.	Is the department going to furnish more boxes for this office?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Additional details being obtained.
3.	Yes, if detailed report indicates need.
5849-266i



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Since the first of January, 1948, what has been the value of imports into Canada from the United States of (a) dried peaches; (b) canned peaches and apricots; (c) mixed fruit in cans; (d) brazil nuts?
2.	Were special import permits granted therefor and if so under what circumstances?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Return tabled.


INDIANS-PIAPOT RESERVE-SURRENDER OF LANDS
Mr. MacNICOL:: 1.	How many acres of land were surrendered by the Indians on the Piapot reserve to the crown for resale to soldiers under Statutes of Canada 1919, chapter 71?
2.	What was the average price per acre payable to the band for said lands?
3.	What disposition was made (a) of the money payable to the band in such surrender; (b) of accumulated interest thereon?
4.	Did the surrender include minerals?
5.	How many acres of the said lands were sold to soldier settlers?
6.	What was the average sale price per acre?
7.	Did sales to soldiers include minerals or are the minerals retained by either the crown or the soldier settlement board?
8.	Were any portions of said lands transferred by the crown to the soldier settlement board ?
9.	Did such transfer include minerals?
10.	For what purpose were the said lands and/or minerals transferred to said board?
11.	Are the minerals held in trust for the Indians or for whose benefit are they being retained?



MARSHLANDS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to assist the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in the reclamation and development of marshlands in the said provinces by the construction and reconstruction of works necessary therefor and the purchase of required machinery and equipment. Works may be undertaken only on the recommendation of an advisory committee to be established under the act and upon terms and conditions agreed upon with the province concerned prior to the first day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-five. The Minister of Agriculture is empowered to appoint necessary temporary officers and employees to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund with provision also for the payment of expenses of members of the advisory committees.
National Library
[Stage Direction]
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


Colin William George Gibson: Whereas representations have been received from numerous organizations including the Royal Society of Canada, the Canadian Library Association, the Canadian Historical Association, the Canadian Political Science Association, the Canadian Social Science Research Council, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Canadian Congress of Labour, as well as the Provincial Library Association, recommending that consideration be given to the establishment of a national library for Canada; and Whereas it is further recommended that as a preliminary step action be taken to provide a catalogue of books already available in the various libraries throughout Canada;
Therefore be it resolved that the representations already received and any further representations that may be received concerning the establishment of a national library for Canada be referred to the joint committee on the library of parliament for consideration and report.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I think the Secretary of State should give some explanation of this resolution. I should like to know what action the joint committee on the library can take in the matter.


Colin William George Gibson: As the motion states, Mr. Speaker, various representations have been received from organizations throughout Canada as to the advisability of establishing a national library. The recommendations that have been received do not envisage a library being started by the erection of an enormous building. It is considered that the matter should be given careful study and that possibly as a first step arrangements might be made to provide a catalogue of books already available in libraries throughout Canada. It is recommended that the matter should receive careful study, and the government considers that the body to look into the proposal in the first instance is the joint committee on the library of parliament, which would consider the recommendations already received and make a report to parliament, after which the further steps to be taken may be determined.


Mr. CHURCH:: Why refer it to a committee? Why does not the government take action?

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar); I must say I doubt very much whether this is an effective way to deal with the proposals that have been made to the government. I was on the joint library committee for a long time; I looked forward to a meeting of that committee, but I do not remember one having been called. Perhaps that was partly owing to my own neglect in not pressing for it a little more strongly, but I do not believe this is an effective way of dealing with the problem.
I have no doubt that neither the government nor this house would be prepared to build a huge library building, but I have often thought that one of the first steps to be taken toward making the city of Ottawa a capital worthy of the country would be to have an appropriate national library here. In fact I would go a step further and say we should have an appropriate cultural centre, which would include a national theatre, an art gallery, and so on. It seems to me that this step will simply shelve the matter, and that we shall hear very little more about it from this committee.
I believe other steps should be taken. We have a number of people in the country, known to the government and to members of the house, who might be sufficiently public-spirited and interested to serve on a special committee which would have very much the same objectives as are embodied in this resolution. It seems to me a committee of persons interested in literature, the arts, and so on, would give the country much better service in this regard than the kind of committee to which it is proposed to refer this question, because, as I say, having been a member of the library committee and knowing the difficulty of getting the committee to meet, I think this action will merely shelve the matter and nothing constructive or effective will be done.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I would repeat that before we speak of a national library the present library of parliament should be made fireproof in order to protect the treasures we have there, which are exposed to destruction at any time. This is the first step, and it is urgent. I have said for yeans that it is urgent, and I thank the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) for supporting my contention, which seems to be sound in every respect.


Mr. RODNEY ADAMSON (York West):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the library committee may I say that this motion came up in that committee during the war, and was shelved until such time as the war ended and

National Housing Act
consideration could be given to it. I was in favour of taking some suitable action, and I believe my position had the support of the majority of the committee.
While I agree that the joint committee on the library of parliament may not be the proper body to carry out all the work at this stage, I believe this proposal would be a proper first step, in order that some day we may have a suitable national library in Canada.


Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the minister if he has any proposed plan?


Colin William George Gibson: We have no plan for a building, no.


Thomas Langton Church: It is more important than national parks.


Colin William George Gibson: In reply to the observations of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwelll), I would say that if the committee meets and decides that a special committee should be appointed, it will be in a position so to recommend in its report.
I had thought they would possibly do that; I had not considered that they would themselves undertake to draw up a program.


Thomas Langton Church: That will bury it for this session.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Does the government intend to present to this committee when it meets any considered policy of its own?


Colin William George Gibson: The resolution before the house is that the committee shall consider the resolutions and proposals, and any other proposals which may be brought in, and that it shall then make its recommendations in its report to the house.


Gordon Graydon: I take it that the proposals which from year to year have been made from this side of the house will be considered too.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. II. DICKEY (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance to the constituency of Halifax of defence and allied matters along the Atlantic coast, I should, like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). If the decision of the people of Newfoundland is for confederation with Canada, and if that decision is carried out, will it affect in any way the ownership of defence bases in Newfoundland territory which
are now occupied by United States forces, or will Canada acquire any interest in such bases?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): My information is that United States bases in Newfoundland are held under 99-year leases as from 1941, under treaties between the United States and the United Kingdom. Any change of tenure, in the event of union of Newfoundland with Canada, would of course require new treaty arrangements with the United States government.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 280, to amend the National Housing Act, 1944, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Nicholson.
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, last night when the house adjourned at six o'clock I had hoped I might have concluded my few remarks. It so happened, however, that at the adjournment hour I had been referring to New Zealand and Australia. I had in mind the fact that I had read many references as to how these socialistic members of the commonwealth had dealt with their housing problems. From my own observations of a few short years ago I am prompted to say that their problem is not solved. The problem there is just as intense as it is here. It may be that they have on their statute books legislation which will help them solve their housing problem more quickly than it can be solved here. Their geographical position gives them some advantage in that they do not know what it means to live under circumstances such as those described yesterday by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews), where sometimes temperatures drop to as much as thirty degrees below zero. They do not have to prepare for winter to the same extent that we do in this country, nor do they encounter many of our difficulties.
Mention has been made of building priorities of one kind or another. I would ask the minister to correct me if I am wrong in the statement that we have priorities in connection with the acquisition of nearly everything we require in the building of houses, whereas in New Zealand those priorities are applied to the extent of only fifty per cent.
I realize that in some respects we must be even more drastic than we are today in the diversion of building supplies to enterprises
National Housing Act

other than housing. I have in mind two classes which should have priority, and it is on behalf of these that I speak this afternoon. The first would include all those honourable, gallant and distinguished 3'oung men who came home to us after saving our way of life and our democracy. Therefore I put veterans in the first category. In the second I place those men and women who find themselves adapted to industrial occupations and who of necessity are anxious to live close to their place of employment. Of necessity they find themselves living in slum areas in the vicinity of industrial plants.
Speaking first of veterans, as I said a few days ago, and a few years ago as well, by their very training in their adolescent days, by the fact that they left school to go overseas, by the fact that their fathers were tradesmen and craftsmen, they cannot be forced out into rural areas to be made into farmers. I do not for one moment deprecate that particular idea.
I remember the eloquent words of the hon. member for one of the Hurons when he told us that there were many vacant houses in the farm areas of Ontario. I remember the hon. member for one of the Renfrews saying the same thing. I see my Nova Scotia friend smiling. How manjr empty dilapidated farm houses are there in the maritime provinces which could be occupied by Canadian citizens? Many thousands.
I am going to digress for a moment. Coming home on the S.S. Aquitania I travelled with 12,000 war brides. They had been told wonderful stories about Canada. Some of them were leaning over the rail to catch the first glimpse of the coastline of the maritimes close to Halifax. One said to me, "What a wonderful country! Marble bathrooms!" She said, "Is that one of them on the hill, that outbuilding?" I said, "Perhaps it is." "Swimming pools in front of the homes." There was a little fisherman's shack on the side of the hill with the ocean in front. "Is that a swimming pool?" "Perhaps it is." Many of these people were disillusioned. They had been told what they should have, what they must have.
To those who have these dreams in regard to houses I refer the words of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) as recorded in yesterday's Hansard. He told us of the great joy and pleasure he had had out of building his own house many years ago. In my opinion, except for the veterans we are not responsible for all these people unless they are handicapped or living in slum areas. If we could instil into their minds some of the Victorian ideas of the hon. member for one of the Itenfrews who spoke so eloquently last 
year with regard to house building, their problem might be solved. Let them get out and build for themselves. Let them get themselves covered, as my hon. friend did, by the work of their own hands. Then this country of Canada will go ahead much faster than it is progressing at the present time.
Except for one circumstance there would not be the shortage of supplies that there is now. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario since the session started, there has been great industrial expansion. In order that there may be no misunderstanding I shall refer to some of these. How many hon. members took advantage of the invitation to visit Toronto? Those who did saw our waterfront. They saw evidence of the expenditure of $20,000.000, to be followed by another $10,000,000 in the next two years. All this large construction work is using up materials. I am referring to that area along Fleet street where you saw the Victory Mills, which are expending $10,000,000 on plant for the production of Orange Crush, 7-up and other drinks not of this kind but perhaps W'orse than this and some even better than this. Then there is the large plant of Standard Chemicals.
I have no objection to the building of large plants such as that to be constructed by Lever Brothers, who will expend $10,000,000 within the next two years and consume thousands of tons of building materials. Let us have industry. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario referred to the abundance of our resources. Let us build these while we may, but the fact remains that when you are building these you cannot build houses for the workers who will carry on these industries.
No doubt those workers will be well paid, but where are they to live? Are they to live in Regent's Park, one of the slum areas? I hope not. These industrial areas are being built up right in front of the greatest slum area in Toronto. The traffic is so congested that these workers cannot get on a bus to go home if they live a mile or two away, too far to walk. The fault lies in having these industries in the midst of a slum area in a large city like Toronto. The same condition obtains in many other cities. They could be built more cheaply and everyone would be better off if they were located ten, fifteen or twenty miles beyond the city limits. They should not be crowded up in the city where of necessity slum areas will be created.
I know that this bill provides that eighty-five per cent of the bricks, labour and supplies that go into a house are to be financed in one way or another, whether by the municipal-

National Housing Act
ity, by the province or by the dominion. But I also realize that there are being concentrated in the centres of our large cities thousands of employees who would be much better off if they could live outside the cities, such as half way between Toronto and Hamilton, as some have done, or away to the east of Toronto near Pickering, or up where Maclean-Hunter are spending $6,000,000 or $8,000,000 at a location twenty miles north of the city limits. I thank them for the wisdom they have shown in doing that. Those who have established large industries in the centres of our cities are doing something which is not for the general advantage of those communities, because they are encouraging people to live in slum areas.
A word with regard to materials. It is unfortunate in my opinion that this administration in its wisdom has seen fit to allow double depreciation. Any way you look at it, these companies have sufficient reserves. I direct the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to the fact that many of them are able to plan building expansion programs. If I could make a plea to these people today it would be to ask them to slow down their expenditures on new construction until such time as house building could catch up with the demand. They are using up supplies of all kinds. I do not know, but I would hazard a guess from my own observation that for every dollar spent in the construction of dwellings, close to $2 is being spent by these industrial organizations. If there were some method of putting the brakes on industrial expansion until private enterprise could overtake the slack in housing requirements, it would be a good thing for Canada. If for a few years we do not expand our industrial and factory buildings of all kinds far beyond our requirements but rather extend house building and house ownership among our people, two or three decades hence these industries will be able to expend their reserves in industrial expansion. In this event the workers, instead of being discouraged and disheartened and anxious to join with others to squeeze the last possible dollar out of their employers, will be anxious to devote all the money they can save to building a house for themselves. If we speed up home ownership we shall be doing something for the general advantage of Canada.
In 1939, seventy per cent of the people in m\r community owned or were on the way to owning their homes. I challenge this administration to say that that is so today; I do not
know myself, but I have an idea that that percentage does not now prevail. The trend is the other way. My people are solid citizens, but if they do not own the houses in which they live, or if they are not imbued with the idea of doing so, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where will their progeny be two or three decades from now?
With regard to supplies, they are not being distributed in proper proportions. Let us have more supplies for the building of houses, even if it is necessary to cut down on industrial expansion. I was glad to hear the minister say yesterday that barbed wire production is to be suspended for two months so that the steel wire may be used in the production of nails. Personally I think that the man who first produced barbed wire should have been hanged with it, because it has done more damage to livestock than any other single thing. Let us make more nails, so that there will no longer be that excuse for the lack of housing. I am willing to let the eighty-five cents of the dollar be spent to help construction, but I do not feel disposed to go all out for the amendment which has been proposed to this bill and which would establish practically the public ownership of homes and houses. One of the great virtues of the Canadian people is the ambition in their hearts and minds which makes them ready to work hard and for long hours to own something for themselves. There are not enough people in this civilized world who have that inspiration and that ambition. Let us not in this chamber be a party to anything which might impair that virtue of the strong men of the north, namely, the ambition to go out and build a house for themselves and rear a family in that home.
The bill provides for slum clearance. The city of Toronto may be said to have given some leadership in slum clearance. They have talked about it now for four years, and every public man there is buttonholed by persons who want to know when the public bodies charged with responsibility for slum clearance are going to set to work. Let this administration take an inventory of all the slum clearance projects in Canada and then get down to business and make a start by clearing Eegent's Park. If we have any responsibility here for that, and I think the minister will agree that we have, he will find not only the city of Toronto but even the Ontario government willing and anxious to co-operate in the fullest measure on slum clearance. The minister will not deny that. Then let us make a start and show that we can do something somewhere, even if that somewhere happens to be in the
National Housing Act

confines of the great city of Toronto. But of course we in the city of Toronto are willing to go along with others.
I am in a rather awkward position. I have asked that the government go slow in industrial expansion. Yet on May 14 I had to sit quietly in my seat and listen to Canada's great Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) enunciate an expansion project which will consume building materials and take out of the market many thousands of bricks, much mortar and a certain amount of labour. Nevertheless it is a project that I must approve, if it is necessary. It is not a project of industrial expansion. It has to do with hospital accommodation. It is a young project-that is, it is eighteen years old. Not a dollar has been spent upon it in those eighteen years, but now $3,000,000 worth of bricks and mortar is to be used for these purposes. It may seem that I am inconsistent when I ask the minister, as I have asked him in days gone by, to go ahead and build a certain project which has had the privilege of giving yearly over 100,000 days of hospital service to civilian and soldier patients who were incapacitated and in hospital through no fault of their own. We were pleased to hear the Prime Minister rise in his place and announce that his administration, in co-operation with the Ontario government and municipal governments, would provide $1,000 per bed for active treatment patients who had come to the hospital for treatment.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he is departing from the subject matter of the bill.


Joseph Henry Harris: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. When I notice in the bill that assistance is to be given in the construction of houses up to a maximum of eighty-five per cent of their estimated cost, and when I notice, sir, that corporations are invited to take over the projects when they are completed and paid for under the guaranteed contract, and so forth, I am trying in my humble way to point out that there are some organizations which might interfere with the carrying out of the provisions of this bill. The hospital project I mention is competitive in the use of materials which could be used for housing. Therefore, sir, if I have your indulgence I should like to make one or two comments. They will be included in two sentences.


Mr. GRANT:: Louder.
Mr. HARRIS' (Danforth): My hon. friend says "louder," or something else. I remind him, Mr. Speaker, that when the angel Gabriel descends from heaven and places one foot on dry land and the other on the ocean and declares that the world shall be no more, my

hon. friend will cry "Louder, louder!" Meanwhile it is his hard luck if he cannot hear what I am saying.
Now, sir, I shall continue with my two sentences. Within the next year or two this administration is going to give $1,000 per bed toward the construction of a hospital extension which in the finished' state will have cost close to $3,000,000. My community, the corporation of the city of Toronto, will contribute to that hospital program $5 for every $1 that the government contributes. That is one sentence. My second sentence is this. I would ask the omnibus minister of everything that is worthwhile in the House of Commons, now the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the man charged with responsibility for this bill, to do as he did for us before. Let us have the building supplies for our hospital so that we in turn can give hospital service to our fellowmen.


Thomas Langton Church: I have not taken part in the debate on housing so far this session. I wish to say that I have made it a rule of life to try to get on with people, whether individuals, corporations, railways or municipalities.
With regard to Bill 280, which is before the house for second reading, I believe that there should be read into it the cause and effect of the proposals it makes. Lack of housing is not a local matter; it is not a national matter; it is an international matter. It is a world matter which has been brought about by two long wars and a depression. No allowance was made for the subsequent increase in population. Transportation, electric light, power, water and sewers are municipal services, along with other agencies, which are necessary in any solution of the housing problem in the larger cities of this country.
I remember away back when we did not own the Toronto street railway. We had a privately-owned railway in only half of the old part of the city. What was done between 1915 and 1921 was this. We built civic car lines in the new part of the city. Let us suppose that the old city is on one side and the dividing line of Toronto is in the centre. We took over the Toronto street railway in 1921 when their franchise expired. I was much pleased with the 104 members who were in the city the other day, because as they travelled about our city and out to Oakville they saw the tremendous strides which have been made in housing, even during the period between the two wars and after the last war. I was surprised to see it myself because I had not seen recently as much of the surrounding district as I had before the last war started.

National Housing Act
I am in favour of the government carrying out its present plans or any arrangement it has with the municipalities for slum clearance and other matters having to do with housing, because without adequate housing there would be no public health, notwithstanding the health security programs announced by federal and provincial and civic authorities. The first duty of a government, as I see it, is to look after the health, wealth, peace, happiness and prosperity of its citizens. All the various statutes, plans, blueprints and other remedies which have been proposed by municipalities, provinces and the federal government, cannot be carried out because of the lack of materials and of labour. It shows that in a national sense we have been unable to make, on a percentage basis, any real contribution to solving our national housing difficulties. For the reasons I have given, to provide housing should be the national function of the government.
We are in very difficult days. At a time like this, when we are in an emergent condition, the federal power should deal with the situation. In my opinion housing should be a national problem because the government have almost unlimited methods of finding revenue. They have also control over immigration, tariffs and trade, banks and banking. They can bring anyone they wish into this country. That power is given to them under section 91 of the written constitution which this country obtained in 1867.
Through the medium of Bill 280 another housing act is to be passed, amending the National Housing Act, 1944 and 1945. In this bill are set out the powers of approved lending institutions. They may take steps to safeguard mortgage securities and indebtedness. The bill also gives powers to enter into contracts with builders, and to guarantee rentals from rental housing projects. The terms and conditions of such undertakings are also given. The bill deals with rents for rental housing projects in the form of mortgages, terms of contracts and transfers. It deals with the transfer of property of Wartime Housing Limited to the new corporation. In spite of all these many statutes which have been passed since this housing matter was first brought up, there is still a national housing problem in the urban, rural and suburban areas. Things have been so mixed up by all these various statutes that the municipalities are in a quandary.
I would give some constructive suggestions to the minister and to the government. I have had a great deal of experience, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Timmins) said. Probably I have had a vaster experience than anybody in the house, 5849-267
because I dealt with one of the largest agencies of housing, namely, transportation. We took over the street railway which served only the old city. We built a new civic railway for the new half of the city and linked the whole city up in the new system. I do not know any constituency which owes so much to the vision of public ownership as ward 6, which is part of the constituency represented by the hon. member for Parkdale. I remember when they had no harbour improvements on the waterfront in that ward. They had the Mimico section of the York radials, running from the old Sunnyside level crossing-a death trap. They had the Toronto suburban running through wards 6 and 7 to Guelph. In 1920 these were all included when we purchased the York radials, and that was a great aid to housing. I described what happened in my friend's own district. The most important thing was the building of a railroad, city car lines in the new part of the city north of Bloor street and St. Clair avenue. We built the city car line system from 1915 to 1921 and it had a beneficial effect on housing. Practically the whole district of wards 1, 6 and 8 and the north Toronto district were built up by it.
Talk about what was done by those who came into the house a few years ago! I am disappointed in some of the young men who have come into parliament recently. I venture to say that if some of them had had the control of the city of Toronto when I was head of the city council, Mackenzie would have got a renewal of the street railway franchise, because there was only one man in the council who opposed it, and one newspaper-the five other newspapers gave their support to the purchase deals. The action that was taken at that time, however, went a long way toward solving the housing situation in our city. The light and power franchises were taken over by the city and the Toronto Transportation Commission started with a civic system of buses and radials. The metropolitan railway on Yonge street from Lake Simcoe to the C.P.R. north station was taken over also in 1920-21. The Scarboro section of the York radials from Woodbine, on the Kingston road to West Hill was also made part of the T.T.C. civic system. The whole York radial was acquired by the city and all its various sections. The Mimico section, Sunnyside west of the Humber to Mimico, at the level crossing at Sunnyside, was developed after these franchises were removed. In that district there was only one road, which was very narrow, and that was the Lake Shore road.
I have been discussing cause and effect in the housing situation and the condition that
National Housing Act

existed between the two wars. Those hon. members who visited our city the other day got a bird's-eye view of the results of the inauguration of the street car system and the taking over of radials, waterfront improvements and so on, all of which contributed to the prodigious development of that city.
In the district I represent in the House of Commons today, Broadview, and in the Greenwood and Danforth districts, tickets on the new civic car lines in the early days were six for ten cents. The result of the transportation system which we established was the erection of thousands of houses. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) will bear me out in that assertion.
All that work was done without any federal or provincial help at all. We inaugurated car lines, radials, buses, water service, sewers, police protection, health regulations and other benefits for the people in those districts, and the result was that many of the returned soldiers in Davenport and all the other ridings from East Toronto to the Humber started building houses for themselves, beginning with a cellar in the summertime, and then putting up one story. Neighbours would come and give assistance and in that way they would help to build a second and a third story. I am simply giving you cause and effect so far as housing is concerned.
My sole purpose in speaking this afternoon has been to try to give the minister some constructive suggestions. I am one member of the House of Commons, and I do not speak for this party; far from it. I leave that to some others who claim that they represent it. I will say this, however. I do give the minister some credit for w'hat he did during the war and even after, as I see what was done in our city. I am one of those who try to get on with people and to work with governments as with individuals.
I would remind hon. members of what took place in this house in June 1923. I was then chairman of the harbour board. I had a meeting until 3 a.m. with the government as to a settlement of the Toronto viaduct case with the two national railways. I acted for the city and harbour and discussed the matter with the then Liberal government. The result was that I marked it down from $37,000,000 to $30,000,000. Present were Sir Edward Beatty, then president of the C.P.R.; Sir Henry Thornton, president of the Canadian National, and Mr. Graham Bell, who was deputy minister of railways. I represented the city and harbour board and I showed them all the facts in connection with the viaduct

and my plan for closing certain streets and cutting down the whole cost to $30,000,000.
An act of parliament was passed at the end of June 1923 and work was later begun on the viaduct. The new Union station was finished, and extensive harbour improvements were carried out for twelve miles to the Humber river. Transportation by civic car lines, cheap power and other civic services in Toronto and suburbs are the main reasons for the success of housing after the taking over of the street railway.
In connection with the proposed purchase of the old Toronto street railway, it was supported by five of the six newspapers; only one paper, the Toronto Telegram, was opposed to it, and in the city hall only the present member for Broadview and one other opposed it. Had the deal gone through the people of Toronto would never have been able to take over the street railway or the radials, nor would they have been able to remedy the deplorable conditions that existed in our city and harbour or to give the services which hon. members saw for themselves the other day. I was the mayor and I piloted the civic bill for the T.T.C. through the legislature and nominated and chose the first T.T.C. commission. It brought about a vast housing improvement and made of Toronto and district a city of homes.
We need a steam suburban service in Toronto. Look at the service they have in Montreal and its aid to suburban housing. The use of commutation tickets between Toronto and Brampton, Oakville and other points should be extended.
After the first war, under private enterprise, many persons, including returned soldiers, built their own houses in the suburbs of the city. A great deal of building was done between the two wars, and much has been done also since the close of the second world war. The other day I was surprised to see the great development that had taken place on the Lake Shore, the Dundas highway, ward 7 and the Kingsway through to Oakville, in the matter of housing, mostly by private enterprise.
According to the report of the assessment commissioner, during the period of the two wars and until recently some seventy per cent of the people in Toronto city owned their own houses. It might be a small cottage, or it might be a two or three story house. Everyone wanted to own his own house, including the industrial workers, because of the cheap electricity, power, light, transportation, and the other public utilities.
I do not want to see our city become a city of apartment houses. In 1926 and 1927, and again in 1935, 1936 and 1937, I introduced a

National Housing Act
resolution concerning housing and reconstruction. One day it was debated from three p.m. until eleven o'clock, and again all the next day; and, as I said then, I do not always believe in cleaning out slums, though that should be done in some districts. I should like to see the contracts between the city and the federal government carried out to the limit, because I think the development around Regent street is a very good proposition. But as I said on other occasions, when you clear out slums a great many people do not want to leave the district. They are near their work and their friends, and if you clean them right out of the district they have to pile on street cars to get to work. That would make the position of our transportation system, which is overcrowded at the present time, even more deplorable. Persons getting on these cars and buses have been badly injured; others using the transportation system have been killed by motorcars.
I have seen some of these apartment house and housing projects. Not long ago I was in the city of Cleveland, and I saw some of the houses that have been built there. Some are occupied by returned soldiers; all kinds of people are mixed up together. The buses are so crowded you cannot get on them, even on Sunday. In a five-acre lot there must be several hundred of these houses, with thousands of people housed there. There you will find all kinds of people, some of them recent arrivals from Europe who cannot even speak our language. The people there are getting sick and tired of these small prefabricated houses. They tire of them in no time and want to move out, and certainly that is not a situation we want in our city.
I admit that in the district in the United States which I have mentioned they have done a valuable work and the houses are very good. They are well equipped with plumbing, like the houses of some of the ministers; they are sanitary; the rents are low, and all the rest of it. As I say, I do not want our city to become a city of apartments. It was not so between the two wars and long before, since the time of the hon. member for Danforth and the other hon. members who are here from Toronto. I believe we should continue to be a city of homes, particularly among the industrial workers.
If I had my way I would revive the old housing plan we had after the first war; the minister has something similar at the present time, I believe. Under that plan Canada lent money through the banks. Before the second war started Canada had lent $85,000,000, and of that only one-eighth of one per cent was lost.
I think there is a great deal to be said for the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Timmins); subventions, bonuses and subsidies are all right as far as I am concerned. I believe subventions and subsidies should be given to the municipalities. For low-rental houses that was done during the time I was head of the city council; buildings were assessed for about half their cost, under an amendment to the assessment act, and that led to a good deal of construction. But that has been abused, and I notice in the newspapers that some changes have been proposed. I would support some federal system like that under which the municipalities would get certain aid. It has ueen suggested there be provincial aid so that no taxes be imposed for two or three years, and other suggestions have been made by the provinces.
I should like to see the old principle continued of lending money through the banks. The purchasers obtained clear title, and the money was lent at a very low rate of interest. House plans were handed to them free, and as I say some $85,000,000 was lent under that scheme. A great deal of Leaside, parts of Toronto junction and right through north Toronto were built up in that way before the second world war.
There is only one amendment now before the house, because, as you ruled yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a subamendment cannot be moved until the first one is disposed of. I believe the time is past for any more conferences. The municipalities are sick and tired of conferences. Almost every train I have been on during this session has been carrying people to Ottawa to attend conferences. You cannot build houses with conferences. The day for conferences has gone by. The Ontario legislature has adjourned for the year; the city of Toronto has adopted its budget, and so have most of the York municipalities. Toronto some years ago gave assistance through the exemption of certain dwellings under the assessment act, and I believe we should give credit where credit is due for what has been done in the matter of housing-not enough at all, but it is a start.
I believe the government have done some good work. I have seen some of the houses they have built, and some of the apartments. In view of the scarcity of materials and labour this is a start in the right direction, and I am fair enough to say so. I do not believe they have done all they might, but here we see cause and effect; the lack of labour and lack of materials. Personally I think something should have been done to halt the con-
4196
National Housing Act

struction of some of these large bank and theatre buildings, where I believe they pay more for their material and their labour. As a civic official I had some experience with carpenters, bricklayers, lathers and plasterers, and I have been told they get better pay when working on banks, apartment houses, theatres and buildings of that kind than when working on small houses; and in addition their work is steadier. That may or may not be true; I do not know.
Then I think some assistance should have been given to make more use of Toronto island. I know what has been done at Belle Isle and along Lake St. Clair boulevard to help solve the housing problem in Detroit. The climate of Toronto island is good; sometimes in the winter it is as warm as it is in the city. If the government had carried out the proposal to build two bridges or a tunnel, that island could be used all year. As it is it does a great deal to lessen the housing problem during six or seven months in the spring and summer.
I believe one of the main reasons for our housing problem-I know because it has affected me-is found in the abuses of our housing control system. I had to part with some property I once owned. I did not need to sell it, but I disposed of it because I could not be bothered with the control system. You got a tenant in who signed a lease for no boarders; he turned the house upside down, let it go to rack and ruin, put in things not allowed in a residential district, profiteered and violated his lease; yet under the control system you could not do anything about him. So I parted with that property at a considerable sacrifice. If we could have some modification of that absurd control system I believe it would help the housing problem, as no one now wants to own real estate with such abuses. Under controls real estate has been permanently injured. It is an impossible system because it prevents private enterprise from building the smaller homes. Under our controls returned soldiers cannot get into houses they have bought with their credits and gratuities. So I believe that as soon as possible we should eliminate the control system as it applies to small houses. As the hon. member for Brandon said the other day fifty per cent is the law in New Zealand; it should be sixty per cent in Canada. For this year there should be a suspension of the building of skyscrapers for theatres and buildings of that, kind; and the labour and materials used for that type of building should be diverted to housing projects up to sixty per cent. It is true that the materials used

may not be the same in all respects as for banks and theatres, but those costly buildings do lead to higher labour costs and higher costs of materials in connection with the building of small houses.
I believe the doctrine of paying bonuses, subventions and subsidies is a good one; if it is applied properly it would solve all economic needs of all the provinces. As I said earlier, I did not intend taking part in this debate, nor have I done so to any considerable length. But I can tell you this, that we in the city of Toronto have been a very happy people. Those who visited our city the other day would find there a kind-hearted people, a people who have a keen interest for their country in their hearts. Our city was built by people of that description-people of all classes from all parts of the world.
The city council has been committed to a certain program' in connection with Regent street, and many other matters, and I hope the federal power will carry it out. I understand from the minister's bill that if any individual applies to the new corporation under Bill No. 280 he may obtain a loan up to ninety per cent. That fact has not been very well advertised either in the newspapers or over the radio. I suggest that there should be more extensive advertising of that fact. If it were known many people would apply immediately. We have something over four months before the early part of the winter-because we realize that immediately after the Canadian. National exhibition, early in September, the fires have to be lighted again in our houses. I do not know where many people will be next winter, in view of the great number of applications for possession and ejection which have been and are now being made before the county court judges. Not a day should be lost in building with labour and materials made available. The only way to solve the difficulty would be to have a sufficient number of small houses built immediately. I do not believe in the building of too many larger apartment houses. I would urge that so far as possible the government should get on with the work and have a large number of small houses built in the next four months -and there are only four months in which to do this.
I believe Toronto has done more than any other city in Canada along the lines I have stated in providing splendid municipal service. It has gone a long way in connection with the ownership of public utilities. It owns its street transportation system, and hon. members will be familiar with the Toronto transportation commission. Then, it has been, most active in the development of good roads, and has

National Housing Act
paid forty per cent of the cost of the Toronto-Hamilton highway. The city has contributed to the operations of the York highways commission, which has built a magnificent highways system of fifteen miles in the Toronto area, and which now should be revised as only enabling and assumed by the province.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended entering the debate on housing, nor do I presume to be able to tell the minister anything about it. I do enter the debate, however, to take issue with the right hon. gentleman in respect of certain statements he made last night, and which, incidentally, he did not substantiate. I should hope he might consider substantiating them today.
I shall now proceed to give the other side of the picture, and shall refer to certain community enterprises which have been entered into jointly. I presume the minister would describe them as subsidized enterprises. They have been entered into jointly by the province of Saskatchewan with the assistance of the federal government.
The minister made certain statements about this housing and its success, or lack of success, when he spoke last night. I presume he was referring to certain community apartments which were built or remodeled in my own city of Saskatoon, and also in the cities of Regina and North Battleford, and other places in the province.
At page 4178 of Hansard the minister said, in connection with this subsidized housing:
The government has considered subsidized housing. It has built subsidized houses

And then he goes on to give an illustration. Speaking of this housing project, he said:
The management of the buildings was left to the province of Saskatchewan and the rentals collected are the property of the government of Saskatchewan. That would be an excellent place for a socialist government, which gives lip service

And I would rather he had left out the word "lip".
-to subsidized housing, to practise a little of what it preaches. What are the facts?
Well, sir, I propose to give the facts on one side, and the minister, if he cares to, may give the facts on the other. The quotation goes on:
Rentals for the housing,-
And it is these lines to which I take exception particularly:
[DOT]-largely paid for by the federal government, operated by the socialist provincial government, are somewhat higher than in corresponding localities in the rest of Canada. That is a clear indication that our socialist friends love to give lip service-
And there, quite properly, the minister was interrupted by vociferous objections from certain representatives of this group with such expressions as, "Give the figures". Then the minister said, "I know the figures" and again, "I know the facts". The minister may have them, but he did not give them. Therefore I should like to give certain of the facts on the other side of the argument.
Shortly after that, the minister said:
We know all about subsidized housing. The difficulty with subsidized housing is that it does not build any more houses.
I shall not go into that general argument; but I will say that these particular houses did give shelter to a great many people all of whom, I believe, were veterans of the last war. While I have not the figures for other cities-although I believe they are comparable-I know that in my own city of Saskatoon 185 family suites were provided. There are 370 adults living in those community apartments. They have been organized co-operatively, and govern themselves. They have an elected council. There is a communal dining hall and cafeteria providing meals for the residents. There are 125 small children, none of whom I believe has yet attained school age-although I am not sure of that statement. There is a supervising nursery provided for the children, and they also receive weekly medical health check-ups.
I would bring particularly to the minister's attention the fact that the rentals for these apartments range from $15 to $35 a month.


Mr. HOWE:: That is the highest return for an investment of anything I know of.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I presume there are other comparable communities in the cities of North Battleford and Regina. I should like to give what might be called personal testimony to this sort of thing, because we have the evidence of my hon. Mend and colleague, the member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), with respect to his son, a returned soldier who is married and who has one child. Those people lived at this apartment in Saskatoon, which is known as community apartment No. 7.
By the way, I should explain that these houses are reconverted from air force buildings brought in from air force field No. 4. This man and his wife, who lived at the apartment, paid $20 a month rent-and I would ask the house to note that that amount covered heat and light. They paid $42 a month for the board of the three of them-I suppose the board of the child would not be costly. In any event, the sum total for those three people, including laundry service, light, heat,

National Homing Act
food, a nursery service which would have allowed the mother, if it had been necessary, to go to work to help the family-all this was provided for $62 a month. I should be interested to hear the minister's comparative figures of lower cost accommodation elsewhere.
This is not the only case that I am thinking of. There is in the employ of this House of Commons a stenographer who lived with her husband, a veteran, in a community apartment house at North Battleford. They paid $30 a month for a three-roomed suite, and this included light, heat, water and laundry services. They have no children and she, too, could have gone out to earn part of the family income. I do not think this socialist government, which the minister speaks of in a rather derogatory manner, is doing too badly. This subsidized project is providing accommodation for people which cannot be obtained-and I say this with due respect to the minister-in any other place in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that all the subsidizing is by the federal government.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am not suggesting that we should not have subsidization by the federal government; I am suggesting that we should.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was suggesting that not much subsidizing is being done by our friends in Saskatchewan.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have put the case as I see it. I wanted to get that on the record, because I do not think the minister has been fair in what he has had to say about our government or about the accommodation we are providing for these boys. This lady to whom I was speaking this morning who lived in the North Battle-ford project tells me that there is a long list of people who want to get into these apartments. These are the only apartments in this country that I know of where a veteran can live on the present veterans allowance and be able to attend university.


George James McIlraith: Has the hon. member the capital cost of the building?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have not. I presume that that information w'ould be in the department and be more readily available to the hon. member.


George James McIlraith: I was asking a serious question because I wanted to follow the hon. member's argument.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I know that the Saskatchewan government paid the same price as any cither purchaser for war assets. I do not know 
w'hether the Saskatchewan government was subsidized in their purchase of these air force buildings.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They were subsidized for the cost of fitting them up as apartments.


George James McIlraith: I presume that the cost the government paid was eight per cent, but I want to ask the hon. member if he knows w'hether that is so, or did they get the buildings for nothing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They got them for nothing.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Those figures are more easily available to the hon. member than to me. I do not know the facts, but I presume that the Saskatchewan government paid the same for the buildings as anybody else paid. I know they had tremendous difficulty in getting some of these war assets from the department.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, I will not be astonishing anybody in the house if I say that I am opposed to the amendment. I am opposed to subsidized housing for the same reason I am opposed to socialism. I do not believe it is in the interests of the people that their dwellings and homes should be owned by the government. I believe that that would give a new control to the government over the lives and activities of the people which would be a serious infringement upon the liberty and freedom to which we attach so much importance. However, there is nothing novel in this point of view and it is not the reason w'hich prompts me to take part in this debate.
The building of houses is taking place principally in the industrial centres. Earlier in the week I came from Toronto by air, and I saw the great number of houses that have been built just outside that great city and also the housing developments that have taken place within the old city itself. The clamour for housing arises from the industrial population. There has been some natural increase in that population, but the principal increase is the accretion to the urban population resulting from the industrial activities of the war.
When Canada was engaged in the war she made a most substantial contribution to the allied cause through the production of industry. As a result people who had lived on the land and in smaller centres came to the factories, which were largely, if not entirely, concentrated in the great cities. The soldiery returning from the front came to the cities, some of them with wives whom they had married abroad. They took up residence in the cities. To a considerable extent it is

National Housing Act
due to this accretion from the land and from the smaller centres that the great demand for housing has taken place.
I have not the figures before me. but the population of the province of Saskatchewan suffered a substantial reduction, while the population of centres like Vancouver increased at the expense of the rural areas. Greater Montreal now has a population of nearly a million and a half and Toronto must have a population largely in excess of what it was at the beginning of the war.
I am glad that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is conducting this bill through the house, because it enables me to ask a person who should know a question which I think anyone interested in a long-range housing program must ask. Since the war, Canada has greatly increased her industrial plants and it is the constructors and the future operators of those plants who are seeking housing today. If the people in those categories were properly sheltered the housing problem of Canada would be solved. Not infrequently the ministers refers to a long-range program.
I think it is relevant in determining a long-range housing program for Canada to know the likelihood of finding markets for this greatly expanded industrial machine. What proportion of Canada's total production depends upon foreign markets? We were told at one time that the United States consumed its total production less about seven per cent. We were also told that Canada had to export nearly forty per cent of her production or encounter unemployment and the trials and tribulations that go with producing goods which can neither be consumed nor sold.
I am assuming that the minister will be able to tell the house what proportion of Canada's production has to be exported to maintain full or nearly full employment in Canada. Where are the markets to be found that warrant, in the first place, the great increase in our industrial plant, and where are the markets to be found that warrant the construction of homes in the great centres of Canada for an industrial population that must depend for its existence upon the finding of those markets which can take from the Canadian producer the fruit of his labours? I hope that the minister, out of the abundance of his knowledge and experience, will answer this question fully.
Canada at the present time seems to be entering into international arrangements which are making it more difficult for Canada to trade. Canada has had in the past and to them she owes her prosperity in so far as it
was derived from her industrial activities- sheltered markets. I speak of the preference which we enjoyed in many markets as a result of the British preference. That benefit was so considerable that wise men from other countries came to Canada with large amounts of money which they invested in plants in the hope of sharing in the benefits of the Canadian position.
But those times have changed, and Canada has found it necessary to enact laws, applied by the foreign exchange control board, which deny to the foreign investor, who brought his money here to build plants that he might enjoy the benefit of Canada's foreign and sheltered markets, the right to take home that money. This goes to show that the investment is not considered as safe as it was a few years ago.
Moreover, Canada has entered into agreements at Geneva which tend to reduce Canada's tariffs on a number of commodities which are manufactured by her rivals for the markets of the world, and in particular by the United States. Britain, under the form of government which she now has, is not a serious competitor because life in Britain has become costly and prices under her present system of government have gone so high that she is incapable of competing successfully in the markets of the world with many nations.
It seems to me therefore that a long-range housing policy should be directed to finding abodes for people in places in which they can live when markets fail. How can we expect to enjoy foreign trade? Europe is bankrupt, and Canada, in my view, is suffering today from inflation, largely because she is making goods which she is giving to Europe. A great deal may be said of this policy from a humanitarian point of view, but from an economic point of view it is disastrous, because Canada gets no goods in return for those she sends away, with the result that our people cannot find goods to satisfy their longings, and prices of those goods which are available rise constantly. In consequence we have this spiral of rising prices.
Moreover, under the Marshall plan, to which Canada is subscribing, Canada is sending to Europe not only goods that can be consumed but capital goods, the very purpose of which is to set up manufacturing establishments to produce goods in competition with our own. I have no status to discuss housing in all its intricate details. I profess to know very little about the costs of sewer pipe, shingles, cement and other items which go into the construction
National Housing Act

420t
of houses; yet I am forced to question a policy which favours the huddling together of people in large cities where they must starve if foreign markets fail. I suggest to the minister that a wiser policy would direct people to abodes nearer the land, where what is called, sometimes with a sneer, subsistence farming is possible. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that probably ninety per cent of the world's population is yet devoted to subsistence farming. The government should not neglect this relationship between the individual and the soil from which he derives food, shelter and clothing.
I know it is not popular to oppose any policy of housing at a time when there is a great dearth of housing, and when, as has been pointed out by many speakers, suffering, inconvenience, disease and possibly crime may be traced to inadequate shelter in the big centres. Yet, this is a passing phase; borrowing again from the minister the words "long-range policy," which he uses not infrequently, I am bound to question the wisdom of his policy as a long-range policy, because the bill before us tends more and more to make the Canadian people dependent upon markets, the existence of which is not only uncertain but nebulous.
When the minister closes the debate I hope that he will be good enough, out of the wealth of his experience and information, to devote a few sentences to the aspect of the question which I have attempted to lay before the house.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: I wish to say only a few words on this question, but I was very much interested in the speech of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, particularly the first sentence he uttered, which, if I remember correctly, went something like this, that he is opposed to subsidized housing for the same reason that he is opposed to socialism. I hold in my hand Hansard of May 5, in which the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) made a rather good speech on the subject of housing. It is unfortunate that the two speeches from the Progressive Conservative ranks in this respect cancel out each other. I should like somebody in that group to tell us what the party policy actually is, because ours is stated in the amendment before the house. I want to quote from the record where the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard took the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) to task for having made a statement at an

earlier time. I will quote directly from page 3644 of Hansard, where the hon. member said:
I want to call the attention of the house to a statement made recently by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) in a public speech. He said:
"No government of whieh I form a part will ;ver pass legislation for subsidized housing."
I do not know if he was speaking on behalf of the government in that speech or not. At that point somebody interjected: "Shame!" Then the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard continued:
That was a dogmatic and1 definite statement, and I think it is the mainspring behind the minister's recession from his enthusiasm in approaching this problem two years ago. That statement indicates a fatal refusal to face realities in this field.
There is nothing necessarily socialistic about subsidizing housing for the low-income groups.
Take the two speeches together. One hon. member said that there is nothing socialistic in subsidizing low-rental housing, and criticized severely the government for having backed up on that policy. The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) opposes that policy because it is socialistic. Is it any wonder that much of our housing legislation is as confused as it is? I should like to put on the record what the amendment before the house actually is, in order that it may indicate what the vote will be about. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) is in these words:
That Bill No. 280 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to providing subsidized low-rental housing.
In other words, the question before the house is whether, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the subsidization of low-rental housing or not. I have in mind the action taken about two years ago by the government in giving certain concessions to a company known as Housing Enterprises. In our area we had some personal experience with that company which, because it came under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, was given the privilege of buying up certain airports, tearing them down and using the material for setting up housing units. The local authorities, who were interested in housing, were not given the same type of concession; yet this company, which was, after all, a private company set up by the insurance companies of Canada, collected much valuable material, much of which the company resold to other people at a handsome profit. In the end, after a certain bit of wavering

National Housing Act
activity, they folded up and nothing much came out of it. In other words, the policy of the government to date appears to me to be not one of subsidizing low-rental housing but rather of subsidizing private companies which are in the business of lending money to build houses to make profit.
The house will have to make a decision on that sooner or later. Either we are in favour of the government assisting directly in the building of low-rental housing for the purposes of the people, or we are not. When this amendment is put it will be interesting to note how my hon. friends of the official opposition vote, in view of the two directly contradictory speeches we have heard from that side of the house, one saying that subsidized housing is socialistic, and therefore he is opposed to it, in spite of the fact that it has been done in England for many years-


Mr. HACKETT:: And see where they landed.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: As far as house building is concerned, I think the record of Great Britain compares very favourably with the present situation in Canada.


George James McIlraith: Not very.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: We must remember that there was a little bit of destruction carried on in that country during the war, which we did not have here. But if we take their peacetime construction, bo'th before and after the war, under the coalition and the labour governments, I think we shall find that their housebuilding program has been extraordinary, considering everything.
I believe enough evidence has been introduced in this house to show that, regardless of what we may think in terms of public or private enterprise, houses are not being built as fast as they are needed, and people with modest incomes are not able to rent even the houses which are available. Therefore the only answer seems to be subsidized housing, or else a lot of people will go without roofs over their heads.
Mr. G. J. McILRAITH '(Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce) : Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may take a few minutes of the time of the house to deal with one or two points raised in the course of the debate. First of all, I should like to make a short reference to the statements made yesterday about Wallis house.


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, was it not ruled yesterday that any reference to that was out of order? I was not in favour of the ruling, but I think that was the ruling which was made.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I do not recall.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I was discussing the matter, and was asked by the minister and by Mr. Speaker to discontinue, and I did not proceed with my discussion. I had my argument here. I understood the Speaker's ruling was that I was not allowed to continue.


Mr. GOLDING:: Your leader did.


George James McIlraith: On the point of order, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldweil) discussed the matter a't some length. He spoke after the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I merely wanted to let the house know what I thought might be of some interest to it with regard to that project. I am not defending the project nor advocating it as an ideal project. I think the house, in view of what was said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, should have some information about how that project is administered, who administers it and under what authority. It was merely to complete the record. My recollection is that no point of order was taken.


Mr. FLEMING:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned with the particular issue, nor would I wish to curtail participation in this debate by the hon. member; but if you will refer to yesterday's Hansard you will see, at page 4163, that this was definitely made a point of order, and it was made a point of order by the minister himself. At page 4163 some reference is made by the hon. member for Mackenzie to the question and the minister intervenes:
Mr. Howe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has nothing whatever to do with the operation of Wallis house, and I suggest that any discussion of that matter is entirely out of order.
There follows further discussion and the minister asks what that subject has to do with the bill before the house. There is still further discussion in which the minister participates, and Mr. Speaker says, at page 4164:
I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that the bill before the house is an act to amend the National Housing Act, 1944.
There is further discussion, and at the bottom of the first column Mr. Speaker said:
May I call the attention of hon, members to the explanatory note in the bill. It states-
And then he quotes the explanatory note and concludes:
That is the principle of the bill before the house, and I think hon. members should' confine their remarks to that principle.
Whether the point of order was properly taken at the outset or not, whether the ruling
National Housing Act

made was correct or not, it must work both ways, and it is not for the parliamentary assistant to override a ruling made on the objection raised by the minister.


William Ross Macdonald: I have read the references made on this question by hon. members yesterday; I have also read the remarks of Mr. Speaker, and I cannot find that Mr. Speaker made a ruling to the effect that any reference to Wallis house was out of order. In fact, after Mr. Speaker had made his remarks, I find, at page 4165 of Hansard, that Mr. Coldwell referred to Wallis house and said he had seen conditions there, and no point of order was raised at that time. I therefore rule that the hon. member for Ottawa West may continue with his remarks.


Gordon Graydon: The minister is going to raise another point of order on you.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: He just got in, in time.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Eglinton seemed greatly concerned about it, but if he had read a little more of Hansard to the house he would see how ridiculous and unfair his position is. Be that as it may, hon. members can draw their own conclusion-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It was the minister who raised the point.


George James McIlraith: -from the parts he read and the parts that were not read. The fact remains that yesterday the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did speak at some length about it and left what I consider an incomplete picture of the conditions there.
I thought it only fair, since the house is voting money for emergency shelter, that hon. members should know just how that emergency shelter is administered and where that authority dealing with the actual control of the tenants lies. If hon. members are not interested in that, I am not concerned in pressing the matter at all.
Perhaps I can deal with some matters that are squarely in order, even in the opinion of all hon. members opposite. Wallis house, I might add for the benefit of some members who were not here yesterday, is an emergency shelter undertaking in the city of Ottawa, housing fifty-four families. Perhaps I will not say more about it now. It seems to me that when we are on the bill we should deal with some of the responsibility for it, since it has been raised and given wide publicity.

There is this, however, about emergency shelter generally, and it is well to recall to the chamber just what emergency shelter authority is and how it arose. It arose in 1944, at the end of the year, under the wartime prices and trade board, and it was later transferred, as of January 1, 1946, to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The purpose of it was simply to provide a coordinated agency to assist the municipalities in seeing that maximum use was made of available housing units, and in providing temporary emergency accommodation for families who, through no fault of their own, were without accommodation.
The point I wish to make is that it was never the intention of the emergency shelter administration that emergency shelter units should be regarded as semi-permanent homes for individual families. It was rather intended to assure people who found themselves without shelter that they would be kept warm and dry while they tried to find more permanent accommodation.
Through emergency shelter the type of thing that was done was (a) to lease to the municipalities, on nominal rentals, surplus crown-owned buildings located near congested areas which were suitable for conversion into temporary emergency accommodation, and (b) to make definite grants to municipalities to assist in financing initial costs in converting or building emergency shelter units.
Up to the present time some 8,506 emergency shelter units have been created, and commitments to the municipalities have been in the neighbourhood of $4,650,000. The original value of crown-owned buildings leased: to municipalities on a nominal rental for emergency shelter purposes is about $8550,000. In addition to assisting municipalities, there was some rather active work in assisting universities with the special problem they had with married veteran students.
Some thirteen universities had been assisted in providing a total of 1,439 units. The federal government contributed $1,075,000 toward the cost of providing these units of building-that is, crown-leased buildings-to the universities for emergency shelter purposes at an original value of $1,250,000.
I thought these statistics would be helpful in getting the discussion of emergency shelter back upon its base.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Has the hon. member the rents charged in Saskatchewan as compared with other provinces?


George James McIlraith: I have not them here.

National Housing Act


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I thought either the hon. member or the minister would place them on the record to support the minister's statement yesterday regarding Saskatchewan rates.


George James McIlraith: I have not rents here at all. In fact, I have very few notes. They are much more sketchy than I would have wished if I had had more opportunity.
It is interesting to recall here exactly what number of houses was provided by the dominion government through direct efforts last year. The figures are: Wartime Housing Limited, 5,421; emergency shelter, 3,751; housing enterprises, 2,847; and by army, air force, navy and transport department, about 1,000, making a total of 13.019 houses provided directly by the dominion government last year.


John Thomas Hackett: What was the total?


George James McIlraith: I am coming to that. In addition to that, and the other houses built last year, the dominion government, through the low-cost housing veterans priorities, provided direct assistance in getting materials for an additional 16,896 houses. As to the total number of houses built, the figure in Canada in 1945 was 48,000; in 1946 it was 67,000, and in 1947 it was 79,000. Hon. members will notice that the figure I have given for 1947 is different from any previously given. The revised figure from- the bureau of statistics is 79,000 houses for last year. The preliminary figure used' in most of the discussion and debate has been 77,000. The explanation of the difference is simply that they have completed the revision of their work.


John Thomas Hackett: Would the hon. gentleman care to give the breakdown by provinces for 1947?


George James McIlraith: 
Mr. BENTLEY:: Have they as many trees in Britain as we have?


George James McIlraith: No; but they do not have the frost in the wintertime, either.


Gordon Graydon: In order that the statement may be complete, would the hon. gentleman also put on record-I fancy he may have them on his file-the promises made by government speakers during the 1945 campaign, as to the number of houses they would build?


George James McIlraith: If the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) will take those promises and forecasts of housebuilding in this country he will find it extraordinary how they have been lived up to, notwithstanding the remarks-


Mr. JACKMAN:: Why should it be so
extraordinary?
National Homing Act


George James McIlraith: I will tell the hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker, what is so extraordinary about it. On a great many occasions in this house I have had the pleasure of listening to one of my hon. friend's colleagues, from the city he represents, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming)-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The world's greatest constituency.


George James McIlraith: - and from him I have heard stories of what little had been done in this country in comparison with other countries. I was so much impressed with those speeches that I took the trouble to check up. I found, as I have said quite frankly, that the forecasts and the actual record of accomplishment are almost identical. For instance, I point out to hon. members that last year the forecast was 80,000 houses, and I am advised that the figure of actual construction is 79,000.


Gordon Graydon: But that is not the election forecast; that is the House of Commons forecast. I am talking about the election forecast.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You pay attention to the present election; they need your help pretty badly.


George James McIlraith: If the hon. member for Peel wants to deall with elections I shall be glad to do so. However, there are one or two other things I should like to mention. We speak of the housing problem here as though the only authority having anything to do with it were the dominion government. The plain truth of the matter is that the direct responsibility of the dominion government in the field is fairly limited. Rightly or wrongly, property and civil rights were left, under our constitution, to the provinces, and they also have a responsibility. I am one of those who believe that the housing needs of this country can be met only through co-operation on the part of all levels of government having responsibility. That means simply the dominion government, the provincial government and the municipal governments. The municipalities have their problems in connection with taxation and so on-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But the hon. member would admit that the federal government should give the lead in convening these conferences?


George James McIlraith: No, I will not admit that it should give the lead, but I do say most emphatically that it has given the lead.
I pointed out to the hon. member a short time 
ago in my remarks that last year the federal government built directly, of its own volition,
13,000	houses, and provided direct priority assistance for some 16,000 more; and in addition it made money available for a great deal of other building; a very substantial amount of money, indeed.
I come back to the question of co-operation. Hon. members directly opposite have seemed to talk about elections. The simple truth of the matter is that in meeting this most difficult type of problem, a type which requires co-operation from three levels of government, municipalities in the main have co-operated very well. I suppose in a country of this size it is inevitable that one would find a municipality somewhere where co-operation is not as good as it might be. In the main, however, they have tried to co-operate. Sometimes they have been a little slower than some of us might have wished; but I think it is fair to give them credit for trying to do something in co-operation with the dominion government.
The record of provincial governments is something I invite hon. members to think about a little bit. I hope that, with the years that lie ahead, it will increase rather than decrease; if indeed it is possible for the small quantity which has been forthcoming in the past to decrease at all.
It is not my intention here to make any remark which in any way could be used as giving any provincial group the right to come out and say, "How can we co-operate with anyone in the dominion parliament who is making remarks about lack of co-operation?" But I would invite hon. members from Ontario, who were so vociferous a minute ago, to recall what the record of that province is. I invite them not to take my word for it, but to read the legislation of the province of Ontario on the subject. It is on record in our library here.
In Ontario they have had two bills-rather interesting ones. One of them is called "An act respecting provision of services by the province and municipalities to persons occupying dominion crown lands". Perhaps I should say no more about it because, after the bill was passed, the premier of the province undertook that it would never be proclaimed. I leave it to hon. members to read the bill and to see what interpretation they put upon it. It is not exactly called co-operation.
Then there is another bill, Bill 125, which was passed just on the eve of the announcement of the election in the province. It is a very short bill, taking all of a page and a half-a most extraordinary thing. All I can say about it is that I hope it works. I hope

National Housing Act
it does something to assist in this very difficult problem. For my part, if there is any way to help the province to do anything to assist in meeting a difficult problem, I mean to do it.


Gordon Graydon: Call a conference of the provinces first. That would be the first thing.


George James McIlraith: I would point out to the hon. member for Peel that he would do well to read that bill, and then to read the statements made through the press at certain meetings of a party with which he is familiar. He will find quite a divergence. I hope that the press reports are right, and that the bill is all wrong. Sometimes when I read the bill and then read the statements incidental thereto, upon introduction in the Ontario house on April 1-and I do not know whether that date has any significance or not-I can only hope that the bill is all wrong and that the newspaper statements are all right.
In any event, the point I am seeking to make is* that it is a mistake for any member of this House of Commons to think a maximum by way of production of houses in Canada can be achieved without continual co-operation of the provinces, the dominion and the municipalities.


Gordon Graydon: Why do you not call a
dominion-provincial conference and have the whole thing cleaned up? That is at the bottom of it all.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Peel persists in asking me that question-and it may have been asked thoughtlessly or, on the other hand, seriously. And if he asks the question seriously, I would ask him only to seek to recall to his mind the experience of the last dominion-provincial conference and the actions of certain leaders from certain provinces at that conference, and since.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Including Nova Scotia.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: And officers of the federal government.


George James McIlraith: I am delighted to note the interest of hon. members opposite from the province of Ontario in this matter. I am delighted, too, that they have pressed me a bit on it this afternoon, because it will be interesting to note that they do not come back at me with this bill, which is the actual legislative record of the provincial government of Ontario, which they so ardently support. They do not say anything about that. But they do come back at me with all sorts of other questions.


Thomas John Bentley: Do not judge Canada by Ontario.


Mr. IIARTT:: That is right.


Gordon Graydon: The only strange part of it was that your party supported it. Did it not? That is not easily explained away.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps it is difficult to
explain away; but I would just say in reply to that that they must have taken the word of the one who introduced it.


Gordon Graydon: It must have been agreed to by your own party. That was Farquhar Oliver's bill, the same as anybody else's.


George James McIlraith: They relied on the remarks of the minister introducing it. I have those remarks here, if the hon. member wishes to hear them. But I would just point out to hon. members from Ontario, that in Ontario today veterans who are in need of housing are invited to make, and in fact are making applications for assistance in getting loans for the construction of houses. There may be some indirect way of providing those loans to the veterans under that provincial bill. But certainly there is no direct way under the bill. It just is not there. Those veterans are making application-


Gordon Graydon: Farquhar Oliver supported it.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I know; and the hon. member for Peel may interject all he wishes, but he cannot get away from the seriousness of the position that a few thousand veterans in one province of this country are being invited to make application for direct loans, and are making those applications, and the authority for making them may not exist.


Gordon Graydon: And Drew will give it to them; don't worry.


George James McIlraith: That cannot be explained away by the light, flippant remarks of the hon. member for Peel. It is far more serious than that; and, so far as I am concerned, I will content myself by saying that I hope there is some indirect way of seeing that those loans are made available. For my part I mean to do everything I can or of which 1 know, by way of co-operation, to get out of the bill any value there is in it, for the benefit of the people who need houses.


Gordon Graydon: Why raise obstacles to it, then?
National Housing Act


George James McIlraith: I am not raising
obstacles to it.


Gordon Graydon: You are.


George James McIlraith: I am seeking to bring this debate back to the motion before the house, which is a simple motion for second reading of a bill dealing with the federal government's responsibility in connection with housing. It is an amending bill.
There was some discussion this afternoon of the confused and difficult question of subsidies for housing. No one has yet defined exactly what is meant by subsidies for housing. However I was interested in the debate, and particularly in the few remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight). He spoke about some housing provided in his native city, and gave some examples. I did not know' he was going to deal with those particular projects, or I would have sought to have the figures here. I am. sorry I have not those figures with me. I asked the hon. member for them, because of my keen interest in his argument.
I think, however, it may at some time or another be desirable to subsidize in some way some types of housing; although I never have been quite sure of what is meant by "subsidize". I think what the hon. member had in mind was a direct grant toward capital construction; I believe that is a fair estimate of what he had in mind. He spoke about the project, but made no reference to the capital cost of it. I am speaking from memory and have not checked the figures, but my recollection is that the project of which the hon. member spoke consisted of a building which was provided by the dominion government to the province free of cost and that the dominion made a grant in addition toward the cost of converting the building into suitable living accommodation. If there were anything paid for the building I presume it would not be more than eight per cent of the cost.
While the hon. member was asking for a direct subsidy for housing, he made what I considered the most perfect argument I have ever heard against subsidies for housing. He made a better argument than one would expect from a person who was flatly opposed to subsidies in any and all forms in any and all circumstances.
I could not help noting the example he gave of the married couple who were living in the housing accommodation which he described in rather good terms. This was serviced housing accommodation, with light and heat provided at a rental of some S30 a month. He mentioned that the couple had no children, that the husband was working and that the wife was able 
to go out to assist the family finances by working. From the nature of her position she would receive a salary of about $175 a month.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Not while living in the unit.


George James McIlraith: That was the assistance she was able to give toward the family finances. In any event, the two were able to work and they had this accommodation, with heat and light provided, at $30 a month.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It was some time ago that she lived in the accommodation, not now.


George James McIlraith: In any event, she seems qualified to earn $175 a month. Even though she were getting considerably less, the point is that people with an income like that were living in subsidized housing, the capital cost of which, along with a substantial part of the cost of conversion, had been paid by the dominion taxpayers, by taxpayers in income brackets down to a minimum exemption of $750.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why did you not raise the exemption?


George James McIlraith: I am thinking of the effect upon the working men and women of this country who have to pay income tax to an extent to provide a project of that kind to give low-rental housing to persons with that income.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: He was a student veteran.


George James McIlraith: I qualified my remarks at first; but I have never in all my experience heard, even from the most ardent opponents of subsidies, any example of a more unfair use or abuse of subsidized housing. I simply point that out.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You just have not the facts.


George James McIlraith: Since the second great war, taxpaying has been a hardship on a good many of our people; and to state a proposition m the bland way in which it was stated, that accommodation should be provided for people with that level of income and in those circumstances, is not the best argument that could be made for subsidies. There may be other arguments that could be made that might be good, but I just wanted to bring the house back to a sense of reality on this question of subsidized housing and to show just what it involves with all its ramifications. I want to thank the house for its courtesy and indulgence in allowing me a few minutes longer and I hope I have added something to the debate.

National Homing Act


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words at this time. I spoke on this question before and I had intended to leave the rest of my remarks until the bill was in committee and we were discussing it clause by clause. The parliamentary assistant during the course of his remarks stated that the condition of housing in Canada was exceptionally good.


George James McIlraith: Not the condition of housing, no.


Charles Edward Johnston: Should I say the progress of construction?


George James McIlraith: Yes, as compared with other countries.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think there is another point of view in that regard. I agree with the parliamentary assistant when he says that there has been good progress in the construction of homes, but I am a firm believer that it is better to build one good house than two poor ones. I have made that statement on several occasions. During the first few years of this program the houses that were built were nothing but a shame and disgrace.
After the program had been in effect for two or three years and there was sufficient time to know what type of house was being built, I recall vividly drawing to the attention of the government the condition of some of the houses which had been built in Hull and which I had personally visited. I think I was possibly the first one in this house to criticize the type of construction that was being carried on, particularly in western Canada and more definitely in Calgary. I recall that the minister stated at that time that the facts which I had brought forth were not true; yet the parliamentary assistant will recall that we have spent millions of dollars in repairing houses that were classed as new houses.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is the hon. member referring to the program covered by this bill?


Charles Edward Johnston: Not particularly. I was speaking of housing generally.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member should make that clear.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will agree with the minister when he says that my remarks do not pertain specifically to the bill under discussion, but it has been drawn to my attention that they are just as close to the topic under discussion as were those a while ago of the parliamentary assistant.


Angus MacInnis: That would not be very close.


Charles Edward Johnston: Having had experience with the houses that were built in the past. I thought the minister of reconstruction should pay particular attention to the type of house that is now being built. Coming a little closer to the minister's question, I would draw his attention to the type of wartime housing built last year. I visited some of the houses which had been built in Calgary along the railroad tracks, and at that time I did not think the way the houses were being prefabricated was good for the housing program.
I am convinced that that type of house will not stand up. I think the change that has been made, where the individual has more control over his house, will result in a better type of house. I was never and am not now one of those who think the best type of house can be built by mass production. My view is that you cannot build a whole side of a house and then transport it a long distance on a truck, erect it and nail it into position, and have as sound a construction as when you build step by step right on the foundation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) was advocating a worse type of house.


Charles Edward Johnston: I cannot help that. He was speaking on his own responsibility.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Your party will have to get together.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am speaking of the type of house that is being built by the government. The hon. member for Lethbridge was speaking of the type of house that should be built-two very different things. I think the fault was that the government did not have enough competent inspectors, but under this new program which the minister is now proposing the same inspectors, in many cases, will supervise the construction. Unless a change is made in supervision and inspection, I am quite sure that the houses built will not be up to the proper standard.
When the parliamentary assistant was discussing the houses he said that Canada should not be compared with Great Britain, and I agree because conditions in the two countries are not comparable at all. Great Britain is having difficulty in getting materials and has a great shortage of labour. But we in this country, if our resources were channeled into the proper courses, would not have difficult}' in getting supplies for building private homes. The fact is, however, that too much material is being channeled into commercial construction.
I agree that some capital construction is necessary, but not to the extent of eliminating
42ns
National Housing Act

private home building, which is what is happening now. As a result, we are running into a great shortage of nails, soil pipe, plumbing and other requisites. We have no shortage of labour for a construction program. Someone has said that you need first-class carpenters, at SI.25 an hour, to build a house. I do not think you do. Certainly the men who are being employed on government housing are not all firdt-class carpenters. A great many apprentices are being used, as I know from actual experience. I am not criticizing that, because I believe you can and should use many apprentices in this type of work, always provided that you have proper supervision by competent builders. A very large number of people in this country are now unemployed and they could be put to work in the construction business. So there is no comparison between Canada and Great Britain. We have the materials, all the wood materials, at least, and nearly all the metal materials required. The step which the minister announced yesterday of the suspension of the production of barbed wire for two months to encourage the production of nails will help to relieve the nail f/hortage too. Se we have all the requisites for a building program which would be satisfactory to Canada.
A word about subsidizing. I know that subsidization is not a permanent cure, but I suggest it as an emergency program to meet an emergency condition. There is a tremendous shortage of houses, and subsidies would help to offset the tremendous increase in building costs. It is safe to say that building costs have increased from fifty to 100 per cent. The cost of labour and of materials of all kinds has also increased. I do not think there will be much increase in home building, especially by private individuals, until some method of assistance, subsidies or otherwise, is devised whereby construction costs will be offset. Unless a person is right up against it, he would be almost foolish to build under present-time costs. Yet where is he to live, particularly if he has a family, if he does not go ahead and build his own house? I do not believe you can build the ordinary five-room or six-room house under present conditions for less than about $8,000; I am speaking of the private individual who has to buy his lumber and other materials in small quantities.


Mr. MacNICOL:: No working man can afford that.


Charles Edward Johnston: No working man has sufficient capital to do it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend says that no one can build houses today. Is he aware that 
more houses are being built at this particular moment in Canada than ever were built before at one time in the history of Canada?


Charles Edward Johnston: I am quite aware of that fact, but the minister must acknowledge that everyone who is building a house will go into debt and will be in debt for that house for the next twenty-five or thirty years. The minister will not say it is sound policy for people to be forced to go into debt for the next twenty-five or thirty years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend was saying that no one could build a house today.


Charles Edward Johnston: He cannot, on his own resources, and if he gets a house through some government plan he has to pay for that assistance.


Mr. WARREN:: Is the hon. gentleman interested in knowing that I know a man who built himself a house, and a good house, for $475.


An hon. MEMBER:: It must have been just before an election.


Ralph Melville Warren: No. There are ways of doing things, if you have initiative. If the hon. member wants to know more about it, I will tell him.


Charles Edward Johnston: I shall not comment on my hon. friend's remarks because I know from experience that it is impossible to build a house in a city for $400.


Ralph Melville Warren: I am not talking about the city. If my hon. friend wants the story I will give it to him.


Charles Edward Johnston: The ordinary common plumbing in a five or six thousand dollar house in the city costs $450.


Ralph Melville Warren: I still have my story if you want it.


Charles Edward Johnston: In reply to the minister's remark that more houses are being built today than ever before, I do not think he will deny that those who are buying these houses are going into debt. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) told us in his budget speech last year-and there has been no change in conditions since-that over half the married people in Canada are living on an income of less than $1,500 a year, and the people to whom we are trying to make houses available under this plan are in that income class.


Ralph Melville Warren: May I add that the man built this house in his overtime while he was working eight hours a day.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not get the question. Was it a question?


Ralph Melville Warren: It was an addition to my contribution.


Mr. WYLIE:: A 164 question.


James Horace King: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: I thought the hon. gentleman was endeavouring to ask a question. Let me say to the hon. member-


Ralph Melville Warren: I will describe the house if you want me to. Give me the time, some of your time, and I will describe it.


Charles Edward Johnston: When we realize that the people to whom we are trying to give houses are people in the low-income brackets who cannot afford to pay high and exorbitant rent-


Ralph Melville Warren: 1475 is not too much.


Charles Edward Johnston: If you go out and
demonstrate some of the $400 houses you will have something to talk about.


Ralph Melville Warren: I will take you up on the first opportunity and show it to you.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to see it.


Ralph Melville Warren: I will show it to you.


Charles Edward Johnston: It might be the type of house in which you would like to live, but not the kind I would advocate for those who went overseas and fought for this country.


Ralph Melville Warren: It is a good house.


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member not to interrupt without the permission of the hon. member who has the floor; and I would ask the hon. member who has the floor to address himself to the Chair.


Ralph Melville Warren: I thought the hon. gentleman wanted some information.


Charles Edward Johnston: If the hon. gentleman will sit down I shall be able to address you, sir.


Mr. FAIR:: Knock him down.


Charles Edward Johnston: That would be a
pleasure. When we consider that the type of house we are talking about is one that would be suitable for the man in the low-income bracket we see that he must have * salary of around $2,000 a year. Yet the Minister of Finance said that more than half of the people of Canada, if they are married, cannot afford a house in which to live because they do not have sufficient income. That is a drastic picture to be painted by a cabinet minister, and one of the top cabinet ministers at that. How are we to supply that fifty
National Housing Act
per cent of our population who are in such low-income brackets with houses if we do not assist them by subsidization? I am not in favour of subsidization as a permanent plan, but I am advocating subsidization as a temporary measure to get over this crisis.


Robert Fair: To get a roof over people's heads.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes; to get them some place in which they can live in a little bit of decency.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: And that would not be a $450 house.


Ralph Melville Warren: The house I am talking about is up to that standard.


Charles Edward Johnston: The type of house you are talking about would not pass the inspection of anybody-


Ralph Melville Warren: It would pass the inspection of anybody in this house.


Charles Edward Johnston: -because all you would have in it would be a sewer pipe.


James Horace King: Order.


Robert Fair: I thought it was a backhouse.


James Horace King: I suggest to hon. gentle-mien that if they have some questions to address to each other they should allow second reading of the bill and ask their questions in committee.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have just one more thing to which I should like to refer. I should like the parliamentary assistant to the minister to take particular notice of this, because the minister is not in his seat at the moment. I am sure the parliamentary assistant would not want this condition to exist. I do not think the minister would want the condition to exist whereby anyone who participates in this government plan under the very bill that we are discussing today would lose his equity in his house. I say to the parliamentary assistant, and I am sure he knows it, that under the contract, which these companies force a man to sign, it is possible for him to lose every cent of equity he has in his house. Under the contract which he is forced to sign, a man can make every solitary payment except the last one, and he can be kicked out of his home. He can be deprived of all his equity and he can be deprived of the right to go to court as well.


George James McIlraith: He has a legal right-


Charles Edward Johnston: Under the terms of the contract which he signs-the minister mentioned it the other day, and I shall discuss it in greater detail when we get into committee-
National Housing Act

a man can be deprived of his equity in his home. I bring that to the attention of the parliamentary assistant at this time so that he may look into it.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member is missing one point. It is a legal right-it is too technical to discuss here-of relief against forfeiture in the courts, and so on.


Charles Edward Johnston: The only legal right that man has is to go to court to ascertain whether or not he has broken one of the covenants set out in the agreement. Once it is determined that he has broken any single covenant in the agreement, that is as far as his rights go in the courts. There is no disputing that fact. The parliamentary assistant shakes his head and says he does not think that is right.


George James McIlraith: The point I am making is that the hon. member is dealing with the contract. He is complete!}' ignoring the old rules of equity in the law courts. It is too technical to argue without preparation.


Charles Edward Johnston: The thing I am objecting to is this-


George James McIlraith: If the hon. member will deal with that factor as well it will help.


Charles Edward Johnston: The thing that I am dealing with is this. Under the agreement which the man signs he signs away his legal rights. When it comes before the court, the court of necessity must take into account the terms of the agreement. It cannot do otherwise. The only right he has in court is to ascertain whether or not he has broken any of the covenants. He has that right. Once the court decides that point, he has definitely signed away his rights under the agreement.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend the member for Ottawa West, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Mcllraith), made a very interesting speech in the house this afternoon. He indicated that his purpose was to bring the house back to the discussion of the bill; he set the house a remarkable example by proceeding to discuss such things as the inequities in the present income tax, the inadequate exemptions, in his condemnation of which I join him, elections, the election campaign under way at the present time in one province, and he got around to the thorny subject of domin-

ion-provincial relations and eventually returned, in the last sentence or two of his speech, to a discussion of the bill once more.
So far as the bill itself is concerned, there is so little in it that one could not expect a lengthy speech upon it, or a lengthy debate. There is not enough in the bill to justify the expenditure by the house of time and effort in a lengthy debate upon it. But there is in the subject of housing in general, and particularly in the housing conditions that still exist in Canada, much that ought to occupy the attention of the house.
May I say this in general with regard to the legislation. Year after year during the lifetime of the present parliament, the government has brought down amendments to the National Housing Act. In every case the attitude of the house has been this, and I think I describe it fairly:	Whatever you
require in the way of legislation we will gladly give you if you will only put this legislation to work and make it serve the construction of more needed houses for Canadians.
I do not think that on any occasion the house has refused any request on the part of the government for legislation, for anything that could properly be required for straightening out the provisions of the housing act, or clothing the government with whatever powers it asks for in connection with housing conditions.
But, Mr. Speaker, there are two very different things involved in this problem, so far as the government's responsibility is concerned. One of these things is legislation giving the government powers to meet the problem, and the other is the determination that ought to be applied by the government in the exercise of those powers and their application to the problem. Certainly, looking at the legislation submitted by the government to the house for enactment in the past three and a half sessions, one cannot say that there are any serious shortcomings in the legislation, in the view of the government, because it has asked only for minor amendments and the house has gladly given whatever the government has asked.
As a matter of fact, on many occasions the house would gladly have given the government more powers than it asked for in connection with the housing problem. But there has been at all times a sad and conspicuous lack of determination on the part of the government really to grapple with this problem in the way it must be grappled with if there is to be any hope of adequate relief for the people of Canada from the housing conditions under which they have long suffered.

National Housing Act
Our great problem has been less an inadequacy of legislation than an inadequacy of effort on the part of the government. We have seen an abundance of evidence lately, yes, and for some time past, of the consciousness of the government of its own lamentable failure. If it would only apply to a constructive solution of the housing problem some fraction of the astuteness, some fraction of the zeal and the stubborn determination which it now exercises in finding excuses for its own lamentable failures, we should be much further ahead toward the goal of decent housing conditions for Canadians.
If, for instance, the minister would be as astute in pressing forward toward the goal I have referred to-the building of more houses and encouragement of the building of more houses in Canada-as he has been in trying to find these excuses for not doing what the house has asked him to do, then indeed we would be in a much happier situation than at the present time.
These excuses on the part of the minister and of the administration in general have taken several forms. First, not in time perhaps but first in its glaring and surprising features, is this. The government now repudiates responsibility for the problem. It fell on shocked ears in the House of Commons on July 12 last when the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply uttered these words, to be found at page 5517 of Hansard of 1947:
The government takes no responsibility for solving the entire housing problem for this country. It is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that it is a government responsibility. Every city has its own housing responsibility, as has every province. The government is responsible for the returned men, and its responsibility stops at that point.
I do not think any reasonable member of this house will deny that there is some share of responsibility attaching to the urban municipalities, where these housing problems are most acute, and to the provincial authorities as well. But for a minister of the present government, elected on the promises on which this government slithered into office by a minority vote in 1945, to rise in this house and say that the federal government is responsible for the returned men only and that its responsibilities stop at that point, is to utter nothing more or less than a shameful repudiation of government responsibility and of the promises made 'by this government to cozen the votes of the electorate in 1945.
First of all, let us take the minister's words at their face value. At least he does admit the responsibility of this government for the housing of the veterans. Perhaps he considers that generous, in the light of the
spirit of the remainder of the remarks I quoted from his speech. If the government had only met the housing problems of the veterans of this country most of the criticism that has been properly levelled against this government might well have been spared. Everyone who has any first-hand knowledge of housing conditions in this country, particularly in great uiban centres, knows perfectly well it is upon the veterans that the brunt of the housing problem has been cast. It is to these veterans that the government made its most extravagant promises; it is to these veterans that the government owes its most sacred obligations; and it is these veterans the government is letting down most severely in its failure to meet the problem. Yes; even within the limits the minister of reconstruction placed upon the responsibility of the government there has been a most lamentable and colossal failure.
I said I would deal with the minister's words at their face value. That is what we find when we take the minister's limitation upon his own responsibility. But should we accept the limitation the minister places upon the responsibility of the government? I say we should not. For the government to say it hajB no responsibility in general for housing conditions; for it to say its responsibility stops with the veterans, is to be false to the promises this government itself has made.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, the housing problem is national in its scope and extent. It is not confined to any province or to any particular municipality. And much of the problem in its most acute forms in the urban centres has been created by reason of the policies of the federal government. We are still seeing these conditions of an emergent and critical nature.
Parliament itself has recognized the federal responsibility. It recognized it years ago by the enactment, in the first place, of the Dominion Housing Act and, later, of the National Housing Act. This government has had plenty of power to deal with this problem. It has had sweeping powers. Our criticism is that it has not used those powers. Had it wanted more powers the house would have been glad to give them on request, provided that the house could have seen some reasonable likelihood of the powers being used to the general advantage in meeting these housing conditions.
But, Mr. Speaker, to those who value the standards of public life which place the fulfilment of promises on a sacred level, the greatest failure on the part of this govern-

National Housing Act
ment must, be measured in terms of its own promises in 1945. Those promises were referred to this afternoon in a question or two by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Grav-don) ; and the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), the parliamentary assistant to the minister, sought to brush them aside by suggesting-he surely cannot really have persuaded himself that it is so-that the promises had been fulfilled.
You know, Mr. Speaker, as every member of this house knows, that the promises made by this government in respect of housing during the 1945 election campaign have not been fulfilled. There was no talk then about limited responsibility on the part of the government. You know what the electorate would have replied to any such statement had it been made by a minister of the crown, whether by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley), in the light of his campaign speech in Massey Hall in Toronto, or in the speech made during that campaign by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), to the effect that the drive for tanks would now become the drive for houses.
Those were the promises. They have not been fulfilled. Apparently this government has forgotten them or would like to forget them; but I conceive it to be the duty of this house to see to it that the government is not permitted to forget them, and certainly that the people of Canada do not forget them. Neither of these ministers nor the minister of reconstruction would have had a very pleasant reception had he gone before a meeting of electors during the campaign of 1945 and said, "There is a very limited responsibility on the part of the federal government in regard to housing. Our responsibility is confined to the housing of veterans." Do you think this government would have come back to office? Certainly to state that proposition is to supply the answer. Not one of these ministers would have had the temerity at that time to make the assertion with respect to limited responsibility that the minister of reconstruction made on behalf of the government on the occasion to which I have referred.
And what of those promises? Well, here is one I hope the house has not forgotten, one that figured prominently in the campaign advertising of the Liberal party in 1945. Here we find a young couple portrayed standing in front of this beautiful, charming home. The young bride in rapture exclaims, with her hands clasped: "What! You're buying that lovely little home for only $13.82 a month?" Why, you could not get anything much better than a henhouse today for $13.82 a month.

How about some fulfilment of these promises? Oh, yes; and there is a great deal of padding in this campaign literature. I think I should read what appears at the bottom of the picture, by way of reply to the enraptured exclamation of the young bride. The answer is: "Yes-$13.82 a month pays interest and principal on a $3,000 home under the Liberal new housing plan." The advertisement goes on:
Yes-it's true! You can have an attractive home of your very own. Putter around the garden. It's all yours to live in and enjoy.
Well, the gardens are pretty empty. They have the gardens, apparently, but they cannot have the houses.
What a break for young couples . . .
Yes, what a break the young couples have had from this government in the matter of housing!
. . . and older folk who never thought they could afford to own their own homes.
These Liberal government plans are now a FACT.
The plans may have been a fact, but the houses have not become a fact.
They are laws already on the statute books

You see, they were quite satisfied then that they had all the powers required to get the houses built.
-not visions of some ideal "state" twenty-five years away.
The man who wrote that sentence was a master of understatement. At the rate this government is going it will take fifty years and more to fulfil these promises.
They are for you-and now.
Think of that!
The Liberal government has a real, working plan.
I think we would all like to see it.
It advances twenty-five per cent of the loan. You pay a new low rate of interest. You can take thirty years to pay for your home, if you wish.
Then we read:
Other Liberal plans include new farm homes, modernization of your present home, low rental housing, and slum clearance.
Think of that; what a far cry from 1945! What has been done by this government in the way of slum clearance? Then comes this statement, which in the light of conditions in 1948 must shock the conscience of those who have consciences:
We are planning for at least 600,000 housing units, and perhaps 1,000,000. No matter where you live you will be able to reside in a comfortable home of which you can be proud.

National Housing Act
That is a sample of the campaign promises of the Liberal party in 1945. What has happened since has been a deliberate repudiation of the responsibility that was inherent in those promises; yes, and a falsification of those promises in the light of their non-fulfilment by this government since.
I wish the government would tell us just how bad the situation is. Why is the situation as bad as it still is? Well, one reason is that the government has failed to use the powers it had. Hon. members will recall that historic day. the first day of April, 1946, when the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply came into the house and announced the end of any attempt to control the channeling of building materials into particular building projects, thereby throwing away the opportunity the government itself had to channel available supplies of building materials into the erection of houses, and giving rise, in inevitable consequence, to the use of those precious building materials in the erection of theatres and many other kinds of projects that could well have awaited fulfilment of the government's plan to house veterans and others.
Not only did that foolish mistake result in the absorption of building materials in forms of construction other than the building of houses, but it absorbed much needed building labour. There has been a great dearth of building labour. That is one reason. If the government had really taken seriously its own promises of 1945, and measured up in any degree at all to its responsibilities as a government in the years which followed that election, then it certainly would have seen that building materials available and building labour available were at the disposal of those engaged in the building of houses.
Today we heard an interesting comparison of figures from the minister's parliamentary assistant. He was most anxious to compare figures in Canada with figures in the United Kingdom. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you and to every fair-minded member in the house that that is not a fair basis of comparison. A fair basis of comparison, and a proper way in which to judge the failure of the government with respect to housing, is to compare what this government has done with what this government might have done if it had used the means at its disposal, and if it had had the necessary will and determination to grapple with this problem.
It will be remembered that on July 22, 1946, the minister made an interesting statement about the housing deficit. He pointed out at page 3672 of Hansard how serious the housing shortage was. He said there was an immediate
emergency shortage of 150,000 houses, and even assuming that the government's objective of 60,000 houses in that year were attained, by the spring of 1947 the shortage would have become twenty per cent worse.
When are we to have any similar report from the minister as to conditions since that time? It is high time we had such a report. I asked the minister in the house on July 15 of last year to give the house an estimate of the emergency housing deficit; not the number of houses required for good, standard housing accommodation, but the actual immediate emergency housing shortage for people who did not have proper roofs over their heads. The minister did not choose to give the house any such information. I asked for it, but it was not forthcoming.
I ask the minister now to give the house the best information available as to the actual emergency shortage of housing in Canada. I know, for instance, that in my own city conditions are as bad as ever they were. In today's press I find that the welfare commissioner, reporting to the civic welfare committee at the city hall in Toronto yesterday, stated that the Toronto housing situation is just as bad as ever, and that between 6,000 and 7,000 families are living in accommodation that is unsatisfactory. Yes, we shall be glad to hear from the minister some adequate report on this present shortage of houses.
I spoke about one excuse the minister has been conjuring up. I turn to the other; and it is really an extension of the first one. It is this. The minister is very anxious for any opportunity to blame the provincial governments and the municipalities. Hon. members will recall the readiness with which he was prepared to scrap that portion of the 12,000 houses plan which was announced in Vancouver last fall, when he saw an opportunity of picking a quarrel with the Premier of Ontario over a bill that was before the Ontario legislature at the recent session, known as the crown tenants and provincial-municipal services bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Dominion crown tenants.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The municipalities have done more than this government has chosen to give them credit for. The fact of the matter is that far too much of the burden of this problem has been cast upon the municipalities, a portion far beyond their legal powers to meet, far beyond their financial resources to cope with.
And while this government is making its position plain in opposition to assistance, either in the form of a rent reduction fund or capital contributions, it is worthy of recollection that
National Housing Act

the government has had no objection at all not only to permitting municipalities to contribute subsidies but-yes-to compelling municipalities to contribute subsidies, if they wanted any of these government-built houses made available to them.
Remember that these houses were made available to municipalities only on the basis of the municipality offering land free of charge, and providing municipal services; yes, and then being content with a return in lieu of taxes which did not begin to compare with the tax that the houses in question would have paid if they had been privately constructed and privately owned.
Yes, the municipalities have been called upon to bear an unfairly heavy share of the load; and this government is responsible for imposing on the municipalities conditions so grievously heavy and onerous that they have been beyond the powers of many municipalities to meet.
I spoke a moment ago about legislation, about one housing bill before the Ontario legislature at its recent session. The parliamentary assistant this afternoon chose to go out of his way to disparage the nature of the bill passed by the Ontario legislature-and, incidentally, unanimously enacted with the participation of all parties in the house, including the Liberal party, or what little there is left of it in the Ontario legislature; he chose to disparage the bill-


James Horace King: Order. I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that on second reading of the bill, hon. members should discuss the principle. I think I have been too generous in the latitude I have allowed; but if the hon. member would read the explanatory note on the second page of the bill he would find that what he is saying is out of order. Then, if he will read the amendment he must also find that his remarks are not directed to the amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, you know the very great respect in which I hold your views and your rulings. But I may remind Your Honour that when you were not in the chair this afternoon the parliamentary assistant was permitted to discuss this Ontario bill referred to, and in disparaging terms. I do not propose to discuss the bill in detail, but it was referred to in this chamber this afternoon.


James Horace King: The hon. member knows perfectly well that the debate cannot continue along that line. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill, or to the amendment before the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I seek to give the house the alternative this party would 
offer to the people of Canada for the kind of policy which this government has laid down for itself, and which it is proposing to follow out. It has been mentioned in the debate; and this bill, and the amendment to it, are to be measured in the light of that policy. The anticipated efficacy of the bill can be measured only in the light of the experience this parliament has had in connection with government administration of housing legislation in the past. I think you will appreciate the relevancy of the reference that I sought to make a moment ago. It is high time that this government assumed the responsibility of taking the initiative in calling into conference the provinces and the municipalities with a view to mapping out a program to meet this housing problem.
I want to point out, in reference to the legislation in Ontario, how it demonstrates the desire of the Ontario legislature for a meeting on this question and to assist in every way possible.


James Horace King: The hon. member will realize that in this house we deal only with federal legislation, not provincial legislation. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the bill under consideration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I shall leave it at that. I only wish the same ruling had been given by those who were in the chair in your absence. Disparaging remarks should not be permitted to be placed on the record without an opportunity being given to correct and answer them.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member should remember the argument he used earlier this afternoon on the point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The parliamentary assistant is chuckling over the fact that he got his remarks on the record while I cannot get mine on. That is his idea of fairness.
It is apparent to all by this time that for this government to sit back and not make any attempt to enlist general co-operation when general co-operation is available on the part of the provinces and the municipalities is to fail again. Apparently the government is quite content to fall back upon this worn-out excuse of not being able to do some things because of the constitution. Apparently it would rather have those excuses available for doing nothing than to cut through the knot and call a conference with a view to obtaining co-operative effort by the municipalities and the provinces.


An hon. MEMBER:: George Drew.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They would be glad to come. The government that someone over yonder has just referred to would be glad to

National Housing Act
come. It has indicated at all times its desire for a resumption of the dominion-provincial conference to discuss this and other questions.
We have lost much valuable time in the last several years because of confusion between a short-range and a long-range policy. What we must have at the present time is a policy that will apply to the present emergent and critical conditions, measures designed to cope effectively with them, united with long-range plans which will have as their objective the clearing out of slum areas and the correcting of substandard housing conditions throughout Canada.
That cannot be done by any one jurisdiction, whether federal, provincial or municipal; it will require the best co-operative effort on the part of all. This government is sorely lacking in a sense of responsibility when it simply sits back and makes not the slightest effort to call a conference for that purpose. Earlier in the session, on March 18, the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply was asked whether any steps had been taken to call such a conference and the answer given by the minister was, "No".
Why has there not been such a conference? The municipalities have been asking for it; the provinces have been asking for it, but the dominion government sits with folded hands and does nothing. The program that the Progressive Conservative party offered yesterday will alone bring about a solution of this long-range problem as well as effectively grapple with the immediate critical shortages. That is embodied in the proposals which were put before the house yesterday afternoon.


Ralph Melville Warren: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not want to hear any more about the $450 house which the hon. member built apparently on the eve of an election.


Ralph Melville Warren: May I ask a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: If the hon. member has not the permission of the hon. member who has the floor to ask a question he must resume his seat.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The trouble with many of the proposals which have been put forward in the house, many of them in good faith, from other parties on this side of the house is that they have been much too general. They have not clearly outlined the purpose or the extent of the proposals. There has been no concrete plan offered, and therefore those who would want to know the implications of any proposal find that they cannot possibly accept
these proposals when they are so vague and general. They are too vast to be accepted in a debate of this kind.
The situation, then, is that this government will receive at the willing hands of this parliament whatever it requires in the way of powers to meet the situation, but the house will want something from this government that has not as yet been evident. The house will want evidence of a willing determination to grapple with this problem and to accept the full responsibilities that attach to it. The house will want the government to get on with the job, both of fulfilling its promises and measuring up to the commitments it made in the election campaign of 1945.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted, I would have voted for the
amendment.


Lionel Chevrier: I was paired with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MARQUIS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GILLIS:: I was paired with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Had I voted, I would have voted for (he amendment.


Mr. QUELCH:: I was paired with the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
(Translation):


Mr. GAGNON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
( Text)'


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, before the six o'clock recess the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Mcllraith) distorted-I do not say deliberately-certain statements I made earlier in the afternoon. I am as reluctant as anyone to hold up this debate even for the five minutes that I shall speak, but I do not like to let his words go upon the record unchallenged. Also, for the same reason, I shall stick

more closely to my notes than Your Honoui usually likes.
When speaking to the amendment I had attempted to show that the Saskatchewan government had provided excellent accommodation for certain young veterans and their wives in the matter of housing. To make my point I had explained that they even had in these quarters a sort of co-operative baby care management, so that I said that the mother, if necessary, could perhaps take some small job. I had in mind something like the occasional hour outside baby sitting, half a day's housework or even working in an office in order to eke out the married veteran's allowance, which has been acknowledged by most people in this house to be somewhat slim. I mentioned also the case of one lady who now, not then, is a stenographer in the House of Commons. I mentioned her case and that of her husband. The parliamentary assistant leaped onto that statement and proceeded to build out of it a fictitious argument against subsidized housing. I want to make this statement now, clear and categorical, that this lady and her husband lived in these community apartments for four months a year and a half ago, and that during the time that she and her husband were there she herself earned no money whatever. Her husband had been discharged from the air force, and was beginning to look around to get established in some work.
The parliamentary assistant made certain wild statements about the lady earning $175 a month, and on that he built up his case against subsidization of houses. Suppose she does now earn $175 a month, or suppose she earns $5,000 a year; what of it? What has that to do with subsidizing housing in the period we are talking about, a year and a half ago.


James Horace King: If I understand the hon. member correctly, I must point out to him that he cannot discuss a matter already settled by the house.


Angus MacInnis: Your Honour, anything that was said on the amendment which has been voted on can be said on the main motion. The hon. member is speaking to the main motion, and he can reply, in speaking to the main motion, to statements made in the debate on the amendment, because the debate is on the same question.


James Horace King: I am sorry, but the question was decided by a vote on the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the bill.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member is dealing with subsidized housing, and that is the question we are dealing with now.

National Housing Act


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Speaking on subsidized
housing on the main motion-this is the first time I have spoken on that subject-I am making this point, as I have made it before, and I shall have finished when I do so. Accommodation provided by the Saskatchewan department of reconstruction was good and was cheap; and I am still waiting for proof, in figures, of the minister's statement, which will be found at page 4178 of Hansard, that the Saskatchewan government charged these people more for accommodation than the accommodation could have been obtained for elsewhere. He expressed that idea in the following words, which I quote from page 4178 of Hansard :
Rentals for the housing, largely paid for by the federal government, operated by the socialist provincial government, are somewhat higher than in corresponding localities in the rest of Canada.
Once more I challenge the right hon. minister to verify that statement with the facts and figures which, on page 4178, he says are in his possession. I quote:
I know the figures.
And again:
I know the facts.
He is a responsible minister of the crown and perhaps he would share his knowledge with the house.


James Horace King: Is the house ready for the question? Mr. Howe moves that the bill be read the second time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Angus MacInnis: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Powers of approved lending institutions.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the minister
explain what is involved in making this change? The section provides that "section 3 of the National Housing Act, 1944, chapter 46 of the statutes of 1944-45, as enacted by section 1 of chapter 40 of the statutes of 1947, is repealed and the following substituted therefor". The hon. member for Eglinton mentioned earlier that, in every session since he came into the house in 1945, the minister has come to parliament asking for minor changes and assuring us that, if those changes were made, the job of building houses would go on. The minister should give us information as to why this change is necessary; and particularly, in connection with paragraph (b), why is it necessary to "purchase from the corporation 5849-268
any first mortgage or any interest therein that the corporation is by subsection 3 of section 3B of this act authorized to sell."


Clarence Decatur Howe: Clause 1 amends section 3 of the National Housing Act by empowering lending institutions to invest their funds in the purchase of mortgages from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As the section now stands, approved lending institutions are authorized to lend money up to the amounts specified in the various sections of the act relating to joint loans. These amounts are eighty per cent of the lending value of rental projects, and higher percentages in the case of home ownership loans. The amendment adds the power to purchase mortgages from the corporation.
The mortgages referred to are those which the corporation has, or will have, arising from two sources. The first group consists of mortgages which may be taken to secure the balance of the purchase price of wartime housing units which are, for the most part, sold on a deferred payment basis. In the first instance, an agreement for sale is entered into, with the proviso that when a certain percentage of the sale price has been paid by the purchaser, he may receive title and give a mortgage back for the unpaid balance.
The second group of mortgages that may be affected by this clause are those which the corporation takes to secure direct loans under section 31A of the National Housing Act. Last session the corporation was authorized to make these direct loans to finance the construction of a house or a housing project when joint loans were not being made by approved lending institutions.
In addition to the outright purchase of mortgages, lending institutions are by this amendment authorized to purchase an interest or share in a mortgage from the corporation. In such event, a mortgage so purchased is placed in the same position as if it had been a joint mortgage in the first instance.
As hon. members are aware, life companies and trust and loan companies are limited by their charters and by statute regarding the amount they may invest on the security of a mortgage. The amendment is necessary to ensure that they will not be violating any of their restrictions by purchasing such mortgages from the corporation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister whether the clause in question has been the subject of discussion with approved lending institutions, and to what extent they have signified their intention of exercising the powers proposed in the section?
National Housing Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot answer that question. I know the mortgage companies have taken over the government's interest in certain mortgages, which they could do under certain legislation, and I have no doubt they will be glad to buy these mortgages when they are brought on the same basis as mortgages in respect of which they are in the habit of lending.


Angus MacInnis: Do I understand from the minister that section 1 is not only an amendment to the National Housing Act but that it also amends the clause under which lending institutions can invest and lend money?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Angus MacInnis: Is that the usual way of extending the rights they have under their charters? Is it not usual to put it in the charter itself, the statute that gives that power?


Mr. HOM  E@: It can be done either way. The insurance act could have been amended, but amending the housing act and conveying authority to the insurance companies through the housing act is just as effective.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am still not clear as :o why it is necessary to make this provision. During the war the minister went ahead and built wartime housing all across Canada and there did not appear to be any trouble in financing it. I cannot see now why legislation should be passed to enable the minister to go to lending institutions to help the government carry on its financing in the field of housing. Could the minister explain why it is necessary at this stage, when war commitments are smaller than they were years ago, to introduce this idea?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must say I cannot accept responsibility for trying to make my hon. friend understand. There is a limit to the power of explanation, but the reason is that the government is selling certain of its houses. It wishes to reduce its commitments, particularly on houses built under wartime agreements. It also wishes to use the funds obtained through the sale of those wartime units to build other units; and in order to do that, it takes the power to sell the mortgages which the government takes or- retains from the purchasers of those houses. It is as simple as that.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The other evening the Minister of Finance announced a very large surplus.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know all about the surplus, and it has nothing to do with this bill.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sure you know about it; but I think the committee is entitled to more information than we have had so far as to why this is necessary. The lending institutions were not interested in building emergency housing; the government had to assume the responsibility. By and large the people who have lived in those houses are well satisfied. Now the minister is making a safe, attractive investment for the lending institutions. If that is the reason for this provision I think the minister should say so; but with the large surplus announced by the Minister of Finance, it should not be necessary to make provision permitting the government to bail out of its investment in these houses and ask the lending institutions to take over these securities.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have never represented that it is necessary to do so. I simply represent that it is desirable. If my hon. friend says it is not desirable then he and I must differ; that is all.


Mr. CASE:: Is it intended that the government will not have any money left invested in these houses once the mortgages are sold to the lending institutions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, Mr. Chairman, except for the pool guarantee we give on ordinary housing loans. The loans on houses which will be sold if the provisions of this bill are carried out will then be in the same position as the ordinary housing act loans.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: And you have a fixed rate of
interest?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: What is that rate?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is four and a quarter per cent.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Would this have anything to do with Housing Enterprises, for instance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: My hon. friend says the lending institutions did not give any lead in building houses. I think they did during the war. Housing Enterprises was financed by the lending institutions in the first instance, was it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it was financed by the
government.


Mr. JUTRAS:: Last year when the National Housing Act was before the house I made several representations and recommendations to the minister wuth a view to rendering the act more applicable in the rural portions of the country. I held then and still believe that

National Housing Act
if more home improvements were made and more homes were built in the rural portions it would alleviate to a large extent the situation in the urban centres.
One of the more concrete suggestions I offered at the time was that a competition should be conducted in this country in order to prepare a book of rural plans for publication along with the book of plans already available for urban homes. I understand that this competition w'as announced last fall, and at this point I should like to thank the minister and to congratulate him on the way this has been undertaken. As I understand it, this task was turned over to a committee and in turn was taken up by the universities of the three prairie provinces. I am sure hon. members will agree that no better organization could have taken the matter in hand. I was just wondering how it stands today, and I am sure the country would appreciate a statement by the minister on that point.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As my hon. friend has said, committees were formed, one for the prairies and another for British Columbia. During the past winter in every province of Canada, under the joint sponsorship of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the individual provincial governments, a better farm house contest w'as carried on. Under the authority of part V of the National Housing Act, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation provided S400 in prize money in each province. The respective provincial governments assumed responsibility for the details of the contest, which is being conducted among organized groups of farm women, who are being asked to submit answers to a variety of questions as to how the farm house should be planned and equipped for maximum comfort and convenience.
While the judging of results has not yet been completed in any of the provinces, the contest has aroused a great deal of interest and a gratifying response has resulted. It is hoped that the contest will not only provide much useful information about the requirements of farm housing, but also stimulate a great deal of interest among local groups of farm people in improving the standard of farm housing.
In addition, considerable use has been made by farmers of the Farm Improvement Loans Guarantee Act for the construction of new farm houses and the improvement and remodeling of existing houses. During 1947 some 387 loans amounting to $488,000 were made under this act for the construction of new houses, and 448 loans amounting to $333,000 were made for the purpose of altering and improving 5849-268J
existing farm houses. During 1947 also some fifty-seven loans amounting to $58,000 for the construction of new farm houses, and forty-nine loans for altering and improving existing farm houses were made by the Canadian farm loan board under the authority of the Canadian Farm Loan Act.


Angus MacInnis: I want to ask the minister several questions before this bill gets through committee, but I do not want him to feel that I am a nitwit if I do so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have a great deal of respect for my hon. friend, and I shall be glad to answer his questions to the best of my ability.


Angus MacInnis: I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. gentleman, too; but other hon. members of the committee have a right to be treated in the same way, no matter how irrelevant or how silly the minister may consider their questions. They should not be considered nitwits just because they cannot understand what the minister is doing. Perhaps sometimes he does not understand it himself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite right.


Angus MacInnis: So if he is going to get snooty I assure him that others in this committee can get just as snooty.


Gordon Graydon: That is pretty unparliamentary.


Angus MacInnis: It is not unparliamentary at all. This may be a perfectly silly question, but I want to ask the minister if these mortgages will be sold at their face value or if they will be discounted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think there is any provision in the act for discounting them. They will have to be sold at their face value.


John Thomas Hackett: They might be sold at an upset price in excess of their face value, might they not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They could be sold at a price in excess of their face value.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to ask for more information in connection with subsection 2 of section 3, at the bottom of the first page of the bill, which reads:
Where pursuant to the provisions of part I, II or III a joint loan has been made by the corporation and an approved lending institution or where an approved lending institution has purchased an interest in a first mortgage from the corporation, the lending institution and the corporation, to protect the mortgage security, may join in making supplementary joint loans to the borrower and in taking such other measures and steps as may be required in ac-
National Housing Act

cordanee with normal mortgage practice to safeguard the interests of His Majesty and the said lending institution.
Would the minister explain why this new part is being added?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Cases do arise in which it is necessary to make a further loan in order to protect the security. There have been cases in Vancouver where contractors have failed, and where it has been found that the situation could be best worked out by the crown and the lending institution joining to increase the amount of the mortgage. This gives permission for that to be done. It is simply that it may be considered in the best interests of the owner of the property, as well as in the interests of the mortgagee and the federal government, to increase the amount of the mortgage.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


Angus MacInnis: No. Has the minister any information with him showing the moneys the government spent to finish the houses, where .onstruction failed in Vancouver?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is the hon. member referring to the earlier or later ones?


Angus MacInnis: At the beginning of 1947.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not that information with me. But the situation was worked out. It cost the government nothing. It was worked out by increasing the amount of the mortgage, and the funds were found in that way.


John Thomas Hackett: By the government
guarantee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The usual guarantee, yes.


John Thomas Hackett: No, not the usual guarantee-upon guaranteeing the excess.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was simply brought into the pool. There is a pool guarantee of all mortgages, and the lending institutions and the government decide to increase the lending value on the house, and increase the amount of the mortgage accordingly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The government sells a mortgage, does the money go into the consolidated revenue fund, or does it go into the fund which pertains to the housing problem?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It goes back into the consolidated revenue fund. The title to the house is in the crown.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Contract guaranteeing rentals from rental housing projects.
Donald Methuen Fleming: This is in some respects the principal section of the bill. There are

some features of this section which call for some explanation on the part of the minister. One feature of it which, on its face, I do not like, is the extent of the power and discretion left by the section in the hands of the governor in council.
The purpose of the section, as I construe it, is to permit the corporation to enter into a contract with builders. The purpose of the contracts would be to guarantee annual returns to builders of projects of not less than eight family housing units. The guarantee extends over a period of thirty years. Then, under subsection 5 of the proposed section 8A, it is provided:
The annual return of rentals guaranteed by the corporation under this section shall not exceed 85 per centum of the annual rental of the units of the project determined by the corporation under paragraph (b) of subsection 4 of this section.
The corporation is given power to determine the rents. I think the committee will wish either to have a stipulation of the amount of the return to be guaranteed under subsection 1 of the new section 8A or some clear statement as to the basis upon which the administration is to proceed under the power for which provision is here made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be very glad to give an explanation. This section of the bill introduces the rental insurance principle which I explained at some length when we were dealing with the resolution. By this legislation, the corporation will be authorized to guarantee a minimum return of rentals from a rental housing project built in accordance with the terms of the section. The guarantee will be given in the first instance to the builder-owner, and may be assigned to subsequent purchasers of the rental housing project. The amount to be guaranteed will be a figure sufficient to pay taxes, debt service, operating expenses, repairs, renewals and replacements, and a two per cent return on the equity investment of the operator. By these provisions, it is hoped to encourage private enterprise to build some of our much needed rental housing, by providing an insurance against loss during the term of the insurance, and particularly against possible loss resulting from the competition of rental housing projects built in the future under more favourable cost conditions.
I should like to outline briefly the statutory limitations contained in the new section.
(a)	The project must consist of eight or more units. The section is designed for project investment, and we feel that in order to have an economic operation, the minimum number of units cannot be less than eight. Hon. members will readily see the administrative diffi-

National Housing Act
culties that would result from dealing with a project consisting of a smaller number of units. We particularly fear the family investment of, say, four units in which in-laws are the occupants of a number of the units. We feel that in such an undertaking the owner might be inclined to rely upon the guarantee, rather than charge full economic rents. In the case of the larger operation, the owner in his own interests is concerned with full economic rents, rather than the guarantee. In other words, the section has application to persons engaged in the rental business.
(b)	The period of the guarantee cannot exceed thirty years. It may be for a lesser period in the first instance, with provision for renewal. However, the full period of the guarantee cannot go beyond thirty years.
(c)	The rents to be charged will be subject to a ceiling for the first three years. This ceiling shall be the economic rents as determined by the corporation, based on the cost of the project. We feel that the owner of a project, supported by a government guarantee, should not be allowed to charge more than the economic rentals, at least in the first instance.
(d)	The rents that may be guaranteed cannot exceed 85 per cent of the economic rents set by the corporation.


John Thomas Hackett: How are economic rents determined?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Economic rents are determined by examining the costs of the project and the costs of the services.


John Thomas Hackett: Are owners relieved from the determination of the rent by the boards which still have power in these matters, and which some people think are a source of impoverishment of the owners at the present time, because of the inadequacy of the rents?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those boards have no control over new construction.


Charles Edward Johnston: Will it have any bearing upon its relations to rents of other houses in the district?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


John Thomas Hackett: Would the minister be good enough to say just a few words in explanation of the method of determining economic rents, as mentioned by him a minute ago. Would it be a public hearing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. This is an insurance company. It can take a risk, or not take it. It sets its own idea of economic rents. The economic rent is the-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The corporation sets the rental, does it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Sets the ceiling on the rent, which is a matter of agreement between the owner of the project and the insurance company. If the owner of the project says his economic rent is such and such, he must produce his costs and carrying charges, plus two per cent; and the corporation must agree as to what the economic rent is. After it has agreed with the owner-if it can agree-it can then insure up to 85 per cent of the economic rent. If it cannot agree with the owner, it does not take the business.


William Henry Golding: Shall section 2 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I might proceed. I had reached paragraph (d).
(d)	The rents that may be guaranteed cannot exceed 85 per cent of the economic rents set by the corporation. This is the ceiling figure of the guarantee. The actual amount will be a figure resulting from the various items which I have previously listed, but must not exceed this 85 per cent limitation.
(e)	The corporation must approve -the location of the project, the standards of construction, and the size and type of the unit. This places a control upon the type of construction that will qualify for the guarantee and will assure that the units will be family units in the moderate field.
We are not interested in the luxury class of housing. As I previously stated, the maximum rental that may be charged is 880 a month. This maximum is for a fully serviced unit with hot and cold water, heating, stove, refrigerator and janitor service. It is hoped that such fully serviced units will be produced to rent down to S55 a month. Unserviced units will have a lower rental range from approximately 857 a month to 840 a month.
The section reserves certain matters to be prescribed by the governor in council. The first is the fixing of the premium to be paid by the builder or subsequent owner. When this figure is determined, it will be specified in the contract with the builder. No regulation can, of course, be passed until the bill has been assented to. We have in mind, however, that the interest charges payable on the mortgage, plus the premium for the insurance, will not exceed the 4% per cent interest rate at present charged on National Housing Act joint mortgages. I will refer to the mortgage financing when we come to the next section, and will deal with the matter further. The premium on the basis I have mentioned would be in the order of two per cent of the rentals to be guaranteed. This might be expressed in another
National Housing Act

way as one-quarter of one per cent of 85 per cent of the estimated cost of the project.
The governor in council is empowered to place a limitation on the maximum guarantee that may be given. This limitation may be expressed in terms of room cost or unit cost. On the basis of S80 a month for a fully serviced unit, the limitation will be approximately $7,000. The limitation per room would be $1,750.
The new section 8A provides that this insurance shall take the form of a contract between the corporation and the builder-owner, and that the guarantee may be given after completion of the project. In order to enable the builder to obtain financing during the course of construction, subsection 2 empowers the corporation to give to a builder an undertaking that the insurance will be provided if the project is built in accordance with the terms of the section. In practice, the builder will submit his plans and specifications and other relevant detail to the corporation before he commences construction, and at that stage will be given a commitment that if he goes through with his project as outlined he will be given rn insurance contract.
Clause 2 of the bill also adds section 8B to the act, enabling approved lending institutions-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Could the minister deal with the next section 8B separately? I am sure that hon. members will have a number of questions to ask, and the two sections are not interdependent at all.
There are several questions I have to ask which arise out of the minister's explanation. It is quite clear that the corporation will have the real effective power in determining rentals and that two per cent is to be the extent of the guarantee. I gathered from the minister's statement that this is a fixed and determined rate and it is not the intention to vary it at anv time. If that is the case, why should the percentage rate not be set out in the statute instead of being left to be determined by the corporation?
The next question I have to ask is perhaps broader in scope than the other questions which relate to the form of the section. I recall the amendments that the house dealt with a year ago. We then had some hopes that they would result in the building of houses. At that time the lending institutions were given certain guarantees of returns in connection with land assembly, in the hope that thereby they could encourage people to come into schemes of a substantial extent. The lending institutions would then have the benefit of lending on mortgages on the houses

constructed on the property. But our hopes have been dashed because very little use has been made of the powers conferred by those amendments.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must challenge that statement. It has taken care of a good many hundreds of thousands of dollars worth.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How many units?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It certainly has fallen short of the expectations some of us had as a result of the discussions in the house and committee. The results obtained have not measured up nearly to the hopes we formed. This leads me to ask the minister what assurance there is that the proposal of guaranteed rentals will receive wide acceptance and will interest many builders. I take it that it will have to be builders of some substance who would be able to erect the necessary units. Have there been such conferences as would give the administration or the corporation substantial assurance that this section will interest a number of builders?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There have been strong indications that this will encourage a good deal of building by the professional landlord investor. Should there be no building, it will cost this parliament nothing.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: The minister said that the insurance would be limited to 85 per cent of the economic rental. It says here that the contract with the builder will guarantee an annual rental sufficient to meet the charges and provide a two per cent return on his equity. I cannot co-ordinate those two things in my mind.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of course the two per cent is a bare minimum. The economic rental provides for a larger return than two per cent, but the amount we will insure includes only two per cent.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The owner is guaranteed either two per cent of his equity or 85 per cent of the economic rental?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. It is the same thing, I think.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Will these have to be new projects? In Toronto there are a number of old houses which could be converted into apartment houses of eight or ten units. Could the conversion of such houses be carried on under this measure?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, they must be new projects.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That would be a splendid way of doing something in the centre

National Housing Act
of Toronto. As the minister knows, we have too many people living in the city and we need housing accommodation. Rather than allow many of these old mansions to be used only as boarding houses they should be included in this legislation. Many of them would provide a fine nucleus for a good apartment house. That has happened in many cases already. It seems to me that it would foe an excellent thing to use houses in certain sections of the city when they are not being used at the present time in an economical way. Is there any reason for not doing so?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would be too uncertain. In the case of a new building we know what the cost will be and all about it; we know what its probable life will be. The government does not want any more experience in converting old houses.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I understand that this is now done to a certain extent through the lending institutions. On the upper part of Jarvis street in Toronto there are very large houses which I suppose could not be sold today for anything like 20 per cent of their original value, but they are centrally located and if they could be converted into apartment houses they would not add to the transportation problems of the city. There are similar houses on upper Sherbourne street. There is an old house there which has been converted into quite a large apartment house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The mortgage company does not want the business.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Why not provide that the mortgage company can do the business if it wants to. Is there anything in the bill to say they cannot do it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It has to be a new house from the bottom up?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I think it is a shortsighted policy on the part of the government. We are talking of slum clearance-


Clarence Decatur Howe: This has nothing to do with slum clearance. We are trying to encourage new construction, and we have no intention of going beyond that.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What you want is accommodation for people, and you want that accommodation at as low a cost as possible. I am certain that many of these old mansions could be converted for a good deal less money than if you start from scratch and build a new house. There are some large and very fine
houses that could be converted to provide accommodation right in the centre of the city.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are not stopping it.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: There is no place to build an apartment house in the city of Toronto unless you tear down existing accommodation. What will happen under the minister's policy is that houses will be built on the outskirts of the city, thus adding to the transportation problem. With a little help, a good many of these old mansions could be converted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government has had experience in converting old houses into modern apartments and our experience in that direction does not encourage us to go any further.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Have you had any losses in that connection?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, lots of them.
Mr. ROSS '(St. Paul's): Under the home improvement plan?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Did we lose money on that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: How much?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We spent about $5,000,000 and we shall be fortunate if we recover about $3,000,000.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That is the home improvement plan, which is not in the same category as this.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The home conversion plan.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister did not answer my question in regard to the provision in line 12 on page 2 of the bill, why the rate itself could not be stipulated in the section. If it is the intention of the government that the rate shall be two per cent, why should that not be stipulated right in the section itself instead of being left to be determined by the corporation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It seems to me a matter that properly comes under the regulations.


Charles Edward Johnston: I said before the dinner recess that I wanted to say a few words in committee on this section. Section 8A has to do with contracts entered into with builders, and subsection 4 reads:
The terms of a contract entered into under subsection one of this section shall provide:
(a)	that the builder or subsequent owner will provide efficient management of the renta' housing project.
National Housing Act

I point out that the contract entered into affects the builder or subsequent owner. Then paragraph (b) provides:
(b) that the rents to be charged in respect of the units of the project shall not exceed, during the first three years after the completion of the project, an amount to be determined by the corporation.
There again I point out that the section refers to a contract entered into between the corporation and the builder or subsequent owner. Then (d):
(d)	that the contract, with the approval of the corporation, may be assigned to subsequent owners.
And (e):
(e)	for such other matters as the corporation may deem necessary or desirable to give effect to the purposes or provisions of this section.
So that the contract is extended to the subsequent owners. The explanatory note on the opposite page states:
(e) this paragraph provides for the inclusion in the contract of such other matters as the corporation considers necessary.
It is one of such other matters which the corporation may consider necessary that I want to draw to the attention of the committee. Last year the act to amend the National Housing Act, 1944, was up for first reading on May 1, 1947, and I spoke on the question of contracts at that time, and again brought it to the attention of the house this year. I wish to elaborate a little on that point. After I had spoken on it last year, other parties in the country became interested. The government paid no particular attention at the time to the point I raised, but I want to read what the press had to say about it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon. friend familiar with the legislation of his own province which protects the owner of the property and the mortgage holder?


Charles Edward Johnston: That may be so, and I shall deal with that in a moment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is wasting an awful lot of time. I can give him the facts if he will permit me to do so. He has already spoken on this subject and I know what he is driving at. My hon. friend is not a lawyer, is he?


Charles Edward Johnston: No, thank goodness.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let me give you a legal opinion.


Charles Edward Johnston: Are you a lawyer?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, but I have a legal opinion here, which I will read:
The contract that is used by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the sale of Wartime Housing units contains the usual or

standard clauses of the agreement for sale that is in use in the province in which the project or house is situated. We consulted local solicitors when we first prepared the contract, and were so advised.
The hon. member for Bow River has objected to some of these clauses which, on their face, appear rather harsh. I am advised, however, that notwithstanding the wording of the agreement, home purchasers are protected from possible hardships by provincial laws concerning property and civil rights, which have been hedged about them. I understand that the clauses which have been used fit into the pattern of the protective legislation, and their effect is knowm in relation to the local laws. For this reason lawyers are reluctant to depart from these standard forms and the customary phraseology.
I am further advised that if an agreement for sale goes into default, the purchaser cannot he removed from his home without a court order, and that such court order is not granted until the facts have been examined into by a judge. In all cases, a purchaser is given a reasonable time in rvhich to remedy or redeem the default. The hon. member for Bowr River knows that in his province this reasonable time to redeem has in the past been stretched over many months.
It is not clear from Hansard whether the hon. member had reference to agreements for sale only, or to the mortgage deed used by lending institutions, as well. I may say, however, that the remarks I have made about the agreement for sale apply in principle to the mortgage deed.
So my hon. friend will see that the agreement contains the standard clauses in use in the province in which the house is situated, to protect the mortgagee or licensee.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am pleased that the
minister has read the legal opinion which he has just given.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Now we will get your opinion.


Charles Edward Johnston: All right, I will give you mine as given to me by your legal department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us have it.


Charles Edward Johnston: The Department of Justice gave me this opinion. Some of the outstanding lawyers of the country are in the Department of Justice.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Have you it in writing?


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not think I need to have it in writing. I can interpret-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I gave you mine in writing.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not know that the minister would demand it in writing. I see that the minister came into the chamber prepared. I am glad he did, because I can see now that he has given a little consideration to the matter. Before I deal with that I shall mention again the legal opinion to which I just made reference. I was about to say,

National Housing Act
when the minister made his statement, that at least some of the press of this country have taken notice of this subject. I want to read to the committee what they have said, because it bears out the very thing which I have been arguing here. I would take it that before the press made a statement such as this they would probably get some legal opinion on the matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What press is my hon. friend quoting?


Charles Edward Johnston: It is not the Social Credit press; it is the Edmonton Journal. I am sure the minister would not contradict the Edmonton Journal. In the Edmonton Journal of March 14, 1947, the following article appears, entitled:
One-Sided1 Agreement of Sale
Tenants of wartime houses would be well advised to have a lawyer approve the agreement of sale before they decide to purchase. After reading one of these documents, which set forth the terms under which the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation will transfer one of the wartime housing dwellings to tenants, the impression is left that the crown company is taking no chances.
One clause, for instance, stipulates that, if any of the terms of the agreement are not carried out, the purchaser will give up possession "without any notice to quit and without the vendor bringing any action for ejectment", and that the purchaser is to be "without any recourse whatsoever . . . either at law or in equity" against the vendor, for the recovery of any moneys paid. Further, it says that in the event of any breach of the agreement all payments already made "shall be retained by the vendor as and for liquidated damages and not as a penalty."
Another clause announces that in the event of any breach, "the purchaser shall forthwith become a mere trespasser upon every part of the said lands, and may be forcibly ejected therefrom by the vendor or his agents without any of them being in any way responsible for damages."
These clauses appear to the layman to be harsh and arbitrary. In excluding any appeal to the courts of the land, they violate one of the fundamental rights of a Canadian citizen. Although the vendor is a crown company, it cannot be allowed to set itself above the law.
To represent such a document as "Between His Majesty the King, in right of Canada", is to libel the crown itself. It has been charged that the bureaucratic mind is prone to arrogate to itself supreme power and authority. This agreement of sale certainly appears to be a manifestation of such a tendency.
I have just read that, Mr. Chairman, to show that some others are not quite in agreement with what the minister said. The minister went on to point out that the contract which he had referred to was different in each province. Last year I took particular pains to get one of these contracts. I wrote to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for it, and this is their letter dated March 24, 1947:
Toronto, Ontario 159 Bay street
C. E. Johnston, M.P.,
Room 645,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario
Dear Mr. Johnston:
Following your request, we take pleasure in attaching hereto copy of the sales agreement as used for the sale of one of the houses built by Wartime Housing Limited.
It is not just in one province.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is only one unit; it must be in one province.


Charles Edward Johnston: I continue with the letter:
This is a standard agreement and is used whether the purchaser is a veteran or a civilian.
Yours truly,
James A. Hall
Supervisor of Sales and Negotiations
I think I would be right in interpreting that to mean that this is a standard contract used all over.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I assure my hon. friend that in the province of Quebec quite a different agreement is used from that of any other province. I believe it is called a hypothec.


Charles Edward Johnston: I can only take the word of the Central Mortgage-


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are adding a lot of words to the thing that are not in the letter of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Charles Edward Johnston: It says this is a standard agreement and is used whether the purchaser-


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is not asking questions; he is telling the world. Go ahead and tell the world, and I will not interrupt you


Charles Edward Johnston: That is what I am doing, because I think the world should know it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Even if the minister may be a little perturbed at the moment, he will probably see the logic of rectifying the mistake. I am not arguing here to be contrary to the minister's view. I am trying to put up an argument-


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are trying to represent to the world that you know something about this situation, and I can assure you that you do not.


Charles Edward Johnston: I beg your pardon?
4226
National Housing Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are trying to represent that you are an authority on this situation, and I am sure that you are not, because you are quite mistaken.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not trying to represent that at all. I leave it to the opinion of the committee. I can understand English, at least. Let me read to the minister what this contract says. He may be quite disgusted and walk out of the committee, but that will not deter me from making this presentation to the committee. It seems to me that this matter is so important that even the minister, although he may be tired and busy, might retain his seat and listen to the argument. We do not all profess to have the same status as he has. I do not say that in a disparaging manner at all, but we are endeavouring to do the best we can for those who are concerned.
I turn to page 5 of this agreement and read this section. Perhaps I had better read the whole section because I may be accused of taking a part out of its contents. The paragraph starts in this way:
And the purchaser covenants that he shall not permit or commit any waste upon the said land and shall not assign these presents without the consent in writing of the vendor.


George James McIlraith: That is the usual clause in all these transactions.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes. I am exceptionally grateful to the parliamentary assistant for telling me that what I am reading is customary in all contracts. That is what I was trying to tell the minister until he got huffy and walked out. He said it did not apply to other provinces.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: On a point of order, the
minister did not walk out; he is here.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was saying this is the contract that is used, and the parliamentary assistant agrees with me.


George James McIlraith: I did not say that the contracts were the same in all provinces. I said the clause the hon. member just read is a standard clause in that type of contract.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is exactly what the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation said in the letter which I read.


George James McIlraith: You will find it in every sales agreement prepared by every selling authority.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me go on and read the remainder of this section. This is the written contract entered into between the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the purchasers of these houses, and neither the minister nor the parliamentary assistant can tell me that this contract is not valid once

it is entered into; otherwise, what would be the purpose of entering into a contract of this type? It goes on to say:
And also that he will give up possession of the said lands on breach made in all or any of the covenants herein set forth without any notice to quit and without the vendor bringing any action for ejectment. And that, on such breach, these presents (at the option of the said vendor) shall be void without any recourse whatsover by the purchaser either at law or in equity against the said party of the first part for or in respect of any matter or thing in those presents contained for the recovery of any moneys paid by the purchaser under or in pursuance of this agreement which payments, in the event of any breach by the purchaser of any of the covenants aforesaid hereby declared, shall be retained by the vendor as and for liquidated damages and not as a penalty.
This is a legal document entered into by the two parties. Certain stipulations are made in the agreement which the man is forced to sign before they will enter into the agreement with him, before they will make any loans for the construction of houses. Before they will make a loan for the construction of a home, he has signed a document which waives his rights to go to the court to secure retention of any equity of moneys which he has paid into this concern. He may have the right in law to go to the court to ascertain whether or not he has broken any of the covenants, and in my judgment that is what the court would decide, whether or not he had broken any of the covenants of the agreement. Once that is decided, then the court will of necessity take into consideration the agreement into which he has entered and which declares definitely that he gives up the right to go to law in order to retain his equity.
I discussed this matter with some of the legal minds in the Department of Justice. The opinion I have just given is the opinion they themselves gave me, and I am sure that any fair-minded lawyer in the house would agree with me in this regard. The other day the minister himself made a statement which I will quote from Hansard. I am afraid he is himself a little bit foggy on the question. At page 3773 of Hansard of May 10, 1948, he said:
So far as equity insurance is concerned, I do not know any way in which a man can preserve his equity other than by keeping up his payments.
I agree with him there, but I am not so much concerned about that statement, because, so long as he keeps up his payments, he has not broken any of the covenants of the agreement. Then the minister goes on:
No one can take away a man's equity in his home except the courts, and in a case of hardship the court will appreciate the representations made.

National Housing Act
Mr. Johnston:	Would not the court have to
be governed in its decision partly by the contract the man signs?
Mr. Howe:	Perhaps, but courts have been
known to be lenient in hard cases.
May I interject that they have also been known not to be.
Mr. Johnston:	In the contract if the man
fails to make one payment he waives all his rights, even to go to court.
Mr. Howe:	Oh, no. Nothing can take away
a man's right to go to court.
But I contend that, by the agreement he has signed, he has waived his right to go to court in order to retain any equity he has in the house which he purchased.
I call attention to the next section:
And upon any such breach the purchaser shall forthwith become a mere trespasser upon every part of said lands and may be forcibly ejected therefrom by the vendor or by his employees or agents without any of them being in any way responsible for damages or otherwise therefor. And the vendor shall be at liberty to retain possession of said lands and at his pleasure to resell same without notice upon such terms as he may deem proper and in any event absolutely freed and discharged from all and every claim whatsoever thereto on the part of the purchaser. Time being declared to be the very essence of these presents.
Let us analyse that paragraph in the agreement which the purchaser was forced to enter into. If a man makes every solitary payment and fails to make the last one of $37.50. he has waived his right to any claim whatever to the moneys he has paid in. The mortgage company can take possession of that house for the last payment of $37.50. They can turn round and sell the house for $37.50 to anyone they like. They can sell it for one dollar if they choose. There is no public auction and they can sell it the next day after they have taken it from him. "Time is the very essence of these presents," and once that property is disposed of by the mortgage company, where will the man, who could not even afford to build a house without a loan, obtain the money to go to court to fight these fellows? Yet he is forced to sign away his very rights. I agree 100 per cent with the Edmonton Journal. If that is not dictatorship, I should like to know what it is. I propose to move an amendment, Mr. Chairman, seconded by Mr. Shaw:
That section 8A as proposed to be enacted by clause 2 be amended by inserting immediately after subsection 4 thereof the following as subsection 5:
"(5) The terms of a contract entered into between Wartime Housing Corporation or Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, as the case may be, and a purchaser, whether a veteran or a civilian, shall not deprive the said purchaser of his right to appeal to any court of competent jurisdiction, in case he is charged with any breach of contract, and in any case
where such court adjudges the purchaser to be guilty, he may take action to recover his equity in the property and that present subsections (5), (6) and (7) of the said section be renumbered as subsections (6), (7) and (8).
Surely there is no member of this house who would deprive a Canadian citizen of his right to go to court, and all that amendment does is to guarantee that the purchaser shall have the right to go to court to get possession of the equity which he has in the house. Surely, I say, no member of this house would say that a Canadian citizen has not that right. Surely there is no member of this house who would say that any company, any corporation, any lending institution should deprive a man of that right. There is no question about it that the contract I have read to the committee deprives the citizen of that right, and no corporation or lending institution which tries to take that citizenship right from a man should be permitted to do so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I submit that both the amendment and the remarks of the hon. member are out of order. We are discussing a bill to provide for the insurance of rentals. He is discussing the terms of sale or mortgage. It is entirely inappropriate even to discuss the subject on this section or to attempt to amend this section to cover the terms of a mortgage or an agreement for sale.


Charles Edward Johnston: On page 2 of the bill you will notice in paragraph (e) the following:
(e) for such other matters as the corporation may deem necessary or desirable to give effect to the purposes or provisions of this section.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of the section is to insure rentals of the building. It has nothing to do with sale.


Charles Edward Johnston: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: Surely this is not in order, Mr. Chairman. The government does not sell the property to an owner. It is sold by one owner to another owner. Under this section all the ;rowm does is insure the rentals. I wish we muld have a ruling on that.


William Henry Golding: We have an amendment moved by the hon. member for Bow River that section 8A as proposed to be enacted in clause 2 be amended by inserting immediately after subsection 4 thereof the following as subsection 5:
(5) The terms of a contract entered into between Wartime Housing Corporation or Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation, as the case may be, and a purchaser, whether a veteran or a civilian, shall not deprive the said purchaser of his right to appeal to any court of competent jurisdiction, in case he is charged with any breach of contract, and in any case w'here such court adjudges the purchaser to be guilty, he may take action to recover his equity in the property and that present subsections (5), (6) and (7) of the said section be renumbered' as subsections (6), (7) and (8).
In regard to this amendment, I think the point raised by the minister is well taken. In section 2 of this bill, section 8A of the act, the hon. member will notice this provision:
Subject to this section, the corporation may enter into contracts with builders to guarantee, in consideration of such payments as the governor in council may prescribe, an annual return of rentals from rental housing projects after completion thereof of an amount to be determined by the corporation, for a total period not exceeding thirty years.
Then:
The corporation may give to a builder an undertaking that the corporation will enter into a contract with the builder under subsection one if the builder builds a rental housing project in accordance with this section.
The minister is quite correct, and I think this amendment is strictly out of order, so I must rule accordingly.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Now that the officials are before the minister, I wonder if he could give the committee some supplementary information. The hon. member for Eglinton asked about the amount of housing we might expect to 'be provided after this amendment is passed. A year ago we adopted amendments which provided guarantees for land assembly, and *the minister said that quite a considerable amount was guaranteed. That is true; but according to the last annual report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, only four projects have been approved, and we are committed to an expenditure of S5.414 per acre to provide 894 lots, or $1,271 per lot. That is not an impressive report. Four projects in the whole of Canada since the amendments were

passed last year, making provision for 894 lots, does not help a great deal. The minister should give some indication of how many units might be expected to be built in 1948 and 1949 if this amendment is adopted.
Then I should like to support the argument of the hon. member for Eglinton that the act should 'be more specific. While I have great confidence in the minister and his staff, I do not like these blank cheques. When we are passing legislation I think we should state the limitations. We should know the extent to which the treasury of Canada is underwriting this type of rental insurance. If two per cent is all we are guaranteeing, let us say so. If the benefits are to be confined to units costing $7,000 or less, let us say so. The legislation should set out more definitely just what is in the mind of the minister and his administration.
The other evening I took some exception to this sort of guarantee. I was quoting the rents being paid in different parts of Canada by those living in Housing Enterprises units. The minister and I had some difference of opinion concerning the rentals being paid. I was quoting those rentals, and the minister interrupted to leave the impression that all those units are rented with heat, water and other services included. My information is that only 949 of these units, or 28-63 per cent, are rented on that basis. It is difficult for us to understand how you can build, as you did in London, for example, 186 units at an average cost of $8,467 per unit, some of them three-bedroom bungalows and some three-bedroom, story and a half houses, to rent at $48 and $50 a month. I do not know of many private builders who are building houses at that cost and making them available at those rents. If it is possible to build $8,400 houses and rent them for such amounts; if in Toronto it is possible to build houses costing $10,527 and rent them at $55, $65 and up to $77, then I think the minister might explain what type of houses are to be built that will rent at $80 a month furnished. We should know just what position the people will be in.
The other evening I tried to explain that we are guaranteeing that those who construct eight or more units will be able to take the next three years as a base, and they will be assured of eighty-five per cent of the rentals they can collect during those three years. Certainly, if the rents in Ottawa, Winnipeg and Toronto are any criterion it is not very difficult to get $80 a month for new houses. If the government can build houses for $8,700 and rent them unfurnished at $44 and $48 without services, a great deal of money must be made by those who are charging $80, $90, $100 and

National Housing Act
up. So if those who are to build these houses can rent them at $80, they are guaranteed eighty-five per cent of that amount, or $68 a month, for a period of thirty years.
It seems to me that somebody is going to make a lot of easy money, if some limitation is not placed upon the transactions in the legislation. So I would ask the minister to tell me, if he can, why we cannot have set forth in the legislation the maximum amount that will be paid; the maximum cost of any unit that will benefit; and also the maximum amount the government is prepared to propose to guarantee for this type of housing. I think we are entitled to that information before we give the minister a blank cheque.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have already given the
information for which the hon. member has asked. If he had been listening he would have heard it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No; the minister has not told us what the commitment is for the treasury of Canada, when this legislation is passed. I was listening carefully, and I have not heard that information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; I am to tell you how many new houses we are going to insure, is that it?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No; I think the minister should have information as to how many units are to be built, and at what cost, and for how much the treasury is to be committed by reason of this legislation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not a seer or clairvoyant, and I have no crystal ball. I cannot tell how many people will build under this legislation. I have every reason to believe there will be some built under it. I have not consulted every landlord in Canada, so that I have no idea. But may I point out that if there is no building under it, then there is no expense involved to the crown, and no risk to the crown. If there is a fair amount of building and the corporation does a fair amount of business, and if it charges reasonable premiums, it may be prepared to meet any eventuality. The insurance may be easy money for the builder-and it was my hon. friend who mentioned easy money-or it may be easy money for the country. But I have no crystal ball. My hon. friend is asking me an impossible question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to make some observations on the remarks made by the minister and by the hon. member for Mackenzie. I have not any fear that there will be any great splurge in building under this section, or any great number of people rushing in, as the hon. member for Mackenzie said, to make a killing. My fear is that the restrictions to be applied will be so severe that there will be very little inducement for people to come in under it. I expressed the same fear last year in connection with the amendment before the house at that time. I thought the two per cent return to be guaranteed to lending institutions, which were expected to assemble the land, would not be adequate to induce many of them to participate, and I think my fears were justified.
But, with all that, it still does not clear up satisfactorily the point about the stipulation of the amount. I think it must be clear from what the minister said that no limit is laid down by the act. He has indicated it is the intention to fix by regulation the amount of guarantee at two per cent per annum. That is the provision imder section 8A (1).


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the minimum return.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But that is not what the minister said. He said that the intention was to fix a return at two per cent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To fix a minimum return.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister left me with the impression that that was to be fixed for all time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what we insure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the extent of the insurance, yes. We are talking about the extent of the insurance.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If that is to be the fixed rate of insurance, the fixed percentage to be assured in all cases, and there is no intention to change that at any time, I am wondering why it should be left to become a matter of regulation, and why it should not be set forth in the section. After all, that is a provision which will create commitments on the consolidated revenue fund. If so, then surely there ought to be some limit fixed by the act or, if the rate is to be fixed as a continuing rate, then the act ought to fix it. If the minister had said that we may have to vary this rate from time to time, as conditions change, I think he might have had a case for leaving it to be determined by regulation. But he has not said that, and he has not made out any such case. It seems to me that, as the matter stands, the rate should be stipulated in the section.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then I shall say it now. The present intention is that the minimum will be two per cent. If later it develops that it
National Housing Act

seems wise to change it, the board of directors of the corporation will so indicate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Have we that clear, that the minister is proposing that the right be reserved to increase the rate of return?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Or to decrease it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then, if the right is being reserved to increase this amount, there is no limit fixed under the bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And, if so, this corporation, without the permission of parliament, could increase the rate on the strength of what the minister has just said to ten, fifteen or twenty per cent; it could be done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When we are sitting here to legislate, surely we are not only considering probabilities. We should consider possibilities connected with the legislation we are being asked to pass. If this is leaving wide open to the corporation-


Clarence Decatur Howe: To the governor in council; the regulations are approved by the governor in council.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All right; we are giving them a free hand to increase the rate, to make commitments on the consolidated revenue fund, and there is no limit under the act. Has the minister not considered, as was done in connection with other provisions of the National Housing Act, the fixing of some limit as to the commitment? We have a number of sections in the act where the extent to which commitments may be made on the consolidated revenue fund is definitely fixed.
If the minister is going to reserve the right to determine the rate of return to be guaranteed to builders under these sections, then certainly this committee has no right to pass the legislation until it knows what the cost will be, has a clear appreciation of it, and knows that there is a limit to it.


John Thomas Hackett: I heard the interchange between the minister and the hon. member for St. Paul's. Is there anything in the act which precludes the application of section 8A to old buildings which would be converted? I know the answer the minister gave; but is there anything in the act which precludes it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the act is clear that it is new buildings.


John Thomas Hackett: I have read the act, but I could not put my finger on any such provision.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member will find that section 8A (1) refers to builders. And "builder" is defined in the act as a person who builds a house for sale or for rent on land which he owns.


John Thomas Hackett: But that does not necessarily mean that he must start by la3ring the foundation and erecting a completely new structure. I think he might take a building which was up, and work such changes in it as would convert it into a series of habitable apartments. I see nothing in the act which would preclude that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Regardless of that, I can assure the hon. member that the insurance will be confined to new construction.


John Thomas Hackett: Then that will be by regulation, or by order in council.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just a matter of policy.


John Thomas Hackett: I heard the minister say that money had been lost in some ventures in which buildings already up had been converted. Is this the only reason, or is there another reason, that of wishing to encourage the construction of new buildings?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, it is the practical difficulty of dealing with old buildings on a wholesale scale. The corporation deals in the creating of large numbers of units of rental space and each old house would be a special architectural problem requiring special treatment. It has 'been found by bitter experience that it is not a business with which the government should be concerned. I can assure my hon. friend of that because I have had many worrisome hours on that particular problem and I am not prepared to change my mind.


John Thomas Hackett: Would that not depend upon the insurance company? If the rate be not entirely fixed by statute, could not a higher rate of insurance be fixed? The minister knows that there is such a thing as insurance for people who are not in the best of health and that rates go up where a fire risk is greater. What is the reason for confining the benefits of the act to new construction, unless it be that it is government policy to encourage new construction and to have nothing to do with renovations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The difficulty is that there are so many unknowns about an old house. Who can tell whether a foundation is good? Who can tell what the remaining life is of the materials? It is the class of insurance that for certain reasons insurance companies do

National Housing Act
not care to take as a matter of business. That is the reason I would not wish the corporation to insure this type of property as long as I am the minister responsible.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did I understand the minister to say that $5,000,000 had been lost in that kind of building?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Two million dollars.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The minister said they had spent $5,000,000 on conversion and would be lucky if they got back $3,000,000. Is it not a fact that those conversions were done by the government and not by private individuals? It was a government proposition. This is a different proposition. If a man has a well-built house, and there are plenty of them in the city, it might prove useful. It seems to me that it is pretty radical on the minister's part to say that they will not take in any of these houses when there is evidence that there are many such houses in Toronto. I imagine the same thing would apply to Montreal. These houses are too large for people. As I told the minister, I know of many cases where such houses have been converted with good success, and I know of many other houses which could be converted under this bill.
I do not think there would be any more risk than there would be in other building, especially when it is a rental proposition. There is a demand for these units in many areas. It is a pity simply to say no, as the minister is doing. He knows the government was doing this before and it was on a cost-plus basis. No doubt about it they got stung in many cases. Then again it may be too soon to know what the final result will be, because this has been in operation for only three or four years.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for Eglinton expressed the opinion that we need not worry too much about this section because it is not likely that many units will be built. I am inclined to agree with him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: At two per cent.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I do not think many units will be constructed because of the passage of this bill. I am sure the minister will be back next year wanting other changes made. I am not concerned about that, but I am arguing that this is bad legislation for the Canadian parliament to be passing. I suggest that at some time this party will be over on that side and I would prefer not to have a tradition of this sort established. The minister has indicated that the corporation might fix the return at two per cent or ten per cent or twenty per
cent. I do not think members of this house should delegate such important responsibility to any cabinet or any crown corporation, giving them the power to make a decision of that kind.
If there had not been so many interruptions yesterday I had planned to go into details as to how much a proposal such as I had in mind would cost if we do not have subsidized rental housing. The minister has suggested a target of 80,000 housing units for 1947 which has almost been reached. Prior to the last election, we argued that there should be
100,000	units built every year for ten years.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member will confine his remarks to the clause. It has nothing to do with subsidized1 housing.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If I could have your indulgence for a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, I was trying to compare the placing before parliament of a concrete proposal that would-


William Henry Golding: There was a long discussion on the second reading which dealt with the principle of the bill and the hon. member will now deal with the clause, not subsidized housing.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I agree with the hon. member for Eglinton and submit that this clause should be more specific. The hon. member for Mackenzie has just said that at some time his party may be over there. This is an insurance bill. It might be a thousand to one shot, but I should like to see the insurance there. I submit that this bill should be more specific.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have asked the minister the significance of the provision as to rate, and he has indicated there is no ceiling on the rate which the corporation, with the approval of the governor in council, may offer by way of guarantee to builders. If that stands, then I for one cannot possibly support this section. Surely to goodness, we are not going to grant the government carte blanche in the matter of these guarantees? We have had it from the minister that it would be perfectly lawful under this section and quite within the powers that the government are reserving to boost these thirty-year guarantees to five, ten, fifteen, twenty or twenty-five per cent. In view of what the minister has said, surely this committee will not pass the legislation in this form. There is no ceiling on it at all; there is no maximum fixed. I suggest to the minister that some limit should be stipulated right in the bill.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I hope we shall get some support from the other side of the house to
National Housing Act

protect the taxpayers of Canada. I do not care if the minister says that he needs 850,000,000 or
8100,000,000 or $200,000,000, but the legislation should have some limit. The return should be fixed as well as the total amount for which the crown is responsible. There should be a ceiling. If the minister should indicate that he does not plan to have any houses built when this bill is passed, then there would not be any charge at all; but if he is going to guarantee a return of twenty per cent on the capital invested in this type of housing, with rents guaranteed for thirty years on the basis of the rentals for the first three years, with a guarantee of eighty-five per cent, then I submit we are passing most objectionable legislation.


John Thomas Hackett: Is this legislation being introduced under some form of emergency? If not, how can the corporation purport to fix rentals and determine what they shall be?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is by contract. The government is not obliged to insure anyone's project. If the rentals are such as to appeal to the corporation a contract will be entered into. There is no compulsion on either side requiring any emergency power. It is a voluntary transaction between the builder and the corporation.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When the National Housing Act was passed it set out specifically that a joint loan should be made only to a person who owns the land or the lessee and that the joint loan should not exceed 95 per cent of the first $2,000, 85 per cent of the amount by which it exceeds 82,000 and 70 per cent of the amount by which it exceeds $4,000. When the act was passed, no responsible minister of the crown came to parliament and suggested that parliament relinquish its right to determine the percentage and leave it to the governor in council to decide whether it should be 95 per cent, 110 per cent or 120 per cent of the lending value. I submit that this clause should contain a floor; and when we are asked to guarantee rentals on units costing $12,000, $20,000, or $50,000, there should be some ceiling on the type of housing construction that shall be put up and some limit on the guarantee.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN; Shall clause 2 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make an observation on 8A (3) (a).


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, we have not dealt with 8B yet.


William Henry Golding: I called
clause 2 carried.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I thought you were dealing with 8A (2). I wanted to move an amendment to 8A (3) (a).


William Henry Golding: Clause 2 was carried, but if the hon. member wishes to speak to any subsection of it, and the committee is willing-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take objection, Mr. Chairman. It was clearly understood that we would deal with 8A and 8B separately. The minister made an explanation of 8A, and I asked if he would deal with 8A and 8B separately because the subject matter of the two is quite distinct. We have been dealing with 8A hitherto, and I was waiting until it had been disposed of before asking a question on SB.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not wish to be unreasonable, but we must make some progress. It is true that the hon. member for Eglinton asked that we consider 8A and SB separately. Clause 8A is carried; that must be understood, and if the hon. member for York West wishes to amend 8A he is too late; but I am willing, with the permission of the Chairman, to listen to argument on 8B.


John Thomas Hackett: I would suggest to the minister that he listen to the proposed amendment to 8A. It will take only two or three minutes, and we may be able to finish this bill tonight with a little good will.


Agar Rodney Adamson: My amendment is very brief and I think it will be helpful to the committee. It is to add to 8A (3) (a) the words:
conforms with an approved plan submitted by the municipality, and
So that the clause would then read:
(a) the project is completed and is built in an area satisfactory to the corporation and in accordance with standards of construction approved by the corporation; and conforms with an approved plan submitted by the municipality, and . . .
I move it for this reason. The corporation is expending a great deal of money, I think wisely, and this is a very good bill. You are going to build houses in places that are satisfactory to the corporation now, but I feel that the corporation should have some guarantee from the municipality, so that in a few years or in a few months time there will not be an objectionable plant or glue factory or something of that kind built next to one of these rental housing projects. It is only a form of insurance for the whole scheme that some such arrangement should be made with the municipality.

National Housing Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not suppose there are three municipalities in any province which have a town-planning commission, and if you made it mandatory that there must be a municipal plan you would restrict the project to a very few areas. The bill implies that if there is a town-planning commission the project must conform with its plans, but to stipulate that would be exceedingly restrictive. I imagine that even in the city of Ottawa there is no town-planning commission.


Agar Rodney Adamson: [DOT] But there is bound to be a zoning bylaw or some form of municipal ordinance or regulation which zones some parts of the city.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A builder would have to comply with such zoning regulations. He could not build otherwise. I accept my hon. friend's suggestion in good faith, but I assure him that his amendment is quite impracticable, and I hope he will accept my word.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I will accept the minister's say-so that it is impracticable, but in the riding I represent there are three townships and each one of them has very definitely a town plan for the township, so that if a housing scheme is proceeded with it is safeguarded.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The builder must conform with any town-planning bylaw. He could not possibly build otherwise.


William Henry Golding: The committee will understand that 8A is carried and now we come to 8B on which the hon. member for Eglinton wanted to speak.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister was going to read an explanatory note he had with regard to 8B. I would ask him in doing so to be good enough to note the rate of interest that 8B(2) provides:
(2) The mortgage or hypothec referred to in subsection one of this section shall be in such form as the corporation may approve and shall (a) bear interest at a rate not in excess of a rate prescribed by the governor in council.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Clause 2 of the bill also-it is section SB of the act-enables approved lending institutions to make loans to assist financing of projects which qualify for rental insurance. It will be noted that the amount of such loan may be eighty-five per cent of the cost as determined by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. These costs will be determined by the corporation when fixing the amount of the guarantee referred to in section 8A. The rate of interest is to be determined by the governor in council. As I previously stated, we have in mind a rate that will, when combined with the premium, not exceed 4i per cent per annum calculated semiannually. This will be in line with the other provisions of the National Housing Act. The resulting interest rate expressed in the mortgage will be approximately 4J per cent per annum calculated semi-annually.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Will the minister indicate how much will have to be included in the estimates next year to cover this item? When and how will this amount be voted?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nothing at all, Mr. Chairman;
it is a statutory appropriation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Transfer of property of Wartime Housing Limited to corporation.
Donald Methuen Fleming: There is an important provision in subsection 6 which says that "the corporation may pay to a municipality or other taxing authority an amount equivalent to the taxes". May we be sure that the payment in lieu of taxes will be equal to what would be paid on the property if the crown or the corporation had no interest in it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That clause is in the Farm Loan Board Act. It is simply a provision which allows the corporation to protect its interest in the property as far as taxes are concerned.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Paragraph (d) reads as
follows:
obtain the participation of municipalities in housing projects.
Has the minister any statement to make regarding the number of municipalities that may be interested in receiving the benefits of this paragraph?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Generally those that have taken part in Wartime Housing agreements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have a question on subsection 3. What kind of lands are those that it is proposed the governor in council may transfer to the corporation? It is a very general provision. To what kind of land is it intended to apply?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Wartime Housing land.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Entirely?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
James Horace King: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Canada Shipping Act


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Next sitting of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: There is no amendment.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understand that the
question was, "When shall the bill be read a third time?" Next sitting.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no amendment.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understand that it requires unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker.


James Horace King: I remind the hon. gentleman that there is no amendment.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I understand that, unless there is unanimous consent, a bill cannot be read a third time at the same sitting. The senate is not in session, and the bill would have to go before the senate anyway.


Alphonse Fournier: Next sitting.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENTS TO ACT OF 1934

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 18, consideration in committee of Bill No. 300, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934-Mr. Chevrier-Mr. Golding in the chair.
William Henry Golding: When the committee rose the last time we were dealing with section 40.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.
Sections 40 to 43 inclusive agreed to.
On section 44-Appointment of harbour masters at harbours designated by governor in council.


John Ewen Sinclair: Just one moment; slow down.


Lionel Chevrier: Section 44 has to do with the appointment of harbour masters by the civil service commission. It is a new departure, and I think an acceptable one.


John Ewen Sinclair: I should like to ask one question on this. Does that mean that every harbour master of every designated public harbour is to be appointed by the civil service commission?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


John Ewen Sinclair: And on salary?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


John Ewen Sinclair: If a harbour master is
appointed at Horseshoe Bay he will be appointed by the civil service commission on salary?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know about that particular instance, and therefore I should not like to answer in connection with it. It is certainly the intention of the section as it is.


Mr. WINTERS:: Does that apply to a
harbour master at a port where there is no revenue coming into the port? There are some harbour masters in ports where there is no revenue. Nevertheless they do a considerable amount of work gratis.


Lionel Chevrier: This has to do with public harbours. If there is a public harbour a harbour master may be appointed. He may not necessarily be appointed.


John Ewen Sinclair: At a public harbour where a harbour master is appointed he will henceforth be on salary and under the civil service commission.


Clarence Gillis: Would the minister mind
defining what constitutes a public harbour?


Lionel Chevrier: A public harbour is a
harbour which has been defined by limitation; in other words, one whose description has been covered by a separate document under the Canada Shipping Act.


Clarence Gillis: That is vague and indefinite.
I have a specific case in mind. I read it into the record around 1942. A harbour master had been dignified with that title for a period of about twenty years. He is held responsible for the regulation of traffic in and out of the harbour, must report to the customs officials and be responsible for clearing and entering vessels, and so forth, but he receives no salary.


Lionel Chevrier: He will receive a salary from now on.


Clarence Gillis: Will that 'be retroactive? The officer I have in mind has been there for twenty years. Surely, if he is entitled to a salary now he should have been entitled to it all along. You apply now to the civil service commission, and I suppose the man who has held the jo'b for twenty years, performed that service, will not be eligible for the position because of certain educational qualifications.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Clarence Gillis: Is that the idea?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do any ships use the
harbour?

Business of the House


Clarence Gillis: Yes, a couple of hundred ships in and out of that harbour a month.


Robert Henry Winters: What is the name of the harbour?


Clarence Gillis: I am not sure whether there is too much revenue.


John Ewen Sinclair: There should be revenue with 200 ships a month.


Lionel Chevrier: If there is no revenue it might be decided that a harbour master is not necessary, and one would not be appointed.


Clarence Gillis: It is a responsibility of the department again. I took that matter up also. A large number of ships from Newfoundland come into that harbour during the fishing season. There is wharfage there, the facilities of the department.


William Henry Golding: It is eleven o'clock. Shall I report progress?
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we
appointed at Horseshoe Bay will he be appointed by the civil service commission on salary?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if I am the only one objecting, and hon. members wish to have third reading tonight I will withdraw the objection I raised earlier.


Alphonse Fournier: Thank you, very much.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I move third reading of Bill No. 280.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would ask that it be allowed to stand until tomorrow.


Alphonse Fournier: Then, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take up third reading of Bill No. 280, to amend the National Housing Act. Then we shall resume the budget debate, and in the evening, if it is convenient, we may take up the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 21, 1948