Mr. A. D. GANONG (Charlotte):

I beg to submit, Mr. Speaker, the third and final report of the special committee appointed to inquire into housing. As the report is rather lengthy, perhaps the house will dispense with the reading of it inasmuch as it will be printed in votes and proceedings.

Mr. SPEAKER:

It has been suggested by the hon. member who has presented the report of the special committee on housing that it be not read at the present time in view of the fact that it will appear in votes and proceedings. Is that satisfactory to the house?

Yes.

The following is a resume submitted by the committee of the points emphasized by the evidence.

1. The term "housing" should be considered to include construction, reconstruction, repairs (rehabilitation), demolition of houses and slum clearance.

2. Housing is primarily the direct responsibility of the individual cooperating with the local authority.

3. A national emergency will soon develop unless the building of dwellings be greatly

increased.

4. The formulation, institution and pursuit of a policy of adequate housing should be accepted as a social responsibility.

5. There is no apparent prospect of the low rental housing need being met through unaided private enterprise, building for profit.

6. The magnitude of the task involved in any program designed to eliminate in its entirety the housing problem in Canada is fully realized and appreciated; that such a program would involve intensive, continuous application and effort over a period of years is manifest; but that the initiation of such is imperative is obvious from even the necessarily limited inquiry into prevailing housing conditions in which it has been your committee's privilege to engage.

7. The accurate determination of the number of houses required to meet the needs of the

Housing Policy-Final Report

people, annual and accumulative, and to overtake existing shortage, must necessarily be the subject of intensive direct and statistical investigation. At least the provision of dwelling units to the number of 25,000 should be initiated immediately throughout Canada.

8. Selective tenancy of government _ aided housing should be based on total family income and ability to pay economic rent.

9. The acuteness of the housing problem lessens to the degree that the wage scales of low wage earners is improved.

10. Provision should be made for long term mortgages, in view of the long term amortization generally associated with housing.

11. A major item in the financing of housing is interest charges. There is, therefore, a close and vital relationship between interest charges and economic rents.

12. That the principle and institution of mortgage banks, as established in other countries, be investigated with a view to their effect upon the lowering of housing costs.

13. That slum areas have been shown to cast very heavy expenses on many branches of public administration such as health, welfare, fire prevention, administration of justice, etc., may justify public assistance, which is likely to prove as sound financially as it is certainly desirable socially.

14. Against public liabilities may be set certain very real, if in some cases, immeasurable, assets. Good housing means less expenditure on prevention of disease, less crime, greater benefits for education, less unemployability as opposed to unemployment. The elimination of bad conditions lias a cash value as well as a moral value to the nation. Further, there are wider economic aspects to consider. Bold and constructive housing projects will increase employment both directly and indirectly through the activity generated. To mitigate any liabilities on the national finance the cost of unemployment would be directly reduced, tangible and needed assets will be created, the yield of sales and income taxes will be increased by the profits of those in building and industry as well as those who benefit from the increased spending power of wage earners employed through the undertaking.

15. Reference made in this report to the low monthly rental possible of payment by low wage earners should not be accepted in any way as indicative of the setting of any wage scale. Government assisted housing should not be taken advantage of to reduce the standard of living.

16. That the initiation of a policy of new construction and particularly of repairs (rehabilitation) will appreciably stimulate private owners to do likewise, will also proportionately release for demolition slum buildings presently retained for want of other accommodation.

17. The construction industry lends itself most effectively to the alleviation of unemployment and consequently to a reduction of those relief charges now being borne by federal, provincial and municipal taxpayers.

The recommendations of the committee are as follows:

1. That a housing authority be established with power to initiate, direct, approve and control projects and policies, and to allocate such moneys, as in the opinion of parliament, may be necessary for the purpose of assisting a program of urban and rural housing.

fThe Speaker.]

2. That said authority be authorized to negotiate agreements with any province, municipality, society, corporation or individual with a view to promoting construction, reconstruction and repair of such dwellings as may be necessary, and the extension of financial assistance at such favourable rates of interest, periods of amortization and other terms, as shall encourage housing.

3. That as its first consideration the said authority be urged to take action in respect to repairs (rehabilitation), presently needed.

4. That such national housing policy be so framed, with respect to provision for employment, as to endeavour to correlate and coordinate the efforts of provincial, municipal and other public authorities, and private agencies in relation thereto.

Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunemburg):

I move that Bill No. 43, letter M of the Senate, an act for the relief of Clarence McGregor Roberts, the preamble of which was reported as not proven by the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills on March 28, 1935, be placed on the order paper for consideration in committee of the whole this day, the 16th day of April, 1935.

Motion agreed to on division.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):

I wish to say a word on a matter that affects the privileges of the house. On different occasions I have noticed that some hon. members, whether intentionally or otherwise, take advantage of the opportunities of freedom of speech in the house to reflect in an immediate and direct way on the integrity and character of gentlemen who are not in parliament to speak for themselves. I think it goes much beyond the intention of the rules of the house respecting freedom of speech that any such latitude should be permitted. Yesterday my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), in reference to a matter affecting his department, and referred to in one of the newspapers of this country, used the following expression:

The statement made in the Winnipeg Free Press is false in every word and line and merely illustrates the general perverted attitude of the editor of that paper. I am not referring to the representatives of that paper located in Ottawa, but when the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press writes upon political matters he never tells the truth if a falsehood will serve.

May I say at once that I feel sure my hon. friend, when he used these words, was speaking figuratively. I think he was making use of that figure of speech known as hyperbole

APRIL 16, 1935 f 2767

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King

which should not be indulged in too frequently or readily. I do not wish to have my remarks construed as intended to be directed primarily at my hon. friend, but I should like to say that Mr. Dafoe, the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, is one of the most respected and honoured of journalists in our country. His reputation requires no defence in this parliament or indeed in any part of the British empire. It is, I think, unfortunate that a reference of this kind should be permitted to be on the records of parliament without some mention being made of it and some refutation of it. I hope my hon. friend will find it possible to say that the language is intended in a figurative and not in a literal sense. I desire to affirm that the rule respecting freedom of speech is based upon the control which the house has over its own members in the matter of their utterances. It is not intended to afford unbridled licence to speakers in referring to the character of individuals who are not in a position, to answer for themselves on the floor of parliament. I say this without special reference, as I have already said, to hon. members opposite. At times I have noticed the same unfortunate occurrence on this side of the house, and I may even quite unconsciously have been an offender myself; I hope however this kind of thing will not be permitted to become a practice in this parliament if it can be prevented.

Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):

Since the right hon. gentleman has been given liberty to make the statement he has, which to my mind is entirely out of order, I should like to say a word, and that word is that the only reason I used such mild language about the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, was that I could not parliamentarily use any stronger. The editor of the Winnipeg Free Press has consistently and persistently falsified the record about members on this side of the house. I do not on that account blame my right hon. friend for defending him. The editor of the Winnipeg Free Press has falsified the record about the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). He has on innumerable occasions lied about me- I do not want to use the word-

Some hon. MEMBERS'. Order.

Mr. MANION:

He has on innumerable occasions falsified the record in every way about me. I do not intend to be painted by the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press as a traitor to my country, and I may add that I have never hesitated in my speeches in Winnipeg or Manitoba or elsewhere to state 92582-176J

my opinion of the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press. It is apparently suggested by the right hon. gentleman that the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press may falsify the record about me or any other member of the house daily in his newspaper, but that we dare not say a word in reply in this chamber. Is that the suggestion? I do not intend to live up to any such suggestion as that.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I do not think the remarks of the Minister of Railways and Canals should be allowed to go unchallenged.

I do not believe any hon. member has a right to say that a gentleman beyond the confines of this parliament has deliberately falsified statements that he is making in the public press. I think my hon. friend should be called upon to retract his remarks.

Mr. MANION:

I do not intend to retract anything.

Mr. SPEAKER:

A member of parliament has a perfect right within the house to use such language as he considers parliamentary in regard to anyone else outside the house within the limits prescribed in the rules of the house and I do not think the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press or the editor of any other paper comes within the exception. Consequently there is no point upon which I should make a ruling at this time.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

On the point of order may I quote to your honour the comment in Redlich's Procedure of the House of Commons, with respect to the rules of the house that govern in the matter of freedom of speech? In Volume III at page 4S Redllich speaks thus in regard to freedom of speech:

The power of parliament to judge the acts and speeches of its members is the starting point, a condition precedent for its complete and absolute liberation from the control of any exterior authority. We can. of course, conceive a parliament which disclaimed such an autonomous jurisdiction-

That is to say, control over its own members in the matter of the language they may use.

-and refused to call its members to account for transgressing the bounds of usage and tradition; and again a parliament might declare in advance that it did not insist on any standards of speech among its members and would exercise no control over them: in such cases we should be without the historic premises from which the privilege was deduced in England. The struggle there for freedom of speech was waged to emancipate the action of parliament from all influence of crown, courts of law and government; it was never a fight for an absolute right to unbridled oratory, for freedom to each member to say exactly what

Price Spreads Commission

he pleased. From the earliest days there was always strict domestic discipline in the house and strict rules as to speaking were always enforced. The house could point to its autonomous regulation of the conduct and speech of its members, and to its enforcement of its rules; its power of so doing enabled it to claim and to win for its members the right of exemption from all responsibility at common law for what they said in its debates. Thus, theoretically speaking, the principle of parliamentary freedom of speech is far from being a claim of irresponsibility for members; it asserts a responsibility exclusively to the house where a member sits, and implies that this responsibility is really brought home by the house which is charged with enforcing it.... Freedom of speech and self-imposed rules of debate are linked conditions for the existence of true parliamentary action.

I maintain that unless we proceed on that basis, parliamentary discussion becomes an impossibility.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I want to thank the

leader oif the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) for calling my attention to the authority he has quoted. However my mind is quite clear with respect to the matter. May at page 69, as referred to in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 96 has this to say:

If a member should say nothing disrespectful to the house or the chair, or personally opprobrious to other members, or in violation of other rules of the house he may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals; and he is protected by his privilege from any action for libel, as well as from guy other question or molestation.

I think that covers the point in question. PRICE SPREADS COMMISSION

Mr. SPEAKER:

I think the hon. member

for Vancouver Centre was quite in order in

raising the question, and I want to thank him for doing so. On Sunday, I think it was, I noticed an article in the Saturday morning Citizen under the heading of "Will not record Steven's motion", further on in the article it had this to say:

Action was taken by Doctor Arthur Beau-chesne, K.C., C.M.G-., clerk of the house, it was learned, to keep Air. Steven's notice of motion out as improper on two grounds-

Then it went on to set forth the alleged grounds on which the notice of motion was to be kept off the order paper. I then came down to the house, examined the order paper and found the notice of motion was not on the order paper nor on the votes and proceedings. I got into touch with Doctor Beau-chesne and asked him for an explanation as to why the notice did not appear on the records of the house and he gave me an explanation which was quite satisfactory. I asked him to be good enough to put it into the form of a .memorandum, and he did so in the form of a letter dated April 15, 1935, addressed to myself as Speaker of the House of Commons, as follows:

Sir:

With reference to the report in the press stating that I refused to place Hon. Mr. Steven's notice of motion in the votes and proceedings, I beg to submit a word of explanation.

On Friday evening, the 12th instant, I told Hon. Mr. Stevens that, as his motion seemed to be out of order, notice thereof should not be given. After some discussion, he told me to take whatever action I thought best, wTbich I understood to mean that he agreed to the notice not being inserted in votes and proceedings, but, Saturday morning, be came to my office and stated he had not intended to infer that I should withhold the motion from the notice paper, though be seemed to realize that he had spoken to me in such a way as to lead me to understand that he actually agreed to leave the notice out. I told him on Saturday that if I had thought for a moment he wished .the notice to appear, I should have referred the matter to you, since, as Speaker, you are the judge of the admissibility of notices of motions or questions. It is our practice to call a member's attention to objectionable notices, and if tbe member insists on the notice being given under standing order 45, the matter is immediately referred to the Speaker. It is because Mr. Stevens did not so insist that I did not refer tbe matter to you.

Now, as Mr. Stevens wishes the motion to appear on the notice paper, I have the honour to refer the same herewith to you, and I shall take action on your decision when you think advisable to give it.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

Arthur Beaucbesne,

Clerk of the House of Commons.

Immediately upon receiving the memorandum in question from the clerk of the house

C.N.R.-Alberta Coal

I instructed him to place the notice of motion on the minutes of proceedings, which has been done, and it will appear on the order paper to-morrow.