May 19, 1948

CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

No, they have not.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce; Minister of Reconstruction and Supply)

Liberal

Mr. HOWE:

I know of over 30,000 we built ourselves that qualify.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

You can go through this country from one end to the other and find that even in the larger centres sanitary arrangements are absent in the lower rental houses. For example, in the city in which I have lived for a large part of my life I know that there are extensive sections where the houses have no sanitary conveniences. When you go into the smaller towns and villages throughout the country you find that these are entirely absent.

When we are discussing housing we should discuss not only the good houses we are going to build, but also the poor houses we should eliminate. They should be considered along with the plans we have for better class housing.

I intend to vote for the amendment moved by my hon. friend, particularly since you, Mr. Speaker, have indicated that it could be moved on second reading. My hon. friend has taken you at your word.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the minister's speech and we have read the minister's bill, but I feel we must pronounce the speech and the bill, particularly the bill, wholly inadequate. A sure-fire weapon against communism is an adequate housing program. A really adequate housing act is the best general-purpose tool for the building of a nation's human resources, as to numbers, as to health and as to morale. The national housekeeping of any country should have as its aim the purpose which a bird has when it sets up its nest. The bird

intends to fill her nest with fledglings, and our national housekeeping should aim at filling the Canadian nest with fledglings.

One thing has struck me about our discussions in the house on housing. In a general way they seem so detached, so doctrinaire, and so leisurely. It is time that Canada stopped theorizing and day-dreaming and vaporizing and went to work to get results which are commensurate with Canadian needs. When wTar broke out we did not have a lot of vaporizing and doctrinaire discussion in the house. The ministers went to work to get results. They got results. They did not come back to the house every once in a while to tell us why they could not get results. The minister himself was one of the first in the nation to get results. We cleared the way so he could get results. He got results during the war. He did not come back here and tell us why he could not do so.

I will grant that there are many difficulties in the way. I am not blaming the minister overmuch under the circumstances, but I think the time has come for a showdown, not only on the part of the government but on the part of hon. members of the house as a whole. We are simply not getting results, and the nation is deteriorating. All the evidence that we can adduce proves that there are far too few houses now in Canada, and yet we are bringing in tens of thousands of immigrants. It has been showm in this debate that we are not building enough houses in the country to supply the needs of the newly formed families; what will the situation be in a few years after so many immigrants will have been brought into the country? We simply have not the time to do what we call in the west fooling around. The situation is serious.

I have been impressed by some of the things that have come over an interesting radio program called, "What is your beef?" Some weeks ago a woman in Toronto complained that she, her husband and three children were living in an attic to which they had to carry their water. Not very long ago a man in Montreal reported that he had read all the advertisements for houses and found that every single one of them said that no children were wanted.

I do not desire to reflect on Ottawa, but this illustration is right under our noses. A man named Rudy Lacasse, w'ho had lost both legs in Holland as a result of a mine accident, reported on March 18, 1948, that he was living in a little upstairs room with an outside stairs in Rockcliffe. Both he and his wife want to adopt a child, but the agencies responsible for letting out children refuse to grant a child

when there is only one room in which to cook, eat and sleep. The other day in Ottawa a young woman with a beautiful child five years of age was asked by a friend if she did not wish she had another baby. She said, "There is certainly no use thinking about another baby with the housing situation as it is in Ottawa." This condition is affecting our birth rate. I do not wish to become a crank about this matter, but it should be recognized that this nation is in a contest for survival, and its survival may well depend upon the number of children that are born and raised within the next twenty years. We cannot afford to permit any condition which tends to decrease our birth rate.

As has been brought out by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the conditions under which many of our people are living are such as to destroy their emotional and moral health. Emotional and moral health are two things we simply cannot afford to sacrifice. Far too many of the toilers and the taxpayers of tomorrow-I hope this can be understood by the government-apparently they understand only things that work out to dollars and cents-far too many of the toilers and the taxpayers of tomorrow, and far too many of the fighters of the future cannot now find where to shelter their infant heads throughout Canada; nor have the children wholesome places where they can play while growing up.

The housing shortage is even deterring people from marrying.

What can be done about it? I have very little use for the person who complains of a condition without offering some constructive proposal. I submit what seems to me to be a proposal worthy of consideration at this time. In the first place the minister simply must use subsidies. Next he must stay on the job until the housing battle in Canada is won.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
CCF

Thomas John Bentley

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. BENTLEY:

We do not want him that long, do we?

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

I think he is as good a man as we can find anywhere. But someone is standing in his way. I understand that one prominent member of the administration has said that he would not continue to be a member of it if subsidies were used for housing. I suggest to the cabinet that unless they can change that man's mind the sooner they get rid of him the better. If we have to decide between a certain minister in the cabinet and decent housing in Canada, it should not take very long to decide between them.

The minister longs for private enterprise to fill the gap. May I point out that the govern-

National Housing Act

ment through its policy for the last twenty years-not only this government but every government in the dominion-has utterly destroyed any hope of success for private enterprise. After all, any social agency must have conditions in which to work which will not render its success impossible. The present financial arrangements do render it utterly impossible for private enterprise to succeed in providing housing.

The government insists on using only debt finance to run the business of this country, federal, provincial and municipal; consequently every bit of money has to be raised by taxation. The provincial sources of revenue are altogether too meagre for the heavy responsibilities the provinces have to bear, and the municipalities are placed in the worst position of all because their only source of revenue is taxation upon real estate. What does this mean? It means that the better the house a company or private individual builds, the more taxation he has to pay in the community, and if the taxes continue heavy when he is unable to derive a revenue sufficient to meet them, he loses ownership of the property. This has happened throughout Canada.

I am reliably informed that in the nineteen thirties fifty per cent of the properties in Edmonton became city property against the will of the city of Edmonton itself, simply because the people who owned them were unable to pay the taxes. Who with the money to invest would put his money into houses and run the risk of having that condition duplicated against him in the next ten years? It is a matter of plain common sense. How can you expect men with Aioney to put their money into houses after you have treated them in that way?

There was some hope when the war broke out that private enterprise in housing, having suffered terrible losses during the depression, might be able to recoup its losses. But what happened? In came wartime controls, rental controls, and control of every other aspect of housing, thus preventing those who had sustained losses in the depression from recouping. The residt is that they are out even in wartime. I am not saying that controls were not necessary in the interests of our citizenry; I merely point out what occurred In addition, if a man happened to make any money he was a victim of the income tax collector. Moreover we have exceedingly high building costs and a wide variety of restrictions on builders, restrictions for sanitary reasons, for fire protection, for the

National Housing Act

quality of houses in a given area, and so forth. How can a government consisting of intelligent people, how can the minister who claims to be practically intelligent, expect private enterprise to step into a certain loss by building houses under those conditions? The minister might just as well count private enterprise out, until he builds up a situation in which private enterprise has a chance to succeed. The government's policies have warned or driven off private investors from housing, and private enterprise will not be easily reassured.

What shall we do in this emergency? I say that we might as well count private enterprise out, not because of any weakness in private enterprise but because of weakness in the government's way of managing this nation.

First as an emergency measure we must resort to public enterprise, using subsidies freely until the people are provided with suitable houses and until venture capital in this country can regain confidence. We may have to have community-owned and operated homes, large apartment houses such as they have in Stockholm, Sweden; because housing has now become in effect a public utility. A public utility is something which the public must have; if private enterprise cannot supply it, public enterprise must.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Are you advocating socialism?

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

No. I point out to my friends of the C.C.F. that the conditions which they have supported have rendered it impossible for private enterprise to succeed, and now they are foolish enough to blame private enterprise instead of the system which prevents it from working. If the C.C.F. would only take time to think this thing through they would stop blaming private enterprise and put the blame where it ought to be-on the financial system.

Second, we must endeavour to encourage the pioneering spirit and individual resourcefulness among Canadians until we have revived private enterprise. This principle should be laid down that every man in Canada should own his own home or should have the opportunity of being able to own his own home. If he has not that opportunity, then it is the business of the governments of Canada to change their system and see that he has. In the old days our fathers used to hold housing bees to build houses for the newly married couples. They realized that there was a certain amount of community responsibility for setting up young people. Why should we not have community effort today to help young people get started?

Third, we must change our system of public financing to remove the intolerable burdens from the backs of would-be private providers of housing. I have indicated what these intolerable burdens are, and I shall not go into them in detail now. But they must be removed.

I would like to see the minister introduce a new housing act, because this one is so tragically inadequate, to meet the situation. This act provides for the building of houses for only those who do not need houses provided for them, and neglects seventy-five per cent of our population who simply are unable to get the houses the government are undertaking to build. I propose therefore that a new housing act be introduced, and I suggest to the minister that he take that suggestion into serious consideration. I would call this new measure "An Act for Enabling the Rehabilitation of Canadian Housing". I would like to see in it provisions for, first, honeymoon houses; second, cradle-roll houses; third, senior citizens' housing, and fourth, housing for the financially underprivileged throughout the land, who number hundreds of thousands.

Unless definite provisions are made to remove the difficulties which surround these four groups I have indicated, then it is hardly worth the time of the house to discuss the housing act.

What should be the methods of financing on the part of the government? There are several different methods, but I would suggest these. The government might lend to needy people who are willing to build houses or to buy, and it should subsidize so as to enable them to buy and have houses at reasonable rates; the dominion should provide money through the Bank of Canada, lending through one or other of the chartered banks, one of the banks being selected for each given area.

I would suggest that the money so provided be interest free, that the principal be amortized at the rate of five per cent per year over a twenty-year period, and that a service charge be made for covering the loan, which would amount to two per cent per annum..

Of this service charge I would suggest that the dominion pay V/n per cent and the province pay % per cent. The provinces would be willing to do that, I should hope. It may be argued that such a thing has never been heard of in the history of the nation. Well, even if it had never been heard of, is there any reason why we should not adopt it? Radar had not been heard of until the last war, but it was adopted and was used with magnificent success. Why should we be so much afraid of trying to do something that has never been done before? We are faced with a set of circumstances never known before. Why not adopt some measure that has not been used previously?

National Housing Act

I understand, however, that a bill somewhat similar to what I suggest, the Municipal Assistance Act, was passed in the thirties, providing money for self-liquidating projects. The rate was two per cent; I am told that not a dollar was lost in the province of Alberta as a result of the loans made under that act. I do not see any reason why a house should not be a self-liquidating project, if it is managed right.

I suggest that the act should provide for an organization similar to this: let the dominion call together representatives of the provinces and establish a dominion-wide agency which shall be responsible both to the dominion and to the provinces. Then let the provinces in a general way be given supervision over and apportionment of the money which would be advanced by the dominion government in response to the request of the municipalities for housing. Then let the municipalities plan for and supervise the building of the houses and of the repayment of the loans.

These are merely general statements but I believe they lay down a sound policy. Only the other day when the Prime Minister brought forward his health scheme he made a great departure from the past. He said in effect: we will grant money to the provinces with which to rehabilitate the health of their people; they can take the money and invest it or spend it, whichever way they see fit, only let it be remembered that they are to spend it for the health of the people. Why should not the same principle be applied in connection with housing? Surely housing is an important element in the health of the people!

I suggest that the following general guiding principles be laid down in the act: These

are emergency principles not necessarily to be applied in future years after we have got out of the particular difficulty in which we now find ourselves.

First I would lay down the principle that all materials should be bought from the factory and distributed at cost. Next, all possible facilities should be used unreservedly. Aluminum for example should be exploited to the full as a building material. All technological skills recently discovered should be employed and applied just as we employed and applied them in conducting the war. We should use prefabrication to the fullest possible extent necessary in order to cope with the situation facing us. We should allow the underprivileged to build a step at a time.

I am sure all hon. members have seen young folks start out with a little lean-to; after they paid for it they built another little lean-to; after a while they built another lean-to

behind it, and in due time they had managed to build a house. In this way they were able to save rent and apply the rent to the building of a house, and they had the joy of building their own home.

This principle is sound. I do not think it is a good thing to have people get houses put right in their hands. One of the greatest joys I have had in my life was in building a house with my own hands, notwithstanding the fact that I did not know how it was done. There was fun in learning how to do it. There are thousands of our young folk who would be happy to build on that basis.

The objection will be raised immediately: Well, the cities have building rules, and they will not allow houses of less than a certain value to be built in certain areas. Very well. If the people in the cities are determined to put quality of housing before the needs of the people, they must make up their minds in that regard. In the meantime, however, if the cities insist on houses up to certain standards, why should not the cities, since they are concerned, prepare plans with the people who are to build, allowing them to use their own initiative under the supervision of the very best trained architects that can be found, and with their guidance? Let the couple start to build a house, beginning with the basement or part of the basement, having a definite plan, so that by the time they finish the building, over a fifteen or twenty year period, their home will be up to the standard required in the area in which they are building.

If the people in these select areas are so "choosy", if we may use that expression, that they cannot bear to see young people grow up in those areas, then it is terribly bad. But I do not believe there are many people in Canada who are so far removed from the facts of reality that they would persist in an attitude which would prevent young people from starting to build their own house.

The next principle should be the centering of responsibility for any hold-ups that may occur. Then there should be merciless publicity. Speaking from my superficial investigation of the problems that confront the minister, I can assure him that I know something about them, and I know they are mean, ugly problems. They range all the way from deliberate failure on the part of certain provincial governments to co-operate, people who should have better sense, right down to disinclination to co-operate on the part of little townships outside a city, and a great many other things-threats on the part of certain unions to refuse to work, and so on.

National Housing Act

These bottlenecks should be discovered and exposed mercilessly. There should be broadcasts telling the people of Canada exactly who, in the province of Manitoba or Ontario, or in any other given province, is holding the building program up, and why. I think that sort of publicity would soon produce a co-operative attitude which now is far from existing. There is too great an indisposition to co-operate throughout Canada.

* People have failed to realize that housing is a Canadian problem, a problem that affects every individual of every province. It affects the provinces as well as the dominion government, and no agency in Canada can be expected to solve it if all the people of Canada do not get behind that agency and give the assistance needed.

Certain objections will be raised to the plan I offer. I fancy I shall hear someone say that it will cause inflation if we render available millions of dollars to the people to build their own houses. Well, did not the minister the other day call for the entry of private enterprise into the housing picture? If the dominion government, let us say, were to lend $500 to a young couple with which to build a house, how could there be any more inflation in that procedure than there would be if a private company spent the $500 in building the house? The money would go out into circulation just as thoroughly in one case as in the other. Therefore, if it were sound for private enterprise to build houses so far as inflation is concerned, it would be sound for the federal government to provide the money for the houses for the people.

My proposal may be said to impair the position of those who have invested in housing.

I can imagine a good many people who have spent large sums of money saying: Well, if the government does that it will ruin our investment. I do not believe that. The people who would be aided by the building proposals which I have made, would be people who will not be able to buy or rent without the help I propose. How it could possibly affect those who had money invested in housing I fail to see when less fortunate people are now unable to rent their houses.

It will be argued that this kind of proposal will prejudice the position of labour. I like to see labour protected; I like to see their interests safeguarded, but these little low rental houses and these cheap houses for ownership by the people are not now being built anyway. The government, in helping the people to build their own houses, would certainly not be depriving labour of any of the work which they would now be able to get. The government would be simply pro-

viding for building the houses that labour is unable to build at the present time. I fail therefore to see how my proposals would prejudice the position of labour.

It will be argued that my proposals would seriously affect the wholesalers and retailers. I have suggested that the government, in co-operation with the provincial and municipal governments, buy directly from the producers the materials which are to be used, the cement and other things, for the building, and distribute them wholesale. Why it would be argued that the wholesalers would be hurt thereby I fail to see, because the people for whom we would be providing for building the houses are people who would not be able to buy the materials from the wholesalers and retailers anyway. It is the underprivileged people about whom we are concerned.

I would say this in a general way: The Canadian people everywhere must realize that the housing problem must be solved-and, ''must" is the word. It is simply idle prattle to be everlastingly talking against communism and allowing the continuance of a housing condition, which is breeding communism every day. Why not be realistic about this thing? People must come to realize that a solution can be found only through the co-operation of all those concerned, which includes all governments, dominion, provincial, and municipal.

Finally, the people must learn that they must supplement the efforts of governments by community and co-operative action such as was common among our fathers in days long ago. The service clubs and the various community clubs can do a great deal to help remedy this situation if they see fit so to do.

A statement appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of May 17 which I think it would be fitting to read into Hansard at this time.It is called: "The $35 a month home" and has a subheading as follows: "Only by subsidies can it be built, say Canadian builders." The article was written by J. L. E. Price, M.E.I.C., chairman of the low-cost housing committee of the Canadian construction association. It reads as follows:

The provision of new living accommodation within the means of families in the lower income brackets is still as much as ever the most involved of all of our post-war reconstruction problems.

It is a problem, says Mr. J. L. E. Price, M.E.IjC., chairman of the low-cost housing committee of the Canadian construction association, that grows more pressing and more difficult day by day as time goes on-more pressing because the demand for low-cost shelter is constantly increasing in step with the growth of population, and more difficult because of constantly increasing labour and material costs.

National Housing Act

Generally speaking it is conceded that not less than 75 per cent of the present back-log of demand for housing emanates from families in the lower income brackets, that is to say from families financially incapable of paying more than $35 per month at the very most for the homes they occupy-and many of them far less than that-without depriving themselves of many of the normal necessities of life. From this it naturally follows that-theoretically at any rate-three out of every four of the new living units now being built should properly not cost the occupant more than $35 per month to rent or carry.

Actually, since V-,T day, only about ten per cent of all the new living units made available could be rented or carried for $35 per month or less, the great majority of these being wartime houses built for veterans.

Over-all progress in the production of new living units since the war ended has been just about all that could reasonably be expected, with labour and materials conditions as they have been. All things considered, we have done well in this respect and this fact demonstrates that our trouble lies not in lack of capacity to produce but rather in the nature of what is being produced. The real source of our trouble is that we have been, and still are, utilizing about 90 per cent of all of our house-building resources to build new living accommodation which is beyond the financial means of 75 per cent of the people who are in need of it.

It is as obvious as anything ever could be that unless definite action is taken to reduce this unbalanced situation in the housing field, wages are bound to go on rising. There can be no dodging this issue. We either have to devise ways and means of making living accommodation available to people in the lower income brackets at rates which they can afford to pay, or reconcile ourselves to the inevitable necessity to go on increasing the wages of these lower income groups. Whether we like it or not, we are going to be compelled to follow one or the other of these alternative courses.

The only conceivable means of bringing new living accommodation within the means of low income groups lies in subsidization and common sense dictates that no plan of subsidization will ever be successful unless it is based on co-operative action on the part of the dominion, provincial or municipal governments along predetermined lines, making possible the development of a practical formula which could be quickly applied in solving the problem of providing living accommodation within the means of low income families in all parts of the dominion.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

John Ritchie MacNicol

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MacNICOL:

May I ask the hon. member a question? I did not hear him very clearly. It hat did he say was the monthly rent?

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

The monthly rent was S35.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

John Ritchie MacNicol

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MacXICOL:

It is too high for the ordinary low-bracket wage earner.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

According to Mr.Price, seventy-five per cent of those who require houses are unable to pay more than S35 a month.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

John Ritchie MacNicol

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MacNICOL:

That is right.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

That is my point. Even the twenty per cent which has been referred to as the normal reasonable percentage of a person's income which ought to be spent on housing is an outrageous figure. I do not think that a person getting SI,500 a year can -pay twenty per cent on housing and still get the necessities of life.

We have a good example of successful housing in Stockholm. Sweden. The city builds its people houses. There is an article in the Christian Science Monitor which tells how Stockholm has provided thousands of low-rental apartments with state aid and finance for 500.000 of Sweden's 6.000,000 'people. First there is a community building corporation.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

John Ritchie MacNicol

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MacNICOL:

Does it give the rental

rate?

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

I will come to that. There are also several co-operative building associations and several community building associations. The corporation finances five per cent of each apartment house for rental.

There is a rental rebate for children under sixteen. For example, for every child under sixteen there is a rebate of ten per cent of the rent. The initial rate of rent is $360 for a three-room flat with kitchen and bath. According to this arrangement a family with three children would be paying only $250 a-year rent for the kind of accommodation I have indicated, while a family with five children would pay only $180 a year. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is a proposal which sounds something like common sense. If a nation like Sweden, with limited resources at its disposal, is able to find such a way of solving its housing problem, what can be said of its failure to do so of a nation like Canada with the vast resources which we have at our disposal?

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
?

Donald MacInnis

Mr. MacINXIS:

They have a socialist government in Sweden.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

It is all right to talk about socialism. We can use the methods adopted there without going socialist.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
?

Donald MacInnis

Mr. MacINXIS:

But they will not.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

The point is we can. t here is not a thing in this Swedish proposal that could not apply to the city of Ottawa, not one single thing, without going socialist. It is just plain common sense. It has been done for hundreds of years.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT WITH RESPECT TO POWERS OF APPROVED LENDING INSTITUTIONS, ETC.
Permalink

May 19, 1948