May 19, 1948

CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

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

Mr. KNOWLES:

That is socialism.

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

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Well, some aspects of socialism make common sense, but others certainly do not.

National Housing Act

The question will be raised immediately, "Have we the labour available?" Last evening the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said we were short of labour, that we had used up our resources. I say that simply is not the case. We are not using the labour supply we have at our disposal. Just to show, for instance, the situation that obtains in the city of Ottawa, I have in my hand a letter dated May 19, 1948, prepared and sent to me by Mr. Redverse F. Pratt, manager of the national employment service here. In this letter he says:

I may say I am not able to give you the figures for May, but I am giving you the figures as of July 31, 1947: the 45 to 64 age group, 517; and the total live file, 1,894.

That is the number of people in the city of Ottawa who were seeking work on that date.

The April 29, 1948. figures: age 45 to 64, 575; total live file as of this date, 2,113.

I do not see why many of those people who were unemployed as of those dates could not have been employed in putting together prefabricated houses, for example, or in driving nails and sawing boards, if they were under the supervision of someone who knew his business and who was working on a scientifically prepared plan.

Then the question may be asked, have we the materials in Canada? My inquiries have [DOT]satisfied me that we have reached the point where we have plenty of materials if we choose to use them. We might not have all the iron or steel pipe we would like, but vast numbers of the people of Canada, in fact by far the greater percentage of them, have grown up without ever having had steel or iron pipe in their homes. There never was a bit of steel or iron pipe in my home from the time I was bom until I left, and there has been none since; but my father and mother raised thirteen or fourteen children, and the boys were able to go to war when the time came; they have been able to make a living.

Therefore I see no reason why we could not be building without steel pipe in many parts of Canada. Why should we give up house building simply because for the time being we are short of steel pipe?

If we would be realists in this matter we would not allow problems of this kind to hold us up. Let us permit the people to build the houses they can build with the material we have available. Let us make available to them loans with which they can build, at rates which will permit them to pay off their loans in the course of a few years. Let us provide them with means such that, with good, hard, earnest work and thrifty living, they may come to own their own homes.

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

Angus MacInnis

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

Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):

I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). I think it is conceded on all sides that the core of the housing problem in Canada at the present time, as it has been for a long time, is low-rental housing. I believe it is also conceded that we are doing very little to remedy that situation. There is an assumption, which I believe is apparent in the bill now before us, that if we build homes for people in the middle or upper income brackets the benefits will seep down to those in the lower income groups. I believe that assumption is a myth, that it just will not happen; because long before there is sufficient seeping, that section of the community that can pay for homes, either in purchase price or in rent, will have been saturated, so we just cannot remedy the situation in that way.

In a report made in January of this year the Vancouver housing association pointed out that at the end of 1946 there were 4,400 active applications for wartime housing on file with the emergency shelter administration in that city, while today that number has increased to 6,600. That is not solving our housing problem.

Almost all organizations and associations interested in social welfare and community work and, as has been pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Mackenzie, even the Canadian construction association has gone on record saying that the only thing which will meet the present situation is low-rental housing. In the report of the Vancouver housing association which I mentioned a moment ago, it says that in recent months the following organizations, among others, have come out in support of subsidized low-rental housing: the Canadian

federation of mayors and municipalities; Canadian construction association; Canadian Legion; national council of women; Canadian welfare council, and the community planning association of Canada. These are important organizations in our' country, and I believe they have some understanding of the country's housing needs.

In my opinion Canada's housing policy is becoming more and more a policy of guaranteeing the interest on the investments of those who have money to invest, and less and less a policy of building houses for people who need homes. Let me quote the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I have in my hand a copy of Public Affairs for October, 1947, a Canadian quarterly published by the institute of public affairs

National Housing Act

of Dalhousie university. The first article is by Right Hon. C. D. Howe, Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. It gives a fairly comprehensive review of the housing situation as at that time, and the situation has not changed much, if at all, since. He deals with the housing problem under various headings, and I should like to quote briefly from two paragraphs to show that the minister himself understands quite clearly what the nature of the problem is and, I think, how it must be met. Referring to low rental housing, he said:

It is contended that the municipalities and provinces are not in a financial position to assume this additional load on the scale that is required so the dominion will have to do so. It is also contended that the dominion will have to assume a larger share of the cost of slum clearance.

I do not think there is any doubt whatever that the cities and municipalities cannot carry the load. I do not say they have no responsibility; I agree that they have, and that tliere are certain things that the cities and municipalities could do. Similarly most of the provinces are not able to carry the financial load that would be involved. Then the minister continued:

The dominion takes no dogmatic stand on these matters. In its proposals to the dominion-provincial conference in August, 1945, it invited the provinces to consider the various aspects of low rental housing and slum clearance. In the absence of agreement on dominion-provincial relations at that time, the provisions made in the National Housing Act respecting low rental housing, subsidization of such housing, and slum clearance have been allowed to stand unchanged.

The question of the responsibility for the failure to come to agreement on financial arrangements at the time referred to, in 1945, has been discussed in the house on many occasions. I shall not go into that phase of the matter now; but I would point out that seven of the provinces reached an understanding and signed a financial agreement with the dominion. If the two remaining provinces refused to enter into an agreement, in my opinion that is no reason why the government should not indicate its willingness to enter into an agreement with the seven provinces in the matter of housing and also in respect of many other matters. However, at the moment I am confining my remarks to housing.

Then, almost at the conclusion of the article the minister proves conclusively what I said at the beginning of my observations, when he states:

Housing will be a problem for quite a few years, even if actions looking toward its solution develop favourably.

And actions are not developing favourably.

He states:

Accommodation has been and is being provided; but the hard core of the problem-low-rent housing-has barely been touched. Until a steady flow of low-rent units is started, no Canadian can feel satisfied with what is being accomplished.

The minister was speaking as Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Stating his opinion in clear terms, he said-and let me repeat it:

Accommodation has been and is being provided; but the hard core of the problem-low-rent housing-has been barely touched. Until a steady flow of low-rent units is started, no Canadian can feel satisfied with what is being accomplished.

It is because the amendments before us do not provide for that steady stream of low-rent housing we are proposing that the bill be not now read a second time, but that a bill be brought before us which will provide for low-rentar housing.

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

Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins

Progressive Conservative

Mr. H. W. TIMMINS (Parkdale):

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on second reading of the bill, but I should like now to speak briefly with respect to the amendment now before us.

The bill provides actually for only two things: first of all, rent insurance, which is a new feature and a new expedient in respect of housing procedure in Canada. There is no use in labouring the matter of rent insurance. Those of us on this side of the house do not think it will succeed, nor do we think it goes far enough along the way of providing for immediate housing-because immediate housing is the answer to the problem with which we are now dealing.

The second matter covered by the bill is that of some amendments to the limited-dividend housing part of the bill. The minister himself says that it has not been successful. It has not provided the kind of low-rental housing that had been expected. In other words, so far as I know-and the minister will correct me if 1 am wrong-there have not been any municipalities that have really taken hold of that section of the act or that have implemented a plan which has been proceeded with for the purpose of providing low-rental housing.

The amendment offered by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) states that in the opinion of the house the government should give consideration to providing subsidized low-rental housing. We can go along

National Housing Act

part of the way down the garden path with the spirit of the amendment, but we cannot support it.

I have an amendment to the amendment which I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart). I move:

That all the words of the amendment after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

'That the government should forthwith enlist the active co-operation of the provincial and municipal governments for the setting up in municipalities which have need of them of local housing authorities to provide low-rent housing for veterans who cannot afford present economic rentals, and for the purpose of clearing slums and re-housing families living in slum accommodation."

The fact of the matter is that almost all governments of Canada are seized with the necessity for immediate housing and for co-operation in respect thereto. In Ontario at the present time an election campaign is in progress, and I have been pleased to see that Mr. Robinette, one of the leaders, a gentleman who might easily have been leader of the Liberal party in Ontario, has taken time out to speak respecting the subject of housing. This is what he had to say:

Mr. Farquhar Oliver would soon announce a new Liberal housing plan for Ontario if elected. It will call for the provincial government to assume the municipal taxes on new houses for a period of four years, if they are built by individuals on their own property.

This is an innocuous sort of platform for a party to have. However, I am not criticizing it. I am simply saying the thought is there in the mind of a Liberal leader in the Ontario election. He says the Liberal party has some ideas in connection with providing housing.

Then, we have the bill brought down by the Premier of Ontario, one of the sections of which reads something like this:

We shall participate with municipalities that wish to take advantage of the federal low-rental housing plan. Under these proposals the federal government offers to build houses for rent on land supplied and serviced by the municipality. The cost of the land and services to the municipality is not to exceed J600 per house. The municipality also receives a payment in lieu of taxes wliieh is frequently less than would be paid if the house were assessed and taxed in the usual way. Many municipalities have indicated that they wish to take advantage of this plan. In several places, the financial burden placed upon the municipality has been a deterrent. In order to reduce this burden we shall offer to pay one-half of the cost of land and services to the limit of $300 per house and to the present limit of 10,000 houses. Thus we are renewing in principle the offer made to the federal government in 1944 when we offered to

contribute one-half of the equity in low rental housing. The cost of this might thus amount to $3,000,000.

There is another evidence of the willingness of a government to co-operate with a federal administration in respect of low-rental housing. What is said in the brief extract I have just read was exemplified the other day in the township of North York where a group of young businessmen, who know their way around in respect of housing, went before the council of that township and said, "We have a plan. We know where we can get land, and we are prepared to build a large group of houses right away". The township of North York said that they did not want them in the municipality, that in a sense they were a menace because they would cost the township too much money through having to provide school facilities and sewage services. They told them that the township had no sewage disposal plant and that they would have to rely upon the city of Toronto. They told them that they had better go back to the city of Toronto and get it to take on their proposition.

That is the sort of run-around which has been going on for some considerable time. My thought and the thought of this party in moving the amendment to the amendment this afternoon is to suggest something immediate, something practical that can be brought into force in the not too distant future. The fact of the matter is that, while the municipalities are anxious to get houses, they cannot afford them. They have to pass the problem on to the province and in turn the province must solicit the leadership and help of the federal government. To my mind it is a simple problem, a problem which could be solved quite easily with some leadership from the minister and his department.

The minister has said all this himself. He said it in his address the other day. We are back to the position where we are asking that the whole matter should be brought to a head in the immediate future, that a conference should be called and that these matters which are pressing upon the municipalities should be dealt with in a practical way. As I mentioned the other day, some seventy-nine municipalities in Canada had negotiated contracts with the Department of Reconstruction and Supply with respect to 12,000 veterans houses; but, as far as the completion of negotiations and the doing of the work is concerned, only some 8,000 houses have emerged. In other words, the municipalities found themselves in the position where they could not carry through.

This simply typifies the situation throughout Canada. The parties must get together and arrange a low-rental housing plan. We in this

National Housing Act

party do not care whether it takes the form of capital investment. I know perfectly well that at some time in the future the minister intends that there shall be capital investment for this purpose. We do not care whether it takes the form of rent reduction or the form of a contribution. The fact of the matter is that none of the other levels of government can proceed without the leadership and help of the federal government. The amendment I have moved reads:

That the government should forthwith enlist the active co-operation of the provincial and municipal governments for the setting up in municipalities which have need of them of local housing authorities to provide low-rent housing for veterans who cannot afford present economic rentals, and for the purpose of clearing slums and rehousing families living in slum accommodation.

The purpose of this amendment is to assist the municipalities and the provinces in bringing this matter to an immediate and practical head.

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

James Ewen Matthews

Liberal

Mr. J. E. MATTHEWS (Brandon):

Mr. Speaker, when speaking outside this chamber I have on various occasions gone out of my way to extol the calibre of federal members irrespective of party. I have no regrets for having done so, but I confess a measure of disappointment at the unfairness that has characterized a great many of the addresses on the housing situation. I am still more disappointed because of the sources of a large part of that criticism.

To hon. members at large it must have been disappointing, almost pitiable in fact, that few of the critics gave voice to one constructive, practical thought. I must name the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Timmins) and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) as noted exceptions. How many hon. members even ventured to suggest what they would have done had they been minister of reconstruction during the last few years?

It is because of that unfairness, because of that pettiness, shall I say, that I raise my voice in support of the efforts of a minister who, all through the dark years of war, almost at the sacrifice of his own life, and right up to the present hour has given every ounce of energy in his being to further and safeguard the interests of the people of Canada. We must not forget that the minister of reconstruction has a record of achievement simply astounding in its proportions, a record which I feel free to say not another man in Canada could have excelled and few if any could have equalled. I cannot leave unchallenged some of the unfair remarks that

have been directed toward his work and the work of faithful officers in his department.

As we all know, during the war there was practically no residential building carried on. Many buildings already erected were not kept in repair because of lack of materials. Construction was confined to those mammoth projects which were erected with feverish haste all across Canada for military training and administration. During those years we were not interested in the building of homes. Instead of that, we concentrated on saving the homes we had, by winning the war and to that end supplying our soldiers with food and fighting equipment.

When hostilities ceased our first anxiety was to get those men who were spared back to their loved ones. Everyone realized the difficulties in that regard because of lack of shipping. Everyone realizes also that the conversion of war plants into peacetime production was no short process.

During this debate there have been repeated references to the Curtis report which attempted to set an objective for post-war building. I am wondering how many of those who participated in that report were actual builders, and how many were academic in their experience. No doubt all were actuated by the best of motives, but did they realize back in 1943 how great would be the changes in economic conditions following the war? It is because of those changes, completely and unavoidably unforeseen, that I suggest the Curtis report has become outmoded and can no longer be regarded as an authority.

But apart altogether from the Curtis report, here we were in this situation at the close of the war. There was no reserve of building material from which to draw, none whatever. Therefore men had to be secured to go to the logging camps and fell the trees, others in many cases to transport the lumber to the mills. Men who understood mining had to be secured to dig the coal, others to dig the ore, others to man the cement plants, and the quarries.

But in their simplicity, or is it simplicity, one would think, to hear some of those critics talk, that on the evening when hostilities ceased there was some magic button which the * minister could have pressed, and pronto, the very next morning there would have been lumber and steel, yes, even nails, in fact an unlimited supply of all materials in every lumberyard and hardware store in the country. However, there was no magic button, but rather an avalanche of hard, stern facts confronting the minister at that time.

The Curtis report set a target of 750,000 housing units to be erected in ten years; that

National Housing Act

is from September 1, 1945, the day when hostilities ceased, up to September 1, 1955. That would mean, on a pro rata basis, 187,500 in two and a half years up to March 1, 1948. That was the target. Has it been reached? Well, some hon. members will recall that the minister stated in this chamber about ten days ago that in the first two and a half years 200,000 units in round numbers had been completed, with about 40,000 more partly completed; and this was accomplished, may I remind the house, notwithstanding the delays, the unavoidable delays, to which I have referred, in getting started in the first place.

So where does the criticism come in? Is it because the minister is exceeding the Curtis report? That is how it would appear. From some speeches we have heard, one can imagine the gloating criticism that would have been forthcoming had he fallen below the Curtis objective. The Curtis report suggested 375,000 units, when taken on a pro rata basis, in the five years up to September 1, 1950. The minister has expressed the belief that we shall continue to exceed that objective in the future as we have exceeded it in the past. I believe every member of this house, right down in his heart, appreciated the statement made by the minister, plain, straightforward, unequivocal, with neither boast nor bluster. In his statement at that time we were told that, of 77,000 units actually completed in 1947, there had been 22,000 built for rental, under various forms of government sponsorship, National Housing, Wartime Housing, Emergency Shelter, V.L.A., et cetera.

The other 55,000 units were for home owners. It has been proudly said that a man's home is his castle, and to me there could be no more promising sign of national stability than for Canadian people to prefer to own their own homes. I believe that, in so doing, they should receive every encouragement. Surely there are none who have persuaded themselves into the belief that the government should have taken over the whole building program, and should not have permitted any citizen even in democratic Canada to build a home for himself. I sometimes wonder.

In that connection may I say that there comes to me every month, and perhaps to many hon. members, a small but excellent publication, known as The Scene, from Shing-wauk Farm. It is published at Bracebridge, Ontario. An article in the last issue contains two paragraphs which I desire to quote:

The housing shortage in Ontario today is due to three things-the scarcity of satisfactory material, the scarcity of satisfactory labour and the fact that it does not pay to build houses to rent.

There are probably more than 20,000 people in Ontario today who are financially able and are prepared to build houses for themselves to live in as soon as satisfactory materials and labour are available. If the government steps into the market and grabs off the materials and labour to build 20,000 houses, it will only mean that 20,000 private citizens will have to defer their building plans until the government is through. Will the government's 20,000 houses do any more to relieve the shortage than a like number of privately built dwellings would have done? Certainly not.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the writer of that article must be himself a builder, because he certainly has the faculty of hitting the nail right on the head.

It was interesting to me to hear the other evening an hon. member for whom I have the greatest rosnect name several towns or cities in Ontario that want houses. One wants 100, another, twenty-five; another, fifty, and so on. Well, who is preventing them? I am sure it is not the government. I can tell the hon. member about a small town or village in my own constituency that also w'anted houses. Those who needed the houses got busy and built them, and when I was in that town a few months ago there were over a hundred houses in course of construction, some nearing completion, others just begun. The parties building those houses were not wealthy in the ordinary meaning of the word; but, better than that, they were endowed with a wealth of thrifty habits and independent thinking. They did not go to their neighbours demanding assistance, by insisting that those neighbours pay higher taxes to the government in order that the government, by the granting of subsidies, would assist in the building of those homes. Nothing of the kind. And I can well understand that those hundred families living in their own homes, the result of their own work, their own savings, and their own planning will be much happier and more contented than if living in homes built or subsidized by any government agency. This has no reference, of course, to cases where permanent residence at any point is improbable and where individual building might therefore be unwise.

The taxpayers of Canada know from experience what subsidies mean. They know that every dollar thus raised comes out of their own pockets, be they rich or poor.

We hear reference occasionally to New Zealand's building program. Who would withhold - certainly not I - the slightest credit for the good work done in that country, even though it does fall far below what has been accomplished in Canada? However, what is the situation in New Zealand according to what would seem to be reliable reports? A statement issued recently by

National Housing Act

Prime Minister Fraser indicated' that last year New Zealand had built 9,500 units, and in the last three years 31,000 units, not 200,000 in two and a half years, as has been dene in Canada. On a basis of population, as someone has pointed out, that means in New Zealand fifty-three units, and in Canada seventy-five units, for each 10,000 population, a lead of almost 50 per cent in favour of Canada. Incidentally I understand that in the United States the building units per 10,000 population range between sixty-five and seventy.

An Ottawa paper carried recently an article by Isabel Atkinson, dated at Auckland, New Zealand, in which she said:

There are 56,000 unfilled applications listed for state houses in New Zealand and there are said to be five new applications made for each one filled. Without any new applications it *would take several years of construction to satisfy the demand existing now, even if the current objective, 10,000 to 12,000 state houses a year, is achieved.

I have before me also a booklet issued recently by the New Zealand veterans. They, too, are having housing troubles. There they have only a 50 per cent priority in the allocation of government-built houses. In Canada the veterans have a 100 per cent priority on all rental projects sponsored by the government, the allocation being made on a point system.

The veterans point out that the cost of construction in New Zealand has increased 56 per cent from 1939 to 1946. How much more it increased last year I do not know. The veterans point out further that this colossal rise in costs is viewed with the greatest concern and that for the government to increase their "rehabilitation loans" would have no beneficial effect. In their own words:

Indeed it would only accentuate the present rising costs.

That, Mr. Speaker, I would say, is an indication of realistic thinking, and certainly it touches on a vital point here as well as in New Zealand. It is always possible in any country, whether in building or in some other activity, that because of mounting costs governments and individuals alike are compelled to call a halt. I sincerely trust that common sense may forestall any such eventuality in the building program in this country, even though the present outlook in that respect is not promising. However, that is more an individual than a government responsibility.

We all remember back in the gloomy days when Churchill sent forth that challenging appeal that aroused and electrified the allied nations: "Give us the tools and we'll finish the job." The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply and his department may with almost

equal force issue their challenge to the Canadian people, "Give us the materials at anything like reasonable cost, and we'll finish the job".

I understand that the national research council are right now making investigations into the possibilities of adopting new methods, and to some extent new materials, in order to facilitate our building program, and that actual experiments in building are now being made in accord with those new advances of the research council. Let us hope that they may prove successful.

Another commendable feature is the increasing desire on the part of provinces and municipalities to co-operate with federal housing agencies in the sounder, and more harmonious, planning of subdivisions. Much can be done in this regard to ensure more attractive grounds and lawns than would be the case if it were left to haphazard methods. Among other well appointed projects based on sound community planning, the following may be regarded as outstanding:

Willingdon Heights, Vancouver Renfrew Heights, Vancouver Diceonson project, Edmonton Wildwood project, Winnipeg Bel'lwood project, London Brant Court, Burlington Yorkminster, Toronto Mann Avenue, Ottawa Benny Farm, Montreal Beauport. Quebec Rockwood, Moncton AVestmount, Halifax

Architects, officials in charge, and all concerned, are certainly to be congratulated on their efforts to make those properties attractive in their design, and therefore a source of greater pleasure to the residents.

It is said that those who were endeavouring at one time to locate a monument to Sir Christopher Wren were told to "Look around". I would suggest to certain hon. members that they remove from their eves the coloured glasses of political bigotry and that they, too, look around. Look around Ottawa, if you will, with its expansive newly built areas extending far into the suburbs on either side. Look around Toronto, east and north and west, where it may almost be said that new cities have arisen overnight. Broaden your vision still further by means of travel. Visit every province in Canada; visit many cities and towns; visit those hundreds of municipalities that have co-operated with the department in a worthwhile building program. Visit them from coast to coast and look around. Then, and then only, will you gain some adequate idea of the tens and tens of thousands of homes that have been erected all across this country, in the short period of two and a

National Housing Act

half years since the war ended. Consider the tremendous amounts of material that have been made available for their construction, and then tell me where in all Canada you could have found a minister who would have done a better job. When I say Canada, indeed I speak of a territory too restricted, for it is a recognized fact that, according to population, Canada leads the world in post-war housing.

So I say to the minister, disregarding the critic and the cynic, continue your building efforts largely along the lines that in your good judgment and with your wide experience appear to you as best. The people of Canada have unbounded confidence in your ability and your integrity. They are proud of your clean, unsullied record, free from even any suspicion of wrongdoing. They recognize and appreciate the dynamic energy with which you are so richly endowed. So carry on.

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

Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):

Mr. Speaker-

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

Winfield Chester Scott McLure

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McLURE:

Mr. Speaker-

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

Joseph Henry Harris

Progressive Conservative

Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):

I hope the

minister is not speaking to conclude the debate.

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

William Henry Golding (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):

The hon. member for Queens wishes to speak.

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:

There is a subamendment and an amendment to the main motion. I am speaking to the subamendment.

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

William Henry Golding (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):

The hon. member for Queens will speak after the 'minister has finished.

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:

Mr. Speaker, I think I should say a 'word about the amendment and the subamendment, but first I wish to thank the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) for his kind remarks about the minister, the first I have heard with regard to housing, and I must say in that connection I think he has made the only sensible speech on housing that I have heard.

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 tough on the rest of us.

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 appreciate the contribution which the hon. member made.

I wish to say a word about the amendment and the subamendment. Of course the amendment to the motion is a negation of the subject matter of the bill. Both the amendment and the subamendment are want of confidence motions. The amendment simply says that we should not go into committee on the bill but that the government should consider subsidized housing. The government

has considered subsidized housing. It has built subsidized houses, and I could give an interesting illustration. In co-operation with the government of Saskatchewan the government contributed buildings and large sums of money to convert those buildings into comfortable apartments. 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 to subsidized housing, to practise a little of what it preaches. What are the facts?

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. That is a clear indication that our socialist friends love to give lip service-

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

Alexander Malcolm Nicholson

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

Mr. NICHOLSON:

Give the rates.

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 will let you look them up.

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

Alexander Malcolm Nicholson

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

Mr. NICHOLSON:

You are making a

statement. Back it up.

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:

Substantiate your statement.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

Give the figures.

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 the figures.

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

May 19, 1948