George Louis CHATTERTON

CHATTERTON, George Louis, B.Sc.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Esquimalt--Saanich (British Columbia)
Birth Date
January 16, 1916
Deceased Date
September 7, 1983
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Chatterton
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=bbad949a-ad7c-4051-8dd1-01092f6e6eef&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
agrologist

Parliamentary Career

May 29, 1961 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Esquimalt--Saanich (British Columbia)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
PC
  Esquimalt--Saanich (British Columbia)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
PC
  Esquimalt--Saanich (British Columbia)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
PC
  Esquimalt--Saanich (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 150)


March 8, 1968

Mr. Chaiierton:

I know that a change of this type always creates difficulties. May I suggest that when a decision has been made as to the point at which the decision will apply, the hon. gentleman leave room for an appeal to the minister. I have found there are always special cases in which special consideration is required.

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE RATIOS FOR INSURED LOANS
Full View Permalink

March 8, 1968

Mr. G. L. Chatierion (Esquimalt-Saanich):

have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Will his statement be made on television or in the house?

Topic:   THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Subtopic:   PROCEDURE RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT OF PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Full View Permalink

March 8, 1968

Mr. Chaiterton:

Could the minister explain to the committee at what point after royal assent this new low down payment will apply in the processing of applications?

Topic:   NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE RATIOS FOR INSURED LOANS
Full View Permalink

March 8, 1968

Mr. Chatterton:

I am sure that if the minister were honest with himself, he would admit he would have liked to say what the newspaper quoted him as saying. I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs admitted as much when he made a speech in London a few weeks ago.

As I said, I think the government is vulnerable with respect to its housing policy, but in view of our anxiety to co-operate and to put this legislation through in a hurry, I will reserve the comments I intended to make until the supplementary estimates come before the house.

The one point I want to make is that the resources of this government are so bankrupt that the only thing they can do to improve the housing situation is to reduce down payments. We are completely in favour of this proposal, but I should like to point out that it does not help those Canadians who really need help. I have worked out figures which show that for a person to obtain a loan of $18,000, which is about what is required today to build a house and to pay for the land, he would have to earn at least $8,000 a year.

The fact of the matter is that the provisions of the National Housing Act today are of no value to two thirds of the Canadian wage earners. They are excluded because of the high cost of financing, which is largely a result of the policies of this government. Just to reinforce my argument, may I point out that in 1965, of all N.H.A. loans that were made, only 9 per cent were made to people who earned less than $5,000. In 1966, of all N.H.A. loans made, only 4.8 per cent were made to those with a family income of less than $5,000. Last year, in 1967, only 1.4 per cent of all N.H.A. loans were made to people with a family income of less than $5,000.

Truly, there is a great gap today in the legislation in Canada to provide housing for the average Canadian of average income. I admit that legislation dealing with low rental housing is reasonably good. However, improvements can be made to it, and the time will come when we will improve it.

I think the main fault here lies with the provinces and municipalities. In this respect I give credit to the province of Ontario which has done more than any other province in Canada. But it is the people between that group and those earning more than $8,000 who today cannot be helped by the national housing legislation. I submit this is a problem

March 8. 1968

National Housing Act

to which the government of Canada will have to put its mind. We cannot go on indefinitely providing houses only for those earning an income above $8,000. The time is not far distant when that particular housing market will become saturated. Yet, those people earning less than $8,000 a year cannot qualify for N.H.A. loans simply because under the N.H.A. regulations the gross debt and service charges shall not exceed 7 per cent of their gross income. For a man earning $20,000, the 27 per cent of his income is not too much for housing, but for a man earning $4,000 or $5,000 that 27 per cent of his income is too much for housing.

I should like to quote from the publication called "Municipal Affairs" of February, 1968, published by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, where the following is said:

The government recently announced a substantial Increase in the amount of government funds to be allocated in 1968 to public housing. The public was advised that this larger subsidized rental housing program was being achieved through a reduction in the amount to be available for direct lending to the speculative builder market.

What becomes very apparent as a consequence of these two recent government moves, is that subsidized rental housing or substandard housing will now be the only housing alternatives for many thousands of low and middle-income Canadian families. There can be no doubt about this, for how can a family with an annual income of less than $8,000 hope to finance a twenty-five year mortgage at eight and five eighths per cent, taking into account the current costs of home construction, the cost of land, and the effect of the 11 per cent federal sales tax plus the appropriate provincial sales tax rate on building materials.

On two counts, these alternatives are unsatisfactory. Firstly, the number of public housing units currently available or shortly to become available falls far, far short of even current needs for low-income families, let alone middle-income families. Secondly, the rental rates that apply in public housing schemes are geared to income, and current income/rent schedules disqualify middle-income families from this kind of housing. Simply put, this means that the only solution to the housing problem of many Canadian famiiles is an inordinate level of personal debt.

That comes from a publication of one of the most responsible and well informed organizations in Canada.

As I said before, I will reserve for a later date some of the remarks that I intended to make. I will conclude by saying that we support this measure, and I submit to the fiovern-ment that the time has come when the maximum amount of loan should also be increased. The recommendation of the Canadian Home Builders Association is that it be increased to $24,000, and it can be done by order in

council. I would urge on the minister that he give serious consideration to this.

Although it will not help the group of people whom I have described, earning less than $8,000, it will help a great number of other people. We also have to keep in mind of course that all this money comes from the private sector and none of it comes from the government, therefore I do not think there should be any objection to increasing the amount.

[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
Full View Permalink

March 8, 1968

Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):

Mr. Speaker, we are naturally very pleased that the government has finally acceded to our request to bring this matter before the house. Yesterday I had telephone calls from contractors in various parts of the country asking why the opposition was holding up this bill. I would point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) announced at the federal-provincial conference on December 10 or 11, I believe, that this was a proposal of the government, yet it was not until February 14 that the resolution appeared on the order paper. I therefore want to say categorically that not only do we not accept any blame for the delay, but we have urged the government to bring this matter forward; and as our house leader has said, we intend to co-operate by putting the bill through all its stages this day.

Although this is a relatively uncomplicated amendment it does give us an opportunity to deal with a question with regard to which we feel the government is very vulnerable. The minister responsible for housing is not here at the moment, but I hope he will take sufficient interest later to read what we have to say about this matter. Clearly, even on the admission of some hon. members on the other side of the house, the housing policy of this government is in a mess. I quote from the Montreal Gazette of February 17. This article bears the headline, "Hellyer Lashes Housing Policy As 'All Wrong' ", and is as follows:

[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)

When it comes to housing, the federal government is doing "all the wrong things," transport minister Paul Hellyer said yesterday.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
Full View Permalink