1947-03-25

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise to a question of privilege. Last evening the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) said, as reported at page 1696 of Hansard:
In the House of Commons on June 5, 1940, as reported at page 545 of Hansard, during the discussion on the unemployment relief and agricultural distress measure at that time, the hon. member-
Meaning myself.

said:
"The secret of the recent success of the Germans is the fact that they have consciously planned their economic structure."
My colleague, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), interjected:
Read it all.
The hon. member for Souris replied:
I have not time to read the whole speech.
Rental Housing Project

Mr. Speaker, had the hon. gentleman read the sentence which followed, the purpose of his quotation would have been destroyed. The next sentence read:
True, they have planned with diabolical intent, but they have planned with an end in view.
And the next sentence:
We have failed to make any plans or to give any direction to our economic system for the worthy purposes for which we ought to have been planning in the past.
My point of privilege is. therefore, Mr. Speaker, that what I had said was misrepresented by quoting a sentence out of its context.



ELDORADO GOLD MINES


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I was asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) to table correspondence bearing on the case of the King v. Carl French, Marcel Pochon and Boris Pregel. I now table copy of a letter dated March 5 from John Robinette to the deputy minister of justice, copy of a letter dated March 7, from the deputy minister of justice to John Robinette, and also copy of a letter dated March 11 from John Robinette to the Hon. Leslie Blackwell, K.C., attorney-general for Ontario.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Stirling be substituted for that of Mr. Church on the special committee to revise the Indian Act.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the address to His Excellency the Governor General which this house recently passed with respect to the extension of the time of application of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act was presented to His Excellency this morning by the Hon. the Speaker of this house. A similar address was presented to His Excellency by the Speaker of the Senate. The act provides, as hon. members will recall, that after addresses have been presented the governor in council should order that the act shall continue in force for a further period. I have in
fMr. Co!dive!I.]
my hand a copy of the order in council which was passed subsequently to the presentation of the addresses this morning and which orders that the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, shall continue until the fifteenth day of May, 1947. I would ask leave of the house to table the order.



HOUSING


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, during my remarks in this house on February 7 I stated that the government would shortly take steps to increase the supply of privately-ow'ned rental housing. At that time, I outlined three proposed incentives: (1) allowance of double depreciation for new rental housing units; (2) a longer period of amortization under the National Housing Act for loans on approved types of rental housing; and (3) extension of priorities for materials to assist in the construction of approved rental housing.
As I mentioned in February, our supply of new rental housing is proportionately too low and there is a great need in the country today for this type of dwelling. Perhaps the principal reason for the reluctance of private owners to enter this field is their belief that present capitalized costs may be high in relation to stabilized rents.
To stimulate an additional supply of rental housing, I now table order in council P.C. 1095 which provides for depreciation at double the rates normally allowed in respect to rental housing projects and equipment installed therein, built or acquired in a fixed period.
As hon. members know, the owner of a rental property, on filing income tax returns, is allowed as a deduction from the property value depreciation for buildings at standard rates which vary from two or five per cent, depending on the type of structure. In the case of equipment, these standard rates vary from five to ten per cent. The order in council I have just tabled has the effect of doubling these rates for a period of ten years when applied to projects consisting of four or more family dwelling units which meet the requirements set out in the order. This incentive will apply only to the types of rental housing approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Basic qualifications include rentals under $70 a month, based on a standard four-room unit; veterans' preference for occupancy of completed units; and an average of at least 1-75 bedrooms per unit.

Rental Housing Project
The order provides that:
Any project, wholly constructed between March 31, 1947, and December 31, 1949, will be allowed double depreciation on the full cost of construction.
Any project under construction on March 31, 1947, will be allowed double depreciation on costs incurred after that date.
Any project not completed by December 31, 1949, will be allowed double depreciation only on costs incurred prior to that date.
While I do not wish to discuss the order in detail at this time, I would point out to hon. members that provision is made for an extra principal payment by the owner of a rental property where the project is financed by mortgage. The extra principal payment required amounts to one-third of the allowable extra depreciation.
Hon. members may also be wondering why the effective date has been advanced to March 31. Under the order, the owner of a project at present under way who proposes to apply for double depreciation must obtain from a qualified architect or engineer a certificate of costs of the project at that date. The advanced date will allow him time to do so.
To determine whether or not a rental housing project qualifies for double depreciation under the provisions of this order, a builder will be required to complete and file an application with a regional or branch office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Full information may also be obtained from these offices, which are located in principal cities throughout the country. If a project is found to qualify, the corporation will issue a certificate of entitlement.
Increased amortization. Tlje second point I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks was an extended period of amortization. We will introduce shortly legislation under the National Housing Act to increase to thirty years the period of amortization for this type of rental housing.
Priorities. As a third stimulation, priorities for building materials will be granted for rental housing projects which meet the same requirements as those set out in the order respecting double depreciation. While I am on the subject, I wish to take this opportunity to reaffirm the government's position with respect to priorities. During the past few weeks, it has come to my attention that certain groups are apparently anticipating a relaxation of the priorities policy. I wish to state emphatically that the government does not now propose to revise the present system,
which is based on a veterans' preference and some control over the end sales price or rent to be charged for housing units.
So that there can be no misunderstanding or confusion, I list again the housing categories entitled to priorities on materials:
1.	The house of any individual veteran of world war II where the house is fifty per cent completed, which generally means roofed and closed in.
2.	All government and government-sponsored housing carrying the veterans' preference, such as that built under the integrated housing plan, Veterans Land Act, and emergency shelter order and by Wartime Housing Limited and Housing Enterprises of Canada, Limited.
3.	Housing in remote areas built by basic industries such as lumbering, logging, mining and fishing companies, for which the rentals or sale prices of the units are approved by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and where an undertaking is given by the company that fifty per cent of the units will be occupied by veterans of world war II.
4.	Rental housing projects, as I already stated, which meet the same requirements as those set out in the order I have tabled today respecting double depreciation.


Mr. FLEMING:: I should like to ask the minister for clarification of the first part of his statement. As I understand it, the consideration which is being extended to those who will after March 31 build rental housing, applies only to those who will erect houses in groups of four units, or units which are themselves four-family units, but will not apply to those who are erecting smaller units for a lesser number of families.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It applies to single houses,
for rental, when built in groups of four or more. But if the owner is an occupant of the house, it must be a four-family house. In other words, it does not apply to a single duplex where the owner is also the occupant. If the owner is not an occupant it will apply to a double duplex, or any unit of four or more.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Otherwise if a person is
not building a multiple family unit it does not apply. He would need to build a four-family house to come within the scope of the order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the situation
with respect to the construction of single family units?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: It will apply to single family units in groups of four or more.


Mr. KNOWLES:: The minister made it
quite clear.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 72, to incorporate conference of Mennonites in Canada.-Mr. Tucker.
Bill No. 73, respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company,-Mr. Cleaver.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	On March
21, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) asked a question about the transfer of records from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Veterans Affairs. I can assure him now that the matter is not only being considered but is being actively explored, and I hope to be able to give further information in the very near future.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. About a week or so ago I spoke privately to the Prime Minister about President Truman's proposed visit to Canada. At that time the Prime Minister indicated that there was no official information available. I noticed a report in the press, which I think all Canadians will hail with delight, referring to the prospective visit of the president of the friendly republic to the south. Can the Prime Minister give us some details of the visit or some official imprimatur with respect to the news which is in the papers this morning?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The reports which
appeared in the press this morning are evidently based on a statement made yesterday by the president to a press conference at Washington. Nothing that I am aware of has been given out officially by anyone in Canada. As I mentioned to my hon. friend the other day, conferences respecting President Truman's visit to Canada have been taking place between the two countries, but

no definite date has yet been fixed. The expectation is that the president's visit will take place early in June, but there has been no final word given by the president as yet. Just as soon as the visit has been officially arranged an announcement will be made if possible in this house in the first instance. I was as much surprised as my hon. friend when I read as much as I did in the press this morning, but an official statement is still to be given out both in Washington and here as to the date and programme of the visit.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it the intention of the government to make an announcement as to the filling of the senior diplomatic positions in Mexico and Australia?
Right Hon. L. S. St. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): As hon. members know, appointments to these posts require formalities which must be fulfilled not only by the Canadian government but by others as well. These formalities are being dealt with and I think that they will be completed so that an announcement can be made on Thursday.



WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: On Friday last the hon. member for Peterborough West asked1 whether war savings certificates when due would be cashed by the chartered banks.
In reply I might first point out that war savings certificates are by their terms redeemable only at the office of the registrar of war savings certificates, Bank of Canada, Ottawa. In view of the large number of certificates outstanding and their small denominations, very careful consideration has been given to the question whether it would be possible to make satisfactory arrangements to have them redeemable elsewhere than at the Bank of Canada. However a substantial number, some 62,000, duplicate certificates have been issued under regulations approved by the governor in council, without the furnishing of any bond of indemnity. In addition further duplicate certificates will, of course, be issued in the normal course of events. So far it has not been possible to work out adequate safeguards to prevent the redemption in such cases of both original

Militia Act
and duplicate certificates, if redemption elsewhere than at the Bank of Canada were permitted. However, continuing consideration will be given to the problem.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that he has not my question in front of him, an answer tomorrow or the day after will be satisfactory. In the House of Commons in England yesterday Sir Stafford Cripps made a statement with regard to a delegation looking after British interests at the international trade organization wherein certain principles were laid down, I suppose to help guide this delegation. Will the minister examine the statement made by Sir Stafford Cripps and, if within government policy, make to this house a preliminary statement or a statement similar to the one made by him on preferences.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am not just sure whether the questions should be addressed to me or to my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). In any event, the questions will be taken into consideration and a reply given.


Joseph Henry Harris: The statement was made in the British house in regard to British industries, trade and commerce. I understand the minister took cognizance of it, particularly when the charter for world trade was published some months ago.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

[Stage Direction]
CAR FERRY "aBEGWEIt"-PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): As you announced on Friday last, Mr. Speaker, that spring is here, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What is the latest report, if he has one, concerning the progress of construction of the S.S. Abegweit?
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: I can tell the hon. gentleman that progress on the Abegweit is exceedingly favourable. As I have told him once before, we hope to have it ready for operation within the next few months.



MILITIA ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 14, to amend the Militia Act.
Mr. PEARKES:: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Mr. HUGUES LAPOINTE (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: In the absence of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) may I be permitted to give a few words of explanation? The proposed amendments refer to sections 15 and 32 of Bill No. 14 as passed in this house last February. Section 15 of the bill amended section 46 of the Militia Act. It referred to certain restrictions on the wearing of uniforms. The proposed amendment does substantially the same thing but it is reworded to make it clearer and less ambiguous.
Section 32, which amended section 139 of the Militia Act, refers to the power given to the governor general in council to empower the minister to make certain regulations. When this section was studied by the senate the remark was made that the amendment as wordied implied that it was rather the exception than the rule for the governor general in council to make regulations. It was pointed out that the paramount authority in the act was for the governor general in council to make regulations, and any exception to that rule would be by the governor general in council empowering the minister to do so. Consequently the section was redrafted to make this implication clear.


George Randolph Pearkes: I am afraid I cannot agree with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence that the senate amendment makes clearer the amendment to section 46 as passed in this house. I suggest that the amendment now under consideration changes the meaning of the amendment adopted in this house; it does not merely change the words. The words of bill 14 amending old section 46 of the act read:
No unit-
By "unit" I understand is meant an organized body of troops.
No unit or man, other than a unit or man of the active force or a warrant officer shall at any time appear in uniform or armed or accoutred, except . . .
Militia Act

Then it gives certain exceptions. The amendment suggested by the other place reads:
No unit warrant officer or man other than a unit warrant officer or man of the active force shall at any time appear in uniform or armed or accoutred, except . . .
The essential difference is that the privilege which has always been granted to a warrant officer to appear in uniform on the streets, or to attend any function in uniform without having to go to his commanding officer and get his consent, is now removed by this amendment which has been suggested by the other place. I suggest that it is not of national importance but it is a prerogative and a privilege which has been enjoyed for many years by senior warrant officers who served in the old non-permanent militia, which is today known as the reserve army.
When our amendment to the old act was introduced it seemed to me that care was taken that that privilege should be continued. In this proposed amendment the warrant officer, who up to the present has had the same privileges so far as the wearing of uniform is concerned as the commissioned officer, is having these privileges taken away from him. I do not know what the procedure is, but I do suggest that this amendment, as it changes the meaning of our bill, should be referred back to the other place, or that a further discussion should be had, or some other means taken to rectify the matter. As I say, it is not a matter of vital national importance, but it is a privilege which has been cherished by those people in the reserve army, in the non-permanent militia, who have voluntarily given up their time. Sometimes these niceties of the services are highly appreciated, and it will be resented if they are taken away without just cause.
There are some other comments that I should like to make regarding this suggested amendment. It uses the words, "no unit warrant officer." Well, of course, all warrant officers are not on the strength of a unit, and it would seem to me this gives a warrant officer who is not on the strength of a unit the right to wear uniform at the same time as officers without having to apply to the commanding officer, but denies this privilege to the warrant officer who is serving with a unit. I do not believe the other place intended to make these alterations, and if it can be referred back perhaps the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) can adjust it with the movers of the amendment.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary

assistant. As I understand it, this amendment comes directly from the other place. Is that
so?


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then I am against it. Send it back whence it came.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: In view of the
divergency of opinion I suggest that this motion stand for the time being.
On motion of Mr. Pearkes the debate was adjourned.



EMERGENCY POWERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Usley that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations of the governor in council for a limited period during the national emergency arising out of the war and to provide therein that the governor in council may appoint and fix the compensation of the officers, clerks and employees necessary for the administration of any order or regulation continued in force by the act and further to provide that certain officers, clerks and employees may continue to perform the duties for which they were previously appointed.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one observation. It will be so short that hon. members on the other side will be glad to hear it. There has been over the last few days a good deal of discussion with respect to this legislation. Perhaps some issues may have become clarified and others not. Perhaps some new issues have been brought in. I should like it made clear to the house and country that in this regard I speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party as a whole, and I repeat what was stated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) at the beginning of the debate. It is only proper and fitting that at this stage we should indicate again the position this party took, namely that we were prepared to allow the resolution to go through and would not on the resolution stage take our stand with respect to the principle of the bill to follow. Rather it was stated that we were prepared to allow the resolution to pass; and it was understood that while in committee of the whole we would seek from the government the information we needed respecting the stand we would take subsequently on the bill itself.
There were however a number of things which intervened, with the result that many

Emergency Powers
hon. members made speeches. We are now in the same position as that which we occupied at that time. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house, that we reserve now, as we did then, the right either to support or to oppose the bill on second reading, after the information we shall seek in committee stage has been given to us by the government. The whole debate, from our point of view, will of course be relegated to the motion for second reading of the bill. On that basis, and strictly without prejudice to our rights as a party to take such stand as we may think is proper and desirable or in the public interest, we are now prepared to allow the resolution to pass.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman,
I wish to say a few words on this resolution. The time has come for this country to get rid of dictatorial powers which no longer have any justification. There is a limit to unwarranted emergency measures. The war has been over for almost two years. The government mobilized all our resources to crush dictatorship. But they are asking us now to surrender our prerogatives as representatives of the people to an irresponsible bureaucracy. This army of officials has taken the place of parliament much too long. All civil servants, clerks and employees look down patronizingly on those whose mandate they have usurped. The people are surfeited with this bureaucracy which has implanted in Canada a loathsome form of dictatorship. We owe nothing to all these boards, save inflation and the black market. In a country like ours, so rich in natural resources, there is no ground for imposing rations conducive to hoarding, simulation and fraud.
I have had many an opportunity, in my professional capacity, of representing persons amenable to a court which had been prosecuted by the wartime prices and trade board. Invariably, the seller only was summoned. The buyer, who had also broken the law, always got off scot-free. No action was brought against him. Such justice is not worthy of the name. I have heard some magistrates denounce, with reason, the procedure followed by those bureaucrats who, daily, break our laws, both federal and provincial.
For too many years, under cover of the 'national emergency arising from the war" the most flagrant infractions of our federal and provincial laws have been perpetrated under the guise of controls. The astonishing statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) bears me out. In the first place, he contended that even in peace time the dominion parliament may legislate in a field reserved to the provinces when it is necessary to do so in order to maintain peace, order and good government, etc. That is the pet phrase so dear to the hearts of those who have supported the extravagant expenditures made in war time. Were it only for that statement of the Minister of Justice I would have a thousand reasons to reject his resolution. I cannot have any faith in the man who unscrupulously builds up a bureaucracy upon the ruins of parliamentary prerogatives. I respect the views expressed by the Minister of Justice, but I cannot conceive how anyone can make such a statement of policy eighty years after confederation.
For years the dominion government has striven unceasingly to assimilate and centralize. Taking advantage of the word "war," it launched into the great adventure and never returned. This is proved by the fact that we are still squatting under the Moscow conference table. Denied a part in the conference of the Big Four, it is forced to while away its time cultivating socialism and consolidating an already flourishing bureaucracy. The same old reason will be used in justification of controls: "Inflation must be avoided." Come now, inflation is here despite all controls. Anyone buying property will have to pay four times the price of 1939 or 1940. Build your own home and it will cost you much more than a few years ago. Walk into your dealer's, your grocer's or any place of business, and you shall find that the price of commodities, of clothes for instance, has increased enormously. In the case of clothes and many other prime necessities, prices have gone up as high as 200 and 300 per cent. On top of this, consider the burdensome taxes that have to be paid especially by the small wage earner, and you shall have the sad picture of the pernicious results of controls and bureaucracy.
And now, with this resolution, the government would have parliament allow bureaucracy to carry on? For my part, I refuse any longer to surrender parliament's prerogatives to a bureaucracy that keeps exploiting the people under the cloak of ultra vires legislation brought in by a parliament which is giving up its mandate.
Under pretext of urgency, the government slash our statutes and constitution. Centralization and assimilation lead us directly to legislative union.
I represent a constituency which took up arms to fight the dictatorship of bureaucracy. More than a century has elapsed since this pathetic struggle. Canada has taken part in the two largest wars of history for the sake of the four freedoms as defined in the Atlan-
Emergency Powers

tic charter. In a helpless world, I seek in vain for even a shadow of these freedoms. What has become of all these loftiest ideologies which we have defended: Christianity, freedom, justice and right? In our own country, provincial rights granted by the constitution are infringed upon in the name of a so-called national emergency. Freedom, justice and right, for which our soldiers laid down their lives, have become idle words. Among those who lived through the struggle, how many are looking in vain for a shelter, while our building materials are being controlled or shipped outside the country? Such is, in all its ghastliness, the work of a bureaucracy unanswerable to the people. I shall fight this regime without let-up for it is a source of centralization and injustice on which the parliament elected by the people have no control whatever.
(Text):


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, while not an advocate of repetition I deem it my duty to express my views on this resolution. First of all I am in complete agreement with the stand taken by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) on the first night of debate of this resolution. I think his exposition, argument and presentation were logical and strictly in accord with democratic socialism and given with a view to the requirements of the people of this country. I do not think there is any necessity at this time for me to attempt to repeat those arguments or the arguments that many other members have put forward in this debate.
I listened particularly with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and to his argument in opposition to this resolution. I must say that I have a great deal of respect for the attitude of men of the type of the member for Quebec South. He expressed the attitude of the classical Liberal, and I was very much interested in his remark that had he been in England recently he would have voted for the Labour government. That is significant. Of course he has full knowledge of the fact that the species he represents in Canada is almost extinct now in England but his statement was an indication of this fact, for which I give him credit, that all genuine Liberals when they have to choose between advancing democratic forces and conservatism will generally be found on the side of the progressive forces.
I have listened, with a great deal of interest to the arguments, or, should I say, to the declamations of the members of the Progressive Conservative party. I think they are

sincerely alarmed over the effects of this legislation so far as they are concerned and from their point of view. But honestly, Mr. Speaker, after listening carefully to the remarks of the Progressive Conservative party, I think that their arguments and attitude indicated an almost feminine excitability-


Mrs. STRUM:: Libel, libel!


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -over the possibility of a political mouse that does not exist. I would like to tell my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party that this resolution is not socialism or anything approaching socalism. It is a resolution brought forward by a democratic capitalist government in an effort to stabilize to some extent for a limited time the capitalist system, a system which can never be stabilized. But I give hon. gentlemen opposite credit; this is necessary legislation at this time.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: If my hon. friend will permit a question, while what he says is perfectly true as to the tenor of the resolution, does he not agree that the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did in fact broaden it out and change it so that in effect we were from that moment bound to discuss socialism, or at all events a very large instalment of it? That is the way I read his speech and the amendment, and our arguments should be considered in that light.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I can quite appreciate the hon. gentleman's position. As soon as I heard the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar speak I was fully prepared for an epidemic of anti-socialist speeches. I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar supports this legislation for two reasons. In the first place it is for the benefit at this time under these circumstances of the great majority of the Canadian people, and in the second place the socialists are given to thinking logically about economic questions, and this resolution from our point of view is logical in a concrete way. I just want to say again that I think our good friends in the Progressive Conservative ranks ' are too much disturbed over the possible socialist contents of this resolution and the legislation that will follow.
I want us to look at this resolution for a very few moments without prejudice, and from a non-partisan point of view, because I think the country is looking at it on the whole with a non-partisan view.
First of all, controls were definitely necessary during the war and were supported by the great majority of the Canadian people. There is no question about that. Secondly,

Emergency Powers
controls worked during the war to the great advantage of our war effort and without doubt proved our ability successfully to overcome the common enemy. My third point is this, that as the result of our war experience and as the result of what is happening in other countries, and no one can deny this, the great majority of the Canadian people, realizing the value of these controls during the critical war period and now, are expressing their support for a continuation of controls particularly while commodities are in short supply. I think that is generally recognized, and no one can deny it. The evidence is found in the stand taken by organized labour, by the organized farmers, by large groups of consumers, throughout the country, by church organizations and by many women's organizations. So far as my riding is concerned I know that when I stand here and support this resolution I am expressing the will and the opinion and the desire of the great majority of the people I have the honour to represent.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: And of British Columbia too.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think that is correct. We all know the situation as it exists in Canada. Conditions in Canada are not by any means perfect, but if there is one thing to the great credit of the present government it is their operation of controls during the war years.
To the Progressive Conservatives I would say this. If they have read carefully British, Australian and New Zealand papers and the papers of the United States in past years, they will have found repeated references to the successful operaton of controls in Canada, made by the press not only of the Liberal party, of the Labour party and of the Socialist party, but of the Conservative party in all these countries.
I want to quote something which the bureau of agricultural economics in Washington reported recently. It reports that one dollar today will buy only as much food as 72 cents would have bought a year ago when price control was in effect in the United States. The bureau reports that between January 1946 and January 1947 retail food prices in the United States have risen as follows-and these are things that are vitally important to the people of this country: meats, 67 per cent; dairy products, 37 per cent; bakery and cereal products, 30 per cent; canned fruit and vegetables, 32 per cent.
In addition the National Retail Lumber Dealers Association of the United States from its executive offices in that country issued a .statement to the effect that in their opinion
home-building costs have increased 50 per cent in two years, and the United States section of Proctor and Gamble Company announce that tallow, a very important ingredient in soap, has climbed from 20 to 274 cents per pound recently, and that is going to be reflected in the cost of soap to consumers. It would be possible to go on for hours giving illustrations of the value of controls in this country as against the situation that has existed in the United States since the forgoing there of price control. '
I have heard it stated on many occasions and several times in this debate that controls will restrict production. I do not think that argument has any validity or is rooted in fact. One has only to examine the production figures of this country for the last two years, the balance sheets of all large industrial firms, or to read carefully the addresses made to the shareholders by the presidents of all the banks of Canada at their annual meetings, to realize that on the whole production never reached a greater height in Canadian history. I want to give one illustration of the absurd statements made at times by people occupying responsible executive positions in the industrial field. I have not one handy from a Canadian source, but I have one from an American source, and it is a gem, what you would call a beauty. I quote from an Associated Press dispatch from Philadelphia of a few days ago:
J. Howard Pew, President of the Sun Oil Company, said today that until government wartime controls are ended "industry cannot function efficiently and effectively to serve the nation."
One can almost hear the voice of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming).
He told stockholders in an annual report that Sun established new records in 1946 for crude oil production, refinery operation and marketing.
How can you place those two statements together?
That concludes my argument so far as this resolution is concerned. I support the principle of controls because experience has proved that oontrols are to the benefit of the great majority of the Canadian people and I have no fear of controls provided they are exercised as a result of action by this parliament.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: I wish to say just a few words in connection with this resolution, which is designed to extend some of the emergency powers in the hands of the government for the period of another year. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), who has just preceded me, has contended that these controls are necessary for
Emergency Powers

the reason that the country is in a state of short supply. I am not going to argue that point, but I would say that if the country is in a state of short supply there must have been a reason for it, and I contend that government policy during the time that we have granted to them the power to exercise control under the emergency powers act has been largely the reason that goods are in short supply.
The hon. member mentioned that production has increased, but it is a well known fact that the government of the day have been so-I was going to use the term hell-bent, but that might not be appropriate for me-so desirous and covetous of foreign markets that they have permitted much of our production to go out of the country and thus by control have controlled to the minimum point the consumption of Canadian goods in Canada.
Again we have our price control. I voted in the past for giving to the government emergency powers to combat inflation, and I am not going to say they have not done a fair job under existing conditions in combating serious inflation. But there is another thing. When goods are in short supply, even by reason of exports, then prices are bound to rise. I was not going to speak along that line, and perhaps those few remarks will serve more or less as an introduction.
What I am concerned about is the principle involved in this measure, which as I see it is fundamentally the principle of controls placed in the hands of government rather than, where it belongs, in the hands of parliament or the people.
The member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) yesterday spent some considerable time in emphasizing the necessity for governments to have power. He expressed no fear that the present Prime Minister would deliberately give away the powers of parliament to somebody else. Of course that statement was carefully worded. I personally do not express any fear that the present Prime Minister would deliberately and knowingly do any such thing. That is not what we are in danger of. The thing that we are in danger of is that power ,s to be taken from us by stealth; that is the principle that is involved, and one has to make a decision between governmental power and the power of our parliamentary institutions.
He expressed no fear that the Minister of Agriculture or even the leader of the official opposition would deliberately give away those powers, because, he went on to say, the people of Canada have the right and power to punish those who may be guilty of such abuse by discharging them. But the danger, Mr. Speaker,

is that even though the power of the people at the present time can discharge any government-at any election they can put one government out and another party in-


An hon. MEMBER:: Not under Social Credit.


Ernest George Hansell: I will come to that in a little while, and I am glad my hon. friend mentioned it. But I wish to warn that even the power of the people can be taken away by stealth, so that even the people themselves would become divested of the very power they now have to discharge a government. That is the thing that has happened already in socialist countries. I might refer to Germany, if you wish. Were not the people of Germany conscientious in voting for the nazi regime? Did they not say something similar? I have not, read all the records of the debates in the reichstag but I can imagine some member there rising in his seat and saying, "I have no fear that the fuehrer will deliberately take away this and that power and hand it to someone else." I can imagine that happening.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I do not want to create a precedent. The hon. member for Macleod adjourned the debate on March 20. If he will consult Beauchesne at page 762, he will see that having moved the adjournment of the debate, a member has spoken on the question, and having spoken on the question he cannot speak a second time.


Ernest George Hansell: I was not quite aware
of that ruling, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the ruling is correct. I am not arguing the point of order, but do I understand that because 1 adjourned the debate I cannot speak now?


James Horace King: According to the rules,
by reason of the fact that the hon. member adjourned the debate the other day he is considered as having spoken, and as he has not moved a substantive motion he cannot speak twice. Therefore he is out of order in speaking this afternoon.


Gordon Graydon: On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, if that is so your ruling is drawing things closely. I am not sure whether you were in the chair yesterday, or someone else, but the Minister of Finance was given the opportunity of making two speeches in this debate, and I think, in view of that, the member for Macleod ought to be allowed to speak, seeing that he only adjourned the debate.

Emergency Powers


James Horace King: The hon. member for
Macleod will understand that if I took the liberty of interrupting, it was because I did not want to make a precedent.


Gordon Graydon: You made one yesterday.


James Horace King: The hon. member
adjourned the debate on March 20 and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) spoke first on the next day in place of the member for Macleod. According to our rules, therefore, the hon. member for Macleod is considered as having spoken. He cannot speak this afternoon because by doing so he would be speaking twice in the debate on the measure which is before the house, and that is not permitted.


Ernest George Hansell: I appreciate the point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I am not discussing it. I must admit that I was ignorant of that particular point. I shall be pleased to forgo speaking now and to speak at some later stage in the debate.


Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, because of the remarks made by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe), I think I must say a few words. Evidently the hon. member did not understand what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) said yesterday, or else be was not in his seat when the Minister of Justice replied to a question put to him by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret). Evidently the Minister of Justice does not need to be defended by anybody. He can defend himself very well.


Mr. HOMUTH:: He got himself into an awful mess, though.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I am sure, from what he said yesterday, that the Minister of Justice has no desire or disposition to bring to this house any legislation which would encroach upon the rights of the provinces, except for the peace, order and good government of this country pursuant to section 91 of the British North America Act. Some objection has been taken to this bill on the ground that it includes about fifty-seven orders in council relating to controls. For this I think the minister and the government deserve congratulations for trying to expedite matters in this house. At the beginning of this session I advocated a change in the rules of the house in order to shorten the debates. Up to the present time may I say that we have taken about two months to do what we could have done in about two or three weeks at most. Usually, after scores of speeches and amendments have been presented by opposition groups, the measures of the government are adopted
exactly as they were moved. I again ask that we in this house do business in a businesslike manner. Personally I will take about ten minutes to express my views in this matter relating to controls.
May I say first that the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) objected to the procedure- followed in this connection more than he objected to the substance of the bill itself. I repeat that the minister is to be congratulated upon bringing in this bill in the form in which he has brought it in. If he had done otherwise and had brought down fifty-seven different bills, it would have meant that if only fifty out of the 245 members of this house-and that is a conservative estimate-had spoken on each of those fifty-seven measures, there would have been about 2,850 speeches inflicted upon the house.
On this subject of controls, the government is taking, as usual, a moderate course. On the one hand, some of the Tories want to abolish all the controls immediately and suddenly, although, as they did on some other bills this session, they may finally vote for the bill. On the other hand, the C.C.F. want more controls than we already have. I reaffirm the view and suggestion that a practical procedure to follow in abolishing controls -would be to set a date of expiration, to give it wide publicity and warn the public of such date of expiration so that no one would be taken by surprise when controls w'ould come to an end. Everyone would then know definitely what to expect and would act accordingly.
Since the declaration made by the Minister of Justice last Thursday, we have had what we usually call a tempest in a teapot, highly activated by press and by radio reports. According to rumours, there was a fatal split in Liberal ranks; there was revolt among Liberal members; there wras dissension between ministers of the crown.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There was until the minister back-tracked.


An hon. MEMBER:: Imagination!


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: And the fall of the government was fast approaching, et cetera, et cetera. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that all these rumours were just as silly as they were false. Here are the facts. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is really the cause of this misunderstanding.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He is the cause of a great deal of dissension over there.
Mr. G.AUTHIER (Portneuf): Order, order; be serious.
Emergency Powers


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: The hon member for Lake Centre may or may not 'have the confidence of the electors of my constituency, and I imagine he does not care, but I want my friends to know that he nevertheless started this difficulty in expressing the opinion that in the light of the Canada Temperance Act case, the dominion government need not allege emergency in order to legislate for the peace, order and good government of the country, even if that legislation would encroach upon provincial rights.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And the minister swallowed it hook, line and sinker.


James Horace King: Order, order.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I wonder if the hon. member for Waterloo South would mind not interrupting?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I am just trying to help.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Thank the Lord I do not need the hon. member's help.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Waterloo South lost his head yesterday.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I do not like what the hon. member for Waterloo South says, and I do not think anybody else in the house does. I do not like what he says and I do not like the way he says it.
The hon. member for Lake Centre also asked the Minister of Justice for the opinion of his law officers regarding the point I just mentioned. I wish to emphasize, that when this happened, we were not discussing this particular measure relating to controls at all. We were discussing Bill No. 25, an act for the sale and export of agricultural products.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Would the hon. member allow a question? As a lawyer, does he agree that the dominion parliament may,, in reference to matters such as the sale of farm products and matters of trade and commerce, infringe upon the rights of the provinces under the peace, order and good government clause?


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I do not agree at all.


John George Diefenbaker: I just wondered.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I do not agree at all, and that is not the question. I do not think the hon. member for Lake Centre, who is a very clever lawyer, will succeed in taking me 'out of the course which I intend to follow.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry; I did not mean to do that.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: On Thursday, March 20, the Minister of Justice read an opinion of his department, which begins as follows, as reported on page 1553 of Hansard:

Ottawa, March 20, 1947.
Memorandum for the Minister of Justice re Bill No. 25.
You asked for an opinion as the constitutional validity of the proposed agricultural products act now under consideration by the House of Commons.
Following this is the opinion of the law officer of the Department of Justice which gives quite a body of jurisprudence and discusses a few cases such as the Temperance Act case, the Fort Frances pulp and paper case, and the Manitoba Free Press case in relation to the Natural Products Marketing Act of 1934 and the act for the sale and export of agricultural products of 1947. The deputy minister said:
You asked for an opinion as to the constitutional validity of the proposed agricultural products act now under consideration by the House of Commons.
I am not going to quote all the discussion on which this advice was based. The advice concludes as follows:
For the reasons given it is my opinion that the bill is within the competence of parliament to enact.
The Minister of Justice then spoke as follows:
I do not think it is necessary to add anything to that opinion.
Therefore whatever was said by the minister on that occasion was simply what had been said by the law officer of his department and what had been said by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself. I quote:
Yesterday the hon. member for Lake Centre put forward the view, not dogmatically but for the consideration of the government, that the doctrine of emergency no longer was valid as a basis for dominion jurisdiction.
It was not the minister who said that, it was the hon. member for Lake Centre. I continue with the quotation:
The hon. member for Lake Centre cited in support of the position the Canada Temperance Act case, and stated that that position had been taken by the editor of the Fortnightly Law Journal, and perhaps by others.
The minister continues:
Bearing in mind what I said in reply to the hon. member for Temiseouata. I am not going to venture into an opinion on the matter.
The minister made other remarks, all based on the opinion of the law officer of his department. That was not such an alarming declaration after all. In fact the Minister of Justice made no declaration on that day. He just followed what the law officer of his department had said. It will be easily seen therefore that there is no occasion or reason to think or

Emergency Powers
fear that this jurisprudence quoted in the legal opinion just referred to is to be implemented or translated into any definite or positive act or step or legislation whatsoever. The present measure relating to controls is not based on that legal point of view at all. The minister emphasized this point yesterday in reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret). I invite the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) to read that answer and try to understand it, and not repeat things that are false, not repeat rumours that have been published in newspapers and broadcast on the radio.
The present bill relating to controls is founded on section 91 of the British North America Act which authorizes parliament to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada in cases of emergency. Everyone admits that following the war we are still in a period of emergency.
In conclusion I wish to say that if I support the present measure for extension of controls it is with reluctance and only because I have the assurance that this measure is of a temporary nature and that it will be of short duration, and also because until their total disappearance control laws may be softened or amended so that the protection given to one group of citizens will not constitute an injustice to other groups.


Mr. LOW:: I should like to raise a point of order. A few minutes ago when His Honour the Speaker was in the chair an incident took place which I should like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, for a definite ruling. A note having been sent up to Mr. Speaker by the leader of the C.C.F. party calling attention to the fact that my colleague, the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), had adjourned the debate on the evening of the twentieth, Mr. Speaker declared the hon. member for Macleod, who was addressing the house at the time, out of order. I should like to point out, sir, that the freedom of speech of hon. members is at stake in this decision. There is already in this very debate a precedent by which we can safely go. There is also a ruling-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I cannot change a ruling which has already been made by the Speaker. I understand he made a ruling and heard argument at that time.


Solon Earl Low: There was no argument at the time.


William Ross Macdonald: I understand there was some discussion and the Speaker
did make a ruling which is not debatable and could have been appealed at that time. Therefore-


Major James William Coldwell: May I say just a word? There was no-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. There is no provision for discussion.


Major James William Coldwell: There was no discussion. It was my intention to raise the question after the hon. gentleman had taken his seat.


Mr. MARTIN:: There was discussion.


Major James William Coldwell: There was very little discussion.


Gordon Graydon: On the point of order-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I was in the house at the time and I recall that the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) spoke. I do not know that others did, but at least he did.


Gordon Graydon: When I spoke it fell on deaf ears.


William Ross Macdonald: In any event, if the hon. member for Peace River wishes to raise this question I think it would be more appropriate to do so when Mr. Speaker returns to the chair.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I must take serious exception to the curtailment of the freedom of speech of hon. members.


William Ross Macdonald: There is no curtailment of freedom of speech. I have suggested to the hon. member for Peace River that it would be more appropriate for him to raise this question in a few minutes when Mr. Speaker returns to the chair.


Solon Earl Low: Thank you.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I should like to say a few intelligent words. The statement was made in the house that this resolution was like a blank cheque. From my experience in dealing with money matters it is only on money matters that you can have a cheque. There is no reference in this resolution to money, and since we like to have things clear and plain, to me this resolution is simply to keep in existence controls which we now have for two sets of people, first, the people at home so that they will have enough until the supply is equal to the demand; that people with small incomes will be able to get what they need, just as well as people with big incomes. The other reason is that we shall have enough to help the hungry abroad. Unfortunately there are some hon. members in the house who do not feel like sending food,
Emergency Powers

clothes and other things out of Canada; but our argument is that He said to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and feed the sick, and it is our duty so to conserve our food resources that we can feed the hungry anywhere.
I am strongly in favour of keeping controls and, after controls are lifted, to have stable prices for farm produce so that the farmers may have a decent living. I agree, too, with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has said that old age pensioners should be properly taken care of. In any country which calls itself Christian we should see that the old folks get a decent living, have enough to eat, a decent place to sleep and decent clothes to wear.
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAIiER (Lake Centre): Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on the resolution, following the stand made clear by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) in the early stages of this debate.
However, yesterday the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) had presented to him an opportunity to clarify a statement respecting the law. It was a most fortuitous opportunity and one which revealed a high degree of telepathy as between the hon. member who asked the question and the minister who had the answer prepared for the question asked.
I have read the answer with some interest. The hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rin-fret) indicated that there was a good deal of doubt over the dissertation on the law which had been given a few days earlier by the minister, and in a speech notable for its brevity the hon. member asked a simple question. His question was as to whether the resolution was based upon any constitutional ground other than that mentioned in the resolution.
The resolution sets out the reasons for the powers sought when it states this:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations of the governor in council for a limited period during the national emergency arising out of the war.
Some days ago the minister gave his opinion in regard to the agricultural legislation before the house. That legislation was introduced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and it, too, wTas founded on the basis of national emergency. The preamble to that bill read, in part:
And whereas the said orders and regulations will expire on the 31st day of March, 1947, and it is necessary by reason of the existing national emergency that parliament confer authority to enable the government of Canada-
[Mr. Mclvor.3
To do certain things, namely to fulfil its obligations under an agreement, and to continue to sell and to export food and so forth.
The minister's opinion was given in regard to the agricultural legislation which was founded on the doctrine of national emergency, and none other. He gave his opinion in considerable detail. Yesterday when he spoke he said this:
Our emergency legislation is based on the existence of a national emergency arising out of the war, on the emergency doctrine, to which no one takes any exception either in this house or outside it.
Well, sir, I am not going to repeat the arguments which were advanced the other day. But according to the Canada Temperance Act case the doctrine of emergency can no longer be taken advantage of by any federel government to infringe upon the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces.


Mr. ILSLEY:: May I say that by a subsequent privy council decision, the Japanese reference case, the emergency doctrine was emphatically affirmed.


John George Diefenbaker: I will come to that in a minute. I did not have the opportunity yesterday, sir, of asking the minister certain questions, when he made the ex parte statement. I wish to deal with that statement, because he has stated that this legislation is founded on the emergency doctrine, and as such can be passed by parliament. Then he went on to make this strangely exculpatory statement:
My statement did not purport in any sense to be one of government policy or any indication of government policy. It was a report to the house on what the court had decided, nothing more.
Now, sir, with the greatest of respect for the Minister of Justice I submit that the facts are altogether the opposite of what he said they were. First, he set out, as reported at page 1553 of Hansard, the opinion of the law officers of the crown. Then he added:
However I shall add my own opinion. I think on most occasions it will be the same as that of the deputy minister.
Then he set forth the opinion of the deputy minister. The minister continued in
these words at page 1553:
I do not think it necessary to add anything to that opinion.
And a little farther on:
I am not going to venture into an opinion on the matter. However l have read the Canada Temperance Act case and the subsequent case, that of the Japanese reference, and it appears to me that the true effect of the decision in the

Emergency Powers
Canada Temperance Act case is that there does not have to be an emergency to found jurisdiction on the part of the dominion; that the dominion may have the power even when there is no emergency to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada, even though its legislation touches upon matters ordinarily regarded as solely within provincial jurisdiction. In other words, the judgment of the judicial committee of the privy council as given by Lord Simon extends rather than narrows the powers of the dominion as they had heretofore been conceived.
There, sir, he enunciates a doctrine which he said yesterday was his personal opinion, which would place in the hands of the dominion parliament, the power to override the British North America Act, to infringe upon the rights of the provinces under section 92 and, to all intents and purposes, to destroy the rights of the provinces under confederation.
Even if it is accepted as the personal view of the Minister of Justice, it is a view which would destroy the rights of the provinces in this country by permitting their coercion at the instance of a dominion parliament.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is utter nonsense, and the hon. member knows it.


John George Diefenbaker: Speaking about
nonsense, I am just wondering how to designate yesterday's opinion which was given by the Minister of Justice. May I now proceed further to quote the minister's own words. After setting forth the power of the dominion, he states this as a personal opinion:
As I say, these cannot be the only aspects of the emergency but these aspects are, I submit, sufficient to occasion a valid exercise of the powers under the peace, order and good government clause.
To sum up:	We do not need, under the Canada Temperance Act case, to establish a national emergency.
"We" is not personal. "We" represents the government in the parliament of this country, because up to that point the minister had invariably used "I" to describe himself.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I said, under the Canada Temperance Act case. That is merely a statement of what that case says.


John George Diefenbaker: I will read it
further:
To sum up:	We do not need, under the Canada Temperance Act ease, to establish a national emergency. Under that case a national emergency may be the occasion for passing legislation which is valid under the peace, order and good government clause.
And a little later on:
In that opinion I am supported by the deputy minister of justice.


James Lorimer Ilsley: "Under" the Canada Temperance Act case means "according to" the Canada Temperance Act case, does it not?


John George Diefenbaker: After all, I am just reading from the opinion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But don't twist things, please.


John George Diefenbaker: When it comes to twisting there was a fine example of twisting yesterday on the part of the minister.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is more nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: We on this side of the house have realized1 for a long while that this government, day by day and week by week, under the guise of national emergency has infringed on the rights of the provinces. The minister has declared as the viewpoint of the government of this country that they have the right t-o do so. That is a dangerous doctrine, a doctrine that would say that by a simple majority on the part of a government in power and its allies it can at any time, simply by a declaration in a preamble that an emergency exists, impinge on the rights of the provinces over property and civil rights. I can understand that my hon. friends to the left would accept this doctrine of emergency, for, should they ever come into power, they can simply call into existence an emergency and infringe on the jurisdiction of the provinces over property and civil rights, for socialism can never come in this country until all the provinces are socialistic or until parliament accepts the principle that, by a simple declaration of an emergency, the dominion parliament can infringe on provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: If the hon. member will permit a question, was it not he himself who suggested to the Minister of Justice that, under the Canada Temperance Act case, emergency was no longer necessary upon which to found jurisdiction? Was it or was it not he?


John George Diefenbaker: I said that, under the Canada Temperance Act case, the doctrine of emergency no longer justified the dominion, by a simple declaration in a preamble, infringing on the rights of the provinces.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was not your position.


Mr. JAENICKE:: Would the hon. member for Lake Centre mind quoting parts of the decision in the Canada Temperance Act case?


John George Diefenbaker: I have it here, but those who run may read, particularly those who are lawyers. I quoted from it the other day and I will quote from it again. My hon. friends to the left naturally support this
Emergency Powers

.nfringement on the jurisdiction of the provinces, for to bring their system into effect they have to have emergency powers of legislation in the parliament of Canada. They have to deny the right of the individual to recourse to the courts.


Major James William Coldwell: That is ridiculous. That is a statement you cannot prove.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. Would Sir Stafford1 Cripps be an authority, I ask my hon. friend?


Major James William Coldwell: Not for this group, maybe for somebody else.


Mr. ROWE:: You have often quoted him.


John George Diefenbaker: There is another example of lack of cabinet solidarity or unity within a party. I have heard my hon. friend the member for Rosetown-Biggar say that his party stands where the Labour party of Britain stands.


Major James William Coldwell: They have a unitary government over there. You cannot discuss a federal system and a unitary system in the same light.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend has made the situation most clear. That is exactly what this government by legislation of this kind is effecting. It is creating a unitary state in Canada under the guise of an emergency. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is right. I find him reasonable. I always enjoy listening to him, but he quite frankly admits by the very question he asks that socialism can never come into effect if we uphold, the principles of the British North America Act and the division of powers set out in that act in sections 91 and 92.


Major James William Coldwell: The people will decide that some day.


John George Diefenbaker: True enough, the people will decide. But at the moment I am saying that if my hon. friends of the C.C.F. came into power tomorrow the precedent declared the other day by the Minister of Justice would be the blueprint upon which they, with a majority, could override parliament. They would have with them the supporting corroboration of the Minister of Justice.


Gordon Graydon: He is John the Baptist to them.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend the leader of the C.C.F. says that he cannot accept what Sir Stafford Cripps has to say. I was in the library today and I was reading what was 
said away back in 1933 by Sir Stafford Cripps, when the whole plan was revealed. Does my hon. friend accept Major Attlee, the present Prime Minister of Great Britain?


Mr. COLDW ELL:: So far as what he says about his own country yes, but in what he says about this country, no.


Gordon Graydon: What a change!


John George Diefenbaker: Here is revealed how socialism is to be brought in. These words were written in 1933. Sir Stafford Cripps said in 1933 in "Problems of a Socialist Government", at page 43:
The government's first step will be to call parliament together at the earliest moment and place before it an emergency powers bill-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What parliament?


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend does not need any information on that. Surely he can answer his own question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just to keep the record clear.


John George Diefenbaker: I will read it again:
The government's first step will be to call parliament together at the earliest moment and place before it an emergency powers bill to be passed through all its stages on the first day.


William Earl Rowe: A little of Hitler there. .


John George Diefenbaker: Get it through
quickly-applying the doctrine of emergency.
It goes on:
This bill will be wide enough in its terms to allow all that will be immediately necessary' to be done by ministerial orders.
That quotation indicates why my hon. friends to the left invariably support the government in its order in council type of government,, because Sir Stafford Cripps, the guide and beacon of his party, has set forth the course. When I said that whatever was done under ministerial order was not subject to the courts, did the leader of the C.C.F. say "nonsense"?


Major James William Coldwell: No, I did not say that.


Mr. MITCHELL:: May I ask in what year that book was written?


John George Diefenbaker: In 1933.


Humphrey Mitchell: People are naive when they are young. The year 1933 is a long time ago.


William Earl Rowe: Another naive observation!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister was a
socialist then himself.

Emergency Powers


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to see an argument between my hon. friends because they have been allies up to now. Sir Stafford goes on to say:
These orders must be incapable of challenge in the courts.
Then he sets out what has to be done. He says that the government will have to govern by ministerial order. Then at page 54 he says:
In the extended use of ministerial orders for giving legislative effect to the general principles laid down by parliament, one great change must be effected. At the present time it is left to the courts to decide whether these orders are within the powers given by parliament. It is always possible for them to be challenged in the courts and to be declared invalid. This power-
The power of recourse to the courts.
[DOT]-must be taken from the courts, and the sole right to challenge such orders must rest with parliament.
There is the blueprint, even to the name. As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) says, it was a long time ago, 1933, fourteen years ago, when Sir Stafford Cripps, now a minister in the Attlee cabinet, set forth not only the course to be taken but the name for the bill which the government of Canada fourteen years later adopted.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The name for what bill?


John George Diefenbaker: That has been one of the names used, the emergency powers bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not of this bill.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend the leader of the C.C.F. said, "Well, we cannot accept Sir Stafford Cripps." I turn over a few pages, and Major C. R. Attlee, M.P. adds his chapter, page 186:
In his chapter "Can Socialism come by Constitutional Methods?" Sir Stafford Cripps has examined the conditions in which a socialist government, returned with a majority and a definite mandate from the electors to transform the economic system, would have to work.
And these are the words:
I associate myself with his conclusions.
Well, there is the picture.


Major James William Coldwell: The mandate of the people should be carried out. That is all that says. The hon. member knows that perfectly well.


John George Diefenbaker: He associated himself with the words of Sir Stafford Cripps as to the means whereby it could) foe done.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: So did the people of England.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, I have heard that before; that is no answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Didn't they?


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes, they voted for it, and I am not going to discuss that situation today. But the other day Churchill, in the House of Commons, pointed out the difficulties in Britain today in consequence of the election of a government that has destroyed initiative.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What were the difficulties here in 1933 when that book was written, when a Tory government was in power?


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: They almost ruined the country.


John George Diefenbaker: Even Your Honour has to laugh.


Major James William Coldwell: We are all laughing at the present speaker. The whole house is laughing.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know why there are all these interruptions, but I am glad to see that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) sees so clearly through the same glass-


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: He is a good socialist.


John George Diefenbaker: -as do my hon. friends to the left, who found it necessary today to renounce the doctrines of a man whom a few short weeks ago they held up as a model leading a government the like of which they would wish to have in this country. Here we are in 1947, with the government asking for powers which, if the doctrine enunciated by the Minister of Justice is accepted by this house and the country, means that as far as our federal system is concerned the dominion will be placed in the position of a landlord with overriding powers of legislative eviction in so far as the provinces are concerned. The provincial jurisdiction will be that of tenants at will, with its legislative power at the will of a majority in the House of Commons.


Mr. CLEAVER:: That is cheap bologna, no matter how you slice it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Worse than that, mischievous tripe.


John George Diefenbaker: No one can speak with greater authority on that subject than my hon. friend.


Hughes Cleaver: More of the same.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly, sir, my hon. friend would be prepared to give his legal opinion on the subject when I conclude.
Emergency Powers


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would my hon. friend give his? Will he answer this question: Does he deny the constitutional basis for this proposed legislation? Does he say it will be invalid?


John George Diefenbaker: I say, sir-
Mr. I'LSLEY: Answer the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Having regard to the change of face on the part of the Minister of Justice, I think there cannot 'but be dou'bt on the part of anyone who reads, first, his opinion of the other day and his withdrawal yesterday.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend will not answer the question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He does not dare.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friend dare not answer the question, yes or no.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend is able to ask any question like that because he realizes that this is-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Answer the question.


William Earl Rowe: Give him a chance to answer it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Hughes Cleaver: You are afraid to answer it.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member for Lake Centre has the floor. He must not be interrupted.


John George Diefenbaker: I was going to say this. My right hon. friend has taken two stands. The first stand was a logical one. He took that and then began to realize that the provinces would appreciate that what we have said over here for the last two years is coming true.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not take two stands.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I say I did not take two stands.


William Earl Rowe: Read Hansard.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot reply in this debate, or I would reply.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is nothing to reply to.


John George Diefenbaker: I could follow the course my right hon. friend started yesterday by having one of his supporters ask a question which my right hon. friend was ready to answer.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why should he not ask the question?


An hon. MEMBER:: That was perfectly in order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What was wrong with it?


An hon. MEMBER:: It was framed.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member for Lake Centre should be allowed to continue without so many interruptions.


John George Diefenbaker: I would now point out the case in reference to which the question was asked by the hon. member for Kindersley, and that is the case of the Attorney-General of Canada and the Canada Temperance Federation. I have quoted from it in a previous discussion wherein it is set forth that the doctrine of emergency can no longer be taken advantage of by the federal authority. My right hon. friend yesterday said he was speaking only for himself when he made the statement the other day. I ask. sir: Since when can there be a bifurcation on the part of a minister of the crown, when he can speak from the treasury benches for himself, and then later on say words to the effect that when he spoke the other day he was speaking only for himself and not speaking for the government?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was not the position I took at all.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Would the hon. member permit another question? Will he read that part of the judgment which refers-


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it yourself.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I am not going to make a speech just now.


Gordon Graydon: Oh, well-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
Mr. GEORGES H. HEON (Argenteuil): Mr. Speaker, the resolution before this house is in effect to continue for a limited period certain orders and regulations passed by the governor in council under the War Measures Act. Further, the resolution is to authorize the governor in council to hire and to pay out of public funds an unfixed, undetermined amount to the numerous officers, clerks and employees of the wartime prices and trade board and the crown companies who will administer, execute and decide the limitation of freedom of the Canadian people for a limited period under these orders and regulations.
The resolution, as I understand it, assumes that a state of emergency still exists, and the debate has brought a statement of the law officers of the Department of Justice into

Emergency Powers
Hansard, that even if a state of national emergency did not exist de facto, it would still be lawful and constitutional under the "peace, order and good government" proviso of section 91 of the British North America Act to apply in peace time the orders and regulations which were passed under the War Measures Act and which, it is alleged, violate some of the provisions of section 92 of the British North America Act.
It could be stated here as an aside that if the officers of the Department of Justice who wrote that opinion had been expressly mandated to prepare an opinion which would furnish Messrs. Macdonald, Drew and Duples-sis precious ammunition in their fight for the respect of provincial autonomy, they could not have dona better. True, after the speeches made by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and the hon. member for Montmagnv-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage), whose opinion I fully share, on the constitutional issue at present involved, and after the carefully timed question put by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret), the government has taken pains to restate, I would say, its constitutional views. But- and this is a big "but"-I have not heard or read yet that the advisers to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) had changed their own legal opinion on the same subject. Whether the right hon. minister will be able to convince his advisers or whether the advisers will reconvince the minister, I do not know. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, the constitutional issue, although a most serious one, is not the only issue involved in this resolution.
In preceding debates and in the course of this debate, another highly controversial assertion has been brought into play. It has been stated that a national emergency in Britain creates a national emergency in Canada because, Britain being our best customer, if she does not remain so we shall ourselves immediately suffer dire economic consequences. The fact remains that our best customer is at the moment also our heaviest and least immediately-solvent debtor, despite the fact that this country has literally pumped into the economic heart of Britain, both during and since the war, billions of dollars in loans, goods and credits. Certainly Canada can never be accused of having been miserly in its help, even if Canada decided to discontinue that benevolence tomorrow, and set herself to do business with customers who are able to pay their bills immediately.
No one has greater admiration and sympathy than 1 have for the courageous British people in their present straits, and no one
wishes them a speedier recovery. Yet as a Canadian I cannot fail to take notice of the conditions prevailing in my own country, of the various shortages which handicap our own economic recovery and which create unrest and discontent among all classes, particularly the labouring and white-collar classes who, already deeply affected by small wages, cannot procure those few items of necessity or comfort to which as humans they are entitled.
As was so ably stated by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) last evening, you will never be able to convince the fishing community of Quebec's north shore that it must do without powdered milk. You cannot convince the Canadian farmer, who cannot procure a much-needed truck that he must do without it; similarly you cannot convince the veteran who cannot procure decent lodgings; the father of a family who has saved for years to build a small house of his own but cannot do so for lack of building materials; the rural dweller who wishes to have electricity installed, but cannot obtain wire and fixtures because they are nonexistent, except on the black market; the mother of a large family who cannot procure the butter she needs when she needs it because of our commitments to Britain and the necessity of keeping solvent our best customer. In all cases, to the man who is not acquainted with the intricacies of international finance and markets, the answer will be: "Well, ordained charity begins at home," and I know of no one who is prepared to challenge the truth of this old saying and wisdom. That we should export our own production surpluses, I agree, and say, "yes"; that we should export that portion of our production which is evidently needed here, I disagree and say "no". After all, there is a limit beyond which a nation of twelve million people, which bled itself in its magnificent war effort, cannot be asked to go even if it is to help its good customers. If controls are to be maintained for a further period, the boys at the controls should be instructed to control in such a way as to give to the Canadian people who pay their wages, those necessities, utilities and goods which are sorely needed, before controlling for purposes of exportation and favourable trade balances. Highly trained economists, and exponents of internationalism may believe that exportations come first, but the average Canadian thinks that, because he produces, pays the bills and the taxes, he comes first; and in that attitude I believe he is absolutely correct and honest.
The present resolution involves a still greater principle than constitutional integrity,
Emergency Powers

the opportunity of maintaining exports and helping our friends and erstwhile allies; it involves that principle which further consecrates a planned and controlled economy rather than a return to the old competitive system. One of these days, and maybe very soon, we shall have to make a definite choice. We cannot forever pay lip service to the cause of freedom of enterprise, the while fostering and abetting state control, state power, by looking to the government or to the bureaucrats to provide a way out of our economic difficulties.
Various opinions have from time to time been expressed in this house on this allimportant issue, opinions which vary all the way from out-and-out socialism to mitigated socialism, to mitigated capitalism and to rock-ribbed individualism.
To the believers in continued state control, I should like to read this extract from Time magazine of February 17, which is speaking about the communist Eisler, who is now in the hands of American justice:
But beyond Eisler there are a host of other men-fellow travellers, confused liberals, "totalitarian liberals," left-wing new dealers-who owe muddled allegiance to the idea that government should be omnipotently responsible for the lives of its citizens even to the point of benevolent despotism. They fail to understand that despotism, which has a way of beginning with benevolence, usually ends by being merely despotic. Few of them even understood the incompatibility of their views with democracy, or that it is just such views which makes them so sympathetic to Soviet Russia.
I should also like to read this extract from Friedrich A. Hayek's great book, "The Road to Serfdom":
In order to achieve their ends, the planners must create power-power over men wielded by other men . . . Their success will depend on the extent to which they achieve such power. Democracy is on obstacle to .this suppression of freedom which the centralized direction of economic activity requires. Hence arises the clash between planning and democracy.
And further:
To decentralize power is to reduce the absolute amount of power, and the competitive system is the only system designed to minimize the power exercised by man over man. Who can seriously doubt that the power which a millionaire, who may be my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest bureaucrat possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends how- I am allow-ed to live and work.
And still further:
Our generation has forgotten that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that w-e as

individuals can decide what to do with ourselves. When all the means of production are vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of "society" as a whole or that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us. In the hands of private individuals, what is called economic power can be an instrument of coercion, but it is never control over the w-hole life of a person. But when economic power is centralized as an instrument of political power it creates a degree of dependence scarcely distinguishable from slavery.
It can be argued, and quite properly, that the present resolution does not go that far and that it is a move to decontrol slowly; yet it is maintenance of controls in the most potent and dangerous of forms, namely, statutes. On this continuation of controls, I should like to quote two opinions. One is by the Canadian chamber of commerce passed at Winnipeg, and reads as follows:
The highest standard of living in the world has been developed on this continent under the system of private competitive enterprise. The Canadian chamber of commerce records its unswerving support for that system and its vigorous opposition to anything which would weaken or destroy the rights and freedom of the individual citizen.
Freedom of choice and freedom of action, within the limits of the public welfare are regarded as inalienable rights of the individual. The chamber holds that Canada can be great and prosperous only if all individuals have the incentive of adequate reward for energy-, initiative and enterprise and the right to enjoy the products of their thrift and foresight. Freedom is indivisible. The individual cannot be deprived of his economic freedom and retain his political freedom.
The rights of free citizens to sell the products of their labours cannot be surrendered to the state without a loss of personal liberties, such as few citizens would be willing to accept
The other quotation is from a statement made by Robert P. Jellett, chairman of the board of the Royal Trust Company, on February 11, 1947, and reads as follows:
There is need for much careful thought by all citizens as to the part that the state may properly exercise in the total of the country's activity. The attempt to regulate prices and wages has brought about a remarkable extension of the state's control. I have not believed, however, that any combination of brains at the disposal of governments can ever equal the almost automatic effects of the ordinary law of supply and demand in the efficient adjustment of prices and wages. There is a limit to the number of experts w-ho may be engaged to watch conditions, costs, and prices, and to endeavour to exercise control of them to the best interests of the economy of the country. But there is almost no limit to the number of people w-ho through their multitudinous purchases and sales bring about the changes in prices needed to balance supply and demand. A point to bear in mind is that these multitudes, in contrast to those employed in government bureaux and boards, render this essential service without cost to the taxpayer.

Emergency Powers
What is of still greater importance, only the prices established in this natural way can be regarded as genuine. The price levels established by bureaucratic manipulation are generally deceptive. For a low price can often be maintained only by the payment of subsidies or by the lowering of the quality of the goods- both of which must ultimately reduce the purchaser s income in other ways. Moreover, the artificial control of prices has led to many most undesirable complications, such as the encouragement of black marketing and the decline in the production of needed goods because the fixed prices do not make their manufacture profitable. It is well to face the fundamental economic fact that only free prices can tell the truth.
Return to Fundamentals
There are signs that people and government alike may be returning to the realization of the fundamental economic truth that whatever regulations may be found desirable in the public interest, the most natural and the most fruitful role of government comes from what it may be able to do to reduce all that restricts and'discourages, and to assist all that may release the )nimcasuruble potentialities that lie in free individual effort and responsibility.
Sir Ernest Benn has gone farther still: he has stated that a free trading competitive economy will not only prevent depressions, but also prevent wars. He spoke thus:
I am one of those who believe that but for the Ottawa agreements and our protective tariff at home, designed to save us from the supposed disadvantages of competition, Hitler would never have been heard of. I hold it to be a myth that wars of the past have been conducted for trade reasons or that economic competition has had anything whatever to do with them. At all events so far as we are concerned it is undoubtedly true that so long as we are prepared to buy and sell in the open market in competition with one and all, we offer no economic incentive to the most persistent of war-mongers.
It is then a matter for every hon. member to decide for himself, depending on the school of economics to which he belongs. As for me, I choose to align myself with the editors of Time, Freidrich Hayek, the Canadian chamber of commerce, Mr. R. P. Jellett, Sir Ernest Benn and countless Canadians who feel that full scope be given to the individual's initia-ti\ e. If this initiative runs amok, this house can legislate to curb it and punish it if needs be; but let this initiative, within law and reason, be given full speed ahead to hasten our economic recovery.
The resolution as it stands before us, Mr. Speaker, is too general in its terms. If a specific control were shown to be temporarily essential, by a specific measure, I would vote for it, except rentals, which should revert to provincial legislatures. If I can be shown that there is not enough butter, or cheese, or milk produced in this country to satisfy this country's needs, I will gladly vote to ration it; if it can be demonstrated that lumber is
not being produced in sufficient quantities to fill our construction needs, again I shall favour its control. But as regards lumber, I must say that producers feel that control is not further necessary, and I wish to put on Hansard copy of a letter written by the Canadian International Paper Company to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), permission for quotation having been obtained from the Canadian International Paper Company. The letter is dated February 17, 1947, and reads as follows:
Hon. Brooke Claxton, K.C.,
Minister of National Defence,
M.P. for St. Lawrence-St. George,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
We are of the opinion, along with other Canadian lumbermen, that the time has arrived when price control should be abolished and the lumber industry allowed to function in its own way.
Our cost of production has increased-in fact, above our present ceiling price, owing to increases of wages, food, supplies, especially labour, which makes up about 60 per cent of our total cost. This increase has forced us to look to foreign markets in order to balance the low prices of Canadian ceilings. This situation, if not checked, will jeopardize Canadian position in the world markets.
If decontrol is put into effect promptly, graded lumber will flow more freely under free distribution. Also the results of decontrol have been demonstrated by conditions in the United States where prices increased for a short period but settled down to a lower level; in some cases below the old OPA prices.
If decontrol is to be put into effect, the most opportune time would be at once, before the new production comes onto the market in early spring and summer.
We believe that you would be benefiting the country as a whole and the lumber industry in general by urging your cabinet members at Ottawa to have lumber controls removed.
Yours truly,
Canadian International Paper Company (Signed) G. G. Goodal],
Lumber Sales Manager.
I should also like to quote a paragraph from a letter of the Western Retail Lumberman's Association, dated February 27, 1947, which reads as follows:
Retail lumber dealers ask that price control on lumber be removed, firmly convinced that this course alone will restore order in the business and make possible increased volume of construction work.
For all the reasons I have given above, and because the resolution is too general in its terms and perpetuates government by order in council and administration of officers, clerks and employees not responsible to this house or to the people, I shall vote against it, and in so doing I believe I shall be in distinguished company.
Emergency Powers


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Last evening the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), in taking part in the debate, took occasion to quote from a speech delivered by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) on June 5, 1940, as reported at page 545 of Hansard, as follows:
The secret of the recent success of the Germans is the fact they have consciously planned their economic structure.
I interrupted the hon. member and suggested that he should read the entire statement. He replied:
I have not time to read the whole speech.
Hansard then reports me as saying not what I had intended to say, as follows:
Then the hon. member must be doing it for a diabolical purpose.
What I was seeking to do at the time was to give the rest of the statement the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made at that time. The complete statement as found on page 545 reads as follows:
Many of us are realizing for the first time today that the secret of the recent success of the Germans is the fact that they have consciously planned their economic structure. True, they have planned with diabolical intent, but they have planned with an end in view.
I thought then that if the hon. member for Souris wished to be fair to this group he should have given the entire statement. I should like to remind him of the old Chinese proverb that the beginning of wisdom is the calling of things by their right names. I am sure that the hon. member for Souris knows the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar well enough to know that he is the last person in this house or in Canada who would seek to force on the Canadian people any form of government which would be undemocratic or undesirable. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has been well known throughout his lifetime as one of the outstanding champions of democracy in Canada. Hon. members like the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Souris are not performing any useful public service by lumping together all ideas which are objectionable to them and hurling them at those of us who sit in this part of the house. I think they should recall that less than two years ago Russia was a great ally; she was fighting bravely because the people of that country thought there was a fundamental difference between the system they had in Russia and the system in Germany. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it does not make for good international understanding when members in this chamber now tell us that there

is no difference between the forms of government they have had in Germany or in Great Britain or in Russia.
The hon. member for Souris took some time to tell about the wonderful conditions prevailing to the south of us in the United States. I was expecting that after he developed his argument, in which he pointed out how few bushels of wheat the North Dakota farmer pays for a - combine or a tractor, as compared with the number of bushels a farmer in Manitoba or Saskatchewan would have to pay, he would have gone on to make a speech advocating the removal of tariffs in Canada. I suggest to him that one of the reasons western farmers have always paid much higher prices for their farm machinery has been that the Conservatives in eastern Canada have imposed unreasonable tariffs on the farmer.


James Arthur Ross: Is that so today?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Throughout our generation the tariff structure, generally, has imposed an unfair burden on the people of this country.


James Arthur Ross: But tell us what that tariff is today.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is a good deal on automobiles, for example.


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member mentioned farm implements and combines.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It applies to all farm costs. If it were not for tariffs, prices in Canada would be a good deal lower.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Skating around it again.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for Souris might have gone on to tell us about the cost of living in the United States. I have a report here showing the cost of living in several United States and Canadian cities where conditions are as comparable as one might expect. I have chosen Vancouver and Seattle; Winnipeg and Minneapolis; Toronto and Detroit and Cleveland; Ottawa and Syracuse; Montreal and Boston. This survey was made between January 6 and 17. I find that, while milk sold in Canadian cities at from twelve to sixteen cents, it sold for from twenty-two to twenty-six cents in the United States. Perhaps I should explain that in making this comparison the fact that the Canadian imperial quart is larger than the United States quart was taken into account. The former O.P.A. ceiling price in the United States on milk was twenty to twenty-four cents. Creamery butter in Canadian cities sold at from forty-one to forty-six cents, and in the United States at from seventy-five to ninety-one cents, the former O.P.A. price being fifty-five to sixty-three cents. Cheese, which sold in

Emergency Powers
Canada at thirty-one to forty-two cents, sold a United States cities at from forty-six to sixty-nine cents, and the O.P.A. price had been forty-three to sixty-one cents.
All down the list of foodstuffs we find these marked differences in flour, corn syrup, soap- all the items used in Canadian homes. The effect of the removal of price ceilings in the United States has been that the citizens get less for their dollar. I am much happier to be in Canada than I would be if I were in the United States. True, certain wages and prices would appear more favourable on the surface, but I believe, on balance, conditions in Canada are a good deal better.
When the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) rises in the House of Commons he always makes an interesting speech. However I think a discussion of what has been advocated in Great Britain by a labour government under one set of circumstances, despite the fact that their approach to the problem is similar to ours, is not necessarily relevant when we are discussing a Canadian problem.
The hon. member might have gone on to develop an argument which was started some time ago regarding the town and country planning bill in the United Kingdom. Over there they have a set of conditions under which the ownership of the great resources of the country is vested in the hands of a small number of people. I saw that in an article which appeared in the Toronto Star Weekly of March 15, regarding this vicious socialist legislation, as it would be described by the Progressive Conservative party, Matthew Halton. C.B.C. correspondent, said this:
The measure is obviously then revolutionary. It is no wonder that one socialist journal calls it the end of the bastille'', while another headlines its story, ''Death to Debrett's " The land has always been the bastille of privilege in Britain, and a fortress hitherto inviolable [DOT] .	*. A handful of men owned the land of
Britain, and still do; but their tenure, or at least their control, is now to end. Of the 45,000,000 people in the United Kingdom, less than 2.900,000 own a single square foot of land. Of the 9.000.000 people in London less than 40.000 own a piece of land.
In the United Kingdom there are 90.000 square miles of land. Half of it is owned by 340 men. Lord Derby owns one-third of Lancashire The Duke of Norfolk owns 50,000 acres, the Earl of Breadalbane 300,000 acres, the Duke of Devonshire 180,000 acres, the Duke of Portland 183,000 acres, and so on. Just before the war the Marquis of Bute sold half the city of Cardiff for $150,000,000-and still owned 117.000 acres.
The ancient families own the land by ancient right or reward or accident or plunder. Typical example: Five hundred years ago at the battle of Tewkesbury, which ended the Wars of the Roses. Lord Stanley deserted Richard III at the crisis of the battle and went over to Henry 83160-110
\II and the Lancastrians. King Henry rewarded the traitor with the earldom of Derby and with the lands of the Lancastrians who had fought against him. Today, Lord Derby owns whole towns that have grown up on the lands so acquired, some $9,000.000- quite a substantial profit at that figure.
If I were living in Great Britain I would be advocating a land policy different from that advocated in Canada by the C.C.F. The fact is that in Canada the land belongs to the farmers, but they are not exploiting the consumers. It is a well-established fact that the Canadian farmers, in war time and in peace time, have worked unreasonably long hours and have produced enormous quantities of foods for local and foreign consumption. They have supplied these foodstuffs at less than the cost of production.
Therefore there is no reason under the sun why any political party in Canada should advocate a land policy such as that being advocated by the labour government in Great Britain, where we find a small handful of people owning vast estates and exploiting the people who work on that property.
I was amused by the hon. member for Lake Centre. One would think, when listening to him in the house, that those who sit on the treasury benches are leading the country straight to socialism, that they are public enemies number one. But it is interesting to note that when the hon. member is out in Saskatchewan he sees to it that his supporters in that province work with the Liberals, with a view to defeating the C.C.F.
Press dispatches from Regina make it clear that the remaining Conservatives in Saskatchewan are desperate, -and are saying to the Liberals, "Really, there is nothing to keep us apart. We must get together to stop the C.C.F." It, is going to be extremely difficult for the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) to go back on the hustings in Saskatchewan and tell the people out there that they have settled their differences, that they are one in Saskatchewan, but that they sit on opposite sides of the House of Commons in Ottawa. I suggest that it would keep the record straight if the hon. member for Lake Centre would see to it that his followers in Saskatchewan pursued the same general tactics followed in the House of Commons by the Progressive Conservative party.
Mr, KNOW LEf>: And it is the same thing in Manitoba and British Columbia.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: \es; I could add that in all the western provinces that is so.

Emergency Powers


James Arthur Ross: Bring them all down to give you a hand in Manitoba.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It appears there is no difference between the Liberals-


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: We haven't any in
Saskatchewan.


James Arthur Ross: Yes, we had you there;
I enjoyed your visit.


Gordon Graydon: Didn't you people enter into a coalition in Manitoba, at one time?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon)-


Gordon Graydon: Did you get out of it?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: When we did not know him as well as we know him now.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would others kindly save their speeches until I have finished? The hon. member for Argenteuil-


James Arthur Ross: It was not that way last night.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -made an eloquent appeal for the power and pulp manufacturers, for the poor members of the Canadian chamber of commerce who are being forced out of business by these bureaucratic controls! Each morning as I come to the parliament buildings I read the Montreal Gazette, and I find the financial page of this publication supplies some interesting information. The large corporations in Canada are submitting financial statements for 1946 which make all their previous net profits look like chicken feed. For instance, the Woods Manufacturing Company is reported in today's paper as having made a net profit of $197,315 in 1945, and $302,610 in 1946. I submit that their position does not deserve very much sympathy.
Then, International Nickel, one of our very poor relations, showed a net profit in 1945 of $25,010,938, and in 1946 one of $29,681,352. The Paul Service Stores increased their net profit from $43,675 in 1945 to $91,681 in 1946. And one of the well-established firms, Dis-tillers-Seagrams had a net profit of $13,194,441 in the six months ended January 31, 1946, while their net profit for the six months ended January 31, 1947, was $31,834,858. One of these very poor pulp and paper companies, the St. Lawrence Paper Mills, had a net profit of $431,460 in 1945, and $1,241,504 in 1946. or nearly three times as much as in 1945 The Lake St. John Pulp and Paper Company had a net profit of $310,898 in 1945, and of $872,202 in 1946. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that with corporations in Canada showing balance sheets such as I have mentioned, it [*Mr. Nicholson.]
is obvious that they have not been hurt very much by the controls which existed during the war.
Having said that much on the comments made by the members of the Progressive Conservative party, I want now to support the view expressed by the leader of this group and by my colleagues, that we are not satisfied with the government's disorderly retreat from the whole price control field. Calling the Minister of Justice a socialist is, I think, unfair. I believe that members in all parts of the house had a great admiration for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Minister of Finance during the war. There was a good deal of sniping at many of the dictatorial powers that he took, -but I shall be surprised if any evidence is ever presented to show that the Minister of Justice in his position as Minister of Finance improved in any particular the financial position of himself or any of his friends, and I submit that that is an important test to apply to an organization which had such sweeping power and control over the lives of so many people. There can be no argument about it, that if Canada was to make her greatest contribution in prosecuting the war to a successful conclusion some authority had to decide the quantities of materials that should be allotted for domestic consumption and what quantities should be devoted to the manufacturing of armaments and supplying the necessities of our allies. During the war from 1914 to 1918 we got through without any of these controls, but in that war we diverted only about ten per cent of our national production to wTar purposes, while from 1939 to 1945 we diverted nearly fifty per cent and the interesting feature is that after we had diverted fifty per cent of our domestic consumption to war purposes, and after 750,000 of our youngest and finest went forth in the armed forces, our Canadian citizens at home enjoyed on the average, a higher standard of living than they had ever done before. I see that my hon. friend the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) is about to interrupt me and tell me what the income tax did to him and how his way of life was cramped, and I am not denying that.


Mr. FRASER:: I think in Ottawa it is only the C.C.F. who have maids. We have none.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is true that people in the higher income tax brackets have had to pay more drastic taxes and they have not been able to do all the things they would have liked to do. But until controls were introduced there was no way of assuring that automobile production would be available for military

Emergency Powers
purposes. Without controls we would have had automobile factories running to capacity, and Canadian citizens who did not have a patriotic sense of duty would have been buying and using automobiles for pleasure. But controls were introduced, and the Canadian people, in response to appeals made by the government were prepared to get along without new cars, were content to drive their old ones, and put up with the rationing of gasoline.
It is unfortunate that some hon. members should have made such wild and reckless statements as to the extent of black markets in Canada. While there has been some black market business, I think that, on the whole, only a very small amount of business has been transacted on the black market. I did a good deal of travelling during the war and sometimes found myself arriving at a hotel without having made reservations in advance, but never once did I offer a bribe to any of the staff to get me a room. Sometimes I had to wait for some time and I did have to stay up all night on one occasion, but generally speaking I believe that the staff in hotels and stores and garages, in fact all our people, cooperated with the authorities in complying with the regulations.
I think it was the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Ashby) who suggested that all the deputy ministers should be called before the courts of justice and charged with treason. I believe that suggestion did a great disservice to public spirited citizens. The deputy ministers are not here to defend themselves, but each has a minister who must take responsibility for everything he did, and if any deputy minister has acted in an undemocratic way or has advocated things that are not in the public interest, the way to proceed against him is to get the minister on the carpet and make charges or bring the matter up on a question of privilege.
Again I suggest that we should determine for ourselves whether we would have had a more effective war effort without controls, whether it would have been better to allow the dollar ballots to decide what should be done.
I was interested in a release put out by the government during the war indicating how controls on truck traffic had operated to the benefit of our war effort. I quote from the release:
The effect of the order has been the elimination of at least 100,000,000 truck miles per annum (this is an ultra conservative figure), with few instances where justifiable criticism based on actual hardship can be levelled at the board, either through lack of service or increased costs.
83166-110J
I submit that the saving of 100,000,000 truck miles a year is a matter of great importance to the producer and the consumer, and without controls of this kind Canada would not have been able to make such an effective contribution to the war effort.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when
the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) was speaking on Thursday he made reference to the housing problem which still exists in this country, and he said:
While much progress has been made in expanding our peace-time production, and while the flow of output is gathering increasing momentum, production in a number of important fields has not yet overtaken the high level of demand which in some cases, like that of housing, has been accumulating for years.
He was understating a pretty obvious fact. Later on, he said:
In some cases, the consequences are quite obvious. For example, I do not think there can be much question as to what would happen if the controls over rentals and evictions were removed in present circumstances. In the face of the continuing shortage of housing accommodation, it is clear enough that rents would rise sharply and that evictions would be counted in the tens of thousands.
The minister was interrupted by some of my Progressive Conservative friends over here who said "Oh, oh." The minister at once replied:
Absolutely true; and anyone who denies it is just living apart from the facts.
There have been suggestions from the Progressive Conservative section of the house that if all controls were abandoned, if free enterprise or private enterprise could have its: way, the housing problem would be solved next week, or, if not next week, certainly next month.


Mr. GREEN:: There was never any such suggestion.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) indicated that the removal of controls would be an important step with a view to solving this complex problem.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Hear, hear.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Somebody says "hear, hear" to support my claim. The minister was right in saying that the problem is acute,
Emergency Powers

because it has been accumulating for many years. While the Progressive Conservative party was in office from 1930 to 1935, we saw the building of houses drop from 100, if you take your base prior to the depression, down to less than 20 during those years. Our sawmills were closed; tinsmiths and carpenters joined the ranks of the unemployed because we failed to provide needed homes for Canadians at that time. We made the situation which existed during the war much more acute than it might have been, and I think it is perfectly obvious that if controls were removed the public-spirited private entrepreneurs would ship their commodities where higher prices prevail. There are other countries that are now prepared to pay higher prices for our building materials in short supply than the wartime prices and trade board regulations permit in Canada. I submit that we would have a chaotic situation in this country if the advice of the Progressive Conservative party were accepted in connection with the problem.
The former chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, Mr. Donald Gordon, in a radio address last November correctly outlined the problem that forced the government .to take action with a view to preventing [DOT]evictions for the time being, and he said that the position of landlords in Canada was not as they would have us understand. In his [DOT]speech, referring to the landlords, he said:
During the past few' years he has had very few vacancies, practically no bad debts, and has [DOT]cut down on decorating. As well, he has reduced Tenting commissions and saved some expense in unnecessary alterations and decorating which often had to be done previously to meet the whims of tenants when they were able to pick and choose.
Unfortunately our Canadian statistics do not tell us the story as far as the landlords in Canada are concerned, but in the United States the statistics over the past few years make it clear that the landlords there have had a profitable period all through the war. They have been able to pay attractive returns on their capital investments, and the fact that they had few vacancies and no trouble making their collections meant that they had a veritable gold mine. However, that set of circumstances does not curb their agitation with a view to getting rid of controls in the hope that rents might be forced to high levels and that real estate would change hands at even more highly inflated prices than now prevail.
My only comment would be to criticize the government for retreating so rapidly in this field. The federal authority should have retained firmer controls over supplies. They

turned over to the municipal authorities the problem of deciding what was an essential building and w hat was not. I remember being in Fort William and Port Arthur last fall when the most essential type of building there seemed to be poolrooms, theatres and what have you. The municipal authorities said, "What would our position be in Port Arthur, for example, if we decided1 that we could not give a permit for a theatre because it was a non-essential building? The builders would immediately go to Fort William and would have the local citizens up in arms because the city fathers had driven away a project from the city."
The federal authority was the logical one to see that, while the housing situation continued as it was, our short supplies should be diverted first of all to provide adequate housing for the people who are so crowded in all our metropolitan areas and in the towns of rural districts across the country. I think, therefore, that the comments madie by hon. members to my right fail to take into account the situation that now exists, and I am sure that the great majority of the Canadian people are behind the administration in seeing to it that rent controls are maintained and that the public are not compelled, until the housing situation has been greatly altered, to go on the streets without shelter over their heads, while those who have the largest bank accounts are placed in the position where they can get possession of the short supply of shelter.
In conclusion, the members of this group feel that they are advocating the retention of the democratic privileges of the citizen to the greatest extent by insisting that the people, through their elected representatives in, the government, should retain those controls that will be successful in keeping the cost of living down for the people of Canada.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I shall not detain the house at any great length. In fact, I had not intended taking part in the debate at this stage, were it not for the fact that this afternoon, when I attempted to ask a question of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) at the conclusion of his address, I was told to make my own speech. That is what I am doing, and I shall briefly give my opinion regarding the constitutional question about which we have heard so much this afternoon.
But before I do that, I should like to refer to some other phase of the debate which we have heard, namely the disparaging references to the so-called bureaucrats. The exposition which we had last night was, I think, a disgrace to the house. After all, the so-called bureau-

Emergency Powers
crats are our civil servants. Being a member of the banking and commerce committee, I had the privilege of getting in contact with them and to me they appeared to be decent, intelligent civil servants who were trying to do what was best for this country. Are they not responsible to a minister who is, again, responsible to this parliament? Surely these so-called bureaucrats, as well as any other civil servants, are responsible to the minister and the minister is responsible to this house. While they have been vilified by hon. members, it appears to me that no specific charge was at any time made against any of them, unless it be a charge from this particular corner of the house when we complained that some controls had been lifted which should not have been lifted; and then, if I remember aright, those actions were always taken on the responsibility of the minister himself. If we recollect the experience which we have gone through dining the war years and the two years since the war ended, it seems to me that we owe a debt of gratitude to these civil servants and these so-called bureaucrats.
As far as the constitutional question is concerned, I submit that the argument this afternoon had nothing whatever to do with the resolution before us. It seemed to be a jockeying for political advantage or position. 1 asked the hon. member for Lake Centre to read a certain part of the judgment that he had been discussing, which part is. I think, most important. When the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) on March 20 gave to this house the opinion of the deputy minister of justice, which opinion is quoted on page 1553 of Hansard, he dealt with the Agricultural Products Act and not with this particular resolution. The deputy minister of justice says in part, at the bottom of page 1553:
The true test, according to this decision-
That is, the Canada Temperance Act decision.
-is whether the real subject matter of the act goes beyond local or provincial concern and must from its inherent nature be the concern of the dominion as a whole. Such an act is within the competence of parliament though it may in another aspect touch upon matters specially reserved to the provinces. I should think that Bill 25 satisfies this test.
Bill No. 25 is the Agricultural Products Act. The deputy minister of justice came to this conclusion no doubt upon the following section of the decision, and I quote from the decision of the Canada Temperance Act case decided last year, as reported in Western Weekly Reports (1946) volume 2, page 6:
In their Lordships' opinion, the true test must be found in the real subject-matter of the legislation:	If it is such that it goes beyond
local or provincial concern or interests and must from its inherent nature be the concern of the dominion as a whole, then it will fall within the competence of the dominion parliament as a matter affecting the peace, order and good government of Canada, though it may in another aspect touch upon matters specially reserved to the provincial legislatures.
As I said, the decision was quoted in the legislation concerning the Agricultuial Products Act and has nothing to do with the present resolution which is simply one based upon the emergency powers of the dominion. The decision in the Canada Temperance Act case could not by any stretch of the imagination be used as authority for the dominion parliament to legislate upon this resolution. It could not be used as authority for the dominion parliament to legislate, for instance, about rent and tenancy. Therefore I think the discussion this afternoon was altogether out of place.
While I am on my feet, may I be permitted to refer to some remarks made by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Skey) the other night. He stated, as reported at page 1659 of Hansard:
That is why today I choose to debate the subject that socialism is contrary to human nature.
That is his opinion. I may say that I respect his opinion and I hope he will respect mine. According to the studies which I have pursued in that particular realm, there are two schools of thought or two schools of philosophy. One school says that man, the human being, is an individual and always will be. The other school says that man is a social creating. I may say that I belong to the latter school and perhaps the hon. member for Trinity belongs to the former school. The first school is particularly represented by persons such as those he quoted as authority that socialism is against human nature, and that authority is Mr. H. L. Mencken of the United States, whom I consider to be the principal proponent of this philosophy and possibly the apostle of that famous German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. I have here the book of Mencken which is a sort of biography of this philosopher Nietzsche.
The hon. member also quoted Spencer, and while I will not go so far as Mencken to interpret Spencer, this is what Mencken says at page 192:
Like Spencer before him. Nietzsche believed, as we have seen, that the best possible system of government was that which least interfered with the desires and enterprises of the efficient and intelligent individual.
Emergency Powers

Later on, at page 194 Mr. Mencken proceeds to prove some of the "freak legislation" that has been passed under democracy in some of the United States legislatures and even in congress itself. After he discusses this, he quotes the position in England and Germany, and this is what he says:
If, in England and Germany, the effect of universal suffrage has been less apparent, it is because in these countries the two upper castes have solved the problem of keeping the proletariat, despite its theoretical sovereignty, in proper leash and bounds.
If my hon. friend wishes to associate himself with this class of philosopher or with this school of philosophy, he is entitled to do so. But I believe that man is more a social creature. If you consider the annals of history from the earliest times to the present, you will see that he has made advances in his social connections and in his behaviour toward his neighbour. I fully believe that at one time or another socialism will be the ruling philosophy also in Canada.
I should like to refer here to a speech which was made almost fifteen years ago by Hon. Mr. Cahan, who was Secretary of State in the ministry of Mr. Bennett. It was during the debate on the so-called blank cheque legislation which was referred to the other day by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). In this debate the then leader of the opposition, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), had implored the then Secretary of State to make his influence felt so that this legislation would not pass, because it would create a terrible precedent for some socialist government that at some time or another might hold sway in this parliament. The following day Mr. Cahan replied to that challenge, and this is what he said, as appears at page 1634 of Hansard for April 1, 1932:
But the right hon. gentleman says if we follow the precedents established in the mother of parliaments we must look forward to the time when there may be socialistic control of this parliament of Canada. I do not wish to refer to myself personally-I have passed the age of three-score years and ten and I appreciate very keenly that my mentality, my prejudices and my predilections are born of the times in which I have lived and the vicissitudes of my own personal life-but I do not look forward with any fear or shrinking to the development of socialistic institutions in this country on a proper basis. I recognize that the strain and suffering through which we have passed and are passing has already borne fruit in remedial measures, Socialistic in their tendencies, and those who are younger than I may well look forward to the time when those whose view's are more socialistic than mine will assume the reins of government in this country. When they do they will assume the reins with the voice of a great majority of the Canadian people as manifested at the polls,

they will assume office under our parliamentary institutions, not by force and violence, not by bullets and bayonets, but by the voice of the democracy of this great country. In that democracy, although I shall not live to see its development, I have the strongest possible confidence, and I think it would be a shame indeed if any minority in this house at any future time should attempt to thwart the view's of the people, should attempt to thwart necessary and essential socialistic reforms by such procedure as we have witnessed in this house during the past few W'eeks.
To be charitable, Mr. Speaker, I believe the majority of the members of the party to my right are Conservatives like Mr. Cahan, and that when the time comes they will graciously bow to the will of the majority of the Canadian people.


James Horace King: Is the house ready for the question?


Solon Earl Low: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) was prevented from taking part in this debate on the ground that be had moved the adjournment of the debate on the evening of March 20, and that therefore he was considered as having spoken once at that time. I should like to point out that the hon. member for Macleod did not speak on the resolution, and I cite Beauchesne, third edition, page 92-


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he knows perfectly well that rulings made by the Speaker are not debatable; and, moreover, I do not believe the hon. member has a point of order. I would call his attention to citation 108 in Beauchesne, second edition:
The Speaker decides the questions of order only when they actually arise . . .
The hon. member is discussing a ruling I gave this afternoon, and I suppose he wants me to revise a ruling I have already given in connection with a situation which was settled at the time. I do not believe the hon. gentleman has any point of order. Moreover, I am sure my hon. friend is familiar with the rule that he should not discuss a ruling given by the Speaker. That ruling was given this afternoon. If the hon. member w'ho was called to order at that time because he was not entitled to speak twice did not agree w'ith the ruling of the Speaker, it was the privilege of that hon. gentleman to appeal the decision, which followed a ruling given by a previous Speaker. An appeal was not taken at the time. The matter has been settled, and I do not believe the hon. member has any grounds for rising to a point of order.

Emergency Powers


Solon Earl Low: I would ask your pardon, sir, for continuing, but my point of order is that Your Honour has not the right to put the question on the resolution until every hon. member who wishes to speak to the resolution has had an opportunity to do so. I submit that the hon. member for Macleod has not had an opportunity to speak and that he has a right to do so, according to citation 216 at page 92 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, which reads:
On resuming an adjourned debate, the member who moved its adjournment is by courtesy entitled to speak first if he rises in his place when the order is called, but if he does not avail himself of this privilege he is not thereby debarred from subsequently joining in the debate.
I submit that the hon. member for Macleod has not spoken, and that therefore the motion should not be put until he has had an opportunity to do so.


James Horace King: If the hon. member for Peace River will look at the end of citation 216, which he has quoted, he will see the letters "Hd.", which mean it is taken from the British Hansard, that it is a rule of the British House of Commons. If the hon. member had taken the standing orders of our own house he would have seen standing order 1, which is applicable:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is in force at the time shall be followed so far is they may be applicable to this house.
When we have no rule to cover a question which is raised in this house we follow the rules which apply in the British house; but since we have a rule to cover the case in which the hon. member is interested, and since this afternoon I followed a ruling given by a speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, the rule followed' in the British house does not concern this house. So I repeat that the hon. member for Macleod, having moved the adjournment of the debate on March 20, according to our rules is considered to have spoken once on the resolution; and, since he is not the mover of a substantive motion, he is not entitled^ to speak twice.
I shall now put the motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Would you put the yeas and nays?
And the yeas and nays having been called:


James Horace King: Call in the members.


Mr. MERRITT:: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion. I did not vote because it appeared from the tone of some members of the house that my vote for the simple motion that you leave the chair would be taken as a vote for socialism, or something other than the motion itself.
(Translation):


Mr. GAGNON:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
(Text):
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee on the resolution, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to continue the speech that I was making this afternoon. I prefer to do that on the second reading of the bill. I rise to ask a question of the minister since we are now in committee. When the bill is brought down, should parliament decide by amendment to change any clause in the bill or any clause in

the schedule against the minister's will, will he or the government consider that a want of confidence motion?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the government opposes the amendment and the house nevertheless votes in favour of it. that would have to be taken as a vote of want of confidence in the government.


Ernest George Hansell: Then I suggest. Mr. Chairman, since now we can talk as man to man across the floor, that that puts us in a precarious position in the light of what the minister has already said that there will be a column in the bill for amendments. That is, to my mind, an important point.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just a moment. The government may accept amendments, of course, but the answer I gave is substantially the correct one. There may be some detail, some very small provision, where that would not be the case, and the position would be made clear at the time. But an important amendment of any kind which the government opposed but which nevertheless the house voted for would imply want of confidence. The rules that will apply to this bill in committee are the rules that would apply to any other bill.


Ernest George Hansell: I point out a further detail. The schedule contains orders in council. There are in the orders in council some things to which we absolutely take exception, even though granting in principle that the government may have certain powers. For instance, take rent control. The regulations governing rent control are, to my mind, simply terrible. During an emergency period we must have a certain control of rents themselves but these regulations go much farther than that. They give the right to officials to walk into your house and cut it up. They may look at a room and say, "Do you mean to say that you two people occupy this room alone?" "Oh, yes." Then they can say, "It is too big. Cut. it in half so that somebody else may live in the other half."


Humphrey Mitchell: Has that ever been done?


Ernest George Hansell: No, it has not been done.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, let us be sensible.


Ernest George Hansell: We are not passing regulations on the basis of what has been done or whether we think it will be done. We are passing regulations on the basis of giving the government power to do these things. What I want to know is whether the government

Emergency Powers
will consider it a vote of want of confidence in the government if the house votes to change a thing like that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: Who is hollering 'Order"? I am not out of order.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The rules with regard to amendments of this bill will be no different from the rules with regard to the amendment of any other bill that comes before the house, and I do not think there will be any question at the time as to whether the situation is one in which the vote implies confidence or want of confidence in the government. This bill is not any different from any other bill. There will be opportunities for amendments to be proposed to the orders in council which are in the schedule to the bill, and the ordinary rules of parliamentary practice and procedure will apply.


William Ross Macdonald: It seems to me that the committee has been anticipating what will be before the chair when the bill is in committee. We are not at this stage discussing the bill. We are discussing a resolution, and the only discussion which should take place at this time is discussion respecting a resolution. Is it advisable to bring in a bill based on this resolution? That is the whole question. What will be in the bill must be left for discussion when the bill itself is before the chamber.


Howard Charles Green: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that ruling is severe. We are entitled' to ask questions about the whole nature of the measure to be brought down,, and such a ruling makes discussion impossible. I submit that we should not be hampered by any restrictive ruling of that kind.


William Ross Macdonald: The only matter before the committee at the present time is the resolution. The committee does not know what the bill1 will contain. When the bill is before the house it can be discussed. At the present time we have a resolution and the discussion should be strictly relevant to the resolution. Is it advisable to bring in such a bill? The hon. member for Eglinton.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We in this party, Mr. Chairman, attach considerable importance to this stage of the discussion with reference to this measure. As indicated this afternoon by the hon. member for Peel, speaking for this party, we desire in committee on this resolution to elicit, not necessarily from one minister alone but from the government, important information with reference to the controls, the 83166-111
power to continue which is sought by the government in the bill referred to in the resolution.
I raise a point, at this stage in the hope that one might make some contribution now to orderly procedure in the committee. We want to have the utmost information so that when the stand of this part}' is taken on second reading of the bill it may be, as I said the other day, a discerning and discriminating stand. We have a resolution which contemplates the introduction of a bill, and we have been told already that the bill is intended to give statutory effect for a temporary period of some fifty-seven orders in council. There are many questions which we in this part of the house would like to ask with reference to the controls which will be continued as a. result of that bill. Is it. your thought, Mr. Chairman, that we should just take those measures in the order in which they appear in the volume which has been circulated, or take them as members rise in their places? To give a concrete situation, I have half a dozen orders on which I should like to ask a number of questions of more than one minister opposite. I am raising this point now in this way in the hope that one might make a contribution to as orderly a procedure as possible in this committee. You can well understand that if questions come one after another in matters referred to or contained in fifty-seven different orders it may be highly confusing to the house. If it were acceptable to you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee I should be glad to start with rent controls. I have a number of questions on rent controls.


William Ross Macdonald: I am in the hands of the committee. I can only repeat what I stated previously, that it is not in order at this time to discuss the bill or what the bill is to contain. We should discuss at this time just the principle whether it is advisable or not. The wording of the resolution is that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide, ct cetera. At this moment the committee should consider whether or not it is expedient to introduce such a measure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: So far as the Progressive Conservative party is concerned, the expediency with relation to the introduction of such a measure depends, as has already been indicated, upon each of these controls and the case made for it. That is why, in our opinion, it is so important that the fullest information be given the committee by the government with respect to each of these measures on which members seek information-and there is much information that is sought. There is

Emergency Powers

the further point, and I speak, I hope, with the deference that becomes a new member of the house, that it is surely in keeping with the procedure followed on other measures, the introduction of which has been preceded by a resolution of the kind now before us, that the fullest opportunity should be provided at the committee stage on the resolution for the asking of questions and obtaining all available information from the government as bearing upon the question of expediency of the introduction of the measure which the government is asking leave to introduce. With that in mind, I should like to ask a number of questions. It does not matter whether the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply answers these questions, but I have a number of them with reference to the matter of rent control. I can ask them seriatim or, if it is more convenient, I can indicate a number of them in a group.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may interject an objection, the minister who is responsible for rent control is not in the house at the moment. I suggest that the list of orders in council furnished to hon. members is not officially in their hands. It is a preview of the bill and was given as a matter of convenience to hon. members. It seems to me irregular to discuss the bill in the resolution stage and I think, Mr. Chairman, your ruling was quite correct.


Howard Charles Green: I would point out that it is quite irregular also to bring in fifty-seven measures in one. We are facing an unusual situation. It may be that was the only way these measures could1 be brought in; but, that having been done, I suggest to the ministry and to all members that the reasonable way to proceed now would be to allow questions with regard to these orders in council. It may take a little time, but in the long run it will save time. With regard to your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations of the governor in council for a limited period . . .
The Minister of Justice very properly, I think, gave us a list of these orders in council and there have been two added since which deal with radioactive substances. I suggest that the discussion now would be meaningless unless we were able to ask questions about the orders in council. I would appeal to the ministry to support that stand. Let us carry on here and we will work out a reasonable procedure as we go along. I do not think anyone has any desire to go into every little detail about every order in council, but there are

certain broad questions that should be asked and answered, and I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is the stage at which that should be done. I have three or four questions of a general nature which I think will help later in the consideration of the bill.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Vancouver South has said that there are certain-and I think these are the words he used -broad questions of a general nature which he would like to ask. I think that would be perfectly in order on the resolution. The point I endeavoured to make was that we should not anticipate the bill any more than is absolutely necessary and that we should not at this time go into discussion of the bill. The bill will eventually come to the committee and then it can be discussed. But broad questions of a general nature could, I think, be asked at this time.


Mr. BOUCHER:: The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations.
As I understand it, that word ''certain" means something specific. If, as the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply has stated, the index or the compilation of the orders in council which has been provided to us has no legal significance, not having been submitted to us personally, I think we should then rise and ask him what certain orders and what certain regulations will be included in this bill. Then I think we should ask him what certain duties and what certain officials are to be continued by the act. I do not think the members of the house should be asked to come into committee on a resolution, having approved the resolution, to discuss certain regulations and certain orders in council without knowing what the certain regulations and certain orders in council are. If we are to discuss the broad principle of controls, the broad principle of bureaucratic government, or the broad principle of having the minister hire officials, fix compensation for officials, let the officials have certain varied or extensive duties, then, of course, there can be some meaning to this resolution. But actually, as I see it, there can be no meaning whatsoever to a resolution if it is to bar discussion about certain things which the government in its discretion has decided to put into the resolution. How can we discuss it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the Minister of Justice, who had jurisdiction over rent control for so long, can answer the questions I should like to put to him on the subject of the regulations pertaining to the freezing of

Emergency Powers
tenancies of housing accommodation. There are two cases in particular which have been raised, not once but a number of times, in the house, and as to which I wish to ask the minister if he can give some indication of the intention of the administration. The first has to do with the purchase of houses by veterans. An order announced in the house on February 24 by the Minister of Finance to the effect that owners would be permitted to obtain occupancy of houses purchased within a period beginning late in 1944 and extending into 1945. My question is on broader ground than that. Where a veteran has made a bona fide purchase of a house for his personal occupancy, is it the intention that the present order should be continued so as to deprive him, unless he happens to have purchased within the particular period to which I have referred, of the right of occupancy of his home?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think it is important, Mr. Chairman, that we should agree as far as possible on the line of procedure to be adopted. Otherwise too many weeks will be taken up getting through with this measure. While that cannot be helped if the discussion is necessary, we should take a course of procedure which will avoid double discussion. I agree with the hon. member for Carleton that if we are asked what orders in council are to be continued under this legislation, we must tell the committee what the orders in council are; and I would say at once that they are the fifty-seven orders in council which have been printed and circulated to the members of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Plus two more.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Fifty-seven altogether.
Then, I think if we go at all into the specific provisions of these orders in committee of the whole on the resolution, we shall have a duplication when we reach the bill; because the possibility is that certain amendments will be proposed in the bill and that the provisions of the orders in council will be discussed again when we are in committee of the whole on the bill. I think this is different from the procedure which was adopted on the war appropriation acts. When they were before the house, we did fall into a procedure-and perhaps not a very good one-whereby discussion took place, usually for months, on the resolution, and then the bill usually went through the house within a day or two. But that was much easier to do there than here, because here, when we reach the bill, we are dealing with a large number of specific orders in council, and inevitably we shall have a repetition of the discussion then. Probably 83166-1114
we cannot be strictly logical and consistent about the matter. Perhaps the right course to adopt is to confine the questions at this stage to broad general questions, keeping them down to as low a number as possible, and leave the more detailed questions to be asked when the bill is introduced. The procedure that is being followed here of appending fifty-seven orders in council, the number of orders in council that it was desired to continue, is, of course, unprecedented in this sense, that never has there been a situation like this to be dealt with by parliament. But I think I should point out that it is not the same kind of situation as would arise if we were attempting to introduce fifty-seven new pieces of legislation. All these orders in council are already the law of the land, and some of them have been the law of the land for seven or eight years. It would of course, be improper, if we were proposing new measures, for us to lump them together like this and cover them by one bill. But the situation is different when we are, in effect, saying that everything shall lapse but these orders in council which are already the law.
I also wish to say what I said the other night about other countries that have had the same kind of situation to deal with. Two other countries had an analogous situation, namely Great Britain and Australia, and they found, upon consideration, that this was the only way to deal with it; so they introduced bills of this type with a large number of regulations in the schedule. Provision was made for amendment of these regulations in the bills they introduced, and there were some amendments.
Perhaps the government should give a little further consideration to what might be the proper procedure to follow, so that I could state the view of the government tomorrow. Tonight I would be prepared, as far as possible, to answer questions, provided that they are of a general nature rather than concerning details. This question of the intention of the government with regard to the recovery of houses by ex-service owners is one on which I shall have to send for information from the Minister of Finance, and this illustrates the difficulties of this line of procedure. That, of course, is not something I can answer at all myself; I shall have to send for that minister, and get officials. If we were dealing with these seriatim and regularly, order by order as they are in the schedule, we would not have any such difficulty; we would start and go through them, and the minister would be here with his officials until his orders were dealt with and concluded. Anyone in the house who wanted to propose amendments
Emergency Powers

could do so; the government could either accept or reject the amendments, or they could be voted upon. Then the matter would be wound up and finished. It is pretty hard to do that here, when one hon. member gets up and asks about the eviction order; another gets up and asks about the order in council relating to old age pensions, and so on. If we are not careful we shall have no order here, and, moreover, we may have a great deal of duplication.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is that the procedure you intend to follow when you bring in the bill?


James Lorimer Ilsley: When the bill is in committee we propose to take up these orders seriatim.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps a procedure something like this would work out. We might ask the Minister of Justice, who is in charge [DOT] of this resolution, general questions first and then go on to question the different ministers. The orders in council are grouped under the different ministries, and after a general questioning we might go on and question each minister about his group of orders in council. Perhaps a procedure along those lines would be satisfactory to all parties in the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I might try a suggestion, which would be that we rise and report progress, go on and deal with something else, and call a conference of the various groups to see if some arrangement could be worked out. Such a conference need not be limited to the leaders and the whips; there might be several from each party.


Howard Charles Green: We have an hour and a half to go tonight, and we might go ahead with general questions. Then a conference can be held tomorrow in regard to further procedure.


Humphrey Mitchell: Are you not in the position that you are trying to have a wedding without the bridegroom?


Howard Charles Green: Who is the bride?


Humphrey Mitchell: You were a fine kind of bridegroom this evening, talking against everything and voting for it.


Howard Charles Green: We are getting on pretty weli; leave out the cheap politics.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Lay off; you are hurting the thing, not helping.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, I am not. I just want to put forward this point of view. How can you discuss an order in council if it is not before you? These orders are not before lis. It seems to me that we have to deal with the resolution now, and I do not think you

can ask detailed questions until we have the orders in council in committee. In my judgment, just to talk about the thing in a general way is a waste of time.


Howard Charles Green: We have the orders now.


Humphrey Mitchell: But they are not before this committee.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, they are.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, no, they are not.


Howard Charles Green: In a kindly way may I say
we have read them all.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let the simple people have their turn. The lawyers have been at it all evening.


George Russell Boucher: I think the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour had better get together. The Minister of Justice has admitted that the certain orders and regulations are those contained in the index and the compilation we have before us. That being so, I do not see how the Minister of Labour can get up and say that because we voted to go into committee on a resolution we voted against the principle of anything the members on this side have spoken against. How can he make his argument consistent?
While we are dealing generally with the resolution, may I ask the Minister of Justice if it is the intention of the government to leave the same men in power, with the same regulations they have administered, with the same duties to perform and the same powers, and to continue the same restrictions we have had in the past? I would submit that, if so, we shall be continuing wartime regulations, bureaucratic administration and bureaucratic legislation two years after the end of the war. So that at this stage I think the minister should be able to tell us he is going to bring about some moderation, some lessening of bureaucratic control, some restriction of the powers of various boards, not responsible to parliament, to make and interpret law which the people must obey.
Take the situation in regard to rents, for instance. Today I do not believe five per cent of Canadians, and I doubt if ten per cent of the officials administering rental control, know exactly and precisely what the law is with regard to evictions. During the last few days I personally have had great difficulty in getting anyone in Ottawa to answer certain questions, and I know there is confusion throughout this city as to what is required to raise rents, renew leases, terminate leases, evict tenants, get

Emergency Powers
possession of homes, disqualify tenants from homes on the grounds of abuse, and multifarious other matters.
My point in rising at this time is to express the opinion that, before we are through with this resolution in committee, we should know exactly and in great detail to what extent if any the Minister of Justice is prepared to lessen controls, reduce the powers of appointed officials, and remove the impediments to freedom and life and freedom of action in this country. I wonder if at this stage, in a very general way if you like, the government could not give us some indication that they realize that some of the regulations and restrictions under these fifty-seven items should be moderated or abandoned, altogether.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know just how to answer a. question like that, containing the usual references to bureaucrats and bureaucracy, words which are terribly overworked in this house.


George Russell Boucher: By the government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, I say words which are terribly overworked in this house. A great many men, who are great public servants and who have rendered magnificent service to this country, are abused on the ground that they are bureaucrats. They are indiscriminately abused by certain hon. members who ought to know better, and I get very tired of hearing this indiscriminate abuse from them.
What I was going to say was this: The hon. member for Carleton asks whether I can give any indication about the future course of controls. I thought I covered that rather fully in the speech I made when I introduced the resolution. What controls will be imposed will depend upon the provisions of these orders in council which are continued. Very large numbers of orders in council are being dropped altogether, as the hon. member knows. With regard to the personnel, agents, officers and servants, in the main they will continue to be the ones who will administer these orders in council. It could not be otherwise. I do not know what is in my hon. friend's mind when he suggests anything else.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to follow the hon. member for Carleton, because I have the same point in mind. I would put a specific case to the Minister of Justice. Here we have orders in council setting up the wartime prices and trade board. I have before me the interpretation clause which, among other things, defines "offence". An offence, among other things, is a contravention of an order. And an
''order'' is set out in paragraph (k) of the section. This interpretation clause gives a long list of orders. Then we go all through the powers of the board and the obligations of citizens.
What I wish to ask is this: We are coming to the end of, or are gradually working out of, this situation. Is it necessary that all these powers, which I think we agree were necessary in war time, should be continued? Must we continue these powers? It is extremely easy for a citizen to break the law without knowing he is doing so. When I read the enforcement section of the report of the wartime prices and trade board, one of the unpleasant things I find is that, with this multitude of orders, there is an enormous number of people, ordinarily law-abiding citizens, who now find themselves, sometimes willingly I am afraid, but also sometimes perhaps unknowingly, breaking the law.
My question is this: With this huge body of orders and regulations, is there no thought of ameliorating them or softening them in any way, or are we to keep this huge body of orders and regulations to deal with what I would assume is at any rate a much smaller situation than we had before?
I might apply the same question in respect of other orders in council, but the question I have asked will indicate that I have in mind the same principle which was discussed by the hon. member for Carleton.
Mr. ILSLEk : It must be remembered that a very large number of orders are being revoked. As hon. members know, the number of orders outstanding was very great. As I said to the house, a committee of civil servants, of which the Solicitor General was chairman, was w'orking on these orders, and they have been working on them since the middle of 1945. They have succeeded in eliminating by far the greatest number of them. So that the number, which originally was several thousand-I cannot give the exact number-has been reduced to these fifty-seven.
These orders have been examined and amendments have been the result. There were many amending orders in council before they were reduced to the form in which they are now found. We think the provisions of these orders in council are substantially all necessary at- the present time. If, after examination in committee, hon. members feel that they are unnecessary, and if we are not in a position to give reasons why they are necessary, then a good case would be made for deleting them. But I do not know of such cases.
Emergency Powers


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did I understand (he minister to say that recently, when these orders were being consolidated to be put forward as a schedule to the bill, they were at that time scrutinized to see whether changes should even then be made ?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: To accommodate them to the new situation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That applies to the more important orders; I cannot speak as to the less important ones. But some of them were amended with a view to presentation to the house. That is, they were amended in such a way as to drop out sections which were no longer necessary.


Mr. MacINNIS:: It seems to me that the question before us is more one of procedure, so as to expedite the business in which we are engaged. As I watched the debate in the last few days I was comparing it with the work of the "Big Four" in Moscow. I think, really, there was a great deal more agreement among them than I have seen in this chamber. After all, I am pretty sure that if my hon. friends to my right had an opportunity to do so today, they would not abolish offhand' these orders in council.
That being so, I was going to say, "Let us be honest". I will not say that; but I will say, "Let us be reasonable, and take it for 'granted that the government was elected and is responsible for running the affairs of the country".
During my years in the house I have seen legislation go through its various stages. My experience has been that at this particular stage, when a resolution goes before the committee there is not a great deal of time taken for the consideration of it, and for the very good reason that we shall have another go at the principle of the bill when second reading is moved. Then the bill goes to the committee; and, if I am not very far wrong, hon. members to my right can take clause after clause, paragraph after paragraph, in each order in council and worry it to death, if they like. In any event, they will have ample opportunity to deal with it.
That being so, why not let this go. I was called away from the house for a short time, but I understand that in the vote this evening most of my hon. friends voted for the resolution. Why not let us be reasonable, give up this obstructionism, and let this thing go through.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, it amazes me to hear the hon. member for Vancouver East talk about obstructionism, letting things go through and hurrying. If he will refer back to Hansard of March 20 he will find that the Minister of Justice and the leader of the opposition suggested that the resolution should be put into committee, right away. My leader and, I believe, the leader of the Social Credit group, were committed to that course. The leader of this part}' made that commitment, stating that we were not going to take the time of the house at that stage, but that we would let the resolution get into committee, reserving our rights to ask questions at that time, and to debate the principle of the measure on second reading. We were not committed either to approving or disapproving the principle.
Then who was it who rose in his seat and started a political dog-fight which has been going on since that time? It was the leader of the C.C.F.


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order, we had an important point we wanted to make, and we made it. My hon. friends did not have a point at that time, but now they have.


Howard Charles Green: There is no point of order about that; it is merely another political speech like the ones we have been listening to here for the last several days. They started this kind of thing; they have been making political speeches right through the debate while the Speaker was in the chair and it is most amusing now to have them come along and object to anybody else taking the time of the committee. It is just typical of the procedure they carry on. They pretend to be above politics and they are the smoothest politicians in Canada; they are playing politics all the time, not only here but out in the ridings, and I think the Canadian people are beginning to realize that that is the fact.


William Ross Macdonald: I think this-


Howard Charles Green: I am all through, Mr. Chairman.


Angus MacInnis: The political part of the hon. member's speech is all finished.


Howard Charles Green: You make your political
speeches; why object to my making one?


William Ross Macdonald: May I ask the hon. member, as well as all hon. members, to deal with the resolution.


Howard Charles Green: There are two or three questions I should like to ask the minister. The first has to do with the time that this measure

Emergency Powers
will continue in force. As hon. members know, the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act which was passed in the fall of 1945 contained a provision to the effect that it would continue in effect until fifteen days after the commencement of the 1947 session of parliament. There was also a provision that the life of the act could be extended for a further period; but there was another unusual limitation inserted in the act which the minister will find in subsection 1 of section 6, reading as follows:
. . . for a further period, not in any case exceeding one year, from the time at which it would otherwise expire . . .
The words "not in any case exceeding" are very unusual, and I understand they were put in to make it absolutely certain that the measure would not be carried on past that time. Then in the 1946 session it was felt that the fifteen days was not a long enough time to permit legislation to be put through the house, and I think that was perfectly correct. An amendment to that section was passed extending the period to sixty days; but again we have the words, "not in any case exceeding one year," which would mean until the spring of 1948. Is that to be the limit under the new legislation? Is there to be any power taken to carry on the bill to be brought down past March 31, 1948?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There will be in the proposed bill a provision identical with the provision in the original bill and the amendment mutatis mutandis.


Howard Charles Green: In English or French, does that mean that the bill may be continued until March 31, 1949?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If addresses are presented to the Governor General by the Senate and the House of Commons respectively the bill mav be continued beyond March 31, 1948, but not for a period exceeding one year. That is the same provision as is in the present bill.


Howard Charles Green: That means that the bill we are being asked to enact may be in effect until March 31, 1949?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If parliament so orders by passing addresses.


Howard Charles Green: I realize that, but I just wanted to have it clear whether it was to be until March 31, 1948, which was the time set by the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, or whether it is to be March 31, 1949. I take it from the minister's answer the year will be 1949; that will be the latest date to which this act can be carried on.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Parliament has the right to extend it. Surely my hon. friend would not agree to deprive parliament of that right. All that the bill provides for is the continuance of the controls until 1948.


Howard Charles Green: Then the government may direct-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Parliament.


Howard Charles Green: Parliament-I am not trying to make any point here; I am simply trying to find out whether the thought is that the measure may be carried on until 1949.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If parliament directs by two addresses, one by this house and the other by the senate.


Howard Charles Green: I understood the Minister of Justice to say the other day that no new orders in council were to be passed and that these fifty-seven orders in council were not to be amended by the government, that they could only be revoked; that the cabinet would take the power under the bill to revoke any one or more of these fifty-seven orders in council.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In whole or in part.


Howard Charles Green: In whole or in part, but could not add anything to them; is that correct?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct; that is the case after this legislation becomes law. As to the period before this legislation becomes law, the other day I gave an undertaking that after March 31 no orders in council would be passed under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, which will be in force until May 15. in regard to matters which are not dealt with either by the orders in council in the schedule or in respect of matters covered by other emergency legislation.


Howard Charles Green: But at the lower level of the controller or the administrator there may be power to alter or amend. While an order in council cannot be changed, an order issued by a controller may be changed; is that correct?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the change is authorized by an order in council in the schedule.


Howard Charles Green: As I read the orders in council, they authorize whoever is given the power to pass orders to change those orders, to amend them.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is the usual provision,
yes.


Howard Charles Green: And that power is to be continued?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not changed.
Emergency Powers


Howard Charles Green: The controller or administrator who happens to be administering a particular field will not be affected?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Will not be touched by this legislation at all.


Howard Charles Green: Take P.C. 3, which is the wartime industries control regulations, as an example. I understand that this is a general order in council giving certain powers to the controllers appointed by the department of reconstruction. Will there be any power to appoint new or additional controllers?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is a detail I could not answer. Whatever powers are conferred by the order in council may be exercised under that order in council.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister of
reconstruction could answer that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the order in council provides for a timber controller, there will be authority to appoint a timber controller. If the timber controller should resign there will be authority to appoint another timber controller, but it would not be possible to appoint a controller whose duties are not defined by the orders in council under this bill.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be any power in the minister of reconstruction to appoint additional controllers, to decide that there should be a controller of shipping? I cite that merely as an example. Will there be any power in the minister to appoint additional controllers, or are we to have only the controllers already appointed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Unless my hon. friend can
find an order in council which authorizes the government to appoint a shipping controller, it will be impossible to appoint one.


Howard Charles Green: I used that only as an
example.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The only controllers who
can be appointed are those for whom provision is made in the bill.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention df the
government to appoint any additional controllers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the only continuing
controllers under the industries control regulations are the controller of steel and the controller of timber. If that is true those are the only controllers the government would have authority to appoint.


Howard Charles Green: P.C. 3 provides:
"Controller" means a controller heretofore appointed and now in office, or hereinafter appointed by the governor general in council.

That does not refer to any particular industry but is a general power vested in the governor in council to appoint controllers, and what I should like to know is whether it is the intention, under P.C. 3 or any other order in council, to appoint additional controllers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The question of the personnel to administer these orders will be dealt with in the bill. Are we not doing something unprecedented here, when discussing the resolution in committee, in running ahead and attempting to discuss the provisions of the bill? If we had had the first reading of the bill the hon. member would have it before him as well as the orders in council, and then he would be in a position to make up his mind if he is troubled about what he ought to do on the second reading.


Howard Charles Green: Let me put it in this way.
We have certain controllers now. Is power to be taken to appoint additional controllers?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are no controllers in
the wartime prices and trade board. I do not know exactly what a controller is, but I understand there are controllers under another order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Controllers are peculiar to
the Department of Munitions and Supply and are continuing their functions under the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. At the moment there is only one controller. He happens to be controller of three branches. He is controller of timber, controller of steel and controller of priorities. He acts through deputies. The government may decide to appoint separate controllers in these branches, and it probably will if it can find the proper personnel. It is free to do so under the bill, for the reason that these controllers are set up by order in council and the government has the power to appoint them.


Howard Charles Green: I agree that at the present
time there is power to appoint a steel controller and a timber controller. Is power to be taken to appoint controllers of other materials?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no such provision
in the order in council.


Howard Charles Green: It is not the intention to
take power to appoint more controllers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Howard Charles Green: I would ask the Minister
of Finance whether power is to be taken to appoint additional administrators or to set up new administrative branches under the wartime prices and trade board, or are we

Emergency Powers
dealing with a structure which is not to be extended but, on the contrary, will be cut down?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are certain provisions in the bill which relate to the administration of the various orders that will be annexed, but as my colleague the Minister of Justice has said I suggest that it is perhaps not entirely appropriate to discuss the provisions of the bill until it has been given its first reading. There is, I understand, no substantial change in the provisions of the wartime prices and trade board order as it now stands, which will be one of the orders in council annexed to the bill, but I cannot say at the moment that there is no provision in the bill to provide for a new administrator of, let us say, some form of textiles or something of the kind. I am not in a position to answer that. I repeat, I think it would, be better if we dealt with that type of question when we have the bill before us.


Howard Charles Green: But the principle is important. It is whether the government is retaining power to appoint administrators over new materials. You have an administrator now, let us say, of textiles perhaps and wholesale goods. Is power to be taken to appoint entirely new administrators? We want to know whether this is to be on a diminishing scale or whether the government is taking power to extend the number of administrators?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend can take it without fear of contradiction that it is very much on a diminishing scale. The wartime prices and trade board set-up is now a fairly comprehensive one, with administrators or with officers fulfilling the duties of administrators in most of the major fields in which the board has control of prices. But to say that there is not power to appoint an administrator to replace an existing administrator is something I cannot say at the moment, but I can give the assurance that there is no expansion of the functions of the board contemplated but rather a marked contraction of those functions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the hon. member for Vancouver South would permit me to ask a question on the same point before he resumes, I would ask the Minister of Finance, is it not true, in spite of what he has said about the intentions of the government, that there will be in the order annexed to the bill power to extend the application of price control in case it should be necessary? I am not asking about the intentions but about the powers of the bill.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I cannot answer that. I again suggest that when we have the bill before us we can look at it and look at the orders in council annexed to the bill. Then the Minister of Justice or myself or the Minister of Reconstruction will have to answer every proper question that is put. But it is difficult, under the rules of the house, to answer questions now until we have the relevant bill and the orders before us.


Howard Charles Green: Another question has to do with the fifty-sixth and fifty-seventh orders in council. Perhaps the government would have been wise to keep it at fifty-five, because fifty-seven has unpleasant connections. But these two additional orders in council have to do with a reserve of radioactive substances. The first of them has to do with radioactive substances that may be discovered in Yukon, and the other is similar to it but applies only to the Northwest Territories. As I understand the effect of the orders in council, it is that, although the prospector may go and locate a claim and under statute law applying to Yukon get title to all the minerals in that claim, this particular order in council reserves the radioactive substances, so that he cannot get title to them. I am not quarrelling with the order in council containing that provision. It probably is a wise plan. But why should that be carried on in a temporary' measure of the type of this bill? Surely that condition is going to apply for many years. I do not understand why the government does not bring in an amendment to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act reserving radioactive substances, or an amendment to the Atomic Energy Control Act, which this house passed last year. In the latter act there are certain powers. Under section 8, paragraph (c), the board has power, with the approval of the governor in council, to acquire or cause to be acquired by purchase, lease, requisition or expropriation, prescribed substances and any mines, deposits or claims of prescribed substances; and under section 9, subsection 1, paragraph (c), the board may, with the approval of the governor in council, make regulations respecting mining and prospecting for prescribed substances. Obviously this provision reserving radioactive substances to the crown is of a permanent nature, and it would seem that that should be covered by an amendment to the statutes and not by continuing an order in council for a period of a year or even two years. Why is it necessary' to put these two orders in council in this bill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The question is a reasonable one. At the last session the house passed permanent legislation for the control of
Emergency Powers

atomic energy and gave the atomic energy board the right to pass regulations. My hon. friend is quite right in saying that this provision could be covered by a regulation of the atomic energy board or, failing that, an amendment to the Northwest Territories Act.


Howard Charles Green: The Yukon Quartz Mining Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. However, the question as to whether radioactive substances should be controlled in the ground or not is a matter of debate at this moment before the atomic energy committee of the united nations. There is a sharp difference of opinion on the subject. I may say that Canada is not urging that radioactive substances be controlled in the ground. Canada would prefer to rely on the provisions of the Atomic Energy Control Act which provide that after radioactive material is produced it should fall within the control of the atomic energy board. The United States takes a different view and the atomic energy act of the United States-I have a memorandum on the subject-actually reserves title to uranium, thorium, et cetera in public lands. It was felt that the situation at the moment is such that Canada did not wish to legislate in a permanent way for the control of these substances in the ground. It preferred to regulate every type of control but, while the subject is rather hotly debated in the committee, it was felt that it would be wise to continue the regulation by order in council, which does control these materials in the ground, with the thought that, after a decision has been made, either the order in council can be dropped and we can rely on the present regulations of the atomic energy board, or we shall amend the regulations of the atomic energy board to provide for the control of radioactive substances in the ground.


Howard Charles Green: Is that stand not inconsistent with the terms of the Atomic Energy Control Act? As I said, the atomic energy control board was given power over prospecting, for example. Nobody can even prospect for radioactive substances without approval of the board. Now the minister says that Canada takes the position that she is not interested in the radioactive substance in the ground but only after it has been extracted. Has there been a change in government policy in connection with the raw material?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no change, but the nations are divided rather sharply as to whether control of radium and thorium should extend to control in the ground. Some countries believe that anyone should be free to prospect for thorium or uranium and even 
mine them as long as the material passes into the control of its regulatory body as soon as it is mined1, and that, I think, is the view of the atomic energy board of Canada. Nevertheless, while there is a sharp difference of opinion on the point, and while it is hoped that a common viewpoint may' result, Canada does not like to change the position at this moment. Perhaps a month from now we shall be able to do so; perhaps two weeks from now. When the decision is reached we would like to take whatever action may be consistent with the view of the atomic energy committee.


Howard Charles Green: The government policy at the moment is that the prospector is free to prospect for radioactive substances without interference?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. At the moment the situation is governed by this order in council to which my hon. friend refers, which says that all prospects, all indications must be reported to the atomic energy board and that mining can be done only by the government in the Northwest Territories and in Yukon. But that is covered by an order in council which we wish to extend temporarily, with the thought that in a month or two we shall know whether we wish to drop that position, which we can do by cancelling the order in council, or whether we wish to turn it into permanent legislation, which we can do.


Howard Charles Green: At the moment, government policy is in favour of allowing free prospecting. That is the policy the government believes should be effected eventually?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: One other question. It has to do with the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East on March 10. He brought to the attention of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply the fact that there were 1,600 completed houses available in Bremerton, Washington, for sale to people in British Columbia, to be used as emergency shelters, and the minister said' at that time that he was having exhaustive inquiries made into the situation and would be able to report at a later date. Could he tell the committee now what the position is at the present time with regard to those houses?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I can. I have had a report from our representative on the west coast who has examined the houses and has looked into the situation thoroughly. The houses can be bought for, I think it is, S500 each. The cost erected in Seattle was about $2,300 each. The cost erected in Vancouver is likely to be something more than that as

Emergency Powers
far as we can find out. After the houses are erected, they are not $2,300 houses. They are perhaps $800 or $900 houses, which would be the cost to erect in Vancouver. We have stated that if the city of Vancouver wishes to buy these houses and move them to Vancouver, we will make a grant for the erection of the houses as emergency shelter, but we will not participate in a plan which proposes the sale of these houses to veterans, for the reason that we believe they are not of a standard that the government should sell to veterans.


Howard Charles Green: What grant would the government give?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A maximum of $500 a house.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. Before the committee proceeds may I again remind lion, members that, in my opinion we should be discussing this evening only the terms of the resolution. Considerable discussion has related to the resolution, but at times it has proceeded quite a distance from it; there has been discussion of the bill and there hare been other questions also.
I refer the committee to :'May" fourteenth edition, at page 732, under the heading of "Scope of debate on resolution.''
Debate in committee on a financial resolution is confined to the terms of the resolution itself and must not be extended to the related bill.
It is accordingly clear that at this stage we should be discussing the resolution only and not the bill. I do not wish to be too strict in my interpretation, but I trust that hon. members will stay within the scope of the resolution itself.


George Russell Boucher: I bow to the Chairman's ruling, but at the same time I must point out that the resolution itself says certain things.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You pointed that out before. Must we listen again?


George Russell Boucher: Sometimes hon. members do not wish to hear.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We love to hear your voice.


George Russell Boucher: The minister has stated in effect that the bill which will be founded on this resolution is to limit the controls to within fifty-seven spheres. In other words, there are fifty-seven orders in council

the fifty-five in the index and two others-dealing with matters on which the government retain the right to continue controls. They do more than that; as I understand it, they retain the right to extend these controls within these various spheres, to make new controls, to
modify controls, to appoint new officers, to give new duties to new officers, to extend the duties of officers.
To illustrate my point, let me deal primarily with rental control. For some five years now' the government have adopted a system of rental control. In my opinion, they har e had ample time to figure out what controls are desired for rental control and what regulations are required to affect those controls, what officials are necessary to administer them, and what problems they are to deal with. For the past five years the public at large have allowed, or been subjected to-and I believe willingly-variations in regulations, day-to-day changes in regulations, day-to-day changes in controls, changes in the conditions under which they can get possession of their own homes, under which they can allow tenants in. can eject tenants and can extend leases. For instance, just recently the government allowed owners of commercial property to increase the rental by twenty-five per cent on certain conditions. Those conditions in some cases required the landlord or the lessor to give a five-year lease, in other cases to give a two-year lease, and in each case allowed the tenant to vacate upon thirty days' notice, but would not allow the landlord to eject the tenant under any condition.
I give that to illustrate what, to my mind, is the greatest objection the public lias to these controls; the objection is to the unknown laws of the land, the laws of the land which are being made by regulation, by administrative officers and which are not the concrete law' of the country. Consequently I believe that if the government should ask parliament today to continue the policy of rental control, they should be prepared to submit to parliament the rules and regulations under which that control is to be continued. They should allow the people of the country, the landlord and the tenant, to have some knowledge of the security of tenure the tenant has or the length of time the landlord must submit to his tenant. They must give to the public some indication, I would say, of the need of the conditions, whether it is more advantageous to the housing problem of Canada to let a tenant remain in possession of premises, or to let the landlord get possession of his own. As I see it, the returned soldier who has been fighting overseas for five years, being a young fellow may have either himself, or through his parents or friends, purchased a house, so that when he became rehabilitated he could get into a home of his own and become established. I cannot see where government policy is in any manner giving any opportunity for
Emergency Powers

the returned soldier to establish a home which he did not have when he left; and a few of them had their own homes when they left. The result is, I believe, that the government must, in order, at least, to satisfy public demand, modify that policy and let the returned soldier know at what time in the distant future he may be able to get possession of a house which he may have bought or which his father, mother or a friend may have bought for him.
I also believe that many people who are in the same category as the returned soldier brought home three or four years ago, are as much entitled to the housing accommodation as the tenants now in the premises, and that if they could occupy them it would provide just as effective an answer to the housing problem.
I give these points entirely to illustrate the fact that this government, having had five years' experience, in my humble opinion should now be prepared to set a definite policy, so that the public of Canada will know what the rules are and have some guidance as to what will be the policy for some little time in the future. You can take almost any one of the spheres of activity that these controls provide for and put up arguments similar to that. There is the wartime prices and trade board, for instance. Although we may require some controls in prices, there are many points where we do not need to leave with the officials the power to make new7 regulations, which they have. We do not need all the controls within that sphere which we have had. We should modify them to a much greater degree than this government is doing, in order to meet post war conditions. The conditions during the w7ar were vastly different.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Russell Boucher: My hon. friends are
calling out "order." I think I have just as much right to order as they have, and I ask for order.


Lionel Chevrier: You are out of order.


George Russell Boucher: I am not out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: You did not listen to the Chairman's ruling.


George Russell Boucher: I did listen to the Chairman's ruling. The ruling says that we must speak to the resolution.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. Let me repeat the quotation I gave a moment ago:
Debate in committee on a financial resolution-

And this is a financial resolution.
-is confined to the terms of the resolution itself and must not be extended to the related bill.
Hon. members must discuss the terms of this resolution. It is difficult for the chairman to have to rise every few minutes and call an hon. member to order, and I hesitate to do so. All I can do is to bring to the attention of hon. members the ruling with regard to discussion of a resolution in committee of the whole.


George Russell Boucher: I fully agree with your explanation, Mr. Chairman, but there is a resolution brought in by the government with definite wording. We must confine ourselves to the wording used by the government.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Read the resolution.


George Russell Boucher: I shall be glad to read it, and suggest that the minister read it also.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have done so.


George Russell Boucher: The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations . . .
All I want to know is what those words mean. "Certain orders" do not mean any orders; they mean orders of a certain kind or within a certain scope. Then the resolution goes on and provides for certain officers, clerks and employees who may continue to perform certain duties.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You would never understand.


George Russell Boucher: I believe I am right when I say "certain" means "definite" rather than "vague" or "general." So I wonder if the minister cannot give me some explanation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: How many times must I give it? The hon. gentleman raised that point half an hour ago; I told him he was entitled to an answer, and I gave him the answer. I said the certain orders and regulations of the governor in council were the fifty-seven printed and circulated to hon. members. Now the hon. gentleman gets up and asks the question again. Let us have a little moderation in this process.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not propose to enter into a discussion, but I desire some information that will bear upon the expediency of introducing the bill referred to in the resolution. I take it that the committee is strictly within its rights in asking for this information, particularly since the attitude our party took in the house during the debate on the resolution was related directly to the information

Emergency Powers
we hoped to obtain at this stage. Now that the Minister of Finance is in the house, I should like to direct a question to him which will 'be perfectly general and directly related to the resolution. We have here a resolution which says:	.
That it is expedient to introduce admeasure to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations . . .
-for a certain period. We had some explanation from the Minister of Justice in moving the resolution in the first instance, and later, as to the period in question. What I want to get at is this. What objective has been set by the government with respect to what I consider to be one of the most important of these controls, namely rental control? Is the objective set on a strictly nation-wide basis? Has the government given consideration to the possibility of conditions improving in different areas, so that at some stage it might be possible to consider decontrol in that respect on an area basis, or perhaps on a provincial basis, or perhaps on a rural basis as distinguished from an urban basis, or perhaps on the 'basis of the larger cities, and so on?
Then in his statement would the minister also indicate whether in that respect some particular objectives in reference to the construction of houses have been set in measuring the period in question? For instance, I should assume that studies have been made to determine the number of houses which would have to be constructed in Canada in order to permit of decontrol, we will say, first of all, in reference to the freezing regulations. Can the minister give the committee any indication as to the objective that has been set in these respects and the basis upon which it has been set, because it is of great importance to those of us who sit on this side in measuring the expediency referred to in the resolution.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend has framed his question, as he said, in very general terms, and I am afraid my answer will have to be couched in somewhat similar terms. All these questions on which he has touched in connection with rental control have been under fairly intensive consideration for some time, and still are; that is to say, whether it is necessary to continue a uniform policy of control throughout the whole country, or whether it may be possible to make some relaxation in certain areas where conditions are not as acute. That whole question is being studied. So far it has not been considered desirable to modify the rental control order to provide for special regional differences. It may be possible to do so; I could not make any positive statement as to that.
On the general principle, the objective of rental control is to protect occupants of rented accommodation during this period of acute shortage. I do not think that is an overstatement, speaking of the country as a whole and perhaps particularly of the urban areas, though the condition is fairly general. I have indicated on previous occasions, as I think my colleague the Minister of Justice has indicated, that there is no intention on the part of the government to recommend the abandonment of either rental control or eviction control as long as such conditions continue to exist. But it is a brave man who will constitute himself a prophet as to exactly when conditions will be such that these controls can be either lifted entirely, or the point at which they can be relaxed from time to time. But I repeat the assurance I have given before in connection with other controls, that they will be relaxed just as soon as we believe we can do so in justice to the people of Canada, for whom we have some responsibility. Certainly no one will be more pleased than myself and some of the people who have had to administer these rental controls when it is found possible to take this action.
I am sorry I cannot be more specific in answer to my hon. friend's question, but I doubt whether he really expected me to be.


Howard Charles Green: If I may ask a supplementary question, have there been any discussions with the provinces concerning the possibility of having them take over rental control?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not as far as I am aware. That is a thought which might be worth exploring.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There has been no application.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As my colleague says, there has been no application.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The question which I asked, and to which the minister made a reply, had to do with the horizontal application of decontrol. Now, as to what one might call the vertical application of decontrol, I take it that as the government, or the wartime prices and trade board with the approval of the government, approach this question of decontrol we may expect it will be on a gradual basis, rather than a case of the government or the board waiting until such time as they think they can eliminate rent control entirely in connection with both rent ceilings and the freezing regulations. Am I correct in that?
Emergency Powers


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would think so. I would hope it would be gradual; as rapid as possible, but gradual.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The question has reference to the statement made in the house by the minister on February 24. I would ask him now directly if he will deal with this question, which has been raised before in the house; and I should like to put two particular matters to him. The first relates directly to his statement of February 24, when he announced in the house that the government had authorized certain amendments to the rental orders and regulations of the wartime prices and trade board. One of the amendments was to provide relief for persons who had purchased1 tenanted houses as homes for themselves between November 1, 1944, and July 25, 1945. The case I put to him is that of the veteran who purchased his home outside the period referred to in the amendment the minister announced at that time. It is a matter about which I am sure the government must have received many representations, and about which hon. members must have heard a great deal. I can tell the minister I personally discussed this matter with some of those who are administering regulations of this kind, and there has been an indication to me that it would be quite feasible to have an amendment made which would permit veterans who have made bona fide purchases of homes for their own occupancy to assume possession.
The other matter has to do with a proposal which has been made, not infrequently, for increasing the supply of shared accommodation. This is a matter of great importance, particularly in the cities and towns. There has been considerable evidence that people have not been willing to open up their homes to tenants who wrould take shared accommodation -perhaps a room or a couple of rooms- because of the difficulty in evicting tenants. There is a provision in the present regulations for the eviction of obnoxious tenants, but anyone who has had experience with it must know that it is difficult to apply that provision.
The suggestion has been made more than once-I made it in the house in the fall of 1945-that the freezing order, so far as shared accommodation is concerned, should not apply to tenancies created after a given date. That is not going to interfere with any situation existing at the present time. Where there is need for freezing-very well, let it continue. But as to tenancies hereafter created, that freezing regulation should not apply in respect of shared accommodation.
If that were done, it has been stated by veterans organizations and labour organiza-

tions that there would be many people willing to open up their homes, people who have space they would let on a shared basis, if they were sure they could evict easily and not have to go through the difficult procedure which is available now only in respect of those who have proven to be obnoxious tenants.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I think that matter should be discussed when the bill is before the committee. It deals with a certain order in council which will be in the bill, and suggests certain changes which should be made in it.


Howard Charles Green: We have had these fifty-seven varieties of orders in council placed before us. I submit it is not right that the position should be taken that no question can be asked about these orders in council.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is obvious to me from the discussion tonight that we shall have two full-length discussions respecting the details of all these orders in council. We must exercise a little self-restraint because, if we are not careful, we shall have two complete discussions. There is no sense in that. Unfortunately we have slipped in our procedure in the last few years, especially in the resolutions preceding war appropriation bills, discussion of which used to take months. But the whole tradition in respect of resolutions has been that the discussions have been brief. And they ought to be brief, to avoid duplication. Tonight we have slipped into a discussion of what is contained in the bill, and I have had to pick up a printed copy of it and look at certain sections in order to answer questions which have been asked.


Howard Charles Green: You have had to do that with other bills.
Mr. ILSLEY': That should not happen on a resolution, because hon. members who ask the questions ought to have the bill before them when those questions are asked. I am much disturbed by the thought that we can deal, in considerable detail, with shared accommodation and changes in the rights of evicted tenants, and so on, and then ask questions about other matters of some other minister.
The only proper procedure is to keep the questions general. I have in mind the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South: "You are talking about a limited period; how long is the limited period?" Or the question asked by the hon. member for Carleton:	"You are talking about a limited
number of orders; what orders are you talking about?" That is the type of question

Emergency Powers
which should be asked. They should be questions I can answer without having detailed knowledge of the various departments. Otherwise we shall have complete duplication.
If I felt hon. members were really not in a position to decide whether they think it is expedient to introduce a bill the situation might, be different ; but they have the orders in council before them. We have told them what those orders in council are, and we have told them what we are going to ask. General information of that kind has been given.
There is no objection to giving information. It has all got to be given sooner or later. But should it not be done in an orderly way, when the bill is before the house, when orders in council can be taken up in their proper order, and when we can have ministers here who will have their officials before them? Then, after the orders under one minister have been discussed, another minister can come forward, and his officials can be here. Is that not the only way in which we shall ever finish this mass of work?
Mr. GILLI8: I am not going to pursue the questions asked by hon. members to my right, because I think the minister is correct in what he says.


Howard Charles Green: The old axis.


Mr. GILLIS:: The resolution is simple. It is stated that the government wishes to introduce a bill. But there is a question I should like to ask the minister.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that the hon.
member is about to ask a new question. I thought we wTere discussing a point of order. I asked several questions of the Minister of Finance. Then a point of order was raised, and I do not think it has been settled. Before the hon. member for Cape Breton South asks another question, do I understand that Mr. Chairman is ruling that my questions are not to be answered?


Lionel Chevrier: There is no point of
order in that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have had nothing
else.


Clarence Gillis: Have I the floor?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would be very glad to
answer the questions. But I understood the ruling was made four or five times that questions of this sort were out of order.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Early in the sitting
of this committee I brought to its attention the fact that at this stage we should be discussing only the terms of the resolution. It
has occurred to me that the questions asked by the hon. member for Eglinton went beyond those terms in that they wTere detailed questions referring to the bill itself. For that reason, while I did not make a firm ruling- because I am in the hands of the committee, and I believe we are trying to work out a proper procedure-I did suggest that I thought the questions should not be asked at this time, but rather when the bill itself is before the committee. I gathered that w?as the consensus of the committee, that questions of that kind, or similar to those asked by the hon. member for Eglinton, should be held over until we reach the committee stage of the bill.


Clarence Gillis: It is amazing when one sits
here, as I have, for the last four or five days and listens to the brains of the country discussing seven lines in a resolution asking for the right to introduce a bill which might give us some idea about what we are going to discuss. I am coming to the conclusion that a legal training is a bad training, especially if you are on this side of the house. You get so used to cutting corners and arguing about matters in which you do not believe that it becomes a habit.


Howard Charles Green: You are good at it, too.


Clarence Gillis: We plain, simple folk read
a thing and understand it as it was intended. I should like to ask the minister one simple question about the resolution, just so that he will not forget there is a resolution before the committee. He is likely to begin discussing the bill and I want to bring the minister back to the resolution. Certain orders are going to be carried forward for a limited period during the national emergency arising out of the war. Who is to define or decide when that national emergency has ceased to exist? I am thinking back to September 10, 1939, when a much greater national emergency existed than exists today. Am I to assume that the national emergency will not be over until we get back to the economic stagnation that existed prior to 1939? Am I wrong in assuming that that is where my hon. friends to my right want to go? I wish to be sure that that is not what the minister has in mind.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not what the government has in mind.


Mr. TIMMINS:: On page 11 of this bill-


William Ross Macdonald: We are not discussing the bill.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: We are discussing what is to come before the house in a short time and it seems to me that we should be able lo find
Emergency Powers

out what we are to be dealing with. For instance, we are to be dealing with returned soldiers who receive appointments under the civil service. In the omnibus bill that is before us there are five or six different orders in council, some of which go back to 1927. We are now in the year 1947. When we come to the omnibus bill are we to deal with this matter in this hit-or-miss way that we are dealing with at the present time, or are we to have these bundled together and put before us in the form of a statute so that those who run may read? If the minister would answer that, then I should like to ask one other question.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: The Civil Service Act will be amended eventually, but we do not want to take a chance of veterans preference lapsing. Consequently the orders in council which have existed during the war will be continued under the omnibus bill so that there will be no chance of that preference lapsing between the time the orders run out and the time the amendment to the Civil Service Act is brought before the house.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Will this act be consolidated some time during the discussion? Shall we have something before us to crystallize it in one form? After all, it is not fair that one should have to go through five or six different orders in council to find out the position of the returned soldier.
Mr. ILbLEY: When the bill is introduced I will lay on the table copies of the orders in council and the amending orders in council. For the convenience of hon. members, the orders in council as amended have been consolidated in office consolidations which have been circulated. Each hon. member has before him this office consolidation which is a most convenient, source of information to consult. There will also be on the table of the house the orders in council and the amending orders in council as they appear in the schedule to the bill. Even-thing has been done to place before the members of the house exactly what they will be dealing with.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I am sorry to have to refer to this omnibus bill but I am not going to speak about it. There are wartime leasehold l emulations dealing with both commercial and residential properties. There are two orders which set out the regulations. Shall we have before us those regulations which at the present time are dealt with by orders in council dealing with housing and commercial accommodation? Shall we have those orders before us so that we may know where we are going and what we are discussing? We should know whether the department has decided to
fMr. Timmins.]
make any changes. The Minister of Finance, if I understood his words correctly, said that the department is discussing whether or not changes will be made before the bill is put before us. Are we to have all the orders dealing with those two fields before us?


James Lorimer Ilsley: All the board orders should be produced by the minister. This house is entitled to them if they want them.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Will they not be produced so that we may know about them at the beginning?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know what the house wants yet.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I think we want everything.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is a library here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I agree fully with what the Minister of Justice said. We do not want to go over the course twice, but I submit that there are a few things which, if we could clear in our minds about them now, would perhaps save time later. There are one or two which I think are worth mentioning now. One thing that will be important when we come to the wartime prices and trade board orders in council is the cost figures which appear in the report of that board. I presume I should address my remarks to the Minister of Finance, so I shall ask him if he would have the figures on page 55 which show the rises in prices reconsidered. From a remark made by Mr. Gordon the other day in the banking and commerce committee, I understand that these figures do not contain anything to indicate the subsidies which have been paid. In other words, if the subsidies paid were included in these figures they would show a different figure.
I do not know whether anyone else has had this experience, but I know I have had it and some of my friends have had it. When she is told that the cost of food had risen from August, 1945, to the end of 1946 by only 6-8 per cent, my wife, whom I have always considered to be a sensible woman, just smiles.
I am not suggesting that there are any wrong figures there and I am not criticizing the bureaucrats or officials, but I am suggesting that it is possible to include figures which are not really typical ones. I have had inquiry made and I confess I am puzzled about the figures showing the rise in the cost of food in Canada from the pre-war figures to the end of 1946. This is given as forty-five per cent. I have had a figure made by a person who, I think, is a reliable person. I admit it is hard to be sure that you have all the

Emergency Powers
figures, but at any rate the result arrived at is a much larger figure. I suggest that when we come to consider this matter these figures will be important because they are relevant to the consideration of the full picture.
I suggest to the minister that he might have these figures looked up, and in particular I suggest that care be taken to include the subsidy figures. To my mind, these figures are realiy misleading if the subsidy figures are not taken in. Otherwise we have not a fair comparison with the United States, and if we could get that it would be useful to us when we come to discuss the bill itself.
There is one other question I would raise in regard to the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation. The order in council with regard to that is long, and wide powers are given. Then 1 look at the schedule and at the report of the wartime prices and trade board. I am not quite sure that I have it all clear but, as far as I can make out, a large number of items are said to be ineligible for subsidies; in other words, the subsidies are no longer to be continued. I raise the question whether these extraordinary powers are needed to do what is now a much smaller task. In answer to my question some time ago the Minister of Justice said that thought had been given to seeing whether all the powers previously conveyed during the war were necessary to continue with the much smaller task now.
I turn to page 20 of the consolidation of the orders in council to draw attention to the extraordinary variety of things which are included1 as "services" such as laundering, cleaning, tailoring and dressmaking; hairdressing and beauty parlour services; the pasteurizing of honey on a custom or commission basis. I am not going to take time to read more, but I am asking seriously whether these astonishing powers which lead to lawbreaking on a large scale, as referred to in the report of the prices board, are necessary. I know we are continuing them for only one year, but I am asking whether all these powers are necessary or not.
I am going to make a suggestion on detail. I think it would be useful to us, when we come to what will be the arduous task of considering the bill, if it would not be possible in some way, purely as a matter of mechanical convenience, to show not merely the original orders, not merely the consolidation which the minister says we shall have in addition to the detailed orders, but also what deletions have been made and what powers have been restricted. If there is some way in which that can be shown it would greatly simplify our task.
I should like to add one word. The minister said that these orders had been scrutinized to see if certain deletions could be made. The powers are still so ample, so detailed, so meticulous, that it is hard for me to believe that they are all now required. Certain restrictions and deletions may have been made. If so, I suggest that they be shown in some way so that they can be easily picked out and we shall understand what has happened.
I should like in particular for the Minister of Finance to comment on these figures to which I referred on page 55 of the report of the wartime prices and trade board and make whatever comment on them he wishes. I shall be glad if he would say whether he would have those further figures prepared, for which I have asked.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know whether my hon. friend intends me to comment on them tonight. He has called my attention to these figures and indicated his desire that at the appropriate stage, I take it. I should be prepared to comment on them. I shall be glad to do that. Probably the better time would be on the second reading of the bill or. better still, in committee on the bill, when I can have the controller here to elaborate and enlarge on any figures on which my hon. friend may want special information.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was not expecting the minister to answer out of his head now, but I am suggesting that it is a reasonable request and might be convenient if these figures could be prepared and be read}- for us when we are considering the bill, which I presume will be a matter of days yet.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, just as soon as we get through with this discussion we shall introduce the bill. It will have to stand a day before the second reading is taken.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You will go right ahead with the second reading?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, unless there is a request for more time, which, of course, we would be willing to give.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then my suggestion is this. We ought to be given these figures as soon as possible. I think they are relevant and they might be important. They are not easy for us to come by. There are different views as to how they should be made up.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not quite clear as to what figures my hon. friend wants, but I had
Emergency Powers

n mind reading his remarks in Hansard and considering them. If they are figures which are not in the report but are available they will, of course, be provided.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will read the figures I have in mind. They are at page 55 of the report of the wartime prices and trade board. First of all, they are the figures in Canada and in the United States from August, 1945, to December, 1946. I will read two typical figures: general wholesale prices, showing a rise in Canada of 7-5 and in the United States of 32-1. Then you come to retail food, showing a rise in Canada of 6-8 and in the United States of 31-9. That retail food figure will be substantially raised if the food subsidies are taken into it, as I understood Mr. Gordon to say the other day. I find it difficult to understand these figures because they are quite different from figures that I have had prepared by competent persons who worked hard and who arrived, quite apart from the subsidies, at quite a different figure. I should like to know how these figures are made up. I think it is important that we should have them because we do not want to be asking about figures when we are in the midst of discussing the orders in council.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 26, 1947