1947-03-21

VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have a brief statement to make which deals partly with government policy and partly with factual observations in connection with certain reports which I shall ask the permission of the house to table.
I wish to table the report on Veterans Land Act housing presented by Colonel C. E. Parish following an inspection which he carried out under authority of P.C. 76 of January 9, 1947; also separate reports by the deputy minister of the department and the director of the Veterans Land Act. These three gentlemen together made an inspection of a majority of the subdivision projects upon which houses were built by contract under the Veterans Land Act all across Canada.

Attached to the deputy minister's report is an additional report made by a British Columbia committee into the Braefoot project near Victoria. The decision to have this inquiry into the Braefoot project was made prior to the appointment of the committee of dominion-wide jurisdiction.
Hon. members will I think find in the reports information bearing out the statement which I gave the house the other day. There are defects, but as I previously stated all these defects can be corrected, and I have already given the house my assurance that the work will be done without cost to the veteran.
Hon. members will I believe readily understand the reasons why these houses, erected under conditions of the greatest urgency, now require minor repairs. The accomplishment in housing 2,600 veterans' families who otherwise would be living under conditions which cannot make for a proper home life in my opinion far outweighs any weaknesses which have been shown in this construction programme. The fact is that the department completed in one year 2,600 homes under the most difficult building conditions which this country has ever experienced. How outstanding was this achievement is best evidenced by the fact that in Canada today thousands of houses that have been under construction for months are still far from completion owing to lack of materials and the scarcity of the right type of labour.
Contrasting with the achievement of my department in pushing these 2,600 homes through to completion is the fact that in 1946 -and this is very important-private contractors embarked on 1,750 contracts for veterans under the Veterans Land Act. During the year they were able to complete only 224 of these.
My deputy minister has reported to me- and I am sure hon. members will be glad to hear this-the reception which he and other members of the investigating body met with in the homes they visited. Almost one hundred per cent of the wives and mothers were delighted with the accommodation provided.
Hon. members will be gratified to learn that every member of the inspection committee agrees that the houses on today's market represent-this is very important too; it is in the findings-fair value to the veterans. Colonel C. E. Parish, for instance, states specifically that it would be impossible for the veteran to find housing of equal value for the price he is now paying. Colonel Parish is an outstanding engineer of wide experience-in house building. He is also a member of the

______________Veterans Affairs-Housing
Canadian Legion advisory committee on housing. Colonel Parish has made a detailed analysis of the defects, -a, close and I think very fair analysis. That is what was asked for, and I can think of nobody in Canada better qualified to make such a report.
I should like to summarize Colonel Parish's recommendations. They are as follows:
1.	That the drainage problem be carefully studied and efficient drainage schemes provided without cost to the purchaser.
2.	That where sewage disposal is inefficient, correction be made by installation of new disposal fields or by connection to municipal sewerage systems.
3.	That structural defects be put into first class condition as quickly as possible, and that, where necessary, competent superintendents be retained to carry out this work efficiently.
4.	That the temporary softwood floors laid when hardwood flooring was unobtainable be replaced by suitable hardwood flooring when available.
5.	That no overall reduction in the selling price be made, but that the present policy of writing off costs owing to unusual conditions on a particular project be continued.
The deputy minister in his report recommends that an experienced drainage engineer, or engineers, be retained to supervise the carrying out of the recommendations in this regard. This will be done; in fact all necessary work and repairs will be closely supervised by officers of my department. In this connection I must point out that comprehensive action with regard to drainage cannot be undertaken until the frost is out of the ground.
While Colonel Parish and the deputy minister have hesitated somewhat to estimate the cost of the alterations, very largely because they consist of a multiplicity of detail, the director of the Veterans Land Act has recommended that an additional $500,000 be added to the million dollar fund set up a year ago for the purpose of writing off excessive costs where such were found. These recommendations as announced will be carried out.
I direct attention also to the findings of all three members of the committee that the costs encountered are reasonable and not out out of line with today's market and that Colonel Parish specifically recommends against any overall reduction in the selling prices.
In addition to the reports which I am now tabling, all three members of the committee brought back with them many field notes of observations made. These are, in cases, quite bulky and extensive as referred to in the 83166-1024
report of the deputy minister, Mr. Woods. These detailed notes will be of invaluable assistance as a guide to those who undertake the work which remains to be done and will be useful in supplying as far as possible further information that may be desired through questioning.
Once again, with the support of my colleagues, I wish to assure the house that the work recommended by this committee will be carried out as expeditiously as possible and with the firm purpose of ensuring that the veterans who purchase these houses shall come into possession of permanent houses of which they can be justly proud.
Mr. BROOKS:: Mr. Speaker, considering the latitude which has been given to the minister in explaining this matter I should) like to ask him a question. Has this investigation been carried on only in the houses which have been represented to the department as being faulty, or has there been a general inspection of all houses built under the veterans' department across Canada?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: There has not been a general inspection of all veterans' houses. We received complaints from various specific areas, and these were the first to be attended to. In other places we have received representations from the Legion or other returned soldiers' organizations, and we cooperate with them as far as possible in making investigations.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I may say to the minister that the complaints he has received are in no way representative of all the complaints there are in Canada with regard to these houses. He has presented very strongly here this afternoon the case for his department. That there has been this widespread dissatisfaction in all parts of Canada with regard to the construction of these houses would indicate that there are far more complaints than the minister has represented to us this afternoon.
There is another point. The minister has said that the repairs are to be made without any cost to the veteran. Naturally we would expect that, because the veteran is in no way responsible for the faulty construction of these houses. But as was mentioned some time ago, I do not see why the public in general should have to pay the costs of the faulty construction which has been carried on under the department of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It seems to me this is a case which should be-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
leoo
Veterans Affairs-Homing


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I claim the same right as the minister-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I would ask hon. members to moderate their voices and listen to the speaker. I have called the hon. gentleman to order. I would remind the hon. member that for many years it has been the practice to allow ministers to make statements at this stage of the sitting. Hon. members know that that has been the practice and that these statements are not debatable. It has also been the practice to permit hon. members to ask the minister a few questions, but under the rules I could not permit a debate.


Mr. GRAYDON:: The hon. member is just about through, with his statement, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have practically completed my remarks. I thought that since the minister had made such a splendid case for his department it might be well if a few more facts were presented to the house. He spoke about these houses being so well-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order. I think the hon. member will admit that I have given him sufficient time to conclude his remarks.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There will be an opportunity later.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: May I ask you a question, Mr. Speaker? Under what rule of the house-


James Horace King: Order. I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the Speaker should not be questioned from the floor of the house.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Just one question. I have protested before about ministers making statements in the House of Commons without an opportunity for debate being afforded to hon. members.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: There is plenty of opportunity for debate.


James Horace King: I will not permit hon. members to start a discussion on what I have said. It has been the long established practice of the house to permit ministers to make statements at this stage of the sitting, and they are not debatable.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: We have rules in the House of Commons. Because the practice has grown up does it make it a rule of the house that a minister can make a statement without an opportunity for debate-


James Horace King: Order. I want order and discipline in the house. I do not like hon.
(Mr. Brooks.]
members rising in their places and questioning the Speaker and discussing, I will not say his ruling, but a statement he makes calling the attention of hon. members to the practice of the house. I do not think the hon. member is contributing to the order and discipline of the house by discussing the rules. I should like the house to proceed with its business.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: May I ask the minister a question with regard to the Boucher-ville project, on which I think there was a charge of more than faulty construction? Will there be a report made on that project?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. It is still partly under the jurisdiction of the courts. Certainly there will be a report.


Mr. MILLER:: May I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question with regard to the Charleswood project? I understand that notices were sent intimating that the occupants of these houses must sign a contract to purchase or agree to rent or vacate by May 1. Is the minister prepared to make a statement on the question?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My recollection is that there is no mention of any specific project in the three general reports. Any question which my hon. friend wishes to have answered with respect to any particular project I shall be glad to answer to the best of my ability.


Mr. FULTON:: May I ask a question arising out of the minister's statement? He said that the deputy minister recommended that there be an additional $500,000 voted for the purpose of equalizing costs. Will this $500,000 be used to defray the extra expenses incurred by reason of the repairs which the department is to undertake, or will it be used to reduce existing costs where they are now excessive?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My understanding was that with the concurrence of my colleagues I was authorized to state in the house some time ago that 1500,0000 would be available to meet the conditions which had been brought to light. There is still unexpended, of the million dollars for write-offs, the sum of $322,000, part of which may be used for purposes of repairs caused by unusual conditions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wish to get this clear. Does that mean that there is a fund of $800,000 odd available for these repairs?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I cannot be specific on that point right now, but the guarantee I received was that $500,000 would be available for the immediate task, leaving $200,000 available from the vote of last year.

Veterans Affairs



DISPLACEMENT OF VETERANS BY PERSONS WITHOUT OVERSEAS PREFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	Yesterday the
member for Assiniboia (Mr. McCullough) asked the following question, at page 1550 of I! ansard:
I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Are veterans employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs being let out while others with no overseas veterans preference are being maintained on the staff? If so, what is the exact policy of the government in this regard?
I took the matter up with the department and have received the following answer:
With reference to the attached question by Mr. McCullough as to whether veterans in the employ of the department are being released whilst other persons with no veterans' preference are being retained, I have no hesitation in stating that this is incorrect.
The only reservation with this statement is with respect to stenographic staff, and in this regard I wish to state that any male stenographers with overseas service will be immediately employed by this department.
With respect to the department's policy in releasing staff, this is based on a directive issued by the civil service commission, circular letter 1945-12 of October 2, 1945, which states:
"The temporary employees selected for release should, in general, be chosen in the following order:
(a)	Persons whose services are not fully satisfactory.
(b)	Persons who are ready to accept retirement,
(c)	Casual part-time employees.
(d)	Persons above the normal retirement age.
(e)	Married women not dependent upon themselves for support.
(f)	Employees not entitled to preference for war service, et cetera, et cetera."
Our procedure in releasing staff is to have all our staff rated by a rating board comprising our senior officials in the district. We have brought into Ottawa for a course of training senior officials from all districts to instruct them in the procedure of rating employees.
If an employee is dissatisfied with his rating, he may appeal to the district administrator, who forwards his recommendation to head office. The overseas preference is observed in every case and I would welcome a statement of the particulars of a veteran who is being released while a person with no overseas preference is being retained.
Our staff now numbers over 20,000. We regret to have to reduce to the extent of 2,000 in the near future.
That is, a deduction of two thousand.
It is impossible for us to deal with the merits of each individual case in Ottawa and we have, therefore, been compelled to decentralize this work under the jurisdiction of our district administrators, but we have laid down principles based on the civil service directive and our own experience to govern our district administrators in this unpleasant task of staff reduction.
If my hon. friend knows of any cases I shall be glad to have him inform me.
Mrs. STRUM:: May I ask the minister whether the directive from the civil service commission which he has just read applies equally to male and female employees of the government, or is there any discrimination between the sexes?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was dealing only with those who had seen service, where a preference existed. I understood that the question was based upon that principle.


Mr. KNOWLES:: You said male stenographers with overseas service.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I have received many letters from girls who are being let out because of
their sex.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not in this department.



EMPLOYMENT OF VETERANS ON NATIONAL DEFENCE RECORDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs arising out of the reply which he has just given. In view of the apparent surplus of personnel in his department with overseas service, will his department give consideration to taking over the records from the Department of National Defence in order that those ex-service personnel may be employed in maintaining the records, which is obviously a Department of Veterans Affairs job rather than one for the Department of National Defence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be very glad to discuss the whole situation with my colleague the Minister of National Defence.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the first reading of Bill No. 26 (from the senate), respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the first reading of Bill No. 27 (from the senate), to amend the Canada Evidence Act,	.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Immigration


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Charles Gordon Nelson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Pamela Mackay Alderdice Johnstone.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Lilly Evans Auty.-Mr. Maytbank.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Esther Lancit Weiss.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Bruce Montgomery Cooper.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Marion Naomi Gomery McGee.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Margaret Hazel Reid Koppel.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of James Alexander King.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Proctor Clifford Neil.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Elizabeth Anne Eden Lindsay.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Ernest Edward Joslin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Jessie Alberta Allan Derby.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Dorothy May Duff Hisey.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Elizabeth McIntosh Barber.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Muriel Lucy Brighten Burdon.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Constance Mae Ponman Newman.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Florence Alice Mapston Calcutt Doak.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Rose House-field Blumstein.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Gertrude Loiseau Gaulin.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Marie Rose Alba Bernadette Lapointe dit Robin Ricard. -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Thelma Gen-ender Lefkowitz.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Mary Joyce Joly Clark.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Gertrude Helen Cayford Collins.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Francis George Isaac Fellows.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Elly Maria Charlotte Alden McBride.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 53 for the relief of Gladys Elizabeth Thompson Dorrance.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Una Kathleen Balmfirth Little.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of William Walter Woodall.-Mr. Maybank.

Bill No. 56, for the relief of Helen Lilian Jaques Bowen.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Doreen Jeanette Sibley Tirbutt.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Ida Norma Thompson Thornton.-Mr. Maybank.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I have a question which I desire to direct to the Minister of Mines and Resources. I intended to direct it to the Prime Minister, but he is unable to be here today. It is urgent and I do not want to leave it until he returns. A Canadian Press dispatch was handed me just before I came into the house. It indicates an urgent situation to which I think the government ought to give consideration. Under date March 21, from Montreal, there comes this report:
The dominion government will announce within the next few days an immigration policy whose "greatness will astound the country" Maurice Hartt, Liberal candidate in the Mont-real-Cartier federal by-election said last night.
. . . He said he knew of the details of the new policy, having contributed to its drafting, but that Prime Minister Mackenzie King would make the announcement.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member knows the rules. The purpose of a question is not to give information to the house but to get information.


Gordon Graydon: There is little information in that. The information I hope to get will come from the minister. I should like to get this information along the lines you suggest, Mr. Speaker. First, was that statement made with governmental authority, and second-


Mr. CLAXTON:: First of all, was it made?


Gordon Graydon: The Canadian Press
dispatch indicates that it wa3 made. First of all, if the dispatch is correct, was that statement made with governmental authority? Second, why should the House of Commons not be the first to hear of a statement of government policy before even a candidate who said he knew all the details of the policy should be given that information? I should like an answer to that question.


Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources):: The hon. gentleman did not
send me any notice of this question, and it is one which I think ought to be placed on

Inquiries of the Ministry
the order paper. I have had no communication with the gentleman who made that statement. I have heard indirectly that the statement as reported is wholly incorrect.



INQUIRY OF THU MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I should like to ask a question
similar to the one asked by the hon. member for Peel. It is an emergency matter, and one about which nothing has been said by the military experts on the other side. It arises out of a press report, the headline of which reads, "Forecast race to establish rocket outposts on mars". I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if we are taking any steps.


Brooke Claxton: May I say to my hon.
friend that free transportation will be provided to hon. members for that purpose during the Easter recess.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the developments today at Ottawa Car and Aircraft-including, I am told, the use of police- will the minister indicate what progress his department has made in getting this dispute settled?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I am not a policeman. That is the answer to the first part of the question. In reply to the second, my understanding is that the dispute is being handled by the Department of Labour of Ontario.



WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: On March 4 the Minister of Finance said he would let us know later whether war savings certificates when due would be cashed by the chartered banks. Did he get that information?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: I have no further information on that matter.



AIR SERVICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, based on a telegram from Carberry, Manitoba, which I received just before coming into the house. Has a final decision been reached as to the use to be made of the airport at Carberry? Are the advantages of that airport being given full consideration?


James Horace King: May I say to the hon. member that I do not see the urgency of his question, and I would ask him to place it on the order paper.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question of which I have given him notice. Will he give to the house such late news and information as he may have with respect to the progress we are making in getting full participation at the Moscow conference on the German and Austrian peace treaties?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): All I would care to say is that Canada's ambassador to Russia, Mr. Dana Wilgress, is in Moscow. He is in daily communication with those attending the conference of the foreign ministers and the deputies of the foreign ministers, and progress is being made. There is still reason to expect that the big powers will realize that the others will have to be associated with them in preparing the final peace treaties.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the third reading of Bill No. 25, to provide for the sale and export of agricultural products.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I have not spoken on Bill No. 25, and had not intended to do so, but I want to refer to one matter contained in it.
Agricultural Products Act


James Horace King: Order. I would ask hon. members to moderate their voices. I can understand that they are very happy because it is the first day of spring, but they should not forget that our rules do not melt away with the snow.


Thomas Langton Church: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division; bill read the third time and passed.

Emergency Powers


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley 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.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker. I had not intended to say anything at this stage. Until last evening I was quite content, together with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), to allow the resolution- to go to committee at the earliest possible moment, there to discuss freely with the various ministers concerned what they had to propose. But a statement made in the house last night by the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Caldwell), in which he attempted to create an impression completely off the track of truth, has lead me to make a brief statement concerning the social credit position with respect to this whole matter of controls.
To listen to the leader of the socialist party in this house one would think he and members of the C.C.F. are the only people in this country trying to fight the battle of the common people. One would think all the rest of us are a bunch of knaves and scoundrels-
Mr. COLDWELL:: That is what you said of us.


Mr. LOW:: -who are combining our efforts to sell the people into the clutches of the "fifty big shots." That, of course, is sheer unadulterated nonsense. I have consistently pointed out that during these past few months the leader of the C.C.F. party has attempted to lead- the people to believe that we-and when I say "we" I mean the social credit organization-have joined forces with the Liberals and Conservatives to sell the people into the clutches of the fifty big shots. I have in my hands extracts from a radio address given over the Canadian- Broadcasting Corporation network by the leader of the socialist party on January 22, 1947. from which I quote:
The Liberals, backed by the Tories and the Social Crediters, do not believe in economic democracy.
That is a pretty broad categorical statement. Then he continued:	.
They are determined to hand back the direction of the economic life of this nation to the financial institutions, Aluminum Limited, Steel Company of Canada, Consolidated Mining and Smelting, International Nickel, Imperial Oil, and so on. Offsetting our political democracy, they are imposing an economic dictatorship which rests in the hands of a few hundred so-called big shots who direct big business. The C.C.F. believes that under such conditions we can never have complete democracy.
I do not pretend, Mr. Speaker, to speak for the Progressive Conservatives or for the Liberals, but I am going to speak in no uncertain terms for the Social Crediters of this country. I am going to say that the leader of the socialist party in making that statement was either wilfully ignorant of what we do propose or was deliberately attempting to mislead the public.
In the house last night the leader of the socialist party said this:
We cannot one day demand parity and orderly marketing, and the next day denounce public planning and controls, as steps towards regimentation and slavery, as my hon. friend the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low), did in this house during the debate on the address.
I wish to state that I have consistently denounced a policy of planned economy, because I am convinced that a policy of planned economy will inevitably lead to statism and dictatorship. I have never at any time denounced public planning. I have simply maintained that there is no such thing now possible as public planning. There could be public planning only under a system of finance that succeeds in getting purchasing power into the hands of all the consumers of Canada, and that ensures healthy competition in most fields of endeavour. Consumers under such circumstances could then be called public planners-but only then.
The trouble with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is that he has shifted his ground so often that not only is he confused, but he has so confused the people about what he means when he speaks of planned economy that they cannot follow him. He found that the people generally-and he found it some years ago-saw the danger in state planning, or in government planning, the terms which they were using then; so he shifted his ground to another term which he thought would be much more palatable to the people, with the result that now he calls it "public planning."
I should just like to know what is meant by planning and by controls. I am sure that all honest members in the house-and I am sure that most of them, indeed if not

160.3
Emergency Powers

all, are honest-will recognize that everything depends upon just how one defines the word "control" or the word "planning". No agreement is possible among us, as hon. members of the House of Commons, unless we are most careful to define our terms.
When the leader of the C.C.F. speaks about controls he means turning over to a government department or board or commission the power of absolute control over some phase or aspect of the national life. I do not think there is any question about that. It is true, and I grant him this, that he may hope that it could be done in a democratic way; but I must emphasize that to the extent that somebody else has the power of control over any aspect of your life, you are divested of that much of your freedom, and you are a slave to that person's will.
I believe it is perfectly correct to say that if one's life is to be controlled, it does not matter much who controls it. I cannot see that there is any virtue in being victimized by state officials rather than by privately controlled interests. I do not think there is any difference at all. And yet the advocates of state socialism, right here in this House of Commons, try to tell us that the regimented, planned and controlled state, under a vested interest of a political party seeking power, is democracy, while a regimented and controlled economy under private monopoly, which all talk so much about, is dictatorship.


Mr. REID:: There is only one perfect controller, and that is the Lord himself.


Solon Earl Low: I think that is perfectly correct. But the fact is that both systems I have mentioned are dictatorships, and I denounce them as such. If anything, in my opinion the regimented and planned state is even more of a dictatorship; for in the regimented and planned state the people are the absolute slaves of the state, and short of revolution and bloodshed they are helpless to do anything about it.
Actually there is no real difference between a state monopoly and a private monopoly, except that the state monopoly is much more powerful. We have witnessed that the ones in Germany, Italy and Russia, which are the perfect examples of completely planned economies, or completely controlled economies, are certainly much more ruthless than any private monopolies we have ever known about.
Bearing this in mind, let us take a brief look at the controversy about government controls. The present controls that the government have been using were imposed under wartime conditions to meet an emergency situation. Rents were controlled to prevent

landlords from taking advantage of the housing shortage to raise their rents and thereby reduce the standard of living of the people. Prices were rigidly controlled for the same reason. Wages were controlled so that workers could not demand higher pay, since under our present financial organization in Canada there would have resulted nothing but increased production costs and therefore higher prices to consumers. You can take these controls one by one, and you will find, if you examine them carefully, that their real purpose was either to restrict production of goods and services in this country, particularly goods for home consumption, or they were to bolster up a week and faulty system of finance.
On the one hand the controls may have been introduced for the purpose of restricting production of certain goods and services, especially those for home consumption, so that the maximum effort could be diverted into the production of materials for war. Now that the war is over, it can only be common sense, it seems to me, that the cure for the shortage of homes is not to continue indefinitely to control rents. The sensible cure is to embark upon an adequate programme of building of dwelling houses which will ensure all Canadian families having homes of their own. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me foolish to continue a rigid control of prices which was an emergency measure designed mainly to restrict certain kinds of production. Rather it seems to me that by removing every possible barrier to it, production should be increased to the utmost in order that through competition to please consumers, the control of prices will be exercised by the people through the things they have to buy.
Instead of limiting 'wages or allowing prices to go on rising with every increase in wages, thereby offsetting any possible benefit that workers would otherwise receive, surely the sensible thing to do is to supplement wages by providing workers with social security incomes which do not form a charge on industrial costs. By doing this we also get away from the need for imposing on the people an intolerable burden of taxation which reduces their incomes, all so that the state can dole out grudging charity administered by a hard-boiled democracy.
It must be increasingly evident to all thinking Canadians that we have to get away from our present methods of doing some things. We all must admit that. Surely every straightthinking Canadian can see that it is the harsh taxation, the centralized state controls, the state imposed restrictions and the bureaucratic regimentations introduced under war conditions that have landed Great Britain, the

Emergency Powers
United States and Canada into the mess in which we are floundering today. I do not think there can be any question about that at all. If we continue to adopt that policy, surely it. can lead us only to disaster and dictatorship.
I should like for a moment to review the position which this Social Credit group took in November 1945 when bill 15 of that session was before the house. The government at that time took the position that if remaining controls were to be removed, chaotic conditions would result, prices would rise, and labour unrest would follow. In answer to that we pointed out that though the government had been warned repeatedly about these very dangers, they had persisted in remaining within the confines of a debt-creating system of finance which created for themselves the very problems which they were then seeking power to continue to control.
We further pointed out at that time that under a sound democratic and scientific system of finance, neither inflation nor deflation could threaten our economy. At the same time we admitted that it is a fact that under our present debt-ridden and restrictive money system both inflation and deflation, with all their disastrous consequences, did threaten our economy. But we said these dangers cannot be dealt with satisfactorily through controls that place in the hands of individuals great power over their fellow men, because, as the war has so definitely proved, when one control is introduced to cure human problems it inevitably creates other and more serious problems and leads from one control to another until you have nothing but a great network of controls. The only effective controls are those which are inherent in a justly scientific economic structure which by its very fairness and justice induces-mind you, Mr. Speaker, I say induces-the full support of all classes of the community and will be freely sustained without compulsion of any kind. That was the position we took.
We further granted at the same time that the government required to exercise a measure of control over price structures, foreign exchange, import and export of goods, rentals, and so on; but we did urge that the government abandon bureaucratic controls as rapidly as possible and concurrently introduce a system of automatic controls that would do a better job without endangering the freedom of individuals in this country.
Just here I want to remind hon. members that Social Crediters were the first in this house to advocate price controls as an alternative to taxation, before the war situation 83166-1034
became intense. The minister at that time said it would take a gestapo to enforce it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that it has not taken a gestapo to enforce it especially in that field wdiere the government introduced the compensated price discount system to the payment of milk subsidies. That is exactly the thing we have advocated for many years as a means of price control, and it was effective without a gestapo or horde of controllers.
Moreover, not only have Social Crediters consistently demanded a system of parity prices, which has been talked about so glibly, for all Canadians, but we have gone further and shown the government how it can get the money to establish that system without resorting to taxation, which is much more than the hon. leader of the socialist party in this house has ever done.


Major James William Coldwell: We are waiting for you to do it.


Solon Earl Low: Some people are so dense they cannot see.


Major James William Coldwell: Thank you very much. We will see about that in a moment.


Solon Earl Low: The hon. leader of the socialist party in this house has advocated parity of prices. That is quite true, but his smokescreen of vaporings about the advantages of social ownership has failed to hide the fact that he would depend upon heavy taxation to produce parity. I declare it as my opinion that a full parity price structure can never be secured for the people of Canada if it has to depend upon taxation applied by this parliament.
Where do we Social Crediters stand on this whole question of controls? Do Social Crediters advocate the immediate return to the laissez-faire of irresponsible enterprise of the pre-war years? The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said so. He has tried to make it appear to the Canadian people over the radio, as I have already said, and again in the house last night, that we favour throwing the people of Canada completely on the mercy of private interests who will be free to exploit them. This is sheer nonsense. Social Crediters have always advocated responsible enterprise, and we did so long before the hon. leader of the C.C.F. veered into that position from the pressure of public opinion. We acknowledge the necessity of safeguarding the welfare of the people and of providing them with adequate and effective protection against evil forces that may exploit them.
Emergency Powers

With us it is not a question of the need of controls; it is indeed a question of what kind of controls.
Social Crediters are implacably opposed to planned controls which enhance the power of the state at the expense of the liberties of the individuals of Canada. We vigorously oppose all such controls as vest in hordes of insolent bureaucrats authority over every phase of the lives of the people. Rather do we urge that as rapidly as possible wartime bureaucratic controls be removed, be replaced immediately by a set of effective checks and balances inherent in a revitalized and reformed financial policy, and which automatically safeguard the whole political, economic, and moral welfare of our people. Every thinking person knows that substantia! reduction in taxation will open the floodgates to full production, which I think is the surest possible way to control the threat of inflation. Electoral reform to ensure continuous response to the will of the people by their elected representatives in parliament is the surest way to control the threat of rising state socialism and totalitarianism and to safeguard the freedom of the individual. Establishing a monetary authority charged by parliament with the responsibility of maintaining a constant balance between effective purchasing power in the hands of all the people and the total of goods and services available for sale, together with a condition of healthy competition in all fields, is a guarantee against deflation and in my judgment is the surest way to prevent the exploitation of the people by financial monopolies.
"Public planning" becomes a reality only when all of the people are able to exercise the economic vote through the dollars they have in their pockets to spend. These dollars arp their economic ballots through which they express their choices with regard to the kind of goods and services they want, with regard to the amount of these goods and services that they want, under what conditions they shall be delivered to them, who is to make them, and so on.
Again, application of the compensated price discount, which has been used by the government in its milk subsidies policy, is the surest and the safest way to control prices to consumers. We advocate that. '
Again, a system of subsidies, financed not out of taxation, but by the creation of new money, debt-free, to represent the goods and services that otherwise would be wasted in Canada, is the surest way to establish stability of wage scales and of commodity prices to primary producers. We have always thought that the government acted very unwisely in

dropping the subsidies on milk, and it would be equally unwise to drop the subsidies on cream. Through this action of the government a good many people will suffer a seriously depressed standard of living. I predict that the government will have to come back to these subsidies, and the sooner they do the more surely will they prevent serious deflation in this country in the years ahead.
All these things which I have outlined Social Crediters fight for and all of them are entirely practicable. They represent the only alternative to bureaucratic controls of the "planned" state on the one hand, and on the other the weak, ineffective, laissez-faire checks and balances of the present out-worn and irresponsible financial system which juggles so carelessly with human life, and which has plunged it periodically into depressions with all their hell of hunger, of nakedness and of economic insecurity. Social Crediters fight constantly for a revitalized democracy with all that that means, including economic democracy. I would say right here and now that the leader of the socialist party has no right to declare that this group has not fought for economic democracy. There can be no democracy at all without economic freedom. That is the very thing we have been advocating, and that is the thing which my hon. friend has only recently come to understand must be


Mr. COLD  WELL@: That is untrue, and I shall prove it.


Solon Earl Low: You will have your chance to prove it, but it must be the whole truth and not the half truths that the hon. member has been frequently muttering over the air.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the hon. member be listening?


Solon Earl Low: We shall be listening. In a true economic democracy, Mr. Speaker, all the consumers in the country with purchasing power in their pockets are the real controllers, and they will exercise effective control.
This ends the statement I wished to make in connection with this matter of controls. I should like to say that we are prepared now to facilitate the passing of the resolution into committee and we shall there get all the information we can from the ministers concerned, but we shall reserve the right to propose changes in the bill if we find that these changes are desirable when the bill is brought before the house.


Mr. JEAN LESAGE (Montmagnv-L'Islet) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of unduly stretching out the debate on the resolution which has been submitted to

Emergency Powers
us. If I speak at this moment, it is because I feel that I must explain the way I am going to vote. And I believe this explanation necessary because of the constitutional factor which consideration of the resolution injects into this matter.
It is evident that the bill which will follow the passing of the resolution, will impinge on the field of property and civil rights, which our constitution places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, as stated in subsection 13, section 92 of the British North America Act.
The question that comes to mind is the following: From a constitutional viewpoint, are we authorized to pass such a resolution? If the answer is "Yes", as I believe it must be, on what principle are we to base our gesture? As a rule, when the federal parliament invade the field of property and civil rights, they justify their action on the basis of two different principles.
The first of these principles is that the government may, in the event of a national emergency and in order to provide against extreme cases of urgency such as those to which the war gave rise, pass temporary legislation even after the cessation of hostilities. The other principle was stated yesterday in this house by the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley), in the following terms: 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
I refer the house to page 1553 of Hansard:
And to supplement this expression of opinion which was formulated after that of the deputy minister of justice, may I quote the following from the legal opinion given by Mr. Varcoe:
(Text):
The true test, according to this 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 especially reserved to the provinces.
(Translation):
Let us first consider the sources from which the first principle arises so as to ascertain whether we can admit it and subsequently rely on it to vote for this resolution. This principle, I repeat, is the following: In a national emergency, in order to meet extremely serious situations like those to which war gives rise,
the dominion government may enact legislation of a temporary character even after the end of hostilities.
This constitutional principle is admitted in all jurisprudence; it is clearly and definitely admitted in a recent judgment of the privy council in the reference on the Japanese question. That decision is based on the principles which the privy council had already enunciated in the case of the Fort Francis Pulp and Power Company Limited v. the Manitoba Free Press Company Limited. Here is what is said in Viscount Haldane's judgment:
(Text):
It is clear that in normal circumstances the dominion parliament could not have so legislated as to set up the machinery of control over the paper manufacturers which is now in question. The recent decision of the judicial committe in the Board of Commerce case, a well as earlier decisions show, that as the dominion parliament cannot ordinarly legislate so as to interfere with property and civil rights in the provinces, it could not have done rvhat the two statutes under consideration purport to do had the situation been normal. But it does not follow that in a very very different case, such as that of sudden danger to social order arising from the outbreak of the great war, the parliament of the dominion cannot act under other powers which may well be implied in the constitution.
Then a little later on:
The general control of property and civil rights for normal purposes remains with the provincial legislatures. But questions may arise by reason of the special circumstances of the national emergency which concerns nothing short of the peace, order and good government of Canada as a whole.
Then later:
Their lordships, therefore, entertain no doubt that however the wording of sections 94 and 92 may have laid down a framework under which, as a general principle, the dominion parliament is to be excluded from trenching on property and civil rights in the provinces of Canada, yet in a sufficiently great emergency such as that arising out of war, there is implied the power to deal adequately with that emergency for the safety of the dominion as a whole.
(Translation):
And Viscount Haldane states, a little further in his judgment, that it is incumbent on the dominion government alone to determine at what time the national emergency ceases, even after the end of hostilities. I quote:
(Text):
When, then, in the present instance, can it be stated that the necessity altogether ceased for maintaining the exceptional measure of control over the newspaper print industry introduced while the war was at its height? At what date did the disturbed state of Canada which the war had produced so entirely pass away that the legislative measures relied on in the present case became ultra vires? It is enough
Emergency Powers

to say that there is no clear and unmistakable evidence that the government was in error in thinking that the necessity was still in existence at the dates on which the action in question was taken by the paper control tribunal.
(Translation):
In accordance with this first principle, Mr. Speaker. I shall vote for the resolution now before the house because I find, that it is based on two factors which are essential to the validity of this bill: first, the temporary nature of the measures; second, the emergency crisis. At this stage of the resolution, I do not intend to discuss whether there really is an emergency crisis nor to ascertain which controls we ought to throw overboard and which we ought to maintain. Reserving the right to take up this matter when the bill is before the house, I may however express my deep conviction that, if all controls were removed overnight, Canada would be thrown into a state of economic chaos that would adversely affect the very life of the country.


Mr. MICHAUD:: That's right.


Jean Lesage: I now wish to discuss as briefly as possible the second principle which I mentioned at the beginning and under which some jurists would allow the government to encroach upon the exclusive rights of the provinces by claiming that the object of the legislation is peace, order and good government of the country, even if it deals with matters usually considered as subject to provincial jurisdiction only.
I respect the enlightened opinion formulated yesterday by the Minister of Justice, who also quoted his deputy minister, but I must say that I respectfully disagree with them on that point, and several of my colleagues have told me that they share my views on the matter. The Minister of Justice contends that the principle stated is based on a judgment rendered by the privy council in the Temperance Act case. That piece of legislation had been adopted by the Parliament of Canada in 1878 and had to do with the sale of alcoholic beverages. The validity of the act had been questioned in the case of Russell vs. the Queen, in 1882; however, the privy council had confirmed its validity. That very question was again raised regarding the same legislation in the recent case of the Attorney General of Ontario et al vs. the Canada Temperance Federation et al, brought before the privy council in 1946. Judgment was delivered on January 21, 1946, by Viscount Simon. It is contended that the principle I mentioned earlier and which was stated yesterday by the Minister of Justice, was enunciated in the said judgment. In my humble opinion, the decision 
rendered in 1878 in the Russell case was erroneous. Subsequent decisions by the privy council express opposite views. I will only mention two: the judgment on an appeal re the Board of Commerce Act; and the judgment delivered in the case of the Toronto Electric Commissioners vs. Snider.
In the first case, concerning the Board of. Commerce Act, judgment was delivered by Viscount Haldane. I wish to stress this point, since the part which I propose to quote from Viscount Haldane's decision is in direct contradiction, I submit respectfully, with the opinion expressed yesterday in this house by the Minister of Justice. I quote:
No doubt the initial words of section 9'1 of the British North America Act confer on the parliament of Canada power to deal with subjects which concern the dominion generally, provided that they are not withheld from the powers of that parliament to legislate, by any of the express heads of section 92, untrammelled by the enumeration of special heads in section 91. It may well be that the subjects of undue combination and hoarding are matters in which the dominion has a great practical interest. In special circumstances, such as those of a great war, such an interest might conceivably become of such paramount and overriding importance as to amount to what lies outside the heads in section 92, and is not covered by them. The decision in Russell v. The Queen (.1882) 7 App. Cas. 829 appears to recognize this as constitutionally possible, even in time of peace; but it is quite another matter to say that under normal circumstances general Canadian policy can justify interference, on such a scale as the statutes in controversy involve with the property and civil rights of the inhabitants of the provinces. It is to the legislatures of the provinces that the regulation and restriction of their civil rights have in general been exclusively confided, and as to these the provincial legislatures possess quasi-sovereign authority. It can, therefore, be onlv under necessity in highly exceptional circumstances such as cannot be assumed to exist in the present case that the liberty of the inhabitants of the provinces may be restricted by the parliament of Canada, and that the dominion can intervene in the interests of Canada as a whole in questions such as the present one.
In the case of Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snider, Viscount Haldane again delivered judgment, referring to the case of Russell v. The Queen in the following terms:
It appears to their Lordships that it is not now open to them to treat Russell v. The Queen (7 App. Cas. 829) as having established the general principle that the mere fact that dominion legislation is for the general advantage of Canada, or is such that it will meet a mere want which is felt throughout the dominion, renders it competent if it cannot be brought within the heads enumerated specifically in section 91. Unless this is so, if the subject matter falls within any of the enumerated heads in section 92, such legislation belongs exclusively to provincial competency. No doubt there may be cases arising out of some extraordinary peril

Emergency Powers
to the national life of Canada, as a whole, such as the eases arising out of a war, where legislation is required of an order that passes beyond the heads of exclusive provincial competency.
In my opinion, both judgments formally contradict the judgment delivered in the Russell case and implicitly admit that the decision of 1878 was erroneous.
It is true, however, that in the judgment rendered by the Privy Council in 1946 on the validity of the Temperance Act, the Privy Council seems to confirm the opinion given in the Russell case; but if the judgment of Viscount Simon is carefully examined, it is seen that the original decision was reluctantly upheld, for a reason which I can better express by quoting an excerpt from the judgment:
(Text):
The appellants' first contention is that Russell's case (supra) was wrongly decided and ought to be overruled. Their lordships do not doubt that in tendering humble advice to His Majesty they are not absolutely bound by previous decisions of the board, as is the House of Lords by its own judgments. In ecclesiastical appeals, for instance, on more than one occasion, the board has tendered advice contrary to that given in a previous case, which further historical research has shown to have been wrong. But on constitutional questions it must be seldom indeed that the board would depart from a previous decision which it may be assumed will have been acted on both by governments and subjects. In the present case the decision now sought to be overruled has stood for over sixty years; the act has been put into operation for varying periods in many places in the dominions; under its provisions businesses must have been closed, fines and imprisonments for breaches of the act have been imposed and suffered.
(Translation):
Therefore it seems that if the Privy Council refused to reverse its former decision, it is because the judgment had been delivered a long time ago and the principles involved were considered as part of the constitution itself.
Therefore, this decision, merely because it confirms the judgment delivered in the Russell case, should not justify enunciating a principle as dangerous as that expressed yesterday by the Minister of Justice. I cannot admit that principle, and I repeat that if there were no emergency and if the proposed measure were not of a temporary nature, I could not support it.
In conclusion, may I emphasize that the existence of a state of emergency in another country, even though it may affect the economy of Canada, could not justify the adoption of legislation, even of a temporary nature, under the first principle which I have expounded, unless a state of emergency existed in our own country.


Benoît Michaud: Hear, hear.


Jean Lesage: Therefore, notwithstanding
the great respect which I have for the enlightened views expressed by the Minister of Justice, I cannot admit the validity of the additional reason he gave in his remarks, which I quote from page 1554 of Hansard:
(Text):
Great national interests are at stake in the sense that as an aftermath of the war the economic stability of the greatest national customer that this country has had in the past is endangered and it is in the national interest that food should continue to flow to the people of Great Britain in order that they may be in a position to produce goods and exchange them for our goods in the future and continue to be the great market that they have been in the past.
(Translation);
Every precedent indicates that a state of emergency must exist in the country itself, and I cannot conceive that we have reached a point in the international sphere or that we have reverted to colonialism to such an extent that a state of emergency in Great Britain should allow us to disregard our own constitution.


Mr. COTE (Matapedia-Matane):: Hear,
hear.
(Text):


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution, which provides for the continuation of certain orders and regulations for a limited period during the national emergency, is to my mind one of the most important to come before the house this session. It is because what I have to say has to do with the principle behind the whole measure that I wish to speak on the resolution rather than on the bill itself.
Before I come to the resolution I should like to make reference to the speech delivered earlier today by the leader of the Social Credit party. He began his speech by dealing with such things as ignorance and nonsense, and I think he is to be congratulated on the way he stuck to his point all through his speech. I do not know why the hon. member should make so much of what he considers to be the urge for regimentation coming from this part of the house. If he looks back to the record -and one does not need to go very far back- he will find that his friends in Alberta have been doing some things which to my mind bode ill for democracy in this country. I hold in my hand a clipping which I took from the press only this morning. It appeared in
Emergency Powers

the Globe and Mail, and the headline reads, "End present political parties, Alberta Social Credit urges." Then it goes on to say:
The annual report of the Alberta government's social credit board, released today, urges "abolition of political parties" . . .
Then it goes on to say why, and here is the most, intriguing part of the report. It not only would abolish the political party system as we know it, but they go on and say:
The board criticized the secret ballot and recommended its abolition in certain circumstances. All the board's recommendations are qualified with some such as abolition of the secret ballot based on establishment of a new economic system.
I do not know what kind of economic system we could envisage in this country which would require the abolition of the secret ballot. To me the secret ballot is the sacred part of our democracy, because when we can no longer express our opinions in times of election freely and without fear, we can no longer have a truly democratic parliament.
The press report goes on to say:
The report said the secret ballot enables a citizen to evade responsibility for his actions, adding when he votes for a candidate of a political party, he is also voting for the party platform.
That does not always hold good. The press report goes on:
The secret ballot, the report continued, gives the voter the opportunity to condemn later the actions of the government for which he voted.
That is the privilege which they would take away from the voter. Having once voted for a government or for a party to form a government, apparently this board thinks that the voter no longer has any right on any future occasion to reverse his decision and to vote his party out of power. That to my mind is a vicious principle to insert in any recommendation in any report.
While the hon. member was at the height of his oratory, he went on to say that he was for electoral reform, that he was in favour of making parliament more responsible to the people. He did not go on to say how he was going to do it, but if he were to follow the pattern that is apparently shaping in Alberta, we can see what he would have. I spoke of the social credit board, and the personnel of it is given. You will be surprised to find that the board is composed of four members of the Alberta legislature. There is a board made up of four persons elected by the people who now would deny to those same people the right to exercise their secret ballot to remove them from the office which they were given the honour to hold for the time being. The 
hon. member made some mention of insolent bureaucrats. If there is anything which can go farther in the way of insolence than what is suggested by that board made up of four elected representatives advocating that in the future the people should not have a secret ballot, then I do not know what it could be.
I do not want to go much farther in that direction, because I have other things to say; but I want to state clearly that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) in his anxiety to attack the C.C.F., has exposed certain of his philosophy which does not look very democractic to me. He said that he denounced dictatorship. I congratulate him upon that. Why should he not denounce it? All of us in this chamber are against dictatorship. But when the province from which he comes, the only one which has a government of the same political persuasion as himself, has the temerity to set up a board of four of their elected representatives who have, to use his own words, the insolence to present a report of the kind to which I have referred, then I say he is not doing much to prevent the dictatorship which he fears.


Mr. QUELCH:: Have you the report there?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am quoting from the Globe and Mail.


Victor Quelch: Do you believe everything you see in the Globe and Mailt


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


James Horace King: Order.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Read the report first.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I shall read the report as soon as I receive it from the social credit board to which I have written, today, asking them to send me the full text of it.


John Horne Blackmore: One can prove anything if he takes statements out of their context.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That was exactly what the hon. member for Peace River tried to do when he was talking about the C.C.F.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member mind reading the report in the Globe and Mailt


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have placed it on the record.


John Horne Blackmore: Read the whole thing.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have quoted the parts of the report which have a bearing on what I have to say. If the hon. member wishes to

Emergency Powers
quote the rest of it he is welcome to the use of the clipping, which I have here. I did not rise to attack the Social Credit party, and said what I did only because they have made certain statements which needed to be elaborated upon.
Last evening, in my opinion the minister made one of the best speeches he has ever delivered in this house, and during the course of his remarks he brought out certain facts which should be seriously considered. He pointed out that at this time there was the danger of subscribing to the propaganda which seems to come to us so regularly, to the effect that all controls except rent control should be done away with. Yesterday the leader of our group placed on record the result of a Gallup poll taken early this year on the question of whether or not all controls should be removed, with the exception of control over rents. Two-thirds of those asked the question replied "no". I am not suggesting that such a poll is 100 per cent accurate, because we have to allow for its mechanics, but generally speaking I think it can be said that two-thirds or more of the people of this country are alarmed at the way in which the cost of living is rising.
When hon. members rise and say they would like to see the removal of all controls except those over rents, I think they are doing an injustice to public opinion in two respects. In the first place, it does not bear out what the public have expressed, when they have had an opportunity to do so. In the second place, if at this time it were possible to remove all controls except rent control I still would not be in favour of taking that action. Why should we penalize one sector of our population? Owners of homes who are under rent control are just as worthy as any other people in this country; so why should we make them an island in our price control system and say all controls will be removed, all other prices may rise as much as they like, but those who own property will still be subject to rent control? I cannot see the logic in a situation of that kind. I have also before me a number of statements made over the radio by Mr. Donald Gordon. I am not going to take time to quote them all, but this is part of one delivered on November 1, 1946, which I think should be considered:
People that want price increases sometimes suggest that removing the controls at this time would not result in any serious advance in the price level. That is sheer nonsense. That sort of view is the kind of logic used by an ostrich when he hides his head in the sand.
I believe there is a good deal of truth in that statement. We have only to ask ourselves why we have this propaganda at this time for the removal of price controls, in order to have
an answer to the question of whether or not prices would rise. If it is the opinion of those who are urging that price controls be removed that prices would not rise, then there would be no reason for them to ask for the removal of controls, because in that event price control would have nothing to do with their prices. Under the regulations of the wartime prices and trade board no one is prevented from selling at less than the ceiling price, but people are prevented from selling at more than ceiling prices. Therefore anyone who says the removal of price ceilings will not cause prices to increase should not advocate decontrol, because it would have no effect whatever on his prices.
Who wants decontrol? Well, at their meeting in Toronto on January 28, 1947, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association went on record as being totally opposed to price control, and other similar organizations have been sending their representations to members of the house. Hardly a day passes when letters do not arrive on our desks asking for decontrol in certain fields. When you examine them carefully you find that many of these persons and organizations asking for decontrol of their prices so that they may charge more for their products are still quite willing to have controls remain on the things they must buy in order to produce their products. You cannot have it both ways. I believe, if the government wishes to deal fairly and squarely with all segments of the population, controls must be administered fairly and squarely. There must not be any hit-or-miss system, allowing one industry or one group of industries to be decontrolled so that they can clean up on the prices caused by shortages while others have to take the consequences.
In this chamber it is hard to analyse accurately the feeling from time to time on price control, but as a general thing I believe it can be said that the group to which I have the honour to belong have taken a consistent stand that, as long as it is necessary for the administration of just prices, controls should be maintained in effect. On the other hand, members of the Progressive Conservative opposition have been fairly consistent in advocating decontrol. If you look back over * the record you will find that at least one hon. member when speaking in this house the other day, I believe it was the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Menary), made the statement-and the members of his party sitting around him applauded at the time- that in his opinion all controls except those over rents should be removed. He also said that was the opinion of his colleagues, and
Emergency Powers

I take it that represents the attitude of the Progressive Conservative group at the present time.


Mr. MENARY:: Rising to a point of order, I did not say it was the opinion of my colleagues. I made the statement that it was my opinion.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I presume I would be
out of order if I quoted from a former debate, but if my recollection is correct I believe my hon. friend used these words:	"I join with
my colleagues to urge that all controls except rent control be removed." If that is not the case I shall be glad to be corrected. The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) , I believe during the same debate, also took a determined stand against any controls whatever, as did the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) and a few others. I am not trying to pick a quarrel with members of the opposition as to their intentions or desires. They have their opinion on this subject, and it is an earnest opinion which I respect. But I believe it is an opinion which, if carried out, would cause what the minister described last night as a gyrating price system in this country. If we followed their advice, not only would we have inflation in this country; we would have the anomaly of both inflation and deflation at the same time. We would have more than that. We would find it would be not only a matter of prices going up, but a matter of a breakdown in the distribution of articles for sale.
I am sometimes told by hon. members that the average small businessman is sick and tired of controls and wants to get rid of them. But if they were to examine what took place in the last five or six years; if they were to ask the average small merchant about the business he did in the last few years as compared with the five years prior to that, they would find that under the price control and ration system the average small merchant did exceedingly well. They would find, too, that today a great many of these small merchants are changing their minds about price control and rationing. They are beginning to realize that, had it not been for price control and control over the distribution of goods, thousands of them would have had to close their doors during the war, with nothing to sell because they would not have obtained the goods. The big industries, the chain stores, the big concerns next to the manufacturers would have had all the business at whatever prices they felt like charging, while the small businessmen, dependent upon certain regulations and con-

trols to see that all were treated fairly, would have been left with either nothing to sell or no one to sell it to.
The small businessman today realizes, too, that there is only a certain amount of purchasing power in the hands of his customer. And the average small merchant does not make his living by selling to the people in the high-income brackets. Those are the people who can afford to go other places to buy their goods. He makes his living from selling his product to the worker in the factory and in the mine, and by selling to the farmer, if he happens to be in a farming community. They are the people having modest incomes. If inflation starts in, and if their incomes are suddenly taken away from them in the form of inflation, purchasing power is cut in half, and the business of that merchant is also cut in half.
So that the average merchant today, after having studied the situation, and after having a slight flirtation with inflation, is finding that the honeymoon is over. He is finding today that, under price control; under a control of distribution, he did better than he ever did in any other period in the history of this country.
I would point out to the minister and the government the seriousness of the steps they are contemplating. It seems to me that what they are attempting to do is to follow out what they call orderly decontrol, a process which the minister said was the opposite of the boom-and-collapse system of decontrol. If that is what they are trying to do, then I am not altogether sure they are succeeding. All we have to do is to look over the papers from January 1, 1946, to January 1, 1947, and follow the news items announcing the different rises in prices, announcing the removal of ceilings, to see that the government policy of decontrol has not been one designed in the best interests of the average workingman in this country.
I do not need to quote many figures; the house will have plenty of them later. But just to give one example, in the period from January 1, 1946, to January 1, 1947, the increase in prices of agricultural products is shown as an index of 4-4, while the increase in manufactured products in the same period was 8-6. It will be noted that the second figure is almost twice as large as the first.
It cannot be called orderly decontrol when prices of manufactured products increased twice as much in the same period as did prices of farm products. We find today that many farm products are still under price control; and so long as that means stabilization the

Emergency Powers
farmers are not objecting to it. But while this is going on, the government is permitting others to get out from under the ceilings entirely, or to raise the ceiling to an extent where they make it almost impossible for the farmer to produce his goods, which are under control.
I want the government to realize, too, the effect of a headlong decontrol policy, such as is being advocated by the Progressive Conservative party, and which unfortunately the government is following to a large extent, upon old age pensioners, for example, and other people who are retired and living on pensions of some kind. They may be receiving railway pensions, or they may be people'with fixed incomes, who cannot go on strikes to raise the amount of their pensions or incomes, who cannot go into collective bargaining or come to the government and say, "You must increase our pension because the cost of living has gone up". They are people who are in a category who have to live on what they receive; and if their cost of living is doubled, then the government is cutting their cheques in half. Surely that is a mathematical statement which cannot be contradicted.
Then there is another class of people, sometimes referred to as white-collar workers. In that class would come civil servants, schoolteachers, clergymen and thousands upon thousands of others who are living or attempting to live on salaries which cannot be adjusted from month to month, or sometimes even from year to year, but whose salaries have been set over a period of time. These people find that, as the cost of living goes up, their purchasing power proportionately falls, and their standard of living is necessarily lowered by that amount.
I should like the government also to realize what it will mean to people in modest income brackets who invested their last dollar, so to speak, in victory bonds or war savings certificates. They bought their bonds in good faith during the war, many times having to spend more than they could afford in order to make the purchase, and put that money away. But they did it, first, because it was a patriotic duty, and, second, because they believed it was good business to have some money put away in order that they might, after the war was over, buy things which they could not get during the war.
It was good business, provided that conditions remained the same. But let us consider the person who bought a $100 victory bond in 1942 and put it away. Then in 1947 he decides to use that bond to buy a piece of furniture, or something else which he could not have
bought in 1942. He takes his $100 bond, cashes it, and finds that his $100 is worth only $75 or perhaps $66, because the price of the article he was going to buy has gone up to a point where the value of his bond is almost cut in half.
That is something else to which consideration should be given. Let us not forget, too, that we have heard representations about widows and orphans, and the effect of certain measures on their living. Widows, orphans and others in that category have never been given enough by way of allowances to bring them up even to an ordinary standard of living. They have been given allowances which permitted them what might be described as a subsistence standard of living. Today there does not seem to be anything on the horizon to show a general increase in allowances for widows and their children. Yet those people have to take the same amount of money, go out and try to buy food, clothing and all the other necessities of life, the prices of which in many instances have gone up fifty or sixty per cent, and in some instances seventy-five per cent. It is not fair to ask those people to do that.
Then we have our war veterans. When they were overseas many of them, in their slit trenches, dreamed dreams of successful businesses they were going to have in this country, or dreamed about the farms they were going to operate. But when they come back and see the rise in the cost of living, and the increased prices of materials which would be necessary to set them up in business or to operate their farms, they are becoming cynical and discouraged, and in some instances dispirited, because they find that their gratuities and their reestablishment credits do not go nearly as far as they had dreamed they would. Had they been warned that we would have inflation to this extent, the situation might have been different. But many of them came back, expecting in good faith that every dollar they received during their service would be worth a dollar in 1947. Today they are finding that is not so.
Many times we have heard in the house about the tremendous increase in the cost of building houses, in the cost of farm machinery, and so on. All those things are affecting directly, day by day, all the war veterans in this country. And taking all these things together, I do not see how we in this parliament, we, who were in a position to enhance our own remuneration without having to feel too keenly the effects of inflation, can advocate that controls be now lifted so that the law of supply and demand may take its course.
Emergency Powers

Surely those who talk about that law of supply and demand must realize that for every law that there is in that so-called law of supply and demand, there are thousands of economic lawyers who are ready to destroy it. Those who profess to believe in capitalism must admit that the objective of capitalism is not that of free competitive enterprise. It is to prevent as much as possible free competitive enterprise, in order to corner goods or prices in one's own particular field.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What dictionary did you get that out of? Where did the hon. member find that definition of capitalism?


Mr ZAPLITNY:: Surely members of parliament do not have to speak in terms of dictionary definition in this house. If we have not learned anything in our lives from practical experience and common sense, definitions will do us no good. If the hon. member disagrees with my definition of capitalism I shall be happy if he has in his own mind a definition that suits him. He has only to read the McGregor report on monopolies and cartels and a lot of other documents along the same line to find out that what I am saying is perfectly correct. I think the mistake that we would be making if we attempted to depend on the law of supply and demand would be to assume that all people under that mythical law wrould have the same opportunity to take advantage of the law of supply and demand. But that is not so and in this country it never has been so. There may have been a time when free competitive enterprise existed and worked. If there was, it was for a brief period after the fall of feudalism. But so far as the economic system of this country is concerned, there has always been a tendency for those who have economic power to destroy competition and do away with free enterprise and, instead, build up monopolies. I am not saying that this is an immoral urge because, under the system under which we live, it is the proper thing to do. It is the very essence of capitalism to do away with your competitor. That makes you what they call a successful businessman, one who has succeeded in pushing other businessmen out of his field entirely.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are you a success?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If success were to be judged by the dollars I have accumulated I do not suppose I could be called successful. But I have always taken the view that there are other things in life besides dollars and cents.
I think the choice we shall have to make is between stabilization and profiteering. The
['Mr. Zaplitny.]
government is trying to steer a course, and truly it is a wondrous course, between those two points of view. Either we can have a system under which the law of supply and demand shall have full sway, as the Progressive Conservative party advocates, in which all persons will be thrown on the competitive market and the stronger ones win, those who are in a position to profiteer will do so and the others pay the shot, or we can have stabilization. But we cannot have both. The government will, I believe, find it increasingly necessary to establish stabilization if we are to have peace and prosperity in this country and realize the dreams we dreamed of during the war of the new social order which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) loved to talk about and which he warned us must be on its way before the war was over, that new social order that we continually heard about over the radio all during the war. The government will find themselves compelled to pull themselves away from the point of view expressed by my Progressive Conservative friends, even though they hold that point of view sincerely and with the best of intentions, because it was that same philosophy and point of view which flung the ship of state on the rocks in the dark thirties, and the same philosophy will again land us in the same place.
There are those who say that if controls were taken off we would have tremendous production and that inflation would be defeated because of the great production we would have, which would do away with the necessity for having any control. But let me quote from the report of the wartime prices and trade board for 1946, where at page 45 I find this:
It was hoped that these adjustments-
That is, adjustments in the prices on furniture.
-would promote increased production of lower price lines which had been disappearing from the market ... By the end of the year, the total - supply of household furniture had improved substantially. There was, however, a lack of balance in the supply since higher-priced lines were quite plentiful and lower-priced lines were often scarce or unobtainable.
Those who talk about production being increased through the removal of controls do not realize that those who are in the business of making profits are not interested primarily in production. Their interest primarily is in profits and they will produce those things on which they make the most profit, regardless of whether it is the type of things that are essential or whether they

Emergency Powere
are what the people want at that moment. They will even go to the extent of restricting production to keep their prices up.
The other day, as the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was making one of his usual good speeches and telling us that he was against the state going in for trade and against the powers the government was asking for, I picked up the Ottawa Journal and there saw a picture of a mountain of potatoes, several thousand bushels of them in the state of Maine being dumped because they were surplus production. While I was reading the news item accompanying the picture, the hon. member for Lake Centre was quoting the price of potatoes in Chicago at S2.70 a bushel. Surely that shows a weakness in the private enterprise system which my Progressive Conservative friends believe would be a cure-all. Here was a case where thousands and thousands of bushels of potatoes were being dumped, destroyed so that no one could make use of them, at the very time when food was urgently and desperately needed all across the world.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That was done by the United States government, was it not?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is a good capitalist government, the kind of government my hon. friend would have in Canada if he had his way. I do not care whether it was done by the government or by anyone else. I say that the destruction of food at this time when people are dying of starvation, in Asia and in parts of Europe is immoral, un-Christian and everything else I could think of to call it.
When hon. gentlemen talk about free enterprise it is time that they realized, as the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) indicated last night, that however terrible they may consider government control, there is also such a thing as private control. Those who talk of free enterprise seem to think that if all government controls were removed we would have perfect freedom of enterprise in this country. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Under our capitalist system there is and always will be control of prices. Prices do not set themselves. In spite of all the talk of the law of supply and demand, someone is in control of the things we buy and sell, and we must take our choice between providing, through our elected representatives, democratic controls so that prices will have a fair relationship to one another and all classes of the people shall have all the freedom they want in carrying on their livelihood, provided that they do not encroach upon that of somebody else, and have stabilization of prices and the cost of living; and, on the other hand, taking
the lid off, as our Progressive Conservative friends would like us to do and have their mythical free enterprise, which actually would mean handing over our economy to those concerns which, during the hungry thirties, destroyed not only potatoes but wheat and coffee and live stock, which they burned or dumped over the cliff into the ocean in order to keep prices up. Those are the powers I am afraid of. Those are the powers which the hon. member for Lake Centre did not mention in his speech. He only shakes his finger at the government and says they are asking for very wide powers. Who else should have the power if not hon. members who are elected by the people? Surely, if we believe in democracy, then we believe in giving power with responsibility. What the hon. member wants, what the Progressive Conservatives want, is power without responsibility. They want to give power to du Pont, to the big corporations, to the International Nickel Company, to Falcon-bridge, so that they can manufacture nickel for the enemy.


Mr. SKEY:: On a point of order, the statements the hon. member is making are completely false.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Some hon. member said something about its being a speech from the backwoods. I wish to remind him that some of the finest people in the country live in the backwoods.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: I must remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Gordon Graydon: And also the patience of the country.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Last night the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) concluded his remarks by asking that the house defer debate until second reading of the bill. He said:
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the discussion in this house of the proposed measure take place as far as possible on the second reading of the bill rather than on this resolution.
That suggestion seemed to be a reasonable one. It was accepted and concurred in by my leader; but, as indicated by the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Low) this afternoon, the suggestion was not adhered to by others. In view of some of the things that have been said, notably the remarks last night of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), it has become necessary that the position should be clarified with what I hope will be a brief statement on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party.
Emergency Powers

Stripped of all its socialist jingo and propaganda, if anything then remains of the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, it would be reduced to this, that he exposed in naked reality the fact that the essence of the socialist position taken here by the C.C.F. party is, first, they want controls; second, they want them to be permanent; third, they want centralization of power in Ottawa and, fourth, they want these things even if necessarily, and it would be necessarily, at the price of freedom itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What page is the hon. member quoting from?


Mr. FLEMING:: I certainly am not quoting from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Last night the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had something to say on what now passes from C.C.F. lips under the euphonious phrase of "democratic planning". Actually it means socialistic planning. There was a time when the socialist party, the C.C.F., were a little more frank with their expressions than they are today. There was a time when they called by its true name the kind of planning that they are now calling by this euphonious title "democratic planning." They called it "socialist planning" in their Regina manifesto, the C.C.F. bible. And socialistic planning it is. That is precisely what the C.C.F. are calling for, socialism; and they have seen this, if they have seen nothing else, that between socialism and continued perpetuation of controls there is a bond of union which demonstrates that controls are of the essence of socialism. You could not have socialism without a network of controls. They are of the essence of socialism. Socialism does not work without controls imposed by those who think they are doing the planning, regulation and regimentation of the lives of the people.
Of what does this planning consist? Hon. members who espouse the cause of socialism keep parroting away about its being done in parliament. We who have sat in this parliament during the past two years know very well that the planning, where it is being done, is not done in parliament or by parliament. It is done by those who derive their power at the expense of parliament. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that this whole system of controls was built up during the war on one basis and one basis only, and that is by taking power from parliament, from the elected representatives of the people and vesting it in a group of people whom we call the cabinet, who then proceeded to delegate it to controllers. That is the way the planning was worked out, planning through controls, and
LMr. Fleming.!
that is the method by which socialism would be enforced in this country. It is perfectly idle for anybody to expect serious-minded people to believe that planning would be done in parliament. The kind of planning that our socialist friends want is the planning that would be done in the way in which it has been done in recent years, by taking power from parliament and putting.it in the hands of a group of people outside parliament and usually beyond the control of parliament.


Mr. JAQIJES:: Outside Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact of the matter is that control in this country and the power of parliament have moved in opposite directions. The more control there has been, the less power has parliament enjoyed. We who came here under the Progressive Conservative banner in 1945 were determined that we would fight to the limit for one thing, namely the restoration of the supremacy of parliament over the executive branch of government. That is why we come into headlong conflict with our socialist friends. It is not that we are advocating the abolition of all controls but because the method that they are advocating is a method which, if pressed to its logical conclusion, means the death-knell of parliament; it means the death-knell of our democratic parliamentary institutions. They may not realize it. It may be that they have not seen very far; it may be that they have not pursued this matter to its logical conclusion. The fact of the matter is-and we have seen it with our own eyes-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: -the farther control proceeds the farther the power of parliament recedes. If the hon. member will come back a little later I shall endeavour to accommodate him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was going to ask him how he voted in the wheat board issue.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member can get the information by consulting Hansard without taking up my time. In the house last night the socialist leader worked himself up into quite a lather protesting against what he called the policy of headlong decontrol. That is a curious description to apply to government policy. We thought it had not been moving very fast in the direction of decontrol, but let us take it on the basis on which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar put it. He objects to decontrol. He cannot have it both ways. I shall have something more to say later about that expression he used. He will

Emergency Powers
therefore insist, if he intends to be consistent, that parliament return to these boards any powers that these boards have given up; also that parliament may confer new powers on them. If he is to be consistent he must go that length and he also must accept the things which have gone with this bureaucracy; one of them has been secrecy, the difficulty of obtaining on the floor of the house essential information that should not be denied to the elected representatives of the people in parliament. That is the sort of thing the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is, in effect, advocating, whether he realizes it or not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nonsense.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am glad to see that the hon. member is at least following what I am saying even if he may not understand it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nobody could.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As long as we have government by bureaucracy we shall have the same excuses that have been resorted to by the government in recent years. When we have asked for essential information we have been told that it is not in the public interest to give it. That has been the stock answer given to parliament. Now the fact is inescapable, and the lessons of history are plain for all to read, the way in which all totalitarian systems began was precisely by the method advocated and espoused by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I would not say that the hon. member is himself an admitted or an avowed exponent of totalitarianism. What I do say is that unfortunately the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has not seen that what he is advocating will lead inevitably to totalitarianism, if pressed to its logical conclusion. It cannot do otherwise. That is the way it began in Russia: a moderate government to begin with, having a leaning to socialism, but it did not last long. It gave way to an out-and-out communist government. What happened in Italy? They did not come to fascism at one jump, but they got there in the end. The same with Germany.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Does the hon. member make any distinction between those countries?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know whether the hon. member would understand it if I tried to make it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Well, do you?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact is that his own leader cannot appreciate that the line along which he is leading the hon. member who just asked the question is the line that will take
him where Russia went in 1917, where Germany went in 1934 and where Italy went in the twenties.
It is unfortunate that the hon. member does not realize it, but the fact is that what he is advocating would lead eventually to that length. Apparently the hon. member does not realize that is the road which he is advocating should be taken. I do not suggest that he advocates communism at one jump. No. But he has not seen nor has his leader seen that the things they are advocating, when pressed to their logical conclusion, will lead eventually to despotism, because despotism is the essence of the system they are advocating.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is nonsense. The hon. member knows better.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Under that system would come the restriction of the powers of parliament. The system which they would foist upon the people of the country is one that would result in a contraction of the powers of parliament. It is built upon that principle.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member really believe that?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is also of the essence of the system which these hon. members are advocating, that it should be based upon centralization of power at Ottawa. I hope the members of this house have begun to realize that, next to the common sense of the people themselves, confederation is the strongest bulwark we have in this country against socialism, and that is the reason why the socialist party in this house is continually advocating policies that would mean the centralization of power in the hands of a bureaucracy at Ottawa, at the expense of confederation and at the expense of the provinces.
The two things go together, socialism and centralization. These are the twins that the socialist party has adopted. We shall not forget, I trust, the ready way in which the socialist party rallied to the support of the government last year when they resorted to a method of amendment of the British North America Act, which we of this party said was fraught with the utmost danger and would open the way to depriving minorities of their guarantees under the constitution. The policy that Lapointe preached, Lapointe whom hon. members opposite claim to follow, whose titles they possess, but not his principles


Mr. MARTIN:: And whom you did all you could to persecute.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and who advocated that this constitution should never be amended in
Emergency Powers

that way without consultation with the provinces; the policy of Lapointe, who warned against treating our constitution as a scrap of paper, is forgotten. I remember his words when he warned this country and parliament against treating confederation, the constitution, as "un chiffon de papier." Hon. members, the socialist members of the house, are quite prepared, in their desire to see socialism foisted on the country, to see these powers taken from the provinces under the guise of an emergency and vested here. And well we know that the vesting of these powers here, the permanent continuation of these emergency powers in Ottawa, means that the freedom of the people of this country would be strangled by a perpetual bureaucracy.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar last night used an expression which I should like to refer to now: "You cannot have it both ways." That is one remark in his speech with which I am in complete agreement. You cannot have it both ways. Amid all the contradictions in that speech, and in C.C.F. statements and policies, it is interesting to hear the leader of the C.C.F. using an expression like that. I might liken it, when he is directing it to the government, to the pot calling the kettle black.
What is the essence of it, this matter of not having it both ways? It means, Mr. Speaker, that when the C.C.F. party deplore the decontrol that has proceeded thus far they are deploring the end of wage control. It means that they are deploring the end of salary control, because those are two important steps, belated steps, taken in the direction of decontrol. They were taken only on November 30 of last year.
Now the leader of the C.C.F. cannot have his cake and eat it. He cannot have it both ways, and in protesting against the decontrol that has proceeded thus far he is telling the government that it must go back and reimpose wage control and salary control. There is no escape from that. He knows perfectly well, and his own followers have admitted it, that you cannot have a system of widespread price control without control of wages and salaries. Let him rise in his place, or let any follower of his rise in his place in this house today and say frankly that he advocates the reimposition of wage controls and salary controls. Let him be consistent and frank and say that. He will not dare to. There is not a member of the socialist party in this house who will today rise in his place and say frankly and honestly that he advocates the reimposition of wage control and salary control.
We have witnessed a very good example of double-talk. You cannot have it both ways.
fMr. Fleming.!
Of course you cannot. You cannot have price control on a widespread basis without salary and wage control.


Gordon Graydon: They are glued to their seats.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, and their tongues are glued to the roofs of their mouths for once.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you want an answer you will get it.


Gordon Graydon: Make it fast.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The C.C.F., now in 1947, nearly two years after the conclusion of hostilities, stand for the reimposition of wage and salary controls. In time of peace, that is inviting the workmen of the country to accept serfdom, and the C.C.F. are the people who are advocating it, advocating the submission of the workmen of the country to serfdom. They pose-and what a pose it is-as the friends of labour. Let these pretending friends of labour shake off the cloak they are travelling under today and tell this house frankly that they are in favour of the reimposition of wage control. They cannot have it both ways.
Some tears were shed by an hon. member, one of the socialist members, on behalf of the white-collar workers of the country. Well, I should like to see that hon. member, instead of trying to have it both ways, be frank and consistent and say that what he is advocating means the reimposition of salary controls. The class who suffered most in the country during the war was, I believe, the white-coliar class, the people ground between the upper and the nether millstones-on the one hand, high taxes and rising cost of living and, on the other, fixed salary ceilings without any escape from them. The hon. member for Dauphin apparently wants to put the white-collar workers of the country back in that strait-jacket. There is a fine sample of socialist regimentation.
Of course hon. members will recall that he had something to say on behalf of the people who are living on fixed incomes and the people who are drawing interest. It is strange that he did not choke on those words. I have before me this Regina manifesto of the C.C.F. It probably has been forgotten by hon. members of the C.C.F., but we have in this strange document this sentence:
The C.C.F. proposes that in future no public financing shall be permitted which facilitates the perpetuation of the parasitic interestreceiving class.
These crocodile tears that were shed this afternoon on behalf of the interest-receiving class are on behalf of the people who are described by the C.C.F. in its official mani-

Emergency Powers
festo as the "parasitic interest-receiving class". That is the fine type of championing the C.C.F. want to do for those whom in 1934 they called the parasitic interest-receiving class. Nor will it be forgotten that the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) in this house during the term of this present parliament, on October 5, 1945, had something to say on this same theme. He was not concerned then about the people of fixed income, the people who were dependent upon interest for a livelihood. You will find that on page 821 of Hansard of the second session of 1945 he said:
. . . when the war is over, the debt should be cancelled. There is no reason why when they come back and go into overalls, into plants and factories, they should start to pay tribute by way of interest to people who sat back comfortably and secure and invested their money. The national debt, apart from the interest, we owe to ourselves. It is not a liability, but an asset.
And so on. He was asked further questions and he came out with the remarkable statement that these people who had invested money in government bonds in time of war should not be paid their interest because that meant paying tribute to unworthy people Let us have no more of this nonsensical shedding of crocodile tears that we have had here this afternoon, in this amazing exhibition on the part of the C.C.F.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Gordon Graydon: They asked for it, and
they have got it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not pretend that
my hon. friend has liked what I have said, and I do not pretend that he will like the rest of what I have to say.
Mr. Speaker, the same hon. gentleman who was shedding tears profusely here this afternoon said something on behalf of old age pensioners. I hope before long the government will bring us face to face with an opportunity to put old age pensions on a proper statutory basis. But what is essentially involved in the contention this afternoon and last night by the leader of the C.C.F., is that they want to see a part of the old age pension continued simply on the basis of order in council, where it rests on the whim of the cabinet-a fine state of affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is completely
untrue.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I say that it is the duty of this house not to expose any person on the old age pension to the whim of the government, through an order in council.
It is something that this parliament should take responsibility for and should put into effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to a question of
privilege. No one has risen more times in this house this year than I have-


Gordon Graydon: There is no privilege
there.


James Horace King: Order. Is the hon.
member speaking to a point of order or a question of privilege?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of
privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is saying that we of this party want the old age pension continued on the order in council basis. From time to time, and no later than yesterday, I have asked that the act be brought in.


Gordon Graydon: What the hon. member's party believes in is not a question of privilege in the House of Commons.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What the socialist party believes in does not even make sense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is such a thing as sticking to the facts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is too bad that the hon. member does not know how to do that.
Then there were some more remarks made last night by the leader of the C.C.F. on the subject of the big interests. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar exhibits an amazing acquaintance with what he says are the views of big interests. As a matter of fact, he displays more familiarity with them than I am sure any other hon. member could possibly hope to command. The fact of the matter is, although he did not tell the house so last night, that many of the big interests like controls. Why? A good many of the big businesses prospered under them during the war. In the second place, controls gave them guaranteed markets and relieved them of a good deal of competition which would otherwise have arisen from small businesses. The fact is incontrovertible and inescapable that the continued imposition of controls in this country is favouring big business and is penalizing small business.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Nonsense. I will say "nonsense" now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are right there.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It satisfies me, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) makes the remark that he made. He might as well be frank and admit that he sees essentially eye to eye with the C.C.F. on this question.
Emergency Powers

The hon. member this afternoon was shedding more crocodile tears about those who were coming back from overseas and were unable to start in business just as easily as they would have liked. The lot of many a returned man coming back to this country has been that he has been prevented by controls from setting himself up in a small business.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not at all.


James Arthur Ross: That fact has been brought to the attention of the minister more than once.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not at all. It has been prevented by shortages.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was pillorying the so-called big interests, what an amazing exhibition we beheld, Mr. Speaker, in the south half of the government side of the chamber! When the hon. member drew attention to the fact that the present Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) had given way to some of these big interests in September, 1939, they applauded him in his indictment of the present Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. That was the essence of the speech made by the hon. member and it was applauded more vigoroudy by those members in the south half of the chamber to your right, Mr. Speaker, than it was by the socialist members themselves.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Where is the dividing line for the south half?


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member is on the border line.


James Horace King: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think the hon. member for Fraser Valley sits just about at the apex of the great divide.
We heard last night from the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar the usual jingo line with regard to monopolies. His solution for the problem of monopoly in this country today was what? It was the imposition of the biggest monopoly that ever man's mind could conceive, a super state-monopoly. We of the Progressive Conservative party do not believe that is the solution. We do not like monopolies and we believe that monopoly cannot be permitted under a system of free enterprise. We believe in free enterprise, not monopoly; but monopoly is not to be cured

by the creation of a super state-monopoly which the C.C.F. would create in this country.


Gordon Graydon: Two wrongs do not make a right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And two two's do not make four to the C.C.F.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is your cure?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, we would see proper application of the Combines Investigation Act. I think it is high time that we had an end of this shilly-shallying on the part of the C.C.F. in speaking of combines and monopolies. Where they have any information concerning a monopoly, surely it is their minimum duty as citizens to go to the authorities and swear out an information, lay a charge under the Combines Investigation Act. But they do not want to do that. That would deprive them of one of their big talking points. They prefer to take up time in this house creating these bogeys about monopolies and combines, but not taking the effective means which exist today for bringing these monopolies and combines, where they exist, to book. Let us have a little wholesome sincerity and honesty and frankness in this matter. If the leader of the C.C.F. or any other member of that party has any knowledge of combines and monopolies, then let him go to the authorities and lay his charge under the Combines Investigation Act. Thanks to the leadership given in this matter by the Progressive Conservative party at the session last year, there were made to the Combines Investigation Act amendments under which it is possible for any citizen to lay such a charge. If the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has a sense of citizenship sufficient to make him want to see something effective done by the law officers of the crown in the administration of law in this country to bring combines to book if he finds such combines, let him take that simple course. Let him go to the authorities and swear out an information, or at least let him give his information to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley). He needs information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where do you stand on controls?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I admire the hon. member's impatience; it is a pleasure to see him roused into doing something. At page 1583 of Hansard for yesterday, the Minister of Justice had this to say on this subject:
Only the extreme nature of the emergency with which the country was faced justified the vesting of such powers in the executive . . .
He was referring to these sweeping powers vested in the executive to control almost

Emergency Powers
everything in the country. By parity of reasoning I suggest that it is only by reason of the existence of an extreme emergency that the continuance of such powers can be justified. The emergency does exist in certain fields; of course it does. Accordingly certain controls will need to be continued as long as the extreme nature of the emergency continues, to use the words of the minister. But it is high time we did away with a lot of these controls that do not come under that definition, and it is about time we had some regard-the government, especially, and those whom they have placed in charge of the administration of controls-for the essential relationship of this problem to the problem of production. Times without number we have heard from the government that the danger existing today, the danger against which they require these extraordinary powers from parliament, is the danger of inflation. There is no great secret as to how this danger of inflation arises. It is created by the lack of goods in proportion to the available consuming and purchasing power. How are we to arrive at a solution of this problem? The C.C.F. really do not want the problem solved; they want the controls continued. Anything that points to the existence of an emergency lends weight to their argument that controls should continue. They are not interested in seeing the end of emergent conditions; as a matter of fact they do not see the difference between emergent conditions and conditions that are not emergent. They want the controls to continue permanently. Surely, however, it is high time we gave a great deal more regard in this country and in this parliament to measures that will have the effect of increasing and encouraging production rather than those simply concerned with the rationing of scarcity. We need to do a great deal at this session of the house in the direction of encouraging production, and one means that must be put into effect, before this house concludes this session, is a substantial and material reduction in taxation.
Mr. Speaker, I have time to add just one word in conclusion. At the appropriate stage we shall have more to say concerning our views on specific orders contained in this volume which I have no doubt will go down in history as the Heinz bill. We do not have anyone in this house by the name of Heinz; but I believe this bill, with its fifty-seven orders in council, all different, is likely to go down in history as the Heinz or pickle bill. We are confronted at the present time with a curious situation. We of the Progressive Conservative party, the official opposition, have done our best to contribute to an orderly
approach to a review of this problem. Last night the Minister of Justice asked that we defer discussion of the resolution; I took his suggestion to mean that we might seek information in committee, but that we reserve our principal contributions to the debate until second reading of the bill is moved. I wish to make it perfectly clear that, in doing what we have done in trying to assist the minister, we have made the only contribution that lay within our power to bring order out of the chaos that has been created by the procedure the government has followed. By bulking all these measures in one bill-a whole session's legislation, as was pointed out last evening by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power)-it is going to be difficult to carry on an intelligent discussion of the various measures. It will be difficult to carry on any successful questioning in committee of the ministers concerned with these resolutions, when you have fifty-seven different measures all rolled into one. But that is the way the government has chosen. It is an awkward method, just about as chaotic as anything could be; but then what could we expect?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Could you suggest a better method?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I could suggest about fifty-seven methods that would be better than this.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, name one.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One would have been to introduce separate bills.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Thank you very much.


Donald Methuen Fleming: To follow the statement made last evening by the minister, another method would have been to break down the fifty-seven varieties into three categories. He said there were orders which were regulative, orders which were administrative and orders which were legislative. At least he might have tried to break down his bill into three bills, which would have reduced the chaos somewhat.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think it could have failed to do so, when there will be so much chaos as it is. The blank cheque being asked by the government in the matter of the consideration of this resolution and the bill to follow is not something new on the part of this government. I should think it will be difficult for anyone to discuss the principle of a bill having attached to it a whole volume of legislation, but that is the way the government has chosen to proceed, perhaps to con-
Emergency Powers

fuse the house. The fact of the matter, as my leader said last evening, is that we had hoped we might help to clear way as much chaos as possible in trying to devise an orderly method of considering this measure, or rather these fifty-seven varieties of measures, in the house and later in committee. That objective was defeated, largely by the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, who certainly did not contribute anything to the clarification of the issues or the simplification of the procedure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He made our position clear, which is more than you have done.


Donald Methuen Fleming: However, Mr. Speaker, I think we have made our position clear on this and other occasions. Having regard to the emergency which exists in relation to certain of these measures, of which perhaps rental control is the best example, there will have to be a continuation of some controls as long as particular emergencies last. But as to those measures which cannot be justified by what the minister has called the extreme nature of the emergency, they should go. We are not prepared to just take everything holus-bolus, to swallow everything whole, as one would have to in order to accept legislation like this. We shall try to be soundly discerning and discriminating, as is the duty of all hon. members,- when we come to scrutinize these measures in detail.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but the remarks of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) regarding the report of the Alberta government social credit board, published in the Toronto Globe and Mail, make me feel that the people throughout Canada and the world who will read Hansard have a right to know what is in that press report. Therefore I should like to have the privilege of reading it into Hansard, so that everyone may know just how bad or good it is. The article appears in the March 21 issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail, at the bottom of page 1. It is headed "End present political parties, Alberta social credit urges." And then follows:
Edmonton, March 20 (CP).-The annua] report of the Alberta government's social credit board, released today, urges "abolition of political parties dominated at the top as we know them today" and establishment of "unions of voters" which would control the actions of their elected representatives.
The board criticized the secret ballot and recommended its abolition in certain circumstances. All the board's recommendations are qualified with some such as abolition of the secret ballot based on establishment of a new economic system.
IMr. Fleming.!
The board is composed of four members of the legislature-A. V. Boureier, Lac Ste. Anne, chairman; N. B. James, Edmonton, secretary; William Tomyn, Willingdon; and F. M. Baker, Clover Bar.
The report said the secret ballot enables a citizen to evade responsibilities for his actions, adding when he votes for a candidate of a political party, he is also voting for the party platform. The secret ballot, the report continued, gives the voter the opportunity to condemn later the actions of the government for which he voted.
"The political party system makes it very difficult for the people to exercise their democratic privileges and assume their personal responsibility, even if they were so inclined," the report said.
The board reported "the obvious remedy for the evils of party politics is the abolition of political parties dominated at the top as we know them today," and adds "in Canada we have never had an unfettered parliament subservient to the will of the people."
I think it is only just that the whole of the ugly truth should be placed on Hansard, so that each person can form his own opinion. I believe it would be well to comment briefly on one or two matters in this report, so as to help everybody to understand the point of view of the people who made this recommendation.
First, let me point out that the social credit board is only a special committee appointed by the Alberta legislature to examine into and make a report respecting certain problems. It does not indicate that the government has accepted the report, that the cabinet has accepted it, or that the social credit league in Alberta or throughout Canada -would accept it. It is merely a report and recommendation, probably purely philosophic and scientific and perhaps not to be adopted for a good long time if ever into the actual and practical political activities of the country.
In the first paragraph hon. members will note that these words are quoted:
"Abolition of political parties dominated at the top as we know them today."
The essential words are "dominated at the top as we know them today." I would probably be out of order in what I am now about to say if I were not discussing orders in council of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). But I will just call the attention of hon. members to the absolutely indefensible policy which has obtained in Canada in respect of beet sugar production during the war. And I will ask hon. members to tell me whether they think the Liberal government which has been in power, and has been administering that policy, has been free to do the thing it thought best, in the interests of Canada, or whether it has been influenced by

Emergency Powers
certain bodies of people who perhaps contributed to the slush fund or election funds of the party which is in power. Without arguing as to whether or not what I have suggested is true, I believe this is an excellent illustration to show how utterly helpless the people of Canada would be in electing, election after election, parliaments made up of parties of men bound, to begin with, because of promises made long before the election was called.
The attitude of social crediters is that both of the old line parties in Canada-at least both the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives-are bound before they ever enter an election and before they are ever voted on, making it utterly impossible for the people of Canada ever to obtain the kind of government they desire, a kind of government, in fact, which in many cases can oppose the interests of the people themselves.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is only your understanding of it.


John Horne Blackmore: All right. I am trying to give the people of Canada the conception held by the social credit league. But members of the Social Credit party are elected absolutely free and untrammelled.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: There is no doubt about it. Members of this party, from the time they came to the house, have been free. They have struck out boldly at the things they feel they ought to strike at.
Mr. CRUICKSH.ANK:	They have not
struck for home, though.


John Horne Blackmore: And no man in this parliament can gainsay that point. Certain people who would like to see reaction in this country for the next hundred years would like to see us go home; there is no doubt about that.
But the people of Alberta do not think that way. They think the time has come for a change which is the right kind of a change.
May I come now to the second paragraph which states:
The hoard criticized the secret ballot and recommended its abolition in certain circumstances.
How widely different is that statement from what we were given to understand by the hon. member for Dauphin. It states:
All the board's recommendations are qualified-
And how important is the word "qualified"- -with some such as abolition of the secret ballot based on establishment of a new economic system.
This indicates clearly that the board did not advocate the abolition of a secret ballot until a new economic system is established, under which there would be a different kind of voting, such as that to which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) referred in his speech this afternoon. I think what I have said will probably help people to understand better the meaning of that paragraph.
I now comment briefly on the fifth paragraph whioh states:
"The political party system makes _ it very difficult for the people to exercise their democratic privileges and assume their personal responsibility, even if they were so inclined," the report said.
I believe what I have said with regard to the sugar situation is probably sufficient comment on that paragraph.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, before the house took recess at six o'clock I was referring to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) this afternoon in which 'he had done the Social Credit group in this house a favour by drawing our attention to a Canadian Press dispatch from Edmonton in the Toronto Globe and Mail of today to the effect that the Alberta social credit board had submitted' a report in. which they recommended some measure of discontinuance of the use of the secret ballot anH the abolition of political parties dominated at the top.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I did not want to do so before six o'clock, but it is my duty to call his attention to the fact that he should discuss only the principle of the resolution which is before the house, which is 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. I would ask the hon. member to resume his remarks on the principle of the resolution.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that you have drawn our attention to that fact. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) spent his whole time on this kind of thing, but apparently the Chair did not notice it. A good deal of time was taken up on this sort of thing, this afternoon and therefore I thought I would be in order if I referred to it, but if it is your desire, Mr. Speaker,
Emergency Powers

I shall certainly refrain from discussion along the lines followed by other members this afternoon.
I think, however, it will be in order for me to make this suggestion to the house. If the house goes on as it has done for the last several days in discussing measures which are designed to give the government an extension of its extraordinary powers we shall be discussing this matter until the middle of the summer.


Thomas Reid: Until Christmas.


John Horne Blackmore: And the veTy members of the C.C.F. and Progressive Conservative parties who are rising in their places and using the time of this house in great gulps in discussing this measure will be whining in the middle of the summer because the government did not bring in its important measures early enough to give time for their consideration. I think it is fitting that somebody in the house should point that out.
Just as an illustration of what these gentlemen can do: I sat in this house for two years, in each of which a special war appropriation measure was under discussion, and in one of those years the members of this house spent seven solid weeks in discussing the war appropriation. All that prolonged discussion did not alter the size of the appropriation by a single cent. I fail to see any good that was accomplished by all that discussion. In Britain they passed the whole thing in four days. But here, after we had spent seven solid weeks in discussing the special war appropriation measure, we did not have time to discuss vital measures which should have *been considered with great care by the members of this house. Now again we are going on in exactly the same way, except that the measure before us is for the purpose of extending the government's emergency powers, an extension which I think every hon. member agrees the government ought to have in order to be able to bring about decontrol in an orderly manner. It is a measure which probably we shall not modify to a degree worth considering as a result of all our talk, but as a result of the talk great and important measures which should be before the house will be brought down too late in the session for consideration as they were last year and in years before.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, the members of this Social Credit group have refrained entirely from entering into this discussion; we have not spent any time to speak of upon it;
I draw your attention to that fact. Tonight 
I chose to use a little time because I thought the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) last night and the remarks of the hon. member for Dauphin this afternoon called for an answer from this group. And let me say that this group is perfectly ready to answer and will answer with complete effectiveness whenever called upon to do so. Having said that much, I shall refer only briefly to the question of controls.
Social credit, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) pointed out this afternoon, favours the right kind of controls. There are two ways in which controls can be exercised by a government: one is by compulsion, and the other is by inducement. Social credit favours the use of inducement rather than compulsion. Social Credit favours measures of motivating control rather than measures of regimenting control. Such having been said, I think we have no further contribution to make at present to this debate. We are anxious to see this measure carried so that we can get on with the nation's business.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to pay a special tribute to the former Minister of Finance, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley) and the officers of his control board with whom I have had a great deal of correspondence during the war and since. I have always found the minister very attentive, patient and courteous with regard to any complaints made and I believe that he and his staff have carried out their duties with zeal and diligence in a difficult situation to the best of their ability. The situation with which they were faced was one in which business generally throughout Canada was upset by so great a wTar, and in addition we had problems in domestic and foreign affairs.
Coming now to the resolution, I believe that the discussion on the bill itself will be shortened by the statements which have been made by the minister and the various other speakers. I come from a large industrial city where we have been very much affected by the continuation now, for nearly two years-after the war, of a vast control system. The Canadian people have, I believe, been long-suffering under these controls, but they have about reached the limit of their patience and I trust that the minister, when he tables the various orders in council, will give some further explanation of the necessity of these controls.
Business large and small in this country, as; you know, Mr. Speaker, from your knowledge of your own great city, has been clamouring for freedom from so many controls. With the-

Emergency Powers
overtaxation, overgovernment and the failure to eliminate some of these somewhat minor controls, the smaller businessmen are finding it very hard to continue. They are hamstrung and interfered with in the conduct of their business from the commercial aspect.
I do not wish to go into the matters which the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) dealt with so ably last night, but I wish to point out one or two things with regard to the policy of the government in domestic matters as I see it.
As I see it, the policy of the government in domestic matters since the war ended almost two years ago is menacing to anybody who wanted to see controls eliminated. So far as I see it, the balance of the controls are not placed on any definite settled principle. The government are operating with none of these principles to guide them after the 15th of May. They do not indicate what one can expect from the ministry to clear the way after May 15. The whole story at home is one of the greatest menaces that we have. What are these orders in council that are to be enforced until May 15? Once they have this system, they find it difficult to get away from it. Those who are in charge of the controls think that, they are indispensable, that the country cannot get on without them. Unless price control is unified with wage control, it leads to inflation and no control at all.
Since the war closed, the board has been seeking to control every walk of life and almost every commodity, over parliament's head and without any responsible action by a minister of the crown to interfere with it. The minister never even sees the speeches. These officials just issue them over the heads of the ministers. The people of this country are long suffering, but there is a limit to their patience and it has now been overreached.
Since the war closed, the board has hamstrung almost every private business. It is interfering with those who are trying to conduct their business. As I see it, at the present time there is virtually no control on all kinds of bodies that are spending a great deal of money over the head of parliament. Every principle for which the British nation struggled in the old land since the seventeenth century has been surrendered to political caucuses. Parliament itself, which came into being to ensure that taxes shall be voted only by those who have to pay them, has become the institution through which those who do not pay them impose them on others.
I wish to emphasize to the house that the powers of legislation, even older than the right of taxpayers to determine the national
expenditures, have been surrendered and, if we are to continue this sort of thing, the power of parliament will be gone forever. Whole spheres of activity involving the livelihood of every man, woman and child in this country have been removed from the jurisdiction of the law of parliament and reserved for the determination of tribunals, irresponsible, irremovable, governed by no control and subject to no appeal. I wish to object to that as I have done before. We are told that parliament is supreme. Why does it allow all this to go on and even pass the expenditures?
The story so far as I can see is this, that the government instead of lessening controls and giving the industrialists a freer hand, is retaining controls and adding to them. This reacts on the small business man. He has to make out reports and papers, and that all interferes with his business. Firms are hamstrung in their business, and it makes the task of true recovery most embarrassing and difficult. The doubts, uncertainties and fears which are being engendered in the minds of the small and large businessmen in the management of their industries great and small affects them adversely, with the heavy taxes and restraints. So far as private enterprise and private initiative are concerned, they have never had a chance in Canada since the war has ended. This condition of affairs is sapping the energy of many businessmen. The control system is becoming heavy and laborious on the people. So far as the businessman is concerned we have seen the result of all this on taxation. This country has squandered its natural resources for many years, so much so that we are heading for a financial disaster. With the heavy taxation, with the burden of debt on the people and all that kind of thing we have squandered our resources at a rapid pace, and generations yet unborn will be taxed for it all.
The ministry seems to be depending largely on some of the propaganda we have had not only over the radio but from the Gallup poll, which seems to be galloping very fast at the present time. I think it is all gallop and no poll. It reminds me of an uncontrollable racehorse I mentioned the other night.
So far as private initiative and private enterprise are concerned, they are the key to unlocking the door of all this reconversion; they are the key to the solution of the domestic problems. You have to see the cause and effect of it. In the proposed resolution the minister refers expressly to certain orders and regulations. "By their fruits ye shall know them " The resolution speaks for itself. The minister said that on the first
Emergency Powers

reading of the proposed bill he would table certain things and schedules of the controls left. I do not wish to deal in full with the list of controls. One of them relates to a serious matter, namely, housing and all that kind of thing. The other day, the successor to the minister tabled the orders in council which are to be read into this resolution. What was it? It had to do with people and soldiers who had purchased houses up to July, 1945. At that time very few men in the army were home. In the spring of 1945 the war with Germany ended and the war with Japan ended later on in the year. In my opinion, there were few soldiers home at that time. There was a very large army overseas. Since that time they have come home. That order in council should be amended to allow soldiers into the homes they bought down to the end of 1946.
The government has no inspection services of controlled housing in regard to this housing proposition to eliminate the undesirable tenant. Under the control system there is no inspection of these houses to find out who is profiteering. Many owners have lost their homes because they could not get into them. It is leading to confiscation of property because, under the control system, under the proposed extension of these emergency powers to May 15, and under the housing matter as it stands today-I refer to an order in council passed three weeks ago-the present state of the housing situation is largely responsible for the issue of that order in council-they have done nothing to relieve the situation. The controllers have never built a single house. It is simply imposing an intolerable burden on owners of property.
I come from a city where sixty-five per cent of the people used to own their own homes. Many of them are losing them today because they cannot get into them. They rent their property to a tenant. What does he do? I have seen some houses where the tenant is profiteering, and the landlord cannot get anything out of the house. Many of the property owners have undesirable tenants who put electric stoves in cupboards and place every man they can get into small rooms with great danger to the health of the people, and break all kinds of municipal bylaws. It is leading almost to confiscation of property and insurance policies are vitiated. Nobody wants to own property under the present state of controls and taxes and continued losses on the investment. If it tended to relieve the housing situation I would not object; if it helped to get soldiers houses I would not object, but it does not.

The government spent large sums of money on public buildings. They tore down a large number of temporary huts which cost over two and half million dollars, and which were built on the waterfront in Toronto. These huts could have been used for temporary housing, but that is not being done-except to a limited extent. The army buildings are not being used to aid the housing shortage, and builders cannot get materials.
The whole story at home is told in a very few words. Are we to continue this system which is no aid to real estate? With the burden of taxation, with the housing situation as it is, with the rate of interest and taxation going up-with all these things, does it alleviate the housing situation? No; it does not. It has retarded all private enterprise and private initiative and building construction and prevented housebuilding.
In conclusion, I wish to make this point. In the United States we find an example of the grave danger from inflation that was inherent in the emergency control legislation which it was found necessary to enact during the war, but a committee was set up in Washington and they went into the whole question of controls. They adopted there, Mr. Speaker, a principle which I sincerely hope will be recognized and put into practice in Canada, under the able auspices both of yourself and of the Speaker of the senate. I hope that a joint committee of both houses of parliament will be appointed in this country to deal with these matters along the lines followed in the United States. In Washington, President Truman and some of the leaders of both houses got together and, through the medium of their ways and means committee, they have endeavoured to solve this problem in connection with controls and to decide what controls should be left to emergency legislation. There they have brought in a valuable report which indicates the dangers that exist in further controls. The result of their inquiries is that in the United States they have wiped out all controls with the exception of one or two of a minor nature, and rent matters and evictions.
Controls accomplished a great deal of good in difficult stages of the war, but now that the war has been over for two years, I hope that something will be done to eliminate them here.
I should like to read two or three sentences from the Washington Truman report, because I think it would be well for us to heed them and the warnings. I quote:
Discussing the monetary problem, the committee on monetary relations declares that "the immediate danger in most countries is now one

Emergency Powers
of continued inflation. This danger must be countered." One cause of rising prices is too much money and too much government debt; another is too little production in the face of urgent needs. The report continues;
"'To a considerable extent, the upward tendencies of prices are due to non-monetary causes, arising mainly from destruction and disorganization brought about by the war, such as the shortage of goods, deficient production, and the rising costs largely attributable to higher wages. Among the most essential tasks are an increase in the production of power, a general recovery in efficiency, and firm measures to avoid th*e vicious spiral of rising wages and prices. It should now be clear everywhere that until sufficient supplies become available, an attempt to improve the people's standard of living merely by raising money wages is doomed to failure, for it will simply lead to a rise in prices which will tend to imperil the integrity of national currencies."
But in many countries inflationary pressure is still largely the result of monetary causes in the form of large accumulations of purchasing power continually increased by deficit financing and a policy of excessively cheap money, which involves the monetization of debts and artificially increases the money valuation of capital assets.
therefore, the first task is to arrest the increase in buying power by bringing budgets under control, so that no new notes need to be printed to fill the gap between expenditure and revenue. Government expenditure must be subject to a thorough overhauling so as to eliminate superfluities and prevent too large an administrative establishment from reacting unfavourably on the budget position and on the standard of living.
I hope that we shall soon see the end of this policy of controls, which has cost the country so much. Generations yet unborn will have to pay the colossal debt that has piled up during recent years. We cannot very well appraise the situation just now. No newspaper can size it up. Historians will have to deal with it in proper perspective twenty-five years from now, and only then will the Canadian people see to their full extent what the cause and effects have been from the economic and national points of view and so far as the interests of the taxpayers and of our small businessmen are concerned, by the price ceilings, and economic controls. It is too early to predict now what the effect will be, but there is a great deal of doubt in the minds of the people today and we who are assembled here as a parliament do not seem to be doing anything to remedy the situation.


Antoine-Philéas Côté: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I wish to say that, contrary to the views of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and contrary also to those of the leader of the Social Credit party, I intend to speak as a Liberal and as a liberal with a small "1." It is needless, therefore, for me to state that I am in favour of controls, whether during the war or dur-83166-104
ing the period of transition from war economy to peace economy; and I am in favour of controls, I may add, for an obvious reason, that controls have proven in this war that they were serving the population at large. They were serving the small fry's interest versus the bigwig's ambitions, with the result that the people were on a standard of living in accordance with their ways and means, whereas during the first world war the big profiteers enjoyed life while the ordinary citizen did not enjoy it at all.
But I must be frank and also say at once that I am certainly not in favour of controls for the reason that was given yesterday by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) for continuing controls. The reason he gave will be found at page 1554 of Hansard of yesterday:
Great national interests are at stake in the sense that as an aftermath of the war the economic stability of the greatest national customer that this country has had in the past is endangered and it is in the national interest that food should continue to flow to the people of Great Britain in order that they may be in a position to produce goods and exchange them for our goods in the future and continue to be the great market that thev have been in the past.
I think it is about time for an enunciation of policy by the powers that be; it is about time, after the achievements of Canadians during the war just ended, for people in authority to state definitely the policy of this government and to think in Canadian terms first and always. It is about time that we minded our own business and left the interests of other people to their own countries.
I am also opposed to the way in which this resolution introduces the omnibus bill for the consideration of parliament, because I think it is the most anti-democratic and antiLiberal measure this parliament has ever seen since confederation. May I be permitted to cite authorities instead of giving my own views in this respect? I shall refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a statement made in this house by our great leader, our dear Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in 1932, with regard to a measure which was every bit as antidemocratic and anti-Liberal as this one is. At page 701 of Hansard, volume 1, of the session of 1932-and he was referring to chapter 58-he said:
What does this mean? Chapter 58 is the act to which I have just referred.
It was the Unemployment and Relief Act which was continued and called in 1932 the Unemployment Continuance Act.
It means that notwithstanding that parliament is in session, notwithstanding that the people's representative? ire here assembled for

Emergency Powers

the express purpose of dealing with the great problems of the country and voting supplies in the regular way, the Prime Minister-
The Prime Minister was then Mr. R. B. Bennett.
-asks this parliament to give to the ministry while parliament is in session the power to do by order in council that which should be done only by act of this parliament and by supply voted in the regular manner. A more audacious or amazing piece of legislation never was introduced to a free assembly by any prime minister. This measure proposes that, while parliament is in session, actually assembled here with representatives from all parts of the country, hon. members shall forgo, by the changing of a date in an act of parliament, their whole duty of dealing in the regular manner with the problem of unemployment in what my right hon. friend will tell us is another emergent situation.
I admit that we also are possibly in another emergent situation. But if it was that bad to introduce two objectives in one bill, I am asking you frankly what it is to introduce fifty-seven objectives. In case the Prime Minister's words are not sufficient to convince hon. members of the situation as it now stands with this omnibus bill, I shall refer the house to another hon. gentleman who at the time called himself Mr. Ilsley. At page 937 of Hansard of March 8, in the session of 1932, volume 1, I shall quote Mr. Ilsley, who is now Minister of Justice, who is introducing this resolution and who, on the bill introduced by Mr. Bennett at that time, was saying this:
I submit that the most serious objection to be taken to this resolution is that a violation of the constitutional rights of the members of this house is being sought by the government of the day. It is hard to find words strong enough to characterize the action of the government in attempting to put through this resolution. It was bad enough in the emergency session of 1930 to ask for a vote of $20,000,000 for works -which were not specified; it was worse in the session of 1931 to get from this parliament a blank cheque and legislation which set up a dictatorship between sessions, but it is infinitely worse for the government to have the temerity to come before this house and seek to perpetuate that dictatorship while parliament is in session.
I do not think I could use any better words to express myself tonight, because I think this resolution of today is quite similar to the one I refer to. I think it also involves a blank cheque, because the resolution does not indicate in any way what is the amount involved. In the second place, it is a resolution to perpetuate the sort of dictatorship which we had to stand for during the war, and which I would be willing to stand for during this period, but as a result of a resolution that should come to this house and leave in the mind of no members any doubt whatsoever as to its implications. I say that, first, with respect to money, and, second, with

regard to the controls themselves, it leaves in the minds of all members of this house nothing but doubt and suspicion. Therefore I think the words of the man who is Minister of Justice today, but who was then in opposition as the hon. member for Hants-Kings, can be easily applied to it. I said that, as far as money is concerned, we are being left in the dark. As far as the controls themselves are concerned, and the emergency power that the government is seeking in this resolution, we are advised to a certain extent of what these measures may be in this publication called "Office consolidations of orders in council, specified in the schedule to the Bill, an act 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".
Of course I see in this things which should be dealt with and taken care of; but I also see things that we could dispense with; for instance, the breaking and separating of eggs -I do know how to break my eggs at breakfast-the pasteurizing of honey; the slaughtering and stuffing of poultry, and things of that sort. When I bring forward this criticism it is in order to seek from the minister first a rectification of the enunciation of policy that he put on Hansard yesterday for what I would call the necessity of this bill, namely, that when Britain is in need in peace time, Canada must be the cow. I would hope that when this legislation is introduced in the house and we go into it, it might be possible for the minister, instead of bringing in an omnibus bill, to break it down and separate those matters dealt with by legislation already on our statute books, and introduce new bills for other matters, as for example, with regard to the wartime prices and trade board. In any event I think it should be dealt with in such a way that all hon. members might know the amount of money involved as well as all the items included in this legislation, and their purpose.
If that is not done, I for one shall feel like a shareholder in a large corporation such as the Sun Life, the C.P.R. or some other corporation, who is called once a year to rubber-stamp the decisions of the executive. I submit to you, sir, that if that is what we are asked to do-and I say it is-there is no need for us to stay here for six months and spend the money of the taxpayers. We might as well come here for only one day and rubber-stamp the decisions of the government, or send a proxy and stay home. I do not feel that I can take the responsibility of destroying the most elementary privilege possessed

Emergency Powers
by any taxpayer of this country or any member of this house; I do not feel that I can subscribe to the annihilation of the greatest prerogative of members of the Commons by submitting to legislation twenty-five times worse than R. B. Bennett's legislation in 1931-32. I feel that I must redeem my accounts with the taxpayers of my riding and the country at large; I have to explain that when I voted for a certain bill on a certain date, I knew I was voting so much money which they would have to cough up, and that certain principles were involved touching their most intimate everyday dealings.
In conclusion, may I repeat that I hope the government will find ways and means of satisfying the people who really believe in a controlled economy, in a stabilized economy and in orderly decontrol, so that we may be in a position to vote intelligently on this legislation, and in order to give back to parliament its privileges and to members their right to know the amount of money involved and the items dealt with.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to assure you I am not going to read my speech; I never have and never Shall. I am sorry the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) is not in his seat at the moment, because tonight he would have seen what a great privilege it is to be a Liberal; you do not have to agree with your fellow Liberals. I entirely disagree with the previous speaker. He comes from that part of the house which this afternoon was referred to, by an hon. member from the western end of the Conservative party, as the southern end of the Liberal party. The other night we heard the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) refer to packing plants, and I want to assure the hon. member for Eglinton that in the case of an animal going into a packing plant, the south end of the animal is by far the most intelligent end.
One reason I disagree with the hon. member from the southern end is that if we were to consider these fifty-seven varieties of orders one by one, while it might be all right for hon. members who live in eastern Canada, if they had the great privilege of living in the province of British Columbia they would not want to stay here until the end of December, and certainly we would be here that long if we took up these matters one by one. The hon. member for Eglinton referred to me in what I thought were flattering terms, and I hope the acting leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie) and the Secretary of State for 83166-104J
External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) will pay attention to what the hon. member said. In order that there might be no misunderstanding, during the recess I looked up the word "apex" in the dictionary. I had my own idea of what it meant, but not having the privilege of having been a Rhodes scholar I wanted to make sure. I have only a small dictionary, but I found that the word meant "the highest point." I do not want to read my speech, but I read that meaning so that Hansard may be correct, and particularly for the benefit of the two members of the cabinet. So the hon. member for Eglinton referred to me as the highest point in the Liberal party. Therefore I should be in a good position to bring in my hon. friends from the southern end of the party, who do not yet quite see eye to eye with the rest of us on the matter of controls. It is a funny thing but apparently in the Liberal party, as geographically in Canada, the finest things come from the west. I do not believe, like some of my hon. friends in the C.C.F., that I have a complete knowledge of everything.


Mr. GILLIS:: That is obvious.


George Alexander Cruickshank: All right; I will attend to that. I am sorry the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is not in the house at the moment,, because I want to mention an item which proves the need for controls. Among the many benefits which we enjoy in this great democracy, no one can take your name unfairly or unjustly. I admit this has nothing to do with the bill; and incidentally the main objection I have to this legislation is the use of the word "omnibus," which is too hard to say. I would make the name a little shorter; it would be much easier to say. To indicate the need for controls, I am going to quote from the Manitoba Gazette, and surely anything from that publication should be an excellent authority, because for many years it was guided by no less a gentleman than the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). So I take the Manitoba Gazette as being authoritative and fair, and I give the leader of the opposition credit for that. This, by the way, is in reference to the remark of my hon. friend across the way that obviously I do not know it all. This is a notice of an application for a change of name; it is in the issue of Saturday, March 8:
Notice of application for a change of name. Notice is hereby given of the following application to the provincial secretary under the provisions of "The Change of Name Act."
Mark this:
I, Stanley Nowalsky-


An hon. MEMBER:: Spell it.
Emergency Powers


George Alexander Cruickshank: [DOT]-of the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba, hereby make application under the provisions of "The Change of Name Act," for a change of name as follows:	From my present
name, Stanley Nowalsky, to Stanley ICnowles.
That proves that you have to have these controls. For the benefit of the record, I regret my hon. friend the member for Eglinton is not now present. I know of no better place than my own riding to go to get advice I should follow, and I believe it would be in the best interests of the people of Canada if we were to follow their advice more often, and also the advice of the churches of Canada.
I should like to quote here an unsolicited letter from one of my own churches. I am very fortunate to be able to say that the people attending this church had the good judgment to see that Cruickshank came back here at the last election. This letter is dated at Sardis, British Columbia, March 12, 1947. It is addressed to myself, George Cruickshank, at the parliament buildings, Ottawa, and states:
Dear Sir: The women's association of Carman United Church respectfully request you to support the maintenance of price control, until the period of short supply is over. We believe that this is the only way of avoiding serious inflation, as suffered by the United States last year, when *their price control was abolished.
Hoping you will give this matter your serious attention and bring it before the house in the same efficient manner you have given other matters in our riding.
Wishing you every success in your work at Ottawa-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Let me finish this.
We are, yours truly, Carman Women's Association, Sardis, British Columbia; per Phillis Kirkness, Secretary.
Let me ask the hon. member for Eglinton to produce a solitary letter from as responsible a source as that asking for the abolition of controls. Every hon. member prides himself upon his good connections, but the hon. member cannot produce a letter such as that from any United Church in the Dominion of Canada asking for the abolition of price controls at this particular period.
I do not want to weary the house, so I shall read only one paragraph from my reply. It is dated March 17, 1947, the same day as I got the letter. I reply to my mail on the day I get it. Take note of this reply, because it speaks volumes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it all.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I shall be delighted to file all my correspondence. Modestly, as you all know, I seldom speak about the Fraser valley in the house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Honest George.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is right. I do not blame my hon. friend for merely asking questions on the orders of the day. If I had nothing but Peterborough to represent, that is all I would do here, too. I am going to read this paragraph:
Unfortunately, for reasons best known to themselves, the opposition have strenuously objected to the maintenance of these controls and I am sorry to say by delaying action have made it difficult for the government to bring them under statutory form before the end of this month.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Oh, it is not carried yet. And did that come from this party- or from which party? Maybe I had better attend to that party a little bit, because apparently they have a lot in common over there -in some sections. That has proved to be so-not the west end, but the middle end of the Conservative party. You know, they have changed leaders over there so often since I have been here-and I have not been here so very long-that apparently they now have a leader for the west end of the party, and a leader for this other part.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The leader we have is here to stay, and he will be leading on the government side of the house before very long.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Well, my friend, I am an older man than you are, and I wish you the best of luck for a long life-and I hope it for myself, too. But I am sorry to say that, even with my magnificent physique, I shall not live long enough to see my good friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) over on this side.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It will be soon.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to read that letter again, because I want my hon. friend to produce a letter like it, but which asks for the abolition of controls at this particular time.
I believe in giving all sides of a story, so I shall quote from the St. Croix Courier. And just in case anybody has any misunderstanding with respect to that newspaper, let me say it is from St. Stephen, New Brunswick.


Benoît Michaud: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Apparently the
southern end of the Liberal party did not wait for me to finish, and that is why his cheer was

Emergency Powers
loud because the St. Croix Courier is a strong Conservative paper. They have one-only one-reporter, and he is a leader in the Conservative party. But I want to quote what he says, so that we can understand the opinions held in number two corner, over there. I shall quote only part of it. This man is an excellent gentleman, one of the most outstanding men in the Conservative party-he ought to be, because he comes from British Columbia. I shall quote from this paper under date of March 20. and March seems to have done a lot of things. This is it:
"The Social Credit party see things as the Progressive Conservatives do except on monetary policy," said Mr. Green.
I am glad to know now that you are both tied in together. I have thought it for a long time. But now I know it, from a leader in that party.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon.
member tell us what he read that from.
Mr. CRUICIvSHANK: Must I give them more publicity? I quoted from the St. Croix Courier, published in St. Stephen. New Brunswick, on March 20. I don't blame you for trying to disown it. I might, myself, if they had supported us.
The riding I represent does not consider this bill perfect, by any manner of means. But we do know that if we abolish controls it would be a mistake. Nobody suffered from controls, from a financial point of view-and opposition members know this-more than did the dairy farmer. No one has made a more direct financial contribution to Canada's welfare during the period of controls than has the dairy farmer. I say that as the representative of a constituency the industry of which is principally that of dairying. Yet we know that if at this time controls were taken off, as some of my hon. friends would have them taken off-and the word they use is "holus-bolus" or some such Greek word-the results would be bad; and the people in my riding realize what would happen.
We do not like regimentation. Some of the people in Fraser valley have for a long time been trying to regiment their present members, and it will be a long time more before they accomplish it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government tries
to regiment him, too.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Listen, my hon.
friend; even coming from Toronto, if you got into the Liberal party you would find that we never try to regiment anybody. We allow each and every member to express himself and to vote as his conscience dictates.

And we do not have a caucus every day at two o'clock to tell us what to do when we get in here.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We don't caucus by
provinces.


George Alexander Cruickshank: All right now; I
enjoyed your speech this afternoon, because I know of no more profitable way of spending an afternoon-when you have nothing else to do, or less chance of improving your mind than by listening to a speech from Toronto.
But to get back to my riding and its position with respect to controls, we do not approve this bill in its entirety, by anjr manner of means. But most certainly, Mr. Speaker, I would not have a letter from a United Church in my riding asking that these controls be kept on, if the riding did not think along those lines. I want to tell the hon. member for Eglinton that if he goes to that source for his advice as to what he shall say in the house, and how he ought to vote, he will end up eventually by seeing the light of day as to what is best for all Canada, and will be moving over to this side of the house.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is an excellent thing for parliament to have such a prolonged discussion as this one on the matter of "controls". Among the public, it is often said that members of parliament have more or less self-control. What with hearing that said and examining the matter under its various aspects, we may come, I hope, to achieve perfect control over our thoughts, our tongues, our acts and possibly even over the present government.
It is often repeated that controls breed an over-strong and all-powerful bureaucracy. After having scrutinized the whole world and studied their political set-ups, we may very well ponder over whether any other political group represented in this house were they to attain power-and this would be their luck, not ours-would do away with this bureaucracy bred by controls, of which so much is said; whether they would do away with the civil servants, who, after all, form the only bureaucracy which has been so much talked about. I was once told, in a government department, that the civil service commission was more powerful than any government. I almost believed it, for I do not think that any party could do away entirely with bureaucracy. I do believe, however, that it would be replaced by another much stronger, more numerous and probably allpowerful.

Emergency Powers
(Text):
To show, Mr. Speaker, that controls were not born yesterday, I have something here that was sent to me a year ago by my hon. friend the member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding). It is a translation into modern English of a proclamation concerning butchers, and there is a footnote on this sheet stating:
The first price control chief was the Roman Emperor Diocletian. In the year 301 he put price ceilings on all commodities and froze wages.
On March 25, 1535, a proclamation was issued by King Henry VIII concerning butchers. It reads:
"A Proclamation Concerning Butchers 1535" Dated this 25 of March of reign of King Henry the VIII
Forasmuch as the King's Majesty is credibly advertised and informed, that beeves, muttons, and veals are likely to be more scarce and dear now against this holy time of Easter than in other seasons of the year, by reason of the charges of keeping such cattle with hay and other stover in the winter; by occasion whereof the butchers and others that shall sell such beeves, muttons, and veals by weight cannot buy them of the breeders, brokers, farmers, drovers, owners, and feeders of such cattle at such reasonable prices in gross as they may sell the same again by weight by retail at such prices as are limited in the act made for selling of flesh by weight, unless it should be to their utter loss and undoing; His Highness therefore willing that the same butchers and others selling flesh by retail for the time hereafter limited in this proclamation should be so conveniently provided for in the premises as they should not have any cause reasonably to forebear their provisions for such victuals to be sold at retail against this holy time of Easter for relief and succor of his subjects in as ample manner as heretofore have been accustomed; is therefore contented and pleased that, from henceforth until the 23rd day of June next coming, butchers and all others that shall sell flesh of the kinds aforesaid by weight by retail shall and may sell from time to time, unto the said 23rd day of June next coming, every pound of beef good and wholesome for man's body for a half-penny and one halffarthing and no more:	And every pound of
mutton for three farthings only and no more. And every pound of veal for a half-penny and half farthing and no more. The said act of provision heretofore had and made for selling flesh by weight by retail, or anything therein contained, to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.
Provided always that no butcher or others shall kill any calves to sell by retail for the term of two years ensuing, from the first day of January last, upon the pains limited in the act made for killing of calves, this proclamation notwithstanding. And his Highness hath ordained that if any butcher or others selling by retail do sell any of the kinds of victuals aforesaid otherwise than by weight or at any priecs than is afore limited or refuse to sell according to this proclamation; then every butcher or others so offending shall suffer loss and forfeit all such pains and penalties and also be ordered in all

things as is contained and limited in the act made for the. premises. This proclamation in any wise not letting.
And furthermore the King's Highness straightly chargeth and eommandeth all and every one of the said breeders, brokers, drovers, feeders, farmers, and owners of such cattle that they and every one of them furnish the fairs and markets with such fat cattle as they have to sell from time to time in as large and ample a manner as hath been the custom:	And to sell
their said cattle at such reasonable prices as the said butchers or such others as shall retail the same again by w'eight may utter and sell the same to his loving subjects at such prices as are above limited, as they will avoid his Grace's high displeasure and answer to the same at their uttermost perils.
And that after the said 23rd day of June, the said butchers and others selling flesh by retail shall from thenceforth sell by weight by retail according to the prices limited in the same act and made and provided for the same upon the pains and penalties contained in the said act without any abstinence or redress to be had thereof after the said 23rd day. Wherefore the King's Highness straightly chargeth and eommandeth all the singular mayors, justices of peace, sheriffs, bailiffs, constables, and other his officers and faithful subjects to whom it shall or in any manner or wise appertain that they and every one cause this his proclamation to be put in due and effectual execution according to the tenor thereof, as they will answer to his Highness at their uttermost perils.
Thomas Berthlet authorized to sign same with privilege of the King.



OOD SAVE THE KINO

[Stage Direction]
That shows, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian controls are not the first to be put into effect by a government.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, controls are merely the result of war, or at any rate, of an unusual situation, Ever since I have been sitting on this side of the house and even during the two long sessions when I sat on the other side, we were wont to say that our war effort would have a most disturbing effect on the economy of this country if it did not destroy it. Obviously, at that time, without presuming to prophesy, we feared that the war effort would be too great and that it would result in coercive measures being applied during and after the end of hostilities.
Controls are coercive measures and nobody likes them; they do not please any mother of a family or charitable institutions; nor do they please old people or children who are thereby deprived of some of the necessaries of life, but since the child is born-"control" -it must be brought up and be it a matter of controls, price regulations or something else, we must put up with everything on account of the present economic situation not only in Canada but throughout the world, and that is the point we must consider.

Emergency Powers
Let us take as an example the rationing of sugar. It did not please anyone. Everyone likes sugar, and more especially children, sick and elderly people who need it most. It was absolutely necessary to ration sugar because, since 1942, production was altogether insufficient.
The output of North America, the continent in which we live, amounted in 1938 to 2,467,258 tons of sugar, while in 1946, it had dropped to 1,845,000 tons, which means an annual reduction of at least 600,000 tons. That, however, is nothing compared with Europe which was laid waste by war. Its annual sugar output of 9,412,325 tons in 1938 decreased through the years to 5,700,000 tons in 1946. Therefore, war-torn Europe needs some of these controls and rigid rationing must be maintained so that world-wide distribution may be adequate.
Take Asia, for instance. Production has decreased by 2,380,255 tons, a drop which is almost as disastrous as that which occurred in Europe. If you multiply these figures by the number of years included between 1942 and 1946, you will see how inadequately the sugar output compares with demand and consumption.
Now, I come to the Philippines which have been almost destroyed by the Japanese. The production there, in 1938, amounted to 1,039,305 tons, while, in 1946, it had fallen to 13,000 tons. Listen to this: in Java, production, in 1938, was 1,761,000 tons and only 125,000 tons, in 1947. You can see the difference right there and realize at the same time that rationing is not entirely bad, especially in regard to certain goods, such as those I am speaking about at this moment, and which must first be distributed, if we are at all human, to those who need them, those whose health is failing, who are advanced in age and must have a definite amount of calories to keep alive.
In Formosa, the same conditions prevail. Production, which stood at 1,487,000 tons in 1938, is estimated at only 175,000 tons for this year. Fortunately, Europe is recovering faster than the Philippines, Java, Formosa and Borneo, for the Europeans had foreseen that they could some day be short of sugar, either as a consequence of war or of some other catastrophe and they put in larger acreages in sugar beets.
This reminds me first of having heard the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), in 1942, delivering a speech, requesting the government to encourage the growing of sugar-beets. I also remember that, in 1932, while a member of the provincial legislature, the hon. member for Montmagny, Mr. Paquette, a former mayor of the City of Quebec, the hon. member for Quebec Centre,
Mr. Samson and myself had initiated a debate on sugar-beet growing. We had not much success then, but today the province of Quebec is equipped with a beet plant of 1,200 ton daily capacity at St. Hilaire. Other sugar-beet factories in various parts of the country, including Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, have a daily capacity of 11,200 tons. I submit that if, in anticipation of some accident, or rather of such a scourge as war, we had developed the sugar-beet industry to a greater extent, as Europe has, we would have suffered less hardships from sugar rationing because we would have been in a better position to cope with our requirements.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that controls are depressing and irritating. We dislike them, as everybody else, except those who believe in state regimentation. Even though we may not fancy this liberal enactment, let us consider the present situation in Canada and outside the country. At the beginning of the war, I spoke the following words in this house:
In order to survive, democracy will have to resort eventually to the very same means which are used against it if it hopes to conquer enemies bent upon its destruction.
Totalitarians resorted to controls in Germany, Russia, Spain and elsewhere. Why? To regulate their expenses, their production, their consumption in order to reach a goal of which they never lost sight: the domination of the whole world and the destruction of true democracy. I was justified, and I still am, in saying that even if it does not please our constituents democracies must sometimes resort to the very means used against them by their opponents. I quote a recent article from the New York Herald Tribune-.
Canada has shown us how to control salaries and prices during the war and now apparently she shows us the way in which controls must be lifted during the reconversion period.
I understand that some people demand the immediate abolition of controls. However, I find with dismay that those who demanded a superhuman war effort of Canada, knowing that the expenditures entailed would endanger our economy, are the ones who clamour for the lifting of controls and the return to peace-time conditions.
And now, we are labouring under the very conditions brought about by the pressure they exerted at that time. Canada gradually reduces her staffs. The number of employees of the prices board has shrunk by 1,220 in 1946 and further cuts are contemplated. I do not claim to be more liberal than anyone else, and I do not intend to give the impression that I changed my mind when
Emergency Powers
[Stage Direction]
I took a seat among the liberals; I still hold to the same opinions which I held and voiced at that time, when I stated that controls were things that we could hardly countenance and that we abhorred even. However, we foresaw that the state of war and Canada's war effort, as well as that of all the countries of the world, would bring about the conditions under which we are presently labouring. If we study the schedule of prices referred to, yesterday, by the Right Hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) in his review, we find that the United States have experienced a disastrous and frightful rise in prices as a result of having removed all controls at one stroke. Those who will read the statement of the Right Hon. the Minister of Justice will see that the controls, in Canada were not done away with all at once, which has certainly been to the advantage of the Canadian economy and the Canadian taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, that it is proper to quote in this connection a statement which the right honourable the Prime Minister made early in February. It reads as follows:
The Tories would abolish in one fell swoop all government controls. The socialists of the C.C.F. would not only maintain them, but multiply them and establish them permanently. The Liberals avoid those two extremes; they want neither to abolish the controls for the benefit of private interests nor extend them needlessly, but keep those which certain circumstances make necessary in the .general interest.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, like all the hon. members who have spoken before, I cannot accept straight away and smilingly a system of controls which will continue to be enforced. Some of those controls have been abolished and others will be. I hope that all will disappear in the near future. But, while I am not and do not pretend to be an economist, I cannot see how any country in the world, can possibly remove all controls on its domestic and its external trade.
That is why I shall vote for the bill, even though I do not like it. This does not mean that I have changed my mind about those measures of control, it is merely because I feel that we must keep a certain degree of control so that our economy will not be entirely destroyed, especially in view of the hard blows it has suffered after the war.
(Text);
Mr. L. E. BAKER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Quite a bit has been said about the south end on the government side. Since I represent the extreme south of the south end

I feel at times as though I were in Antarctica -I must express my views. I am afraid I

cannot say it is a solid south at the present time, because I shall have to differ with my good friend the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Cote).
I am one who is convinced that this omnibus bill should go through as quickly as possible. I wish to explain at the outset that I am a Liberal, a Liberal of the Liberals, and I do not like controls as such. But I realize that there are times when we have to exercise controls, when we are in an emergency; and we are definitely in an emergency now. It is true that the guns have ceased firing, but we are going through possibly a more difficult period from the economic point of view than when the guns were still firing. We are running into what I consider to be the final lap, and if we falter in that lap and lose the race as a result of trying to be too hasty I maintain that we shall live to regret it.
We are not the only country which has to exercise controls. I had not expected to speak on this resolution; I had intended to wait until we came to second reading of the bill, but because the south end of the house has been referred to so often I thought I had better express my view's. I picked up the Halifax Herald of March 20 while sitting here, and what do I see. The date line is "Washington, March 19-AP". I will not read the whole item. The heading is "Ask Power be Continued." I quote:
President Truman asked congress today to continue his wartime power to control shipments abroad, as a curb on inflation at home and as a tool to help those countries "whose existence must be preserved".
Further on I read:
Uncontrolled shipments into the higher-priced markets abroad would encourage domestic inflation and increase "the already substantial burden of living costs borne by the American people."
I skip a paragraph and read the last:
About 500 items, mostly foods, now are under export curbs, compared with a war-time total of more than 3,000. Truman promised the fastest possible removal of controls but predicted that the need for them will "remain acute for some time".
I maintain that our position is very similar to the position over there, only we are much better off inasmuch as we have never relinquished controls in the wholesale manner in which they did in the United States and for which they are suffering today. I would urge all hon. members not to treat this question on party lines. It is too important for that. We want to get rid of these controls as soon as we can, but we must regard this as a big measure which we must face for a limited period of time.

Emergency Powers
We have been operating safely under these controls under the wartime prices and trade board and I contend that we have nothing to fear by operating under them for a few months longer. But we have a good deal to fear if we do not get this legislation through in sufficient time.
The suggestion has been made that we have separate bills for all fifty-five items. That would be all right if we had the time; but from what I have seen in this house this session, I suggest that, by the time we got through, the need for control would have gone by or the holocaust would have caught up with us and we would be definitely out of luck. We have not time to do it. We have to recognize that fact. Therefore I urge that as soon as we possibly can, when members have expressed what opinions they may have, we allow the Speaker to leave the chair so that we can consider the matter in committee.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Until now the question has been
put whether one is for or against controls. Some have said they do not like controls, and it is a respectable opinion. They have said also that, although they do not like controls, they would be in favour of continuing them for the public good. That is acceptable. Some others have been against. It was their view and also mine, and I wonder if my hon. friend the member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), who has just spoken, had in view those who have expressed themselves against controls when he passed such severe judgment against them. I wonder if his words apply to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and to my humble self.


Pierre Gauthier: They apply
to no one in particular.


Jean-François Pouliot: All of us together.
Therefore he divided the house into two categories, those who see the light and those who do not. I appreciate the fact that he has the right to his own views.


Pierre Gauthier: I never
meant that.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, but it is my understanding of what the hon. member said. There is no one who is more ready to concede that everyone has a perfect right to his own view. Well, the question may be put differently. One may be for the controls in principle; but under certain conditions, one may be for the controls theoretically but against the application of the controls. These distinctions are necessary in a discussion. In the first place, I would be in favour of controls 83166-105
-and in fact I -was the first one who wired to the Prime Minister on the eve of the war to ask him to see to it that prices of sugar and flour would not rise too quickly-under one or several cabinet ministers responsible to the House of Commons, responsible to parliament. That kind of control I would be for in case of emergency.
I believe that parliament is supreme and I believe also it is a great mistake to establish boards or commissions that are entirely independent of the government. If they are created as independent of the government it is because of the intellectual laziness and lack of determination of the members of the cabinet who would not assume responsibility for unpopular measures taken by a board in charge of control. It is just as clear as spring water. And then the control is decided; independent boards are organized, and members of parliament are just rubber-stamps to vote measures like this one.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Mostly soft rubber.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is another respectable opinion. Therefore, sir, I am against the constitution of commissions and boards that are independent of the government. It is precisely the view of the C.C.F. socialist party to have such boards organized and manned by men who are superior to members of parliament taken as a whole. These men on the boards-I am not complaining of anyone in particular; I am considering the question on principle-are considered superior to members of parliament, and we are here to give them powers which we are afraid to discharge. That is the constitution of all the boards that we have.
But there is something else. We are at the other end of the line. No minister has the outlook that a private member of parliament has on the effect of any legislation because, in the first place, ministers are not in daily contact with their constituents and because, in the second place, most of their constituents do not write to them except to ask for special favours. At times it may be letters of friendship, but when a man does not live among his constituents for the greater part of the year he loses contact with them. Moreover, ministers are surrounded by men who tell them that the wrong thing is the right thing and when a member of parliament tells them the truth it is sometimes considered as heresy.
If controls are necessary they should be under one or several members of the cabinet; then I am sure my hon. friend, who voted against controls on Bill No. 25 and on another occasion, would accept controls because, when

Emergency Powers

the question of controls would come before the house, the minister would have to give explanations just the same as he gives in connection with any matter coming under his department. What I regret very much is that those who man the control boards very often consider themselves infallible. They think that if they admit a mistake they are doing something they should not do and they will be ashamed of themselves. They are not supposed to err. They are the infallible ones. Therefore, when it is pointed out to them that there is something wrong somewhere, they will not admit it, for any reason. Then the minister will tell us that it is difficult for him to intervene in such a case because he would not want to intervene in regard to an independent board. How is it that those people are independent? They have grown up like mushrooms, and it is impossible for members of parliament to make any observations to them. Sometimes we may make observations and explain certain things to them. As I said to one of them the other day, and as I said just a minute ago, members of parliament are the shock-absorbers. They are the other end of the line. We know what is going wrong with the application of controls, and we very often tell them that there is some-redressed, to have the error corrected so that the people of the country will not complain of any injustice. It is evident that the controls are unpopular. They cannot be popular. But they should be exercised with fairness so that no one can complain of any injustice at the hands of any officers of any branch.
It is necessary to keep order in the country and to maintain the respect of the Canadian people for our institutions. But what happened in my constituency? There was an overzealous man who was closely related to one of the members of the wartime prices and trade board, and who was in charge of an office in my county. He was unjust to the people. I will not say that he was dishonest, but I wall say that he was unjust. He even went so far as to put the people under oath and ask them what price they had paid for used cars? I brought those facts before the board, but I did not get a satisfactory reply. I wanted that man to be fired, but he was never fired because he had support in high places. Finally, at the request of the wardens and the mayors of the county, the office was closed. I asked that the office be closed just in order to get rid of one incompetent man, and what did I discover afterwards? I discovered that the man was in the Quebec office and to a large extent in charge of the business for the twenty-three counties in the district

of Quebec. It is impossible to get rid of them. He was like a girl who was employed in the civil service. She missed her examinations nine times and was fired at my request. The first news that the civil service commission had was that her chief had protested against her being fired, saying that she was rendering exceptional service. It is the same thing with regard to these people I speak of. We cannot get rid of them.
Is it not possible to make a certain cleanup in all these controls? There is great duplication. There are controls in the Department of Reconstruction; there are controls in the prices board, besides the control of the treasury and the foreign exchange control board. There are controls everywhere. There are fences. There are ropes. There are all kinds of ways to keep the people embarrassed and inactive. I will suggest something to the minister before the bill comes out, but I wonder if it will be of any use because the whole bill may be cooked now. However I will put it on record and show my willingness to help by making a few suggestions. Why not get rid of the controls of the wartime prices and trade board, which duplicate those that exist in the Department of Reconstruction? Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) told us that in the Department of Agriculture they established floor prices, but the ceiling prices were established by the wartime prices and trade board. If controls are necessary, why not have the ceiling prices of agricultural products established by the Department of Agriculture or by the Minister of Agriculture; and under his authority, so that he will be responsible for the matter in parliament? That is one suggestion. The same thing applies to all departments.
Instructions have been given to reduce the staff of all departments by ten per cent, to fire mostly minor employees such as stenographers, clerks, messengers, and so on. Why not dispense with the useless, dead branches of duplication? It is easy to do.
I will not speak much longer, sir, because all the discussions which are carried on in the house, even when fine and eloquent speeches are made, are purely academic. There is no result. I remember one day that six members of parliament obtained what they wanted by uniting; and the matter in point was not one of national importance. It concerned steel pipes. There were six members-one was from British Columbia, another from Winnipeg and I do not remember where the others were from-who joined together to call on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and complain about the high price, or the

Emergency Powers
increase of price by the prices board with regard to steel pipes. It was not a matter of national importance, but they went there and said to them, "Gentlemen, if you do not reduce those prices to what they were before, we will vote against you." They obtained what they wanted. Everything was all right and the prices were changed, although it had been found by the prices board that the prices were too high.
I have not always had the support that I expected to have on matters of public interest, and although I respect the opinions of others I do not despair of the future, because in a matter of minor importance last year the House of Commons was turned upside down by the new members on the question of whether we would have Canada day or Dominion day, a matter of very little importance. But the senate argued for weeks and months about it. They did not know whether it should be Canada day or Dominion day. Why discuss it? We must have Dominion day; there is no reason for having Canada day when there is one single member who is against it and who prefers Dominion day as a sign of colonialism. But here in the house one vote was 26 to 165, and among the twenty-six were thirteen cabinet ministers, while among the 165 were two cabinet ministers. All votes were most interesting. The discussion lasted a day. Although it concerned a matter of minor importance, everybody was concerned about it, and the rank and file won the day in the House of Commons, which shows that we can expect something for the future if members first know what they want and then unite for that particular purpose. It was done last year. It could be done today in matters of greater importance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We also had a vote last year on the price of milk.


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly, and it was forgotten very quickly, unfortunately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not by the people.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will not say by the people. The vote was significant but the result was nil. I regretted not being in the house that day, because I would have voted with my hon. friends. I arrived in the evening, and that occurred in the afternoon. But it was well done. The hon. member who has just spoken got a promise, but if I am not mistaken that promise turned out to mean nothing. With regard to the Canada day business the House of Commons did its duty; then the Senate was all mixed up; finally the legislation stayed on the table and we did not hear of it again. It is a question of peace, of not 83166-105*
drawing a red herring across the trail, of being quiet and good in order not to hurt those who think we should continue to have Dominion day instead of Canada day. We can carry on like that in regard to various small matters, but when the time comes to discuss important matters it seems to me the essential distinction is not made between important matters and minor questions.
I do not despair of the future. I still hope for a better future, but we shall have it only if men who have a definite purpose unite and follow the example of those who were so successful in having the price of steel pipes reduced to what it was before, and if the members of the house will continue to do as well for public business as they did for Canada day last year. Am I right or wrong to hope for a better future? It all depends upon my colleagues. More than that, sir, I believe the distinction between political parties is a pure farce. I am a Liberal at heart and proud of it, but I do not see how a Liberal could stand for a socialist measure like this control by independent boards. I am bitterly opposed to it. Control under the Minister of Justice (Mr. Usley); control under the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott); control under any minister responsible to parliament; that is one thing. The Minister of Justice is responsible to parliament for the mounted police. He brings in a report. That is all right; I do not complain about it. But everything should be like that. Now we must admit we have been remiss in our duty by not making the necessary distinctions and by letting those mushrooms grow in such numbers that the government and even the House of Commons- because the government is no worse than the house-are afraid to abolish these controls. Why not replace them by controls responsible to parliament, so that members of parliament will have their say; so that members of parliament will be heard when they make representations on behalf of the taxpayers of this country who happen to be their constituents and who are entitled to justice from anyone.
I wonder how many hon. members have read the resolution sponsored by the Minister of Justice. It 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 during the national emergency arising out of the war-
Mark this, sir.
-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 older or regulation continued in force bv the act-
Emergency Powers

That is the first thing. The second is:
-and further to provide that certain officers, clerks and employees may continue to perform the duties for which they were previously appointed.
In the first place, we are to have the creation of new boards and commissions; there are not enough already. In the second place, provision is made for the continuation of the present state of affairs. Then, how are we to reduce bureaucracy? We are creating more and more bureaucrats all the time. Bill No. 25 created more boards, more advisers, more men who will come from outside to supplant parliament, more termites who will destroy the pillars of the state, and now we are to have still more and more. Nearly everybody is for it, and there are philosophical dissertations about controls. "We like them". "We don't like them". "We think they are necessary". "We think they are not necessary", and no action is taken. I believe in the sincerity of all my colleagues who are so kind to me, but may I tell them that my faith will be greater the day members unite to interview the government and, notify them they will cease their support if they do not make necessary changes, and if we do not have responsible instead of irresponsible controls.


Mr. REAL CAOUETTE (Pontiac) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, the resolution now
before the house is simply the continuation of the administrations, controls and plans set up on account of the war.
The war ended in 1945, almost two years age, and the "plan makers" are still trying to persuade the people that the continuation of control measures is necessary and that their abolition would be detrimental to the economic stability of Canada. Where, in 1947, is economic stability to be found in our country? Strikes are going on across the country, production has sharply decreased and our wealth and available products are very unequally distributed. Black markets are rampant all over the country and we wonder why they should exist in Canada. Why were there no black markets in 1939 and how is it they exist in 1947? Why did they exist during the war? It is easy, very easy, to understand. In 1939, we had not controls, whereas these controls exist in 1947, as they did during the war. Therefore, these controls are the cause of black markets. How can we do away with black markets unless we begin by abolishing controls? In order to illustrate what I have in mind, I should like to read to the house an article which appeared in the newspaper Vers Demain. edition of March 1, 1947, under the title: "Subsidies vs. controls."
When stores are full but pockets empty, the unsold goods remain outside the home. One recalls the depression, when neither dealers nor customers were satisfied. When pockets are full but stores empty, non-existent goods remain outside the home. Such is too often the ease today, when neither dealers nor customers are satisfied.
What applies to dealers and customers is also true of landlords and tenants, since houses are goods, and equally so of doctors and patients, since professional services provide for certain needs.
Therefore, two conditions are required:
First, the goods must exist.
Second, consumers must have money to pay for the goods.
In other words, we have on the one side goods and money on the other, that is farmers, industrialists, workers of all kinds, who produce abundantly and buyers who pay well.
How can the first condition be met? Through an ever-expanding production of consumer goods of which Canada has already proved herself capable.
Everything that encourages production helps to produce goods. Everything that discourages production tends to cause shortages.
When do we encourage production?
When we enable the producer to sell his goods at a profitable price.
When do we discourage production?
When we prevent the producer from selling his products or when we compel him to sell them at an unprofitable price.
Who should determine the selling price?
The seller because he knows how much his products cost him.
A reasonable selling price includes the cost of production plus an adequate margin of profit. Only the dealer or the producer are in a position to determine the selling price. They cannot sell at a loss; if they do, they cannot earn a living. They cannot demand prohibitive prices, otherwise their competitors will undersell them.
What happens when the wartime prices board in Ottawa determines the prices of goods throughout the country? Every producer who for that reason must sell at a loss or without profit first decreases his production, hoping to better is before long; if the system lasts, he finally sells his cattle or his farm, his machinery or his factory. As a result, goods cease to flow toward the market.
Do controls therefore cause production to drop? Certainly, as experience has proved. Before controls came into being, everything was plentiful. Since they have been brought into effect, any number of products are in short supply.
Free enterprise, unhampered by dictatorial boards and their inspectors, has always been capable of mass production. Controls, state-management, have not only shackled freedom but have also hindered production.
How can plentiful supply be brought back? By the removal of controls set up because of the war.
Will the lifting of controls not cause prices to increase? Yes, rents and the price of various commodities will rise to a level which will bring profits to owners and producers, which is quite normal. That is needed to bring back plentiful supply and widespread house building projects.
tMr. Pouliot.l
Emergency Powers

But will consumers be able to afford the various commodities? Yes; if their purchasing power is increased to the price level.
Will it therefore be necessary to raise all salaries? No, because such a step would bring prices still higher.
How can the purchasing power be increased while salaries remain at their present level? One method consists in subsidizing the retail trade, as was done during the war with regard to certain commodities. Thus, milk distributors wanted 12 cents a quart instead of 10 cents. Housewives continued to pay the latter price.


James Horace King: Older! I wish to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that a rule of the house, which is unfortunately not sufficiently adhered to, forbids the reading of speeches. I take the liberty of interrupting the hon. member for the following reason: I wish to explain to him that the reading of speeches is forbidden in order to prevent any hon. member from expressing the views of persons who do not have the privilege of being members of this house. The hon. member, who is reading from a newspaper, is not expressing his own views but is only repeating someone else's opinions. I would therefore ask the hon. member to stop reading from that newspaper and to express his own views.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall continue with my speech. During the war, subsidies to retailers took care of the price and control of milk. The government paid a subsidy of two cents per quart on milk. The consumer did not have to pay any more for his milk, and the producer and distributor received a two cents subsidy for each quart of milk. What has the government done since the end of the war? They have maintained harmful controls and they have abolished beneficial subsidies. As soon as controls give way to subsidies, farmers will start producing instead of selling their equipment, their live stock and everything they need for production. Prior to the control era, they were able to tend their farms and give something to Canada. The granting of subsidies will be an incentive to production. Retailers will secure a fairer distribution of goods and the price he w'ants, buyers will pay less, and the government will have accomplished its function, that of providing the consumers with adequate supplies of goods and giving them satisfaction as to quality.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is the only way of encouraging production in Canada. The C.C.F. demand still more control. They keep on asking for controls and they never talk about suppressing them. They want controls for the people and not for themselves. They wish neither to control themselves nor to be controlled, but to subject the people to controls. It is claimed by some that there
is a shortage of goods in this country. The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) said a moment ago that we wanted sugar in Canada.


Pierre Gauthier: There is a shortage the world over.


David Réal Caouette: I know quite well that in certain towns people have hoarded 500, 600 and even 700 pounds of sugar-which proves there was some sugar to be had

because they feared a shortage. Such hoarding took place throughout Canada. Others purchased 50 pounds, whole cases of butter, without surrendering ration coupons. Now some people imagine that it is absolutely necessary to subject Canadians to rationing.
Mr. Speaker, there is not to my knowledge a single member of the house- who, because of rationing, has had to go without sugar, butter and clothing although our constituents and the citizens of this country in general were subjected to rationing. Even in the parliamentary restaurant there is no shortage of sugar; we get all we want. And yet, Mr. Speaker, I know of miners, workers and poor families who are short of sugar, of butter, of the necessities of life. Are we to spend our t,ilne trying to find means to prevent them from satisfying their needs?
Instead of gauging the rations on Canadian stomachs, the stomachs have to conform to the size of the rations obtainable with the coupons. Such a system is undesirable. Canadians prefer subsidies, so that our country may enjoy plenty. I was saying that the hon. members do not like rationing as it applies to them, nor controls for that matter.


Pierre Gauthier: Neither do we like them for others.


An hon. MEMBER:: You do not know what you are talking about.


Pierre Gauthier: We do not like them for others either. You cannot read.


David Réal Caouette: They do not like controls as they apply to them and I maintain they have no right to vote for controlling their electors. Our constituents have elected us to serve them. They must be just as important as the members of this house. They are entitled to their own opinions about food, just as much as the members of this house, including the hon. member for Rimouski. I know that certain hon. members from Quebec will support the resolution, not because their electors are in favour of it, but because they have to submit to party discipline. Party politics are paramount to the common good and to the electors.
Emergency Powers


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't be ridiculous.


David Réal Caouette: I would not be at all surprised to hear in the very near future that some hon. members from the province of Quebec who voted for the resolution will have to face delegations of electors from their various constituencies.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that a threat?


David Réal Caouette: In order to avoid meeting them in their hometown station, some of these hon. members will have to flee across fields and jump over fences when they get off the train.


James Horace King: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I wish to point out to him that he is now speaking in parliament and that he is using language unworthy of the chamber in which he is heard.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I do not want it said that I am in favour of the regimentation of our men. women and children, under a government dominated by finance and controllers. I shall vote against the resolution with the utmost energy and if our financial set-up does not permit at this time the granting of the logical and necessary subsidies we are claiming in order to promote andi stimulate production, it is no fault of mine. Let the government take the necessary steps in this direction or else we will be forced some day to see that it is replaced unless it reassumes its sovereignty in the near future.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, which of these two philosophies-controls or subsidies-is one of selfishness paving the way for the Soviets. My hon. friend the member for Rimouski (Mr. Belzile) shall have to speak more intelligently the next time, otherwise his remarks will boomerang against him.
If the members of parliament think they are intelligent enough to take care of themselves, they must admit that their electors are also capable of doing the same. Therefore, controls must be done away with and replaced by subsidies which will stabilize our economy by stimulating production and making distribution easier.
I have one further remark to make, Mr. Speaker. We no longer need the bureaucrats who, throughout Canada, as everyone knows, have the duty of distributing ration coupons, which are used for depriving us of our fair share of goods, under the pretext that we must have an uninterrupted production and a more equitable distribution. Instead of paying bureaucrats for rationing the people who pay their salaries, the government should compel

them to produce, so that we may have a greater abundance from which all Canadians will benefit.


Mr. L. DIONNE (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take up the time of the house to refute the unfounded statements which in the course of his remarks the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Caouette) has repeated in reading a newspaper article, but I must register an emphatic protest against the untrue statement which the hon. member made when he said that it was possible to obtain plenty of butter and sugar in the parliamentary restaurant. That is a falsehood and I ask all hon. members of this house to contradict me if I do not speak the truth.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I did not say what is rationed in parliament, I was referring to sugar. When I stated that it could be obtained in any quantity, I was right and I stand by what I said.


Pierre Gauthier: You mentioned butter and sugar.


David Réal Caouette: I mentioned sugar only.
(Text):


Mr. E. B. McKAY (Weybum) :: not come to the aid of workers in need, as, for example, the steel workers at Hamilton last year and the coal miners in the maritimes now who are on strike for nothing more than a living wage.
Big business argues that increased wages materially increase costs of production. Of course there is some increase, but not to the extent which is claimed. Every wage increase, small though it may be, brings demands from the manufacturer for increased prices for his goods. But wage increases do not appreciably increase the cost of production unless they are very large. In the United States it was revealed in the eighteenth quarterly report of the O.P.A. that the percentage of price increases for fifteen major industries, which include petroleum, food, iron and steel, and textiles between January and September, 1946, required to cover wage rises was only 2-5 per cent, but the actual price increase demanded of the public by the same industries was a little less than eighteen per cent, or seven times more than was necessary to meet the increased labour costs. When consumers are informed that labour costs have increased the prices of consumer goods they should keep in mind these figures so that they may be able to place the responsibility for the high prices they pay where it rightly belongs.
The decontrol policy of the government is not popular with the great mass of Canadian people. In January of this year, sixty-six per cent of the people interviewed by the Canadian institute of public opinion registered their disapproval of the removal of price control. This represents a cross-section of the Canadian public and may be considered as a fairly accurate gauge of public reaction to increasing prices. If two-thirds of the Canadian public are opposed to decontrol of prices at this time I suggest to my Progressive Conservative and Social Credit friends that such a large percentage of the Canadian public must include a good many Conservatives and social erediters who do not approve their party's stand on this matter.
More recently a survey conducted by the same institute revealed that the public was still of the same mind. In answer to a question, "If it were your job to decide the first problem to be tackled by parliament at Ottawa which of these would you put at the top of the list?" there followed a list of important problems facing the Canadian people, but at the top of the list in the answers was placed the control of prices and the cutting of taxes. Everyone recognizes that these are the two items which figure largely in the family budget. The government is reducing expenditures so

that there is promise of tax reductions, but the policy of decontrol which the government is now following, at a time when production has not yet caught up with demand for consumer goods, is increasing prices contrary to the wish of the great mass of the Canadian public.
One must assume that the government, by continuing such a programme is being dictated to by big business who are the only people which can benefit by decontrol; big business represented by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association which in Toronto on January 28 of this year called for a removal of price control as soon as possible.
Consumers are of the opinion, as revealed by surveys to which I have referred, that controls should be maintained until goods are in plentiful supply. They should be retained until production has reached a stage at which they can be removed without increasing prices of goods to consumers. Should prices increase much more, they will reach a level that will discourage buying, since people will not have money enough to go around. A surplus of goods will then result which, in turn, will cause lessened production with unemployment in its wake.
Controls should be maintained as an antiinflationary measure. There is less inflation in Canada as a result of the government's war policy of price control than in the United States. But we are rapidly nullifying the effect of this policy by removing controls too quickly. Inflation is always to be feared. A boom is inevitably followed by a slump. Westerners can remember only too well the effects of the slump in the thirties when, according to the Rowell report, page 175, table III, the following prices were paid in Saskatchewan in 1932: wheat, thirty-five cents a bushel; rye, twenty-four cents a bushel; cattle, $20 per head; oats, thirteen cents; barley, nineteen cents; eggs, cents a dozen; butter-fat, fourteen cents a pound.
No one in his right senses wants a return of such conditions. But the policy of too rapid decontrol will lead to it. Present policies are causing inflation. Inflation can have but one result-recession or depression. The government must assume responsibility for the high prices which consumers must pay in the immediate future if its present programme is continued. It will be held responsible for the aftermath which will follow. I appeal to the government to reimpose controls on all essential commodities before it is too late and to discontinue its policy of decontrol as soon as it is humanly possible to do so.

Emergency Powers
Public opinion is demanding that the price line be held. Old age pensioners are asking for it; the disabled veteran is hoping for it, and both the worker and the farmer are insisting upon it. On these grounds, we in this corner of the house appeal to the government to take immediate action to arrest the upward trend of prices of consumer goods so that the Canadian people may not be the victims of the distress and suffering that such a policy engenders.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I hope I shall not be considered out of order if I express to you and to the ministers a certain degree of sympathy for having listened to this very long debate on this particular resolution, but I feel that some value will accrue from the discussions which have taken place, because I believe there is no problem about which the people of the country are more perplexed than the question whether controls should be removed or should not be removed. It seems to me that the various parties are not so widely separated in the objective which they are striving to achieve.
I could subscribe wholeheartedly to the final remarks made by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, namely, that the country wants the government to stop the rising cost of living. I believe that every party in this house wants to prevent the" cost of living from going up, but the problem which faces us, the problem which the country is interested in, is to find the method of stopping this increase in the cost of living.
From the point of view of the removal of controls, I think this debate has brought out quite clearly that there are certain controls at least which do retard production, and if production is retarded, then is there not a danger of the cost of those particular articles going up? I can give one or two examples to show where control has definitely retarded production in certain small, particular items, and these are items the production of which has been undertaken by certain returned veterans whom I have met in my own constituency. In some cases they have been able to overcome the difficulties.
I would refer to one particular type. A group of young air force men started making souvenir furniture which was placed on sale in the city of Victoria and was readily bought by United States tourists. Everyone seemed to be happy. The veterans were turning out the goods; the retail merchants were selling them, and the tourist was taking away something he could remember Victoria by. But the controllers caught up with it and said that the article produced by these veterans
of the Royal Canadian Air Force was selling for more than a similar article was sold for before the war. Actually this was nothing more than a souvenir coffee table which was decorated with inlaid wood and so forth and made to look quite attractive, but the ruling was that a coffee table was a coffee table, no matter how much you dolled it up, and therefore it would have to sell at the' price at which coffee tables were selling in 1939.
I wrote to various departments about the matter and got most courteous letters in reply, but the result was that no change could be made in the price, and therefore these veterans had to stop making that particular article, and so they produced no more of this souvenir furniture which was so attractive to tourists coming to Victoria.
I would illustrate that type of control by another example. I refer to two veterans who started crushing lime out of an old limestone quarry. It was what you would call a one-horse show. One veteran broke the rock and put it into the crusher, and the other man bagged it up at the end of the crusher and took it out and distributed it to nearby farms. They were selling this crushed lime at $6 per ton bagged, and their united efforts enabled them to put through from two to three tons a day of really hard work. Oh, no! They could not sell the crushed lime at that price because there was a control upon it, and about a hundred miles away there was a quarry run by a bigger concern which was able to sell at the quarry mouth crushed limestone at $4 a ton, bagged. This happened to be on an island and there was no one going to that island to buy any of this crushed limestone at the quarry, so that the company had to ship it, and was able to ship by means of their barges to cement works in other parts of British Columbia. The selling of the limestone was very much a side issue with them. When they had a little by-product surplus which they could deliver, they were prepared to sell it to farmers next to this little quarry where these two veterans were trying to turn out the product for $6. The company were able to sell it at $11 a ton, for it had never been sold in that area at anything less than $11. Those two veterans would have been put out of business, and the farmers in urgent need of the crushed lime in that area, because of the shortage of that type of mineral in the pasture lands, would have suffered in consequence. Threatening letters were sent to the veterans. They were told that if they offered the product for sale or attempted to sell the limestone at more than 14 a ton they could be prosecuted. I must
Emergency Powers

admit that in that case, after nearly six months of correspondence, it was agreed to let them go on selling the crushed limestone at $6 a ton, as a special concession.
There, I suggest, are two examples of the type of control which is retarding production. Another type of control which seems to be objectionable is the control where the administration of it costs more than the benefits that accrue from the control on the price of the goods. If you have to have a great many inspectors, administrators and agents travelling all over the country, checking on the various storekeepers, taking up their time in producing returns and proving that they are living up to every little detail of the regulations, I suggest that the cost of that administration takes away from the take-home pay of the wage-earners of the family more than is saved to the housewife of the family in getting that particular commodity at a cheap price.
It seems to me that these two types of control must definitely come off if we are to stop the increase in the cost of living.
For just a few minutes tonight I wish to refer to another form of control which to a certain extent is covered in this omnibus bill. It is not a control of prices but is, I think I could say, a control of men's habits. One of the fifty-five orders in council deals with the interim army. I wish to ask whether it is necessary to maintain an interim army at this time. We realize perfectly well why the interim forces were established after the war, during a period of uncertainty when no firm policy had been devised for the regular forces of the crown. It was necessary to have a force in the interim, an interim force, as it was called.
The pattern for the future defence force has been decided on, and we find that the army are short of recruits. Letters are being sent out from the adjutant general's branch to veterans, I presume, or to a large number of veterans-it is addressed, "Dear veterans" -asking them to come back into the forces in order to make up the numbers required not only in the active army but also in the reserve armj'. Yet we still keep several thousand officers and men in this interim army, and by one of these orders in council are continuing this interim army until September of this year. Surely any man who has been in that interim force has had plenty of time to decide whether he is anxious to go on soldiering in the regular' forces of the crown. He can make his decision. Just because there are no vacancies, is there any reason why he should not go in? But if he does not want to go in, or if the officers of the department do not

want that particular man in the regular forces, why not let him get out now? Why not let him go into industry and work producing some commodity which is urgently required? There are still men who are in neither the active force, which in the old days was called the permanent force, or in this interim force but who are still in the active army-that is the wartime army-although they have never disclosed their intention of remaining in the interim army or of going into the active force. Those men in the old war-time active army are, I presume, being retained there under the provisions which are made in these orders in council. Why do we need all these men, some of whom are unwilling soldiers?
There is another regulation which governs the behaviour, shall I say, of the army. It says that the active army and the interim army in Canada are still on active service. I suggest that is an unnecessary control on the habits, behaviour, deportment and discipline of the men of this country. Why should the army in Canada today be considered on active service? I think that is a form of unnecessary control which gives an indication of the inability of the government to release itself of powers which it obtained during the war. After some of the remarks which were made last night in this house, one is diffident about suggesting that we should copy what has been done in Great Britain. But I offer for consideration that the active army or the regular army in Great Britain is no longer on active service, while the regular army here in Canada is on active service. I cannot avoid feeling that is a ridiculous control. It affects the wellbeing and the method of life of the soldier who is in that force, because the scale of punishments while an army is on active service is much greater than the scale of punishments for the same military offences when the army is on its peace-time status. Theoretically, while on active service a man can be shot at dawn. I am not going to suggest it will be carried to that extreme, but the scale of punishment is much heavier on active service than it is in ordinary peace-time soldiering.
There is another point which governs or controls the lives of the soldiers. In peace time, a soldier who becomes dissatisfied with the conditions of the service or who has an opportunity of going to a better job and bettering his mode of life has the option of breaking his contract by purchasing his discharge; but as long as our army here is on active service, a soldier is not permitted to purchase his discharge. I know of a young man who decided that he would remain in

Emergency Powers
the regular force, the active force, and some eighteen months ago he signed up so to do. He is a well educated boy and has become disappointed with his prospects. We know that sort of thing happens quite frequently. He has applied no less than five times to purchase his discharge. The reply has always come back-and this has been referred, so I am told, to the senior officers of the department- that "the active army of Canada is still on active service here in Canada; therefore you may not purchase your discharge." That is the case of only one individual of whom I know; probably there are others, but I think it indicates the frame of mind which may exist over on the government benches which makes it so frightfully difficult for them to relinquish the authority and power they have enjoyed.
I know this debate has revolved mainly around the question of price control as far as commodities are concerned, but I wanted to bring in these illustrations of this other form of control, namely control of our armed forces. I cannot avoid thinking that at the present time, nearly two and a half years after the end of the war, it is unnecessary to control the lives of our soldiers to such an extent that we say they are still on active service here in Canada.
I want now to mention just one other point in reference to veterans; that is, the freezing order which has prevented a veteran from occupying a house he purchased or that was purchased for him during the war. If he had occupied that house before he enlisted and went overseas I believe he could insist upon the tenant moving out; but, as the war went on, our men came back and purchased houses with their savings and gratuities, or acquired them by other means. Until now they have not been able to remove the tenants occupying those homes unless those tenants have been unsatisfactory in that they have not paid their rent, and so forth. Recently, of course, the restrictions were modified slightly, but only to a narrow extent; that is, from one fixed date to another. At the moment I have forgotten the actual dates within which the freezing order has been lifted, but I think it was up to the end of 1945. A veteran purchasing a house after that date cannot get possession of that house.
I have had brought to my attention several cases in which real hardship is being caused. I know of one veteran who is living in a bunk-house, holding on to a job he does not want, until he can get a place to live. He has a place of his own, with some five acres of land, only a few miles away. In the middle of
the war, out of the kindness of his heart, he allowed another family to move in. That family is not working the land, which is lying idle; this veteran has to keep a job he does not want, thereby preventing another man from getting that job, and his land must remain idle because he cannot remove the tenant. One could go on and give numerous cases of that kind, and I suggest that the removal of certain controls-even including those connected with rents-which make it difficult for a veteran to move into his own house should be undertaken, because that is working a definite hardship on many men who have been overseas.
To sum up, I feel that controls which retard production, controls which cost too much to administer, and controls which unnecessarily govern the lives and mode of living of men, should be removed.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Mr. Speaker,
as one of those members of this house who recorded a vote against the address in reply, I should like to put the record straight to some extent by saying I was not voting against every measure or every control dealt with in the bill which will be founded on this resolution. I was recording a vote against what I consider to be the socialism it contains, and the socialism under which the control boards operated during the war. I appreciate that there will be some hardship as a result of removing controls; yet I feel that these controls are such as to lead to socialism, and therefore we should be prepared to face what hardship may result from their removal in order that we may get back to a free society and a free way of living.
I also believe that the abuses and costs under these controls are greater than the benefits derived from them by individuals or industry. I am in agreement with the statement tonight by the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) against boards, controllers and enforcement officers. It seems to me that it would not be a very great step from an enforcement officer to a secret policeman; and I could cite a case exactly similar to the one cited by the hon. member. I have in mind a young veteran in Toronto who obtained a licence to sell used cars. This young veteran also seems to have incurred the displeasure of the wartime prices and trade board office in that city, because he has been persecuted. Every person to whom he sold a car was interviewed by the enforcement officer and, I am informed, practically threatened by that officer that, unless he disclosed the exact price of the car, and unless he was prepared to inform against this used car
Emergency Powers

salesman, he was in danger of being prosecuted by the government. Some of these people saw an opportunity to say they had paid more than the ceiling price, and to make a claim against this veteran. Others were terrified and came to him saying, "What can we do? This enforcement officer has called on us and said all these things, when we know it was a legitimate purchase." That veteran has been in court twice; he has been fined thousands of dollars, and he informs me that this enforcement officer has said he will put him out of business.
Those are some of the abuses which can take place under an organization such as the wartime prices and trade board. Just about a year ago, in agreeing with the hon. member for Temiscouata that these boards should be responsible to parliament, I suggested in this house that Mr. Gordon, who was then chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, should be brought into the house, not only to relieve the then Minister of Finance of the onerous burden he was carrying-perhaps the budget was a result of that-but also to make him responsible to parliament. I also advocated that, for this reason, I felt that one who had been so remote from the public, as the then chairman of the wartime prices and trade board had been, would find it a healthy and refreshing experience to face the electorate of Canada, and that the electorate of Canada would have had an opportunity to express their opinion of the chairman of the vartime prices and trade board. I thought it vould be a healthy procedure all round, and jhe Minister of Finance would also have been relieved of the burden of defence which he had at that time.
I have one further observation to make before asking Your Honour for the privilege to adjourn the debate. It was my opinion last summer, and it still is, that the unfortunate intervention of the then chairman of the wartime prices and trade board in the steel strike was the cause of prolonging that strike and bringing hardship to the labourers and union men in Hamilton; and that had he not made his ten-cent speech, had he not been supported; by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and by the Minister of Reconstruction and. Supply (Mr. Howe), the strike 'ou'ld have been settled in a much shorter time.
How foolish all these ministers and controllers must feel now, when they recall that they said a ten-cent increase in pay for the steel workers would break the price ceiling! How foolish the Minister of Labour must feel,
[Mr. Skey.l
when he recalls that he rose time and time again and said, "You cannot have price control without wage control"-and now, only a few months later, the government has removed wage controls and is still struggling to maintain price control.
On motion of Mr. Skey the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, March 24, 1947