1947-04-14

[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., B.A., L.Ph., PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY 1947
[Stage Direction]
2|ouse of Commons Betmtes
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 14, 1947

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. STEPHENSON:: 1.	What date was land purchased at Welcome, Ontario, to build houses under the V.L.A.?
2.	When were these houses started?
3.	When will these houses be completed?
4.	Were any night watchmen or guards employed on this project?
5.	If so, for what length of time and what has been the remuneration paid up to date or expected to be paid by the time houses are completed?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1.	June 20, 1945.
2.	November 12, 1945.
3.	During the week commencing March 30.
4.	Yes.
5.	November 12, 1945 to March 31, 1947; $2,637.39. Watchman service is employed at prevailing rates; in this locality, $36 per week. Prolonged delays in well drilling at this project contributed to the relatively high .cost.


HOUSING-VETERANS LAND ACT- BOWMANVILLE AREA
Mr. STEPHENSON:: 1.	How much land was bought in connection with building veterans' houses under V.L.A. east of Bowmanville on No. 2 highway?
2.	How many are under construction?
3.	How many have been completed?
4.	If any have been completed, are they occupied as yet? If so, on what terms were they sold or rented?
5.	What will be the cost to the government of each house when completed?
6.	What will be the cost of the whole project, land and houses, when completed?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 
CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE-INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE TESTING LOYALTY
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: 1.	Is there an interdepartmental government committee studying methods for the testing of national loyalty of prospective candidates for dominion public service?
2.	If not, is there a committee which has as its objective or part of an objective a purpose similar to the above?
3.	Who are the members of this committee?
4.	What are the criteria for testing loyalty?
5.	Has this committee made any report or reports?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: As was indicated to the House of Commons by the Prime Minister on February 10 last, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Wellington North (Hansard, page 247), interdepartmental committees are established by the government from time to time as a means of facilitating the despatch of public business. The reports which they make to the government from time to time are confidential and the government itself accepts full responsibility for whatever action may be taken as a result of advice received from such committees.
Among these, at the present time, is a standing interdepartmental panel on security, composed of officials from the departments and agencies of government from time to time concerned. The function of this panel is to advise on the coordination of the planning, organization and execution of security meas-

Questions

ures generally which affect government departments. These measures necessarily include the devising of the best methods of carrying out investigations of applicants for government employment to determine their suitability from a security point of view; but the committee does not deal with individual cases.
Under the terms of the Civil Service Act (sections 4 (a) and 26 (3)) and regulations (Sec. 7) the civil service commission is required to satisfy itself as to the character and habits of persons appointed by it to government employment. These provisions do not however apply to all employees of government departments or agencies nor do they relieve departments of their responsibility for satisfying themselves as to the suitability of individual employees from the security standpoint. "National loyalty" is an aspect of security and it is not considered possible or desirable to establish any rigid criteria for testing loyalty in this sense. As indicated above, ultimate responsibility in this respect rests with the department concerned in each case.


ARMED FORCES-CIVILIAN HOCKEY TEAMS
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Was request made by Halifax parties for permission for certain members of the armed forces to take part, as players, in civilian hockey teams during the season of 1946-47?
2.	Was permission granted? If not, what reason was given for refusal?
3.	Has permission been granted for members of the armed forces to play with Shawinigan Falls or Quebec Aces?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No. The members of the forces concerned could not be spared from their official duties' for the time required to train and play with civilian hockey teams.
3.	Yes. One member of the forces was granted permission to play with the Quebec Aces on condition that any time required from duty would be deducted from his annual leave.
Note: Final decision in these cases, based on the exigencies of the service, rested with the G.O.C. command concerned.


WAR ASSETS-SALE OF TRUCKS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Mr. CASE:: 1.	Since the cessation of hostilities, have any new or used trucks that were in Canada at the time of sale been sold to individuals, corporations or governments of foreign countries?
2.	If so, in what months and years were these sales made?
3.	What was the name of the manufacturer of the trucks and tonnage?
4.	At the time of these sales were there any demands from any individuals or corporations to purchase equipment of a like type or near the type on hand in any government department?


Mr. McILRAITII:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. The following is a list of surplus trucks that were located in Canada and sold direct to foreign governments and to exporters for export to countries as declared by the exporter showing the months and years in which the sales were made, together with the type of truck and tonnage thereof:
(A) Sold to foreign governments:
Country	Quantity	Date sold	Manufacturer	TonnageChina 	.... 409	Feb. 1946	3 tonChina 	.... 533	Feb. 1946	.... G.M	3 tonChina 	.... 14	May 1946	3 tonFrance 	.... 1,517	Feb. 1946	3 tonGreece 	.... 22	April 1946	
Ford 	3 tonGreece 	.... 8	May 1946	
Ford 	3 tonHungary 	.... 6	May 1946	3 tonKorea 	.... 66	Nov. 1946	.... G.M	3 tonNetherlands ...	.... 948	May 1946	30 cwt.Netherlands ...	.... 61	Nov. 1946	.... G.M	15 cwt.Netherlands ...	.... 57	Dec. 1946	.... G.M	15 cwt.Netherlands ...	.... 150	Jan. 1947	.... G.M	15 cwt.Poland 	.... 25	May 1946	.... Ford 	3 tonVenezuela	.. 1,500	Dec. 1946	
Dodge 	3 tonVenezuela 	.... 100	June 1946	3 tonYugoslavia ....	.... 65	May 1946	
Ford 	3 tonT otal	

5,481
		APRIL 14, 1947	Questions	1995
(B) Sold to Exporters for export to countries as declared by exporter:				
Country	Quantity	Date Sold	Manufacturer	TonnageArabia 	. 6	Aug., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonArgentina 	. 1	May, 1946 	Ford 	3 tonArgentina 	. 4	July, 1946 	Ford 	3 tonArgentina 	. 1	Aug., 1946 	G.M. Forklift ...	Argentina 	. 5	Aug., 1946 	G.M	3 tonArgentina 	. 30	Sept., 1946 	G.M	3 tonArgentina 	. 12	Oct., 1946 	G.M	3 tonArgentina 	. 630	Nov., 1946 	G.M	3 tonArgentina 	. 121	Nov., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonArgentina 	. 1	Nov., 1946 	G.M. Forklift ...	Argentina 	. 46	Dec., 1946 	G.M	3 tonArgentina 	. 110	Jan., 1947 	F.W.D	5 tonArgentina 	. 361	Jan., 1947 	Ford 	3 tonArgentina 	. 72	Jan., 1947 	G.M	3 tonArgentina 	. 1	Feb., 1947 	G.M. Forklift ...	Argentina 	. 123	Not invoiced 	G.M. Forklift ...	Bulgaria 	. 1	Aug., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonChina 	. 12	Aug., 1946 	G.M	8 cwt.Colombia 	. 7	May, 1946 	Ford 	3 tonColombia 	. 35	Aug., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonColombia 	. 105	Sept., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonColombia 	. 77	Nov., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonEurope 	. 60	July, 1946 	Ford 	3 tonFrance 	. 504	May, 1946 	G.M	3 tonGreece 	. 26	Feb., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonGreece 	. 5	Mar., 1946 	G.M	8 cwt.Greece 	. 24	Sept., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonPalestine 	. 25	Nov., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonPoland 	. 10	Feb., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonRussia 	. 12	Oct., 1946 	G.M	15 cwt.Russia 	. 12	Oct., 1946 	G.M	3 tonRussia 	. 5	Nov., 1946 	G.M	3 tonRussia 	. 3	Nov., 1946 	G.M	15 cwt.South America ...	. 200	Julv, 1946 	Ford 	3 tonSouth America ..	. 480	Aug., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonSouth America ...	. 60	Oct., 1946 	G.M	8 cwt.South America ..	. 312	Oct., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonSouth America ...	. 311	Nov., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonSouth America ...	. 521	Dec., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonSouth America ...	. 1,056	Dec., 1946 	Ford 	15 cwt.South America ...	. 731	Dec., 1946 	G.M	15 cwt.South America ...	. 156	Dec., 1946 	G.M	3 tonSouth America ...	. 119	Dec., 1946 	G.M	8 cwt.South America ...	. 144	Jan., 1947 	G.M	3 tonSouth America 	. 265	Feb., 1947 	Ford 	3 tonSouth America ...	. 221	Feb., 1947 	G.M	3 tonSouth America ...	. 5	Feb., 1947 	G.M	15 cwt.South America ...	. 24	Not invoiced 	Ford 	3 tonSouth America ...	. 156	Not invoiced 	G.M	3 tonSouth America ...	. 240	Not invoiced 	G.M	8 cwt.South America ...	. 336	Not invoiced 	G.M	15 cwt.Turkey 	. 192	Sept., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonVenezuela 	. 13	Aug., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonYugoslavia 	. 20	Feb., 1946 	Ford 	3 tonTotal 	. 8,009	4. Yes.	83166-128J	
Questions


FEDERAL GRANTS TO MANITOBA AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	How many agricultural societies in the province of Manitoba received federal government grants during the years 1945 to 1946?
2.	What are the names of such societies?
3.	What amount did each society receive in each of the years mentioned above?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1. None.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


DAUPHIN, MAN., AIRPORT
Mr. ZAPLITNY:: 1.	Has the franchise been granted to any firm or individual to operate an air service which includes either airport at Dauphin, Manitoba?
2.	If so, what is the name of such firm or individual ?
3.	On what date and for what period of time tvas such franchise granted?
4.	What other firms or individuals, if any, made application for such franchise?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	Frank M. Hurley
Applied for licence to operate a scheduled commercial air service between the following points:	Winnipeg-Dauphin-The Pas-Flin
Flon.
Application was rejected because the applicant failed to complete all necessary documentation.
Prairie Cities Airlines Limited
Applied for licence to operate a scheduled commercial air service between the following points:	Winnipeg - Portage la Prairie -
Brandon - Dauphin - Yorkton - Regina - Weyburn-Estevan.
Application withdrawn by applicant.
Canadian Pacific Airlines Limited
Applied for licence to operate a scheduled commercial air service between the following points: Winnipeg-Dauphin-The Pas-Flin Flon.
Air transport board decision pending.


DOMINION COUNCIL OF HEALTH
Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	To what extent are the recommendations of the dominion council of health carried out?
2.	In what manner are the recommendations of the said council carried out?
3.	Apart from dealing with specific problems relating to public health, has the said council performed other useful functions?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Aside from making recommendations and proposals and furnishing advice, the council
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
has no authority conferred upon it, and there is nothing obligatory upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare or any other authority to accept its advice or recommendations. However, in the years since its inception, the council has been recognized for the important part it has played in fostering and initiating much useful and progressive health legislation, and its advice and recommendations have come to be regarded as worthy of careful consideration by all concerned.
2.	The Department of National Health and Welfare employs a full-time secretary to the council, who is responsible, under direction of the chairman, for bringing recommendations of the council to the attention of the appropriate authorities, and to report back to the council any action taken in respect thereto.
3.	Yes. The extent to which uniformity has been attained in the provision of public health services by the various provinces is credited largely to the exchange of information and ideas made possible through the getting together of the senior health officials at meetings of the council.


HOUSING
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	What was the amount paid the contractor for each house constructed under the Veterans' Land Act, and what allowance was made for cost plus or management fee at (a) Chilliwack; (b) Mission; (c) Haney?
2.	Was temporary heating used during the construction of these houses at Chilliwack, Mission and Haney? If so, for what reason; what was the cost of same to each house and to whom was the money paid?
3.	How many feet of drains were constructed at the Chilliwack housing project and (a) what was the size of each drain; (b) number of feet of tile purchased; (e) size and price of same; (d) name of firm receiving payment for this work ?
4.	What months were the houses under construction in each project and who were the inspectors in charge?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1.	House costs not yet finally determined by cost inspection and audit division of treasury. Management fee per unit: $180 plus $65 for plant rental.
2.	Yes, to dry out plaster etc. so that work could proceed without undue delay. The average cost per unit was $7.61 at Chilliwack; $6.56 at Mission; and $28.05 at Haney. Payment was made to the contractors Bennett & White.
3.	5,000 feet of tile Used for drainage purposes plus effluent lines for septic tanks, (a)

Questions
Four inches in diameter; (b) 7036; (c) Four inches in diameter costing approximately 6| cents per foot; (d) Bennett & White.
4t. Project-Under Construction-Inspectors
Chilliwack, July 26, 1945 to Aug. 15, 1946, John W. Lewis approximately first six months and E. A. Heaton from then on until completion of work.
Mission, July 30, 1945 to July 15, 1946, E. A. Bennett.
Haney, June 12, 1945 to Aug. 15, 1946, A. R. Johnson.


PASSPORTS
Mr. POULIOT:: Is an application for passport a public or a confidential document?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: An application for passport is a confidential document.
aircraft "north star"


Mr. CASE:: 1.	By whom was the aircraft North Star designed?
2.	What, to date, has the government spent on building this aircraft?
3.	Has the government ceased to construct these aeroplanes? If so, for what reason?
Country
United Kingdom	
Aden	
Gambia	
Gold Coast	
Bermuda	
British Guiana	
British Honduras	
Barbados	
Jamaica	
Trinidad	
British West Indies, other
Newfoundland	
Greenland	
Colombia	
Ecuador	
Egypt	
French West Indies	
St. Pierre & Miquelon....
Greece	
Iraq	
Nicaragua	
Norway	
Alaska	
United States	
Totals


Mr. McILRAITH:: In answer to the first part of this question, I may say that the North Star is a Douglas type of aircraft designed by Douglas Aircraft Company Incorporated, and modified for Rolls Royce Merlin engines by Douglas Aircraft Company Incorporated, Rolls Royce and Canadair in collaboration with Trans-Canada Air Lines and the R.C.A.F.
As to parts 2 and 3 of the question, a statement was made by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply on March 20 last, which will be found at pages 1540 to 1544 of Hansard; and in addition to that, a parliamentary return was tabled earlier this afternoon giving additional information in answer to the question.


EXPORTS OF BUTTER
Mr. DENIS:: 1.	Did Canada export any butter during 1944, 1945 and 1946?
2.	If so, what quantity was exported and to what countries?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Canadian exports by countries of butter during the calendar years 1944, 1945 and 1946:
1944	1945	1946Lb.	Lb.	Lb.200	1,400	4,800	9.400	6,400	169,000	289.500	407,800	512,300623,600	563.100	614,90093,700	147.800	39,400266,100	589,800	530,400290,800	229,000	373,8001.739.100	1.960.600	1,351,600463,200	573,400	676,400861,800	825,500	316,20011.800	300200	8,100	12,500	78,400	90,800	93,100100	700	100	6.200	100	1009004,726,700	5,598,300	4,509,400
Orders for Returns


SUGAR QUOTAS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Are the persons who served overseas the only ones being granted new sugar quotas by the wartime prices and trade board, for confectionery ?
2.	Is such privilege denied those who have not served overseas?
3.	If so, for what reason?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	No. Limited sugar quotas are granted to any ex-serviceman for the manufacture of confectionery who, whether he served overseas or not, has received or is entitled to a gratuity under the War Service Grants Act 1944.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


TIMBER INSPECTORS
Mr. HODGSON:: 1.	How many lumber and/or timber inspectors are employed by the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	Of these, how many are (a) full-time inspectors; (b) part-time inspectors?
3.	What remuneration do the (a) full-time inspectors; (b) part-time inspectors receive?
4.	Have the part-time inspectors any other employment ?
5.	If so, by what other firms are each of them employed?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1. 12.
2.	(a) 12; (b) none.
3.	(a) 1 at 83,600; 2 at 82.880; 2 at $2,580; 1 at $2,400 ; 4 at $2,280 ; 2 at $2,124; (b) answered by 2 (b).
4 and 5. Answered by 2 (b).


LINDSAY ARSENAL
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	What is the personnel in charge of the arsenal at Lindsay, Ontario?
2.	How many of this personnel have had overseas service?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	One hundred and ninety four, all employees of Canadian Arsenals Limited. The special work on which most of these employees are engaged will be completed within two months. At that time the staff will be reduced to approximately 60.
2.	Forty-six.


PERMITS FOR EXPORT OF LEAD
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASE;
How many permits were issued in 1946 for export of lead and to whom were these permits issued and for what reason?
Mr. MacKINNON:: One hundred and seventeen export permits were issued during 1946

covering the export of lead in bars, lead sheets, lead concentrates, antimonial lead, virgin pig lead, corrosive lead, refined lead, caulking lead, re-run lead, barium lead, and silver lead crude ore.
The name of firms applying for export permits is confidential information.
Canada normally produces more lead and lead products than we can consume in this country. Export controls are continued to assure adequate and reasonable supplies on the domestic market.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. PROBE:: With respect to air mail carrying contracts with T.C.A. and/or other air carriers for carrying mail matter (1) what is the rate of carriage charged by each company carrying mail; (2) what, total air mail poundage was carried over each authorized route by each air carrier in the year 1946; (3) what total carriage charges was paid on each of these routes by or on behalf of the Post Office Department; (4) what was the estimated or actual net loss by the department on each of the above routes in 1946?


CENSORSHIP OF PUBLICATIONS
Mr. KNIGHT:: 1.	What department of government has to do with the censorship of publications?
2.	Under what authority is such censorship exercised, and what is the procedure?
3.	Who is the official having the final decision as to the banning of (a) a book domestically produced; (b) a book whose publishers wish to introduce it into Canada?
4.	What is the background and training of such individual with reference to the task of such censorship?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Return tabled.


FERNAND CHOQUETTE, K.C.
Mr. CAOUETTE:: What amounts, if any, were paid to Fernand Choquette, K.C., Quebec barrister, as agent of the various departments of the government for each of the years 1939 to 1947, inclusive?


CONTAINER ASSEMBLY PLANT BUILDING, RIDEAU RIVER FALLS
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Under what department has the container assembly plant building at Rideau river falls operated during the years 1945 and 1946?
2.	How many thousand feet of ten-test sheeting and dressed lumber was bought for use during the years 4945 and 1946?
3.	What was the total quantity of builders' hardware, paint, glass, etc., bought for use in this building during the years of 1945 and 1946?
4.	What quantity of the above-mentioned materials were used in this building?

Inquiries o/ the Ministry
5.	What quantities, if any, were shipped from this building in army trucks?
6.	What quantity is at present on hand, and stored in this building?
7.	Who operated this plant for the two years prior to March 31, 1947?
8.	Is there an investigation being conducted at the present time regarding material taken from this building?


INCOME TAX
Mr. TIMMINS:: How many married women in the Ottawa taxation area paid income tax in 1945 in respect to salaries alone (as contrasted from those who paid income tax on investments), and what was the aggregate of the income tax so paid?


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is based on a press dispatch issued from the united nations headquarters at Lake Success yesterday. According to this dispatch a special session of the general assembly of the united nations is to be called for April 28 next to take up the Palestine problem. My questions are two in number:	(1) Has
Canada been invited to attend this meeting? (2) Will the minister now advise the house of the government's plans with respect to this special united nations meeting, and, so far as it can do so, indicate its policy with respect to the Palestine question?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): To the first question the answer is in the affirmative. The department this morning received a dispatch from Lake Success dated yesterday notifying us that a majority of the members had yesterday concurred in the request of the United Kingdom to summon a special session of the general assembly, and that in accordance with rules 3 and 8 of the provisional rules of procedure of the general assembly the secretary general was notifying us that this special session will open on Monday, April 28, 1947, at eleven a.m. in the general asembly hall, Flushing Meadows, New York City. The provisional agenda of the special session is to be as follows:
1.	Opening of the session by the chairman of the Belgian delegation.
2.	Election and report of credentials committee.
3.	Election of president for the duration of the special session.
4.	Organization of session.
5.	Adoption of agenda.
All these are, of course, just preliminaries. Then the only real item on the agenda is the following:	Constituting and instructing
special committee to prepare for consideration of the question of Palestine at second regular session. The Canadian government had previously expressed its acquiescence in the application of the United Kingdom for a special session of the assembly for the limited purpose mentioned in this article of the agenda.
As to the second part of the question asked by the leader of the opposition, the government feel that this special session will not require a delegation comprising cabinet representation, but that it will suffice to have a delegation of officials of the Department of External Affairs. The present plans are to have that small official delegation headed by the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs.
As to the remainder of the question, asking for an indication of the government's policy with respect to the Palestine question, the government's policy at present is to concui in this application that there be set up a committee to prepare for consideration th< question of Palestine at the next general session of the assembly.


John Bracken: Would it be correct to say that this meeting which is called for April 28 is more in the nature of a preliminary meeting for the study of this question, the same to be eventually decided at a fuller and larger regular meeting of the general assembly?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Our understanding is that it is to constitute a committee which will gather information which will be available for the purpose of dealing intelligently with the problem at the next regular session of the assembly.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I have another question which I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is with respect to the trade discussions now taking place at Geneva. I am raising this question simply because of the conflicting reports which have gone out from Britain, from here and from the headquarters of the united nations at New York. For instance, Sir Stafford Cripps is
Inquiries oj the Ministry

reported to the effect that the British are standing by empire preferences. Our own representative, Mr. Wilgress, is reported to the effect that Canada is giving its whole-hearted backing to freer multilateral trade; and there was a press dispatch yesterday of another character. My question is this: Will the government now inform us what decision was arrived at by the preliminary conference in London; and, secondly, what instruction has our delegation received from the government with respect to the attitude it should take on trade matters at Geneva?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I do not think that these reports must necessarily be regarded as conflicting. The statement that Canada is giving its whole-hearted backing to freer multilateral trade is a correct statement, but it is not the whole statement in itself. Canada does not intend to give up what it holds for anything less than something better that it would hold after the arrangement is made. My understanding of the attitude of Sir Stafford Cripps is that it is quite in accord with that general policy. The whole attitude would not be correctly summarized in stating that the United Kingdom was standing by the empire preferences. I think we all regard the empire preferences as something quite precious which we do not intend to give up unless we get something which together we consider to be better than what we already have.
As to whether it will be possible for me to make or table a report on the discussions of the preliminary conference in London, that is something I would have to consider, because, being only one of the members of the conference, wrn shall have to see to it that we do not publicize anything which it might not be agreeable to the other conferees to have publicized before the line of conduct decided upon at that conference has been implemented in the negotiations at Geneva. I shall endeavour to give to the house as complete information as possible in that regard.


James Angus MacKinnon: Some days ago
the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) asked me a question along this line. I was preparing an answer, but I believe the answer just given by my colleague pretty well covers the question. If so I should be glad if the hon. member would accept that statement as an answer to his inquiry.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce stick to his guns in regard to the speech he made 
in the Ottawa valley, and not pay too much attention to what has been said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


James Angus MacKinnon: I think the statement
to which my hon. friend refers, made by me, is exactly in line with the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


INQUIRY AS TO RAIL GRADING BY PACKERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LEWIS MENARY (Wellington North):: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is there any truth in the report that all cattle sold at stock yards across Canada will be rail graded by the packers and that the farmer will have to accept these returns as he does for hogs? If this is done the sale of cattle will be controlled by the packers, since, when the grading is done, the animals will be beyond the control of the farmers, the legitimate owners.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: No arrangements have been made by the federal Department of Agriculture to rail grade cattle. I have no information as to what is being done provincially.



INDIAN ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I do not know to whom I should direct this question, whether to the Minister of Mines and Resources, the Secretary of State or the Minister of Justice. It has to do with the conviction a few days ago of a British war bride for an offence contrary to the Indian Act, in the matter of an infraction of the liquor regulations. The question I wish to ask is this. In view of this anomaly having arisen and this woman having been declared to have the nationality of her husband by reason of marriage, is consideration being given to the amendment of the Citizenship Act to remove this anomaly, or in any event to grant this woman a free pardon?


Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I do not know whether the
question is addressed to me, but I believe it should be placed on the order paper. At all events I shall take this as notice, and perhaps the proper minister will give an answer later.

Flood Control



INQUIRY AS TO CHANGE IN SITTING HOURS

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I should like to direct a question to the acting leader of the government having to do with matters closer to home. Has the government given consideration to the point raised before the Easter recess in regard to changing the sitting hours of the house?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): The government has given the matter some consideration and has decided to postpone further consideration until the dean of the house has returned to his duties here.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
PERMIT COMPLETION OF VETERANS* HOUSES
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply whether consideration has been given to curtailing unessential building so that hundreds of partly completed veterans' houses across Canada may be finished without further delay in regard to such materials as nails, lath and lumber.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I would ask hon. members to be brief and to the point when putting questions on the orders of the day.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I have an answer? I am referring to the hundreds of houses partly constructed.


George James McIlraith: I can easily answer part of the question, but it is difficult to find just what portion of the hon. member's fairly lengthy statement forms the question. It has to do with the shortage of building materials which does exist at present. Continuous consideration has been given this problem, and to enable veterans to complete their houses a system of priorities has been worked out for housing materials for veterans, which has been announced regularly from time to time. That system is in operation at present. I do not know what more I can say at this time by way of answer to the question. It would require a long statement to cover the matter fully.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: My question is whether consideration is being given to the curtailment of unessential building.



FLOOD CONTROL-FEED GRAIN SUBSIDIES-VACANCY IN HALIFAX CONSTITUENCY-STATEMENT OF MR. BRACKEN

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
John Bracken: A few days ago the acting leader of the government (Mr. St. Laurent) indicated that each Monday, by a motion to go into committee of supply, hon. members would be given an opportunity to raise questions they might consider to be important and which had not been dealt with or finally decided. I am aware that a number of hon. gentlemen propose to bring up different matters. I want to mention only three, and I shall deal with them very briefly.
The first matter I wish to bring up is one which has been presented to us every day recently from different parts of Canada. I refer to the damage arising from floods in various sections of the country. It is the question of flood control and conservation. As hon. members know, we have on the statute book the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, a measure which has gone a very long way toward the rehabilitation of some of the drier sections of western Canada. I believe it is generally accepted throughout the nation that this is a wise and constructive policy. Events of the last few days in different parts of Canada indicate that legislation of this kind should be extended, and that this sort of policy should be provided for other places. Today one reads that almost in the centre of the dry belt of the prairies floods are doing serious damage not only to farms but also to farm buildings and to urban centres. I am referring particularly to the valley of the Saskatchewan near the city of Saskatoon. The newspapers are full of reports of the flood damage in western Ontario. For two or three days last week I had the opportunity to see something of the damage done by floods along the Grand river, the Thames, the Sydenham, and other rivers in that district. As I witnessed that damage it occurred to me that one of the greatest opportunities to do a permanent job of reconstruction is before the province of Ontario and the Dominion of Canada, in the immediate initiation of a well-rounded out policy of conservation for that area.
Within a mile of this building we can see some of the damage that has been done in the valley of the Rideau, right in the suburbs of this city. It will be said that a problem of this kind falls primarily upon the provinces. By a

Feed Grain Subsidies

measure that is correct. But in respect of a problem of this magnitude I say we cannot rest on our oars by taking any such attitude. The problem of the conservation and development of the natural resources of the nation is a major responsibility of the central government as well as of the provinces.
Canada has been profligate in respect of her resources, with, the result that in many instances our forests have been overcut. Our soils have been w'asted-not only on the plains of western Canada but on the slopes throughout the east. Our streams have become sedimented and the flow of our rivers altered to the point where in the spring we suffer from floods in the same areas where in midsummer the rivers are dry or relatively so.
The dominion government has not been without plans in respect of this particular kind of problem. Its plans were set- out in the proposals of the dominion as they were presented to the dominion-provincial conference in August 1945. They looked toward meeting conditions such as these which this year have caused so much waste and damage throughout the nation.
At pages 24 and 25 of this document the approach of the dominion government is indicated as follows:
Activities for which the provincial governments are responsible, and which the dominion is prepared to consider assisting, provided specific agreement can be reached-
And it goes on in these words:
Assistance to raise provincial standards, in the general national interest, in respect to the conservation, protection and development of provincial natural resources.
And then, under the heading "Agriculture"-
Extension of conservation activities to ail provinces. For example, water conservation, land drainage, marsh lands rehabilitation, land clearing, soil erosion control.
Here we have a problem right on our doorstep. The need of action is emphasized by the tremendous loss we see on all sides. In this outline by the government there is an indication that it has given some thought to the matter. But nothing is being done-for the reason, I take it, that the dominion and the provinces have not been called together to discuss this very kind of thing.
What I wish to do today is to point out the problem, and to indicate that in large measure it is the responsibility of the central government-a matter to which it has already given some thought, but about which nothing is being done because the dominion and the provinces have not been called together. With

all respect I suggest this is an added argument for their being called at once to meet in another conference.
The second question I wish to raise has to do with agricultural subsidies, or a certain phase of that subject. On March 17 last the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) announced a policy of feed grain drawbacks amounting to 25 cents a bushel on barley and 10 cents on oats. This announcement was made while parliament was in session, and it is reported in detail at page 1408 of Hansard. At the moment I shall not take time to read it, but I have no doubt hon. members will recall the announcement made on that occasion. The effect of that policy was to reduce the cost of feed grain to certain users of those products. Two weeks later, on April 2, when the house was not in session, a report appeared in the press indicating that another statement had been made by the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: The same statement,


John Bracken: I shall read from the Free Press of April 2, which contains a report of a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture at a banquet held in the Prince Edward hotel at Brandon, Manitoba. The report states:
He also announced that the refund of 25 cents per bushel on barley and 10 cents on oats offered to purchasers of feed grain for live stock will be discontinued on August 1, 1947.
On March 17 it was announced that the subsidy would be continued; and then, according to this report, on April 2 it was announced it would be taken off on August 1. I believe the house is entitled to know what the situation is, so that there may be no confusion or misunderstanding. We should be told whether this second statement is a statement of government policy; and if so, whether the minister or someone else in the government will elaborate upon it. A bald statement of that kind, with no announcement of modified policy in related matters, leads to misunderstanding and confusion in the minds of those who are directly interested in such change of policy.
For example, when the policy was announced on March 17 there can be no doubt that feeders throughout the country planned their work having in mind that the policy first announced would be carried out. Two weeks later they read in the press-whether it is correct or not-that on August 1 the policy is to be discontinued. If it is not continued it will mean that those who are in or are going into that business-the feeding business-will at. that time find their costs of production increased, with the result that either the prices

Vacancy in Halifax County
of their products must be increased or their production must drop. I am asking that the government's policy in this respect be made clear, and I do so chiefly because there is a great deal of confusion and considerable misunderstanding with respect to it.
The other point I wish to raise at this time is one which affects all hon. members. It has to do with the vacancy in the constituency of Halifax. This vacancy has continued now much longer than vacancies in other constituencies which have occurred in the last few months. For instance, the constituency of Pontiac remained vacant only 137 days from the time of the death of the late member, Mr. McDonald, to the time of the election. The constituency of Parkdale was vacant 203 days from the time of the resignation of Doctor Bruce to the election on October 21, 1946. The vacancy in Portage la Prairie existed for 172 days from the death of Mr. Harry Leader to the election on that same date. In Riche-lieu-Vercheres the vacancy existed only 63 days from the time of the death of Hon. Mr. Cardin to the time of the election on December 23 of last year.
The Cartier vacancy existed for only 60 days from the time of the unseating of Fred Rose to the election on March 31 of this year.
If an election were called tomorrow in Halifax the lapse of time between the vacancy occurring and the election would be 206 days, longer than the vacancy in any of these other seats. In this connection I am going to quote the opinion given-I was going to say of another authority, but I will say, of an authority. It was given when the present Prime Minister sat where I am now sitting. He had this to say about a similar situation that existed at th'at time. I am quoting from Hansard of January 29, 1934, page 18, where the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is reported as having said:
However, if still further evidence is required to show not only the manner in which the public has lost confidence in this administration but the manner in which the government has lost confidence in itself, it will be found in the fact that at the present time, and since May last, there has been a vacancy in the representation in the constituency of South Oxford. I ask the administration this question: When the writs were issued for the constituencies of Yamaska, Restigouche-Madawaska and Mackenize, why was not a writ issued for the constituency of South Oxford?
I ask the same question, substituting only the names of the other constituencies I have mentioned. When the writs were issued for the constituencies of Cartier, Richelieu-Ver-83166-1291
cheres, Portage la Prairie, Parkdale and others why was not a writ issued for the constituency of Halifax?
I submit, sir, that on these three matters the government should have something to say at this time, particularly with respect to the first two. One is a matter of national importance, and one a matter which needs to be cleared up in the interests of the producers. The other concerns us all, but chiefly the electors of Halifax. I submit that the government should make a statement now as to when it intends to see that that constituency is represented in this house.



COST OF LIVING-AMENDMENT, MR. COLDWELL, TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in substantial agreement with what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) has just said. Like the leader of the opposition, last week I had an opportunity of seeing the flood conditions in the Chatham-Windsor-London area. I saw many thousands of acres of good land under several feet of water. I agree with him that this is a serious matter from the point of view of the economy of Canada because of the soil erosion which occurs under such conditions. The washing away of the top soil in this part of the province of Ontario, one of its most productive parts, is analogous to the wind-blown soil of western Canada during the drought period; in Saskatchewan during that drought period the government was compelled to consider what could be done to prevent erosion and to bring about better conditions. So we got the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which, may I say, I think has done in a limited way an exceedingly good job.
I agree also with what the leader of the opposition has said with regard to the prices of barley and oats. The producers should be in a position to know definitely what the government intends to do. I must say that my impression was not that apparently conveyed by the article from the Winnipeg Free Press to which the leader of the opposition referred.
With regard to the Halifax by-election, we are anxious to see the various constituencies properly represented in this house.
But I did not rise particularly to speak about these matters. We have all come back fresh from the country. Some hon. members have been to their constituencies, and others have moved around in different parts of Canada. What we have found over the last several weeks should cause this house a good
Cost oj Living

deal of concern. The people of Canada are worried as perhaps they have not been worried for a very long time. I met a good many who were worried about how they are going to make ends meet during the next few months or the next year. I am not dealing specifically with the question of controls; I am dealing with the cost of living. The sharp increases in the cost of living to the people of Canada are causing misgivings in the minds of those who are responsible for the family budgets.
Unfortunately, from the point of view of the government and those who have not given sufficient attention to meeting this increased cost of living, there are the articles which are to be found in the Financial Post or on the financial pages of the Globe and Mail and other papers showing the profits which have been made during the past year or so by various industries. Various items which enter largely into the cost of living have gone up sharply since the beginning of the year. For example, shortening has gone up ten cents per pound. Soap has gone up one cent per bar. Biscuits have increased by ten per cent. Soap flakes have gone up from one to five cents a package. Shirts and underwear have gone up twenty-five per cent. Leather gloves and mitts, which the workers have to buy and which are so necessary in our climate, have gone up from eleven to sixteen per cent since January 31.
As I said a few moments ago, the people read these articles and see what the industries are making. I have before me an extract from the Financial Post which shows that the Monarch Knitting Company, for example, shows an increase of profits for 1946 over 1945 of 309 per cent. The Acme Glove Works shows an increase of 289 per cent. Bruck Silk Mills Limited shows an increase of 255 per cent. York Knitting Mills show an increase of 70 per cent, while Riverside Silk Mills show an increase of 69-2 per cent. Wool Combing Corporation show an increase of 57 per cent. I am just giving round figures, omitting the decimal points. Robinson Cotton Mills shows an increase of 39 per cent. Biltmore Hats Limited show an increase of 23 per cent, and Belding Corticelli 12 per cent. The average increase in profits in 1946 over 1945 was 107 per cent.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: After taxes.


Major James William Coldwell: That is after taxes, as one of my hon. friends reminds me. When the people see these profits, when they see the policy that has been put into effect, they are not only filled with misgiving and concern; they are filled with a good deal of indignation, and rightly so. The same thing applies to

other major articles of household necessity for which the people of this country have been waiting for a long time. I refer to things such as washing machines. In this connection we find that Beatty Brothers show an increase of 23 per cent in profits over the previous year, and the same thing applies to the Easy Washing Machine Company. The same with mattresses. One could enumerate a whole list of commodities, some little irritating things. We know how the prices of soft drinks and chocolate bars have increased over the years. The price of soft drinks has not gone up very recently, but we are deluged with letters from various organizations in our constituencies asking, and I think quite properly, that the price of soft drinks should be restored to a nickel so that the youngsters can buy them; and I am all in sympathy with that. But the inference is that price increases are entirely due to the taxation policies of the government. Orange Crush showed an increase in net profits last year of 448-3 per cent over the previous year. You can hardly square that with the requests for tax reduction that are coming to us.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't drink it.


Major James William Coldwell: It is probably better to take soft drinks than hard ones, which sometimes have disastrous results.
Look at the increase that has taken place in the rentals of hotel rooms. Permission was given to hotels to increase their room rents at the same time that the ten per cent rent increase was announced. The Windsor hotel in Montreal showed an increase in profits last year of 70-3 per cent over 1945.
The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) a few moments ago spoke of the difficulty of getting materials for the building of veterans' houses. That of course involves the question of controls, but at the moment I am not particularly looking at it from that point of view. I am thinking of several good reasons why houses, veterans' and others, are costing more. Again I go to the Financial Post for my data. In its issue of February 22, it shows that the net profits of Building Products, after taxes, jumped from $335,000 odd in 1945 to $1,295,000 in
1946.	If hon. gentlemen will do a little figuring they will see that this works out at an increase of 286 per cent in profits last year over the previous year.


Mr. ABBOTT:: How did their sales compare?


Major James William Coldwell: I am speaking of their profits at the moment.

Cost oj Living


Mr. ISNOR:: Which profits?


Major James William Coldwell: Net profits after taxes, and the figures I am using I am taking not from some socialist paper, or some publication which is ultra-radical or believes in what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) now calls a compensated economy, whatever that may mean-


Mr. MACKENZIE:: It is a good name for you to learn about.


Major James William Coldwell: I am going to ask the hon. member to define it one of these days. It has puzzled me to know what he really means.


An hon. MEMBER:: Perhaps he is starting a new party.


Major James William Coldwell: An hon. member sug- _ gests that the member for Vancouver Centre may be starting a new party. He has started a discussion at least. I could cite other examples of increased profits: Canadian Western Lumber Company, up 121 per cent; Canada Cement, up 101-6 per cent; and so it goes. Take the increase that was recently put into effect in the price of one of the few remaining luxuries our children enjoy, chocolate bars, which for so long sold at a nickel.
I was in Windsor a few days ago-


Mr. MARTIN:: A good city.


Major James William Coldwell: A very good city, yes. The children there are better situated for buying chocolate bars, as the hon. member who interjected perhaps knows, because when a youngster on the street was asked how he liked to pay eight cents for a chocolate bar he gave some good advice. He said, "I did not pay eight cents; I bought mine in Detroit." Perhaps that is why my hon. friend says Windsor is a very good city.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; because of the people there.


Major James William Coldwell: The price of chocolate bars went up to eight cents on the same day in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. That looks as if there was not much competition in that branch of the industry. It seems to have such a closely knit organization as to be able to put into effect almost immediately an increase in price in all three cities.
Look at the profits of these companies. Moir's, I suppose, is one of the largest chocolate manufacturing companies. Its profits last year were up 153 per cent.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Over what?


Major James William Coldwell: Over 1945.


James Garfield Gardiner: What were the figures
for those years?


Major James William Coldwell: The figures were $81,543 in 1945 and $206,067 in 1946. That is a pretty
big increase.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What were their total sales?


Major James William Coldwell: After all, their capitalization is the same, and if their capitalization remains about the same and their total sales increase, they should be able to bring down their price.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My only reason for asking the question is this. After you had the figure of the total sales you could see what the extra $150,000 would have meant in a reduction of price. That is relevant. It might have amounted to only a fraction of a cent.


Major James William Coldwell: One company in Canada, International Nickel, had increased profits last year on lower sales.


An hon. MEMBER:: Good management.


Major James William Coldwell: Good management, yes. But may I say to my hon. friend that I agree with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) who in a speech before the Canadian Importers and Traders Association in Toronto last Friday gave that organization some pretty good advice. He said:
It is not always easy to be as confident about the benefits of private enterprise as we would like to be.
He added:
And if we should run into a minor recession, who is going to benefit by it? The Progressive Conservatives? No. The C.C.F.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: What is the hon. gentleman quoting from?


Major James William Coldwell: Does my hon. friend deny it?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, not a word; but I might say that anything of mine that is printed by the Toronto Star is always carefully hand-picked to prove their point, and leaves out the rest.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not unusual with all kinds of newspapers, as I myself have discovered.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But the Star is easily first.


Major James William Coldwell: I am leaving out some of the things my hon. friend said, but I am giving the exact idea he had in mind, and I do not think he will say that the statement I have put before the house does not convey the idea he expressed at that meeting. He went on to say:
There are price agreements to-day. There are a lot of people trying to charge what the traffic will bear. If the business men really believed in freedom, they would not do that.
Cost of Living

That is my whole point today. He went on:
This whole free system of ours is on trial. Socialists say prices are going up.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if all the people who say that prices are going up are socialists, there will be no one but socialists in this House of Commons after the next election.


An hon. MEMBER:: What a hopel


Major James William Coldwell: I did not say it was a hope. I said that would happen if the assumption was correct. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario went on to say:
Socialists say prices are going up. I say we are going to cure that by production. If we don't, then it is going to be too bad.
That is true. Cure it by production, but remember that if we are to cure it by production we must see that consumption is able to take what production can produce, and if we allow the present trend to go on and prices to keep rising, as they have been rising lately, there will be plenty of production but the purchasing power of the people will be drained off and they will not be able to buy the goods that are available.
I thought there was a very neat comment in the Ottawa Citizen upon the little matter of chocolate bars, and I should like to quote it, if I may. It appears in the issue of April 11:
Chocolate bars are up to eight cents. But some of the bars are shorter than when they sold for a nickel, necessitating the use of more cardboard to make them look longer. So considering the increased cost of paper, maybe the new price is about right.
I thought that was quite a neat comment by the Ottawa Citizen. I would like to ask my hon. friends to my right exactly where they stand on this matter. I am not going into the question of controls, but it is involved to some extent in this connection. I read, not in the Toronto Star but in the Globe and Mail of March 28, this little stoiy about their recent national meeting.
A resolution on government controls, for instance, is said to have engendered a wide difference of opinion. The old line Conservatives want a resolution which would put the party on record as demanding that all controls be dropped forthwith. The Progressive element favoured a resolution favouring controls on rent, foreign exchange and essential goods.
I looked carefully through the resolutions that were passed by my hon. friends at the meeting over that week-end, and I could not find any resolution dealing with controls. I came to the conclusion therefore that they could not have agreed very well. But may I say to the government that this business of an increased price level is something that we

cannot laugh off. The people are looking to this House of Commons to do something and, through the house, to bring pressure to bear upon the government to do something to reverse the trend. If we do not, we shall be faced with serious difficulties.
We supported the wheat agreement, for example; we supported it both in the house and in the country. When we supported it we thought that the price level would remain about where it was, but the cost of production has gone up, and at the time the Minister of Agriculture referred to the fund of S200 million, the inference was that it might be used to compensate for increases in production costs, though it cannot be used for that purpose. But there is the principle we have to keep in mind, that if the cost of living is going up and the cost of production is also rising, then of necessity the Minister of Finance will have to find ways and means, in the words of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, of producing a compensating economy in wheat at least, and that is a matter which this house will not be permitted to overlook, if it would.
Higher wages in industry will be demanded, and we shall find ourselves in a difficult position indeed. I shall not go into a long discussion of that question this afternoon, but I do want to raise the whole question of increasing prices because I think this house has to face it. It is all very well to say that we have to increase production. I agree with that. But we have to bear in mind that if the money in the pockets of the people buys less, then of course the products of industry will begin to pile up and we shall reach that stage of recession which has been talked about particularly on the other side of the line.
As I believe I said on another occasion in this house, the productivity of the worker during the war years increased tremendously. I notice that lately in a report the acting commissioner of labour for the United States government, A. F. Hinrichs, said:
We anticipated an extraordinarily rapid increase in the output per man-hour in most industries, and did experience a similar rapid increase in productivity in the years immediately following the first world war. It seems to us that an increase of as much as 30 per cent by 1950 may reasonably be expected.
That is, all across American industry.
I saw a report by another writer in one of the United States papers to the effect that already in some industries productivity per man hour has increased by 40 per cent. That will be reflected, of course, in consumption; if we fail to consume the products of industry,

Cost of Living
then it will be reflected in unemployment; and one of the ways of preventing consumption of goods is to keep prices too high, thus reducing the amount of goods which the dollar of the consumer will buy.
Just to confirm my point, according to Doctor Julius Hirsch, Barron's Weekly, November 19, 1945:
The United States in 1945 needed only thirty-six million people to produce the_ quantity of goods produced by forty-five million in 1939; thus, to employ the same numbers of people as in 1939, output would have to be 25 per cent higher, and 25 per cent more effective purchasing power would be needed to assure a market for the additional goods.
The tragedy is that in the hands of the people of Canada at the present time there is a good deal of purchasing power, accumulated during the war, which is being drained off by the high prices to which I have referred. The Minister of Finance the other day took a good deal of credit, and I give the minister and the department credit, for the enormous savings that had been made during the war by the institution of wartime controls. He said that the annual savings amounted to $2,500 million, and he gave the annual cost of making these savings-expenses of wartime prices and trade board subsidies and so on- as $200 million. If it was true for the whole five years-probably it was not-the total saving would be $12,500 million, at a cost of $1 billion, and that would be a little less than $1,000 per head saved for every man, woman and child in Canada. This is a remarkable confirmation of the effectiveness of what was done in that field to prevent undue profits and undue prices during the war.
It should be interesting, may I say, to the members of the government to note how some of the financial newspapers are changing their tune. Take the Financial Post. I shall not quote at length, but if hon. members will read the editorial in that journal of July 13, 1946, at page 1, they will find that they demand that we do pretty much what the United States did-remove controls. Then you find that a little later, on November 9, 1946- also at page 1-they were complaining that we had not done what the United States had done, that we were shilly-shallying and not acting rapidly enough. Take the most recent one, April 12, 1947, and what do we find? This appears in the same newspaper:
Caught between high taxes and sharply-rising prices, consumers are not going to be any more complacent when they learn that company profits have been mounting. A survey on page 5-
That is where some of my figures came from.
-of the combined results of sixty Canadian companies, shows 1946 earnings almost 30 per cent higher than for 1945.
The same trend is abundantly apparent in the United States, where President Earl Bunting, of the National Association of Manufacturers, bluntly warns: "If the constant upward winding of the spiral continues, you will see one of the most terrible busts this country ever had."
If that does happen, few indeed can plead lack of warning.
Exactly the same thing happened two years after the first world war. Prices went up, quality went down, and finally buyers rebelled. Already there are signs that there is a limit as to what the consumer will pay. The first scramble for high priced luxuries and durable goods has slackened. Instead of waiting until organized buyers resistance compels drastic price cutting, business would be far smarter, and in the end more prosperous, if it voluntarily lowered prices now.
That is the advice that the Financial Post gives now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: See what wise advisers we have.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Yes, it was a very wise speech which my hon. friend for Muskoka-Ontario made. I only wish that all his speeches were equally wise. But if we look away from these goods again to other lines, we have the pulp and paper industry, a big industry in Canada. It is true that output has gone up, but look at the increase in the company's profits-and the increase, incidentally, in the price of newsprint. The price of newsprint rose by $29 a ton on January 21, 1946, an increase of fifty-one per cent in that period up to April 1, 1947. The source of that statement is the Montreal Gazette of April 3.


Mr. JACKMAN:: W7here did they sell the newsprint?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: That does not matter. It is profits that I am talking about. It does not matter whether they hold up Canadians or whether they hold up somebody else. Let us take it that they send it to Britain and that they hold up Britain. What are they doing?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Who held them down in the thirties?


James Horace King: Order.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: What are they doing as far as Britain is concerned? Britain obtained a loan from this country. If the price increase is great on any commodity that we sell to Britain, we restrict the amount of goods we can send to assist in her recovery, upon which our own recovery largely depends. That is one of the arguments we have used in con-
Cost oj Living

nection with foodstuffs going to Britain. Let us try to give as much food as we can for the dollars which Britain got from us. If it applies to wheat, my hon. friends should remember that it applies equally to newsprint. But that is beside the point.
The profits of International Paper are up 265 per cent over the previous year.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: A United States concern.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, take Abitibi.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Shipping out Canadian paper which our people cannot get.


Major James William Coldwell: Their profits are up 205 per cent; St. Lawrence up 107 per cent.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How much did they lose in 1932?


Major James William Coldwell: I am talking about 1947, not 1932.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: They did not pay any dividends in the depression years.


Major James William Coldwell: Maybe they did not. But many of the people of Canada, when my hon. friends were in power, were compelled to live on two cents a meal or were given twenty cents a day in unemployment camps. Let us remember that I am talking about consumers and profits in 1947 and we will not go back to 1932 unless my hon. friends desire it. If they wish it, I shall be glad to put a large number of figures on the record showing what they did to the country in 1932.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: You cannot have producers without consumers.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend never objects unless it is some big business whose toes are being trodden upon. If somebody happens to tread on the toes of big business, my hon. friend from Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) is on his feet immediately.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: They could build some more houses in Rosedale. Perhaps you should listen to me there too.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. Rosedale is a very desirable section of Toronto. My hon. friend spends some time there and I imagine the rest is spent in Bay street. Probably that is why we get these interruptions.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Come down and I will show you Rosedale.


James Horace King: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: The interesting thing about these interruptions is that while I am complaining of the government's neglect in

allowing these increased prices, the government is defended most vociferously by some hon. members to my right. That is one of the amazing things we find in the House of Commons at the present time.
I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but I would refer my hon. friends to a press conference of the President of the United States held in Washington about a month ago, at which President Truman pleaded with business for lower prices in order to avoid recession. He gave some of the history of the last period, and he urged that business pay some attention to it. Again on April 11, last week, he said in a press conference, if I may quote from a report of it:
He bluntly reprimanded business for running prices higher and higher and reminded it of its responsibility to bring them down . . . Business men asked for free enterprise. They got it. Now it is up to them to make good, to manage it for the best welfare of the nation . . .
There was the distinct impression of inner conflict, resentment boiling up from disappointment over the attitude of business and, over all, a spirit of futility as he discovered that he had lost most of the implements by which the economy might be managed more effectively. Plainly he was discouraged . . .
He went on to indicate that his administration had been kind to business, had abolished controls, had repealed excess profits tax, and the result was that there were fine profits for the business interests of the country'.
I wish to express the point of view we hold by' moving the following amendment to the motion, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis):
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
This house desires to record its opinion that the government should give consideration to the immediate restoration of price control on and lower prices for the necessaries of life, particularly articles of food and clothing, shelter,, household appliances, and supplies and machinery needed by the farmers in connection, with their work;
Further, this house is of the opinion that the harmful and dangerous effects of the rising cost of living demand immediate and effective action.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) raised a certain, question which I think should be dealt with immediately. His remarks w'ere agreed with by the leader of the C.C.F. group (Mr. Coldwell). I am sorry that hon. members do not read very carefully the statements which I make to the house, as is evident when they contend that no announcement was made to the effect that the 10 and 15 cent payments- 10 cents on oats and 15 cents on barley-had

Feed Grain Subsidies
been done away with. The very first sentence in paragraph 1 of that statement of policy was:
Effective tomorrow, March 18, the system of advance equalization payments will be discontinued . . .
The advance equalization payments were 10 cents on oats and 15 cents on barley, and they were made for a certain reason, to accomplish a certain purpose. Back in 1942 the grain growing provinces of Canada, the provinces that grow the surpluses which are distributed to the other provinces to be fed -the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta -had the lowest gross cash returns to agriculture on an index basis, taking 1926-29 as 100, of any of the provinces. Saskatchewan, for example, had an index figure of 81 whereas all the provinces other than the prairie provinces had index figures running from 135 to 180, if I remember correctly. So in 1943 it was decided to give equalization payments to the farmers who grew the grain. Ten cents was the equalization payment on oats and 15 cents on barley. The very first statement in the announcement made on March 17 was that these equalization payments would no longer be made. I know that in press reports which have appeared here and there across Canada the phrase "feeder subsidy" has appeared continually. There has been no feeder subsidy paid on oats and barley in Canada at any time from 1943 down to March 18, 1947. There have been equalization payments to the grain growers of the western provinces, and on March 17 we announced that those equalization payments would be no longer made. Further we announced that we wanted more barley, and that in order to get it we were not going to pay a producer subsidy but were going to increase the return to the producer. So we raised the floor price from 56 cents a bushel for No. 1 feed at Fort William, which I think is the figure appearing in the statement, to 90 cents a bushel. The only inducement now to a farmer in western Canada to produce barley is the provision of a price which will be based on a floor of 90 cents a bushel for No. 1 feed from August 1, 1947, to July 31, 1948. Then in the announcement we went on to state the relationship between those prices and the prices at present in force. The relationship is 90 cents as against 56 cents on barley and 61 i cents as against 40 cents on oats. We said that was the floor, that we guaranteed it as such. That conforms to the policy of the government, as announced in 1944, that during the transitional period we would establish floor prices below which the prices of farm
products would not be allowed to fall. So we have established a floor price of 90 cents on No. 1 feed barley and 61i cents on No. 1 feed oats, and the prices can run up from that level on the higher grades. Then we went on to say:
At the same time, price ceilings for all grades will be raised, in the case of barley to 93 cents and in the case of oats to 65 cents . . .
That was in order to cover the point I have just made. Then in section 3 we went on to say:
In order to avoid discrimination against producers who have already delivered barley during present crop year, an adjustment payment will be made of 10 cents per bushel in respect of deliveries between August 1. 1946, and March 17, 1947, inclusive, thus raising overall returns to about 90 cents per bushel. As there is a loss in the barley equalization account for the 194647 crop year, no further payments are to be expected in respect of barley delivered during the present crop year. The oats equalization account for the crop year 1946-47 will, however, remain open, and net profits in that account, if any, will be distributed later to producers who delivered oats during the period August 1, 1946, to July 31, 1947.
In other words we announced that this whole policy of making equalization payments was to come to an end, and that the final payments in connection with oats would be made on oats delivered up to July 31, 1947. Because there is no profit on the barley that has been delivered up to date, and no possibility of any profits being made from now on because the wheat board is taking over the barley, therefore any money paid out to cover the total amount will have to be taken from the treasury, and there will be no participation paid as far as barley is concerned. In other words the whole announcement is to the effect that a policy was announced, prior to the opening of the 1946-47 season, of making equalization payments, and that the payments to be made between August 1, 1946, and July 31, 1947, are to wind up the policy followed from 1943 to the latter date. Then section 5 of the announcement had this to say:
For the time being, because of the continuation of price ceilings on animal products, payments of 10 cents per bushel for oats and 25 cents per bushel for barley will be made within the same conditions as the 25 cent payment on wheat purchased for feeding purposes.
In other words a payment or drawback of 25 cents was made in connection with wheat, which to all intents and purposes could be termed a feeder subsidy, and it is stated that during this period there will be a temporary feeder subsidy on these particular grains in the same way there had been a subsidy on wheat, again in order to bring the producers of live stock products who use feed grain into the position where all will be treated
Cost of Living

fairly and in accordance with the previously announced policy down to August 1, 1947. The only reference made to any period beyond August 1, 1947, is the fact that the ceilings may not be off all agricultural products that are affected by grain. Up to the moment we have taken the ceiling off eggs, and there have been suggestions that the ceilings will come off other farm products, but no one will know exactly what the relationship between live stock and feed grain prices will be until we get close to August 1. As far as equalization payments on oats and barley are concerned, however, these with their implications are discontinued as of August 1, 1947. I think everyone in western Canada who is concerned with these matters understands the situation fully. I quite agree that statements were made in the press some time ago which did not bear out the facts contained in the announcement itself.
I have just returned from having spent two weeks in western Canada. I believe I saw representatives of most newspapers, and also had occasion to address farm meetings while I was there. I am sure that the farmers of western Canada understand the position as it was announced on March 17. I suggest that if the leader of the opposition would read my statements a little more carefully, analyse them, and then explain them to the public, they probably would be better informed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I had better say a word in answer to some of the points raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), in respect of increases in prices. I do not know of any way of popularizing increases in prices, and I have no intention of trying to do so.
I am sure the government shares the concern of everyone in Canada in increasing prices. Nevertheless the fact remains that prices have not remained constant throughout the war and since. There has been a gradual but controlled increase in prices. It was never contemplated that a rigid price control could be maintained for long after the cessation of hostilities; and the government has always contemplated a policy whereby, when it was felt that supply was in reasonable conformity with demand, the proper thing to do was to allow the law of supply and demand to operate and to remove price ceilings.
The specific instances of increases in prices which have been cited by my hon. friend were, in particular, shortening, soap and textiles. Those were the principal ones, although he did refer also to household necessities such as washing machines and the like. But, to speak

first about shortening and soaps, one of the greatest shortages in the world today is that of oils and fats; that is one of the most acute. The greater part of our supplies comes from outside Canada. For some considerable time past they have been bulk purchased by the government through the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation. And that, in effect, in so far as those products were sold under a ceiling which represented less than cost, involved a trading loss to the corporation; or, in other words, a subsidy.
As has been clearly stated on a number of occasions, it was never the policy of the government to continue subsidies indefinitely in the post-war period. Once conditions of supply were reasonably stabilized, and once prices abroad were established at levels from which there was no immediate possibility of early reduction, it was felt that subsidies should be discontinued, and the added cost reflected in the price of the goods.
That is exactly what has happened in respect of such increases as there have been in shortening and soap. The same applies with respect to cotton textiles; and I assume that is what the hon. member was referring to, and in particular to shirts and underwear. For some time past we have been paying a fairly substantial subsidy on raw cotton. It was felt that the time had now come when we must discontinue paying that subsidy, and a policy has been initiated of gradually working out of it. So far as one can see, while the price of raw cotton may not be stabilized, it shows no indication of any early reduction. Consequently the government felt that in matters of that kind we must face up to post-war realities, and the added cost of the raw cotton would have to be reflected in the cost of the finished product.
As hon. members know, a considerable number of items have been removed from price control. There remains also a considerable number under price control, and, may I say, those include the greater part of foodstuffs and the greater part of the necessities of life. Of those which have been removed from price control, I think it is fairly significant that there has not been any appreciable increase in price. In some instances there have been no increases, while in some others there have even been decreases. There have been increases where subsidies entered into the cost of the goods, either by way of direct subsidies or by way of bulk purchasing through the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation.
For instance, motor cars were removed from the ceiling recently. There has been no increase in price, nor do I anticipate that there will be any. Again, in respect of foot-

Cost of Living
wear there hag been no increase. I have talked to a number of people in that line of business, and they tell me they do not contemplate there will be any important increase in the price of that particular commodity, one which, of course, constitutes an important item in the cost of living.
I think, if hon. members will look over the list of goods which have been removed from control, they will find that in the vast majority of cases prices have not increased. Undoubtedly they have in other cases. We knew they would; we expected they would. We could see no alternative to allowing them to rise.
My hon. friend referred to chocolate bars. Well, I hold no brief for the manufacturers of chocolate bars; but when he points out that children in Detroit can buy them cheaper than they can be bought by children in Canada, let me say to him that, while that may apply to chocolate bars, if he had spent any time in the United States in recent months he would appreciate the fact that that does not apply generally; and I know he would readily agree with that.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Nevertheless I think hon. members must appreciate that we cannot entirely escape the effect of increased price levels in the United States, because we import tremendous quantities of goods from that country, whether in a partly finished state or as raw materials. We simply cannot escape it.
As I said a minute ago, we must face up to the realities of post-war conditions. I am satisfied that some increase in prices is inevitable. We have been attempting to follow a policy of orderly decontrol, and I believe we have achieved a reasonable measure of success in that policy. Like my hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar, I have been interested in the changed tone indicated in some of the newspapers in this country, which not long ago were urging us-yes, not as long ago as July, 1946-to throw off controls, pretty much as they did in the United States, and in the last two or three weeks I have been interested to note how the tone of those newspapers has changed, and that they are now urging greater caution upon businessmen, merchants and industrialists to restrain themselves in increasing prices. I think that is desirable. In my view it is important that businessmen and others who are merchandising products should exercise restraint, and I am glad that business in this country is taking that line.
In the matter of profits, I would be the last one to rise in my place and attempt to justify excessive profits on the part of anyone in Canada. My hon. friend has cited a number
of examples. I have seen' him use before the method of selecting special companies and giving illustrations of striking percentage increases.


Major James William Coldwell: I could have given many more.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He gave one figure which I believe he said he had taken from the Financial Post, where it was indicated, if I remember correctly, that the average profits of the companies the Financial Post had listed were some thirty per cent up.


Major James William Coldwell: Sixty companies.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes, in some sixty companies. That is an appreciable increase. But I should not think that would be considered an increase too much out of line if, as I believe to be the case, there was a substantial increase in the volume of sales during that period. I put to him the question as to whether he had any figures showing sales of those various companies, rather than the percentage increase in profits. He did not have those figures, and of course I would not have expected him to. But the sales figures wrould be significant, particularly if he is using the argument with respect to higher profits being the reason for higher prices. I do not believe that is the case. It would, perhaps, have some effect, but I am certain that if you took all the added profits over 1945 and added them to the volume it would not account for any appreciable percentage of increase in the price of goods.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not attempt to restrict that to newsprint.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You can restrict it to newsprint if you want to.


Major James William Coldwell: Does the minister not think it would be in the interests of our economy generally if, as production and distribution increased, if, as the volume increased, prices were reduced?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I agree 100 per cent with that. I think the wise industrialist of this country, as his volume increases and presumably as he is able to increase his efficiency, should reduce his prices rather than increase them. I am the last one who believes that it is either proper or, to put it on its lowest level, good business to try to charge all that the traffic will bear. I agree with the hon. member on that.
While the balance sheets of a good many concerns have shown striking increases in profits over those of the past year. I believe that the greater portion of that is due to increased volume. I have no doubt that in
Cost of Living

some cases it is due perhaps to a particular concern attempting to take advantage of a demand which is so great that it will pay any price. I am not prepared to adopt the method adopted by the hon. member and select a few companies with large percentages of increase and say that that is the general picture, and I am certainly not prepared to agree with him that that- is one of the main reasons why there has been some increase in the cost of living.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I did not say that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not know whether there are any other points that I wish to make. As the hon. member knows, in the legislation that is still before the house there is the power to reimpose ceilings in cases where it is considered to be in the public interest to do so. I would hope that that will not be necessary; I would hope that the common sense of the people of this country and the operation of the law of supply and demand, which has never been proved to be wrong, will show that it is not necessary to do that. In the case of some abnormal situation where the government felt that the public were being exploited, speaking for myself at any rate, I can say, as the minister responsible for the administration of the act, that we would not have any hesitation in asking for powers which I feel sure the house would give us.
I have nothing more to add to what I have said, but I wish to repeat what I said at the outset. Most of the cases in which there has been an increase in price have been due to an inevitable increase in cost, particularly in those cases where previously controlled prices included subsidies.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is in order and will eventually be voted upon by this house. I make that statement because I think, if hon. members read the amendment, they will see that it places the entire matter of controls squarely before hon. members to be voted upon at this time. When that vote is taken it will largely determine the final disposition of the omnibus bill now before this house, because it happens that hon. members are being asked to vote upon the principles contained in that bill.


Mr. ILSLEY:: If that is the case, it is out of order.


Clarence Gillis: I am just asking the Speaker if this question is before the house for that purpose. I am going to read the amendment

again in order to refresh the memories of those w'ho are listening. You cannot discuss controls piecemeal; you cannot take up only one phase because they are all inclusive. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) cannot get up and say airily, "We know for a fact that prices are rising, but we are not responsible; the law of supply and demand is going to regulate things in the future because it has always done so in the past". I am not accepting that statement as being correct. The law of supply and demand has not regulated anything in the past and it is not going to do so in the future.
Then the minister makes the statement, "We are removing subsidies and price ceilings". When you take that action you give the green light to anyone in this country who wants to exploit the people; you give them the opportunity of doing so without any regulation by the government. Apparently that is the government policy as indicated by the statement of the Minister of Finance. I am assuming that, when the amendment is voted upon, the members of this house are going to record their individual opinions as to whether price ceilings should be reimposed in this country as they were during the war and if as far as possible the standard of living established during the war for the Canadian worker should be reset. Some people have suggested that prices should be rolled back to June, 1946, in order to reestablish the standards that existed at that time.
If you make an analysis of how things are today as compared with how they were in June, 1946, you will find that the average wage-earner and salaried worker in this country has lost a large percentage of his income in increased prices, particularly on the essentials of life.
As I said a moment ago, I am going to read this amendment again. The members of this group do not think that when they place an amendment before this house it is done for political shadow-boxing. When the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar moved this amendment he did so deliberately for the purpose of giving each and every member of this house an opportunity to rise in his place and record his opinion. The amendment reads:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house desires to record its opinion that the government should give consideration to the immediate restoration of price control on and lower prices for the necessaries of life, particularly articles of food and clothing, shelter, household appliances, and supplies and machinery needed by the farmers in connection with their work;

Speaker's Ruling
Further, this house is of the opinion that the harmful and dangerous effects of the rising cost of living demand immediate and effective action."


James Horace King: Will the hon. member permit me to interrupt him since he is speaking on the amendment? I would call the attention of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) to citation 488 of ''Beauchesne's second edition," which reads: Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means, the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair" must be proposed, except in eases provided by standing order 28. When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the power of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance, and it is not necessary to move an amendment for that purpose; provided that the discussion and the amendment, if one is moved, shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, not to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
If the hon. member will look at page 12 of today's order paper, item No. 12, he will find that it reads:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Justice for the second reading of Bill No. 104, 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, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Fleming.
The amendment of the hon. member reads as follows:
This house desires to record its opinion that the government should give consideration to the immediate restoration of price control on and lower prices for the necessaries of life, particularly articles of food and clothing, shelter, household appliances, and supplies and machinery needed by the farmers in connection with their work.
We have on the order paper, as the house knows. Bill No. 104. which, if hon. gentlemen will look at page 3 of the bill, they will see contains the schedule of orders and regulations of the governor in council, and in that schedule order in council 8528 appears, dealing with the wartime prices and trade board and its regulations as amended by orders in council. The hon. member knows that the object of the wartime prices and trade board is to regulate prices, and when this bill comes before the house the hon. member will have an opportunity to make any representations he cares to make to the house that prices should be increased or decreased or maintained. So, in accordance with the citation I have just given, 488, I am of the opinion that the amendment is out of order.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I say one word before you give your ruling. I did consider most of the matters which you have raised in discussing the ruling you propose to make but, if Your Honour will look at citation 345, page 137, of "Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition," you will find this:
The ancient doctrine that the redress of grievances should be considered before the grant of supplies is maintained in the House of Commons of Canada by the provision of standing order 49 that the 'motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair can be amended; and the amendments need not be relevant but may relate to every question connected with public administration.
To be perfectly fair, I will read the concluding sentences as well because I do not think it would be fair for me to stop there. The part I have read says that the amendments may relate to every question connected with public administration, and I suggest that the amendment which I have moved does not fall within the category to which Your Honour has referred in quoting this citation, nor is it covered by the concluding words of citation 345, which goes on to say:
Only one amendment and one subamendment may be made to this motion, but if the amendment is negatived, a discussion on other questions may be raised but no other amendment can be proposed. If, however, it is withdrawn, another can be at once submitted to the House. Matters of detail which should be discussed in committee cannot be debated on these occasions-
Matters of detail.
-nor can debate be permitted relating to grants already agreed to, or to resolutions which will be proposed in the committee-
That is the committee of supply.
-or to items in the estimates.
Again, that would be in committee of supply. It goes on:
Members may discuss various matters on the motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair without any amendment being proposed; but once debate is stopped on one matter and another matter intervenes, members cannot again discuss the former.
My amendment, I submit, deals with a matter of principle, not a matter of detail. I would further submit that Bill No. 104, to which Your Honour has referred, dealing with powers which it is proposed to extend beyond May 15 for a limited period, does not cover nearly all the matters included in my amendment. It may be that by inference some of them are covered, but the amendment as a whole deals with matters that are not dealt with in the bill before the house. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that on these grounds the amendment is in order.
Speaker's Ruling

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is more concerned with the proper application of the rules of the house than with any temporary advantage to be gained by motions which he puts before the house, and it is in that spirit that I venture to offer a few remarks in answer to the argument he has submitted to Your Honour.
There is this citation which the hon. member has read, but it is qualified by the general rule that matters are not to be dealt with twice in the same session, and that is the reason for the citation which Your Honour brought to the attention of members of the house. There is no doubt that the matter of what commodities should remain under control, what commodities should perhaps again be placed under control and what commodities should be taken out of control will be fully discussed on Bill No. 104. That is the substantive measure which is before the house and upon which parliament will make its decision. Parliament will be required to make a decision with respect to the classification of commodities in these three groups: (1) those to come out of control; (2) those to stay under control, and (3) those, if any, to be replaced under control. Parliament will not merely be asking the government to give consideration to something. Parliament will be making a positive decision that is to be effective upon the population of Canada. I submit that that is the place where consideration should be given to the matters which are raised by the amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply.
There is another objection to which Your Honour did not call the attention of the house, and that arises out of the terms of the amendment to the motion for an address to His Excellency at the beginning of the session on February 3. The hon. member then moved that there be censure on His Excellency's advisers because their conduct indicated a tendency to move into headlong decontrol. That matter was debated in its general aspect on the address. It was voted on, and the amendment was defeated. So that the occasion for a general debate on the general principles was taken advantage of on that occasion and the matter was disposed of. There will be another opportunity for the specific determination of articles to which the hon. member and perhaps some other hon. members will refer when dealing with Bill No. 104, as being those where controls should be restored. But my point is that the general matter has been disposed of by a vote of the house. The specific instances where there should be a restoration of control will be

disposed of, not in the form of pious hopes, but in the form of binding decisions by this house when we come to Bill No. 104. I think the hon. member will agree that that will be a more propitious occasion to take action that will be effective when dealing with specific commodities than at this time when there is just merely language very similar to that used in the amendment of February 3.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say just a word on the point of order. I would ask Your Honour to consider, despite what the leader of the government has just said, that there is a distinct difference between the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and Bill No. 104 on the one hand, and the amendment of February 3 on the other. With respect to the amendment of February 3, I would point out that it expressed regret at what the government was doing. It was not a positive motion asking for specific action such as the amendment now moved calls for. On the other hand, with respect to Bill No. 104, I would point out that it is a bill giving the government power, amongst other things, to retain price control if they wish. This amendment is much stronger than that.


Mr. HOMLTH:: No. It just asks for consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This amendment asks that consideration be given to the restoration of price control and that immediate effective action be taken in connection with these matters.	.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There is nothing specific about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The bill would simply give permission. This asks that it be definitely and positively done.


James Horace King: I have considered the amendment carefully and have noted the observations made by hon. members on both sides of the house, and I am obliged to rule that the amendment is out of order. As has been pointed out by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the hon. member will have an opportunity to discuss the matter or to propose an amendment to the house on the second reading of Bill No. 104. I therefore declare the amendment out of order.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: The amendment having been disposed of, I would like to speak briefly on one of the references made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), namely, the question of flood control. I am impelled to do this at the moment because I have a very fair knowledge of the

Flood Control
disasters that are overtaking western Ontario and some parts of the province of Quebec through the overflowing of rivers in these two central provinces. Other provinces have experienced similar conditions on former occasions.
In the province of Quebec two rivers, Port-neuf and Chaudiere, frequently overflow their banks. Two years ago I made a fairly substantial investigation into the possibility of flood-proofing the Chaudiere river, but it is a problem which will call for the work of eminent engineers to find out the best and easiest methods of preventing the overflowing of the Chaudiere in Quebec. On the other hand, I am convinced that it can be done. It should be done, and it can be done, but not by ordinary methods. The same applies to the Port-neuf. Both rivers, down through the years, have frequently overflowed their banks, bringing disaster in their wake.
In Ontario, however, there are other rivers with which I am more familiar and I will speak of them for a moment or two. Yesterday I took note of the flow in the Moira river at Belleville. There was no possibility of disaster there this year, the water escaping freely. Going west, one comes to two or three small rivers, one of which is in the town of my hon. friend the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). I refer to the Etobicoke river. That is a small watershed, but in flood times it can cause a considerable amount of damage. It can bring disaster to my hon. friend's fine and beautiful town of Brampton.


Gordon Graydon: It has on previous occasions.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The river flows through the middle of the town and there is no present means of taking care of any large rush of water. I endorse what the leader of the opposition said in submitting his suggestion to the government, and I am sure that every member of the government is equally seized of the importance of doing something.
What can we do? It has been suggested that we use the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in connection with a problem of this kind, but I do not know that the P.F.R.A. lends itself to flood control in those rivers in the old settled parts of Canada. I suggest that the time has come when an over-all federal authority should be set up charged with the responsibility of carrying out flood prevention and directing the work of flood prevention on rivers generally throughout the country.
Reference has been made to a river flowing through the constituency of Your Honour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the constituency of Brantford. I refer here to the river Grand. I
believe it was just prior to or after the federal election of 1935, I have forgotten which year, that the matter came before this house. I brought it up myself. At that time I had made an exhaustive survey into what had been done in the Ohio valley, the Muskingum valley, Ohio, and in the Miami valley, Ohio, and I suggested to the government of the day that they adopt the same plans that had been followed in the United States. I suggested that the federal government put up 374 pef cent of the cost of flood-proofing rivers, the provincial government to contribute 37J per cent and the municipalities 25 per cent. I believe that was the ratio adopted in your own area, Your Honour. In due course the present Shand dam on the Grand, three miles north of the town of Fergus, was erected. I had recommended that two dams be built, one on the Grand itself, north of Fergus, and one on the Conestogo, which flows into the Grand river south of the town of Fergus. At that time the engineers seemed to think one dam would be sufficient, and that dam has already saved its cost several times over in preventing the flooding of Grand river communities during the last few years.
As you know, Your Honour, two or three years ago your own city was threatened, but the flood did not occur because of the existence of the Shand dam, north of which water was stored. The Shand dam has a water conservation volume equivalent to 46,800 acre-feet of water. That is a vast body of water, when one considers that in each acre there are 43,560 square feet. When that is multiplied by the total area of the lake, it means that the present Shand dam north of Fergus conserves approximately two billion cubic feet of water. If the dam had not been there and that two billion feet had all run down the river we would have had real flood conditions recently. A few days ago the engineers found it necessary to open the Shand dam sufficiently to allow 12,500 cubic feet of water per second to go out of the reservoir into the river. Had that not been done, the dam would have overflowed. I do not believe there is any danger from overflowing, as some people apparently think, and I make that statement because of the existence of the overflow in the centre of the dam, which is of concrete and is perfectly designed to control the overflow of water.
I suggest, therefore, that the question which the leader of the opposition has brought up is an important one, and I rise to endorse what he said to the government and, through the government, to that department, whichever it may be, which has the controlling of
Flood Control

floods under its supervision. I suggest that the government consider setting up an over-all authority to deal with the question of assisting in preventing floods on all the rivers in Canada, such as the Portneuf, the Chaudiere and other rivers in Quebec and the many rivers in Ontario which are known to overflow. Even in Manitoba, in very early years, the Red river has overflowed to such an extent that the land for many miles around Winnipeg was flooded. There is no telling when that might happen again. It all depends on the amount of water that falls in a given length of time. For instance, if three inches fell on the 1,360 square miles of the Grand river watershed above Galt, that would be a fall of approximately nine billion cubic feet of water, and would be enough to wipe the whole valley out. unless there were some control over it. I believe it was only last year that there was a disastrous flood around Edmonton. So I would suggest to the leader of the government that, as the occasion presents itself, he bring before his ministers the question of establishing an over-all authority throughout Canada to cooperate with all the provinces on the same basis as the United States government cooperated with the state of Ohio in the matter of conservation and flood prevention. It will save the country millions and perhaps billions of dollars and thousands of lives. There is no reason why it should not be done. I merely rise to endorse what the leader of the opposition said, and make that suggestion to the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, no one can take issue with the objective remarks just made by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). Of course, as he is aware, in the proposals made by the federal government to the provinces the kind of arrangement which he suggests is envisaged. What I have risen to deal with particularly is another phase of the problem. As one would gather from what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) said with regard to this unfortunate situation at the moment in western Ontario, the responsibility for dealing with the matter resides in this parliament and on this government. Because he has left that impression, I think one should make a reference or two to the problem. The situation in western Ontario is one which is now causing a great deal of concern to the people in the whole of the western Ontario peninsula. This is not the first time these flood conditions have occurred, but they have occurred again and the loss to that particular area is tremendous. What are the facts in so far as responsibility is concerned?
On April 9, the mayor of London is reported as having said:
All the money the Ontario government has spent on surveys and enabling legislation in connection with flood control has been "wasted money."
I do not subscribe to that view, but I do state that the mayor of London quite properly looks upon this matter as one that comes within the authority of the government of Ontario.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask my hon. friend what paper he is quoting from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: From the Toronto Star. My hon. friend will find the same observations made in his own paper, the Toronto Telegram.


Gordon Graydon: Have you it there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, I have it in my desk.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps you might quote from it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will in a few minutes.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: He prefers to use the best.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the same date the mayor of London made it known-and the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross) will, I am sure, corroborate this-that the city of London and the town of St. Mary's had applied to the Ontario minister of public works to have a meeting at which all municipalities concerned would decide if they wanted a conservation authority set up for the Thames. We find the minister of planning, Hon. Dana Porter, quite properly, as indeed several members on this side of the house, including myself did, visiting those areas. The minister of planning, who visited those areas, is reported as having said as follows-


Gordon Graydon: What paper is this?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is from the Toronto Star. He is reported to have said that he was shocked by what he had seen and the damage which had occurred. The minister goes on to say:
The disaster will have a profound effect in moving municipalities to some decision on a thorough flood control programme under the Conservation Authorities Act of 1946.
But apparently that is not the situation in the eyes of the mayor of Chatham. The mayor of Chatham, Mayor Ralph Steele, president of the West Kent Progressive Conservative Association, is quoted as having said as follows:
Thousands of acres of valuable agricultural lands have been inundated. Chatham has suffered only slight damage in comparison. Yet

Vacancy in Halijax County
nothing is being done about the seventy-five miles of the Thames between London and Lake St. Clair ... I am glad that Mr. Porter was down through here yesterday, said Reeve C. V. Skinner of Thamesville. The provincial government has been absolutely too slow in handling this flood problem. They have not been paying any attention to Chatham and Thamesville.
One could go on quoting the heads of municipalities throughout that area. I do not rise to say whether or not their observations are true, but I do rise to point them out to the leader of the opposition.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask my hon. friend if he would mind sending over the copy of the last paper he quoted from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As soon as Hansard has had it, I shall be glad to.


Gordon Graydon: I want to see that everything is on the record.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Mr. C. C. I. MERRITT (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, we have successfully distributed the blame for flood conditions but have not followed my leader's suggestion that steps be taken now to benefit by the lesson and have these various authorities get together for the future. May we now turn to the other grievances, the redress of which my leader asked, and see if we can hear something from the government with regard to the grievance of the people of Halifax, namely the fact that five months have already passed since the vacancy in a seat there but no writ of election yet issued. I was about to say that I was surprised that no attention was paid by any member of the government to this grievance. I waited until Your Honour stood up to put the motion to the house before I rose to call any further attention to it, because I would have thought that somebody in the government would make a reference to it and give us some idea when we might expect a by-election in Halifax.


Gordon Graydon: They have not got things fixed up down there yet.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: They might not have things fixed up.


Gordon Graydon: How is the weather down there?


Mr. McCANN:: Smith is down getting the weather fixed.


Gordon Graydon: Who is Smith?


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member for
Calgary West.


Gordon Graydon: Do you follow him carefully?


James Joseph McCann: Well, we watch him.


Gordon Graydon: That is good business.


James Joseph McCann: The papers report it.


Mr. MacINNIS:: What paper?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Perhaps now, Mr. Speaker, I can continue. I am not a bit surprised because I have been here for a- little over two sessions, and this is the third time that I, myself, can remember getting to my feet in these circumstances, when something that needs an answer has been mentioned from the opposition benches and the government just try to pass it off, not even saying anything about it, or giving us any idea of what their intentions are. This is a matter that cannot be passed off any longer. It is a matter as to which I do not ask when a writ of election is to be issued. I demand that it be issued and issued at once. I am going to give my reasons for that demand. Already we have had five months in which the opportunity was there to issue the writ. The writ has not been issued, and the people of the dual constituency of Halifax have been half disfranchised.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Which half?


An hon. MEMBER:: The better half.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: As some hon. member says, the better half. Think what that means, Mr. Speaker. That is the capital city of the province in which responsible government first appeared on this continent, the cradle of responsible government in Canada. We on this side of the house have asked in a kindly way all during this session that some statement be made and that a writ be issued, but we have had no word from the government as to why they have not taken the step which they took so quickly in connection with by-elections they thought they could win, but which they held off taking in connection with by-elections they knew they were going to lose, a course which did them no good at all in the end. I have here the issue of the Halifax Chronicle of December 10, 1946, in which the surviving member for the dual member constituency is quoted as follows:
Mr. Isnor made this statement after he held a long distance telephone conversation with party officials in Ottawa. He said that winter conditions in Nova Scotia were not suitable for holding an election.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Is that not right? What would you say to that?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That is just the point I am coming to; I do not know anything about it, and I do not suppose officials of the Liberal party in Ottawa would know anything more about it than I do, because they are no closer to
Vacancy in Halifax County

Halifax than I am. So I do not see why the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) has to defer to the opinions of his party officials in Ottawa as to whether weather conditions in his own home town are suitable for a by-election.


Gordon Graydon: Have you people over there ever been in Grey North?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We used to win it before you ever did.


Gordon Graydon: But we won it the last two times; that is the important point.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where were j'ou in Cartier?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The hon. member for Halifax went on to give two other reasons why it was not necessary for the people of Halifax to be properly represented in this house. For instance, he said:
As for the riding itself, it was one of the two dual member constituencies in Canada and was therefore represented at Ottawa. Mr. Isnor was willing to shoulder the added responsibility for an interim period.
I wonder if he realized that the interim period would be a minimum of seven months, and I wonder when the new constitutional procedure was introduced under which the surviving member for a dual member constituency could appoint himself to the vacant seat and consider that constituency properly represented in this house. Then the hon. member went on to give the people of Halifax this reassurance:
In the meantime, he said, his party still had
a majority and was not afraid of a snap vote in the Commons turning out the government.
That is not a very good reason for not holding a by-election. Once more, as we have done so often from this side of the house, I should like to repeat something the cabinet seems to have forgotten. This parliament is not run for the benefit of the cabinet. We do not elect members here only to ensure that the government retains a slim majority; in fact the people of Canada sometimes elect members to reduce still further a slim majority, and there is every reason for us to suspect that this would be the result if the government decided to hold this by-election. Those are the only three reasons given by any responsible person in the government party, officials or otherwise, as to why we should not hold the Halifax by-election now. Sixty days from now it is hardly likely there will be winter conditions in Halifax. I know that even 
though I have been there only once in my life, so that reason will not help the government any longer.
I should like to refer also to what was said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he was leader of the opposition, in 1920 and 1934. As reported at pages 29 and 30 of Hansard for March 1, 1920, speaking of the East Elgin by-election, he said:
So I say, Mr. Speaker, that having regard for parliamentary government in the matter of representation, if you look at the laws under which this parliament has been returned, for if you look at the way in which those laws have been administered, you will find that there has been a complete demoralization of the whole business of parliamentary representation as contrasted with what it should have been were we anxious to preserve intact our political institutions.
I agree with every word the right hon. gentleman said on that occasion. I have just quoted what was said by the hon. member for Halifax, which shows that he is committing the very sin against which his leader warned so long ago, namely, advocating a course which does not enhance our parliamentary institutions but rather tends to destroy them. My leader made reference to the actual time lags in connection with the by-elections we have had during the last six months. I do not think anyone in the house could have failed to notice that where the government thought they had a chance they jumped in very quickly, but where they thought they were likely to fail and where in fact they did fail they waited as long as possible before bringing on the by-election. In most cases, in the constituencies in which they failed, four to six months elapsed1 between the time the vacancy occurred and the time the election was held, while in the constituencies where they succeeded the time was never more than two months. That speaks for itself, and I should have thought the government would realize that this delay in itself is an admission that they are unlikely to hold the seat, so that the longer the delay, the worse it will be for them. Of course that is entirely up to the government, but here again I should like to quote what was said by the Prime Minister on January 29, 1934, as reported at page 18 of Hansard for that year:
The Prime Minister has power to say that representation should be given, but up to this time, the constituency of South Oxford has been denied that representation. So the evidence from every side goes to prove that not only has the government lost the confidence of the country but it has lost confidence in itself.
I would not be at all surprised if it turned out that the Prime Minister was a good prophet, and that in the case of Halifax he is

Vacancy in Halifax County
practising what he preached on that occasion, that the considerations now in his mind and the mind of the government are those to which he referred in his remarks in 1934. I ask the house, on what grounds could a government candidate in Halifax claim the confidence of the electors today? I ask, in the two years since the end of the war what have the government accomplished upon which they could base any claim to the confidence of the people of Halifax?


Mr. BRUNELLE:: What about the byelection in Cartier?


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have taken off more controls since then.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I wish to refer only to a few points. For instance, could any government candidate, or any member of the government supporting him, go to Halifax tomorrow and promise houses at $13.82 a month, as they did in 1945. Could they go to that province, knowing conditions down there, and say that, while they had the power to do so, they made any notable contribution to the betterment of labour-management relations, so that management and labour might come to agreements without these crippling strikes? Could they go there in the hope that their taxation policy in the past two years would lead the people of Halifax to place confidence in them; or are they waiting until this new budget comes in, under which we may not have deferred taxation relief of the nature we had last year?
The most important reason, I suggest, for their failure to place the confidence of the people of Halifax to the test, is this, that they will not be able to go to Halifax in the coming by-election and offer to the people of that constituency any constructive policy for the future, a policy which would lead the people of Canada to have any confidence in the Liberal party, or any hope of the people's chances of getting through the next few yeara in a condition of stability. That, I believe, is the real reason why the government need not expect any success at the next election. Now that they are taking off controls, they do not seem to be able to produce any alternative for the future, which would give us a good run at the fence.
However that may be, I would not have risen at all if we had heard one word from any member of the government as to when the by-election is to take place, or some good excuse setting out why it can be longer deferred. I do not believe they can give a good excuse; and certainly I am not going to sit silent in the House of Commons, and not
bring to Your Honour's attention as forcibly as I can not only the government's neglect to issue a writ, but also their apparent inability any longer to account for the delay.
I shall now take my seat, not with a request but with a demand that the writ be issued at once, because there is no longer any reason why it should be withheld. I see one of the ministers laughing when I use the word "demand." I am not a bit surprised to see a smile on the faces of some hon. members opposite when I use that word, because it is not more than three weeks ago that I heard the hon. member from Middlesex-West (Mr. McCubbin) say, "We must trust this government." Then, hon. members in the C.C.F., sitting to my left, rise in their places and say, "We plead with this government." Well, I don't trust this government, and I don't plead with it. I say again: I demand an answer to this question.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) referred to the three points I was wondering which of those he considered most important from a political point of view. Was he speaking chiefly to the first and second, which were really worth bringing before the government, or was he directing his attention chiefly to the third point, one which seemed to give him some satisfaction? After listening to the last hon. member, I am satisfied that perhaps it was the third point the leader of the opposition had in mind, when he opened the discussion this afternoon.
May 1 say that I still believe definitely and sincerely that the winter is no time to hold an election- in the city and county of Halifax.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is this not spring?


Gordon Graydon: What about 1940?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I had a handsome majority in 1940, and also in 1945.


Gordon Graydon: It was in the winter, too.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I sat here quietly and listened to the political speeches of at least two hon. members, with interjections from time to time undoubtedly by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). I want to say to the hon. member who comes from the extreme west of Canada, and who saw Halifax only once in his life-


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: To my regret.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: -it is unfortunate that he did not happen to see our province to a greater extent. If he had, perhaps he would

Vacancy in Halifax County
have appreciated it. He would have appreciated what we have down there, what we fight for, and what w'e in that part of the country endeavour to represent.
In regard to the hon. member's observations I can only say that I know a great deal more than he does about the views of the people of Halifax. I am satisfied that the very great majority are satisfied with the course I suggested, and that they believe it was the proper course to pursue. I do not hesitate to say that, and I shall repeat it when the time comes.
I am glad to note that the Progressive Conservatives have finally found a man whom they will nominate this evening. He is a big man, I might say-so far as size goes-and, I believe, a very good man. He will be nominated tonight to contest the election when it is called. But after their long search they stand in exactly the same position as they did two months ago. And when the election is called, when election day rolls past, they will remain as they were in the past.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: You have not a candidate yet.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: You worry about your own; don't worry about ours.


Gordon Graydon: That is what Angus L. says about him.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: We will look after ourselves down there, so far as the Liberal party is concerned.


Gordon Graydon: And Angus L.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Oh, we have done very well since 1935. Apparently this is developing into a political discussion. May I remind my Conservative friends sitting opposite that in 1935 I was returned by a comfortable majority, and again in 1940.
In order to refresh the memories of hon. members opposite I would refer to the election of 1945. In that election let me say that they had two-exceptionally fine candidates, in the persons of Major-now Colonel-MacKeen, who was recently appointed director of one of the trust companies. But he does not feel that he can re-offer himself, although he is a very fine type. Then there was Major Dwyer, also a fine man. Perhaps under ordinary circumstances he should have been available at this time. With all due respect to the president of the dominion Progressive Conservative association, let me say that he went there, but he could not get Major Dwyer-and a great many others-to stand up. I hope they will get a man this evening at their convention.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We will; don't you worry.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: He was selected. Why?
Because he said something like this, "We must not allow this by-election to go by default. Even if I must be sacrificed, I am willing."
Let us look over the vote in the 1945 election.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I am most apprehensive about this. Is the hon. member going to tell us, before he finishes, when the writ will be issued?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: If that is a question which another hon. member has passed to my hon. friend to ask, then I do not think it amounts to much.
I was about to mention the vote in the 1945 election. In that campaign there were two fine candidates supporting the C.C.F. party; both were good types of citizens. One of them was one of our brightest young men, and it was not to his discredit that he did not poll a bigger vote. It was the policies he was advocating. Those were the policies he was standing for. He was a fine type of young fellow. He had as his running mate the assistant solicitor for the city of Halifax, Mr. Rooney.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am enjoying the hon. member's speech, but I want to ask him if it has any relation to the question which has been asked?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: It has a definite connection. Mr. Shaw polled 8,941 votes, and Mr. Mac-Keen, who was the leading Conservative vote getter, polled 18,182 votes. I hate to mention myself, but I polled 26,407 votes, or a majority of 8,225 over the leading Conservative, and 17,466 over the leading C.C.F. candidate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You cannot run again; you cannot be both members.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That is the situation as it is at the present time. May I say to my Conservative friends that I have every reason to believe that a great majority of their supporters are quite satisfied with the way I am representing them. I do not want to appear conceited or anything, but that is the case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are just as good a Tory as they are.

Vacancy in Halifax County


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I really do not understand the observation made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre about my being a Tory. I think for myself, and that is more than can be said for members of some other groups. The hon. member who has just taken his seat referred to the promises that we would make, the promises we would not be able to make, and so on. I have contested five elections and have won them all. I have yet to make a promise that I did not carry out. More than that, I do not think it is necessary in the city and county of Halifax to make promises in order to win this election. It is on the record of the government that we shall return a representative from Halifax city and county who will help to carry on the work I am endeavouring to do.
The hon. member referred to strikes in Nova Scotia just in a casual way, but I would remind him that there are strikes elsewhere. At the present time strikes are occurring in Vancouver.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: There is no by-election there.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That does not matter; it is not because of by-elections that strikes have taken place. May I tell hon. members how we are going to win this election? May I remind the house of the size of this constituency. It is not like many of the constituencies in Ontario or elsewhere which you can almost hold in the palm of your hand.


Gordon Graydon: You are doing that with Halifax.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The record speaks for itself. The constituency of Halifax runs for 147 miles east and west. There is considerable rural mileage to cover in the winter time and many fishing villages have to be visited. These things may not be important to hon. members who sit in easy urban comfortable seats.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Like Vancouver-Burrard.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I do not want to refer to any particular constituency. I have been complimented time and time again upon holding off this election and not having it held in the winter. I told the leader of the C.C.F. a short time ago that he should thank me for not having forced this election in the winter time. He did not say a. word ; he just looked at me and I said, "You know, your transportation is not quite as good as that of the Liberals or Conservatives and we would have you at a disadvantage". I want to be just as fair as I [DOT]can about this matter. My hon. friends have
never been particularly strong on organization. While they have done a fairly good job in trying to get organized at the present time they can thank me for having held off this by-election, if I were the one responsible. Our own organization is ready to go and we certainly will go.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The people of Halifax will certainly send a good type of representative here when the time comes. I would remind the house that the government is still within its rights because the time limit of six months has not elapsed. The leader of the opposition said that if an election were called tomorrow it would be 206 days, but that is just three days more than the previous by-election he mentioned when there was a period of 203 days. What difference does it make whether it is three or six months?
I still think I am doing a good job for the people of Halifax. I want a colleague who will work with me instead of one who will be bucking us at every turn. If we are going to row tandem I want a man who will keep stroke with me instead of one who will be pulling against me and upsetting the boat.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is what they wanted in Portage la Prairie.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: We are going to have that in Halifax the same as we got it in Cartier. There is no reason why an election should be held in the winter. I trust the people of Halifax city and county, and I know they will send back a Liberal to help me in the good work which I am endeavouring to do.


Mr. PARK MANROSS (London):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should rise in my place for a minute because London and the Thames river and floods have been mentioned this afternoon by people who are not from London. They read the Toronto Telegram and the Toronto Star, but they fail to read the London Free Press where they would really get the right story. I imagine they buy their papers on the outside when they are a day old and they can get them cheaper. There are two or three matters I should like to bring up at this particular time.
Great alarm was expressed by the trades and labour congress in London over the closing of CM'D-l. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe) were there recently, and after their visit they said that
Veterans Affairs

there was no likelihood of the place being closed. During the last week 300 men have been laid off and the people are quite concerned whether or not these ministers have decided to close up this establishment since their visit. I just wanted to bring this matter to their attention so that it will be on record. We shall probably hear something about it in the near future.
Another thing I ran into in London this week was a matter that concerns veterans. Trade schools for veterans have been set up and the men receive gratuities and allowances from the government, to pay for their courses. When they finish their courses they want to get sets of mechanics' tools with which to carry on the trade they have learned. These men find that they cannot purchase these tools out of their gratuities until the accounting department has had time to figure out how much of their gratuity has been used up in the course. It takes from three to six weeks to do this accounting and these men graduate and are walking around for that length of time without any tools. This is merely a matter of mechanical detail which could be hustled along, and I have no further criticism to make.
Another matter in London that was brought forcibly to our attention this week had to do with veterans who have purchased homes since July 1, 1945, and who find they cannot get possession. It is quite true that some of those who purchased through trust companies or real estate dealers were advised that they would have to abide by the terms of the order regarding evictions; they bought homes subject to the present tenancy, but other veterans -I have several cases which I shall not go into-apparently purchased homes without knowing anything about these orders. For instance, the first man on my list was in Holland when the order was published. The department wrote him and said, "We cannot understand how you do not know about this order because it was widely publicized." But at that time this man was serving in Holland and he did not hear much about it. There are quite a few of these cases, and I trust that when the minister brings in any relaxation of the rental controls one of the first things to which he will give consideration will be to make it possible for veterans who have purchased homes in good faith to get possession of them. I know that an order to that effect might be abused if safeguards were not taken, because a lot of people would be urging veterans to buy homes so that they could purchase them from the veterans. But a deadline could be set to prevent that. These veterans are at a great disadvantage. They cannot get into their own homes and are living in single

rooms with their families. The tenants will not get out of the veterans' homes because they say they do not have to get out and are not going to get out. The government should indicate to such tenants of veterans' homes that they should be looking for another spot, because it is likely that the controls will be released.
Another matter I want to bring up is consideration with respect to the Veterans Land Act homes in London. That matter has already been discussed in the house and I shall not go into it in detail today. The veterans held a meeting with a view to having the construction defects remedied, but they could not pin the contractors down to responsibility. In the first place, the contractors are not from London but moved in there from a distance, because the scope of the work was thought by the government to be beyond some of the local contractors, there being twenty-eight houses erected in one district and seventy-two in another. The veterans held a meeting of protest, and the Veterans Land Act officials were criticized-of course all officials are criticized-for having a take-it-or-leave-it attitude; if you do not like this, you can do that. A contractor would be ordered to paint a door and he would paint one side and not another. So the veterans called a meeting to protest. Two men attended that meeting, and I want to bring this to the attention of the government. They explained that they represented the London Liberal association to hear what the veterans had to say. They said this:
I don't know what the answer may be but if the Liberal association can give you an answer would you be willing to meet again to hear it?
I do not think any political association, mine, yours or anybody else's, should try to make political capital out of getting for the veterans the help to which they are really entitled. These veterans are entitled to good homes and to having construction defects remedied. I do not think it was proper for two officials of the Liberal association to go there and speak as they did. Of course I know the government can dismiss that by saying that the government cannot be responsible for irresponsible people. But these are not irresponsible people. They are responsible people; they are leading citizens of the town and officials of the Liberal association, and they went there as its representatives. At the same time they are circulating membership slips requesting anyone to join the Liberal association for the year 1947 for one dollar or more. Naturally they did not take these slips and pass them out at the veterans' meeting. But these canvassers are

External Affairs
going around, and many veterans get the idea, "Perhaps I had better join the Liberal association if I want any attention paid to my complaint". The officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs are the ones to see that the necessary repairs are made to these homes. I bring this matter up now, because a lot of Liberal ministers and members from western Ontario are coming to London on April 19.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope you will come to
the meeting.


Park Manross: I might be there but I will not join the association. I hope that those who come to London that day will come early so that they can see these homes for themselves and get first-hand information -because it is something that we shall have to discuss some day-and also see the flood stricken areas.



PRIVILEGE, MR. POULIOT-REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORT IN OTTAWA &quot;CITIZEN&quot;, APRIL 14

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, on a question of
privilege, in an otherwise excellent report of a meeting that was held yesterday of the Ottawa Holy Name Societies in St. Brigid's Church, I am reported as having said:
Communism is union and thus, in my opinion, not harmful.
I said that the name of communism is not harmful but that its doctrine is. A line must have been dropped.

Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs? I had intended to do so earlier today, but I thought this would perhaps give him a better opportunity to reply. Apparently the senior diplomatic representatives of Canada and the Soviet Republic are no longer functioning as ambassadors. Russia's ambassador to Canada left this country I think a year ago last December and has not been replaced. Our own ambassador to Russia has recently been withdrawn from Moscow for other service. It is important from the public point of view that the people of Canada should be fully informed of the exact position at the present time with respect to the two embassies.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the exact position is as the hon. member has outlined it. There was an ambassador who was accredited to the Canadian government
from the Soviet Republic. His letters have not been withdrawn, but he himself has not been here for several months. There was a Canadian ambassador accredited to the Russian government. His letters have not been withdrawn, but within the last two weeks he left Moscow and proceeded to Geneva. Before he left he had a satisfactory interview with the minister of foreign affairs of the Soviet Republic, and there the question of the intentions of the Soviet government was raised and was discussed. I am not in a position to give a report of the discussion. It was a friendly interview, and the result was communicated to the Canadian government, confidentially of course, by the ambassador. The whole tone of the discussion was on a cordial * basis. I will not say that the tone of discussions on a cordial basis means very much. It is very much like the situation we have in the meetings of the assembly of the united nations. Unfortunately there is still mistrust between the western democracies and those who control the destinies of the Soviet Republic, and the thing we are patiently, industriously striving to accomplish is to break down that mistrust and to have them realize that we only wish them well and that we only desire to have them wish us well. The hon. member has attended some of these meetings. He knows we are making some slow progress in accomplishing that result. I would be delighted to see it make more rapid progress. But, just as it takes two to make a bargain, it takes two to determine the exact atmosphere of diplomatic negotiations. The present situation is not discouraging, though it is disappointing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will my hon. friend permit a question for information? He said that the letters of the Canadian ambassador to Moscow had not been withdrawn. Do I understand that technically Mr. Wilgress is now ambassador to both the U.S.S.R. and Switzerland?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I should not like to say he is technically ambassador to both the U.S.S.R. and Switzerland. The diplomatic practice is that the letters of one ambassador are not withdrawn until those of his successor are presented, unless one wishes to break off diplomatic relations. Since there is no desire on our part or on the part of the Russians to break off diplomatic relations there has been no tendering of letters of recall by either government to the other. So that the technical situation is that there is still a Russian embassy accredited to Canada and a Canadian embassy accredited to Moscow, but that
Trading with the Enemy

the principal officer in charge in both places at the present time is a charge d'affaires a*d not an ambassador.


Gordon Graydon: Is there a possibility that shortly that will be remedied?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: All I can say is that we were told that the matter was under consideration by the foreign minister of the Soviet republic. We have his assurance that the matter is under consideration.
Motion (Mr. Abbott) agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As announced by the Prime Minister about two weeks ago, it is the intention to call two departments just for the purpose of getting them into supply, not for the purpose of discussion. I suggest that we call the Department of Agriculture, item 1, departmental administration, and that the vote stand; and External Affairs, item 41, departmental administration, and that the vote stand. If that meets with the consent of committee, I would then move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $163,190.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
il. Departmental administration, $767,480.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from March 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie for the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 14, to amend the Militia Act.
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs, for Mr. Gardiner) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 8, to amend the Inspection and Sale Act, 1938.
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 22, to continue the revised regulations respecting trading with the enemy (1943).
He said: Mr. Speaker, when the resolution preceding this bill was under consideration we had a considerable amount of discussion on the duties and responsibilities of the office of custodian, and at that time I made a statement as to the need for the proposed legislation. Since the bill was not in the hands of hon. members, it could not be considered at the resolution stage; but, as I pointed out, the bill itself contains regulations which it is considered necessary to continue, and those regulations which were passed during the war but could be dispensed with have been dropped.
During the discussion on the resolution, hon. members felt that they should have a report from the custodian of enemy property. That report has been tabled, together with the reports of the auditors who have examined the custodian's accounts. After the bill has received its second reading, it is proposed to refer it to the public accounts committee for consideration so that the fullest possible information can be supplied to hon. members as to the work that has been carried on in the custodian's office. At one time it was proposed that we should refer the bill to a smaller committee. However it has been felt that the public accounts committee is the one to which it should be referred; and whether it is desired to appoint a smaller subcommittee to deal with the matter is within their discretion.
On the resolution stage I referred to the provisions of the bill and the necessity for it, and I do not think there is any need for me to go into a long discussion on it at this time.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, the indication on the part of the government that the bill, after second reading, is to be referred to the standing committee on
[Stage Direction]
Trading with the Enemy
public accounts will, I think, make it possible to curtail one's observations on the bill on second reading. Nevertheless there are some things with respect to it which I think ought to be said at this particular stage. I do not propose to repeat the things that have had to be said in this house concerning other legislation of the government under the general category of legislation arising out of the expiry of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. I should like to point out some of the things which this bill contains and some of the things which it does not contain.
In the first place, this bill continues certain orders in council. At a later stage I shall have something to say with reference to the fact that this bill, while its operative 'sections do not occupy more than a page, nevertheless has this lengthy schedule which is legislative in character, and the bulk of the legislation is in the schedule to the bill. In the second place, the legislation purports to empower the governor in council, under certain circumstances, to amend these regulations which are part of the bill. In the third place, it purports, to empower the governor in council to make additional regulations without any reference to this house.
What the bill does not do is, in the first place, to place any time limit on its existence or on the powers conferred on the governor in council by the bill. In the second place, it does not require that any report be tabled in this house. In the third place, it does not require that any additional regulations passed under the powers conferred on the governor in council by this act, be tabled in this house. Those, I think, are important features of the bill well deserving of the attention of the house. If one compares this with another bill which is occupying the attention of the house, Bill No. 104, one is led immediately to ask why it is that there is no limitation in point of time contained in this bill; and, second, why there is this power to make additional orders, and why there is power to extend. In Bill No. 104, power is given to revoke but not to extend. Because there is no time limit provided in this bill for its own existence, I suggest that the house must be more than usually careful in scrutinizing its provisions.
I am sure it is unnecessary to review the history of the office of the custodian of enemy property. The house is aware of the fact that this office was set up in 1920, after the close of the first great war; and the administration of the assets which came into the hands of the custodian of enemy property arising out of the first world war had not been completed at the time of the outbreak of the second world war. In 1939, if I 83166-130
remember correctly, the staff had been reduced to four persons, but there were a few tag ends remaining in the course of administration.
During the recent conflict, over a billion dollars worth of assets came into the hands of the custodian of enemy property, and at December 31, 1946, about $320,000,000 of assets remained in his hands for administration. This might suggest to the house that the task of administration is substantially complete. I do not think that is a fair inference, particularly having regard to the fact that the $320,000,000 of assets represent no less than 53,488 individual accounts, which are contained in 524 ledgers and 121 auxiliary books. This is big business in which the custodian of enemy property has been engaged.
Broadly speaking, three categories of assets came into his hands for administration. First, there were those assets belonging to nationals of enemy countries or countries that had been overrun by the enemy. Second, there were the assets in Canada of organizations declared by the governor in council, under wartime powers, to be illegal. Third, there were the assets of persons of the Japanese race resident in Canada. Where was the supervision by parliament of the administration of this vast amount of money, this great quantity of assets? If we were not already enured to shocks, Mr. Speaker, surely it would seem to us a shocking thing that in this entire period from 1939 up to the present year no report was ever given to parliament of the administration by the custodian of enemy property of these vast amounts of assets. When the resolution	preceding the	present	bill	wasoccupying	the	attention	of hon.	membersthe house	was	informed	for the	first	timethat an annual report was made to the government or the Secretary of State by the custodian of enemy property, or the official in his department charged with the responsibility. The house was then also informed for the first time	that the	accounts	of	the
custodian of enemy property had been subject to annual audit, and I should like to say a word about the audit.
Actually the audit of accounts of the custodian of enemy property did not begin in 1939, with the outbreak of the recent war. The present firm of auditors, Price, Waterhouse and Company, were actually appointed back in 1930, and during all that period they have made an annual audit. But these annual reports of the auditors were not tabled in this house during the war years, and I think this house is entitled to know why they were not tabled. Here were annual auditors' reports coming into the hands of the Secretary of State. Not one of them was tabled in
[Stage Direction]
Trading with the Enemy
[Stage Direction]
this house during all those war years, and those annual reports of the auditors have not as yet been tabled. The Secretary of State mentioned the fact that he tabled the auditors' reports before second reading of this bill was called. Actually those auditors' reports he tabled were only three in number. There was one by P. S. Ross and Sons, dated October 20, 1943, an audit of the accounts of the custodian's office in Vancouver. There was an audit report by Price, Waterhouse and Company covering the period from December 11, 1941, to December 31, 1946, on the enemy section of the Vancouver office. The third report is by Price, Waterhouse and Company on the audit of the accounts at December 31, 1945. The annual reports, however, have not as yet been brought before the house.
During the debate on the resolution preceding the introduction of this bill, the present Secretary of State also mentioned that, since assuming his portfolio, he had arranged for the audit of these accounts by the auditor general. That is another striking fact, that in all these years these accounts, which were of very great importance, involving vast sums of money, have not been submitted for audit by the auditor general, parliament's own auditor. It is only within recent weeks that the auditor general has been asked to conduct an audit of these accounts.
As to the report, it came as news to this house from the Secretary of State that annual reports have been made in his department on the administration of enemy property. I ask why those annual reports were never tabled in this house during the war years. Here is a very important section of the public business which was withheld from parliament during the war, and I ask why. What justification can there be for having withheld from parliament, the elected representatives of the people, these annual reports by the custodian of enemy property on the administration of these assets confided to his custody? I trust that now the house is going to assume the responsibility of seeing that these accounts are properly reviewed in committee; but it should not have been left to 1947, to this present session, to undertake a review of reports and audits that have been proceeding annually all these years. I submit that the government is deserving of censure for having withheld from parliament during all those years any report whatever on this important section of the public business. The government got the power, and immediately they rang down the iron curtain. What has been

going on in the office of custodian of enemy property during the past seven and a half years has gone on behind the iron curtain.
Colin William George Gibson: If my hon. friend will permit a question, would he have advocated the filing of a report making public enemy assets in this country, or assets in this country belonging to aliens who were under the control of the enemy while the war was proceeding?


Mr. FLEMING:: No; for it was not necessary at all to put the reports in such form that the accounts of individuals or the property of individuals would have been made public. .
Mr. MITCHELL Your iron curtain looks like a lace curtain after that statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Nonsense. There was no occasion whatever for ringing down that iron curtain on any report whatever in connection with these audits, on the administration of this vast section of the public business.
The Secretary of State also mentioned the fact that he had tabled a report. It is true that he tabled a report, and I think the house is obliged to the hon. gentleman for having done so. That report is dated January 15,
1947.	This did not comprise the annual reports written by the officials of the department during all those years; it was a single report written in January of this year by an official of the department, Mr. Mathieu, the assistant deputy custodian. This report at least was dated prior to the introduction of the resolution. But it was not tabled until after the bill had been introduced.
I submit that this report is of considerable importance. It ought to occupy the study of the public accounts committee, and I believe there are some sections of the report about which the house should know, even now. When mention is made of the fact that the accounts were audited, the house should know as well that there are limitations as to the extent of the audit that was undertaken. Those limitations will appear from several extracts which I should like to read from the reports of the auditors. These extracts will be brief, because I do not purpose detaining the house at length in the reading of them. There are some, however, which, as I say, I believe the house should know. These will deal with several different aspects of the administration.
From the report of Price, Waterhouse and Company on the enemy section, Vancouver office, for the period of December 11, 1941, to December 31, 1946, I quote these extracts: first, the following, from pages 6 and 7:

Trading with the Enemy
Personal effects and chattels of enemy persons, including the balance of fishing boats and gear turned over by the fishing vessel disposal committee, have not generally been recorded on the books of the Vancouver office except in the files of the individuals. We did not examine these files in detail but we are informed that, with a few minor exceptions, all personal effects and chattels have been disposed of and the proceeds accounted for in the financial records of the Vancouver office.
And again, another limitation is pointed out at page 11 of the same report, in connection with controlled companies, where it states:
Fees of the controller and liquidator have been paid out of the funds of the Vancouver office against collections of a corresponding amount received from the controller and liquidator out of the controlled companies' funds. We are informed that there are about thirty companies not yet liquidated, still under the control of Messrs. P. S. Ross & Sons. Our examination did not extend to the accounts of the controlled companies nor did we endeavour to obtain direct confirmation from the controller and liquidator, of amounts remitted to the Vancouver office of the custodian. . . In submitting this report we would point out that our work was mainly concerned with an examination of the books of the enemy section of the Vancouver office of the custodian and a general review of the accounting methods employed. We did not examine all of the numerous files maintained for individuals, and, therefore, we are unable to state definitely that all assets vested in the custodian have been entered on the books.
Then, Mr. Speaker, in the audit of Price, Waterhouse and Company of December 31, 1945, there are also several extracts which indicate the limitations on the extent of the audit undertaken. I am not suggesting that these are unusual limitations, but I point them out in case unwarranted inferences should be drawn from the fact that these accounts were, as we are told, audited. At page 10 of the report we have the following extract:
We would advise you that no attempt was made to verify the securities listed as shareholders' securities. This matter was discussed with the assistant deputy custodian who stated that he was satisfied that reasonable control was being maintained over these securities through close checking at the times that dividends are received. This, of course, does not apply to non-dividend paying stocks, which actually are small in number and value as compared to the whole.
And then at page 19:
We made a physical test of the personal effects which are held in safekeeping in the vault. We w-ould again suggest that these effects be held under joint custody. At present there are two custodians, either one of which has access to the compartment containing the effects, and we feel that for the protection of these individuals, two persons, one of which is from another department altogether, should be present when any of the effects are placed in the vault or removed therefrom, both persons initialling the record for each transaction.
83166-130J
And at page 23, in concluding the report the auditors say this:
In submitting this report we would point out that our work was mainly concerned with an examination of the books of the custodian and a general review of the accounting methods employed. We did not examine all the files (of which we understand there are now approximately forty thousand) and, therefore, we are unable to state definitely that all assets vested in the custodian have been entered on the books.
The matter of the administration of the property of persons of the Japanese race situated in Canada is an important and vexed one. Again there are problems presented by the reports. First, I would quote a short extract from the report of P. S. Ross and Sons, dated October 20, 1943. This is a report on the examination of the Japanese evacuation section of the custodian's office at Vancouver. This is what these auditors say at page 9 concerning the administration of the chattels seized in British Columbia from these persons:
The household and personal effects of evacuees which they could not take with them to their new abode, were in a large number of instances, removed to central storage places or stored by the evacuees themselves, in most cases in some part of the dwelling being vacated. We noticed from some of the files examined by us that the evacuees recorded on the registration form only a general description of the items turned over to the custodian.
An inventory record was made by the clerks charged with the responsibility of taking into custody the chattels stored in one or other of the several buildings used as warehouses, and in the cases where chattels were left in the custody of the tenant of the property vacated by the evacuee, a receipt signed by the tenant for such articles was obtained, except in those cases where the chattels were stored in a room which was locked or by other means made inaccessible to the tenant.
We visited some of the places in Vancouver and Steveston used for storing chattels and we noticed that in numerous instances the evacuees had packed belongings in cartons which were not covered or tied, and also that many other articles were in a damaged and much used condition, consequently the inventory of the articles made by the person taking them into storage is, of necessity, of a very indefinite nature.
We understand that many requests have been received from evacuees to have shipped to them at their present address certain articles which, in some cases, have necessitated the unpacking of a carton or other container in order to locate the particular thing or things requested. We were also informed that the storage places have on a number of occasions been broken into and containers ransacked, and as a result the belongings of one evacuee mixed with those of another, thus destroying means of identification of ownership with the office records.
A number of sales of articles such as refrigerators, washing machines, etc., have been made by the custodian's office with the consent of the owners upon tlieir requests, and with the approval of the British Columbia security commission at the expense of the person making the request.
Trading with the Enemy

We were informed that in the near future the chattels then on hand will be sold by public auction. This would appear to be desirable so as to relieve the custodian's office of the responsibility of maintaining safe custody of numerous articles of little value, many of which, it could be seen by inspection, would rapidly deteriorate and probably become worthless if kept for a protracted period of time.
The report of Mr. Matkieu, assistant deputy custodian has a section in it dealing with the custody of property of these persons of the Japanese race which was seized in British Columbia, and held there. At page 39 and following of the report I read these extracts:
It must be remembered that the custodian became responsible for the whole household economy of over 22,000 persons who were moved out of their homes from communities such as Powell street, known as "Little Tokyo" and fishing centres such as Steyeston, 20 miles from Vancouver, from farming districts of more than 50 miles in extent in the Fraser valley and also segregated locations throughout the whole coastal and protected area of British Columbia.
It is also true that a certain type of citizen considered the abandoned homes of evacuees an opportunity to engage in theft and vandalism which were in evidence in many cases before our fieldmen or our agents had an opportunity of taking charge.	.
Even in the better class districts this was in evidence and perhaps an outstanding example may be given in connection with the property owned by the former Japanese consul in the Shaughnessy district of Vancouver. This house was under the control of the protective powers until the capitulation of Japan.
At the time the property was handed over to us in December, 1945, Mr. K. W. Wright, counsel to the custodian, and Mr. F. G. Shears, director of our Vancouver office, inspected these premises with Mr. Baeschlin, representing the Swiss government. Every piece of plumbing had been removed, light fixtures and switches had been disconnected and taken away and even leaded glass doors and windows had been taken from their frames and were missing. This had occurred in one of the best districts of Vancouver, and according to representatives of both the Spanish and Swiss authorities, the house had been broken into time after time even although it was boarded up after each depredation.
Our own experience in regard to buildings which had been used for storage was somewhat similar to that of the Japanese consuls house. Breakings-in were frequent, entrance being made in some cases by the use of fire escapes, through windows which were boarded up or covered with a grill or through basement doors.
It may be of interest to record that a building on East Hastings street, registered in the name of a Japanese association and which certain Japanese had filled with chattels, was left by them in the care of Messrs. (Morris and MacLennan. Upon request for the shipment, through the security commission, of some of the contents of the building, we requested Mr. MacLennan to accompany one of our staff to the building for the purpose of selecting the goods required for shipment. Finding it impossible to open the front door, access was made through a rear entrance when it was discovered that thieves had entered by the front door and had then
[Mr. Fleming.!
barred it from the inside with planks. The place had been ransacked, lids of boxes torn oft and the entire contents scattered over the floor. Both Mr. MacLennan and the representatives of the British Columbia security commission realized the futility of attempting to identify to whom the chattels belonged.
The assistant commissioner of police wrote to the Vancouver office on July 28, 1942, in regard to the Richmond district, stating that it was impossible for their police in that area to do more than keep as eye on Japanese property although he assured us that they would do their utmost to prevent breakings and enterings. He suggested [DOT] that we might consider employing a watchman in that district. As a result, we asked the commissioner to recommend a suitable person . . .
It then goes on to state that a watchman was appointed after all this extensive damage had been done to the properties of these people. Regardless of whether these people were under suspicion because of their being persons of Japanese origin, I think it should have been expected that, in justice to them as individuals, steps would be taken to safeguard their property so that it would be kept in proper custody. That obviously was not done. After requesting the police for cooperation, the report continues:
The police, however, seemed powerless to deal with the situation and apart from property in which the custodian was interested, the public press at this time contained many reports of a general crime wave of breaking and entering and safe cracking. Frequent reports were made by us to the police and were acknowledged as receiving their attention.
Of the three classes of goods under administration, I think one extract concerning the property of illegal organizations is worth referring to. Again it is not a question of whether these people were guilty or innocent; it is a question of whether adequate steps were taken under the circumstances to safeguard their property. We are told in this report that steps were taken to obtain a proper valuation of property and to make sure that sales were made based upon those valuations. The extract which I intend now to read deals with a striking case. I wonder how many hon. members feel that they can justify the claim made by the government that proper valuations of such property were made at the time of seizure as well as at the time of disposal. I read from page 65 of this report the following extract which appears under the heading, "The Workers' and Farmers' Publishing Association Limited":
At the time this company was declared illegal, an inventory was prepared of all machinery and tools.
The valuators employed by the agents for the custodian appraised these at $9,811. The equipment so valued was advertised for sale by tender, and sold, for $9,696.46.

Trading with the Enemy_
Let me interject there to say that they realized nearly the amount of the valuation placed on the machinery and tools at the time of seizure. The report continues:
Later, representations were made to the custodian, as a result of which the Honourable Paul Martin, in January, 1946, directed Mr. K. W. Wright to make an investigation, resulting in an additional compensation of $20,000 being allowed.
You have the original valuation of $9,811; you have the sale at $9,693, and then, later on, as the result of an investigation, another $20,000 being handed out by way of additional compensation. If that is a typical case I wonder if the public accounts committee should not go into these cases very carefully. Does not a report of that kind disturb the confidence of the house in the claim made that adequate and proper valuations were made of the property, both at the time of seizure and at the time of sale?
I think we should have had long ago some report concerning the amounts realized and the amounts turned over within the office of the custodian on the administration account itself. The minister told the house, when the resolution was before us, that a flat commission of two per cent was charged on all amounts realized. Does the house realize what that amounts to in terms of dollars and cents where a billion dollars-


Colin William George Gibson: I did not say that it was charged; I said that it was limited to two per cent, but that rate, of course, was not always charged.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think I was the only one who got the impression that the two per cent was a flat charge, but I am glad to have the explanation of the Secretary of State on that point. However that does not reflect on the fact that the amounts passing into the hands of the custodian by way of his rake-off on the realizations amounted to millions of dollars. In turn, the custodian was expending amounts totalling millions of dollars without those accounts ever coming before parliament to be reviewed, without any report in relation thereto being laid on the table of this house and without their being reviewed by the auditor general so that he might make his usual salutary comments on the administration.
In conclusion, I wish to submit to the house that this bill is not in proper form. It is all very well to have substantive provisions with a schedule attached thereto where the schedule is a complete document in itself and not of a legislative nature but I submit that this bill has -simply two or three substantive sections followed by some twenty pages of straight
legislative provisions. That is not in the form in which legislation should be submitted to the house.
We had an example of this in the bill introduced last year 'by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), having, to do with the reinstatement of veterans in civil employment. A number of orders in council were simply tagged on to the short provisions of that bill which purported to give statutory effect to the orders in council. The house took the course of referring the bill, even before second reading, to a committee of the house in order that the bill might 'be properly framed without having a lot of orders in council tagged on to it.
We are going to need legislation with reference to the administration of alien enemy property for some considerable time, and I submit that the house ought not now to be legislating, simply by way of giving effect to whatever is needed out of the existing regulations respecting trading with the enemj'. This legislation should be in the form of a bill and not simplv tagged on as a schedule to the bill.
I have referred to the fact that the bill has no provision with reference to the extent of its life. There is no provision requiring that new regulations passed under the powers in the bill, or any reports shall be tabled in the house. I submit that the bill is sorely lacking in these respects. Surely, after seven and a half years of this kind of administration, the time has come when the house must insist that complete annual reports should be submitted to it.
This is no time for maintaining the secrecy mentality which dominated this government in time of war. I entirely approve the proposal which the Secretary of State has made that the bill be referred to the public accounts committee, and I hope that committee will see to it, not only that the legislation itself is adequately reviewed, but that the reports, including the auditors' reports and all information to date on the administration by the custodian of enemy alien property, are carefully reviewed.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, since this bill is to be referred to a committee, it is not my intention to take up the time of the house with any extended remarks. I must say, however, that I do not believe that the public accounts committee is the proper body to which to refer a bill of this kind. If I have heard the statements of the member for Eglinton aright there have been no accounts submitted in connection with this matter. What is ordinarily referred to the public accounts com-
Trading with the Enemy

mittee is the public accounts arising out of the estimates; but in this case there are no accounts, so how can this bill be referred to the public accounts committee?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Dig up the accounts.


Angus MacInnis: But the committee does not have the authority to dig them up. I am satisfied that the public accounts committee is also too large a committee to deal with this matter, which on the statements made by the hon. member for Eglinton certainly needs investigating. I am not taking issue at all with anything he said, because I understand he was reading from documents which are authentic; therefore I am not disputing anything that he has said. But I do not believe that the public accounts committee is the proper committee to which to refer this matter. I have seen various matters referred to the public accounts committee on other occasions, but never in my experience in this house can I remember a complete report coming from that committee to this house on what it investigated.
I understand that it was the intention of the minister at one time to refer the bill to a smaller, special committee, and I am satisfied that that is the proper course to follow. Such a committee could get accountants of its own to investigate the custodian's accounts.
The hon. member for Eglinton mentioned that auditors who had gone over the custodian's accounts had stated that they had not examined each account separately and consequently could not say whether all the accounts were entered in the books of the custodian or not. He mentioned that there were approximately 40,000 separate accounts. Obviously it is impossible for the public accounts committee to examine that number of accounts. Consequently I still suggest that the matter should be referred to a smaller special committee with full power of investigation.
I was glad to hear the hon. member for Eglinton refer to the property of persons of the Japanese race. I think it is regrettable that the government of Canada, composed of men for whom I have great respect should have dealt with the property of these people in the way in which it has dealt with it. These persons of the Japanese race in Canada were not enemy aliens. If there is anything definitely on record in regard to these people, it is that. Indeed from the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in this house, there was never any question of their loyalty. Yet they have been treated all along

as enemy aliens and even worse than enemy aliens. Every effort was, in my opinion, made to despoil them of their property, so that they would never have an opportunity to come back and find any of their property to which they could lay claim. I regret that. It wall be a stain on the record of the Canadian government for all time. However, that is not what I rose to say.
I suggest again that this bill be referred to a smaller committee. If it goes to the public accounts committee I am satisfied that it will be made a political football and that we shall never get anywhere with it.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I support heartily the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) in suggesting that the bill should go to a smaller special committee to be carefully studied.
I enjoyed very much the analysis of the present situation given by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). I agree with the great majority of his arguments and I am not going to repeat them. I was amazed when first I heard that this huge business carried on by the custodian of enemy alien property was not reported on annually to parliament. I had taken it for granted in years past that that was done.
I do not know verj'- much about the custodian's administration of enemy alien property generally except what I have heard discussed in the house, but I do know something about the administration of the property of the Japanese who were evacuated from British Columbia. Thousands of them came into my constituency, and great numbers of them came to me with statements from the custodian which showed what their property had sold for, the cost, and the balance left. I am sure that when this matter is referred to (he committee they will find plenty of evidence as to the sale and disposition of houses, boats, farms, cars and general effects formerly belonging to Japanese evacuees, which will make any honest Britisher and any honest Canadian hang his head in shame. I do hope that when the committee undertakes its task it will do it thoroughly, because I am sure that plenty of evidence can be presented to the committee to establish that, under the exigencies of war and possibly some maladministration, a great injustice -was done to people whose supposed disloyalty to this country was never proven.
In conclusion, I am very glad that the Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson) has proposed that this bill be referred to a committee, but again I would support the hon. member for

Patent Act
Vancouver East in suggesting that a smaller select committee be appointed to deal with the matter more effectively.


Colin William George Gibson: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that this matter should be sent to a small committee, rather than to the public accounts committee, and I may say that that had been my idea in the first place. I realized, however, that there was a certain amount of criticism of that procedure and a feeling amongst the members that it should go to the public accounts committee. If it is felt that that is too large a body the public accounts committee could appoint a subcommittee of itself to go into all the details of the work of the custodian's office. I was very glad to have it go to a committee where it would receive the fullest attention, because I know that the custodian has nothing to hide, although we have heard so much tonight about the iron curtain. Anyone who reflects for a moment will realize that it would have been perfectly absurd during the war to provide the enemy with a list of enemy assets in this country, or assets in this country belonging to residents of occupied countries overseas. It would have put those people in an embarrassing position, when they -were prisoners of the Germans, to have the Germans know that they had assets outside the country. Consequently, during war time, no publicity was given, no reports were made as to the activities of the custodian's office or of the assets in his hands. 1 am very happy to have the public accounts committee go into the business of the custodian's office at the present time. I quite agree that there is no reason why annual reports should not now be filed, and I am quite sure they will be from now on.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) suggested that there should be a time limit to the granting of the powers provided by this bill. I may say that the powers will automatically expire when the assets in the hands of the custodian have finally been distributed. ,
One other point he made was in regard to the amendments provided under section 3 of the act. The only amendments to the regulations that can be made by order in council are those for the purpose of implementing the provisions in any peace treaty executed on behalf of Canada and ratified by parliament. So that the amendments he referred to are not amendments to regulations that would change the character of the act, but amendments that are necessary to comply with any peace treaty approved by this parliament.
Motion (Mr. Gibson, Hamilton West) agreed to, bill read the second time and referred tc the committee on public accounts.



PATENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 16, to amend the Patent Act, 1935.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. BOUCHER:: Would the minister give the committee some idea of the surpluses which the patent office has each year out of the fees collected from applicants after administrative costs are deducted? My recollection is that each year the patent office of Canada has had a substantial surplus. This being so, I submit that the committee should be given some information, and we should impress upon the minister that now in this time of expanding research, patents which Canadians may secure in the future should be protected. Patenting of inventions should be encouraged and assisted. The minister might very well urge upon the government to give greater attention to the expansion of patent work, the security of patents, and the question of modernizing the whole system of granting patents. Will he give us some information in that regard so that we may know what the government's policy is?


Colin William George Gibson: 
George Russell Boucher: Would the minister not say, in view of the substantial surplus that we have had for a great number of years, and seeing that that surplus has accumulated primarily from the collection of fees on patent applications, that the government at this time particularly will expand the services provided in return for those fees and give much more adequate service to patent holders in connection with the issuance of patents? This could
Patent Act

be done in many ways that have not been attempted in the past. We in Canada are now embarking upon what we hope is an industrial era, and we could afford to extend inducements to inventors who have produced inventions that will be of advantage to the nation. Surely he can provide patent facilities, particularly in view of the fact that the government has made a substantial profit each year out of those who apply for patents and who pay for what is ordinarily regarded as a service but is actually a profit to the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: Last year, when we discussed the estimates of the Secretary of State's department I suggested that we should have a special committee to deal with the revision of the Patent Act. This suggestion was not adopted. Instead, the Secretary of State has submitted to the house a bill with certain amendments to the Patent Act. That is all very well, but I still think much will have to be done at a future date, because the scope of the committee's work was limited, although, mind you, they did deal with a great number of matters which were not already within the scope of the amendment suggested by the Secretary of State.
Generally speaking, the difficulties in the patent office at present relate to accommodation and staff. I trust that the Secretary of State and the Minister of Public Works will find some way to secure decent accommodation for this highly technical department, which renders such good service to the public.
I had heard that it was the intention to move the patent office out to the experimental farm. That is absolutely absurd. The patent office renders a service which should be within the reach of those who practise before the office, and within the reach of the public who come to this city. To move the patent office such a distance from the city would be a great disadvantage to the public and to the people who are concerned with patents.
Another matter which is of great concern in connection with the administration of the Patent Act is that of securing competent personnel. I have the greatest admiration for the men and women who work in the patent office. I have been dealing with them for the past twenty years, and I should have a fond recollection of that office because my own father was commissioner of patents at one time. But these technical men have been working under circumstances which are not befitting that type of personnel. Down by the Ottawa river similar personnel are to be found in the national research council which is housed in a beautiful, well-lighted edifice, with all the facilities that technicians should 
have at hand. The personnel of the patent office is, as I said before, competent. There is no blame for any delaj^s or lack of service to be attached to the competency of the officials and officers of the patent office. But if we wish to secure more technicians in the patent office we must also pay them wages which should be paid to technicians. It is hard to believe that we ask engineers to become examiners on the staff of the patent office, with salaries under S3,000, to examine and pass upon inventions of technicians who earn ten times as much. It is also much harder to ask them to remain for a great length of time in the patent office at such salaries. I hope that the Secretary of State will see to it that decent salaries are paid in the future to the examiners and the staff of the patent office. I have particularly in mind now the salary of the assistant commissioner of patents and the principal examiner. These men's salaries range around $4,200, if I remember rightly. You cannot expect in the future to attract the best brains in the engineering class to- continue to occupy the post of assistant commissioner, after twenty or twenty-five years of service, at a salary of $4,500.
I wish to make only these remarks at the present time, Mr. Chairman, I will come back to the sections when they are called, but I thought this might be the only opportunity I would have to speak about accommodation, staff and wages, which are really the essentials.
I think that once the commissioner of patents, who is an efficient man, is given the tools, he will give the public the service for which we all are asking.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Mr. Chairman. I think it is indeed time that we went into this business of patents and I am very glad that something has been done at the present session. I agree with, the hon. member who has just taken his seat that if we wish to have efficiency in any of these government departments we must get qualified people, and we must pay them salaries commensurate with the responsibilities which they carry. But there is an aspect of patents which I think has not been gone into sufficiently.
It has always seemed to me that the patent situation in Canada is one which, from time to time, has enabled powerful corporations and interests to exact from the people of Canada dues to which such corporations and interests were not entitled. I am thinking at the moment particularly of the radio business. Why should a Canadian who buys a small radio in the United States, declares it at the point of entry and brings it into Canada,

Patent Act
sometimes receive after having imported it properly a letter cautioning him that he cannot use that radio unless he pays an additional exaction to an organization in the city of Toronto? Shortly before the war, I referred in this house to the case of a local schoolteacher in the city of Ottawa who bought both a small radio and a radio for the automobile and declared them at the port of entry. By some means which I have never been quite able to understand, the radio people who held the Canadian patents wrote this teacher a letter warning him that since these two instruments had been imported and no royalty had been paid in Canada, they could not be used in this country. I may say that subsequently, after some correspondence, permission was given to use one of these radios, and if my memory serves me correctly it was the radio in the automobile. But the point I am making is this. If there were patents on radio tubes or on the parts of the radios that were imported, then a royalty had been collected on them where they were made, in the United States; and for the life of me I cannot see why another exaction should be made in Canada by substantially the same people who have an office, I think, in the city of Toronto. Toronto always seems to be coming in for this sort of thing. Perhaps that is why it is such a well-to-do city, as the hon. member for Rosedale frequently reminds me. But I think this is a matter that should be gone into carefully by the commissioner of patents and by the government. There are powers under the Patents Act which would give the governor general in council authority to deal with situations of that sort, and I think they should be dealt with effectively. Indeed, patents as they are used today, are often used merely to reap a reward from the public to which the corporation which is using the patents is not entitled. I think many hon. members know of cases of quite useful inventions which have been made by workers in industries and for which they have received some small amount from the company and the patents pass over to the corporation. The person whose brains invented the improvement or the new device does not reap the profit. The invention passes from him to someone else, often for a mere trifle.
I have often thought that, after patents are examined and when they are going to be used, they should become the property of the public, that a reward should be given to the actual inventor for patents that are used in industry, and that the patents should then become public property and not be used merely to assist in the formation of a monop-83166-131
oly or the restriction of trade. If we live in a competitive system, then let us have competition. If we live in an economy largely of monopolies, let us not help to build them up any more than we can help by adopting legislation in their interests.
Another thing that has always struck me is this. Under the act the patent runs out in seventeen years; but even a modification at the end of that period of time, or an improvement, will enable the patent to be carried along for a further period of time, and so on; so that you eliminate competition for a very long time.
I do not want to delay consideration of this amending bill clause by clause, but some features of the patent legislation require careful consideration by this house. I have no doubt the committee have given this bill careful consideration, and I know they have encountered difficulties in getting anything better than we have before us. But I believe the whole basis of the Patent Act is wrong when it allows abuses of the kind to which I have referred. I am particularly interested in articles such as radios, because on occasions when I have heard of the exactions that have been made I have felt them to be wrong and grossly unfair. I know, of course, that a person who invents something useful should be rewarded for his invention, but I do not think any group of people should have the right to say we cannot use something upon which a royalty has been paid in another country, when it is legally imported into this country.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Secret patents.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to make one or two observations on this section, in part of a general nature and in part of a specific nature in reference to this provision. First, I should like to say a word by way of commendation of the work done by the banking and commerce committee in connection with this bill. That commendation does not apply only to this section, which is perhaps the most important and most difficult section in the bill; it applies to the bill in general.
In my submission, Mr. Chairman, the bill now before the committee of the whole, containing the amendments proposed by the banking and commerce committee, is a great improvement over the bill which was before the house on second reading. I also think it well to observe that in drafting and adding amendments to this bill the committee was not confined to the sections which were proposed to be amended by the original amend-



Patent Act
mg bill. I think that was a distinct advance, because it gave the committee an opportunity to deal with matters which have been the subject of complaint from time to time by those practising patent law or those having dealings with the patent office.
I should like also to say a wrord of commendation of certain members of the committee. It seemed to me that in its deliberations on this bill that committee had only one object in view. There were no partisan considerations in the work of that committee. I believe members of all parties worked together with a view to making improvements in the bill. We did not see eye to eye on all sections, but at any rate we worked together to make this a better bill and to draft amendments to the Patent Act which would make it more workable. After all, as far as the act itself is concerned, in the twelve years it has been on the statute books it has shown itself to be pretty satisfactory; not in all respects, but on the whole the statute has proved to be sound. Unfortunately, this could not be said of the administration, because of the fact that the staff was inadequate in numbers and the space was insufficient, as has been pointed out, but I do not intend to go into that question again. I wish to commend the committee for having proposed to the house that it should appoint from its own number a subcommittee to go farther into this question of accommodation and increased staff for the patent office in order that the public may be given a more efficient service. After all, in this case the public pays for a service through fees, and it is entitled to that service. So that I trust the report of that subcommittee will be forthcoming in due course.
I should like also to commend the chairman of the committee for his fairness and the businesslike way in which he conducted the proceedings. While the minister in charge of this bill, the Secretary of State, to judge from his remarks during a speech he made in Toronto last week, likes opposition, nevertheless I wish to say here that I commend him for the willingness with which he accepted amendments to this bill.
That all adds up to this, Mr. Chairman. I have not been in this house so very long, but I have been here long enough to appreciate the fact that some of the best work done by this House of Commons is done in its committees. I should like to see more bills, particularly those dealing with more or less technical matters, go to the standing committees of the house. The work done in amending this bill could not possibly have been done in committee of the whole. In

the banking and commerce committee we had before us officials of the department. We were able to question them; we were able to make drafts and redrafts right in the committee, without the formality which so often precludes work of that kind being done when the house is in committee of the whole. These improvements could not have been made if this bill had not gone to a standing committee; and I think that practice has proved to be absolutely sound. Some members of that committee made an outstanding contribution. I do not want to single out any hon. members in particular, but I would pay special tribute to such hon. gentlemen as the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet, the hon. member for Kamouraska and others, who obviously devoted much study to this bill and contributed suggestions which were of great value.
Now, Mr. Chairman, to deal particularly with the section now before us, this introduces into the act entirely new provisions which had their antecedents in an order in council passed during time of war. Some of the provisions did not have to be used to any great extent during the war, such as the provision having to do with patents being taken over in the name of the Minister of National Defence, though, of course, the right was used to preserve secrecy in regard to any patents and inventions which had to do with the national security. This kind of legislation we accept, as I am sure all parties in the house accept it, because occasion may arise when in the public interest, and particularly having regard to the relations existing betw'een this country, the United States and Great Britain, it is absolutely necessary that we have legislation of the kind provided in section 4. However I wish to say that the original section brought before the house was open to strong criticism in many respects, and not least in regard to the concluding clause. Section 19A conferred upon the governor in council power to make rules for the purpose of ensuring secrecy with respect to the patents to which the section applied; then in subsection 13 it added these words:
. . . and such rules may modify any of the provisions of this section in their application to such patents as aforesaid so far as may appear necessary for the purpose aforesaid.
That is the sort of legislation no government should introduce in time of peace. What was proposed in that subsection was that power be reserved to the governor in council to change the terms of the legislation itself by means of rules. In my submission, there can be no excuse for any government asking

Patent Act
for that power in time of peace, and I am happy to say that was one of the sections which went by the board in the committee. Again I say of the Secretary of State that he conceded the point and accepted the amendments proposed in that connection by the committee.
This section gave the committee a great deal of difficulty, and I wish to say further that the Secretary of State did not get very much cooperation in that committee from his colleague the Minister of National Defence. I do not say that in a personal way. I say it by way of urging on the government that before it brings in legislation of; this kind, legislation sponsored by one minister for the purpose of conferring power upon another, there should at least be close consultation and cooperation between the ministers before the legislation is introduced.
What happened was this. This section proposes to vest very wide powers in the Minister of National Defence. A strong case for the giving of those powers was made out before the committee by Brigadier Morrison, an official of the Department of National Defence. He made out a very strong, case, so much so that, after his evidence was taken, I think the committee felt that broader powers still would be needed, in the light of the information he had given.
But we later on had a visit from the Minister of National Defence. He fell far short of supporting the very strong case made out in committee, by Brigadier Morrison. I think it was a matter of great surprise to the committee that the Minister of National Defence, when invited to address the committee, had this to say to it concerning that most important section in the bill which confers upon him in his capacity as Minister of National Defence very broad powers. Concerning this section he said, "It was only after it appeared that my attention was drawn to it." This appears at page 187 of the proceedings of the committee.
That was the reason the Minister of National Defence gave for confining his remarks to generalities, saying he would have to consult officials of his department again in regard to it. Think of that, Mr. Chairman! Here is a bill designed to give very broad powers to the Minister of National Defence. It gets to the stage of second reading and goes before the committee. The Minister of National Defence comes before the committee at a late stage of its sittings, about the fifth of its meetings on this particular bill, and says in effect, "I did not see this until it was printed and put before the house. And while the officials of my department have been here making out the case for the provisions in the bill, before 83166-131J
I make comment upon it in detail I shall have to confer with the officials of my department." I submit that more is to be expected of the government than that, in the way of cooperation.
I am not making it a personal matter as between minister and minister. But I submit that in fairness to the house and in fairness to members a situation of that kind should not be permitted to recur.
I submit to the committee that the bill in its present form is a satisfactory legislative provision for dealing with the situation disclosed to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On section 19-Tariff of fees.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I have one comment to make on this section. It proposes to increase the fees charged by the patent office. There is no blanket rate of increase. I think it is fair to say the increase averages about twenty-five per cent. So far as the committee was concerned, it was quite prepared to approve increasing the fees, provided that the public is given better service. It would not be fair for the house now to approve the proposed increase in these fees, and then at a later stage to refuse to devote some of the increase in fees to giving the public better service. If the public is to have that better service it means that there must be an increase in staff, and it means also that there must be an increase in space available. There is not space for the staff to work in at the present time, nor is there adequate space for the storage of records. I think the committee should regard it as a matter of honour, in approving this increase in fees, to see to it at the appropriate later stage, that adequate amounts of these fees are turned back to improve facilities for the service of the public.


Colin William George Gibson: I should like to reply to what the hon. member has said, and to go farther and express my appreciation to the committee for the work it did, not only in amending this bill but also in taking upon itself the responsibility of looking about for better accommodation, for more extensive accommodation, and for making a thorough investigation so that it can bring in a report to the house with respect to what additional facilities the patent office should be provided with.
I wish also to agree with what the hon. member for Eglinton said about the splendid work done by the banking and commerce
Export and Import Permits

committee, and I should also like to refer to the great help given by Mr. Robinson of the Patent Institute of Canada. He attended many of the meetings of the committee, and was of great assistance in revising the act.


Jean-Thomas Richard: I have only one criticism to make. I think the fees have not been raised sufficiently. I am sure we cannot expect the service mentioned by the hon. member for Eglinton with only this increase in fees. These are still the lowest fees in the world. No South American or other country charges such low fees as are mentioned in this tariff.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 20 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 11, respecting export and import permits.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet, but I think you did not see me. However I should like to make a few remarks before the bill goes into committee. I thought, as a matter of fact, that the minister would make a statement on it, or that the chairman of the banking and commerce committee would make a statement, the bill having been reported from the committee with a few amendments. I should like to make a few observations on it.
The committee had the advantage of hearing senior officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and also Mr. Donald Gordon of the wartime prices and trade board; and I think the committee was satisfied that for the temporary period proposed it was certainly necessary to have certain export and import controls. And further-speaking for myself, and I think probably the other members of the committee-we thought it was wise to leave a certain flexibility. We thought it was not wise to insist that the full list of commodities be set out, and that they be not allowed to be changed; because we felt that, if that were so, the tendency would be to refrain from decontrolling certain commodities because they would not be able to be brought back in.
We felt that the officials, and particularly- well, I should not say "particularly" Mr. Gordon-we felt that all the officials were working toward the restoration of freedom, to the extent that their judgment carried. And

for that reason, subject to the amendment which will be proposed, it seemed to us that this was a reasonable measure.
I should like to make two comments before taking my seat. I think there is no question that the present restrictions are being felt keenly in certain quarters of the business community. I think we must face the fact, those of us who believe in the maximum of freedom, that every time you impose a restriction it leads to other restrictions; and it is almost impossible to tell how the ramifications and effects of one restriction-because, as I say, it will lead to others-may affect the community. The greatest argument of all for freedom is that if you do not have the maximum of freedom, then you have to go in for more and more restriction. And, quite frankly, I do not think there is the capacity to make these over-all decisions which some of our friends want to make.
I think, highly as we regard the officials who came before us, we found the very natural human tendency on their part to believe that they could set out to correct certain inequalities as between one person in the trade and another person in the trade. In certain cases which came to our attention they set out by regulation to control and adjust these inequalities.
We would all like to have equality. We would all like to believe that we have the wisdom to set up equality. But it did become clear; it became clear in the committee, certainly to myself, that these controls which set out to be, and, I think, genuinely purported to be, controls for the purpose of dealing with commodities which were in short supply, almost imperceptibly went beyond that, to a point where these same powers were used for further, and quite ancillary purposes, namely to create what was considered by the officials to be justice as between man and man.
I wish to add just one further word. Something will be said in committee as to the duration of the bill; a minor amendment will be proposed. But, broadly speaking, it will last about a year. There is nothing in the world to prevent the government from coming back at the end of the year and telling us that they need a further extension. But I would submit this, very earnestly, that the members of the government who are responsible should press on with the task of getting rid of these things; because while something may be said for controlled economy and while I believe a great deal may be said for a free economy, I think there is less and less to be said for trying to make the best of both worlds, trying to keep

Export and Import Permits
one foot on each side of the fence. In this way we can easily make the worst of both worlds.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Sections 1 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On section 14-Coming into force.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is proposed that this act shall expire sixty days from the commencement of the first session of parliament commencing in the year 1948, or the 31st of March, 1948, whichever shall be the earlier date.
That was before the banking and commerce committee, and I understand that it was negatived by that committee. I should like to move that amendment now, for the judgment of the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to say a word on the subject.


William Ross Macdonald: Order; could I have the hon. member's amendment in writing?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have not the amendment written out, but the purpose of it is simply to add certain words at the end of the section.


William Ross Macdonald: Then perhaps the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario would write out his amendment while the hon. member for Eglinton makes his remarks.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Very well.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The banking and commerce committee should be commended for the work it has done on this bill, and I think that at least the members of that committee will agree with my statement.
In connection with the matter to which the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has made reference, I think this committee should be aware of the fact that when this bill was introduced it did not provide for reports being tabled in the house. That serious defect was cured by an amendment introduced in the committee. A further amendment was introduced dealing with the timing of the effect of regulations in relation to their tabling, and publication in the Canada Gazette. There was also a substantial improvement made by the committee to the bill. But there still remains the question of the effective date of expiry of this bill. Section 14 of the original bill provides:
This act shall come into force upon the expiration of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, and shall expire sixty days
from the commencement of the first session of parliament commencing in the year one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight.
That would suffice if we could be positive that parliament would be called' together before the end of January, 1948. The footing upon which this bill was introduced, the footing upon which it was discussed on second reading and sent to the committee was that the bill would not have a life beyond March 31, 1948, under any circumstances unless specifically extended by the house. If parliament should not be called together until late in 1948 the effect of that section as it now stands might be to- extend the effective life of this bill beyond March 31, 1948. Suppose parliament were not called together until the middle of March next, as was the case in 1946; it would mean that the effect of this bill might go on until nearly the end of May. It seems to me that that was not intended. The course which ought to be followed now, the course which I urged unsuccessfully in the committee, is that we should have in this section a provision analogous to that which was inserted in the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act in 1916, when the life of that measure was extended either to March 31, 1947 or to a. date sixty days after the opening of the session of parliament in 1947, whichever was the earlier date. If that were done now we would be assured that this bill would not have a life beyond the date proposed originally by the government, namely, March 31, 1948.
That is a simple safeguard which I urge, and I would hope the government would readily agree to it. That is the footing upon which they brought the bill before us; the limitation on the life of the bill was emphasized by the government on the introduction of the bill. I think the suggestion now made to curb the life of the measure unless extended by addresses of both houses is a proper suggestion. Bill No. 104 is a kindred bill in the sense that it is designed to extend emergency legislation for a limited period. It will be seen that the expediency followed there by the government in introducing the bill is contained in section 7, which reads:
Subject as hereinafter provided, this act shall expire on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven, if parliament meets during November or December, one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven, but if parliament does not so meet it shall expire on the sixtieth day after parliament first meets during the year one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight or on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight, whichever date is the earlier: provided that, if at any time while this act is in force, addresses are presented to the Governor General by the Senate and House of Commons respectively,
Export and Import Permits

praying that this act should be continued in force for a further period, not in any case exceeding one year, from the time at which it would otherwise expire and the governor in council so orders, this act shall contnue in force for that further period.
When the government in its own omnibus measure, Bill No. 104, proposes a limitation on the life of the measure in these terms, surely there should not be any hesitation on the part of the government in accepting the suggestion now offered that the life of this bill should be confined to a date either sixty days after the opening of the 1948 session of the house or March 31, 1948, whichever is the earlier. That is a fair proposal and is in line with what the government has already said, and it is certainly in keeping with the section from Bill No. 104 which I have just read. The amendment now proposed does not even go as far as Bill No. 104 in limiting the life of the measure.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Eglinton refers to the provisions of. Bill No. 104. There is one difference between the provisions of this bill and Bill No. 104. While Bill No. 104 does expire on the sixtieth day after the opening of parliament or on March 31, 1948, whichever is the earlier date, it may be extended by addresses, one by the House of Commons and one by the Senate. That is a much more expeditious procedure than extension by act of parliament. If extension is to be by act of parliament I think the government ought to have sixty days after the session begins. They should not be so crowded by the insertion of the March 31 date that they would virtually be obliged to open the session in January, though presumably that would be the government's intention. It may very well be that certain export and perhaps import controls would have to be extended beyond the expiration of this bill, in which event another bill would have to be introduced.
Perhaps I should say to the committee that it was our first plan with regard to this bill to make the period longer than a year, because we anticipate that the contracts with Great Britain will run for longer than a year. They will not expire on March 31, 1948, or within sixty days after the opening of the next session. I assume that the government will get power in some way or other to carry out these contracts. They have power to discharge their obligations for one year under the Agricultural Products Act. I assume that parliament will in some way or another enable the government to carry out the contracts they have made with Great Britain. I should think it would be highly probable that some
CMr. Fleming.]
export controls and perhaps some import controls might be required beyond the period of this bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When the minister says contracts with Great Britain, is he referring in a general way to all contracts or to certain special contracts?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am referring to the ones referred to time after time in this house, such as bacon, beef and cheese and that type of contract. I would anticipate that some export and perhaps import controls would be required beyond the period covered by this bill, but we purposely made the bill for just one year so that we would be obliged to come back to parliament to present the situation as it then existed at the opening of the next session. We thought that was a reasonable thing to do when we would in all probability be requiring an act of parliament, not merely an extension of the present act by addresses of both houses, such as might be possible with regard to some of these other acts. With regard to this act, if there is any extension, it will in all probability be by a new act, and it may be a very much restricted measure, with a very much limited list and so on. If we are to have an act of parliament it is reasonable, I think, to ask for sixty days after the opening of the session.
I rose merely to point out that there is a difference between this bill and the act dealing with the continuation of transitional measures, in that if that act is continued it will be by addresses of both houses, a procedure which requires a very much shorter time. Therefore the effect of putting in March 31, 1948, as a date is much less confining, much less serious so far as the house is concerned in that case than it would be in this measure.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I remind the Minister of Justice that when the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act was extended in the 1946 session that was the form of the amendment accepted. The government had originally proposed that the life of that measure should be extended to a date sixty days after the opening of the 1947 session. An amendment was introduced in the house to confine the life of the measure to the earlier of two dates, that date or March 31, 1947, and the amendment was accepted. If that amendment was acceptable I fail to understand why the same amendment to this bill should not be equally acceptable. It will not make any difference in the life of the measure, but it is a safeguard to the house, in being asked to give these extraordinary powers to the government, that they will not be extended indefinitely but will expire on a fixed date.

Emergency Powers
The minister may say he expects the house to meet in early January, in 1948. He may quite sincerely expect that now. But there is no commitment on that. Even at the time when the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act was under discussion the Prime Minister, while he indicated it was the intention of the government to summon parliament to meet in January, would not give a binding commitment to that effect to the house. The government nevertheless accepted an amendment to the same effect as that now proposed by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario. Surely it would be reasonable to accept it.
The minister says that if an extension is to be made by act of parliament the government should have more time. But surely we are not going to have a great volume of emergency measures of this kind facing parliament at the opening of the 1948 session. The whole tenor of the remarks made by the government on that theme is that they are aiming at doing away with many of these measures before that time comes. Surely there will be no difficulty in taking whatever measures are necessary on the part of the government to extend the life of this bill, if parliament thinks it necessary to extend it, if the bill runs until March 31,
1948.	It seems so perfectly reasonable.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It seems reasonable also to say that sixty days is not required to get legislation through this house, but it must always be borne in mind that many members feel that other legislation has priority and is more important. It is to be remembered also that there is a speech from the throne, and just at this very time there are members who have differing views as to what legislation should be brought forward first. I repeat what I said before, that I think the government ought to have sixty days at the opening of the session within which to get legislation through. The situation might be different if it were a matter of addresses, because legislation has to go through three stages in this house and three in the other, and addresses may be passed in an hour in this house and in an hour in the other, as was the case this year.
I do not see what my hon. friend is so alarmed about. We have always called parliament together early in the year and I expect, and I think that hon. members who were on that committee expect, that probably some export and import controls will be required beyond this period. Certainly some of the contracts with Great Britain run beyond that period. Perhaps some will be required beyond the period, and there will have to be some legislation, and it ought to be legislation. It
should not be addresses, because the bill will in all probability be a very different kind of bill, and it seems to me that sixty days is a reasonable time.
What is feared here is that we are going to carry on export and import controls a few weeks longer than we otherwise would, and that we must be cut back rigidly for fear that something terrible will happen. That is not the way we operate at all. It is not the way we have operated in the past or plan to operate in the future. All we ask for is a reasonable time after parliament meets to get legislation through if we need it, and we think we need it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government has control over the date on which parliament is called together, and therefore the government controls the life of the measure,


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is far-fetched to think that our worry about this measure will control the period at which we call parliament together.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonnell, Muskoka-Ontario) negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
EMERGENCY POWERS continuation op certain orders and

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ilsley for the second reading of Bill No. 104, 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 the amendment thereto of Mr. Fleming.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Before the question is put,
Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order on the amendment. The amendment was moved the day before the house adjourned, and it is found in Hansard of April 1, at page 1937. It reads:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"While recognizing that the said bill deals with some matters such as old age pensions and veterans in the civil service which do not depend for constitutional validity on the existence ot an emergency and some other matters which can only be dealt with by this parliament on the basis of an existing or apprehended emergency; and while willing to support properly dratted legislation dealing with such matters;
This house is unalterably opposed to the enactment of a measure to continue indiscriminately the sweeping powers of the presently existing boards outside the control of parliament."
Emergency Powers

I find in the third edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Buies and Forms, page 229, citation 659, the following:
An amendment purporting to approve the principle of a bill and at the same time enunciating a declaration of policy cannot be moved to the second reading. It must oppose the principle of the bill. When the natural products marketing bill was up for second reading, on the 24th April, 1934, a member moved in amendment, that "this house, while prepared to support legislation for assisting the orderly market's of natural products, is unalterably opposed i. - i.6 1enactment of any compulsory measures which delegates to unnamed and undetermined individuals, groups or organizations, sweeping powers over the production and trade and commerce of the nation, etc." The Speaker ruled tnis amendment out of order because it did not challenge the principle of the bill and it anticipated the committee stage. On an appeal, the house sustained this decision by a vote of 103 to u2.
This amendment recognizes, or undertakes to place the house on record as recognizing the necessity of many of the provisions of the bill. It states that the house is unalterably opposed to the enactment of a measure to continue indiscriminately the sweeping powers of the presently existing boards outside the control of parliament. That is, there are some provisions of some of the orders in council to which the amendment takes exception. That, I submit, is a matter for amendment in the committee stage, and the amendment does not enunciate a principle contrary to or at variance with the principle of the bill at all. If anything, it approves the principle of the bill, but simply states that the house is opposed to the enactment of a measure to continue indiscriminately the sweeping powers of the existing boards outside the control of parliament.
If the amendment does not mean what I construe it to mean, if it means that the bill is bad, then it may be merely an expanded negative and bad on that ground. But I think that the first ground I state is the proper ground. I do not think there is any precedent for an amendment such as this. If the debate is to continue tonight I do not care whether the point is decided tonight, but I do not think I should allow the matter to be proceeded with without raising a point of order and having Your Honour's ruling upon it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is interesting to hear the Minister of Justice raise a point of order on this bill two weeks after the amendment was introduced, and certainly on the third day that the house has been in session after the amendment was introduced. After two and a half sessions in this house, I do not profess at all to be an authority on the rules of the house, but I contend that it is a fundamental

rule that, if a measure or an amendment is objectionable on the ground of procedure, objection to it must be taken promptly.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Where is that rule?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That principle has been enunciated frequently in this house.
Mr. ILSLE"i : The rule is that it must be taken before the question is put.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And I am making the point that this objection has not been taken promptly and that it should have been.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was not taken promptly, but it was taken before the question is put, and that is the rule.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am making the point that the objection should have been taken promptly and that has not been done. That is my first point.
The next point is this. It is interesting to hear the Minister of Justice take objection on the ground that his leader must have been wrong in 1934. If the minister says that the amendment I have introduced is out of order, then he must say that the point on the amendment taken by his leader in 1934, if it is a proper precedent, is not well taken.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was decided that it was out of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It happened to be his leader's point.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was frequently ruled out of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All right. In my submission this amendment is in order. The rule laid down in Beauchesne, third edition, at page 229, citation 659, is that an amendment on second reading, to be in order must oppose the principle of the bill. In my submission, the amendment that was introduced on April 1 clearly comes within that category. I do not wish to burden you again, Mr. Speaker, with what I had to say at that time about the difficulty of finding a principle in the bill; but the principle of the bill as held forth by the government was that it is a measure to extend or to give the force of statute to certain orders in council which would otherwise come to an end on May 15. The effect of the amendment is to say this: there are some of these fifty-seven measures that may be unobjectionable, but there are others that are objectionable, and the house is not prepared at this stage, in an unprecedented bill, to accept sweeping measures of that kind, covering such a tremendous variety of subjects and to pass over to boards outside parliament these sweeping powders that have been vested

Emergency Powers
in them by these orders in council. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the amendment is couched in terms of opposition to the principle of the bill within the terms stated in Beauchesne.
As to the other point taken by the minister, he has drawn attention to some similarity in the amendment introduced by his leader, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in 1934, on this other measure. I wish to urge upon you, Mr. Speaker, that the measure on the amendments to which you are being called upon to pass your judgment, is a measure that is without precedent in this house. Hon. members opposite referred to the measure that has come closest to it, in the legislation of 1931 and 1932, resolutions bulking two measures together-just two-unemployment relief and certain forms of agricultural assistance. I submit that is quite a different kind of situation from the bill now before the house, a bill that would give blanket extension, with statutory effect, to no less than fifty-seven orders in council, all dealing with different subject matters. If that argument is correct-and I urge that it is-then the citation given to you now by the Minister of Justice is not a precedent against the amendment which I introduced on April 1. I submit that the amendment is clearly within the rules stated in Beauchesne, third edition.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on this too. I wish to read again what this amendment says, so that the house may have it in mind. It reads:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"While recognizing that the said bill deals with some matters such as old age pensions and veterans in the civil service which do not depend for constitutional validity on the existence of an emergency and some other matters which can only be dealt with by this parliament on the basis of an existing or apprehended emergency; and while willing to support properly drafted legislation dealing with such matters;
This house is unalterably opposed to the enactment of a measure to continue indiscriminately the sweeping powers of the presently existing boards outside the control of parliament."
Following what the hon. member for Eglinton has said, I submit that surely there is a principle at stake here. The whole thing we object to-and I think the objection was made originally in the house by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power)-is this indiscriminate putting together of fifty-seven varieties, as they have been called, and then forcing us to deal with this whole situation in this omnibus way. We have surely, on this bill, stated what is a firm principle on our part, that we object to this matter
being dealt with in this way where we are now asked to take the bitter with the sweet, and where all these things have been jumbled together, as the hon. member for Quebec South pointed out, in this unprecedented manner. I submit to Your Honour that the hon. member for Eglinton is right in saying that there is a principle involved here and that, on the contrary, the citation read by the Minister of Justice, referring to an amendment purporting to approve the principle of a bill, is not applicable. We certainly did not purport to do that. This amendment purports to do exactly the opposite. If it by any chance fell into approving the principle of the bill, it certainly was not what it purported to do. What it purported to do was exactly the opposite. I maintain, therefore, that the hon. member for Eglinton is right, and that this is not approving the principle of the .bill and, consequently, is a proper amendment.


George Russell Boucher: Referring to what the Minister of Justice has said is a precedent for declaring this amendment out of order, may I point out that in the Natural Products Marketing Act in which the decision was given which he speaks of, there was one clear principle, namely, the orderly marketing of natural products. In this bill, if there is any one principle that we have clear it is the principle of administration of controls and, according to the amendment, it was objected to by virtue of the boards administering that control. The result is that you would have a broad system of control, and if the minister's analogous proposition were presented to this parliament we might just as well be asked whether or not we are in favour of control of anything or of everything. Consequently, when the amendment, worded as it is, refers to some part of the economy of Canada where some controls are necessary but raises objection to the principle of the fifty-seven coupled in one and the principle of administration of them in a certain way, I would say it definitely is against one of the fundamental principles, one of the only principles that this bill before the house could involve. That would not be so with the Natural Products Marketing Act. Consequently, when Your Honour decides the point, will you bear in mind that we must first .decide what is the principle of this bill? The principle of the bill does not mean the details of how it is to be carried out, but it does mean the principle of giving a certain power. The power in this bill, covering as broad a field as it does, is an extensive one;
Emergency Powers

and we can hardly see where limitation can be easily put or where the bill can be divided, and it can be said that because we approve one fifty-seventh of it we must approve the principle, or because we disapprove one fifty-seventh of the bill we disapprove the principle. For that reason, I think if the contention of the Minister of Justice is right we should put ourselves and parliament in the position of saying that we must be 100 per cent in favour of all or we cannot amend it, and we must amend it in the one material point in it or the amendment is not in order.
A short time ago the Minister of Justice himself said this bill embodied so many principles of control, and it is unique in that respect. So I suggest that it is incapable of being interpreted by Your Honour by virtue of any decision given on such a narrow, restricted measure as the Natural Products Marketing Act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to say a brief word on the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice. I think he explained the situation to Your Honour from the authorities so clearly that there can be no question whatever on two main principles, if any hon. gentleman cares to read citations 658 and 659 of Beauchesne. My memory goes back to my good friend's former leader, now Lord Bennett, who was a brilliant parliamentarian with a thorough knowledge of the rules of procedure, and who always laid down the principle that an amendment cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. That is exactly what this amendment seeks to do. My hon. friends are approving some of the features of this bill, in regard to protection for civil servants, veterans, and old age pensions. At the same time another definite principle is involved, which was referred to by my right hon. colleague, in regard to the last part of the amendment, which is an expanded negative not dealing with any measure at all, charging discrimination. That is a perfect case of an expanded negative. This is a complete example of approbating and reprobating at the same time, and if my hon. friends will look up the precedents of parliament they will find that no amendment of this kind has ever been approved by this house.


John Bracken: The Minister of Justice having raised a point of order in connection with the amendment, I presume Your Honour will have to make a decision. If that decision is to be given tonight I wish to make a brief comment before that is done. The acting leader of the house just said something about approbating some sections of this bill and reprobating others. I want to say there are
IMr. Boucher.]
some sections of this bill that practically every member of this house approbates, and some sections practically every member reprobates. The Minister of Justice has referred to certain precedents. I ask him if there was ever a precedent for a bill such as we have before us tonight.
What has the amendment sought to do? Here is a bill with not one but fifty-seven principles, and this house is asked to support them all or oppose them all. No matter how we vote, wre are going to be misinterpreted. There are sections of this bill supported by every member of the house. There are sections I think every hon. member would oppose. How can wTe express our opinions on a measure such as this unless some amendment such as has been moved can be brought forward?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In committee.


John Bracken: If we support the bill we shall be represented as supporting everything in it, which practically no one does. If we oppose it we shall be represented as opposing everything in it, which I am quite sure everyone does not wish to do. Whatever may be the technical answer of Your Honour to the point of order which has been raised, if this amendment is ruled out of order we are denied the opportunity of saying there are some things in this bill we support and some things we do not. I suggest that we ought not to be deprived of that right, because this bill is unlike anything ever before introduced into this parliament. It is fifty-seven bills in one.
I am saying nothing whatever with respect to the narrow, technical point raised by the Minister of Justice. I am only saying that, on the broad question of dealing with this bill as it is, if we are denied the right to vote on the amendment we are denied the right to express what we feel about a measure which contains not one but fifty-seven different principles.


James Horace King: On account of the importance of the ruling I have to give, and on account also of the representations


Mr. HACKETT:: I crave the privilege of saying a few words, Mr. Speaker, somewhat along the line of what has just been said; but I shall take my text from the Minister of Justice. He told the house that nothing comparable to the present bill had ever been introduced before, and it was not likely that anything like it would ever be introduced again. That being the case, it seems to me that rules made to apply to cases which ordinarily come before the house should not be applied to a case which has not come before the house previously and is not likely

Emergency Powers
to come before the house in the future. To submit that because a person may hold certain views on pelagic sealing he is therefore bound to a system of controls dealing with clothing, or food, points clearly to the difficulties which arise in dealing with this matter. Why were these items concerning which there was no dispute and concerning which there was no emergency included in this bill? Was it for the purpose of embarrassing the house? Was it for the purpose of forcing people who had no objection to the provision with respect to pelagic sealing, for example-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I regret that I must rise to another point of order. The hon. gentleman is not arguing the point of order; he is arguing the merits or demerits of the legislation.


John Thomas Hackett: I am not arguing the merits of the bill; I am arguing the point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Thomas Hackett: I am endeavouring to point out that because so many principles are involved in the bill it is not proper parliamentary procedure to hold or say or suggest that any person or group in the house supports all the bills or all the principles-


James Horace King: Order. I would ask the hon. member to resume his discussion of the point of order.


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Speaker, I may not be deft, but I am endeavouring to direct my remarks to the point of order. The point of order is that, there being not one principle involved in the bill but fifty odd-


James Horace King: Order. I understand that the hon. gentleman desires to have the Speaker give a certain ruling. The point he is discussing now was discussed just a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Carle-ton (Mr. Boucher). If the hon. gentleman has no new representations or suggestions to make to the Speaker, the Speaker will decide whether or not his ruling will be given immediately, and what the ruling will be.


John Thomas Hackett: Possibly Mr. Speaker
would be in a better position to determine whether or not my argument is identical to that of the hon. member for Carleton if he heard my argument.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are equally confusing.


John Thomas Hackett: There are bright wits on the other side of the house who, I admit, have some difficulty in following anything
that is logical, but I know you are not of that number, Mr. Speaker. I invite your attention for a few minutes.


James Horace King: May I suggest to the
house that, in view of the importance of the different representations which I have received from both sides of the house, I should like to study this situation most carefully before giving a ruling. Therefore I would ask the house to proceed with the debate.


John Thomas Hackett: I shall be grateful if you will consider the things I would have said had an opportunity been afforded.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was first brought down in the house I had the temerity to ask why it was necessary to include in it sections having to do with veterans preference, and the house was advised at the time that the government proposed to bring down a separate bill having to do with veterans preference. Having regard to the magnitude of this bill and the fact that never before has parliament had before it a similar bill, I would have thought that during the Easter recess the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) would have laid upon the table such a bill having to do with veterans preference, so that in due course we could have discussed that matter in its proper place. It seems to me to be a waste of time, and I think the people of Canada will feel we are wasting time in parliament if we deal specifically with each of these orders and then, when the specific bill is brought down, which the minister says will be brought down, deal with the matter all over again and probably not achieve any better results.
An hon. member in the party to my left asked a similar question with respect to old age pensions, and he was told by the minister that a bill would be brought down to deal with old age pensions. We are all agreed that old age pensions is a matter that has to be discussed in this parliament. We may not all agree upon the method to be adopted or what is to be achieved in respect to a bill, but I think we are all agreed that we are going to deal with the matter to the best of our judgment and ability. I see no reason why in dealing with Bill No. 104 we should now go through the business of old age pensions. Why should we not save steps? Why should we not deal with the matter specifically when the specific bill is brought down?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. member realize that, if the course suggested were followed, 214,000 old age pensioners will not be receiving the full amount of pension to which they are entitled under the existing law?
Emergency Powers


John Thomas Hackett: That just is not so.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: I am suggesting that there is some civility in this house between hon. members. We have the undertaking of the minister that a bill dealing with old age pensions will be brought down this session, and I think we should absolve ourselves from discussion of the matter on Bill No. 104. Let the minister bring down his bill and then we can discuss the matter at the proper time. I am not suggesting for one minute that we obviate the necessity of dealing with this matter at considerable length and in the detail to which it is entitled.
Then we have the labour sections of this bill. There are quite a number of sections dealing with labour legislation which was passed during the days of the war. As a matter of fact, some of the provinces did not pass coordinating labour legislation during the war. Just the other day one of the legislatures passed its own labour law. I am not suggesting that we should in any way obviate the necessity of dealing with a national labour code when it is brought before us, but I do think that some civility should be shown by one party to the other with respect to the magnitude of this bill and that we should take the minister's undertaking in regard to bringing in of a separate bill. I am suggesting that the bill should be brought down as soon as possible so that we may obviate the necessity of discussion at the present time.
One of the items to be dealt with under this bill is leaseholds. This is the first time since October 11, 1941, that we in this parliament have had a chance to deal with these leasehold measures. While we have sat here day after day prepared to deal with these measures, new orders dealing with matters which parliament should be dealing with have been passed.
I do not think we have any right to delegate these powers to the minister because they are matters with which we ourselves are concerned. Some people say that the emergency is over, while others say that it is not over, but the fact of the matter is that these wartime leasehold regulations are the responsibility of parliament. No matter what we may be told, I do not think we can swallow all the regulations and orders which have been passed with respect to commercial and residential leaseholds.
Perhaps some hon. members have had some experience with leasehold matters and realize the difficulties that have arisen in respect thereto. Commercial leaseholds are covered by order 315 of the wartime prices and trade board. This order permits a landlord, who finds that his premises are being leased at less than similar premises in the same or a similar 
district are being leased at, to make application to have his rentals increased to that level. As a matter of fact, in the city of Toronto from which I come, not only has there been a levelling here or there, but what has happened in the last few years is that the whole floor level has been raised. Almost every commercial building in the city has found ways and means of getting a higher rental from one tenant, and then lifting up one by one the rents of all the other tenants in the building. Then that would spread across the street to another building; it would spread down the street and then into the next street until the whole downtown district was affected. That was the case not only with light manufacturing buildings but also with our office buildings.
I do not suppose that there is an office building of any size in the city of Toronto which has not had its rentals increased during the war by ten, fifteen or twenty-five per cent. Then what happened? While we were sitting in parliament, new regulations were passed under date of March 1, 1947, to increase commercial rentals by another twenty-five per cent. It may be all very well, but I do not think there was any necessity for increasing commercial rentals in that city by fifteen per cent and then allowing another increase of twenty-five per cent to be made.
However, even supposing it was proper, what about the other order, No. 294, having to do with residential leases? The fact of the matter is that there is no similar clause in the residential order. As to residential properties there has been no provision for levelling up of rents in accordance with natural justice even in cases of extreme hardship.


William Ross Macdonald: May I call the hon. member's attention to the fact that on second reading there should be only a discussion of the general principle of the bill, not a discussion of any specific orders in council. The hon. member is discussing certain orders in council. That would be permissible when the house is in committee; but at the present time he should discuss just the principle of the bill.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Mr. Speaker, I shall accept your ruling in the matter. But I wish to point out that the leasehold orders before us, comprise nine or ten different amending orders with which we are asked to deal here. I have dealt with these matters in some particularity in order to place before the house difficulties which may arise in connection with the passing of this bill, and I have done it for a purpose.
The purpose is this. I think the passage of the patent bill tonight, and the ease with which the export-import bill passed the house must

Emergency Powers
indicate to hon. members the fact that these leasehold regulations should be brought to the house in the form of a separate bill, in the same fashion as these other three matters, namely pensions, soldiers preference and labour matters. They should be 'brought down in separate bills. I suggest in all sincerity that they should be referred, probably to the committee on banking and commerce in order that they might be worked out, and the incongruities in the bill dealt with.
As I said, this is the first time since October 11, 1941, that this matter has really been before the House of Commons, so far as leaseholds are concerned. The people of Canada, whom we all represent, are entitled to know that members of parliament have had some say and have put themselves on record in some way or another in respect of these rental orders and regulations. I do not think we shall be through here until the end of August, if we are to deal with this bill of fifty-seven varieties in any kind of detail, and I say that in all sincerity. If we as business people were dealing with this matter, we would not do it in the way we are doing it here.
That brings me to the matter of regulations in the bill which have to do with building materials. From time to time statements have been made in the house by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe), having to do with building in Canada. We were told by him in the early days of the session that in 1946 some 60,000 housing units were built. When we analyse the minister's figures we find that in that time only 6,812 wartime housing units were built, 566 integrated housing units, 28 units under Housing Enterprises Limited, and about 2,599 veterans houses. In addition, there were a thousand or so emergency housing units; 1,643, to be exact.
I received a return from the minister this afternoon and, although I have not it before me at the present time, it shows that the Department of Reconstruction and Supply had to do with some 11,000 housing units in 1946. I say to the house that those 11,000 housing units with which the government was concerned in 1946 in no sense constitute a housing programme for the Dominion of Canada. When we are going to deal with controls as they are set out in this omnibus bill, No. 104, which have to do with building materials, it seems to me that, having regard1 for the sanity of the house-and I use the word advisedly-a separate bill should be brought down having to do with building materials. That bill, too, ought to go to the banking and commerce committee in order that it might be dealt with, with some degree of orderliness; for as a matter of fact, if under its system of priorities the
government has succeeded in providing only 11,648 housing units in 1946, then I suggest that the priority system we have been working under should be discarded.
Not only have these orders been made in previous years, but on February 1, after the opening of this session, another order was made in respect of building materials. It seems to me that this is a matter to be dealt with by parliament, and not by the minister of any department. We are going to put this whole matter in statute form, and I say that now is the time for all of us here in parliament to take some part in seeing either that an extensive housing programme is worked out, or that this system of priorities is ended.
Many questions have been asked in the house in respect of nails. Indeed this has become a subject of laughter among hon. members. But in the district from which I come it is not the subject of laughter. Rather it is a matter of whether we shall have houses in 1947, or whether we shall not have them.
I take it that the matter of housing is probably the most important one that has come before the house this year, and if we do not make some progress in respect of housing in 1947 we shall hear about it from people all across Canada.
I have before me a series of telegrams, perhaps twenty-five of them, and also some letters from builders in my community, advising me that they are in a desperate dilemma in respect of completing houses started in 1946, and that they cannot continue until they get nails. I also have a return from the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply in respect of the output of nails for 1947. So far as I can make out, the output in this year will not amount to as much as twenty per cent increase over the output in 1946.
I should like to place on record my questions in this connection, and the answers thereto. My question was:
1.	How many firms manufactured nails in Canada in 1946, and what was the output of each firm in that period?
2.	What is the estimated output for each firm in 1947?
The answer is that there were seven firms which manufactured nails in 1946, and their output was 58,843 net tons. It is indicated that in 1947 the estimate is that 70,170 tons will be produced. I am saying to the house that that is not good enough; it is not half good enough.
If, as a matter of fact, when the minister found that the output of soil pipe was not sufficient to keep the building industry going, he considered it wise to offer an incentive bonus-to ensure that sufficient soil pipe was
Emergency Powers

produced, then I say to him that in respect of nails we are in the midst of a serious blockade in this year 1947, and I suggest that either he should devise some incentive bonus so that nails will be produced this year in much greater supply, or he should tell the house frankly that the government cannot carry on the building programme it adopted for 1947, and should get out of the business.
As a matter of fact, if only 11,648'homes were built in 1946 under government priorities, out of some 69,000- or 60,000, then I say to the house that the ordinary private builder, building homes over and above the 11,648, units-namely upwards of 48,000 homes-did so, not with the help of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, but in spite of him. You say, what has this to do with Bill No. 104?
An lion. MEMBER: I am wondering.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: And you will be wondering perhaps at the end of August when we are still talking about it. I suggest that these detailed matters we have before us are not the kind of matters we should debate in the house day after day. As a newcomer to the house, I suggest in all sincerity that the Minister of Justice, with his ingenuity, should find some way to help us, help him get this bill through so that we can each take our part, for what we know, in respect of this bill, and let us not debate it here day after day when a number of these matters could be settled quickly in committee. I am suggesting to the minister that the best thing which could be done in respect of this bill would be to dissect it. We have already dissected it into four or five sections. There are at least sixteen measures in this bill which should not be there and which could be taken out. I am suggesting that the minister find ways and means of accepting some of the suggestions which have been made by other members of the house and by myself with respect to the bill.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, since a number of members have been on the train for a few nights and only got into Ottawa this morning, perhaps as I har e some extended remarks to make on this measure I might be permitted now to move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Gillis the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST. LAURENT moved the adjournment of the house.
John Bracken: Would the minister indicate the programme for tomorrow?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: We shall continue with the debate on the second reading of this bill and then go into committee. I hope that progress can be made. I think all the members will realize that they are not committing themselves to anything by the adoption of the second reading of the bill. There is a schedule upon which their individual opinions can be expressed with respect to each item, and I would hope that we would get to the consideration of these separate items where the divergences of opinion can be fully recorded and each one's position made clear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Might I ask the Acting Prime Minister a question as to the method the house might pursue in committee with reference to the schedule? The schedule itself simply refers to these fifty-seven orders by date, number and subject. Are we to be permitted in committee of the whole to use that volume called the consolidation of these measures as the basis not only for discussion but for any amendments hon. members might wish to introduce.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The amendments would have to be to the orders in council tabled, but the consolidation could be used as the basis. If any amendment were proposed it could be properly drafted to apply to the orders in council which have been tabled.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am thinking of the technical difficulty, reference to page and fine. It is going to be difficult with some of these long orders. I am sure that members want to be helpful and that there is no thought of trying to delay progress. We wish to find a way of making progress.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not going to be difficult. This whole thing was done before in Great Britain and Australia. No provision is made in the bill now for amendments, but if amendments are made to any of these orders in council a section has to be added to the bill giving effect to the amendment and a statement is put in the column of the section and order that is amended. That is the order in council on the table, not the order in the consolidation, but the consolidation had better be used as a basis for the amendment.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: The orders and regulations of the wartime prices and trade board are voluminous. Will those orders and regulations be tabled, or have we to swallow them holus-bolus? I am thinking of the leasehold orders. As hon. members know, there were two orders, one dealing with commercial property and the other with residential, and they are just as much a part of the law as orders

Inquiries oj the Ministry
in council themselves. Are those to be tabled, or are we to be asked to swallow them holus-bolus, or what?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If any member wants any particular order I will certainly produce it, but to produce all the orders of the wartime prices and trade board would mean the production of a very large number of orders. I will not hazard a guess as to how many, but there are a great many thousands of them dealing with prices.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: In all sincerity I say that these orders are going to become the law of the land.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They are now the law of the land.


Harold Aberdeen Watson Timmins: Are they not to be put into a statute?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; they are the law of the land now. They are changing all the time and being repealed all the time. It is quite impracticable to put them in a statute.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Tuesday, April 15, 1947