1947-04-21

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the house know that Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth is celebrating today her twenty-first birthday. His Excellency the Governor General has sent a message of congratulations and best wishes to her Royal Highness, and I am sure it will be the wish of all hon. members to have it noted on Hansard today that the House of Commons desires to be associated in the closest possible manner with the expression of these congratulations and good wishes.
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, what the acting leader of the government has just said expresses I am sure the views of every member of this house. On behalf of this party I want to associate myself with what he had to say.
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar); Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister has expressed I think the views of every member of the house, and we in this party wish to be associated with this expression of congratulations.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, speaking for this group I am sure that the Acting Prime Minister has expressed the wishes of the whole house, and we wish to be associated with what he has said.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane) moved that the first report of the standing committee on external affairs, presented to the house on Thursday, April 17, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane) moved that the second report of the standing committee on external affairs, presented to the house on Thursday, April 17, be concurred in.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, this report contains numerous recommendations, and I move in amendment to the motion that the second report be not now concurred in but be referred back to the committee for further consideration.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the report should be sent back to the committee for further consideration. The time has gone by when we should be sending abroad these missionary committees which amount to nothing. All the information on Palestine and UNO can be found in the library, but members are not studious enough to go into the library and learn something about the united nations, which is a failure. If the United States and Great Britain cannot solve the complicated Palestine question coming before the united nations, nobody can. The Palestine question is a very complicated one and is made more so by the presence of
Jews in Germany as well as in Palestine. On the other hand the Arabs, who are very powerful, have aided Britain and have supporters in every country. We are spending money like water on these useless missions like the UNO all over the seven seas. I object to this report being adopted. It should be sent back to the committee.
Amendment (Mr. St. Laurent) agreed to.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	How many copies of each issue of printed material (including books, pamphlets, folders and magazines) were circulated by the Department of National Health and Welfare in 1946?
2.	How did the department determine who should receive each of these issues ?_
3.	How many mailing lists were in use^ in the department with reference to each publication, and all publications?
4.	How were these lists compiled?
5.	How many names have been furnished for such lists by members of parliament?
6.	How many names have been furnished for such lists by government members?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Pamphlets	_
Report on Nutrition and the Production and Distribution of Food..
The Canadian Mother and Child	
Your Baby's Teeth	
Healthful Living	
Daily Diet During Pregnancy (card)	
Request Cards for Canadian Mother and Child	
Nitrous Fume Poisoning	
Benzol Poisoning	
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning	
Lead Poisoning	
All Aboard the Good Lunch Train	
Camp Feeding	[DOT]		
Canadian Food and Nutrition Statistics	
Canada's Food Rules	
How Well Fed Are You	
If You Eat	
If You Serve Food	
It's Good Business Girls to Eat Well	
Let's Talk Food Mother	
Mother-The School Lunch	
Nutrition Surveys	
Quantity Food Service	
Reading References	
Score Sheet for Each Day's Meals	
Table of Food Values	
The Lunch Box is on the March	
Victory Over Disease	
Isn't She Lovely	

Number of copies circulated
English	French
800	
72,190	38.280
26,900	13,860
55,000	13,600
30.000	15,000
20,000	10,000
3,650	
2,900	2,525
7,890	5,000
4,450	3,000
700,000	100,000
5,930	2,000
1,000	
100.000	60,000
105,000	75,000
69,000	56,000
16,480	2,000
13,360	30,000
101,590	58,850
1,500	900
2,000	1,000
1,200	1,070
500	
32,000	29,000
900	
15,000	3,300
212,300	4,680
58,420	5,500

Questions
Pamphlets-(Con.)	Number of copies
circulated
English French
Why Let It Bum	 39,000
Stop This	 116,300		
Facts About V.D	 55,000		
V.D. Cartoon Books	 19,000		
V.D. Manual for Teachers	 200		
Canada's National Health and V. D. Control	 6,050		
Seroresistance in Syphilis	 9,300		
Sanitation-Sewage Treatment for Isolated Houses and Small
Institutions	
2,940	640Wells	
3,945	710Home Treatment of Rural Water	Supplies	
2,410	700La contamination des eaux potables	
535Housing	
2,000	Air Conditioning and Heating in	Relation to Health	
3,080	1,250The Rat Menace	
1,870	690Noise and Vibration Control	
485	240A Children's Charter	
20,000	.4,000Graphic Sheets (series of four)	
4,289,000	(bilingual)Bulletin No. 1	
290	Bulletin No. 2	
225	Bulletin No. 3	
250	Fitness for To-day and To-morrow	
1,850	1,730Better Health Through Skiing	
8,070	4,450What You Should Know About Tuberculosis	
1,960	1,200Variole et vaccination	
830Smoking	
2,310	
Posters
Immunization (set of six)	
3,100	400Carbon Monoxide Poisoning	
1,200	1,000Care of the Feet	
200	Plant Nurse	
1,650	1,300Canada's Food Rules	
3.400Foods for Health	
600Kitchen Wall Chart	[DOT]	
5,200Meal Patterns	
1,000Milk for Everyone	
10,420	2,900Eat a Good Breakfast	
12,000	2,000Eat a Good Lunch	
12,000	2,000Eat a Good Third Meal	
12,000	2,000Eat Right Score High	
12,000	2,000Good Teeth	
1,500	425A Good Winter Diet	
1,150Get the Most Value from the Food You Buy	
6002.	Other than three periodicals published by the Department of National Health and Welfare, all health education material such as books, pamphlets, folders and posters is produced) in quantity at the federal level and shipped in bulk to provincial departments where it is used by public health nurses and others in closest contact with the public. Quantities for all V.D. literature are determined by the provinces and then shipped to them after printing. This is in accordance with a recommendation made by the Dominion Council of Health.
In addition a great many individual requests are received and filled1 by this department for such publications as "The Canadian Mother and Child". Such requests come from expectant mothers, doctors, public health nurses and others in that field of endeavour. Further, many requests for informational material are received from groups and organizations such as the Women's Institutes, Red Cross, Home and School Associations and others. The department makes every effort to fill such requests as received.
Questions

3.	There are no mailing lists maintained for individual publications other than for the three periodicals mentioned below:
(a)	Canada's Health and Welfare, circulation 85,000 (English and French).
This bulletin is designed as a clearing house for health and welfare information between federal, provincial and municipal departments and independent and voluntary health, welfare and social service organizations. It seeks to publicize nation-wide health and welfare policies and problems, to acquaint each province and municipality with advances in other provinces and municipalities and to instil in medical, public health, welfare and community leaders a greater appreciation of health and welfare, services. It is distributed to all doctors, dentists, public health workers, social service and welfare workers, nurses, legislators both federal and provincial, teachers, municipal officials, clergy, trade unions, service clubs, women's organizations, libraries, newspapers, radio stations, and to many private citizens who request copies. The circulation list is, in common with other departmental periodicals, under constant revision.
(b)	Industrial Health Bulletin, circulation 35,000 (English and French).
This monthly publication circulates to all plants employing fifteen or more people; all federal and provincial legislators; house organs published, in Canada; newspapers, magazines, and other similar periodicals; trade union and industrial associations. (There are presently 3,259 English and 1,740 French copies circulated to trade unions alone).
(c)	Canadian Nutrition Notes, circulation 6,700 (English and French).
This periodical is circulated to nutritionists, restaurant people and others interested in that field" of activity. The circulation list was built up as a result of individual requests. The
(a)	(b)
Name	Salary
2.	Niagara Falls
Barr, M	 SI.080
Bevan, J. G	 1,920
Bradley, F. V	 1,800
Collins, J. P	 1,800
Ransom, H. R. ,	 1,800
Riches, T. H	 2,700
Scott, B	 720
Thomas, M. 1	 1,080
Welland
Boles, L. M	 1,080
Griffiths, 0	 1,800
Lynn, J	 1,272
MacLean, K. A	 2,289
original issue of Canadian Nutrition Notes carried an invitation to all those interested to write to the Nutrition Division of this Department to be put on a circulation list.
Five other mailing lists are maintained by the Information Services Division of this Department as follows:
Press releases to newspapers, 250.
Trade paper and other special releases-40, National Health Radio Notes-125, "Canada's Health" column for English and French weekly newspapers-300, press fillers-1,120.
These, it will be seen, are not in fact publications but are, as the names indicate, press and radio releases.
4.	Answered by No. 3 above.
5.	and 6. None.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-OFFICES IN WESTERN ONTARIO
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	On August 15, 1945, how many persons were employed by the wartime prices and trade board in their offices at (a) Niagara Falls; (b) Welland; (b) St. Catharines; (d) Hamilton?
2.	What are (a) the names of such employees; (b) the salary paid to each; (c) travelling expenses paid to each during 1945, 1946 and 1947?
3.	Have any employees been engaged in these offices since August 15, 1945?
4.	If so (a) what are their names ; (b) when were they engaged; (c) at what salary?
5.	Have the services of any employees been discontinued since August 15, 1945 in any of these offices?
6.	If so (a) what is the name of each such employee; (b) on what date; (c) for what reason?
7.	How many are now employed in these offices at (a) Niagara Falls; (b) Welland; (c) St. Catharines; (d) Hamilton?
8.	What are their names and respective
salaries?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1. (a) 8, (b) 7, (c) 16, (d) 73.
(c)
Travelling Expenses
1945	1946	1947
	S ....	8 ....
301.00	286.36	
444.84	593.15	132.67442.96	516.46	90.3261.43 369.99	448.87	70.8919.45	30.90	APRIL 21,	1947	Questions	2223(a) Name Niagara Falls-(Con.)	(b) Salary	1945	(c) Travelling Expenses 1946	1947McQuitty, Wm	
SI,800	$426.03	$515.73	$104.84Robins, A. E	
1,800	75.55	78.60	21.00Rogers, H	
720	....	St. Catharines	Bigger, 	
900	....	....Bradley, C. K	
2,700	471.18	517.12	58.82Bunting, H. L	
2,100	182.42	216.05	62.05Cavers, W. A	
3,000	289.65	....Davidson, J	
900	Dunbar, G. R	
1,800	532.11	192.19	54.73Dunham, M. F	
2,000	1.80	Furey, Ethel 	
1,380	....	Gander, A. C	
2,200	132.50	44.26	Hocking, H. R	
1,800	452.65	528.16	18.87Jones, E	
1,080	....	McClelland, W. R	
1.800	5.00	3.50Pratt, B	
900	....	Rayner, H	
1,800	52.39	13.97	Sneath, T	
1,080	....	....	Smith, L	
900	-	Hamilton	Alton, L. M	
1,080	Ardron, M. L	
1,080	Behm, H. F	
2,400	963.46	Binney, W. R	
4,000	Bridgeman, A. J	
1,800	96.32	36.65	Brown, D. F	
2,400	94.10	9.35	<1.69Burgess, I. A	
900	Campbell, J. A	
2,400	34.95	100.35	Collins, M	
1,080	Cowin, W. H	
2,000	2.30	Cranston, E. M	
1,080	Cross, F. W	
3,600	109.29	101.34	5.20Crosthwaite, J. N	
1,500	Crowther, J	
720	Currie, M. A	
720	Dickenson, M. C	
1,080	Dingledine, G	
1,140	Dixon, A. H	
2,040	179.03	98.04	Dodson, P. J	
2,500	434.52	726.37	59.99Donaldson, M	
900	Douglas, D. W	
2,000	397.37	Dove, B	
1,260	Eggleton, M	
900	10.47	Ellis, M. B	
900	Elwill, E. C	
1,920	Fauman, S	
900	Fox, M. E	
780	Gordon, E. W	
1,800	288.62	567.41	55.79Green, E	
1,380	Gruener, V. L	
1,080	Hall, L	Harris, C. J	
2,700	125.95	114.45	3.60Henry, H. C	
1,800	.65	Holmes, H. W	
1,800	3.20	
Questions


MOUNTED POLICE-SERVICE OVERSEAS
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	How many R.C.M.P. personnel served overseas?
2.	How many were killed or died overseas?
3.	Were they on loan from the R.C.M.P. to the army?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	With (a) the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Provost Company, (b) the former marine section (on transfer to Royal Canadian Navy), and (c) the former aviation section (on transfer to Royal Canadian Air Force), 395.
2.	Twenty-five.
3.	In the cases of the men who served with the provost company and those former members of the aviation section, they were on leave of absence without pay. In the case of members of the former marine section, an order in council was passed' on the 29th December, 1943, P.C. 141/98G8, directing that the time served by these men in the Royal Canadian Navy, during the second great war, should be considered1 as leave of absence, without pay, for pension purposes.
Note:-It is believed that a considerable number of other members of the force, who left it at the expiration of their engagement with the Royal Canadian Mounted. Police, joined the fighting forces and served overseas, but only very incomplete details are available regarding these.


MARINE INSURANCE BROKERAGE-PARK STEAMSHIP COMPANY
Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	What broker holds the marine insurance on Park Steamship Company?
2.	When was this insurance placed through him?
3.	What brokers previously held this insurance, and on what terms?
4.	Why was it placed through the present broker, and on what terms?
5.	What other insurance, if any, does such broker hold for other crown companies and government departments and government boards, and what premiums have been paid for such insurance?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Dale and Company Limited of Montreal. The insurance held by this broker covers liabilities of Park Steamship Company Limited in so far as damages caused by its vessels are concerned. The vessels themselves have never been insured.
2.	1942.
3.	None.
4.	The insurance was placed through this broker after due consideration of their organization and the service they could render.
5.	None, in so far as this department is concerned.


EMPIRE DEFENCE POLICY
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has any meeting or conference as yet been arranged between the governments of Great Britain and of Canada and the governments of New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and other parts of the empire and crown colonies or any officers thereof since the war with Germany closed on the absolute need of a common defence policy for the future defence of the empire?
2.	If not, what action will be taken to secure such a conference or such a policy for the defence of the empire?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	The answer to the question, in the terms in which it is put is a negative one, although of course, since the war with Germany closed, the governments of the members of the British commonwealth of nations have been and are in continuous touch with one another, both on the ministerial and the official level, on questions affecting their respective defence forces.
2.	Answered by No. I.


IMPORTS OF LUMBER FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. HODGSON:: 1.	How many thousand feet of lumber were imported from the United States (a) from January 1, 1946 to December 31, 1946; (b) from January 1, 1947 to April 1, 1947?
2.	What were the different kinds of lumber and what were the quantities of each?
3.	What price per thousand feet was paid for each different kind of lumber?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	(a) 58,937,000 F.B.M.; (b) The only figures available are from January 1, 1947 to February 28, 1947-13,484,000 F.B.M.
2.	January 1, 1946 to December 31, 1946
Softwoods	M Ft. B.M.
Pine, southern, yellow and pitch.. 3,335
Douglas fir	 3,536
Pine, ponderosa and sugar		8,103
Pine, white and N.O.P	 9,372
Cedar	 1,628
Hemlock	 43
Redwood	 165
Lumber and timber softwood N.O.P	 270
Total	 26,452
83166-143J
Questions

Hardwoods
White ash	
Chestnut	
Gumwood	
Hickory	
Mahogany	
Oak	
Poplar	-	
Walnut	
Hardwood flooring	
Lumber and timber hardwood N.O.P	
MFt.B.M.
1
1,679
1,788
23,250
1,945
1,690
Total
32,485
January 1, 1947 to February 28, 1947
Softwoods	M Ft. B.M.
Pine, southern, yellow and pitch..	2,193
Douglas fir	 594
Pine, ponderosa and sugar		962
Pine, white and N.O.P	 1,486
Cedar	 398
Hemlock	 146
Redwood	
Lumber and timber softwood N.O.P	 62
Total	 5,841
Hardwoods	MFt.B.M.
AVhite ash 			 70
Chestnut 			 17
Gumwood 		
Hickory 			 446
Mahogany 			 266
Oak 			 5,142
Poplar 			 527
Walnut 		
Hardwood flooring ....		 10
Lumber and timber	hardwood
N.O.P			 375
Total	 7,643
3.	These figures are not available in this department.


MERCHANT MARINE-DISABILITY PENSIONS
Mr. MOORE:: How many men who served in Canada's merchant marine during the war are in receipt of disability pensions?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Twenty-two (not
including one Canadian salt-water fisherman and 10 Canadian nationals who served on ships of non-Canadian registry).


RETURNED SOLDIERS' INSURANCE
Mr. BRYCE:: 1.	What were the total premium receipts under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act for the 25 years ending December 31, 1946?

2.	What were the total losses in the same
period?	.
3.	What amount of insurance was in force under this act on December 31, 1946?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1.	$31,077,471.92.
2.	$13,570,963.44 in settlement of death claims.
3.	$37,020,005.05.


EMBASSIES AND LEGATIONS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What foreign countries are represented by an ambassador or other representative in Canada at present?
2.	Has Canada an ambassador, envoy, or other representative in each one of these countries as a separate representative for Canada?
3.	How many of these foreign countries have embassies in (a) Great Britain; (b) United States; (c) France; (d) Russia?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Argentina, ambassador.
Belgium, ambassador.
Bolivia, consul general.
Brazil, ambassador.
Chile, ambassador.
China, ambassador.
Colombia, consul general.
Costa Rica, consul general.
Cuba, minister.
Czechoslovakia, minister.
Denmark, minister.
Dominican Republic, consul general. Ecuador, consul general.
France, ambassador.
Greece, ambassador.
Guatemala, consul general.
Haiti, consul general.
Honduras, lion, consul general.
Iceland, hon. consul.
Italy, representative.
Lebanon, consul.
Liberia, hon. consul.
Luxembourg, hon. consul general.
Mexico, ambassador.
Monaco, hon. consul.
Netherlands, ambassador.
Nicaragua, hon. consul general.
Norway, minister.
Panama, consul general.
Paraguay, hon. consul.
Peru, ambassador.
Poland, minister.
Portugal, hon. consul.
El Salvador, consul general.
Spain, consul general.
Sweden, minister.
Switzerland, minister.
Turkey, minister. -
U.S.S.R., charge d'affaires ad interim.
U.S.A., ambassador.

Questions
Uruguay, consul general.
Venezuela, consul general.
Yugoslavia, charge d'affaires ad interim.
2.	No.
3.	Information not available.


MERCHANT SEAMEN-MEDICAL CARE
Mr. BLANCHETTE:: 1.	What services are maintained or assisted by the Department of National Health and Welfare for the medical care and welfare of merchant seamen in Canadian ports?
2.	How many seamen have been treated under the various authorities administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare, according to the last reports issued?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	(a) Such medical, surgical or other treatment as the case requires is provided under authority of Part V of the Canada Shipping Act.
(b)	Grants are made annually to twelve institutions assisting sailors, in eight of the chief ports, namely Halifax, Sydney, North Sydney, Saint John, Quebec, Montreal, Vancouver and Victoria.
(c)	Under authority of order in council P.C. 1862 of March 24, 1941, maintenance and medical care are provided for non-resident seamen who, because of mental or physical disabilities, were left in Canada during the war and whom it has not yet been possible to return to their own countries.
(dl) Under authority of order in council 164/6991 of September 4, 1943 (as amended) treatment of Canadian fishermen and seamen who were granted such treatment during the war years is being continued until their entitlement is completed.
(e) Under authority of order in council P.C. 9002 of November 23, 1943 (as amended) treatment of repatriated Canadian merchant seamen who were prisoners of war is being continued until their entitlement is completed.
2.	Authority-Number treated;
Part V, Canada Shipping Act, 18,180 during fiscal year 1945-46.
Order in council P.C. 1862, 147.
Order in council P.C. 164/6991, 440.
Order in council P.C. 9002, 46.


EMPIRE DEFENCE POLICY
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to an address by the Rt. Hon. Viscount Bennett, former prime minister of Canada to the Women's Advertising Club in London, England, on April 15, that "Britain could no longer defend the commonwealth of nations?"
2.	What has been done since the last session of parliament to secure a common defence policy for the empire, and what action has been taken in the matter?
3.	Will any conference be held with the other dominions and the mother country on this matter, and when?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	Not otherwise than through the publication in certain newspapers of reports of the address referred to.
2.	The governments of the members of the British commonwealth of nations have been and are in continuous touch with one another on questions affecting their respective defence forces.
3.	No arrangements have been made for any such conference.


CIVIL SERVICE-NEUROPSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATIONS
Mr. TREMBLAY:: 1.	How many neuropsychiatric examinations of civil servants did the mental health division of the Department of National Health and Welfare do in 1946?
2.	How were they referred?
3.	For what reasons were they referred?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Forty.
2.	Almost all were referred by the civil service health division of this department.
3.	Chiefly in connection with applications for retirement on grounds of nervous and other complaints for which an organic basis could not be found. A number were referred for an opinion on degrees of disability in cases of frequent absences from work.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What ambassadors or other representatives have been appointed to foreign countries by the government of Canada, and where?
2.	What was the cost to the country for 1946 and 1947?



AID TO THE BLIND

Mr. BLACK (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):: What aid does the federal government provide for blind persons other than pensions under existing statutes?



PENITENTIARY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That a bill be presented to the house to amend the Penitentiary Act to make provision, inter alia, for the appointment of a commis-
Inquiries of the Ministry
[Stage Direction]
sioner and two deputy commissioners and for the payment of such salaries thereto as are approved by the governor in council; and that the Civil Service Superannuation Act shall apply to such commissioner and deputy commissioners.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Having regard to the notice of motion moved by the Minister of Justice, may I ask him whether the appointment of these commissioners and deputy commissioners would indicate that progress is being made in implementing the Archambault report, and whether the house may expect him to say something in that regard in the fairly near future?


Mr. ILSLEY:: I shall be prepared to make a statement on the matter at the time the bill is introduced or on second reading of the bill, but the present status of the Archambault report is pretty well set out in the report of General Gibson, which was kid on the table some time ago. It is not intended to implement in full the findings of the Archambault commission.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to provide pensions or other superannuation benefits for senior appointees of the Department of External Affairs serving outside Canada and the wives, widows and dependents thereof.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is it true that special arrangements are being made to assist more Polish veterans to enter Canada at this time? If so, what are they?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: It is true that special arrangements are being made to assist more Polish veterans to come to Canada at this time.


Mr. LENNARD:: Why?


Humphrey Mitchell: Did the hon. member say "pourquoi" or "why"?


Frank Exton Lennard: Why?


Humphrey Mitchell: I was looking down in the other corner. It is a fact that arrangements are being made. Originally we agreed with the British government to receive four thousand Polish veterans who fought in the last war. A team has left for overseas-they left on Saturday-for the purpose of examining and bringing the remainder of the four thousand to Canada under conditions similar to those under which the previous Polish veterans came to Canada. If the hon. member would like to know the name of the team I can give it now.


Mr. COLDWELL:: It might be just as well.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: May I ask the minister a question with reference to the admission of 4,000 Polish soldiers to Canada? Will the Canadian government use its influence to see that all eligible British immigrants needing transportation from Britain to Canada be given transportation before the remainder of the 4,000 Polish soldiers are taken care of?
(On the motion for committee of supply:)
May I ask, Mr. Speaker, why the minister does not condescend to answer the question?


Humphrey Mitchell: There is no question of condescension. My hon. friend was just asleep at the switch, that is all. I think this can be stated, that the question of transportation for these Polish veterans is under the jurisdiction of the British government and their fare is paid by them. My hon. friend's question might better be directed to the British government than to me.	.



WINNING OF STANLEY CUP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	.
Thomas Langton Church: I should like to address a remark to hon. members representing Montreal island. I would call their attention to the fact that the Maple Leafs won the Stanley cup on Saturday night, and last fall the Argonauts won the Grey cup in rugby.

Inquiries oj the Ministry



AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I am not in a position to give that information. I am not aware of the resignation. I am not in a position to say definitely.']
Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the announcement last night that there are sixteen million more pounds of butter in Canada now than last year, will the minister say when a more adequate supply may reach Vancouver island, where there has been a shortage for many months?


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: I think the remark that most often met British Columbia members when they went home at Easter was the supply of butter for British Columbia. Members from that province have pretty well all taken part in asking for some information; therefore I am pleased to answer now the question just asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo.
The situation throughout British Columbia has been very difficult in recent weeks. There are several factors which have a bearing, among the most important being a tendency to store butter in expectation of realizing a profit when the present eight and a half cents per pound government subsidy is withdrawn by May 1. Announcement by the government on March 19 that the government will insist upon a full recovery of inventory profits after the subsidy is discontinued has helped the situation but has not overcome it altogether. A second important factor in the shortage has been slowing down of shipments from the prairie provinces. The administrative officials have been taking all steps available to keep the British Columbia market supplied with butter and are continuing to put forth every effort in this regard. Since January, 1947, all butter offered in Saskatchewan and Alberta has been moved into British Columbia and no shipments have moved into the eastern provinces since that date. Last week four carloads of butter were directed to British Columbia from Saskatchewan. In addition a supply of 8,000 boxes, or 450,000 pounds, of imported butter has been transported across Canada from the east coast into British Columbia.
According to Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures on butter storage as at April 1, 1947, stocks of butter in storage in all parts of Canada are somewhat higher than at the same date last year. Even British Columbia has somewhat more butter in storage than one year ago. It is however, as you can imagine, extremely difficult to divert and
order out supplies which are held by a very large number of operators, not only large packers but also retailers, restaurants, hotels and so on. The situation in eastern Canada is undoubtedly better than in British Columbia but, as I have stated, the costs of transporting butter from the east to the west is one important factor against doing so.


Mr. WARREN:: I wish to ask a question, and I think it ought to be directed to the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). In view of the great shortage of butter in British Columbia, what has gone wrong with the cows of the Fraser valley?


Mr. MacNICOL:: The Fraser valley can speak for itself.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a question, arising out of the resolution of which notice was given today, to make provision for the payment of pensions or superannuation benefits to senior appointeees of the Department of External Affairs serving outside Canada. In view of the fact that Mr. Justice Davis, the new ambassador to China, has left to take up his duties, is the minister in a position to say whether he has tendered his resignation as judge of the court of appeal of Saskatchewan?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not in a position to give that information. I am not aware of the resignation. I am not in a position to say definitely.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he say whether a bill extending the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to British Columbia this year will be introduced this session?


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: There is really no bill under consideration to extend the P.F.R.A. to British Columbia, but there has been under consideration the possibility of introducing two bills which would extend the principle of P.F.R.A. to all Canada. That is still under consideration and possibly will be brought in this session.
Emergency Powers



Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply. '
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
57. Departmental administration, $83,703.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May the item stand?
Item stands.



FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
75. Departmental administration, $184,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The item will stand.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
95. Departmental administration, $224,092.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Stand.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Before the item stands, I do not think this is quite in accordance with the promise given to the house. The item should not have been, called, let alone allowed to stand. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, the acting leader of the house, gave this undertaking, as reported at page 1870 of Hansard:
I shall not ask to open more than two departments unless at the time I have the consent of the house to open more.
I think the house showed commendable restraint today in not raising any question but in allowing the government to go on with its business. We should be satisfied with the two items that have already been called and allowed to stand.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If there is any objection I at once accede to the hon. member's suggestion, but there were three departments mentioned by my right hon. colleague. I move that the committee rise and report progress with respect to the two items that have been allowed to stand.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Cutting out Justice?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
Progress reported,



EMERGENCY POWERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 18, consideration in committee 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-Mr. Ilsley -Mr. Golding in the chair.
On P.C. 9029.
William Henry Golding: We were
dealing with the wartime leasehold regulations. I think the minister had some amendment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to say a few words with regard to the wartime leasehold regulations as amended by this new order in council. There have been meetings in the cities and municipalities over the week-end with respect to these matters and there is a great deal of dissatisfaction being expressed not only by landlords but also by tenants. This amended regulation will not improve the housing situation or the leasehold situation. Many people do not want to go into rented property because of the heavy monthly overhead cost. I do not know where we are going to be in the coming winter. The landlord has no chance to get into his property. He may have had long before the war, but he has no chance at all today; he cannot get into it. It is confiscation of property; that is what it is. Is it any wonder that no houses are being built? In the city from which I come, sixty-five per cent of the people used to own their own homes. Can soldiers or civilians move into wartime leasehold properties built by the government under these regulations at a fabulous rent per month which they never before paid? I fail to see how the situation will be improved by this amendment. With neither the landlord nor the soldier able to get into his own house, it amounts to confiscation of property. The tenant can go in and cause rack and ruin; the insurance companies will not carry the risk, and the mortgagee wants further payments on principal.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Eglinton had an amendment.


Mr. FLEMING:: Yes. I submitted one amendment for the consideration of the house and indicated the contents of a further amendment which I proposed to introduce. I urged on the Minister of Justice consideration of the subject matter of my first proposal indicating that I was not attempting to be dogmatic about the form of it. Perhaps the minister has given the matter some consideration since then, and if he is prepared to make a statement on it I shall happily defer to him.


Mr. HOWE:: Mr. Chairman, I made a short statement on this subject on Friday night.

Emergency Powers
This is a situation which concerns the Department of Reconstruction, for the reason that, by cooperation with the cities and municipalities, the Wartime Housing and Mortgage Company so far has been able to make it possible to keep a roof over the heads of Canadian citizens. I am exceedingly anxious that we shall continue to do so. The hon. member for Eglinton has moved an amendment to the wartime leasehold regulations whereby a veteran may secure possession of any house owned by him. No one in this house would deny that such a step is desirable if circumstances permit. The argument against this amendment is exactly the same as the argument for retaining eviction control generally. Throughout the country there is acute housing congestion, and the housing requirements are being met only by a very large amount of involuntary multiple occupancy.
I think it is fair to say that a large part of the multiple occupancy is that of the veteran and his family living with their in-laws. The exact size of this multiple occupancy is difficult to determine, but from sample surveys it would appear that there was multiple occupancy ranging from ten to twenty per cent, depending upon the municipality. There is a general impression that congestion is largely in the metropolitan areas. That is not correct. In many instances the multiple occupancy is much heavier in municipalities of 5,000 to 15,000 than it is in Toronto and Montreal.
For instance, in August 1946 it was found that in Carleton Place there were 1,100 families and only 900 residential units in which to house these families. This means that in Carleton Place there were 200 individual units housing more than one family, and about 400 families living in multiple occupancy. Another case in point is Smith's Falls, where in September 1946 there were 2,700 families and 1,946 housing units.
Under the present wartime leasehold regulations there are circumstances under which an owner may secure possession of a house owned by him. Experience has shown that where permits or orders are given for possession, there is a net loss of living accommodation. The extreme case is an owner living in multiple occupancy of rented premises who is given right of possession to a house owned by him which is also in multiple occupancy. The net effect of such a transaction is the loss of two units, because it is most unlikely that the residence which the owner leaves will go back into a state of multiple occupancy. In other words, the
owner of a house and his family will take in his son and daughter-in-law and their family, but if the son and daughter-in-law leave, it is most unlikely that the owner of the house will take another family into multiple occupancy. The two families dispossessed by the returning owner are in the market for two units, which under present conditions are not available. There are, of course, certain instances in which an owner, given the right of possession to the house he owns, leaves his residence to take possession of the owned premises where there also is a single tenant. It is estimated that under present conditions
1,000	evictions involve the net loss of 750 units for this reason.
In February, 1947, a change was made in the leasehold regulations, known as board order 688, whereby individuals who had purchased a house between October 31, 1944 and July 25, 1945, may secure possession on three months' notice provided that a court of rental appeals find that the need of the owner is greater than the need of the tenant. As at March 31 there were 1,433 applications 'received under order 688, hot including Alberta and Nova Scotia. The status of these applications as at March 31 was:
Applications	granted	
224Applications	dismissed	
56Applications	pending	1,153Total	1,433
I have outlined these figures in detail because, although they are very much smaller in number than would be occasioned by the proposal of the hon. member for Eglinton, nevertheless the granting of these applications will place an additional burden upon our efforts with the municipalities to find space for evicted tenants.
To illustrate the situation I should like to give the hon. members figures for shelter needs in Ottawa. There are 484 units of emergency shelter in occupancy in Ottawa. There are 36 notices approved by the wartime prices and trade board to vacate self-contained units, most of which have effect on May 1. There are 57 notices approved by the wartime prices and trade board to vacate shared accommodation by May 1. In addition to these 93 cases of eviction, there are 74 families living in distressingly over-crowded or substandard conditions which are described by the emergency shelter administrator as being urgent cases. In addition to these 167 cases there have been 38 applications received under board order No. 688 to which I referred earlier. Applications have been granted in twelve cases, and there are fourteen more cases pending. To meet the needs of approxi-
Emergency Powers

mately 190 cases in all, the balance of available units in Rockcliffe, six in number, will be completed on May 1. We are at work on 120 emergency shelter units at Uplands to be completed by June 1. The potential of available shelter in all is 126 units.
Hon. members will see that even under the present restricted rights of owners to secure occupancy of residences owned by them and before any such amendment as now proposed, the municipalities are having difficulty in meeting present needs. I have used Ottawa as an example, but I can assure the hon. members that Ottawa is no more congested than the average municipality.
During the last eighteen months we have been working very closely with the city of Toronto along the same lines. There also we are coming to an end of buildings available for conversion. In greater Toronto there have been 417 applications received under order 688, of which 58 have been heard, 34 granted, 14 adjourned, 5 with reserved judgment, and 5 dismissed. We are not at all sure that even under the present regulations immediate needs for shelter in Toronto can be met.
It is to be remembered that the municipalities themselves are bearing the main burden of looking after families without accommodation. The dominion has been assisting the municipalities by making buildings available and by financial grants. Nevertheless the problem is one which must be faced by the municipalities. A change in the wartime leasehold regulations as now proposed will, in my opinion, make it impossible for the municipalities to meet increased needs. A chaotic situation would be created. I would remind hon. members of my statement of last Friday in which I pointed out that the supply of surplus buildings available for conversion into shelters is running very low. It is going to test our ingenuity to look after even present needs. I believe that such a step by the dominion at the present time would be most unfair to the municipalities. Some of our officials feel that even the increase occasioned by board order No. 688 has created a situation which may prove beyond capacity to meet. I will not attempt to estimate the number of evictions which might be caused by the proposal now before the house. I can assure the house, however, that the evictions resulting would be many times those occasioned by board order No. 688.
Hon. members must remember that in a condition of heavy multiple occupancy changes in tenancy result in a net loss of units. The housing situation is so tight that we cannot afford to lose units, and indeed

there may be no place for evicted families to go. No one denies that the rights of owners should be restored as quickly as possible. There is, however, a most extraordinary situation in the housing field, and at this time tlie most economical use of our short supply of housing must be weighed against the rights of the individual owner. The proposed amendment might create thousands of additional evictions at a time when the municipalities are putting forward their best efforts to deal with a very difficult situation. I firmly believe that any step which would increase the number of evictions at this time is against the public interest.
The government is making every effort to examine its orders in council in the light of criticism from the opposition. So far, in considering this measure in committee, changes have been made at the suggestion of the opposition which the government believed could be made with reasonable safety to the state. In the case under discussion I am convinced that the government would be derelict in its duty if it agreed to an amendment which in its opinion undoubtedly would have the effect of putting on the street families for whom no shelter can be made available. I am sure the hon. member for Eglinton would not wish to sponsor legislation which would have that effect. I would ask that he reexamine his proposed amendment in the light of the additional information I have just given, and consider withdrawing it.


Mr. ABBOTT:: I wonder if I might add just a word. The committee will recall something of the history of rental control and of eviction control, and will remember that when the general freeze was put on in July, 1945, it was primarily to protect members of the armed forces and their families. Most of the troops were not then home, of course; at that time comparatively few had returned. It is also true that on their return a good many bought houses, but I thing we should remember that a great many returned veterans did not, and I am satisfied there are infinitely more veterans who are tenants than veterans who are owners of property.
As my colleague the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply has pointed out, the fact is that there simply are not enough rental dwellings in Canada available for those who occupy that type of accommodation, and that is the problem we have to face. The rental administration, in view of the fact that there is a general freeze, has endeavoured to provide a reasonable and orderly way of seeing to it that those who now have a roof over their heads will continue to have such a roof, until

Emergency Powers
building has increased to the point where some relaxation of the eviction controls can be made. I am convinced that it would not be in the interests of the veterans themselves to provide now for a relaxation as suggested by the hon. member for Eglinton. Already some relief has been given under order 688 in regard to purchases made between November 1, 1944, and July 25, 1945, but as my colleague has pointed out that has resulted in a considerable number of applications for eviction, and some dislocation. I am satisfied that if an amendment were made now to the order, as suggested, it would result in veterans ousting veterans; and I think it is obvious that it would put a premium on the veteran who was in a financial position to purchase property as against the veteran who was not.
Taking all those factors into consideration it seems to me the government could not agree to an amendment to the rental order which would permit veteran owners being given this special protection.
Reference was made by my hon. friend to the control of shared accommodation. He seemed under the impression that there was no means of evicting tenants occupying this type of accommodation except by application to the court of rental appeals. Well, a large proportion of family units do live in shared accommodation. I am advised that something in the order of twenty to forty per cent of families in urban centres now live in rooms. All these people can be evicted on six months' notice. In view of the acute shortage of housing accommodation, it is felt that is the minimum length of notice which should be allowed. That is permitted under article 428 of the board, which permits the landlord to recover possession of such accommodation on six months' notice, which may be terminated at any time during the calendar year if he desires the accommodation as an extension of his own residence, but he is not bound to continue to occupy such accommodation for any specific period after recovery of possession.
I have always believed, personally, that these special rules which are made for veterans often defeat the very purpose for which they are set up. In the present instance I believe my hon. friend would agree that we would have to restrict it to veterans who had purchased their houses before a certain date. If you allowed it to continue in the future you would have a wild scramble for houses, and it obviously would break down. There would be discrimination at once between the veteran who had the financial means to purchase a house on a certain date and the man who would like to purchase one and
finds that he can do so now. But more serious is the fact that you still have the veteran who owns the house in effect ousting some other veteran. The veteran may not be occupying the house that he gives notice of eviction for, but undoubtedly it will result in the eviction of a substantial number of veterans.
I suggest to the committee that we leave the regulations as they are. I can assure the committee that the rentals administration and myself as minister are only too anxious to see that every relaxation is made which can be made fairly in the interests not only of the veterans but of all the people of Canada. Those relaxations will be made just as soon as we feel that can be done properly. Goodness knows it is no pleasure for the rentals administrator, and perhaps it is less pleasure for me as minister to have to resist what are undoubtedly deserving cases. Eviction control is a difficult and unpleasant thing to enforce, but I am satisfied the time has not yet come when we can do away with it.
As I said before, I am convinced that the suggested relaxation in favour of veterans who purchased their houses up to this time would not accomplish good for a considerable number of others; and I am satisfied that for the veterans themselves it would not be good.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Would it not be possible to set up some authoritative body to deal with these emergency cases which are causing so much trouble?-perhaps not a blanket order in council, but an authoritative body with latitude to deal with the most urgent cases.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have been working on this matter for the last week or ten days, and giving the closest attention to the question whether there could be some extension of the powers of the court of rental appeals, or perhaps the appointment of commissioners or something of the kind to look into these hardship cases. I assure the hon. member however that it is a difficult matter. We are working on it now, and I hope we shall be able to work out something. Obviously it will be easier when conditions have improved somewhat-and they are improving all the time, as 'additional housing units are put up. My answer is that the question is being given active attention at the present time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Perhaps I might be
permitted to say something by way of clarification of the proposal. In the first place, the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, in the statement he has read to the committee, has dealt in dark terms not only with the
Emergency Powers

present situation but also with the situation which might arise if my proposal were given effect to by the committee. Times have changed. Previously we have been treated to the most optimistic and expansive statements in the house about the great headway that the government, claimed was being made in the housing programme. Now, when a proposal is made with a view to bringing justice to veterans against whom, in effect, there has been discrimination, the picture is painted in dark colours. I mention this in passing, because it is a fact which may have to be referred to in the future.
I did not bring forward a proposal which would have the effect of increasing the difficulties of the problem. I brought before the committee two proposals, one of which was designed to give justice to veterans against whom discrimination does now exist. I coupled with that, ini the second place, a concrete proposal which would have the effect of greatly increasing the available supply of housing accommodation.
I was interested in hearing the indication given by the minister this afternoon of the high proportion of families occupying shared accommodation. That is most significant. Where families are occupying properties owned by veterans who under this proposal would be entitled to occupation of it, not only would there be provision for such persons in the increased supply of shared accommodation available under my second proposal, but there would be a great deal more of it.
The Minister of Finance suggests that more veterans may be hurt by this proposal than would be helped by it. I do not know where he gets his figures. It is perfectly clear that the proposal is confined] to cases where veterans are owners and desire the accommodation for their personal occupation. It does not touch at all veterans who are tenants of persons other than veterans. I submit that that would be the great proportion of veterans to whom the minister was referring when he spoke about the number of veterans who are tenants. The only such veterans who would be affected by this proposal are veterans who are tenants of veterans.
In these cases, obviously what the government ought now to be doing-or what it should be urging the wartime prices and trade board to do-is to bring about an extension of the effect of order in council P.C. 688. Surely before that order was made by the wartime prices and trade board, and before the government gave its approval to it, the situation must have been canvassed. That order bad the effect of opening the door to recovery of

possession by owners, regardless of whether they were veterans-and of course the great proportion were not-if they purchased the property between October 31, 1944 and July 25, 1945, the date of the freezing order.
In my humble submission the government took the measure which should have come second ahead of the measure which should have come first. They should have taken steps in the first place to put the veterans in at least as good a position-I would have said a preferred position-as that occupied by nonveteran owners. But surely the situation was canvassed at that time by the government to see that there was available a sufficient supply of housing accommodation to take care of any tenants who in the net result might have been dispossessed.
Something has been said to the effect that in view of the rate at which the number of families is increasing, the effect of dispossession is to lessen the total available housing accommodation per family. There may be something in that. It may be that in most cases veterans who are living in hovels, garrets or perhaps in a room or two, trying to keep their families together, but who have purchased houses and want possession of them for their personal use, would be living in larger quarters if they obtained possession of the places they have purchased. That is one reason why I have seen fit to put forward this constructive proposal with respect to freeing a great deal of housing accommodation which would be available today, on a shared basis, if it were not for the terms of the proposed order.
I come to the point raised by the Minister of Finance with reference to the terms upon which a landlord can recover possession of shared accommodation. He refers to the fact that possession can be recovered on six months' notice, but, Mr. Chairman, you know that that is not very helpful in inducing people to let one or two rooms in their house. The other provision for dispossession applies to a finding by the rentals board that the tenant is obnoxious. I do not need to emphasize again the extreme difficulty that is faced by a landlord in proving that a tenant is obnoxious within the terms of that rule. The terms of the order with reference to recovery by landlords of shared accommodation are so strict- and the minister must appreciate this-that they discourage many people from making available one or two or three rooms in their homes which are surplus to the needs of the occupant. It is an unquestioned fact, and it cannot be denied, that the order is discouraging people from renting shared accommoda-

Emergency Powers
tion. The occupants of homes who have more space than, they need simply will not take people into their homes because of the great difficulty of ridding themselves of the tenant if he proves difficult and unpleasant.
I quite agree with the observations of the Minister of Finance about the necessity of fixing a deadline for purchase by the veteran. I made it clear when I spoke on Friday last, and certainly in answer to questions of the Minister of Justice, that that was my proposal, that this provision should not be extended to cover future purchases of homes by veterans because of the danger of some of them making brokers of themselves. So there should be a deadline,
I suggest March 31, 1947. Then it would be quite clear that the period is closed now.
I should like to offer an observation with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on Friday last. I share his view as to the desirability of having amendments of the kind I propose made in the regulations issued under the order rather than in the order itself. There are difficulties of draftsmanship, some of which have been indicated already, if we must proceed to deal with the situation by amending the order which appears in the schedule to the bill. If we must have an amendment of this kind inserted in the order it would be very much better, I think, to include it in the scope of order 688, but if the government is not prepared to accept that suggestion one is left with no alternative but to move an amendment to the order as set forth in the bill.
Something has been said as to the situation that would be faced at once. Inherent in my amendment, and I laid stress on it, is the fact that there is a proviso in the amendment that any notice to vacate given under its terms would not become effective for three months. In that respect I simply add the concluding terms of paragraph 6 of order 688.
One final observation, and this has to do with the suggestion of the Minister of Finance as to the case of a veteran dispossessing a veteran. I do not know how many of these cases there are, but I think there are very few.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: At least fifty per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have no figures on this. I have no doubt that the minister of reconstruction before he made his statement consulted the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and got estimates, but there are no precise figures. We are dealing with the opinions of certain people.


Douglas Charles Abbott: To say that there are very few of these cases is a bold statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would put it this way- relatively few. I am speaking from my own experience with a difficult situation in Toronto.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Even though the soldiers were overseas their families in many cases were in rented accommodation since before the war.
It is the families of veterans the hon. member proposes to turn out. '


Donald Methuen Fleming: I contradict that flatly. The minister of reconstruction ought not to be making statements of that kind. It is not the families of veterans I propose to turn out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The freeze was put in to protect those families.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What I was about to say was this. The case can be fully dealt with if the government would simply apply to the kind of case to which I am referring the provisions of order 688 which relate to cases of equal or greater hardship. Surely in these cases if the situation were brought before a county court judge it would be possible to protect any who need protection and do it adequately. That is the scheme of order 688 at the present time. Let me remind the house of article 5 of order 688, and I repeat that this is the way in which this ought to have been handled instead of leaving it to the house to make amendments to order 9029, because the result could be achieved under the terms of the regulation much more neatly and with much less danger of misinterpretation. Article 5 says, and I am submitting that this is the way to deal with these cases:
On the hearing, the court may require such further information in such manner as it may direct, may adopt such procedure as it deems proper and, according to what it deems reasonable and just in the circumstances as established, having regard to the relative needs of the landlord and tenant for the accommodation and the relative hardship resulting from any order that might be made by it, may make an order permitting the landlord to recover possession of the accommodation in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of this order, or dismissing the application. No costs shall be awarded to either party and the decision of the court shall be final and conclusive.
I think that if the government and. the wartime prices and trade board will proceed along the lines I have suggested, no hardship will be done, and in the net result not only will you have eliminated a discrimination operating against a veteran purchaser but you will have made more housing accommodation available. Personally I do not know how you can hope to increase the supply of housing accommodation substantially and almost
Emergency Powers

immediately in any other way than to provide that the present order as to possession by tenants of shared accommodation shall not apply to tenancies hereafter created. I am not proposing that it shall apply to any existing tenancies of shared accommodation, but if you confine the proposal to tenancies hereafter created I know that there is a great deal of housing accommodation that would become available.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I want to say a word on shared accommodation. I am informed by the officers of the board that no occupant of shared accommodation whose conduct is really objectionable is protected by the court of rental appeals. I would point out that the word used in the order is not "obnoxious." The tenant's conduct need only be incompatible. That word was used deliberately in order to allow more latitude in evictions in the case of shared accommodation.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Was that an amendment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think that was in order 477. Security of tenure and the rental ceiling are closely linked in dwelling accommodation. The government fully realized the irksome character of the measure which was being enacted in granting security of tenure beyond the law of the province to a tenant who occupied an integral part of the landlord's own home and shared its facilities. Acting on that principle on October 1, 1943, we removed security of tenure from that type of accommodation. Well, the results were most unfortunate. As I stated1 a few moments ago, between twenty and forty per cent of the population of urban centres live in that type of accommodation, so that any untoward increase in the rental of the accommodation has a far-reaching effect. By the end of July, 1944, the board found as a result of freezing from security of tenure that type of accommodation that they had lost all control of the rental price of shared accommodation. Therefore board order 428 was enacted giving the tenants of such accommodation security of tenure terminable on six months' notice in the fashion I indicated a few moments ago.
There is no doubt that the heavy demand for dwelling space still continues and' still reaches down to the shared accommodation.
I know the hon. member for Eglinton will agree *with me in that; indeed he has already so indicated. Therefore there is no doubt that landlords fortunate enough to have available for renting shared accommodation which has not previously been rented, or which has 
become vacant, would be able to demand and obtain far higher rental than the board would approve or has approved. I do not think there is any question as to that. But the new tenants, without security of tenure, would keep on, paying such excessive rentals as the tenants similarly situated did between October, 1943, and July, 1944. The landlords still saddled with tenants will be restive in their position of inferior advantage and will be seeking constantly to get their tenants out in order to take advantage of the admittedly illegal increase in revenue which the proposed amendment would permit. The resultant loss of control, disturbance and bickering makfes the suggestion most unattractive. Therefore on balance, as I said before, while the government is most anxious to remove control on these^ matters, the shortage of dwelling space remains so acute that our rental officials, who have had extensive experience in the administration of these orders, assure me that to attempt to remove security of tenure from this type of accommodation would make it impossible to continue to exercise any real control over the rentals. It is for that reason in particular that I am reluctant to consider such amendments as that put forward by my hon. friend1.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I should like to bring out a point in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton as to shared accommodation. He referred particularly to the reluctance of people to rent rooms because, as he put it, the six months' notice is no great protection to the landlord. When either shared accommodation or regular tenancy is entered into for a period of five months or less it is not subject to board order 294 respecting housing accommodation. You can lease a house or rooms for a period of five months without being subject to order No. 294; but if it is renewed for a further period it comes under the order. Therefore persons who are prepared to lease rooms may try out their tenants or their roomers for five months and at the end of that period they will know whether the tenants are desirable or not. If they are not desirable they do not have to be kept the full five months; they may be put out at the end of one month. For this reason it would seem that a good deal of the objection to renting on such a basis is eliminated.
If landlords are not aware of that, they should be made aware of it. There should not be this objection to renting rooms on the shared accommodation plan.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Is that statement
correct?

Emergency Powers


Mr. KNOWLES:: It seems to me that the two ministers who have spoken have made an unanswerable argument to the wide provisions of the proposals made by-


Mr. HOMUTH:: I am surprised at the statement made by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska. I should like to ask the minister if this statement is a correct interpretation of the law.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I was looking over some papers at the time the statement in question was made.


John George Diefenbaker: It is convenient that the minister was, then.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What was the statement?


Benoît Michaud: The statement I made was the law some time ago at least when I happened to be dealing with such cases. If you rent premises for a period of five months or less they do not come under the order so far as eviction is concerned. But if you renew them they do.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Only once in a year.


Benoît Michaud: After the first five months you are under control. If the premises are rented for less than five months the landlord remains in control of his property and he can evict.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The hon. member said the tenants could be put out in one month. I want to know whether that statement is correct. My interpretation of it is that if you rent from month to month-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that a prospective landlord can make any provision he likes for eviction in his initial lease provided the term is for five months or less. I was not familiar with the detailed provisions of the order. Apparently he can have a trial period of five months or less and make any provision for eviction he wishes; but if he renews it or carries it on after that period then it becomes subject to the rule.


John George Diefenbaker: When did that
order come in?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am told that that has been the law ever since the order was first enacted on October 1, 1940.


Arza Clair Casselman: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: 1943.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To get back to the matter that was being discussed between the
ministers and the hon. member for Eglinton, as I see it the ministers have made a conclusive answer to the wide provisions that his proposals would entail. However, there is one part of what the hon. member for Eglinton was seeking to achieve which I supported the other night, and I should like to refer to it again and ask for comment from either of the ministers concerned. I have in mind a veteran who purchased a house after he went into the armed forces, and who is now a discharged veteran within the terms of the definition set out in board order No. 511. The point I was trying to make the other night was that that veteran should be put in the same position as the veteran who owned accommodation before he was inducted into the service. I have before me-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just a minute; in order to get the hon. member's position correctly, he says that the veteran who bought in the face of the freeze should be put in the same position as the veteran who did not; is that it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does the minister mean by "in face of the freeze?"


James Lorimer Ilsley: The veteran who bought after July 25, 1945 bought in the face of the freeze; that is, he knew he could not get possession of his premises if the law stayed as it was on July 25, 1945, whereas the veteran who bought before that had no such knowledge. Does the hon. gentleman say that the two veterans should be put in the same position?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; I am talking about the veteran who bought before July 25, 1945.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I see.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad the minister has raised that point. That is the point I want cleared up. I believe the minister answered the hon. member for Eglinton quite forcefully with regard to purchases subsequent to that date. It is a sorry picture the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply had to paint today about the housing situation which faces us, but on balance the government does have the responsibility of causing t'he least possible disturbance and the least possible chaos, and I think anyone would have to be very careful about suggesting any release of the eviction control. When one rises to make a suggestion on this matter he has to have thought it through pretty carefully.
Emergency Powers

Board order 511 does enable the veteran to obtain possession of housing accommodation for his own use, and I quote directly from the order:
1. Where he owned the accommodation at the time of his induction into one of His Majesty's services and is now a discharged member entitled to war services gratuity under the War Grants Act.
That last phrase, of course, is a way of defining a discharged veteran so that this privilege is not given to all veterans; for example, to those who may have been in only a few months. To bring the matter to a head my suggestion is that it would be fair to the veterans concerned to insert in that order the words: "or purchased it before July 25, 1945", so that the paragraph would read:
Where he owned the accommodation at the time of his induction into one of His Majesty's services or purchased it before July 25, 1945, and is now a discharged member, entitled to the war service gratuity under the War Grants Act.
To put the matter in terms of a specific case, I have in my hand the correspondence regarding one, although a case I have upstairs is better. I brought this one down, however, because the relevant correspondence has board order 511 in it. The one upstairs is the case of a veteran who enlisted early in 1939 or 1940 and bought a house about 1942 or 1943. He was overseas at the time and the purchase was made by his wife. At that time there was no freeze on and it was possible for the purchaser of a home to get possession of it, but by the time the veteran came home he found he could not get possession of the home. This complaint is not against civilians; it is that veterans who went in later than he did can get possession because they owned their homes prior to their induction into the services, a privilege denied the class of veteran for whom I am now speaking.
I do not think this would affect very many.
I thoroughly agree with the principle which the other two ministers have stated, namely, that we have to be very careful about releasing eviction control, and I urge it only where I feel there is a real grievance. I am speaking about this case in these forceful terms in order to get it across if I can, but what I really want is a comment on the matter from the minister.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I leave it to the ministers more directly concerned to comment upon the hon. member's remarks, but I should like to make the position clear. The hon. member has clearly delineated the class of veterans whose case he is placing before the committee, but he made this statement: the veteran cannot get his home. In some cases, perhaps in [Mr. Knowles.!
all, he can get his home. He has to prove that the hardship of keeping him out is greater than the hardship of turning the tenant out, but he has to meet the hardship test. The law is not that if he bought a house at any time from October 31, 1944 to July 25, 1945, he can get the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Remember, I am talking about cases as between veterans. The minister says he can get possession by meeting the hardship test.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the other veteran who may have enlisted later happened to own his own home before he went into the service and he does not have to meet the hardship test because he is provided for under board order 511. That is why I am asking that a simple amendment be made to board order 511. This does not open it wide, as has been suggested. As a matter of fact, it does not solve any great problem but it does meet a real grievance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was wrong in saying that if he bought the house at any time he can get it by meeting the hardship test. If he bought it before October, 1944, it was necessary for him to have given notice-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -but if he bought it after October, 1944, it was not necessary for notice to have been given.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hardship test applies only in that nine months period.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, that is right. But should there not be a difference between the man who left a house, which he owned, to go overseas and the one who buys a house after he does go overseas? Should there not be a difference between the two? Is not a man entitled to feel that if he leaves his house and goes into the service he can get the house when he comes back. If a man buys a house after he goes into the service we have a different situation and it should be a question of balance of hardship as between him and the other man. Do not forget the tenants here, because some of these houses are occupied by the families of returned soldiers. There are a great many such people and I want hon. members to realize that in concentrating on the hardship to landlords they should not forget the hardship to tenants, because there is nothing more distressing than to see the streets filled with evicted women and children.

Emergency Powers


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is talking my language when he says that, and I agree with him thoroughly. I would not raise a case of this kind at all if I did not feel that there was a just grievance, and even then I would not raise it if I thought it would result in the government permitting widespread evictions such as the minister deplores. That must not happen. But in answer to the minister, I would point out that the veteran in question owned the house before he went overseas, which case is different from that of the veteran who purchased afterwards. I think the minister will realize that in making comparisons we are saying nothing whatever against the right of the veteran who owned his house before he went overseas. We do not want these remarks to detract from that right in any way whatsoever, either legally or morally. Bear in mind, however, the position also of the veteran who purchased a house after he went overseas. In many cases the purchase was made then because the veteran before the war was not in a position to buy a home because he was unemployed, perhaps never had a job, and so on. During the first two or three years he was in the services and was overseas, married and with allowances, he was able to save enough to make a down payment and to look forward to occupying a home when he came back and to having the same rights that civilans at home were able to exercise at the same time.
I think the Minister of Justice and I have the thing straightened out and know what we are talking about, and I should be glad if he or the other ministers would comment on the possibility of amending board order 511 as suggested. I know it does not go as far as the member for Eglinton would like it to go, but if we had an assurance that board order 511 would be looked at in this way it might meet the hon. member's point.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I wish to add a word. This has been a useful and constructive discussion, but our difficulty in the matter is that we have no accurate statistics on which to go, and we cannot very well have them. We do not know how many servicemen are tenant occupants, we do not know how many veterans are owner occupants, because that information has not been made available. I am sure the committee will believe me when I say that other members of the government and I are just as anxious as any other member is to see that we make a relaxing order of this kind if we can safely do so. 1 am only guessing but I think there probably would not be a very large number of cases such as we have
just been discussing, of soldiers who, either themselves or through their families, bought dwellings or had dwellings bought for them while they were overseas, and if that is the case it might be possible to amend the order as suggested without causing any serious dislocation.
The committee will realize of course that it is not appropriate to amend these orders on the floor of the house; that has to be done by the board, because that is the way the machinery is set up. The only assurance I can give the committee is that we will give immediate and sympathetic consideration to seeing whether that additional relaxation can be made.
So far as order 688 is concerned, remember, we knew that there would be of necessity a relatively small number of cases involved between these two terminal dates, and it was in conformity with the good faith principle of not changing the rules of the game after it had started that we felt we could make that relaxation. If the order can be amended to extend this right to apply for possession to a veteran who purchased his property after he had entered the service, we will do it. I cannot give any positive assurance, but I will look into it at once and see whether that can be done.


Benoît Michaud: I wish to say a word in connection with the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It applies to civilians as well as veterans. In the amending order of July 25, 1945, freezing evictions for purchasers of houses, there was provision for making application to a certain person within a certain time, and in New Brunswick it happened to be to the county court judge. I do not believe this is as a matter of right, but he happened to be the person to whom application was to be made. The purchaser of a house had the right to apply within a certain time to that county court judge, in our case, to show that he was desirous of securing the house for himself. Let me try to put it a little more clearly. The order stated something to this effect, that any notice given by a purchaser of a house was annulled by the order. The purchaser could go before the county court judge and ask to have this notice revived. In quite a few instances of which I am aware, persons who had purchased houses within a month or two months before July 25 did make the application; in all cases the order was revived and they were given the right to take possession of their houses pursuant to the notice. If we analyse the situation in the light of this proviso, it boils down to this: the people who
Emergency Powers

had purchased houses before July 25 were either anxious to get possession or they were not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean October 31, 1944, do you not?


Benoît Michaud: July 25, 1945. As to the people who had purchased houses at any time before July 25, 1945, if they had given notice to the person in possession of the house to vacate, the order annulled that notice. But there was a period within which they had the right to apply to the proper officer to have this notice revived. In all cases which came to my attention the notice was revived, and therefore they could take possession of their houses according to the terms of the notice. If people who had purchased houses had not given notice, it is a fairly good indication that they had not purchased the house with a view to securing immediate occupancy. People do buy houses just for the purpose of keeping them rented. So it seems to me that only very few people would be affected-those who perhaps had bought houses within a few days before July 25 and did not have time to give notice, or did not feel in a hurry to give notice.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: They did not know when they might be back.


Benoît Michaud: If they did give notice, there was a remedy provided in the order in council for them to apply to have the notice revived. I know that in all cases which came to my attention the notice was revived and they were given permission to take possession of their houses.


Mr. HARKNESS:: Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I have not been at all impressed by the arguments of the ministers against the amendment, which is designed to give to veterans the right to secure possession of their own houses. As a matter of fact the arguments of the ministers have chiefly tended to act as red herrings across the trail of simple justice. Instead of trying to bring in a large number of factors, most of which the Minister of Finance has just admitted are guesswork, I submit that the matter should be considered on that basis of simple justice; should a man who went to fight for his country, and who purchased a house while he was away, or after his return, be allowed possession of that house or not? On the basis of justice alone, without any of these extraneous matters brought in, I do not think there should be any argument in the matter. Ninety per cent of the population of this country would look at it as a matter of justice to these men to 
enable them to get back their houses or to secure possession of the houses they own. It is on that basis and that basis alone that we should consider the matter. All of the rest of the considerations which the minister has brought up are mostly guesswork, anyway.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is not guesswork that one man can afford to buy a house and another cannot.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Minister of Finance expressed the opinion that this amendment would do the veterans more harm than good; in other words, that more would be thrown out of houses than would get houses. A little later he admitted that there were no statistics at all on the matter. I contend that he has no basis for making that statement. As a matter of fact in all the cases which came to my personal attention the veterans had bought houses which were not occupied by other veterans. I admit, as I think everybody will, that certain houses purchased by veterans are occupied by other veterans. But the number is relatively small; instead of being half or more than half, as the minister would have us believe, I think the number would run to about ten or fifteen per cent, and not more than twenty per cent. I am convinced that if this amendment were adopted, the percentage of veterans who would be displaced would be comparatively small.
I was surprised to hear the Minister of Reconstruction say, as I understood it, that multiple dwellings are all right for veterans but are a bad thing for other people. That in my opinion was the general sense of hi's long statement. It seems to me that the veterans have been forced to live in these multiple dwellings long enough, and that if we can get some of them out of multiple dwellings we should make an effort to do so. I believe we should let some of the other people try this multiple dwelling business rather than continue to make that the lot chiefly of the veterans.


Mr. MERRITT:: The Minister of Finance has made unfavourable comparisons between a veteran who is able to purchase a house and one who is not. I should like to point out to him that his colleague, who is sitting beside him, is doing his best to get veterans to buy houses now. There is nothing wrong in a veteran being able to afford to buy a house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not say there was.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: He should be encouraged to do so. However, what I rose to say was this. The ministers have shown that they have no real information on this subject. Many of us have thought for some time that

Emergency Powers
the case of a veteran who had not arrived back from overseas at the time the freezing order came into effect is much more important than that of one who served notice in the six or nine months preceding that time. I myself had occasion on August 17 last-I have the letter here-to write on this subject, bringing to the attention of the wartime prices and trade board authorities two cases exactly the same as those referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I was very glad to hear the minister say this has been a constructive discussion, because I am certain there are many cases of hardship such as have been mentioned from this side during the debate, in which relief could have been granted if letters such as mine, asking that they be considered and setting out typical cases, were taken seriously under consideration. If that had been, done in the past I feel it very likely that these veterans would have been given relief before those who were relieved on March 1. I hope the difficulties in this connection, now that we have had the restrictions for two years, will not prevent the ministers from finding some solution for the hardship cases, and finding out exactly, through the Department of Veterans Affairs or by some other means, what the effect would be, because these are the cases about which we are prinicipally concerned.
I want to say one thing more. It is all very well to put up telling arguments against the amendments that have been proposed by the hon. member for Eglinton. No one knows better than the hon. member himself that it is the job of those on this side of the house to criticize and the job of the ministers to govern. But by simply arguing against proposed amendments we do not get anywhere. Recently when I was in Vancouver I spoke to the past president of the apartment and rooming house association, who told me two things, one of which may interest the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This man told me that seventy-five per cent of the members of his association were small people who depended for their livelihood on the operation of one particular house; and he said that if future tenancies were freed from control and operators were permitted to get rid of people they considered undesirable, in shared accommodation, there would be ten thousand rooms opened in the city of Vancouver. That was his opinion from surveys made by his association. If there are ten thousand rooms in Vancouver which are not occupied now by reason of something in the rental regulations, then whatever it is in those regulations that prevents those rooms from being occupied
should be found out and removed, whether it is the objection raised by the hon. member for Eglinton or something else.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I should think a great many of those would be single rooms.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: They might be, but he told me they were empty now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Single rooms for unmarried people.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: And they are empty now because people do not want to be stuck with undesirables if they take them in.


Mr. BRUNELLE:: This afternoon it seems that everyone has been referring to particular cases of hardship. I was glad to hear the Minster of Finance sa.y he would try to establish a court or commission or some authority to take care of those cases. Since this is going to be done I want to suggest something to the three ministers who. are here, and possibly to the officers of the board. I see at least three bureaucrats sitting before the minister. I have been looking at them since this debate began, and they seem to be quite ordinary, normal human beings and quite sympathetic looking. I would say they compare quite favourably with members of the opposition, whose faces have become quite elongated since they have had to change their whole policy in regard to controls.
As I say, I should like to suggest something to the ministers for their consideration when they come to establish that court or commission to look after these cases of hardship. Some changes were made in regard to eviction concerning people who acquired property between October, 1944, and July, 1945. As to those who acquired property after 1945, the minister stated they had been properly looked after and did not get the increase of ten per cent because, in having their rates fixed, the investigators had taken into consideration the increase in the cost of materials. I should like to tell the minister that the investigators did not always take into consideration the increase in the cost of materials. I understand that some verbal instructions were given different offices of the wartime prices and trade board, but those were only verbal instructions. From now on I hope definite instructions will be given these offices, so that they will know what to do in order to compensate for the increase in the cost of materials.
I would also point out to the minister that some hardship was created by taking the 1941 rentals as the basis, since at that time some cities wTere still suffering from the effects of the depression, because a mill had been closed
Emergency Powers

or for some other reason. In some cities rentals were very low at that time, yet those rentals have served as the basis for fixing rates for those who have built new houses. So I would suggest that the minister give consideration to instructing those who may form this court or commission that they keep in mind the fact that after 1945 the investigators did not always allow for the increase in the cost of materials, and also the fact that in 1941 rates were different in different places, that in some cities rentals were abnormaEy low. It is my suggestion that these abnormal rates should no longer serve as the basis for fixing new rentals.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether there is any interim report as to the percentage of Canadian tenants who are taking advantage of the opportunity to sign two-year contracts at the increased rates. I have heard reports to the effect that the landlords are not signing these agreements. They are under the impression that we shall get rid of rental controls entirely in the very near future, and rather than run the risk of being stuck for two years with a ten per cent increase they are taking a chance on getting a greater increase later on. I imagine that if the amendment to clause 4 of the bill, moved by my deskmate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, is sup-, ported by the committee, it will give the people of this country a little more assurance that controls are not going to be ditched entirely.
While I am on my feet I should like to suggest to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply that he pay a little more attention to the statistics coming from his own department. After our discussion Friday evening, I checked up the Curtis report on housing and community planning, published under the authority of the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not this minister.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is a report on reconstruction; and I think the minister is responsible-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Curtis report was made long before there was any Department of Reconstruction and Supply. I can assure my hon. friend I had no responsibility for it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I suggest that the minister still has on his staff people who worked1 on the preparation of this report, and that the statistics still stand. At page 111 of the report there is a table setting out the percentage of wage-earner tenants in twelve metropolitan areas of Canada. These figures are based on 1941 statistics. Possibly the 
minister will argue that earnings have been higher recently. But I suggest that if these were the averages at that time-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Do you think they have been higher recently?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think likely they were higher in 1946 than they were in 1941. I am not arguing that. But I said if this average prevailed in 1941 they would have to go up 100 per cent to bring the majority of people up in that category. The following is a table showing the family earnings distribution of wage-earner tenants in the low income group for the principal metropolitan areas, in 1941:
Under $1,000 per cent
Halifax	 71
Saint John	 96
Quebec	 88
Montreal	 82
Ottawa	 62
Toronto	 49
Hamilton	 44
London	 58
Windsor	 41
Winnipeg	   81
Vancouver	 88
Victoria	 7'1
This suggests it is not an unusual thing for the wage-earner in Canada to have to budget on less than $1,000 a year. In this connection I would suggest that the leader of the opposition ought to read some of the statistics prepared under his supervision. If he would turn to part V of the Manitoba case before the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, prepared while he was premier of Manitoba, he would find that statistics are such that in Manitoba-


Mr. MANROSS:: Bring yourself up to date.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That was a time when your leader prepared statistics. There were a large number in Manitoba at that time-and there still are-who are getting less than $1,000 a year. Both the leader of the opposition and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply should bring themselves up to date.
In one of the recent publications from the minister's department, "Sixty-Seven Homes for Canadians", we find' at page 5 a table setting forth how easy it is to secure a home under the national housing plan. It states that anyone who is prepared to budget at $25 a month is able to provide for interest, principal, taxes, fire insurance, heating, water, maintenance and repairs. These items are covered by the $25 a month, and one can have a house for that amount. That is a house with a lending value of $2,160.

Emergency Powers
Well, I imagine that for that amount one could put in his foundation in most cities at the present time; but he certainly could not have a roof over his head. Then, if you can appropriate a larger sum, $80 a month, you can secure a house with a lending value of 88,000, repaying the interest and principal over twenty-five years. On this one can have a maximum loan of $6,400.
I believe that, with building costs in most centres of Canada as they are today, one would find that a $8,000 house is no better than a $4,000 house would have been five or six years ago. There are very few Canadians who are in a position to budget for $80 a month to cover interest, principal, fuel and all the rest of it.
I submit that the government is falling far short of providing adequate housing, but I shall not discuss that point at greater length at the present 'time. However, while I am on my feet I would express the hope that until the government has developed ways and means of embarking upon an adequate housing programme, until it has subsidized low-cost housing by cooperating with the cities and provinces, it is imperative that softie protection be given to the people who now have shelter but who would be out on the streets if the landlords had their way.
Since the Minister of Finance is now in his place, would he be good enough to make comment on the question I asked in the first place in regard to the percentage of tenants who have been able to sign agreements for. an increase of ten per cent for a two-year period? Also would he indicate whether, before the board granted the increase, the landlords were able to show that they were in straitened conditions, and that they were likely to be taken under control by the sheriff if some relief were not given.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As to the first point, I am advised that thousands of forms have been taken by landlords, but we have no figures as to the forms actually used. I have no doubt that in due course some data will be available. Up to the present time, however, we have no idea how many landlords have sent these forms to their tenants.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Can the minister give
any assurance that no further increase will be granted while these controls are in force?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the sort of assurance I am not prepared to give. To use the time-honoured expression, that, of course, is a matter of government policy. It will have to be decided at the proper time, and will be announced in due course.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Why was it necessary
to have the controls drawn in this manner, under which the landlord is bound for a period of two years but the tenant is not bound for the same period? I believe that many landlords who are renting houses today have a just complaint in that connection.
I can see the possibility of landlords evicting tenants without giving proper notice. However, under the contract they cannot do it. It seems to me that there would be no hardship on the tenant if he were required to live up to the terms of a contract for two years, just as the landlord is required to do so.
It, has been my experience, and especially in the city of Calgary, where the rentals control board is operating under the supervision of the wartime prices and trade board, that rentals have not been allotted fairly. I believe that the principle adopted by the rentals control board was that it would go into an area and adjust rentals according to the rates prevailing in that area.
I have in mind particularly visiting a house in the southwestern section of Calgary around Christmas time of last year, before we came to Ottawa to attend the session. This house had been occupied by a returned man, whose intention it was to vacate. The suite to which I am referring was situated on the third floor of the building and, with the exception of a cook-stove, was not furnished. Bathroom accommodation was on the second floor. This apartment was renting for $30 a month which, in my view, was a little high for that type of accommodation.
The second place I would bring to the attention of the committee was one on Sixth avenue, Calgary. This was much more centrally located, in an apartment building. This apartment had been occupied by a member of the air force, who was about to vacate. I had occasion to visit him. This apartment was in a practically new building, and was located on the main floor. It had never been my pleasure to visit a more pleasant apartment. In it were hardwood floors throughout, a separate bathroom, kitchenette, sitting room, private bedroom, fireplace, and other types of modern accommodation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where?


Charles Edward Johnston: In Calgary. If you want to find a good place, come to Calgary.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am glad there was that private bedroom.


Charles Edward Johnston: The rental for that suite was set at $35. There was no comparison between the accommodation offered there
Emergency Powers

and that offered in the first one I described, nor was there any comparison in the matter of location. It seems to me that this is quite unreasonable, and that the landlord who owned the accommodation I last described had a legitimate complaint.
I was talking to another landlord and he told me that as soon as he got his present tenants out he was not going to rent his place again, and for that very reason. I know the landlord and the tenant have the right to appeal to the rentals control board, but I was told by one of the officials of that board that it is not much use taking the case to the board unless as the landlord can prove that he has additional expenses not contemplated when the lease was let, and he added that you would not get more than fifty cents or a dollar more anyway and that it was not worth the trouble to appeal. I think there should be a relaxation of these regulations. I have a few things to say in regard to the rental regulations when we come to the Department of Reconstruction and Supply.


Donald Methuen Fleming: So that the points raised may be clear to the committee, may I say that there are three changes in the amendment circulated on Friday evening, two of them to clarify points raised the other day by the Minister of Justice and one raised this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence: (1) As to the veteran for whom this right to possession is now opened up, he must have served overseas; (2) as to the date of purchase, it must have been made by March 31, 1947; and (3) in the case of a tenant who is himself a veteran with overseas service, the provisions of order 688 shall apply so that he has the right to go to the courts and the judge shall determine having regard to the relative needs of the landlord and tenant for the accommodation and the relative hardship resulting from any order that might be made by the court as to who shall have possession. My amendment reads:
That P.C. 9029, as amended to date be further amended by the addition thereto of the following clause:
"Nothing in this order in council or in any order or regulation made thereunder contained shall apply to prevent recovery of possession of housing accommodation, in accordance with the law of the province, by the owner thereof, where required for his personal occupation and that of his family, where such owner was a member of the forces, with overseas service, as defined in the War Service Grants Act, 1944, and purchased the said accommodation on or before the 31st day of March, 1947; provided that any notice given to recover such possession shall be given in accordance with such law, but in no event shall such notice be shorter than 
three months; and provided further that where the tenant of such accommodation was himself a member of the forces, with overseas service, he shall have all the rights conferred by order No. 688 of the wartime prices and trade board, dated February 17, 1947, on the tenants referred to m the said order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is nothing I can add. I am unable to accept the amendment for the reasons I have given. I am just as sympathetic as my hon. friend to the veteran getting any preference to which he is entitled, but this rentals control order is extremely difficult to administer and, when those in charge of administering it assure me that to grant any such blanket exemption at this time would increase the present grave difficulties, I feel that I must be guided by their advice, which incidentally commends itself to my own judgment. This discussion has been most constructive and helpful, and I wish to repeat the assurance I gave earlier, that we shall continue to review these provisions and particularly one or two specific suggestions, one by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to see whether the orders can be relaxed to permit orderly relief for certain classes. But this amendment is far too broad in its scope and I am afraid I cannot accept it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have not taken any part in the discussion. I appreciate what an enormous problem this is because I have a close connection with it and I know that the board has a problem which the average man does not realize. It is one of tremendous magnitude. I have listened interestedly to what the minister said, that they will continue to survey the problem, and I hope they do. They wiil find a lot to survey and perhaps they will be able to make some improvements.
I have in mind particularly those returned soldiers who purchased homes after their return when the war was over and who consequently were not here when they would have been protected if they had purchased earlier. They really have need of protection.
1 am wondering if the board could not send out an order to all realtors, real estate men and all others engaged in the business of selling houses to advise the veteran that he cannot obtain possession of the property he purchases if it is occupied? I know of a number of cases in which the veteran was given the impression by perhaps an overzealous salesman that he could get possession of the property. I do not know whether anything of that kind has been done by the board, but it is something that might be done. Certainly the young soldier coming back from overseas in 1946 could not possibly be expected to know what the housing regulations were

Emergency Powers
unless the agent told him, and many of them bought thinking they would be able to get possession. Here is a case in point, taken from the press of March 7, 1947:
Re the injustice of the present freezing orders on housing, and in describing the position of the late returning veteran who was held in the service long after the war's end you have outlined a ease similar to my own.
It is a similar case to those I mentioned a moment ago. The writer of this letter to the editor had read of somebody else being in the same boat, a man who had come home late from overseas, had purchased a house and then found that he could not get possession of it. It is not likely he would have purchased it had he known he could not get possession. The letter continues:
Both my son and I were discharged from active service late in 1945 and decided we would buy a house large enough for both our families. After selecting a suitable property for sale we were assured by the agent that relief from the freezing order was then being planned. We put all our gratuities into the purchase as we felt that even if the agent was misinformed that it was just a case of waiting a reasonable time until we would obtain possession of our property.
But now the government brings forth this gem of wisdom

I suppose he is referring to some regulation. -the November, 1944, to July, 1945, relief order, and we are left again with no mark to shoot at.
That bears out what I said a moment ago. Had those veterans been told by the real estate agents that they could not get possession they probably would not have bought the property. Therefore I would urge the minister and the wartime prices and trade board to issue instructions to all those selling houses to inform purchasers that, under the present regulations, they cannot get possession of the property if it is occupied.
I have been trying to get housing relief for a young soldier whom I know. He came back in 1946, after having been overseas for several years. Of course he could not possibly know what he was coming up against, and the party from whom he purchased his house did not tell him that he could not get possession. On going to see the place he found it occupied by a widow and her daughter. They told him they wanted to get out anyway, but they have not got out, and he cannot get in. He has a wife and child, and they are living in a basement, not the basement of a regular house but in a very unsatisfactory place. There are many cases of that kind. It is a difficult problem and I am not going to suggest what should be done.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Is the previous owner still in occupation?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The owners are not in occupation; the tenants are. I have another case of a man whom I know well. He had been occupying a house on Dufferin street, Toronto, for sixteen years with his wife and four children. His son came back from overseas. The father, who was also a returned soldier, is employed in one of the government hospitals in Toronto. His son came back from overseas and brought his bride with him, and they moved in with the father and mother with four children, making a total of eight. They had not protection. He was evicted. I myself saw the furniture piled out in the front of the house. The family all scattered. The father and mother went to live with another family in different rooms and the young man and his wife were settled in different parts of the city. The four children were scattered among friefids everywhere. Every hon. member knows the situation is almost appalling. I do not wish to complain. I do not wish to think any one member is any more anxious than any other member about this difficult situation. They all want to see housing relief given. I do not want to think for one minute that the government or whoever is directing the wartime prices and trade board is not just as anxious as I am for all these people to have accommodation. I want to believe that it is. What can be done to relieve the situation, I do not know.


Angus MacInnis: More houses.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My hon. friend says
''more houses". That is a difficult problem. I built a lot of houses; I know something about building. I built my houses at a time when materials were easy to obtain. It was not a question of going to buy the material. No sooner have you excavated for the foundation than there were a dozen men around wanting to sell you brick or lumber or glass or the other materials for the house. But it is not so today. The material situation is appalling. Personally I do not at the moment see any solution for this problem. The suggestion offered by the hon. member for Eglinton may offer some relief. I listened to him and he referred to shared accommodation. There may be a great opportunity there. I know of many people who have rooms in their houses which they would rent, but they are afraid to rent them, because if they rent to undesirable tenants they cannot get rid of them. If there is any relief along the line
Emergency Powers

suggested by the hon. member for Eglinton it should be considered. I heard the remarks of the hon. member for Restigouehe-Mada-waska, but there was some difference of opinion as to whether his statement of the law was right or not. At any rate, today people will not take other people into their homes unless they are compelled to do so, and nobody wants compulsion. They fear that they will not be able to get them out if they do not want them to stay.
The minister said something about-


Douglas Charles Abbott: They could try them out for five months or less and get them out without any trouble.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister said something about incompatibility. I do not think the ordinary owner of a home knows about that. The wartime prices and trade board should send out information advising people as to how they can rent their rooms.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Over one thousand applied in Toronto and were granted permission.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I heard the hon. member for Waterloo South say that there are thousands and thousands of houses in which there are rooms which could be occupied, but the owners quite naturally are concerned about getting undesirable tenants, and therefore they will not rent their rooms. I think it is worth while looking into that situation and the remarks made by the hon. member for Eglinton.
I have in mind a case which I think is one of the most pitiable that could be imagined. This is a young man who has been married for three years. I do not know whether or not he is a returned soldier. Perhaps I should not mention him here, but he and his wife have already lost two babies in the apartment in which they live because the place is wholly undesirable. The conditions appear to be particularly bad. He searched the city as best he could but he could not get another place. He then bought a property, and apparently he was able to vacate the people in it because the regulations did not apply. On going there he found a mother with seven children in it and he did not have the heart to vacate them. He sold that property and bought another. In the other property there is a banker, his wife and a fourteen-year old daughter. He says if he could get possession of his own property he would then be able to take a family in with him. He would have to, to help pay for the property. But he cannot get the banker, wife and daughter out. Whether he will be [(Mr. MaoNicol.]
allowed to get them out or not it is not for me to say. The wartime prices and trade board should make fuller investigations than they do. However I am not finding fault with them in particular because in one of the cases I have been following up, the wartime prices and trade board wrote me a letter. I am not finding fault with the contents of it. I shall read part of it but I shall not mention any names. It is as follows:
The purchase of a home at any time is a serious matter for most people and one w*ould have thought that it would have been prudent on the part of Mrs. C's son when embarking on such a serious matter to first make inquiries as to when he could expect to have the tenant vacate because since July 25, 1945, landlords of housing accommodation had been unable to give a notice to vacate to their tenants.
This young man is a returned soldier. He came back in the fall of 1945. You could not expect a young man such as that to know anything about the conditions he would be up against in purchasing this property and, of course, the real estate agent would not tell him because he would not then make the sale. I do not blame the real estate agent one bit in this regard.


Angus MacInnis: Terrible.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No. I do not blame the real estate man. He has to live like other people. I do not blame him, because he was not instructed by the wartime prices and trade board that he should advise an individual purchasing a house that he could not get possession. I am going to recommend strongly that the department see to it that anybody purchasing a house be given full advice as to whether he can get possession. What is the good of purchasing a house if you cannot get possession of it? I continue with the letter:
The government policy in this respect received wide publication at that time and the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, the then Minister of Finance, issued a formal statement which appeared in every Canadian newspaper advising that during the housing emergency landlords would not be able to evict their tenants.
That young man was overseas at the time and, of course, he could not know anything about it. He knew nothing about it when he came home, nor did the real estate agent tell him when he went to buy the house. The letter continues:
Large advertisements also appeared in the newspapers at that time advising the public to this effect. Therefore it seems strange that a man in the position of Mrs. C's son would invest no doubt, a substantial sum in the purchase of this home without first making inquiries as to the possibility of evicting the tenant.

Emergency Powers
I am not finding any fault with the wartime prices and trade board in this regard. They are setting out a straight story, but somebody should have been responsible for advising that young soldier who was overseas when the order came out that he could not buy a house and get possession of it. Somebody should have advised him. He could not be expected to know; he was overseas for several years.
I have a multitude of such cases in my part of the city. I would be safe in saying that no other riding sent more soldiers overseas than Davenport. I have a multitude of complaints. I know what a gigantic problem it is, but I believe that, as the two ministers have said, the greatest effort possible will be made to give relief. Finding fault will not help. We have to provide a solution for the problem. These three ministers, including the minister of reconstruction, are big men, and they should all put their shoulders to the wheel and do what they can to provide housing relief for our returned soldiers in the first place, because they are entitled first, and then to the people at large, because there are multitudes of sad cases among the ordinary population. The returned soldiers come first and others afterwards. If the minister will tackle the problem from that angle he will do something for the good of the country.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one question I wish to ask the minister on the policy of the board with regard to rent. When decontrol is finally undertaken is it intended to proceed by removing controls over rentals by localities? The way it was introduced' was, of course, by starting with congested localities first and ultimately extending it to villages and towns. I hear it said in villages and towns that this control is not so necessary there as in more congested areas. I would ask the minister to give a general indication as to the means whereby this control will ultimately be unravelled, and whether the government has communicated with the provinces, so that when the controls are removed from rentals the provinces will be given notice in advance to the end that, under provincial jurisdiction, wherever a province desires to do so, it may continue sueh control as it deems necessary.
In my own province legislation has been placed on the statute books covering both the question of prices and the question of rents. The idea is, of course, that when the federal government goes out of this field1 of peculiarly provincial jurisdiction the province will be in a position to enter that field. I think it would be worth while for the minister to 83166-144
give the general picture, because we have been talking here for over a day and a half and no one yet knows what the government's policy is on the question of decontrol of rentals, except that it is intended ultimately to decontrol.
What is the general perspective? The government had a general picture a year and a half ago at the time of the dominion-provincial conference. I should like to know whether its policy today is that which it placed before that conference in the proposals which it then submitted.


Douglas Charles Abbott: So far as I can recall, there was nothing about rentals in the proposals. Answering the first question first, I am not in a position to say whether it will be desirable in the decontrol process to decontrol regionally. I think I indicated, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Eglinton a week or two ago, that consideration was being given to that phase and that possibly that might be a way in which we could effectively decontrol. However, as I said a moment ago on another subject, the whole question is receiving the most intense study at the moment.
I spent three hours the other day in a long meeting with the rental control officials and the officials of the prices board considering all these various questions, trying to project our minds into the future to see what the best method of decontrol wrould be, because we appreciate that this is a right which the dominion government can exercise only for a limited period while the condition of emergency exists. We are fully conscious of that fact. I cannot make any positive statement today as to just what that course will be. I agree that the provinces should be given ample notice of the plans of the dominion government in this respect and I intend to make sure that they have such ample notice, but they have not reached the point where I can give the committee any great information as to just what the timetable will be.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection, in collaboration with the wartime prices and trade board, has the minister any statistics? Has any census been taken of the various towns and villages throughout the country? Have the local authorities been consulted to ascertain their position? I should think that in order to arrive at any decision, if decontrol is proceeded with regionally, to use the minister's expression, the first thing that would have to be done would be to make a general review of all villages and towns in the



UTISE) COITION

[Stage Direction]
Emergency Powers
[Stage Direction]
country to ascertain the attitude of the municipal officials and the degree of housing available.
May I bring this to the attention of the Minister of Finance? It has come to my notice on three or four different occasions, and though it is a minor matter it gives me an opportunity to bring it before the minister now. Persons who own houses and cannot get into them have to go and rent elsewhere. They have to pay income tax on the amount of rental they receive but are denied, under the income tax law, the right to deduct the expense they are put to by reason of being denied the use of their own places. There are quite a few cases; in one town I know of there are three. It may not run into large amounts; but, having regard to the fact that there are three in this small town, I believe it would certainly run into several thousands across the country. It is a matter that should be given consideration, so that anyone in that position should not be refused his ordinary rights while at the same time he is taxed on that income which he does not wish to receive by reason of the situation in which he finds himself.
Douglas Charles Abbott: It is an interesting point and, so far as I know, it has not been raised before. I will give it some thought.
Amendment (Mr. Fleming) negatived.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I wish to introduce
another amendment in the same form as the copies I circulated on Friday evening. It has to do with the matter of. tenancies hereafter created in respect of shared accommodation. The amendment reads:
That P.C. 9029, as amended to date be further amended by the addition thereto of the following clause:
"Nothing in this order in council or in any order or regulation made thereunder contained shall apply to prevent the recovery of possession of housing accommodation, in accordance with the law of the province, by the landlord thereof in the case of shared accommodation, as defined in the orders made under this order in council, where the tenancy thereof is created^ after the date of coming into force of this act."
May I make one comment? The matter has already been discussed and I have no desire to prolong that discussion. The amendment applies simply to the recovery of possession on shared accommodation. It has nothing to do with the rent ceilings on shared accommodation. It does not apply to existing tenancies of shared accommodation but only to those hereafter created. I need not say more about the advantages which I am sure would follow from the promulgation of such an order.


Douglas Charles Abbott: For the reasons I gave a little earlier, I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment either. I cannot agree that it has nothing to do with rental ceilings. When we took away the security of tenure feature in the case of shared accommodation in 1943 a chaotic condition resulted. We could not control rentals of shared accommodation and we had to reimpose that control. For that reason, in the light of experience. I cannot accept the amendment. I would point out however, as I did before, that a person renting shared accommodation for the first time can make a lease up to five months in duration with any conditions as to eviction that he sees fit.
Amendment (Mr. Fleming) negatived.
P.C. 9029 agreed to.
On P.C. 9870-Authorizing incorporation of Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation.


John George Diefenbaker: There are a number of questions which I should like to ask the minister with regard to this item dealing with the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation. First, I should like to ascertain the amount paid during the past year in subsidies to both producer and consumer. A general statement does appear in the last report of the wartime prices and trade board, but there is nothing to indicate what is the amount of subsidies paid, divided on the basis I have suggested, as of March 31, 1947, and during the preceding year. Then I should like to ask-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Excuse me, but let me get this clear. The report gives the subsidies for the calendar year, does it not?


John George Diefenbaker: It is the calendar year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think it is. Does the hon. member wish it brought down to the end of March?


John George Diefenbaker: I want it to March 31, yes.
Then I would appreciate a statement from the minister on the general policy with respect to subsidies; and in that connection I should like to ask him a specific question, namely, whether the experience of the government is that within the last six months, during which period a number of subsidies have been removed, inflationary pressures are beginning to cease and the removal of the subsidies has resulted from that fact. If I understand the situation with regard to subsidies, the government's policy is to continue them so long as it is necessary in order to prevent inflation-

Emergency Powers
ary prices. I mentioned milk. I still cannot understand what happened to the government in connection with that. This house passed a resolution calling upon the government not to remove the subsidy on milk. It was generally supported in all parts of the house. It represented a direction by parliament to the government and to the government's appointee, the stabilization corporation and its co-worker, the wartime prices and trade board. Yet immediately after parliament ceased to sit, its wishes were thwarted and denied. I should like to know from the minister the extent to which subsidies are now being maintained on agricultural products, which products are subsidized and to what extent.
The next point I should like to ask the minister about is this. To the extent of how many points in the cost of living index does a subsidy operate in the maintenance of price? I will give my reason for asking that question. Since the removal of certain of the subsidies, prices have gone up. If I understand the economic views of the wartime prices and trade board, it is that the only result of a subsidy is to keep down the price by six points in the cost of living index.
The next question I should like to ask is, what was behind the government's attitude in removing the subsidy on fluid milk and at the same time endeavouring to maintain the price of butter? I have never been able to understand how those two economic factors could possibly operate side by side. I will deal with some further matters when the opportunity arises. But the main point at the moment is this: Has the government during the last six months, or within the last three months, concluded that the inflationary danger is past and that prices are receding, or that the prospect is that they will recede to a reasonably normal level?


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: First of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Lake Centre on the solicitude he now expresses for the government as to the price control policy. I think he realizes now that, if we are to have fair prices and if we are to have subsidies paid, they will be paid for the purpose of keeping prices down.


John George Diefenbaker: I was asking questions. Let the hon. member make his observations in his own speech.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I was apparently giving
the hon. member more credit than he deserves for his statement.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not regard
it as credit, coming from the hon. member.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Well, I can say that
it is free, anyway. I will not send the hon. member a bill for it, and that is more than he can say to me. But I wish to support the implication which the hon. member left anyway, if not the direct statement, that perhaps the government is going a little too fast-


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: He never left any such
implication.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Then it is to his
disadvantage if he did not; he should have. As I say, I wish to support the implication that the government is going too fast in the field of taking off subsidies.
The hon. member made reference to the resolution which passed this house last summer, to the effect that the milk subsidy should be retained. Of course it is history now that the government disregarded the views of the house and removed the subsidy, as soon as the house prorogued, or almost as soon as it prorogued. I shall not go into that because, as I say, it is history. But I think that is indicative of the way in which the government has been removing subsidies without taking into consideration the views of the house or of the people generally.
I want to give this illustration as an example of what happens if subsidies are taken off promiscuously, so to speak, without first viewing the whole picture. We had the announcement not so long ago that the price of binder twine, for example, is to jump approximately $7.50 a hundredweight. That, I understand, is the wholesale increase in the price, and it will work out somewhere in the neighbourhood of $9 a hundredweight by the time it comes to the farmer. It is quite true that in many cases in the west binder twine has gone out of vogue where combines: are now used; but in many parts of Canada, it is still a considerable item in the expense of the farmer during the harvest season. I do not know on what basis the government took the action which they did take in wiping out the subsidy and allowing this price increase. Surely there must have been some middle way, if they felt that the subsidy they were paying was too high or that the price was too low. There must have been some place in between where they were before and where they are now, where the government could have stopped. I cannot see any justification for the price of binder twine jumping $7.50 a hundredweight this year, and I think the government should reconsider its position in that regard and in many other instances along the same line. I could mention gasoline. I understand that part of the sub-
Emergency Powers

sidy is still being paid, while part has been removed, and that under decontrol the price of gasoline has gone up from two to two and a half cents in different provinces.
All those things enter into the cost of production of farm products, and the farmer has no alternative but to ask the government to decontrol the products he produces or, on the other hand, to absorb the difference himself. Before we leave this order in council dealing with the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, I believe the government should frankly place before parliament the policy they intend to follow in connection with the retention or removal of subsidies, so that the producers of this country whose products are still under price control, may have some idea of what it is going to cost them to continue production. The farmers of western Canada have been very patient, but that patience can be tried too far, as the government has reason to know from what happened last fall. I refer to the non-delivery strike, which lasted only a short time but was an indication of what could happen if the farmers of Canada actually went to work and put on a real non-delivery strike. We all hope that will not happen, and I am sure the farmers would be the last to want it to happen; but if they keep getting it from both ends, with prices of the things they are buying steadily creeping up, costs of production steadily increasing, and subsidies being withdrawn, with the farmer having to absorb the difference, I am not so sure that they will continue to take it. Therefore I trust the government will give us some real hope for this year, some reason to believe they will not rush along the path they followed last year in removing subsidies without regard to the effect on the producers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Naturally, when subsidies are imposed, it is difficult to withdraw them. There is immense opposition to the withdrawal of every subsidy, and a government that took the easy course, the path of least resistance, once they got into a jungle of subsidies, would I suppose, remain there forever. The views I have expressed with regard to subsidies have been something like this, that a subsidy policy at a time of grave danger of serious inflation is a valuable policy, in that it prevents the spiral of inflation from developing. If that spiral once gets under way it may carry prices to grave heights; and a judicious expenditure of government money by way of subsidy may result in a very much greater saving to the consumer in prices than the expenditure by way of subsidy. I gave an estimate of the amount which it might be argued had been saved in prices to consumers by the expendi-

ture of subsidies during the war years. But I believe there comes a time when the expenditure of government money in the way of subsidies becomes little or nothing more than a transfer of purchasing power from the taxpayers to the consumers. In the course of the payment of subsidies there comes a point when that becomes the case. When that time comes, then subsidies are not justifiable on the basis of prevention of uncontrolled or uncontrollable inflation at all. If they are to be justified it must be on another ground entirely; that is, that it is desirable to make a redistribution of purchasing power. That is always a debatable question.
As hon. members know, the taxation system of the country underwent a radical modification during the war. A much larger proportion of the revenues than had theretofore been the case was raised by direct taxation on the basis of ability to pay. This meant that persons in receipt of very low incomes paid no income tax; those in receipt of slightly higher incomes paid income tax at a low rate, and so on until in the higher brackets income taxes were imposed at a very high rate. That income tax being such a large proportion of the total tax, it meant that a redistribution of income was going on all the time under the taxation system. Just how far that redistribution of income and wealth should be supplemented by a subsidy policy is a difficult question./I think the general view of the government is that we should withdraw from subsidies as far as possible and as soon as possible, but that does not convey very much information to the members of the house, nor do I think the government can give any commitment with regard to the time when they withdraw from subsidies.
Some reference has been made to the alleged direction to the government by the House of Commons last August. I was not here then, but I have looked up the resolution which was discussed at that time. It read:
This house desires to record its opinion that consideration should be given to the continuance of the milk subsidy so as to ensure adequate return to milk producers and make possible the consumption of milk for the nutrition of the Canadian people without any further increase in the price thereof to the consumers.
I would direct attention to two points in regard to that resolution. In the first place, it merely asked that consideration should be given the continuance of the milk subsidy. Any other form of resolution would have been out of order, because a direction for the expenditure of public funds cannot emanate-

Emergency Powers


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister recognizes that the house went as far as it could on a private member's motion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, but the house was not voting the money for the subsidy. The house could not vote the money for the subsidy without the necessary preliminaries having been completed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The house was simply expressing its view.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The house was expressing its view. The resolution stated that consideration should be given; but note the last words: "without any further increase in the price thereof to the consumers." There would be only one way to carry out that condition, and I do not know whether it could be carried out even then; that would be for the wartime prices and trade board to retain control of the price of milk. We had decided, as a matter of policy in the spring-and I think decided rightly-that there were competent boards in the provinces, and that control of the price of milk should be restored to those provincial boards. We removed the consumer subsidy effective June 1, and in my opinion it was high time it was removed. It was a subsidy paid to twenty or twenty-five thousand persons every month, a subsidy into the administration of which abuses inevitably crept. It was a subsidy being paid then, at the stage I referred to a while ago, where, it was simply transferring so much money from the pockets of the taxpayers to the pockets of the consumers of milk; at least that was our judgment.


Mr. KUHL:: If the minister will permit a question, why does he insist it is necessary that the government have control over prices in order to pay subsidies?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Because a subsidy should be paid for a certain purpose. For the government simply to throw in $20 million or $25 million by way of subsidy, and leave no control over prices, is, in my judgment, a most imprudent thing to do.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Could not the provinces?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That, again, would be a most imprudent thing to do. These questions were carefully considered by the government. I was Minister of Finance at the time, and they were considered after I came back to this country. That specific question- was considered, namely as to whether the federal government is justified in throwing in $20 million or $25 million by way of subsidy and then permitting the control of prices to be exercised by
another body, entirely; and not by the federal government, at all. We felt that, on principle, we simply could not justify that policy.
As subsequent events showed, we had incontrovertible evidence that if the control went back to the provinces the price of milk would go up to a greater extent than the subsidy. The condition of the resolution could not be met; that is, that the subsidy be kept on, without any further increase in price to the consumer. The consumers were in for some increase, anyway, whether the subsidy was paid or not, under the provincial milk boards. I am not taking exception to it.


Mr. LOW:: Was it not a question of adjusting the level of the subsidy rather than throwing it back into the hands of the provinces? Your consumer subsidy was based on two cents.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Solon Earl Low: Was it not merely a question of adjusting the level of the subsidy, rather than by increasing-


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; the consumer subsidy of two cents was off. It was off in June. What the house was talking about was a subsidy of 1-i cents, which was called a producers subsidy. The resolution of the house was that the government give consideration to continuing the payment of that subsidy, which it said it was going to take off, and that it give consideration to the payment of the subsidy so that there would not be any further increase in the price of milk to the consumer. If we continued to pay the subsidy there would have been an increase in the price of milk to the consumer; not as great, perhaps, if we continued to pay the subsidy. But we did not know. We gave it the fullest possible consideration, but we could not comply with the condition at the end of the resolution. We felt that it would be imprudent, and an almost irresponsible thing to do; that is, to continue the payment of subsidies after the control had passed from us.


Solon Earl Low: I should like to ask one further question before six o'clock, and would revert to the question of the subsidy on hemp, or twine. This subsidy is being removed, and is thus causing an increase in- the price of twine. Does the minister not think the farmer has a right to the retention of that subsidy, in view of the fact that the selling prices of his goods are fixed by the ceiling? He is hamstrung. Does the minister not admit that the farmer has a right good case for the government to consider-
Emergency Powers


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, I assume the hon. member is arguing that because there was a contract price on wheat-


Solon Earl Low: Yes, that is right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -the prices of everything the farmer buys must be frozen.


Solon Earl Low: Not necessarily. I would refer to those entering into his cost of production. Anything which enters into the cost of production can be controlled in some respects until such time as he has a chance to get a better price on a free market, and any such provision should be retained.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know how deeply I should go into this matter.


Solon Earl Low: I am just asking a question, if the minister does not think there is a good case to be made by the farmer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have heard it argued time after time that that is so. But in my judgment the wheat contract stands on its own feet. It is either a good contract or a bad one, apart from other considerations.


Solon Earl Low: But there is a responsibility on the government, just the same. They made the contract; they did not ask us.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is very true, but it does not detract from the force of what I said, that the contract is either a good one or a bad one. And there is a limit to the obligation which the making of that contract entails upon the government in other lines.
The specific commodity which the hon. member mentions, hemp and binder twine, is under the ceiling, as are most other things which enter into the farmers' cost of production and cost of living. But the proposition that no subsidy can be withdrawn because there is a long-term contract for certain goods is one which, in my opinion, is debatable.


Solon Earl Low: But the farmer certainly has a just cause of complaint when subsidies which are keeping down the cost of things he has to buy are removed, while ceilings are retained on the things he has to sell.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no ceiling on the things he has to sell.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, there is a fixed wheat price. And the coarse grains' price is fixed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just a minute. I suppose we could argue this for a long time. But there is no ceiling on the price of wheat, except under the contract, and the domestic price.


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But in class 2 there is no ceiling; that is not fixed. It runs up as high at S3, or something like that.


Solon Earl Low: That is right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The only part of the output on which there is a ceiling-and it is only a small proportion of the total wheat crop-is the part sold in the domestic market. As I say, there are ceilings on nearly everything the farmer buys. But there must be some latitude with regard to dealing with subsidies.
I do not think the position can be taken too rigidly that the government cannot withdraw subsidies, if there are good reasons for the withdrawal of them, simply by saying that a wheat contract was made. As I have said, that contract was either a good one or a bad one. We think it is good, because it stabilizes the price for the farmer in future years. But to say that, because he does not get as high a price on the first two years as he would if there were a free market, it follows from that fact that subsidies should be absolutely frozen is, I think, not correct.


Solon Earl Low: I do not say they should be absolutely frozen. But the government has, on various occasions expressed its intention of trying to help the farmer to get his just share of the national income. I have heard some Liberal members talk in terms of parity prices. I believe it is an actual fact that today the fanning population should be receiving approximately thirty per cent of the national income, if parity is to be defined as the receipt by the farmers of a proportion of the national income which bears a proper relationship to their percentage of the population. But they are receiving only nineteen per cent. Surely the government has some responsibility to retain those subsidies which will help to adjust that disparity between what the farmers are getting and what they should be getting. so that we can have something like parity. I say that, no matter what the minister says, there is a good argument to be made along that line, and the farming population realize it is a good argument. They are certainly going to make themselves heard.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member will realize that other groups do not get their per capita share of the national income.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some groups must be getting a very big share, then.


Mr. GIBSON (Comox-Alberni):: The tax collector gets the biggest share.

Emergency Powers


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is it the position that there should be equality for everybody?


Solon Earl Low: I did not say that. There should be equity.


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Solon Earl Low: What I am saying is that svhen the government steps in and by its action stops one section of our people from getting its fair share of the national income it is incumbent upon the government to take action to equalize things.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In what way did the government step in?


Solon Earl Low: You stepped in and made the contracts.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The contracts have advantageous features.


Solon Earl Low: You do not know whether they have or not, and it will take five years to find out.


Mr. FAIR:: The contracts have cost the farmers hundreds of millions of dollars and this robbery has continued ever since 1867 and for as many years before that as there were farmers in this country. The minister is not going to pull the wool over our eyes. That has been tried too often. It cannot be continued any longer.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Lake Centre asked for some information before six o'clock. It is impossible to give subsidies down to March 31 because the books are not closed; but for the calendar year 1946 the subsidies paid by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation were 869,765,801.63. The loss on commodity trading was $17,117,989.96. making a total of $86,883,790.59. I am told that the agricultural subsidies were the subject of a memorandum which was tabled about three weeks ago by the Minister of Agriculture. I am not in a position to give the total of these at the moment; perhaps I can get them in a minute.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister give a breakdown of the $69 million, showing
the commodities in reference to which the subsidies were paid and also the commodities in respect of which there was a loss in trading of some $17 million?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The figures are not broken down for the calendar year 1946. The last figures which are broken dowm are those for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1946. That is the last full year for which we have the figures broken down. We also have them broken down for the nine months ended December 31, 1946. If the hon. gentleman wants to get a picture of one full year's operations, the last full year that I can describe to him at all in detail is the year ended March 31, 1946.


John George Diefenbaker: For comparison the minister might also give the breakdown for the nine months ended December 31, 1946.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. I have all this information but it is very long. I can give the totals first. First, with regard to subsidies paid, import subsidies for the year ended March 31, 1946, $41,602,181.16, and for the nine months to December 31, 1946. $31,299,057.45. Domestic subsidies for the year ended March 31. 1946, $37,915,007.54, and for the nine months to December 31, 1946. $16,141,566.99. The totals in subsidies for the year ended March 31, 1946, $79,517,188.70. and for the nine months to December 31. 1946, $47,440,624.44. Losses on commodity trading, for the year ended March 31, 1946, $16,230,165.59, and for the nine months to December 31,	1946,
$12,132,620 96. Total of subsidies paid and losses on commodity trading for the year ended March 31, 1946, $95,747,354.29. and for the nine months to December 31,	1946,
$59,573,245.40. There is no breakdown of the import subsidies, but there is a breakdown of the domestic subsidies and also of the losses on commodity trading. The breakdown of the domestic subsidies for the year ended March 31, 1946, is very long.


John George Diefenbaker: What are the main items?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will give the items that
exceed $1,000,000, if that is satisfactory, and to expedite matters I will give the round figures:
Canned fruit and vegetables ..	$1,244,000
Coke	 1,575.000
Milk	 21,666.000
Soap and shortening materials 2,327,000 Synthetic and crude rubber ....	4.299,000
Wood fuel	 2,083,000
Those are the only individual subsidies that run over $1,000,000. Would the hon. member like the ones that run over $500,000?
Emergency Powers


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; that would
give the general picture.


James Lorimer Ilsley: They are:
Tree fruits	 $829,000
Jam and jelly	 693,000
Softwood lumber	 613,000
Woodenware	 671,000
Those are the only ones between $500,000 and $1,000,000. The hon. gentleman asked for a breakdown of the losses on commodity trading. I may say that the figures I have given him are those for the twelve months ended March 31, 1946. As to the losses on commodity trading, I can give them in full without taking up too much time:
Industrial alcohol	 $676,000
Artificial silk yarns	 916,000
Bristles and horsehair	 71,000
Broom corn	 14
Citrus juices	 163,000
Coffee	 1,926,000
Cotton yarns and fabrics	 1,871,000
Dairy products	 22,000
Fertilizers	 91,000
Dried fruits	 4,251,000
Jute	  60,000
Oils and fats	 1,774,000
Plasticides	 13,000
Rubber	 8,000
Spices	  204,000
Surplus stocks: clothing and cotton fabrics	 2,000
Tea	 527,000
Tin	 98,000
Woodenware	 30,000
Wool	 3,696,000
The total is $16,230,000. The figures I have given will not add up to that exactly, because there were certain small credits or profits resulting in a balance of $16,230,000. The figures again are for the twelve months ended March 31, 1946.


Mr. PROBE:: Before the dinner recess the minister gave a lengthy explanation from the legal point of view as to why the resolution dealing with milk subsidies, which was passed in August last by this house, had to be denied in the form of a continuance of producer subsidy. That followed, of course, the cutting off of the two cents a quart consumer milk subsidy on May 31 last. I have no doubt that the legal presentation was quite admirable, although I could not follow it, and I do not think the purchaser of milk would be able to follow either the argument of the Minister of Justice. It is very difficult as I see it and, I am sure, as the housewife sees it, to reconcile the discontinuance of the subsidy on commodities that are so important in the household economy, while at the same time subsidies are being continued or even begun on other commodities. For example, the Dominion Steel and Coal Company was in receipt of a subsidy, for what reason I do

not think the minister can tell the committee, except that it was an agreement at a time when the company was not even producing coal.
A few weeks ago the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply informed this house and the country that an agreement had been entered into between the government of Canada and Crane Limited and a subsidy of $400,000 was being initiated, which, I presume, had something to do with an incentive bonus of some sort for the production of bath tubs and bathroom fixtures. I went to the trouble to look up "Moody's Manual of Investments" on Crane Limited this afternoon while the minister was speaking, and I find that Crane Limited is part of a huge international concern which has been paying dividends of a fairly reasonable nature and which has been doing pretty well, thank you, in the way of profits on the business which the company does. For example, the earnings on the preferred stock were as follows:
Per share
1945	
$33	181944	
35	311943	
35	841942	
25	021941	
19	341940	
26	631939	
23	92
There were equivalent earnings on the common stock. Those of us who listened to the undoubtedly excellent legal argument this afternoon as to why the milk subsidy should be discontinued by the government of Canada on behalf of the families of this country should, before we go on to agreement on the order in council which is being extended here for the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, have an explanation from the minister as to the details of this subsidy agreement with this huge international corporation for the production of bathtubs and bathroom fixtures, of which Crane Limited is the Canadian subsidiary. Will the minister give us the details of why and under what conditions this subsidy of $400,000 to Crane Limited is being paid and how long the subsidy will last?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have not the details of the Crane Limited subsidy before me. That is something within the knowledge of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, but I knew about it at the time. Subject to correction by him, my recollection is that the reason for that subsidy was that they required no further capacity for normal business in Canada, and that if they built additional capacity for meeting an emergent situation, a concession of some kind was required. If I remember correctly, the subsidy is conditional upon producing more

Emergency Powers
than the normal amount they would produce. It was an incentive payment for doing something which they would not normally undertake in the course of their normal operations.


John Oliver Probe: Prior to the subsidy agreement, were they producing up to full capacity? I do not ask for details, but in general is there any clause in the agreement which deals with the price of commodities which Crane Limited will now be producing as a result of the facilities which the federal government is furnishing to them?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to get the information. I suppose the order in council was laid on the table, was it not? It must have been. With regard to price, I will find out what the situation is.


John Oliver Probe: The reason I am concerned with the terms of this agreement with Crane Limited, and particularly with the possibility that Crane Limited might or might not be producing at full capacity, is that there are other corporations in this country which have been steadily decreasing their production with no apparent good reason. I refer at the moment to Canadian Western Lumber Company which was referred to in the house the other day. In 1945 this company made approximately $460,000 net profit and in 1946 they made approximately $1,019,000 net profit. That profit for 1946 is at a rate of thirty-four per cent on the capital of the company, which is $3,073,000. According to "Moody's Manual of Investments," this company, which has a sawmill capacity of 200,000,000 board feet in British Columbia, which has choice timber limits, since 1939 has steadily been decreasing its production of sawn lumber. In 1939. for example, it produced slightly in excess of 200,000.000 board feet, which was the annual capacity of that sawmill. Since then, the production of that sawmill has decreased annually, until in 1945 the production was 120.000.000 board feet, which is sixty per cent of the rated capacity of Canadian Western Lumber Company. Yet at the same time that its production has been going down, its profits have been going up. It seems to me that when we are on the subject of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, the minister should be ready to give us more facts with respect to the subsidy to this colossal corporation, shall I say, which is not making bathroom fixtures for the people of this country, as some of us have every right to know from personal experience. I feel that the minister owes the 83166-145
committee a statement. I realize that it is not entirely within his department, but he should have this information here.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. What is the information asked for? The hon. member does not want any information about this lumber company, does he?


John Oliver Probe: I am using this as an illustration of what might be going on with Crane Limited. I do not know whether Crane Limited is producing more tubs today than it did five years ago, or whether it is producing less, or whether this $400,000 which the people of Canada have given it is just a good will gesture, or whether it means something. Thus far, it does not mean anything to me, and I am sure it does not mean anything to anyone else who is interested in buying plumbing supplies. I think the committee is entitled to this information.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If I can get hold of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply I will ask him to explain the whole matter to the hon. gentleman. I believe it is pretty well explained in the order in council, and if I had it here I think I could answer the question myself.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Was it not for new plant?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to have a few words with the minister about the figures he gave the committee a few moments ago in reply to the questions of the hon. member for Lake Centre. As I understood it, he indicated that the total paid out in import and domestic subsidies for the calendar year 1946 amounted to something over $79,000,000. In addition, there was an item of over $16,000,000 representing losses on commodity trading, which made a total of roughly $95,000,000. I I should like to ask the minister, what is the relation of the items comprising that $95,000,000 to the items that comprised the $200,000,000, which he told us some weeks ago was the average cost of price control during the war? I notice in the estimates one other item that would have to be added, namely the cost of administration of the wartime prices and trade board, which, according to page 69 of the main estimates was $13,000,000 for last year. If that 813,000,000, or whatever the administration of the wartime prices and trade board cost, were added to the $95,000,000, making a total of $108,000,000, would that figure be comparable with the $200,000,000 the minister says was the average cost during the war?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.

Emergency Powers


Stanley Howard Knowles: If not, would the minister indicate how one would arrive at a comparable figure?


James Lorimer Ilsley: For the year ended March 31, 1946, there were, in addition, those subsidies paid by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, the agricultural subsidies and the wheat and flour subsidies, which were substantial. In that figure I also included the cost of administration of the wartime prices and trade board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then the total figure for 1946 might be pretty close to the wartime average of $200,000,000?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then can the minister give us any idea of what is to be the total spent in this way in 1947? I am looking at the estimates again, and I find, that, whereas in 1946-47 we were asked to vote $90,000,000 for the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, for 1947-48 that figure is only $35,000,000. Would it be fair to take that as an indication of the extent to which the policy of subsidies is to be curtailed? That is a drop of over fifty per cent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. The amount budgeted for is $35,000,000 to be spent by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, which includes both import and1 domestic subsidies and trading losses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So that very roughly it looks as though we are in for a reduction of about fifty per cent or more, as far as the general policy of paying subsidies is concerned?


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Order. I do not think we should get into a discussion of the estimates at this time. I have no objection to a reference to them, but I hope a general discussion will not result.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was just referring to the estimates to help the minister answer my question.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The figure for 1947-48 which will be comparable with the $95,000,000 in 1945-46 it is expected will be in the neighbourhood of $50,000,000. Of that, $35,000,000 is being voted. Then there are certain revolving funds, certain inventories and so on, from which more will be realized.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the fact that this is another of the orders in council included in the general bracket to which reference is made in the amendment I have moved to clause 4 of the bill. I do so now to emphasize the

fact that in connection with the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation we have a phase of government policy which, like that of price control-and, after all, they are related -we feel should be continued; or to put it in the reverse, should not be dispensed with as rapidly as would appear to be the intention of the government.
Once again I feel I must call the attention of the government to an item in the afternoon newspapers, which indeed is headlined in the Ottawa Journal; it is a statement by the President of the United States on the seriousness of the price situation in that country. Throughout the whole of this debate on price control and the payment of subsidies, we in this group have been trying to get the government to realize that it would be far better to keep their machinery in effect, to go a little more slowly with decontrol, than to get into the position in which the United States finds itself, where they have thrown overboard the machinery and now face such tremendous difficulties in trying to avoid the dangers of inflation and the "bust" that comes -after the boom.
Speaking of subsidies this afternoon, the minister said that in the main there were two justifications for a policy of subsidization: one, to counteract inflationary trends, and the other, as a means of redistributing wealth. He suggested that from his point of view it was now desirable to get away from the policy of paying subsidies. It seems to me that inflationary pressures are still with us, in view of the way prices are going up; and we also feel that the desirability of measures for the redistribution of wealth is still with us. So we urge the government to continue the policy of paying subsidies where this can be done to keep down the cost of the necessities of life. The minister said that, in his view- I do not accept it entirely, but I will argue on these terms for the moment-we are fast reaching the point where the payment of subsidies becomes merely the transfer of money from the taxpayer to the consumer. I say I will argue on these terms for the moment and, using some of the language the minister used this afternoon, remind him that this means taking it from the pockets of the taxpayers where it is collected according to ability to pay, which are the words he used this afternoon in describing the government's own taxation structure built up during the war, and putting it into the pockets of the consumers. These consumers buy according to need. That is particularly true in the case of milk, which we have discussed here for a while; in the case of butter, which apparently

Emergency rowers
is going up to sixty cents a pound; in the case of soap and shortening and a good many other of the items which were listed in the long schedule the minister gave to us a while ago.
I urge upon the government to realize that they had a thoroughly defensible policy in the combination of price controls and subsidies. The only thing that is wrong is the speed with which they are dispensing with that policy. It is a strange position for us in this group to be in, when he are concerned about the government's holding on to its own way of doing things.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just a matter of conscience.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the compliment; that is exactly the reason we take the position we do. We have a conscience, and a sense of responsibility to all the people of Canada which prompts us not to sit here idly and let these controls go off, and let the chaos and depression come which will be sure to follow the failure of the government to deal properly with these measures.
I rise at this time to urge upon the government again to pay attention to what I think is the voice of the people which we in this group have tried to express, which some hon. members in the Liberal party have tried to express, and which has been expressed to my hon. friends to my right, even though they voice it only by keeping silent on these matters.
I suggest that by the time we get back to section 4 of the bill and have a vote on our amendment to that clause, the case for it may be even stronger than it was when it was proposed' last week.


Mr. ARGUE:: I wish to say a few words at this time with respect to subsidies. I was interested, as was also the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in a few of the things said this afternoon by the Minister of Justice. I have before me what he said in relation to subsidies, and the timing of placing them in operation. The minister said that a policy of subsidies at a time of grave danger of serious inflation is a valuable policy in that it prevents a spiral of inflation from developing. That is what the minister said about subsidies, that the time for them was when a spiral of inflation was developing. If the minister and the government take off subsidies it follows that they cannot see that the spiral of inflation is developing.
But the situation in the United States is much different. This evening's issue of the Ottawa Journal carries the heading in which it 83166-1451-
attributes to President Truman these words, "Prices must be brought down". This was his statement in an address to an association of businessmen:
"But," the chief executive went on, "I must say in all frankness that the economic skies are not entirely clear. One cloud is shadowing our economic future.
"That cloud is the sharp and rapid rise in prices.
"Some say this cloud is certain to burst. They are sure of a recession or a depression. I do not share their belief that either of these is inevitable.
"I believe that we as a nation can prevent this economic cloudburst. But it requires prompt, preventive steps." Because of high prices, he said, too many families are spending savings, cashing war bonds, postponing medical care, and "they have gone into debt in an amount 50 per cent greater than a year ago."
"If we are to avoid a recession we must act before it starts," he said.
"Prices must be brought down."
Recalling his efforts last year to have congress extend price control, the President said private enterprise now has the responsibility for prices because:
"A group saw fit to sabotage price control and represented to the public that prices would come down in a free market."
The government of Canada is in a much different position from President Truman. The majority of members in the house are saying to the government that we must maintain subsidies as a weapon to maintain price controls. There is inflation in the United States. The United States price level is higher than the price level in Canada. I do not think any good reason can be shown why, if we take off all our controls, our price level will not go up to or nearly to the price level of the United States. Therefore I say the potential danger of inflation at this time in Canada is greater than it is in the United States, because not only will our prices go up with the American prices, but they will first of all go up to the American prices. That in itself will be inflation.
The minister then stated that there comes a time when the expenditure of government money in the way of subsidies becomes little or nothing more than a transfer of purchasing power from the taxpayers to the consumers. I do not want to put words in the minister's mouth, but I think that would mean something like this, that a particular time would come about when a subsidy of a given number of dollars, if removed, would be followed by a rise in prices of an amount not substantially greater than the subsidy. If the subsidy were one dollar, and if, after removal, the cost to the consumer went up by much more than a dollar, then I suggest that the minister would
Emergency Powers

not say that was a time for the removal of the subsidy. I do not think he would reason in that way.
I should like to know the amount of the subsidy on crude oil in the area around Regina before April 1. On April 1 the government's tax of three cents a gallon on gasoline was removed. The people expected that gasoline prices would fall.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Hazen Robert Argue: The tax of three cents came off, and the people would normally think the price would fall by the three cents a gallon. But instead of that the price went up. It went up not only to the extent of three cents but, on tractor gasoline, which is the fuel most widely used on the farms in that area, it went up by another one and a half cents a gallon to the company, or a total increase in price to the company of four and a half cents a gallon.
What was the cost of the subsidy that went into a gallon of refined petroleum products? I am sure it would be considerably less than four and a half cents a gallon. The farmers are most anxious about the general rise in price levels, because when costs of manufactured articles go up the burden is placed upon the farmer in two respects. First, like every other Canadian, he must live and must keep his family. So that when there is a general increase in prices his cost of living goes up. Secondly, with the general increase in the price of manufactured articles, his production costs rise. .
The farmer is most anxious about price controls. He believes his whole economic existence depends upon a fair relationship of his and other prices. Therefore he views with alarm a removal of subsidies and the consequent rise in prices.
This afternoon the minister said that, in his opinion, the wheat agreement could stand on its own feet. I believe that this agreement is sufficiently fair and in the right direction, so that it can stand on its own feet. But the price paid to the farmer by the wheat board is, in my opinion, not at this time sufficient to take care of the rapidly rising costs of production the farmer must pay. The farmer says, and I agree, "We have accepted stable prices for a number of years. We like stable farm prices. But at the same time we want to have other prices stable, and we do not want our price for wheat frozen at $1.35 when, through government policy, the cost of production to the farmer is rising by leaps and bounds."

Going across the country, I find that the people of the nation are fearful of a depression. The conversation usually goes like this. Someone you meet will say, "We are experiencing inflation now, and in one or two years time we shall have a depression." When you get the people of this country thinking there will be a depression, and they think so because we have inflation now, inevitably there will be a depression. The inflation we are now experiencing is the direct consequence of the government's removal of subsidies and its decontrol policy generally.
Last year many of the farmers in Saskatchewan and Alberta went on a non-delivery strike. In the area I know best, my own constituency, the farmers went on strike at a number of points. Often it was not where there were united farmers locals, but a spontaneous strike that developed as a result of a meeting of the farmers in the area deciding that they would not deliver their products. When you can have a farmers' strike of the magnitude of the one we had last year, then with the increasing costs of the things the farmer has to buy and frozen prices of wheat the government should realize that another non-delivery [DOT] strike may come about that will be supported by the farmers generally. I am not suggesting that there be one. I do not like strikes, nor do I hope there will be a strike. I am simply saying that the government should be realistic and do the right thing so that a farmers' strike will not be necessary.


Humphrey Mitchell: Much of the discussion to which I have listened up to now is like the Messiah versus the Messiah versus the Messiah.


George Hugh Castleden: Now we are getting the sermon on the mount.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is a schoolteacher and he should know something about those matters. The easiest people in the world to talk to are schoolteachers. Just make what you are talking about difficult to understand and they are lost in admiration.
We have listened to various viewpoints on control and decontrol. I think it is obvious that you cannot have a general policy of control without including wage control. But we have heard very little about wage control this evening. My hon. friends want subsidies to be retained, and at the same time they advocate a lowering of the income tax in certain brackets. But subsidies, from the very nature of things, must come from taxes. If the general policy of subsidies is a sound one, let us subsidize everything and let us get everything for nothing-if that is a sound proposi-

Emergency Powers
tion. The impact of the war was more powerful in maintaining prices and wage controls than the law of the land because it strengthened the will of the nation to live and maintain its way of life.
What I object to is an argument from only one point of view. To maintain a really stable price control, you must control everything. Some hon. gentlemen maintain that we should have control in the industrial structure. That inevitably involves control of wages. Then you have the demand that costs of basic food products in this country should be controlled. That, by the very nature of things, means control of the farmer. Then you have the viewpoint that we should maintain subsidies and at the same time reduce taxes. But subsidies can come only from taxation. I still believe that two and two make four. It can be argued, according to the audience you are trying to impress, that two and two make five, but in this House of Commons, where we get all viewpoints, two and two still make four, and hon. gentlemen who are arguing for controls in one direction should be consistent and argue for the general control of everything. They should not argue both for subsidies to be continued and for taxation to be reduced.
What I think is necessary in this country today is self-discipline imposed as free men. Men and women in the industrial structure, using that word in its broadest sense and including those engaged in commerce, employers of labour and those engaged in manual toil in industry, have a responsibility to discipline themselves, and so have those who are engaged in the agricultural life of this nation. Unless we have that measure of selfdiscipline under our system of free institutions, we cannot face up to the problem my hon. friends often talk about. Let us be frank and honest when we approach this problem, and go right across the board and deal with every section of society. If you control one group in society you must control -every group in a similar way. Do not pick and choose to suit your own political viewpoint and your own constituents, but be fair and honest with all classes of society.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am afraid I must take issue with the Minister of Labour. It seems strange that it should be left to the Minister of Labour of all ministers to come to this house and advocate that wages should be controlled. One would think he would be here to defend labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: I believe that wages
should be just as high as the traffic can bear. But do not stop the traffic.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have no intention of
stopping the traffic.


Humphrey Mitchell: What you want is
labour to work for nothing and the farmers to get everything.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I want to point out to the minister-and he will understand it because he says that two and two make four- that the labourers in this country have always had wage control and it has not been government wage control either. They are getting wage control today, even though their wages have been officially unfrozen by the government.


Humphrey Mitchell: They never were frozen.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: As long as the means of production in which they work are in the hands of the interests who have control of setting both the wages labour shall receive and the prices of the products they produce, labour has its wages controlled at all times and it is not necessary for the government to control wages.


Humphrey Mitchell: Would you say the
same thing about the farmers and their employees?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The minister says we
cannot have it both ways; we can either lower taxes or else wipe out subsidies. But that does not necessarily hold true. If the surplus of industry which actually belongs to the people of Canada were distributed to the people it could take the place of taxes to pay the subsidies on things which are not economically produced.
I wish to quote from what the former Minister of Finance, who is now the Minister of Justice, said on July 5, 1946. I think he set out, as clearly and as briefly as anything I have seen so far, the objective of subsidies. It is contained in the report of the wartime prices and trade board to December 31, 1946, at page 66, and reads as follows:
When all is said and done, the objectives of our national stabilization programme are the preservation of real social values, the protection of the value of real wages, of the real incomes of primary producers, of the real value of the income of pensioners, -and teachers and office workers, and of the war-time savings of so many millions of Canadians.
These are the objectives as set out by. the minister no farther away than July 5 of last year. Does the minister think these objectives are no longer desirable today, or does he think these groups which he mentioned do not any longer require any subsidy or any protection in the form of price control in order that they may have the full benefit of their wages? We
Emergency Powers

of this group say that that time has not yet come; that the objectives which he set out on July 5 of last year are Still desirable; that price control is still desirable in order to obtain these objectives, and that we must have subsidies where subsidies are necessary if we are to be able to maintain price control.
On page 15 of this report the prices board says this, which is significant;
The first major step in removing price ceilings was taken on February 1, 1946.
I believe the Minister of Justice has been subjected to a great deal of criticism which he actually does not personally deserve, because the minister who is now responsible for price control and the administration of these matters which we are discussing is the Minister of Finance. Although the Minister of Finance was in his place a few minutes ago, I do not see him there at the moment. He is the one who should be answering many of these questions and justifying, if he can, the steps which have been taken since January 1, 1947, or since last year when he took over. I believe that the Minister of Finance has done almost irreparable damage to the price structure of this country. All he has to do is to look across the line to the United States and see what the President of that country is saying as of today; that unless you maintain controls when you have them it may be too late to put them on ^gain when the spiral of inflation has started, i Notwithstanding anything that the Minister of Labour has said tonight, I think the question is quite clear. If the government still believed in these objectives which were stated by the former Minister of Finance in July of last year, then there is no justification for the removal of subsidies on the essentials of life and to draw the red herring across the path about the control of wages is simply to beg the question.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I should like to argue the point for the continuation of subsidies from a little different angle from that which has been used so far. I shall do it from the angle of production. The minister will agree with me that if we are to prevent inflation in this country the best way to do so is to have an increase in production so that there are more goods to distribute than there are dollars to buy them. That was one of the reasons why subsidies were introduced during the war. They were introduced to increase production. Certainly that was true so far as agricultural production was concerned and it was successful. Statistics will show that in the years 1944 and 1945 we had the largest agricultural production we ever had in Canada at any

time. That was at a time when many thousands of our young men were overseas and were not engaged in active production. Yet today we find that, with these men back on the farms, our production has dropped. One of the major reasons for that drop in production is the uncertainty which has been created in the minds of the agricultural population of this country . by the government's withdrawal of subsidies. We do not know what subsidies are to be dropped next week or the effect it will have on the price of a particular agricultural product. The result has been uncertainty. People will not start to produce, will not start to increase their hog production, their dairy production or any other of their agricultural production until they have some certainty of what the future has in store for them. I say that is one of the reasons why we have a drop in production at this time. The government themselves are to blame for it because of their present policy of withdrawal of subsidies.
Today the eastern farmer, the western poultry producers and others are simply not buying baby chicks. They are not increasing their poultry production; they are decreasing it because they do not know what the position is to be with regard to feed. They do not know whether the government is to carry on its present policy of freight rates or whether it is going back to the old freight rate structure in Canada under which we exported feed grains to Denmark and Holland at a cheaper rate. Those countries were able to buy oats and barley at four and five cents a bushel lower than the Ontario, maritime or British Columbia feeders could buy them. Until the government is prepared to come out and give some assurance to the country as to what its policy is to be, we shall not get the increase in production that we should have in this country if we are to prevent inflation.
One of the major causes of inflation is lack of production. The government has told Crane Limited that it wants more production of bathtubs, and, if the report is correct, it is prepared to give them $400,000 to increase the production of bathtubs. We want more production, and is the government prepared to continue subsidies, or what is it going to do with them? The government has given no assurance to the farmers of this country as to what its position is to be from now on.


John Oliver Probe: I see the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply in his place now. I asked the Minister of Justice a question but I think the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply will answer it. It dealt with the conditions of

Emergency Powers
the subsidy which was announced recently by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to be paid to Crane Limited. I should like to know the terms of that subsidy, the time which it runs and any factors with respect to production requirements or guarantees which go with the agreement to pay the $400,000 subsidy and the prices of the product which are to result, we presume, from the subsidy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The subsidy to Crane Limited arose out of a definite shortage of bathtubs, sinks and enamelware of that sort. Ways and means were sought to increase production and remedy that deficiency in the housebuilding programme. Many discussions were held with Crane Limited. It was found that, in order to bring production up to the required scale, an expenditure of about $850,000 was required for new equipment. It was finally decided that Crane would undertake that expenditure, provided that the government would give an incentive subsidy. The incentive subsidy was in the form of two cents a pound for material in excess of the quantity then being produced; it was not on the whole production of Crane. It was simply on the excess of the capacity of the plant before the addition was completed. The expenditure of Crane, as I remember it, was about $850,000. The subsidy was limited to $400,000. In other words, after Crane, through this incentive subsidy, had collected $400,000, which was estimated would take two years, the government's obligation would be discharged in full. That was one incentive subsidy.
A similar incentive subsidy was granted in connection with castiron soil pipe, which is one of the most aggravating deficiencies that we have had to contend with. I do not recall the magnitude of that transaction but it was on a similar basis. It was to be paid to the Anthes Foundry Company in the amount of about half of the capital expenditure to be made by the foundry in the form of an incentive basis of two cents a pound on the soil pipe produced in excess of the former capacity of the plant. Those are the only set of subsidies that have been incentives in connection with the housebuilding programme.


John Oliver Probe: Would the minister indicate whether, in his opinion, or from the records the plumbing industry in Canada was, at the time of the subsidy agreement, working at full capacity?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, definitely. That was carefully explored. The capacity of the industry at that time was not sufficient to keep up with housebuilding demands.


John Oliver Probe: What other companies, if any, share in this incentive subsidy for plumbing equipment, or for what reason was Crane Limited selected to receive the only subsidy, if that should be the case, for plumbing fixtures?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer is that Crane was the only company in Canada that was willing to make a capital expenditure to provide the initial capacity on the terms I have outlined.


John Oliver Probe: Had Crane Limited made a deduction w'hich. was free of income tax in previous years, for the purpose of this plant expansion, or was this an entirely new arrangement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: An entirely new arrangement. So far as I am aware-I should like to. check this before I speak positively-Crane received no accelerated depreciation during the war years.


John Oliver Probe: One final question. Were regulations worked out with respect to the future price of plumbing products as a result of this subsidy payment to Crane?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no change in price involved-. The price was to be the ceiling price then.


John Oliver Probe: There is a. control?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. There was at that time, and I think there is still.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wish to say a word on the question of subsidies, but before I do so there is one argument advanced by the C.C.F. and by hon. gentlemen opposite which I should like to answer, and that is as to the attitude of this party in the course of this debate. The argument is extraordinary. I remember when the resolution was introduced we gave our views on control at some length and we were even accused by some of filibustering. I remember the Secretary of State for External Affairs quoted with approval the use of that word in certain newspapers. We thought we had said what we had to say on the subject of controls, and indeed we were urged from all sides of the house to let the thing go, to get on with the business. Having made our views known, we did not think it necessary to say any more for the time being, but the first thing we knew we were accused, because of our silence, of "reaction tempered with opportunism". Everyone was saying, "Aren't you going to say any more?" First, they accused us of saying too much, and when we wanted to give the government an opportunity to go ahead with the bill. Then we were told
Emergency Powers

we were tempering our arguments with opportunism. There is a good, deal more than one might say on this subject, but if hon. members will read what we have already said they will find our views fairly well put forth there. However, if the}' keep pressing us we shall be glad to state those views all over again, and perhaps the time has come when we should do so.
I wish now to deal with one or two aspects of this question of subsidies. The hon. member for Melfort said that one reason why the farmers are not producing is the fact that they are not certain what future action will be taken with regard to subsidies; but an equally potent reason why they are not producing is that they cannot make a profit under the present price ceilings. That is certainly the case in my own part of the country, so far as the dairy farmers and the creameries are concerned. Three large dairy farms have gone out of production in my constituency and the situation is similar throughout the Okanagan. The Nanaimo creamery is closed for the first time in thirty-six years, and the hon. member from there tells me that the reason is they cannot get supplies because the farmers find that they cannot operate profitably under the present price ceiling.
The question of subsidies cannot be viewed altogether apart from price ceilings; the two go hand in hand. We have left the question of ceilings for the moment and are now dealing with subsidies, and the argument is being put forward only from one point of view. The Minister of Justice stated what I believe is accepted as the correct view with regard to subsidies, that is, that there comes a time when they can no longer be regarded as mainly anti-inflationary but become merely a transfer of money from the taxpayer to the consumer, and he put the proposition that when that point is reached, then the subsidy should be taken off.
My hon. friends to my immediate left answer that by saying that they think it is a good thing to continue the subsidies because in effect, they say, taxation is imposed on the basis of ability to pay, so that you are transferring purchasing power from those who can pay to those who have nothing with which to purchase. In other words, there is a redistribution of wealth. Let me ask my hon. friends this question before I go any further. Will they oppose a decrease in taxation? I shall be surprised if when the budget is introduced we do not find them urging strongly a substantial reduction in taxes.


An hon. MEMBER:: For the lower income groups.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But you still have to raise taxes from some source and if, as they say, you should take it in the form of income tax and in that way effect the redistribution of wealth, will they argue for an increase in income tax? Will my hon. friends advocate an increase in income tax? Before they answ'er that question let me put some figures before them. They say that taxes are collected on the basis of ability to pay, but that is not strictly speaking correct. I have the latest figures, some for 1946 and others for 1945. In 1946 income taxes produced a total of $907,000,000, both personal and corporate. It may be said that these taxes are secured on the basis of ability to pay, but I would point out that it was necessary to collect over a billion dollars more. Even then we had to do a substantial amount of borrowing, and the bulk of that other billion dollars, which was necessary for controls and subsidies, came from excise and sales taxes which are collected on the basis of need. They hit hardest those who are neediest. They hit poor people the hardest, because they are the people who need most milk and bread, partly because they are the ones generally with the largest families. They are the people hardest hit by excise and sales taxes, and yet there was collected from them, in the form of excise and sales taxes in 1947, the sum of $737,000,000, or three-quarters of the amount collected in income taxes. It is nonsense to say that you can finance yourself in this way, lifting yourself by your bootstrap and redistributing wealth in this manner, paying subsidies by soaking the rich. It does not work out in that way. You had to collect nearly forty per cent of the total revenue by excise and sales taxes, and three quarters as much by excise and sales taxes at the peak year, as you did from income tax.
If the C.C.F. argue that we should still keep subsidies, we must either keep the sales and excise tax, which hits hardest the low income group; otherwise the only alternative is to increase the income tax, and if they think they can raise an extra $700 million by income tax without still hitting the poor I shall be glad to have them prove it, because no economist has yet found a way of doing that, But they proceed on the assumption, and they would lead the people to believe that they proceed on the assumption, that all you have to do i" to soak the rich, and the poor will not have to pay. Of course the poor pay far more in proportion than the rich, so long as you raise taxes and keep them at this appallingly high level, because you cannot have all this tremendous revenue from direct taxation.

Emergency Powers
You must have a large amount of indirect taxation as well, and that is where the poor pay.
I am sure the Minister of Justice is keeping these considerations in mind. He is proceeding with decontrol and elimination of costly subsidies as fast as he thinks it proper to do so, though not as fast as some of us think he should. I should have been glad to hear him give this answer to the C.C.F. when they say that you do not have to do away with subsidies because it does not cost any more in taxation.


Percy Ellis Wright: I should like to answer
the hon. member for Kamloops. This group do not argue that taxation can be increased on the rich to meet all the payments which would necessarily be made for subsidies or social services. Our argument has always been, and is now, that those payments can be met only by increased production, by the production of more goods and services in this country. We believe that under a planned economy we can get a greater production of goods and services in this country than we have had so far. That was exactly the argument I used. I stated that in 1944 and 1945, when we were nearer to a planned economy in Canada than at any time that I can remember in the thirty-five years I have been farming, the price the farmer received for his product bore a fairer relationship to the price he had to pay for the things he had to buy, and the amount the labourer received in wages bore a fairer relationship to the price he had to pay for the commodities he had to buy, with the result that we had greater production in this country. That is what a planned economy means. A planned economy means greater production so that we shall have more to share.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It also means control.


Mrs. STRUM:: Before we pass P.C. 9870,
on the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, I wish to talk about the threatened increase in the price of butter, and the milk subsidy which this government withdrew. We have learned to our sorrow that when a rumour appears in the paper to the effect that rents are going up, that sugar is going up or that butter is going up, a few days later it becomes a fact. I think I should be remiss in my duty if I did not raise the point now in connection with the increase in the price of butter to the families of this country. I submit that the question is not control, subsidy or incentive. The question is, for whom are we to control and to wThom shall we pay the subsidy? I submit it is to him for whom the cash register rings, because
profits in this country have hit an all-time high, yet we have the gall to give subsidies to people like Crane Limited. That would be the equivalent of building a new pig pen on the farm of every farmer because we want more hogs, because his present pen is not big enough. Yet when we go to deal with the farmers, what do we do? We have the wheat contract for four years, but we are not taking one cent out of the treasury of Canada to cover our wheat contract. No. We add up the $1.55, plus $1.55, plus $1.55 for last year and the first two years of the contract, plus $1.25, plus $1 and we divide by five and get $1.35. So we say we will give an average price of $1.35 and it will not cost the Canadian people a cent. And we have, in effect, a price financed through the farmers' own contracts, not costing the Canadian people anything. We have, in effect, fixed for the next four years the return to the farmer from his wheat, which amounts to price control; and then we decontrol all his costs-his twine, his fertilizer, his fuel.
He also is a consumer. The farmer will buy a car; and heaven knows cars have gone up in price. I found to my sorrow that not only has the ten per cent gone on, but another $300 must be paid for itemized things which were never listed separately before. We bought a car just before Christmas and we thought we were to pay $1,500 and something for a little Plymouth; but when we went to take delivery we found another $300 and some odd listed-$25 for unloading, so much for servicing, so much for this and so much for that-and it cost us $1,800 and something by the time we took it out.
We buy cars and we buy salt; we buy sugar and we buy shoes. Yet we find that the government can control the price of leather. Oh, yes, we can control the price of leather, but we decontrol the manufactured shoe, so that the man who is making shoes gets the advantage of control in his costs and the double advantage of being able to decontrol when he sells you or me a pair of shoes. So I submit that through the whole Canadian economy the question is not control. It is, whom shall we control, what shall we control and for whom shall we control? If you go downtown and try to buy a shirt, you have great difficulty in doing so. I do not need to tell hon. gentlemen that. You have had a hectic time for two or three years. But I find we are subsidizing cotton yarn. According to the Minister of Finance at page 1939 of Hansard, "a substantial subsidy is still being paid on raw cotton going into process.
Emergency Powers

I submit ia all seriousness that you dare not raise rents and take subsidies off milk and butter and in every way possible assist the people who have things for sale and enable them to reach an all-time high in profits at the expense of the man who is on a fixed wage or fixed income through long term contracts for the things he produces. I submit it will be a mistake if you continue to do this; and I believe you will in spite of everything we can say, because I think the manufacturer has the ear of the government to a far greater extent than has the housewife, the mother or the farmer. I think the policies which are being carried out are big business practices, and the people who want taxes taken off are the big concerns of this country who are hoarding goods anticipating price rises. I notice that the stock of butter is up by millions of pounds over last year and yet, in spite of the fact that we have more butter, butter is to be sixty cents a pound. As I mentioned the other day, the whole experience of the United States has disproved the theory of this government that volume will decrease prices to the consumer. Volume has not decreased prices; it has merely accumulated profits; and if it brings on a depression, as it threatens to do, this government and this government only will be to blame.


John Horne Blackmore: I have enjoyed the discussion up to the present time, but I believe the committee is, as usual, getting itself into real difficulties now, not knowing just what to do about a very bad situation. There obviously must be some way out.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is a way out.


John Horne Blackmore: There must be a way out in a country which is as rich as Canada is. May I for a moment refer to the speech made by the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour has his own natural way of expressing himself, but he generally manages to hit the nail right on the head and1 face facts realistically. I think all hon. members will recall fairly well what he said: how in the world are you to have money for subsidies if you decrease taxation? I believe nearly every hon. member would like to see subsidies, such as the one on milk, retained. The remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle quite clearly indicated that she would like to see the subsidy on butter retained. Of course she would assume that prices of butter are being held up because of the desire on the part of certain people to make a profit. In the light of what she said, I should like to recall the remarks made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley

the other night as reported at page 2142 of Hansard. The hon. member quoted Dean Clement of the university of British Columbia, to the effect that last year butter fat cost 58'77 cents a pound to produce. He did not specify whether that was only in British Columbia; I presume it was, but he indicated quite clearly that he would veiy much like to know what would be the actual cost of the production of a pound of butter fat in Ontario. I believe, if all the hon. members of this house knew exactly what it cost in Ontario or in the maritimes or in any other part of Canada to produce a pound of butter fat, they would be greatly impressed. I believe we have been enjoying butter and a good many other things in Canada at a low cost for a long time, because the poor people who produce the butter and other things were simply absorbing part of the cost and producing at a loss. Now the time has come when, if we are to face the facts realistically and build for the future, we must cease calling upon any group of people to produce at less than cost.
The hon. member for Kamloops made some pertinent remarks, indicating that a number of producers whose raw products depended upon the activity of farmers had closed their doors because the farmers could no longer produce at the prices they were being offered, which prices were under their cost of production. We must face these facts. Merely talking about the difficulty will not solve the problem.
May I refer again to the remarks of the Minister of Labour. He said you just cannot have increased subsidies without increasing taxation. Let me say to the members of this house that when the minister made that remark he was wrong. That is one respect in which he just did not have the best information. Let me direct the attention of hon. members to this problem for a moment or two, and see how many can agree. The amount this country should be able to pay for butter ought to depend upon the milk, the apples, the potatoes, the lumber, the coal, the fish and all the other things Canada can produce. If Canada is able to produce a sufficient amount of all the other commodities the producer of butter needs, then certainly it is obvious that Canada should be able to pay that producer of butter enough of these various kinds of goods. Let us just face that set of facts squarely. If Canada is able to produce the goods of all kinds, to provide what is needed by the producer of any given commodity in order to enable him to make a living, then the time has come when this country must introduce a financial system under which it will be possible to pay that

Emergency Powers
individual the price he needs to receive. The fault lies in our financial system. We do not have a financial system which can reflect the facts of this country. So many of us do not look upon the wealth of Canada as the lumber, the coal and all the other goods and services we can produce. So many of us look upon wealth as the dollars and cents we can take or not take out of the pockets of the people of Canada. Which is a completely fallacious standard by which to judge wealth. I believe everyone in the country will agree that the wealth of this nation is the lumber, the coal, the fish, the food of all kinds, the clothing, the shelter and the other things this country can produce. If the country can produce enough wealth, then certainly we ought to be able to have the standard of living we desire, at least the standard which our production would justify us in enjoying.
That is the first important point. The very minute we recognize that, we shall not at all agree with the Minister of Labour. Then we shall recognize the fact that we might be able to pay greater subsidies without increasing taxation. I do not care a great deal about issuing challenges, but I should like to throw out a challenge to any member of this house to disprove the remark I made. I should like to see any member who thinks he can do so get up and disprove my statement, when I declare that the amount we should be able to pay for butter or any other commodity, or any kind of service in this country, should depend upon the milk, the cream, the cheese, the coal, the potatoes and the other goods we can produce in this country. If anyone can disprove that statement, we are ready to listen to him. I defy any man in this house to do so. I would be prepared to give him as many weeks as he needs to prepare his argument, and I would be ready to pick holes in that argument when he presented it here.
Now I should like to say just a few words in connection with subsidies. I believe, with the C.C.F., that the minister and the government as a whole are proceeding far too rapidly with the removal of subsidies. A good many people who have only half thought through the problems of this country are beginning to argue that we should remove subsidies; and the line of reasoning they are using is precisely the line used by the Minister of Labour, which was based on fallacy.


Humphrey Mitchell: At the moment I am not talking about my hon. friend's theories on money. I do not. think he understands them himself, but that is beside the point.


Solon Earl Low: Come along and show him where he is wrong.


John Horne Blackmore: And quote your
authorities.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us not get too serious. I should like my hon. friend to answer this question, if he will, and again I say that at the moment I am not talking about his monetary theories. Will he say whether or not at the moment the present subsidies come out of taxation on the Canadian people?


John Horne Blackmore: I shall be delighted to answer the minister. Certainly the present subsidies come out of taxation, because the present subsidies are being paid by a government which does not have enough wisdom to use a factual financial system. It is using a false system based upon debt, while it should be using a financial system based upon credit. The mere fact that the government has consistently gone into debt for many, many years, and now has the nation in such overwhelming debt that not a member on the Liberal side of the house or on any other side, except perhaps in the corner where the social crediters are, has the least idea how we can possibly get out of that debt, is the best proof of that statement. That debt is simply a wall over which they cannot see; and the fact that we are in this debt is clear evidence that we have been using a fallacious financial system. Of course the minister must not assume that all the wisdom to be found these days is reposing in the minds of the finance ministers of the Liberal government in Ottawa. He must not assume that, because those gentlemen do not know7 how to do things, those things cannot be done.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They did a fine job for the nation during the war.


John Horne Blackmore: I believe I have given the minister a sufficient answer, unless he has another question to ask. I suggest to him that he go to the report of the royal commission on banking and currency for Canada published in 1933. That report is in the library in this building. Let him turn to page 22, paragraph 47 of that report. There he will discover that during the last war, between 1914 and 1917, some $26,000,000 were printed or created by the dominion government and used debt free. This nation has never paid five cents in interest on that $26,000,000, and that money discharged its percentage of the cost of the war just as effectively as any other dollars used during the war. If the minister understands that he wall be in a position-
Emergency Powers


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, and I am not suggesting that he is entirely out of order, but it does occur to me that at a later time there will be a better opportunity to discuss the financial system of the country. Would it not be more appropriate if we discussed the question of subsidies only at this time, and our financial system only in relation to subsidies? I am not saying that the hon. member was out of order.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would not have discussed this matter of monetary theory, had. not the Minister of Labour manifested such a deep interest in the subject.


Humphrey Mitchell: If I could say this to my hon. friend: If he is going to talk phony money to me, I am going to get under the desk.


John Horne Blackmore: All I can say to the Minister of Labour is that, although he has been a superb success as Minister of Labour in Canada, he has been a failure as financial adviser to the government of Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: He should have been under the desk long ago.


John Horne Blackmore: May I for a few moments discuss the question of subsidies? I believe that subsidies should, be maintained and should be used definitely in Canada for an indefinite period of time, perhaps from now to the end. There are sound and fundamental reasons why that is so; and I particularly draw the attention, of the Progressive Conservative party to the problem I am going to present to them for a few minutes.
If they will take the Searle letter of April 17, 1947-and I think all hon. members received it-and turn to the last page, they will find an account of the Searle index which poses a serious problem to every person who bears a share of responsibility for the conduct of affairs in Canada. In the Searle index of things farmers bought, it is shown that the cost of 147 items now stands at 165-1 per cent, using the 1913-14 figure as 100 per cent. This means that those same things cost the farmers of the west today 65-1 per cent more than similar items of the same quality in 1913-14. Those costs have risen twenty-five per cent since August 1939. Hon. members might attribute the rise of twenty-five per cent since 1939 to the war. But they' cannot attribute to the war the other tremendous percentage increase, between 1913-14 and the outbreak of the war.

The index is quite clear that there is a general tendency- for prices to rise, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has pointed out so well. There is a general tendency for the price of manufactured articles to rise. And unless primary- products

oats, barley, wheat, milk and other things which the primary producer produces-are definitely subsidized, unless a floor is put under them, the tendency is for those prices to fall. In any- capitalistic economy, any free economy, any private enterprise economy, such as we have in Canada, and as they have in the United States, this produces a discrepancy- between the cost of secondary- products and prices of primary products. Both by statement and by clear implication the hon. member for Qu'Appelle pointed that out.
One of the problems which must face the government and the country from this time forward is how they can possibly bridge the gap between prices of secondary products and those of primary products. I submit in all sincerity that there is no way known to man whereby that can be bridged, except by subsidies.
There must be subsidies to bring down the prices of secondary products, and subsidies to bring up the prices of primary products, if the price structure of the country is to be on a parity- or to be what we call balanced. So that there is no escaping the conclusion that the subsidy- is here to stay, and must be used from this time forward.
It is one thing for President Truman to say that prices of commodities must come down. It will be an altogether different thing for him to tell how they are to come down. While I do not wish to offend my C.C.F. friends, I wish to say this definitely for their benefit, and for the benefit of those who think along similar lines, that for them to contend that the reason for the increase in manufactured goods prices is entirely the fact that private enterprise does our producing is for them to make a ghastly blunder. And if they go forward with that false notion they will simply be the blind leaders of people who will blindly follow.
Let us face these facts and devise a solution. We do not need to wait for another election. There is intelligence, honesty and honour enough in the house to discover a solution. Let us find it and apply it. But we shall not find it by blaming it on things which are not to blame; and free enterprise is not to blame.
The cause of the difficulty is mainly that there has been such a tremendous increase in the use of machinery. Then, there have been so many other factors entering into the price of things as they come off the factory assembly

Emergency Powers
line that the spread has been more or less automatic. I have not time to go into the matter in detail, nor do I think it would be in order to do so at this time. But any good textbook on economics will make the facts perfectly clear. To hon. members who wish to go into the matter with some care, I suggest that they read "Controlling Depression", written by Paul H. Douglas, Professor of Economics in the university of Chicago and published in 1935. This book is available in the library. It will explain the reasons for the price spreads clearly and give a possible solution. I say we must have subsidies in order to bridge the gap between the cost of secondary products and the price of primary products.
There is another matter, that of giving the consumer a chance. I am deeply sympathetic with the words of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. She appeals eloquently and inspiringly in the interests of the little people, the poor people, who have to buy and to live. We cannot allow prices to rise so that they will destroy these folk. I suppose every hon. member in the house has read the letter appearing in this evening's Ottawa Citizen addressed to the Minister of Finance and referring to $40 a week. Anyone who has not read it would do well to do so. Let him then go home and think seriously, realizing that the problem propounded in the letter is one which is facing people in the city of Ottawa right here, while we are in this chamber. And it is a problem which cannot be solved simply by talking.
Something must be done. Because of this rise in prices the people who are involved are suffering excruciating misery. We simply must take care of the consumers. So I say that when the government abolished the consumer subsidy on milk it committed a grave blunder, and set a precedent which could lead to many equally grave blunders.
It must be recognized that the consumers in Canada must be able to buy the goods the country produces. If they are not able to buy those goods they will fall into a state of semipoverty and misery, while the people who produce the goods will be short of markets. That, again, will be bad for Canada and will lead to unemployment.
So far as I can see, the consumer subsidy is the only device whereby we can be sure the consumers will have the purchasing power they need.
I believe that anything further I have in mind might better be said at a future time. However I join with those who have pleaded so earnestly for a cessation in the dangerous rise in prices. I should like to give the C.C.F.
full credit for the stand they have taken in this matter. They are entirely right. I do not agree with them in respect of technique, but only in this fact:	Tonight they have advocated the payment of subsidies. I agree with them completely in that respect, but I do not think the subsidies ought to come from taxation, for taxation will destroy the incentive to produce. We might use a certain amount of taxation, but we must come to the point at which we shall create the means with which we shall pay the subsidy, and the means will be based upon the production this country is able to turn into the markets, and which it is capable of returning to the markets in increasing volume.
This much having been said, I draw my remarks to a close.


Robert Fair: There is an old saying that God loves the little people.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Springfield has the floor.


Mr. SINNOTT:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I feel I would be remiss in my duty to the electors of Springfield if I did not say a few words at this time. No one was more disappointed than I at the discontinuance of the milk subsidy, and I do not think anyone will be more disappointed than I shall when the butter subsidy comes off. I do not think the people of Canada have objected at any time to the dominion government paying out $22,000,000 or $23,000,000 in milk subsidies, or to what it paid out in the butter subsidy to keep the price of butter down.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are on the wrong side of the house.	.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: This is one side of the house where I am not subjected to any party whip. On this side of the house we as Liberals can get up and speak our minds and meet our fellow members the next day without being criticized. If we do not get reform from this side of the house it will be a sorry day for Canada, because this is the only place from which reforms have come for Canada from the beginning right down to the present day. William Lyon Mackenzie stood up for the common man, the worker and the farmer, and the Liberal party still does that today.
I agree with the speaker who has just sat down that this country of ours which can produce five times as much as we consume will never stand for another depression such as we had from 1930 to 1935. There was only one thing we were short of in that period and that was dollar bills. We had hogs, we had cattle, we had butter, we had meat, we had
Emergency Powers

coal, and all we wanted) of those things. The only thing we were short of was dollar bills, and the Liberal government will see that we are not short of them again.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Kamloops is not in his seat at the moment.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give it to him just the same.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I see he is over there now. It is clear from what he said that he was never a farmer. He said the farmers could not produce at present prices. But what about the consumer? You have to take him into account too. Compare prices today with what they were in the period from 1930 to 1935. In 1930 to 1935 hogs were selling at $4.35 per hundred pounds as compared with $18 today, and cattle were selling at $3.75 as compared with $15 today. I think it is a happy day for the farmer when he thinks of prices today in comparison with prices in 1930 to 1935. I trust that the hon. member for Kamloops, if he speaks again, will not delay the house for three weeks and then vote the opposite way.


Robert Fair: A few moments ago I started out to say that God must have loved the common people because he made so many of them. A few years ago, someone on the other side of the house might have thought that God loved the Liberals because He made so many of them, but that is not true today because we see their numbers dwindling.


Mr. McILRAITH:: Where were you when the Cartier by-election was on?


Robert Fair: The hon. member for Ottawa West might tell us how the Cartier by-election was won.


Mr. HART  I@: Is the hon. member interested to know how the Cartier by-election was won?


Robert Fair: Yes, and I want the true stoiy when you give it.


Mr. HARTT:: I am pleased to inform my colleagues in the house that the by-election in Cartier was won on the basis of the policies of the present Liberal government. The member for Cartier was elected on the strength of the policies carried out by the Liberal party since 1921. He had definite and absolute approval of every item of the policies by this government. That is why I was elected. The people approved the policies of control and decontrol, the spy inquiry, and the government's financial policies which have brought us through a great war to great prosperity.


Robert Fair: I want to congratulate the hon. member for Cartier on his maiden speech. I 
now have the pleasure of asking him a question which he can answer at his leisure after he has had time to think it over. What would the result have been had the fifteen hundred names been placed on the voters' list?


Maurice Hartt: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I say that my hon. friend is not in a position to prove to this house or to himself that anything wrong was done in connection with the lists. As a matter of fact, if he would take the trouble to compare the lists he would find there is a difference of 265 votes. Do not let him repeat the parrot cry of the Block Populaire and the communists.


Robert Fair: If the hon. gentleman thinks I raised the question of the Cartier by-election he is sadly mistaken. It was the hon. member for Ottawa West.


Maurice Hartt: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Robert Fair: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No; sit down.


Maurice Hartt: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Maurice Hartt: I am not intimidated.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Maurice Hartt: I do not think the hon.
member-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Robert Fair: This is not Montreal-Cartier.
I want the right to speak here.


Maurice Hartt: I resent any insult against Cartier from any part of the house.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I would remind hon. members that when the Chairman rises all hon. members must take their seat. I call on the hon. member for Battle River and ask him to discuss these subsidies.


Robert Fair: I have been trying to do
that for the last five minutes. Just as soon as I have an opportunity to speak I shall continue with the subsidies.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not mention
Cartier again.


Robert Fair: I represent the common man
and I wish to say a few words on his behalf tonight. I am in favour of subsidies. The government has done away with some which should have been continued for quite a while. When the hon. member for Lethbridge was speaking he mentioned a letter which was in the Ottawa Citizen this afternoon. I am one jump ahead. I shall read a letter taken

Emergency Powers
from the Ottawa Citizen of this morning, and I intend to ask hon. members not to forget about it, because it is a challenge issued to a number of people who perhaps do not claim to be in the common people's class. Hon. members will find this letter interesting.
I am going to place it on Hansard, because I think it is a good example perhaps to the Minister of Justice or whoever may want to do away with subsidies and they may answer some of the questions and arguments raised in this letter. The letter is as follows:
$40 a Week Budget
Editor, Citizen:-This is an open letter to Finance Minister Abbott and the gentlemen who got the $2,000 tax-free money.
We are the gentlemen and one lady who received the $2,000 tax-free exemption. It is up to us to do a little bit for the fellow who did not have that privilege and who cannot come into this chamber and speak for himself. I, as one of the common people, am going to speak for them tonight, and I hope it will not fall on deaf ears. I continue with the letter:
The following cannot lightly he brushed aside -not turned off by saying the writer is an atheist or communist.
May I digress for a moment and say that the policies of this and other governments are responsible for the rising of the communist programmes in this and other countries. Do not blame the other fellow. The letter continues:
Our young people served in the war, returned home to the usual great promises, got married, spent their savings and gratuity on buildings and furniture at outrageous prices. Today they are faced by a situation which is the outcome of our system of government and which means trouble, want, and sorrow for these young people who after years of war hoped to build up a home and family here in Canada. How many of these young people are getting $40 per week? Can you Mr. Abbott show how a couple with even one child can live for less in Ottawa?
The following will give you some idea of what can be purchased for $40 per week:
63 meals per week at 30 cents....	$18	90
(no extra meals for visitors)
Rent	
8	00Heat	
2	00Light and power	
1	00Clothing and shoes	
5	00Insurance	
1	00Dentist	
50Doctor	
50Newspaper	
18Car fare	
1	00Church	
50Incidentals	
1	42
Those items amount to $40, provided that a man can get a job at $40 a week and provided that he does not have sickness and some of the other difficulties which many people in the working class run up against. A little later on, he goes on to show that this amount provides nothing for shows, no tobacco or drinks, no entertaining, no holidays, no savings, no happiness, only worry. Then he asks: "How does it look to you, gentlemen?" It is signed "E. Richardson, Ottawa."
I have been on the production line of this country producing agricultural wealth for more than thirty years. I know the conditions that many of us have gone through, not because it was our fault but because it was the fault of governments in office. That same system prevails today. Some people give reasons of various kinds and I am going to give the committee one tonight. I expect to be challenged but, regardless of any argument that may be brought up, I think it will still hold good.
This is a little item which was given to me by a young lawyer friend in western Canada, in Lloydminster, in fact, a young man who spent some years in Ottawa during the war. He left here as a lieutenant-commander and is now practising law in Lloydminster. When speaking to me the other day he gave me this item. It illustrates perhaps some of the reasons why we have some of the mess in our country's government today. The article is as follows:
When a man gives you an orange, he simply says: "Have an orange." But when the transaction is entrusted to a lawyer, he adopts this form:
"I hereby give and convey to you, all and singular, my estate and interests, right, title, claim and advantages of and in said orange, together with all its rind, juice, pulp and pips and all rights and advantages therein with full power to bite, cut, suck and otherwise to eat the same or give the same away with or without the rind, skin, juice, pulp and pipB, anything hereinbefore or hereinafter or in any other means or whatever nature or kind whatsoever to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding."
Later on, another lawyer comes along and takes it away from you.
Perhaps some of the lawyers in the committee will tell us whether this is right. While this is considered a joke by many people, it is an expensive joke to the people of Canada. I think, if we got down to business and used some common sense instead of so much technicality in our money system we could have a commonsense system instead of the fallacious one we have used in the past, and then the people of Canada could enjoy the production of this land which could provide,
Emergency Powers

under a sound business government, a better life for the common people and others than any other country on God's green earth.


Park Manross: After the talk about businesslike methods and the palaver we have heard tonight, is there any way we can find out how many are in favour of passing this item and how many are against it?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sure that ho'n. members were interested in the comments made by the hon. member for Cartier who declared that he was elected in the recent by-election on the record of this government.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. It was agreed that we should discuss subsidies from now on and not the Cartier by-election.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I was merely going to mention the fact that on April 1 the Minister of Finance announced the decontrol policy of the government and then, a few days later, we had the increase of ten per cent in the rentals which, I suggest, may have been a factor previously, but I shall not proceed with that argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What was the date of the by-election?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The election was held on March 31.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It has been suggested that subsidies have been introduced to serve two purposes: to increase production and to keep down the cost of living for the people of the country. The government was justified in introducing that policy during the war, and the situation at the moment does not warrant reducing the appropriations for this important work. I have before me the national accounts, income and expenditure for the period 1938 to 1945. I find that the estimated distribution of income, recipients by income classes excluding agriculture and the armed forces, indicate that twenty per cent of our married men in the country received an income of SI,000 or less. That group of our people received 6-3 per cent of our national income. Let me repeat that. Twenty per cent of our wage earners received six per cent of the total income, while at the other end of the brackets three per cent of our people, with incomes of over 15,000, received fifteen per cent of the total national income. This suggests that the twenty per cent who get only six per cent of the national income are not able to protect themselves when prices rise. When the cost of milk goes up fifty per cent it means that they have to get along with less milk or butter 
or go without dental treatment. Further, you find in the maritimes that thirty-eight per cent of the population received less than $1,000, and only thirteen per cent of the total income, while at the other end the two per cent who get over $5,000 get a total of fourteen per cent. In the wealthy province of Ontario you find only fourteen per cent of the people getting incomes of less than $1,000, and four per cent of the total income; but you have three per cent of the people getting over $5,000, who grab fifteen per cent of the total income. That was for the year 1942.
I suggest, therefore, that, while that set of circumstances continues, it is important that the federal government, which is the only government that can look at the picture as a whole, should decide that it is important that the children in Nova Scotia should have milk, and should use a part of the national income to subsidize the production of food to make sure that the people in all parts of Canada are properly fed.


An hon. MEMBER:: What did they do with the $300,000,000 baby bonus?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There are other things to buy besides milk.


An hon. MEMBER:: Certainly; shotguns.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It is suggested by some that shotguns be used to deal with the officials of the wartime prices and trade board, but no Progressive Conservative has risen tonight to suggest that we should not pay subsidies. The hon. member for Lake Centre elicited a great deal of information, but nothing has happened. The hon. member for Kamloops made an eloquent speech, but he did not suggest that we should get rid of another subsidy. He might have turned to page 81 of the wartime prices and trade board report, where you find a subsidy of $1,352 given in connection with fish hooks, and suggested that that should not have been paid. Nothing has been said, however, about a single item regarding subsidies in the past or the maintenance of subsidies at the present time.
I add my support in urging that the Minister of Justice, who is piloting this bill through, observe the complete silence to my right and at the same time listen to voices from our side of the house, and some from his own side, urging that the federal government should still look at the question of subsidies with a view to ensuring that Canadians, men, women and children, do not have to pay sixty cents a pound for butter, resulting in a diminished' use of butter, and that the producers of primary products are not compelled to

Emergency Powers
abandon the production of necessary commodities for the feeding of our people. The hon. member for Melfort pointed out that there was the necessary machinery, in connection with subsidies, whereby production of commodities could be increased.
During the war the federal government decided, rightly I think, to spend $70 million on milk and on goods that we should be importing from other countries, and if the price that was paid in the foreign country made it impossible to have these goods sold in Canada within the ceiling, subsidies were paid. It was considered that cocoa beans and coffee, citrus fruits and other commodities that were available in other parts of the world should be brought in and that subsidies should be paid. This same policy must be continued so long as costs increase so rapidly that our people cannot maintain that standard of living which is essential in this day and age.


Benoît Michaud: The hon. member for Battle River tried to make fun of the legal profession. I do not know that that contributes much to the debate; it takes up a great deal of the time of the house. The only thing I will say about the legal profession is that their sense of fair play is sufficiently developed that they know enough to leave other professions alone. The hon. member wound up his remarks by saying that we should discuss the question in a business-like manner. I am entirely in agreement on this point.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are you a lawyer?


Benoît Michaud: Consult your parliamen-tarjr guide. We have discussed this particular order in council at least two and a half hours, and I have not heard anyone suggest that it should be revoked or amended. In my opinion a proper discussion of the subject should have included the suggestion of an amendment or the revoking of the order. It is all very well to say that members wish to express their views on the question of subsidies. I suggest that such views should be expressed in the debate on the budget. All we are concerned with in this item is either to leave it as it is or to revoke or amend it. If we have no other suggestions to make we might as well dispose of it now and pass on to the next item.


Mr. GILLIS:: If you could settle the question of subsidies tonight you could prorogue the house tomorrow morning; the work of the government would have been completed. I am very much interested1 in subsidies. The Minister of Justice stated that there were two
important functions that subsidies perform: one was to avoid inflation, and the other was to act as a means of redistributing income. I agree with him on that, but there is another important function that subsidies can also perform.
In a country like Canada, where you have a complete concentration of most of the major industries in the central part of the country, and most of the markets, since central Canada has the population, we find1 at the same time a flow of trade east and west, where practically everything that is produced has to be marketed in the central markets, so that in my opinion subsidies are necessary. Therefore the third important function that subsidies have to perform is either in eastern or in western Canada. Industries operating in that part of the country will not be economic industries under the present set-up. Some system of subsidies will have to be maintained by the federal government where industry that is essential to the country is uneconomic because of geographic reasons, and the removal of such subsidies deals a death-blow to any industrial set-up east or west.
May I point out to the minister the mess that we are in, both in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick, in connection with the coal industry. I say, without fear of contradiction, that the removal of the subsidy on Nova Scotia coal, or the refusal of the government to subsidize the wage increase demanded at this time by the mine workers in order to meet the rising cost of living, is responsible for that situation.. If you take the loss in wealth, to say nothing of the loss from human suffering, and the blow it deals to the people, undermining their confidence, in those who are legislating for them, you cannot compute what we have lost in that part of the dominion. The removal of subsidies was the reason in that case. The government subsidies came off on April 15 on fuels imported into Canada, and a. week later there is an announcement by those who sell coal in Canada that coal prices have jumped from $2.75 to $4 a ton, an increase immediately that subsidies were removed to the consumers in central Canada. United States coal today is going into Nova Scotia and is selling at $28 a ton. That is plus freight in that province. A press item today states that United- States coal, plus freight, is selling to the consumer in Nova Scotia at $28 a ton. That is with the subsidies removed. But he who is selling coal in Canada has a way of compensating himself when the subsidy is removed. He immediately announces a price increase to the consumer equivalent to what the subsidy w^as to him. The consumer then
Emergency Powers

ia paying the shot. But those in Canada who produce a commodity that was subsidized, when they ask for an increase to compensate for the rising cost of living because of the removal of subsidies and price controls, today have to go out and enter into what is, in effect, anarchy, and fight it out in the street with the boss. That is because of lack of government responsibility.
In my opinion this question of subsidies lies at the root- of our economic problem. I do not think anyone can maintain price controls once that system of subsidies is removed; and I definitely believe that, if this economy is to survive under the present scheme of things, most of the basic industries in this country will have to be subsidized to some extent in order to hold down prices. I am not so much concerned about the secondary industries; I am speaking about the basic industries like fuel, power, agriculture and textiles. In my opinion they will have to be subsidized if prices are to be held down. As the hon. member for Mackenzie pointed out a moment ago, the lower income groups are today not in a position to purchase the commodities which they require at the price they are selling for. Taxing those in the higher brackets and redistributing that income by holding down prices to those in the lower income groups is, in my opinion, the only way to maintain any kind of stable economy under the scheme of things as we have it today.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Will the hon. member permit me to say something?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If we were to enter into an extensive system of subsidies such as my hon. friend is advocating, we should have to keep our taxation very high and it would not be on the high-income people alone. There are not enough of them. We should have to go right down into the low-income group. What fails to impress me about the attitude of my hon. friend right now, and the attitude of those around him, is that I have no confidence whatever in their willingness to support this or any other government in the kind of drastic taxation which would be necessary to carry out that subsidy policy.


Clarence Gillis: As far as I am concerned, and as far as the membership of this group is concerned, we do not expect to get something for nothing out of this or any other economy. The answer to the minister's argument is this. Utilize the resources of this country and increase production. That is the complete answer. There has not been enough emphasis placed on increasing production. We are fully [Mr. Gillis.J
aware of the fact that you can only take out of that pool in proportion to what you put into it. But the mam emphasis has not been on production, improving our machinery or developing our resources. The main emphasis has been on getting back as quickly as possible to what existed in 1939. In my opinion the government are retreating and retreating too fast. I am not afraid to pay taxes and I do not think the average workingman in this country is afraid to pay taxes. It is much better to have a man employed, with some kind of decent income, even if you are taxing him heavily, than to have him in the street, to be paying him relief, having him deteriorating at the same time and losing confidence in everything. I do not think people will quibble about taxes, provided that the taxes are put to the proper use. But I do know that in industry in Nova Scotia, the fact that the government took this adamant stand against subsidies is responsible for the fact that the whole economy of Nova Scotia and, to some extent, that of New Brunswick, is tied up at this time. A subsidy of $5,000,000 would have offset the wage increase, would have given all concerned in Nova Scotia an opportunity to go to work for a year. With a proper supervision of the spending of that subsidy by the federal government, if at the end of the year production could not be increased and there were valid reasons for this, then it would be up to us to do something with regard to the rehabilitation of the industry. But on this question of subsidy, I still say that if we can come to an understanding on it and apply that subsidy properly to the basic industries of this country, give our people some encouragement and go out for increased production, there is not any danger of inflation or of wrecking the economy because of the subsidies.
I have never met anyone on the outside who quibbled about maintaining a noneconomic industrial industry which was necessary to the country in order to give the people employment and to put on the market a commodity which was necessary to the people. I have never found anyone who quarreled with that, and I have never found anyone who quarreled with paying taxes either. It is not the taxes that I am afraid of. As long as people are in income tax brackets, they have an income. What I am afraid of is getting back to the place where we have not sufficient income to pay taxes on it. It is much better for us to have people working, producing and building themselves up as citizens of the country than to get back to this system of relief. I am seriously suggesting-and this is my main reason for

Emergency Powers
rising tonight-that the federal government should immediately reconsider the question of subsidy as far as Nova Scotia industry is concerned and getting it back into operation.
I suggest that the government supervise the spending of any subsidies that may be put into force there; have a test there for a year at least and if, at the end of the year, there is not efficiency there, if the resources cannot be made at least fairly economic, then we should do something about getting the people into some other industry in which they can make some contribution to the national life of Canada.


Mr. QUELCH:: In view of the remarks
made by the hon. member for Cape Breton [DOT] South, I rise to say a few words at this time.
I agree with him absolutely when he says that the prosperity of the nation in the future will depend to a large extent on the payment of subsidies, that is, under a system of private enterprise, in order to maintain the production of the country at its maximum level and to maintain the demand of the people against that production, there will have to be a system such as that referred to by the Minister of Veterans Affairs as a compensatory system. A compensatory system is described very well by Stuart Chase in his book "Where will the Money Come From" where he advocates subsidies in order to maintain the effective demand of the people. I have heard several ministers state that subsidies cannot be paid without maintaining price control or price ceilings. I would say that depends, first, upon the purpose of the subsidies; and, second, upon the condition of production at the time the subsidy is paid; that is to say, it will depend upon whether goods are scarce or whether goods are surplus. If goods are scarce, then you will have to maintain a price ceiling. If, on the other hand, your production is surplus, the subsidies can be paid without any price ceiling being maintained by rigid controls.
May I explain what I mean? During the war a very large percentage of our production was shipped overseas, with the result that the money paid out on that production became a demand against the production left in the country, and that purchasing power became a great stress upon the price structure within the country. The government therefore desired to prevent the prices of goods from rising, and for that purpose put into effect price control. In addition, in order to make it possible for industry to pay their costs under that price control, the government subsidized industries where the costs were greater than could be met under the price ceilings. If the government had merely said to the industries concerned, "We will pay you a subsidy to make up for the increased costs, provided that you do not raise your prices," what would have been the result? In all probability some industries would have said, "To heck with your subsidies. We will increase our prices to an extent greater than the subsidies. Therefore we will recover our cost plus a profit, to an extent we could not recover it under your subsidy." In view of the fact that goods were so scarce at that time, after the subsidized goods had been sold the industries which had raised their prices would also have been able to sell their goods. That is why I say that when goods are scarce you will have to maintain price ceilings as well as subsidies.
What is to be the situation in the future? It will not be a question of reducing the demand against goods in short supply. The problem we shall face in future will be to increase the demand against expanding production, because we shall not be exporting fifty per cent of our production in the future and without bringing back imports in return. The total production of the country will be available to the people, plus the imports brought here in exchange for our exports. Just the other day Mr. Ruml issued a statement in which he said we shall probably have a depression on April 15, 1948. The analysis on which he based that statement is interesting. It supports 100 per cent the statement made by the governor of the Bank of Canada in 1946, to the effect that the great problem which will be facing this country in the near future will be lack of effective demand.
Mr. Ruml points out four reasons -why demand w'ill fall off at that time. He points out that today we have full employment. We have not quite full production because of strikes, etcetera, but we have a full demand against that production. The reason is that at the present time we are building up inventories. Those goods art not yet on the market, but the money paid out for building up those inventories is a demand against available production. In the second place, a large amount of money is being paid out for reconversion purposes; that is, to reconvert factories. That money is also a demand against available goods, because goods are not coming from those factories yet. Then he points out that at the present time a large proportion of our production is being exported with no goods being brought back in return under export credits. This means that money is being paid out in the production of goods that are not available for consumption in Canada; that is to say, the money paid out for the production
Emergency Powers

of goods which have been exported becomes a demand against the goods remaining. The fourth reason he points to is that today we still have a large amount .of savings built up during the war, which are a demand against out present production.
He points out that by 1948 the condition will be rapidly changing. Inventories will have been built up, and the goods will be coming on the market. Reconversion will be largely completed; the factories will be completed, and goods will be flowing from them. He points out that we cannot expect to continue to export goods abroad without bringing back imports in return, and that the savings carried over from the war will have been largely spent. Therefore he points out that by 1948 our production will be increasing in relation to demand; there will be a falling off of demand, so he prophesies that by April 15, 1948, people will say, "This is not a recession; it is a depression." He admits that very likely the government will take steps immediately to change that situation, and I am hoping that the government of this country will be prepared to do likewise. However the government knows very well that, once you allow a country to start on the road to depression it is not easy to stop it, because, once people lose confidence, it is very difficult to restore it.
So, Mr. Chairman, we have .suggested that it is possible to maintain demand through the use of subsidies, and that in order to maintain those subsidies it will not be necessary to have price ceilings. We say the government can meet with industry and say, "If you are prepared to produce at a fair profit we will pay you a subsidy." That is to say, the government will set up a commission whose duty it will be to examine the relationship between demand and supply from day to day, week to week and month to month. If over a period of three months, say, they find that demand is lagging behind supply at the rate of perhaps ten per cent, so that demand is only ninety per cent of supply, then through the commission the government would say to industry, "We will pay you a subsidy of ten per cent on condition that you reduce your prices by ten per cent in order to restore the balance between demand and supply." If any industry refused, obviously the industries that did agr.ee would be able to undersell the one that did not by ten per cent; and in view of the fact that the situation will not be the same as it was during the war, but one in which production is available, then an industry which refused to reduce its prices would have a great deal of difficulty in selling its goods in competition with goods which were being subsidized and sold at a lower price.

That is why I say in future, when production is expanding more rapidly than effective demand is being maintained, subsidies can be paid without the necessity of maintaining price control. It has been argued in this house that you cannot pay subsidies without increased taxation. During the war that was true; but the purpose in maintaining subsidies during the war was to maintain price control and thereby reduce the danger of inflation. Taxation also helped to reduce the danger of inflation; but now, after the war, it is necessary to take steps to safeguard the country against deflation, and the purpose of the subsidies would be to increase demand in relation to supply. The minister himself has said that at the present time the saving in subsidy will be no greater than the cost in taxation. Therefore, if you are going to try to increase the demand by subsidies, obviously you cannot pay for those subsidies by taxation, because you will not be increasing the demand in relation to supply but merely taxing people in order to pay the subsidies. When that situation develops; when we have to expand the purchasing power of the people in order to maintain demand against production, then obviously subsidies will have to be paid by national money, which, of course, will not be obtained by taxation.
I think that must be obvious, and that applies to the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops. Obviously he is still thinking of the situation that existed during the war, but that will not be the situation henceforth. The great problem we are going to face in this country will be the difficulty of maintaining an effective demand against our production. Before the war, we used to try to do that by maintaining a favourable balance of trade. It is generally recognized today, however, that if we want to have good relations with other countries in future we shall have to be prepared to accept the goods of other nations in return for our exports. Other nations will not be prepared to go into debt just in order that we may dump our unemployment problem on their doorstep. So I would suggest that in future, in order to maintain prosperity in this country, we can release the rigid price controls we have had in the past, maintain subsidies at the necessary level to maintain effective demand against our production, and finance those subsidies by national money.
P.C. 9870 agreed to.
On P.C. 7475.


James Lorimer Ilsley: This requires an amendment along the same line.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister move it?

Emergency Powers


James Lorimer Ilsley: These are the amendments to which I consented yesterday with respect to the wartime prices and trade board regulation. I move:
That the following be inserted in the schedule to the act in the column entitled "amendments" so as to pertain to order in council P.C. 7475 of 26 August, 1942, as amended:
"Section 6(1) is deleted and the following substituted therefor:
6(1) Xo director, officer, clerk or employee of the corporation and no person acting on behalf of or under the authority or supervision of the corporation shall be liable for any act or omission in the exercise or performance or purported exercise or performance, in good faith and on reasonable grounds, of any power, discretion, authority or duty conferred or imposed by or under these regulations."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Lorimer Ilsley: I move:
That the following be inserted in the schedule to the act in the column entitled "amendments" so as to pertain to order in council P.C. 7475 of 26 August, 1942, as amended:
"Section 6(2) is deleted and the following substituted therefor:
6(2) Xo proceedings by way of injunction, mandatory order, mandamus, prohibition or certiorari, shall be instituted against the corporation or any director, officer or employee thereof or any person acting under the authority of the corporation for or in respect of any act or omission of itself, himself or any other person in the exercise or purported exercise of any power, discretion or authority or in the performance or purported performance of any duty conferred or imposed by or under these regulations or otherwise heretofore conferred or imposed by the governor in council."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
P.C. 7475 as amended agreed to.
On P.C. 5518.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister be
agfeeable to accepting a small amendment which I hesitate to mention, but which I believe would clear up what might otherwise be a certain laxity in the wording? I refer to paragraph 8 at page 43 of the consolidation. This paragraph deals with offences, and subparagraph 2 states:
(2) Every person is a party to and guilty of an offence under this order who (a) actually commits it; (b) does or omits any act for aiding any person to commit the offence.
To meet the purpose I have in mind, I move the following amendment:
That the following be inserted in the schedule to the act in the column entitled "amendments" so as to pertain to order in council P.C. 5518 of 16 July, 1943, as amended:
"Section 8(2) is amended by deleting paragraph (b) and substituting therefor: .
(b) does or omits any act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit the offence."
This means that the act would have to be committed with the intention of aiding in the offence. It would mean that no person who committed the act, not realizing the consequences of it, would be guilty. In other words, it is to make sure that the intention element is present.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would take it that that is implied by the present wording.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not see anything wrong with it. I believe there is some similar wording in the criminal code. I am content to accept it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
P.C. 5518 agreed to.
P.C. 6497 agreed to.
On P.G. 34/4433.
Donald Methuen Fleming: It would seem that P.C. 34/4433 is to be effective temporarily, in view of the fact that it is included in this schedule. Is this not a matter which might probably be dealt with by permanent legislation, because recently we had a bill on this same subject before the house?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would the hon. gentleman state his point again?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that this order is to have only temporary effect. Could the subject matter of this order not have been properly included in the government employees compensation bill which was recently before the house? The effect of this order is to provide that the employees of three government corporations, the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, the Wartime Food Corporation and the Canadian Wool Board, are to be deemed to be employees of His Majesty within the meaning and for the purposes of the Government Employees Compensation Act. Since this order is presumably to have a limited effect in point of time, could its subject matter not have been properly dealt with within the terms of the legislation recently before the house rather than carrying this order on for a temporary period?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: If the hon. gentleman will remember, there was a provision in the government employees compensation bill for the inclusion, by order in council, of any other corporations which desired to be covered by the act. This had already been done in certain cases. I have not read the whole of this order but I presume, from what I have already heard, that the object of this order is to cover a case such as that.
Emergency Powers


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am indebted to the minister for his explanation. This order, P.C. 34/4433, was passed on June 10, 1944. It has the effect of bringing the employees of these three corporations within the terms of the Government Employees Compensation Act. What is the purpose of carrying on this order in council under the authority of Bill No. 104 when, under the authority of the new bill to which the Minister of Transport has just referred, an order in council could be passed under the terms of the Government Employees Compensation Act? This order was passed away back in 1944 without relation at all to the bill recently piloted through the house by the Minister of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: I would think that what the hon. gentleman says is so; but these three corporations, if they have not already covered themselves anid their employees by their own act are covered by this order and they were covered from 1944 until this day. If this order were not allowed to go through, their employees would not be covered unless a separate order in council were passed under the Government Employees Compensation Act. I would think this would be the better way to cover the employees of these three corporations.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, I submit that it would be preferable to cover them under the Government Employees Compensation Act, making provision for the passing thereunder of an order in council to bring within its terms employees of these three corporations referred to in P.C. 34/4433. I would think that would be preferable.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree that that is the proper procedure for those corporations which are not already covered, but these are covered.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are covered under the terms of an order in council which is to have a limited duration. That is my point. The whole basis on which the committee is dealing with the present bill is that the orders in council enumerated therein are to have limited duration. If the minister will indicate to the committee that it is the government's intention to pass an order in council under the Government Employees Compensation Act bringing the employees of these three state corporations within the terms of that act by order in council, this order in council in the consolidation can be dispensed with just as soon as the other order in council is passed. If there has not been time to do that the minister might indicate to the committee that this order is only to fill the gap until an order in council can be passed under the amended Government Employees Compensation Act.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That bill is not through the senate yet, is it? We shall have to assume that it will go through. I think we could do it the way the hon. gentleman suggests, but I do not see any particular reason why we should do it one way rather than another. If we knew the bill was through we could pass an order in council under that act and) it would last as long as those temporary bodies last. This order will last for only one year, and then an order in council will have to be passed. But we have not got the other legislation through yet.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I want to be sure that we are not arguing at cross-purposes. Do I understand the Minister of Justice to agree that P.C. 34/4433 will remain in force only until there has been time for the government to pass the necessary order in council under the new Government Employees Compensation Act to replace P.C. 34/4433 on page 45 of the consolidation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no objection and no advantage either way. If the hon. member would like us to revoke this order in council and pass a new one when we get the other legislation through, we shall do so.


Mr. GREEN:: May I suggest that the minister give further consideration to the suggestion of the hon. member for Eglinton. There might be some virtue, in reducing the number of orders in council from 57 to 56.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, what about the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre? This was one of the orders he wanted to freeze. Does he want to yield?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was thinking about that.
I would point out to the minister that the time when it might be desirable to replace this order would probably be within a month or so; parliament would be sitting and the minister could ask parliament for its consent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I would not want to bother with two addresses by both houses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It could be done in that way, but I am perfectly willing to yield this order. It is not in the class with the others under the wartime prices and trade board section.


Howard Charles Green: Let it stand until tomorrow.
P.C. 34/4433 stands.
Progress reported.
It being three minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Tuesday, April 22, 1947