1949-03-14

MAIN ESTIMATES, 1949-50

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1950, was presented by Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


Mr. J. S. Sinnotl (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises out of a report carried in the Winnipeg Citizen newspaper, and which is headed, "Sinnott renegade." I wish to inform the writer of the article that, if I read the dictionary correctly, "renegade" means traitor. If he will look at the vote on the main motion taken on Friday last he will see that I was not a traitor to my party.



STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Baker
Benidickson
Brooks
Brunelle
Coldwell
Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Cruickshank
Diefenbaker
Fair
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Graydon
Green
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Heon
Jaenicke
Knowles
MacNicol
Manross
Marier
Marquis
Martin
Miller
Mutch
Parent
Pouliot
Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie)
Richard (Ottawa East) Richard (Gloucester) Winters-29
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Archibald
Ashby
Aylesworth
Beaudoin
Messrs:
Beaudry
Bentley
Bertrand (Terrebonne) Black (Cumberland)
29087-90£
Maybank Mclvor
McCulloch (Pictou) McKay Michaud Mullins Nowlan Pearkes Picard Pouliot
Robinson (Simcoe East) Robinson (Bruce)
Ross (Hamilton East) Shaw Sinclair
Smith (York North) Stephenson Stuart (Charlotte) Timmins Viau
White (Hastings-Peterborough)
White (Middlesex East) Whitman Winters Young-60 (Quorum-20)
MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messrs:
Knight Laurendeau Lennard
Blair
Bonnier
Bourget
Breithaupt
Brooks
Campbell
Chevrier
Church
Clark
Douglas
Drope
Eudes
Gagnon
Gauthier (Portneuf) Gauthier (Nipissing) Gourd (Chapleau) Hartt Hatfield Herridge Hodgson Irvine Johnston Jutras Lafontaine Lennard Lesage Little
Black (Yukon)
Bonnier Bowerman Bradshaw Brown Chapdelaine Cleaver Cloutier Cote (Verdun) Cournoyer Croll
Cruickshank Dechene Demers Dickey Dorion Ferguson Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Gariepy
Gladstone
Grant
Halle
Hazen
Healy
Hlynka
Little
McCuaig
McGregor
MacLean
Matthews (Brandon)
Matthews (Kootenay East)
Miller
Murphy
Nixon
Parent
Picard
Richard (Gloucester)
Ross (St. Paul's)
Sinnott
Stokes
Timmins
Townley-Smith
Warren
Webb
Whitman
Winkler
Wylie-50.
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Abbott
Adamson
Argue
Arsenault
Baker
Beaudry
Belziie
Messrs:
Benidickson
Blackmore
Boucher
Bradette
Breithaupt
Chapdelaine
Cleaver
[Stage Direction]
Standing Cote (St. Johns-Iberville Napierville)
Dechene
Dionne (Beauce)
Dorion
Fleming
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fraser
Fulton
Gour (Russell)
Hackett
Harris (Danforth)
Hazen
Irvine
Isnor
Jackman
Jaenicke
Jutras
Lesage
Committees
- Low
Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario)
MacNaught
Marquis
Maybank
Michaud
Nowlan
Picard
Pinard
Quelch
Richard (Ottawa East) Rinfret
Sinclair (Vancouver North)
Smith (York North)
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Thatcher
Timmins
Webb-50.
(Quorum-10) PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Messrs:
Arsenault
Beaudry
Black (Yukon)
Bradette
Burton
Case
Cleaver
Cockeram
Cloutier
Cruickshank
Dechene
Denis
Diefenbaker Dionne (Beauce) Ferguson Fleming Fournier (Hull)
Hartt
Heon
Homuth
Howe
Isnor
Jackman
Johnston
Kirk
Macdonnell (Muskoka-Ontario)
Marshall Maybank Murphy Nicholson Picard Pinard Probe
Fournier (Maisonneuve- Raymond (Wright) Rosemount)	Richard (Gloucester)
Fraser	Richard (Ottawa East)
Gibson (Comox-Albemi) Rinfret Gladstone	Stuart (Charlotte)
Golding	Thatcher
Grant	Warren
Green	Winkler
Hamel	Young-50.
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Drope Fair
Fontaine Gardiner Golding Gour (Russell)
Halle Harkness
Harris (Grey-Bruce) Hatfield Herridge Jones Jutras Kirk Lapalme Laurendeau Leger
Argue Arsenault Barrett Beaudoin Belzile
Bertrand (Prescott)
Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon)
Black (Cumberland)
Boucher Bracken Bryce Burton Cardiff Charlton Clark
Cloutier	____ __
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Lesage
Cruickshank	(Brandon)
Dechene	McCubbin
Demers	McGarry
Desmond	Menary
Diefenbaker	Michaud
Douglas	Nixon
rivir. Fournier (Hull).]
Nowlan
Quelch
Robinson (Bruce) Ross (Souris) Sinnott Strum, Mrs.
Townley-Smith
Warren
Webb
Whitman
Wright
Wylie-60.
(Quorum-20) STANDING ORDERS
Bertrand (Prescott)
Brunelle
Cardiff
Daniel
Denis
Hamel
Hlynka
Knight
Knowles
Lapalme
Messrs:
MacLean Marier Murphy Pinard
Robinson (Simeoe East) Sinnott
Smith (York North) Stokes
Stuart (Charlotte) Tustin-20 (Quorum-8)

[Stage Direction]
Archibald
Arsenault
Ashby
Baker
Benidickson
Blair
Brooks
Bryce
Cote (Matapedia Cournoyer Gibson (Comox Gillis
Gour (Russell)
Gregg
Hazen
Kirk
Kuhl
Lafontaine
Messrs:
Langlois
Leger
Lennard
Little
MacNaught
Mayhew
McDonald (Parry Sound; McLure *Matane) Merritt Miller Alberni) Moore Pearkes Reid Sinnott Stanfield
Stuart (Charlotte) Winters-35 (Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Adamson
Benidickson
Black (Yukon)
Blackmore
Boivin
Cockeram
Caouette
Dickey
Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval)
Gariepy
Gourd (Chapleau)
Hodgson
Jones
Lafontaine
Lalonde
Lapalme
Little
MacNicol
McCann
McCulloch (Pictou) McCullough (Assiniboia) McDonald (Parry Sound) McMaster Maloney
Matthews (Kootenay East) Moore
Raymond (Wright)
Ross (Hamilton East) Rowe
Sinclair (Vancouver North)
Sinnott
Viau
Webb
White (Hastings-Peterborough)
Zaplitny-35
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Adamson
Black (Cumberland) Blackmore Bourget Case Charlton Cloutier
Cote (Verdun)
Croll
Dechene
Dickey
Dionne (Beauce) Gauthier (Nipissing) Gibson (Comox-Albemi)

Standing Committees
Gillis	Merritt	LIBRARY	Gingues	Mitchell	(Members to act on	the part of the Commons)Hamel	Pouliot	Johnston	Ross (Hamilton East)	Mr. Speaker and Messrs:	Knowles	Sinclair (Vancouver	Adamson	LapalmeLapalme	North)	Aylesworth	LegerLockhart	Skey	Black (Chateauguay-	MacLeanMaclnnis	Smith	Huntingdon)	MarierMclvor	Timmins	Bowerman	MarshallMaloney	Viau	Cardiff	Matthews (Brandon)May bank	Williams-35	Casselman	McGarry(Quorum-10)	Castleden Cloutier	Mcllraith McKayDEBATES	Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval)	Menary MullinsMessrs:	Eudes	Nixon
Barrett
Brown
Desmond
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Hlynka
Knowles
Matthews (Brandon) Pouliot
Richard (Gloucester) Richard (Ottawa East) Rinfret Rowe-12 (Quorum-7)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Baker	Jackman
Beaudoin	Jaenicke
Benidickson	Kidd
Bradette	Knowles
Breithaupt	Lapointe
Coldwell	Leger
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Low Croll Dickey Diefenbaker Fleming Fraser
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Graydon Green Hackett Hansell
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Maclnnis
Marquis
Miller
Mutch
Picard
Pinard
Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie)
Reid Sinclair Winkler-35.
Fournier (Maisonneuve Rosemont)
Gauthier (Nipissing)
Gingues
Gladstone
Gourd (Chapleau)
Grant
Henderson
Howe
Hlynka
Kidd
Knight
Pearkes Probe Reid
Richard (Ottawa East) Ross (St. Paul's)
Skey
Smith (York North) Stephenson
White (Middlesex East) Winkler Zaplitny-45 (Quorum- )
(Quorum-10)
[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messrs:
Black (Yukon)	Kirk
Bradshaw	Laurendeau
Breithaupt	Leger
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Lennard Cournoyer	Lesage
Coyle	Marshall
Cruickshank Gagnon
Ghidstone	Richard (Ottawa East)
Harkness	Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Jutras	Strum, Mrs.-24
McGregor
Mclvor
[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Messrs:
Adamson
Arsenault
Aylesworth
Baker
Beaudry
Bentley
Bertrand (Prescott)
Bertrand (Terrebonne)
Boivin
Bonnier
Bradette
Bradshaw
Brunelle
Campbell
Casselman
Church
Clark
Cote (St. Johns-Iberville Nap.)
Emmerson
Fontaine
Gauthier (Nipissing)
Gibson (Hamilton West)
Golding
Halle
Hansell
Healy
Henderson
Hlynka
Kidd
Kirk
Kuhl
Lalonde
Lapalme
Lapointe
Lennard
MacLean
MacNaught
Maloney
McCuaig
McCullough (Assiniboia)
McDonald (Parry Sound)
McGregor
McLure
McMaster
Nicholson
Robinson (Simcoe East) Ross (St. Paul's)
Sinclair
Sinnott
Tustin
Viau
White (Hastings-Peter-borough)
Williams Wright-54.
(Quorum-..)
Mr. Fournier (Hull) moved: that the report be concurred in.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the special committee on atomic energy will be set up?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: That is a matter which has not yet been given consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Later: ]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Coldwell:: I wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a supplementary question. I was disappointed in the reply he gave the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) in reference to the possibility of setting up a committee on atomic energy. My understanding was that the minister said that would likely be done this year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Now that the standing committees of the house have been set up, immediate attention will be given the question of setting up this committee.

Standing Committees


Mr. Low:: I wonder if the minister will take note of the fact that I had intended to ask a question similar to this, in reference to the atomic energy committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Alphonse Fournier: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the following members, namely: Messrs. Adamson, Arsenault, Aylesworth, Baker, Beaudry, Bentley, Bertrand (Prescott), Bertrand (Terrebonne), Boivin, Bonnier, Bradette, Bradshaw, Brunelle, Campbell, Casselman, Church, Clark, Cote (St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville), Emmerson, Fontaine, Gauthier (Nipissing), Gibson (Hamilton West), Golding, Halle, Hansell, Healy, Henderson, Hlynka, Kidd, Kirk, Kuhl, Lalonde, Lapalme, Lapointe, Len-nard, MacLean, MacNaught, Maloney, McCuaig, McCullough (Assiniboia), McDonald (Parry Sound), McGregor, McLure, McMaster, Nicholson, Robinson (Simcoe East), Ross (St. Paul's), Sinclair (Vancouver North), Sinnott, Tustin, Viau, White (Hast-ings-Peterborough), Williams, Wright, will act as members on the part of this house on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


Mr. Fraser:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if that committee will sit oftener than it did last year. It sat for only about ten minutes; really it was a farce.


Alphonse Fournier: I am sure the committee will take notice of the remarks of the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Alphonse Fournier: That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this house has appointed Mr. Speaker and Messrs: Adamson, Aylesworth, Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Bowerman, Cardiff, Casselman, Castleden, Cloutier, Dion, Eudes, Fouri nier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont), Gauthier (Nipissing), Gingues, Gladstone, Gourd (Chapleau), Grant, Henderson, Howe, Hlynka, Kidd, Knight, Lapalme, Leger, MacLean, Marier, Marshall, Matthews (Brandon), McGarry, McHraith, McKay, Menary, Mullins, Nixon, Pearkes, Probe, Reid, Richard (Ottawa East), Ross (St. Paul's), Skey, Smith (York North), Stephenson, White (Middlesex East), Winkler, Zaplitny, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred

to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask the Prime Minister if arrangements can be made to refer to the committee on public accounts the public accounts and Auditor General's report of last year?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The matter will receive consideration, and an announcement will be made by the Minister of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding the marketing of coarse grains.
Because of recent representations that have been made to the government, and in order to clarify the position for our farmers, I should like to make a brief statement in connection with the marketing of coarse grains for the coming crop year.
Hon. members will remember that this subject was fully discussed in this house last spring in connection with the passage of Bill 135. In introducing that bill I said in part:
The fourth amendment proposes to empower the governor in council by regulation to extend to oats and barley the regulations now applicable to wheat. Strong representations favouring the marketing of oats and barley through the wheat board have been received from farm organizations in both western and eastern Canada, among them the Canadian Council of Agriculture.
At present this is called the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
The government desires to meet the wishes of farm organizations in this regard, provided that a workable plan can be agreed upon. However, the government is well aware that the compulsory marketing of oats and barley through the board represents serious difficulties. The success of such an enterprise must be dependent on a large measure of agreement on policy matters as between organized farmers of both the producer and the consumer class, as well as on the co-operation of provincial governments. Therefore this government will wish to have concrete evidence of such agreement and such co-operation before it can assume the responsibility for putting this amendment into effect.
Again quoting from my same statement, I gave assurance that-
The government is prepared to take whatever steps lie within its power to assist in establishing marketing arrangements that will help to maintain economic and stable prices for Canadian agricultural products. The government must, however, be satisfied that any given scheme for this purpose is a practical one, a constitutional one, a workable one and one that will command the support of the interested groups concerned. Until it is satisfied that these conditions have been met. the govern-

ment will not be prepared to undertake the marketing of oats and barley through the wheat board. It will be noted in the resolution that marketing arrangements shall come into force only at the beginning of a crop year. I believe the attitude of the government in this regard will be understood by all hon. members who are familiar with grain marketing and related agricultural problems.
The position now is that one of the prairie provinces has introduced complementary legislation but the other two have not. However at a meeting of the western agricultural conference-namely, the provincial units of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in the four western provinces-in Saskatoon on January 20 to 22 inclusive, the following resolution was passed:
Be it resolved that a joint effort be made to enable the Canadian wheat board to be the sole marketing agency of coarse grains, and that any legislation giving the Canadian wheat board the same exclusive powers over the marketing of other grains as it now exercises over wheat, shall be based on the principle that the Canadian wheat board shall be an agency operating for the benefit and in the interest of grain producers, with a duty to sell grain for the best available price whether in export or domestic markets, and shall not be used as an instrument of government to control domestic policy; but full recognition of the importance of the livestock industry shall be given by the government of Canada, and that the government shall take adequate measures to establish necessary reserves of feed grains whenever such action is deemed necessary.
At the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in the same city on January 24 to 28, the same resolution was presented and carried.
On February 21 of this year I met with a committee representing the western farm organizations and the Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba governments, who asked, first, for assurances that the implementation of Bill 135, when proclaimed, would meet the letter and the spirit of the resolution quoted above, and second, whether the federal government still considers it necessary that the three provincial legislatures must pass complementary legislation.
The resolution forwarded by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which has been carefully reviewed, is not acceptable to the government. In the first place, if this resolution is intended to suggest that the Canadian wheat board as now constituted does not function in the best interests of the Canadian producers, this is a suggestion which I strenuously deny. Further, this resolution by its terms is contradictory, in that it would, on the one hand, require the board to sell "for the best available price whether in export or domestic markets" and at the same time to give "full recognition of the importance of the livestock industry."
In discussing the marketing of crops that are largely consumed within Canada, it is
Coarse Grains
obvious that the government of Canada cannot give any undertaking that it will become responsible for marketing coarse grains solely in the interests of the producer, and without regard to the interests of the consumer of those products. If the coarse grain producers of western Canada are not satisfied that the wheat board, as now constituted, is a satisfactory marketing agency for their coarse grains, then an obvious alternative is for the producers of coarse grains in western Canada to establish their own marketing agency. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, has on the order paper legislation designed to complement the marketing legislation of the provincial governments. Under such legislation, the producers can themselves establish a board to sell "for the best available price, whether in export or domestic markets." This assumes that to obtain "the best available price, whether in export or domestic markets," is in fact always in the best interest of the producers, which in my opinion is questionable, to say the least.
If, on the other hand, the western producers wish to market their oats and barley through the Canadian wheat board, and provided that their provincial governments will enact the necessary legislation, this government's position has not changed since I introduced Bill 135 in response to specific requests then made by the farm organizations.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the minister if it is not a fact that the judgment given by the appeal court of Manitoba on Thursday finds that it is not competent for the government to pass an order dealing with coarse grains.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The litigation in question refers to an entirely separate transaction under the wartime prices and trade board. It has no reference to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


George Alexander Drew: The transaction I am referring to had to do with an order under the transitional powers act which had the effect of bringing the marketing of coarse grains for a particular purpose under the wheat board. I thought that probably the explanation that was being given was in relation to that judgment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The Canadian Wheat
Board Act is an act of this parliament which is not contingent upon emergency powers. I think that that is the point my hon. friend refers to.


George Alexander Drew: I am not suggesting that the wheat board act deals with this matter. As the minister will recall, an order was passed under the transitional powers act dealing with barley and passing the administration

Strait of Canso
of that transaction to the wheat board. I merely repeat that I thought this announcement might be related to that judgment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This parliament at the last session amended the wheat board act to make the board the marketing agency for oats and barley. The judgment referred to by my hon. friend referred to a transaction in which the board was merely acting as agent for the wartime prices and trade board.
[Later]:
On the orders of the day:


Mr. C. C. Miller (Portage la Prairie):: Does the government intend to compensate any of those who delivered barley at a loss pursuant to the order in council which has been found to be ineffectual in the Nolan case, recently decided by the Manitoba court of appeal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is my understanding that the Minister of Justice intends to appeal the decision of the Manitoba courts; therefore no answer can be given.



STRAIT OF CANSO


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make which I hope will meet with the approval of the house. The board of engineers appointed jointly by the dominion government and the province of Nova Scotia last year to investigate the transportation facilities and their betterment at the strait of Canso have now submitted their report. The board, having given consideration to several methods of transportation across the strait, have reported in favour of the construction of a low-level bridge capable of handling both railway and vehicular traffic. The cost of constructing such a bridge is estimated at $13,500,000.
The board of engineers, consisting of D. S. Ellis, dean of the faculty of applied science of Queen's university, chairman, Arthur Surveyer, consulting engineer, of Montreal, and P. L. Pratley, consulting engineer, of Montreal, reported unfavourably on proposals for constructing a causeway, a tunnel or a high-level bridge. The board further reported that the present ferry system was operating at a loss and its discontinuance would result in a substantial saving which would more than pay for the probable* cost of maintaining and operating the proposed bridge.

It is evident that purchasing new ferry boats and rebuilding the ferry terminals would not materially improve the efficiency of the ferry services and would not give the uninterrupted passage which the public desires. The low-level bridge will, at all times, save fifty minutes in freight and passenger train schedule to the Sydneys.
The board of engineers had been called upon to review and report on the proposals to (a) construct a bridge capable of accommodating a single track railway and highway traffic, and which will permit the passage of vessels through the strait; (b) construct a causeway for railway and highway traffic which will permit the passage of vessels; (c) construct a tunnel for railway and highway traffic; or (d) provide improved railway ferry service across the strait. Of these projects, the board of engineers reported that the low-level short-span bridge was the only one which shows a saving on present operating costs and consequently was the only one which in their opinion was economically sound.
The board of engineers recommends that the bridge should be located between Cape Porcupine, on the mainland, and Balache Point, on Cape Breton island, where the strait is at its narrowest. The width at this point is slightly more than 3,000 feet. The proposal would require a bridge with a clearance of fourteen feet above water at high tide and a vertical lift span close to the Cape Breton shore to provide clearance of 156 feet for the passage of ships.
The government has decided to accept the recommendation of the board of engineers^-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: I repeat: The government has decided to accept the recommendation of the board of engineers-


An hon. Member:: Say it again.


Lionel Chevrier: -in favour of the construction of a low-level bridge, and I am happy to announce that it will proceed to implement this recommendation with the least possible delay.
I am also pleased to announce that the premier of Nova Scotia, after consultation with his colleagues, has agreed to contribute a portion of the cost of this project, details of which will be worked out later.
I believe the decision of the government to implement the recommendations of the board of engineers will not only provide an entirely satisfactory crossing of the strait, with consequent improvement in transportation generally in that part of Nova Scotia,

but with the entry of Newfoundland into confederation will also be of great importance in assisting the flow of traffic to and from the new province.
The board of engineers recommends that test borings, extending at least ten feet into the rock, should be made at the site of each of the proposed piers. The board further recommends that this boring program should be undertaken as early as possible-


Mr. Jackman:: How were the political borings?


Lionel Chevrier: -after the ice is gone from the strait so that construction plans can be started without delay. I am glad to notice .that my hon. friend is not interrupting me today.
It is estimated that the construction of the proposed low-level bridge would take about three years to complete, which is about the limit of the useful life of one of the railway car ferries now in operation between Mul-grave and Point Tupper.
The government will establish an authority or agency to carry out the recommendation of the board of engineers.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Will the full report be made available to hon. members?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, a full report will be available just as quickly as I can get sufficient copies to give to hon. members who are desirous of having it. This voluminous report was submitted to me on Thursday of last week; to give the house an example of the action taken by the government, may I point out that today, Monday, the government is recommending the adoption of the board of engineers' report which was received on Thursday.


Mr. Graydon:: Nothing like an election to move a balky horse.


Mr. Casselman:: Is this the same bridge that the Minister of Public Works promised over the week end?


Alphonse Fournier: I wish to tell the hon. gentleman that I made no promise about any bridge over the week end. I did tell a meeting that we had an understanding with the province of Ontario to build a dam on the French river to help relieve conditions on lake Nipissing.


Mr. Gillis:: May I compliment the Minister of Transport upon the statement he has just made? It took us ten years to get it; but regardless of the motive, regardless of whether or not there is to be an election, I want to thank the minister for the statement he has just made.
House of Commons HOUSE OF COMMONS



PROVISION FOR EVENING SITTINGS 7.30 TO 10.30 UNTIL LAST SITTING DAY IN APRIL

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent:
That, except on Wednesdays, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair at six o'clock p.m. until seven-thirty, and shall adjourn the house at ten-thirty p.m. without question put, unless the closure rule (standing order No. 39) be then in operation, this order to be in effect until and upon the last sitting day of the month of April.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I ask that consideration be resumed of the motion that was made on March 7 as to the hours of sitting of the house. Hon. members will recall that there was a motion in effect which provided that until the completion of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne the house should resume its evening sitting at seven-thirty and adjourn at ten-thirty. The debate on the address has now been completed, and, unless consideration is given to this motion, the house will automatically go back to the standing order under which the house shall sit in the evening from eight o'clock until eleven o'clock.
As I stated when I put the motion before the house, I did so in order to give the house an opportunity to express its views upon the question, and not because I was recommending that the order then in effect should be continued. Since that time my attention has been called to the fact that, when the days are longer and finer, many hon. members like to take a stroll after dinner before coming back into the house. This motion, however, would merely extend to the end of April the changed evening hours of sitting. Perhaps it is optimistic to feel that prior to the end of April there will be very much opportunity for those agreeable strolls before coming into the house for the evening session. In any event, without asking the house to make one decision or the other, I submit this proposal so that the views of hon. members may be expressed and the desires of the greatest number followed.


George Alexander Drew: I said when the motion was previously before the house that I felt this was not an effective way to deal with the problem, which many members have been considering for some time. I indicated that it was my intention to move an amendment which would result in the hours being from two to six and from eight to ten. In making such a motion now by way of amendment, I should like to point out that, as the Prime Minister

House of Commons
has said about the main motion, it is simply a suggestion put forward for consideration.
While I am a comparative newcomer in the house, one does not need to be here very long to recognize that the effectiveness of debate is related to a certain extent to the way in which the hours of the house accommodate themselves not only to the personal convenience of the members but also to the necessity for their doing a great deal of work outside the chamber. I think it is also to be considered that it must be a matter of great disadvantage to the press that the evening hour of adjournment is so late, because when the house sits until eleven o'clock it is some time after that before the press can deal with matters that have been discussed in the house.
My own feeling is that the members will do better work in the evening if the hours are from eight to ten, and afterwards they will be able to complete any necessary outside work without undue encroachment upon other arrangements they may make, and particularly upon their domestic arrangements where that may be a consideration. Moreover, by having a recess from six to eight an opportunity will be provided to meet people who wish to discuss various matters with the members, and members will be able to have their dinner and be back in the chamber at the time the house resumes.
The amendment I propose to move calls for the meeting of the house at two o'clock. The Prime Minister has indicated that in his opinion this presents some inconvenience to the cabinet. But I suggest that there is ample opportunity to adjust the hours of meeting of cabinet council, and that the business of government can be conducted more satisfactorily if the sitting hours that are arranged accommodate the members as well as the government itself-recognizing, of course, the importance of the task of the members of the cabinet and the responsibility that they assume. It seems to me that the government can well adjust the time of the regular meetings of cabinet council to meet this requirement, because, and properly so, the ministers during the course of certain debates find it convenient to carry on some of their other work in their own offices.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), that the resolution be amended as follows:
1.	That the following words be inserted after the word "that" in the first line of the resolution: "notwithstanding standing order No. 2, on and after Tuesday, March 15, 1949, the house shall meet at two o'clock in the afternoon of each sitting day, and that on and after this day" . . .
2.	That the words "eight o'clock" be substituted for the words "seven-thirty" in the third line of the

resolution; and that the words "ten o'clock p.m." be substituted for the words "ten-thirty p.m." in the fourth line of the resolution.
The effect would be that the resolution would read as follows:
That notwithstanding standing order No. 2, on and after Tuesday, March 15, 1949, the house shall meet at two o'clock in the afternoon of each sitting day, and that on and after this day, except on Wednesdays, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair at six o'clock until eight o'clock p.m. and shall adjourn the house at ten p.m. without question put, unless the closure rule (standing order No. 39) be then in operation, this order to be in effect until and upon the last sitting day of the month of April.


Mr. Cruickshank:: If I may ask the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) a question-I do not want to infringe upon provincial rights at all in this-do I understand that his amendment includes Wednesday nights?


George Alexander Drew: That would include Wednesday, and would mean an added hour each week in which to complete the business, as my hon. friend so earnestly desires.


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Drew: I was thinking so much of the insistence of the hon. member that we sit Wednesday night that I made a mistake. The resolution would have the effect of adding one hour a week through the longer sitting on Wednesday afternoon, but we would not sit Wednesday evening.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then I am sorry; I cannot support you.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have been here long enough to appreciate the fact that it is extremely difficult to find sitting hours that will accommodate all hon. members and enable them, as well as the members of the cabinet, to do the work that must be done. I would be quite willing to go along with the old hours of three to six and eight to eleven, though I do appreciate getting home half an hour earlier. The point I want to make is that there is a definite objection to the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition. Today we have set up the standing committees, which usually sit in the morning from eleven to one. By the time you get to your office and put away your papers it is at least 1.15, and that leaves only three-quarters of an hour in which to get lunch and be back in the house. That would be an impossible situation; and while I am not particularly in favour of the original motion, I am definitely against the amendment for the reason I have stated.


Mr.  J. A. Bradelle@Cochrane: I want to say a few words about starting an hour earlier. I believe the hon. member who has

just spoken (Mr. Maclnnis) pointed to a serious situation which would develop. It is true that the committees generally start work at eleven o'clock; and it may surprise the leader of the opposition to learn that many times, because there is a large number of permanent and special committees of this house, it is difficult to secure a quorum in order to get the work of a committee started. Sometimes we have to close our eyes and ignore the fact that we lack a quorum.
In spite of what hon. members opposite may say, I think it would be impossible to have the committees begin work at ten o'clock, no matter how hard we might try to do it. The question of changing the hours of sitting should be studied thoroughly; but we should be careful to see that the work of the permanent and special committees of the house is not interfered with, because that would defeat the very end we are trying to achieve-that of accelerating at least to some extent the work of this house.
In all sincerity I say it is impossible to have the committees start before eleven o'clock in the morning, and I have had a good deal of experience in that regard. It is also impossible to adjourn much before one o'clock. If the amendment were adopted, only one hour would be left before the opening of the house, and I submit that under such conditions we could not do our work properly. I am sure the leader of the opposition agrees that committees must function freely in this or any other legislature, and if we curtail their work to any extent, instead of expediting the work of this house we shall be retarding it. So far as I am concerned, after many years of experience with the committees of this house, I must vote against the amendment.


Gordon Graydon: The hon.
member who has just spoken has had a great deal of experience in committee work, but I find myself in disagreement with the view he has put forward. It seems to me it would meet the convenience of hon. members if our committees were called at an earlier hour, and perhaps the result would be better all round if we closed at ten o'clock and took the extra hour off at night. I think that would overcome the objection of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette).


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: In some respects I agree with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank); one of our points of agreement is that neither of us is a tete-a-tete man. I agree wholeheartedly that the work of our committees is an important phase of the work of this house, but for the life of me I cannot see why the hours of meeting
House of Commons
of the committees cannot be adjusted. A great many of us are here at eight-thirty in the morning, have our breakfast and are looking after our correspondence by nine o'clock. On the average that work is cleared up by ten o'clock, when we could attend committee meetings, and those committees could rise at noon.
There is another thought I should like to put forward. As part of our democratic parliamentary set-up we depend a great deal upon the press, and I know that many members of the press do not leave this house until after midnight, sometimes not until one or two o'clock in the morning. Surely we could give a little consideration to the gentlemen of the press without interfering at all with the splendid work done by the committees of the house. I have not been here as long as some hon. members, but this is my tenth session, and at times I have belonged to three or four standing committees, some of which have been meeting simultaneously.
I believe that with a little thought and adjustment we could arrange to have those committees sit from ten to twelve, in order that the house might meet at more convenient hours, thus benefiting all hon. members.
I would hope that we might seriously consider, on a non-party basis, the possibility of changing to the hours proposed, two to six and eight to ten, which I am sure would prove to be in the interests of the committees as well as of this house itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the question be put? I for one would like to enter into the argument, but surely this is largely a matter of personal desire and opinion. We can neither dissuade nor persuade each other; therefore I suggest that we take the vote.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Before the vote is taken I would like to hear the views of hon. members on the possibility of sitting through from two o'clock until eight o'clock, without any dinner adjournment, or from three to nine, whichever may meet with their approval. In discussing this matter I have heard hon. members say you could not get a sufficient number in the house at that time to carry on. Come in here any night at eight o'clock, half an hour after the house opens, and you will not find more than forty or fifty members in their seats; the other two hundred could be having their dinner at that time. I believe many hon. members feel as I do and would like to get out in the evening for a swim or to play golf or to do various things, and I am sure this change would suit many who do not wish to sit here night after night. For my part, I would just as soon sit

House of Commons
in the House of Commons from ten to eleven, as I would sit down at the Lord Elgin hotel.


Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: Speaking personally, and perhaps from a selfish point of view, I think the silliest thing this House of Commons ever did was to attempt to save this half hour and ruin everybody's dinner. I live about a mile and a half from the parliament buildings. I like to walk home once a day, and I like to be able to say hello to my wife without doing it on the run. I intend to walk home before dinner, and I intend to do what I usually do before dinner, irrespective of what rules are made. I am going to take the two hours, and I think that is what all members should do.


Mr. W. Garfield Case (Grey North):: The
member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) has laid great stress on the work of the committees. My experience has been that the committees usually meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays.^ I think we should adjust the hours of sittings of the house, which meets daily, and adjust the committee hours later -even ten-thirty to twelve-thirty; we could get our two hours in just the same. I make this observation, sir, in the hope that members will keep it in mind when making their decision.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think we have had an effective demonstration of the difficulty of fixing hours that will suit the convenience of everyone. I should be reluctant to have the convenience of the members of the government, or even of the members of the house, put into competition with the convenience of the members of the press gallery. Nevertheless, it is evident no solution can be found that will suit everyone. As the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said, this is not a matter of government policy. If the house sits from two until six, it involves inconvenience for the members of the government. If the house sits at other hours, it involves inconvenience for other members of the house and, as we have been told, for the gentlemen of the press. I think the only possible remedy is for each of us to record his vote on the amendment and on the motion in accordance with what most closely approximates his own convenience.
Amendment (Mr. Drew) negatived.


Mr. Harris (Danforih):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Breithaupt), who is paired with

me, I refrained from voting. Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I hope the 7.30 boys will be here when the house resumes after dinner.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 82, to provide for the marketing of agricultural products in interprovincial and export trade.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Garfield Gardiner: This bill, for which many hon. members have been asking, is complementary to the provincial legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We still want an explanation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 80, (from the Senate) respecting the Dominion Altantic Railway Company- Mr. Dickey.


Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 81 (from the Senate) to amend the National Parks Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


Mr. N. J. M. Lockhart (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Last week the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) replied to a question I had asked. Part 5 of that question was as follows:
What are the names of the principal officials of the corporation?
I was referring to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In part 6 I asked what salary each received. Part 7 was as follows:
What were the traveling expenses of each such official during the year 1948?
In question 8 I asked:
Have any increases in salary been granted to employees of the corporation since it was set up?
Questions
In the last question I asked to whom such increases had been given, and the amounts of them.
In the answer to part 5 the officers of the company are set out. In the answer to No. 6 the salaries are given. However when in No.. 7 I asked for the traveling expenses of each of the officials, the answer given was that "this information is not available from government records." I feel that that is information I should have.
In part 8 I asked if any increases in salary had been granted to employees of the corporation, and this is answered yes. The answer to part 9, which asks "To whom, and what increase to each of them", is, "this information is not available from government records." I would ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to look over the question again and to give me the information.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What deliveries have been made to the Department of National Defence or any other department of government of goods under the contracts referred to in the following orders in council respectively: P.C. 859 of March 2, 1948; P.C. 938 of March 6. 1948; P.C. 1051 of March 16, 1948; P.C. 1101 of March 16, 1948; P.C. 1186 of March 23, 1948?
2.	What is the value of the goods delivered under each of these respective contracts?
3.	What balance, if any, remains to be delivered?
4.	If there is any balance remaining to be delivered, what time is set for the final delivery?


Mr. Baker:: 1.	Deliveries have been completed and/or services rendered in accordance with contracts in all cases except P.C. 938 which covers modification of 50 snowmobiles, the property of the Department of National Defence, 28 of which have been completed and accepted.
2.	(a) Delivered to Department of National Defence:
P.C. 859	$226,597	001051	
34,326	541101	
226,269	111186	
196,417	20938	
420,000	00(b) P.C. 938:	Additional materials and
components in hands of Canadian Arsenals and work completed as at 26th February, 1949 -$143,308.
3	and 4. P.C. 938: 22 snowmobiles being modified, of which 15 are to be delivered by 31st March, 1949, and balance expected by 30th April, 1949.

Questions


NATIONAL HEALTH
Mr. Henderson:: 1.	How much of the moneys in the supplementary estimates 1948-49. relating to the hospital construction grant to the provinces, has been spent?
2.	What commitments are already made for further expenditures to be undertaken before the end of the present fiscal year?
3.	What is the distribution by provinces of (a) money spent; (b) commitments made?


Mr. Reid:: 1 and 2. Projects covering new construction of hospital accommodation amounting to an estimated 13,000 beds will be received this fiscal year. Projects for hospital construction grants amounting to $6,087,501 had been approved to March 10, 1949.
Under the terms of orders in council P.C. 3403 and P.C. 5504 instalment payments of $1,300,289.77 have been made to March 10, 1949. It is not possible at this time to indicate what commitments under the grant will be for the present fiscal year since commitments depend upon:
(a)	the rate of completion of the numerous hospitals for which construction grants have been approved since payments are made on an instalment basis, depending on degree of construction;
(b)	the accounts submitted for payment by the provinces by the end of the fiscal year.
3.	(a) As at March 10, 1949, the following instalment payments have been made:
Prince Edward Island	$	21,416 66Nova Scotia	
57,853	66New Brunswick	Quebec	
1,006,355	46Ontario	
32,563	50Manitoba	
49,952	00Saskatchewan	
2,498	90Alberta	
5,661	00British Columbia	
123,988	59

(b) See answer to Nos. 1 and 2.



DRAINAGE AND RECLAMATION


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What has been the total expenditure to date in connection with drainage and reclamation at Pemberton meadows, British Columbia?
2.	What has been the expenditure by years?
3.	What has been the expenditure by areas, as defined in the McGugan report on this project?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	$306,817.32.
2.	Pemberton expenditures by years: April 1, 1944-March 31, 1945, $9,421.47; April 1, 1946-March 31, 1947, $48,876.57; April 1, 1947-March 31, 1948, $138,803.17; April 1, 1948-February 28, 1949, $109,716.11.

3.	Expenditures by areas: area 1, $81,583.24; area 2, $3,343.11; area 3, $220,806.66; area 4, $1,084.31.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many orders in council relative to the provisions of the Immigration Act have been passed since the first day of July, 1947?
2.	Of said orders in council, how many have not been (a) published in the Canada Gazette; (b) tabled in parliament?


Mr.   SI Laurent@: This question was
answered in a statement by the Prime Minister on Friday, March 11, 1949, page 1377 of Hansard.



WAR ASSETS CORPORATION

Mr. Shaw:: 1.	What was the total gross value of sales by War Assets Corporation during the year 1948?
2.	What was the net value of sales during 1948?
3.	How many persons were employed by War Assets Corporation during the year 1948?
4.	What was the total amount paid in wages, salaries, traveling allowances, etc., to employees of War Assets Corporation during the year 1948?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1.	$36,288,752.98.
2.	$32,165,546.35.
3.	The following is the number of employees of War Assets Corporation as at the end of each calendar month in 1948:
1948	W.A.C.	Corps of CommissionairesJanuary 31	4,480	396February 29	3,966	358April 30 	2,648	258May 31 	2,183	219June 30	1,750	204July 31 	1,388	193August 31 	1,093	180September 30....	461	141October 31	451	127November 30 ...	365	118December 31	316	1064. $4,728,132.58.



PRICES AND TRADE BOARD


Mr. Shaw:: 1.	How many persons were employed by the wartime prices and trade board in (a) 1947; (b) 1948?
2.	What was the total amount paid in wages, salaries, traveling expenses and other allowances to employees of wartime prices and trade board in (a) 1947; (b) 1948?


Mr. Belzile:: 1. Number employed by the wartime prices and trade board as at:
(a) 1947: January 1, 1947, 4,568; December 31, 1947, 1,160.

(b) 1948: January 1, 1948, 1,160; December 31, 1948, 1,056.
2. Total amount paid in wages, salaries, traveling expenses and other allowances to employees of wartime prices and trade board:
Wages, Salaries and Traveling Other Allowances Expenses
(a) 1947	
$5,519,511.41	$513,055.79(b) 1948	
$2,602,707.26	$269,189.44



CONSUMPTION IN CANADA OF CONSUMER GOODS AND SERVICES PER CAPITA

Major James William Coldwell: What was the consumption of consumer goods and services per capita in Canada expressed in terms of the dollar pegged at the base 1935-1939 level, for each of the years 1926 to 1948 inclusive, and what is the government's forecast for 1949?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Consumption of consumer goods and services per capita in Canada expressed in terms of the dollar pegged at the base 1935-1939 level is estimated to be as follows:
Year		Dollars per capita
1926 				 318
1927 				 336
1928 				 354
1929 				 359
1930 				 332
1931				 317
1932 				 295
1933 				 284
1934 				 295
1935 				 308
1936 				 318
1937 				 334
1938 				 331
1939 				 338
1940 				 365
1941 				 390
1942 				 407
1943 				 419
1944 				 442
1945 				 479
1946 				 520
1947 				 521
1948 				 501
1949 forecast..			 509
Note: The cost of living index was used to		
convert the actual dollar		values of consumer
expenditure on goods and services to constant		
dollars since it was	the	best available single
index for this purpose.		
RED CROSS	EXCISE AND SALES TAXES


Mr. Shaw:: Does the Department of National Revenue collect		
the full rate of excise	and	sales taxes on taxable
articles which are purchased by the Red Cross and other organizations out of money secured through voluntary contributions and given without charge to the needy?
Questions


Mr. McCann:: The statutes provide no
exemption for the Red Cross or other organizations and the Department of National Revenue collects taxes legally due.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT


Mr. Isnor:: 1.	What payment or payments, if any, were made in respect to "service performed" and referred to in the auditor general's report of 1947-48 as set out in paragraph 9?
2.	What was the total amount?
3.	To what do these amounts relate?
4.	What are the details of each transaction or contract?


Mr. Baker:: 1.	On P.C. 859, $93,852.50 and 938, $425,-
000.00, totaling $518,852.50, while advance payments for components were made on P.C. 1051 of $15,000, on P.C. 1101 of $113,135, and on P.C. 1186 of $33,979.78, totaling $162,114.78.
2.	$680,967.28.
3.	and 4. (a) P.C. 859
The contract was placed with R.C.A. Victor Company Limited in September, 1947, for wireless equipment and subsequently revised to an amended total value of $226,597.00. Work completed at March 31, 1948, was valued at $113,298.50, on account of which $93,852.50 was paid as a normal progress payment.
(b)	P.C. 938
The contract was placed with Canadian Arsenals in August, 1947, covering modification of and development work on snowmobiles for use in the north, the property of the Department of National Defence, at a cost of $800,000. Work completed and material acquired at March 31, 1948, was valued at $425,000, and payment of this amount made as a normal progress payment.
(c)	P.C. 1051
The contract demand for teletype equipment, to a total value of $34,326.54 was signed by the Minister of National Defence on January 24, 1948. In order to obtain components of specialized military type partly from the United States, the contract in accordance with normal business practice called for an advance payment to the contractor, Northern Electric Co. Ltd. of $15,000.
(d)	P.C. 1101
The contract demand for the supply and installation of wireless equipment to a total value of $226,269.11 was signed by the Minister of National Defence on December 1, 1947. For the reasons in (c) above, the contract called for an advance payment to the contractor, Canadian Marconi Limited, of $113,135.

Questions
(e)	P.C. 1186
The contract demand for the purchase of 2 Sikorsky helicopters to a total value of $196,693.20 was signed by the Minister of National Defence on January 30, 1948. The contractors, Canadian Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Limited were acting as agents for United Aircraft Corporation of Hartford, Connecticut, manufacturers of the Sikorsky helicopter. The latter, as an essential condition of the contract which provided for the inclusion of Canadian-owned engines in the finished machines, required an advance payment of $33,979.78.



IMPORTS FROM JAPAN

Mr. Bradshaw:: 1.	How many mitts or gloves of any kind have been imported into Canada from Japan each month since February, 1948?
2.	Under what classification as to wool, leather or *other product were they entered?
3.	What is the value of such imports per month and by classification?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1. and 3.
Month	Doz. Pr.	ValueFebruary, 1948 	. . . 	$ -April 	. . . 	-May 	. . . 	-June 	-	-July 	. . . 	-August 	... 5,475	12,681September 	... 5,325	11,665October 	-	-November 	. .. 1,200	2,412December 	. .. 1,195	3,661January, 1949 	. .. 2,550	4,808
2. In January 1949, 300 dozen pairs valued at $466 were entered as cotton gloves. All other importations during this period consisted of wool gloves.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	What was the number of unemployed in each *of the months of December, 1947; January and February, 1948; December, 1948 and January and February, 1949?
2.	How many of such unemployed were in employment covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act?
3.	How much was paid in unemployment insurance benefits in each of the above-mentioned months?
4.	What was the average individual weekly unemployment insurance benefits paid in each of these months?


Mr. Mitchell:: 1.	Number of unplaced applicants in Canada at end of following months was: December 1947,	142,409; January 1948,

186,750; February 1948, 200,844; December 1948, 186,732; January 1949, 256,813; February 1949 (Figures not yet available).
2.	Number who signed the unemployment register the last six working days of following months was: December 1947, 94,525; January 1948, 130,798; February 1948, 146,074; December 1948, 144,058; January 1949, 197,675; February 1949 (Figures not yet available).
3.	Amount of unemployment insurance
benefits paid in following months was: December 1947,	$2,544,796; January 1948,
$3,924,641; February 1948, $5,017,492; December 1948, $3,592,155; January 1949, $6,727,221; February 1949, $8,158,902.
4.	Average individual weekly unemployment insurance benefits paid in following months were: December 1947, $11.58; January 1948, $11.76; February 1948, $11.82; December 1948, $12.78; January 1949, $13.20; February 1949 (Figures not yet available).



BOARD OF TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERS

Mr. Fair:: 1.	Who are the members of the board of railway commissioners of Canada?
2.	What are their specific duties in detail?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Mr. Justice M. B. Archibald, K.C., chief commissioner, Hugh Wardrope, assistant chief commissioner, A. Sylvestre, K.C., deputy chief commissioner, J. A. Stoneman, commissioner, F. M. MacPherson, commissioner, H. B. Chase, C.B.E., commissioner.
2.	The principal duties of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada (formerly the board of railway commissioners for Canada) are to deal with complaints that any provision of the Railway Act or the Transport Act, 1938, has been violated and to hear applications requesting the board to make any order which it is authorized by these acts to make. The board has jurisdiction in regard to (a) the construction, maintenance and operation (including rates) of dominion railways; (b) the rates of dominion telephone, telegraph and express companies;
(c)	the tolls on international bridges and tunnels; (d) the licensing and rates of ships on the great lakes, the Mackenzie river and the Yukon river.



ELECTRIC POWER SHORTAGE


Mr. Church:: 1.	Is the government considering any national plan for daylight saving in Canada so as to relieve the shortage of power situation in urban, suburban, and rural districts for 1949?
2.	Will any action be taken in the matter?


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: 1. No. The shortage of power in Canada is not national in scope, but local, and it is a

matter for the municipalities and provincial governments affected to decide any plan for daylight saving in order to conserve power.
2. Answered by No. 1.



WINDOW GLASS

Mr. Caouetie:: 1.	Is window glass manufactured in Canada?
2.	If so, in what locality?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Montreal, Quebec.



NEEPAWA, MAN., AIRPORT

Mr. Bracken:: Have any specific plans been formulated by the Department of National Defence for utilizing the Neepawa airport, and if so, will the minister state what they are?


Mr. Baker:: No. Neepawa airport is under Department of Transport control.



ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE AND ROYAL ROADS


Mr. Kidd:: 1.	How many students will be admitted to the Royal Military College at Kingston in 1949?
2.	How many students will be admitted at Royal Roads College, Royal Roads, British Columbia, in 1949?


Mr. Baker:: 1.	Royal Military College, Kingston, 103.
2.	Royal Roads, Royal Roads, B.C., 80.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Fraser:: 1.	How many national film board employees were sent to China for taking and producing the motion picture "The People Between"?
2.	What are the (a) names of these employees; (b) yearly salary of each; (c) cost of travel and other expenses paid by the national film board for these employees from time of leaving Ottawa, Canada, until return to Ottawa?
3.	If persons other than regular employees of the national film board were employed for these pictures, how many were so employed and what was the total cost of engaging them, including expenses, during the time of producing this picture?
4.	Is this film being shown in Canada by the national film board or is it to be released in Canada by the board?
5.	If not to be released, for what reason or reasons is it not to be released by the national film board?
6.	Is this documentary film being sold or is it to be sold?
7.	If so, to whom?
8.	At what price has this film been sold, or is to be sold?
9.	What footage was used in producing this film, and what footage is the completed film?
10.	What is the estimated cost of producing this film, including rightful portion of national film board; overhead and estimated cost of all services supplied them by public works department, such as building, telephones and other charges, and treasury branch of the Department of Finance?
Questions


Mr. Winters:: 1.	No employees were sent by the national film board to China for taking and producing the film in question. A cameraman was lent to UNRRA to make a film record for that international organization of its work in China.
2.	The cameraman loaned to UNRRA was Grant McLean. His yearly salary was $3,600 per year. All salary, traveling and living expenses were paid by UNRRA over a period of approximately fourteen months. $879.15 traveling expenses was paid by N.F.B. to save time by returning the cameraman by air via London.
3.	None.
4.	No arrangement has been completed for the distribution of the film in Canada.
5.	The film will probably be released by a commercial distributor, but owing to its length-two reels

it will not be one of the films in the N.F.B. regular theatrical series which are one-reel in length.
6.	Normal arrangements will be made for commercial theatrical distribution and for non-theatrical distribution.
7.	See answer to 6.
8.	See answer to 6.
9.	The film is 1,980 feet in length. This is the finally edited length from approximately
24,000	feet of film. In addition some of the footage was used by UNRRA for release to newsreels and other agencies. The remainder of the footage has been turned over to N.F.B. by UNRRA and will be used as library material, as is customary, for stock shot purposes, sale to other film producers and, if necessary, for further film reference to China.
10.	Estimated cost of film, $16,185.06, includes all overhead and services, telephone charges, etc. It is not possible to apportion to this film rental of buildings assigned by Department of Public Works for the use of the national film board.



WORLD WAR II


Mr. Jones:: 1.	Has the government received a petition from the next of kin association requesting that mothers and widows of servicemen be given free transportation to visit the graves of their kin who were killed in world war II?
2.	If so, would the minister make a statement as to what plans, if any, the government have made to comply with this request?


Mr. Mutch:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No plans have been made by the government.

Questions



*PUBLIC ACCOUNTS-ACTIVE ASSETS   INVESTMENTS

Mr. Fulion:: What are the details of the various "investments" totaling $1,175-2 million in the active assets of Canada as at 31st March, 1948, as referred to at p. XXV of the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1948?


Mr. Sinclair:: The details of the answer will be found on the balance sheet of the government of Canada, page 2 of the public accounts, together with the supporting schedules at page 17.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Are any of the employees of the Saskatchewan government tannery or shoe factory who were laid off in December in receipt of unemployment insurance?
2.	If so, of this date how many of said employees in each of said businesses are receiving benefits?


Mr. Mitchell:: 1.	Yes.
2.	As of March 12, 1949, three employees of the Saskatchewan tannery and eight employees of the Saskatchewan shoe factory were receiving benefits.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, before we leave the order for questions, there is a matter I should like to bring to the attention of the house-though I am sorry to have to do so again; it has already been mentioned twice in the house. On March 3 I drew the attention of the house to the fact that a most important part of a question I had put on the order paper had not been answered. I pointed out, as reported at page 1085 of Hansard, that nothing was forthcoming. Further reference was made to the matter on March 9. Referring to it on that occasion I asked if Your Honour would be kind enough to give a direction that the question be restored to the order paper. Your Honour bowed most graciously, and I thought that intimated that you were going to give the necessary direction. But the question has not been restored to the order paper, and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) has not answered it. I would ask that the question be put back on the order paper, because it was not answered.


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member's speech has saved me a lot of explaining. Here is the answer to his question.


Arza Clair Casselman: Why is it so late?


James Joseph McCann: The answer is as follows: The reply to this question as previously given on page 1059 of Hansard, dated March 2, 1949, was in the form in which the statistics are maintained by the taxation division. A similar question asked last year by the hon. member when answered in this form was accepted.
It has been the policy of the taxation division to maintain monthly records of the number of returns remaining unassessed in reasonable detail. For this purpose, returns which are more than three years old are grouped under one caption in order to avoid the necessity of keeping scattered records under five or six detailed yearly headings. In view of this, I regret to advise the hon. member that it is not possible to submit figures from the taxation division's records in any greater detail than that already given.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McMasler:: 1.	What amount of accelerated depreciation to date has been allowed to individuals or firms for the purpose of (a) erecting or extending or improving buildings: (b) other purposes?
2.	What were the amounts of the ten largest allowances for (a) buildings; (b) other purposes?
GOVERNMENT PRINTING CONTRACTS Mr. Stephenson:
1.	What was the cost per year of government printing contracts let to private individuals, firms or publishing organizations from January 1, 1940 to December 31, 1948?
2.	Were any of the above contracts let to publishers of weekly newspapers? If so, to what papers and what amount each year during the above period?


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



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Caouetie:: 1.	How many unemployed persons in the counties of (a) Pontiac; (b) Chapleau, have received unemployment insurance benefits since June 1, 1948?
2.	How many unemployed persons are registered for the purposes of unemployment insurance in the towns of Rouyn, Noranda, Val d'Or, Malartic, Cadillac, Perron and Duparquet?
3.	Of such unemployed persons now registered with the unemployment insurance commission, how many' were in the employ of (a) Noranda Mines; (b) East Sullivan; (c) Waite Amulet; (d) Malartic Goldfield; (e) Sullivan Consolidated?



M. E. POWERS

Mr. McGregor:: 1.	Have the services of M. E. Powers, consultant engineer, been used by the dominion government?
2.	If so, for what purpose were his services required?

3.	What amounts as salary, fee, or other remuneration has Mr. Powers received from, the dominion government and for what period?
4.	Did Mr. Powers receive additional sums for traveling expenses and/or other charges?
5.	If so, what amount did he receive for (a) traveling expenses; (b) other charges?
6.	What are the qualifications and experience of Mr. Powers for the services which he has performed?
7.	Is Mr. Powers a Canadian citizen?
8.	Where are his business headquarters situated?
9.	Are the services of Mr. Powers still being retained by the dominion government? If so, for how long are such services to be retained?



CANADIAN PACIFIC SECURITIES

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	As at September 1, 1939, what was the total value of Canadian Pacific securities of all kinds held in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and other countries?
2.	What is the total value of Canadian Pacific securities of all kinds held in the above noted countries as at the present time?
3.	Have any Canadian Pacific securities held in the United Kingdom been acquired by the government of the United Kingdom? If so, what is the value of such securities so acquired?
4.	What is the total value of Canadian Pacific securities returned to Canada from the United Kingdom since September 1, 1939, and what disposition has been made of any such securities returned to Canada?
5.	Did the Canadian government acquire any Canadian Pacific securities following world war I? If so, to what extent were such securities acquired, and to what extent are such securities still in the possession of the Canadian government?
6.	Does the Canadian government hold any Canadian Pacific securities other than those acquired following world war I?



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Probo:: What amount of money was spent by the national defence department and/or any other government department on account of each of the following (a) reserve army; (b) reserve navy; (c) reserve air force, in each of the years 1938 to 1948 inclusive?



CHURCHILL, MAN., POST OFFICE

Mr. Knight:: 1.	What is the over-all floor space of the post office at Churchill, Manitoba?
2.	How much of that space is used as a waiting room?
3.	What is the approximate number of population which uses the post office facilities?
4.	Is mail stored at this post office over periods of time awaiting navigation?
5.	Are postal boxes available for rental?
6.	By what percentage has the receipt of mail increased at this point in the last three years?
7.	For how many outposts is mail stored for periods of time at this post office?
8.	Has the Postmaster General received resolutions from Churchill asking for increased facilities? If so, what action has been taken upon such requests?
Orders for Returns



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	What salary, honorarium and expenses have been paid to Mr. Jacques Greber in connection with the national capital plan?
2.	Have any bills been rendered by Mr. Greber that are yet unpaid? If so, in what amounts?
3 How many persons are employed or working in connection with the said plan and what salary and expenses have been paid to all such persons?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	Is the building occupied by the unemployment insurance commission in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, owned by the government? If so, what was the total price paid, and to whom was it paid?
2.	If not (a) from whom is it rented; (b) for what period; (c) at what rental?
3.	How many employees are there in this office?
4.	Who is in charge, and what salary is paid?
5.	What are the total monthly salaries paid?
6.	How many war veterans are employed in this office?
7.	How many of these employees are under the civil service?



COMBINES


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the total cost incurred by the combines investigation department in the investigation that led to the prosecutions in 1948, of the 18 dental companies for conspiracy?
2.	What was the total cost of the trial?
3.	What was the total cost of the appeal to the Court of Appeal of Ontario?
4.	Who were the counsel on (a) the trial; (b) the appeal, and how much did each receive for fees and expenses?
5.	Are there any outstanding accounts submitted by counsel or solicitors? If so, by whom and what are the several amounts?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Siewarl (Winnipeg North):: For a copy of all orders in council, correspondence, reports or other documents in the possession of the government concerning Michel Lucien Seigneur.



CHESTER, N.S., WHARF

Mr. Nowlan:: For a copy of all payrolls, covering repairs to the wharf at Chester, Nova Scotia, for the months of August, September, October, November and December, 1948, together with a statement showing all material purchased for the said work; the names of the parties supplying the same and the amounts of money paid therefor, as well as the name or names of the party or parties who purchased salvage or surplus material derived from or purchased for the said work, the quantity or kind of material so purchased by each such individual and the prices paid therefor.

Orders for Returns



CHILD WELFARE ADMINISTRATION, ALBERTA

Mrs. Strum:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, agreements, and other documents, exchanged between officials of the government of Alberta, and/ or other persons and the various departments of the federal government, with respect to child welfare administration in Alberta, during the period covered by the ten-month investigation into this question conducted by the royal commission appointed in 1947.



YUKON TERRITORY


Mr. Black (Yukon):: For a statement of the names of all persons employed in Yukon Territory by the federal government (with the exception of those names in return tabled March 10, 1947), showing where they are serving; in what capacity; their remuneration, and when each was first so employed.



HEALTH GRANTS-NURSES' HOMES

Mr. Knight:: For a copy of all correspondence since January 1, 1948, exchanged between the government and individuals or organizations regarding the possibility of obtaining federal grants towards the building of new nurses' homes or additions to those in existence; together with any documents or memoranda indicating decisions made by the government in connection with such inquiries.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all records, letters, telegrams or correspondence since the 1st of July, 1947 to date in the possession of the Department of Mines and Resources, connected with the Blood Indian reserve, number 148, relative to the purported lease of land on the reserve for the St. Mary irrigation dam and all documents connected with the vote on the 9th and 10th of December, 1948, of the Blood band of Indians and in particular any complaints regarding irregularities in the vote made by members of the band that have been transmitted by the superintendent of the Blood agency and the Indian Agent.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


James Angus MacKinnon: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bin to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act by extending the assistance to certain mines not presently included under the act.
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]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence in connection with a reported statement by Vice-Admiral Grant at a meeting in Toronto of the Toronto branch of the Naval Officers' Association last Friday evening when he stated that Russia had four times the number of U-boats that Hitler had. I asked a similar question last week in the form of a notice of question. The minister said that Canada's navy had no submarines. Perhaps the minister does not know, but I should like to find out.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: The hon. member asked on Friday about the policy of the government with regard to submarines. I take it from what I could hear of what he has just said that his question today relates to the same subject. The submarine is still generally regarded not as a defensive weapon but as an offensive weapon, used to destroy naval vessels and shipping of an enemy. Canada has no aggressive intentions. The only possible aggressor at the present time has not a large surface fleet.
It is the view of the government and its advisers that it would be a waste of Canada's resources to go in for the very expensive business of having submarines. When we need a submarine for anti-submarine training we have been able to make arrangements with the Royal Navy or the United States navy or to engage in joint exercises such as those now going on in the Caribbean. We believe that this represents the sensible approach to the problem of co-operation in defence. Co-operation is the only way in which Canada or any other country can defend itself today, and is also the only way in which peace can be secured. Obviously Canada could not and should not duplicate the defensive activities of every great power. Our object is to do what we should for our own immediate defence against direct attack and to work with other friendly nations in joint defence so as to preserve the peace.


Thomas Langton Church: Was the air marshal right? He said the same thing as I said a week ago.


Brooke Claxton: No air marshal spoke on Friday or Saturday.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour):: I should like to reply to a question in connection with unemployment in Vancouver which was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) as reported on page 536 of Hansard of February 15, 1949. At that time the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that an investigation would be made of the situation, and the following is the report of this investigation.
At the beginning of March, 1949, the number of unplaced applicants registered with the national employment service in the city of Vancouver totaled approximately 25,000 persons-20,000 males and 5,000 females.
These current figures may be compared with those of the same dates in each of the preceding three years as follows:
Year	Males	Females	Total1946	
15,800	3,800	19,6001947	
11,700	3,200	14,9001948	
12,200	4,200	16,400
Many of these unplaced applicants are covered by unemployment insurance. At the beginning of this month there were about
22,000	active claimants for benefits in the city of Vancouver. Of these, 17,600 were men and 4,300 were women. These current figures may be compared with those at the same date in earlier years as follows:
Year	Males	Females	Total1946	
9,000	2,400	11,4001947	
5,600	1,800	7,4001948	
8,900	2,700	11,600
It will be seen from a comparison of these two sets of figures, namely, the number of persons registered as unplaced by the national employment service in Vancouver and the number of active claimants for benefits, that a larger proportion of the unemployment is now covered by unemployment insurance assistance than in former years. At present, eighty-eight per cent of the unplaced male applicants in Vancouver are active benefit claimants. This figure is much higher than those at the same date in former years, as is shown in the following table:
Active claimants for benefits as percentage of unplaced applicants
Year	Males Females Total
per cent per cent per cent
1946	
57	63	581947	
48	56	501948	
73	64	71
The main reason for the higher percentage in 1949 is the extension of the coverage of unemployment insurance over the past year
Labour Conditions
and a half to include workers in the logging industry in British Columbia and persons on weekly or monthly salaries whose earnings are between $2,400 and $3,120 annually. My hon. friend will remember the amendments that were made last year to include the logging industry in the unemployment insurance scheme. The latter figure of $3,120 is now the maximum amount which salaried workers can earn and still be covered by unemployment insurance. In addition to a higher percentage of unplaced applicants being covered by unemployment insurance, there are actually fewer persons out of work today who are not covered by this form of assistance than at the same date in any earlier post-war year. At the beginning of March, 1948, for example, there were close to 5,000 persons registered for work in Vancouver who were not active claimants for unemployment insurance, whereas today there are only 3,000. The comparative figures for 1947 and 1946 were 7,500 and 8,200 respectively.
The largest weekly increase in the number of unplaced applicants occurred this year during January when they averaged around 1,400 a week. Since then the increases have fallen off steadily, and for the past two weeks substantial decreases in unplaced applicants have occurred. These weekly
changes are as follows:
Weekly Changes in Unplaced
Weekly period	Applicants
January 28 to February 3	
plus	1,200February 4 to February 10	
plus	630February 11 to February 18	
plus	340February 19 to February 24	
plus	30February 25 to March 3	
minus	620March 3 to March 10	
minus 1,400
This is an indication that the situation is righting itself. The total amount paid out during February in the form of unemployment insurance benefits in Vancouver was $830,000. One-fifth of this amount was paid by the federal government. In addition to this assistance a number of agencies have formed a local community council in Vancouver which is providing aid to persons temporarily unemployed. During the month of January, some 8,000 meals and 2,000 beds were provided by these local groups. A number of borderline cases also received assistance from the city and province during January. This assistance from these various local sources totaled about $7,000.
Of the 25,000 unplaced applicants registered with the national employment service in Vancouver at the beginning of March about 3,000 were veterans. This number is
2,000	less than at the same date last year. It might be added that, based on interviews

Labour Conditions
made recently with nearly 500 unemployed veterans over forty-five years of age in Vancouver, it was found that one-third had a fairly adequate income for current purposes from pensions, from superannuation, or from other sources.
There are a number of special factors which might be mentioned bearing on the present situation in Vancouver. It is estimated that some 80,000 workers have been added to the labour force in British Columbia since 1946, bringing it up to a total of 425,000 at present. This represents an increase of 23 per cent, whereas in Canada as a whole the corresponding growth in the labour force has been only 10 per cent. The expansion of the labour force in Vancouver has been at least as great as that for the whole province.
The labour force in British Columbia and in Vancouver has a relatively high proportion of workers over forty-five years of age. Thirty-five per cent of all workers in British Columbia are in this category. In Canada as a whole the corresponding percentage is 31. In British Columbia, where much of the work is of a strenuous character, older workers ordinarily constitute a more difficult placement problem.
Each winter there is a considerable influx of workers into Vancouver, not only from sections of British Columbia, but also from outside the province. A large part of this movement is of a temporary nature. Most of these workers are regularly employed in other occupations for most of the year. They come to Vancouver only during the period when employment is slack, as is the case, for instance, with many farm workers from the prairie provinces and from the interior of British Columbia. Of the 25,000 unplaced applicants at the beginning of March, it is estimated that close to 6,000 moved to Vancouver within the past six months. About one-third of these persons are from other parts of British Columbia while the remaining two-thirds are from outside the province.
A large number of the logging camps in British Columbia close down temporarily at the end of December each year. Many of the released woods workers move into Vancouver at this time. This year these camps were not able to reopen as quickly as they ordinarily do because of heavy snow and unusually cold weather. Most of the mills are now open and a steady stream of men is going back to work.
The cold weather in January reduced building operations to a minimum. A large building program is again getting under way in Vancouver, and with the milder weather employment is opening up rapidly. Already during 1949 construction contracts awarded

total more in value than during the same period last year. This follows the same upward trend in construction that was in evidence throughout 1948, as the following figures for Vancouver indicate:
Construction Contracts Awarded
Year	December	Whole year1947	
$1,564,075	$33,823,6141948	
2,318,434	53,650,299
The lack of rain, and the cold weather throughout the coastal area during January, resulted in hydroelectric power shortages which caused a 30 per cent cut in industrial power. As a result of rains during February the power situation is now back to normal, and those workers temporarily laid off have returned to their jobs.
It would appear from this report that the unemployment situation in Vancouver was a temporary one. The peak of unemployment was reached in February in Vancouver as it was throughout the country as a whole. Since then the number of workers applying at the national employment service in Vancouver who remain unplaced has been falling off with increasing rapidity. Local officers report that more jobs are opening up every day as construction, logging and other seasonal industries get into full swing.
With incomes and investment expected to remain at high levels during 1949, the employment outlook during the coming months is quite favourable in British Columbia, as it is in other parts of Canada.
No one in this House of Commons, I feel sure, needs to be told that the variations in employment each year in Canada are greatly dependent on the seasons. This is no new thing. It has been a condition which has always existed and, in my opinion, will always prevail. The situation in British Columbia has been, to a very large extent, a seasonal one and the shock of the effect on the individual lives of our workers has been, in very large measure, cushioned by unemployment insurance. The parliament of Canada has reason to congratulate itself upon this very fine legislation. As I indicated a moment ago, in February alone in Vancouver $830,000 was paid in unemployment insurance benefits.
In conclusion I should like to say that there-has been some criticism of the delay in the payment of some of the claims. I do not wish to go into details, as most hon. members know the mechanics of the act, but I am assured by the commission that the situation is practically cleared up, and we hope to have things moving expeditiously from now on.


Angus MacInnis: should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Now that the situation has

been remedied by an act of God in bringing about the fine weather, does the minister have anything in mind for the similar situation which is certain to develop next winter?


Humphrey Mitchell: If I may say this to my hon. friend, without being accused of treating the matter in-


Angus MacInnis: It just depends how you say it.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right, but I know of no legislative body in the world that can pass legislation against the elements. That is a risk we have to take.


Angus MacInnis: Cabinet ministers are protected against it.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says that cabinet ministers are protected against it, but so are the members of the House of Commons.


Angus MacInnis: Quite.


Humphrey Mitchell: And so are people in many other vocations. But living in a country where freedom exists-


Angus MacInnis: Freedom to be unemployed.


Humphrey Mitchell: -it is difficult to stop the movement of people from one province to another. As I pointed out the last time I answered the question, if my hon. friend, or any other member of the House of Commons, has any suggestions, I shall be glad to receive them and look into them.


Angus MacInnis: Look up the green book of 1945. There are suggestions there.


Howard Charles Green: Are we to take it from the statement of the minister that the government accepts no responsibility for helping to relieve the situation in Vancouver?


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend does not think that $830,000 is accepting some responsibility I should like him to say what he thinks it is.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has admitted-


Angus MacInnis: The men and the employers are providing most of that.


Howard Charles Green: -that two-thirds of the number come from outside British Columbia. Does the minister say that under those conditions there is no obligation on the dominion government to help?


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not say any such thing. I have said before that if I want to go to British Columbia or Nova Scotia, particularly at this difficult period of the year, I must accept some responsibility. I came to Canada from Great Britain. I took some responsibility when I came here, and, if I may say this to my hon. friend, I have never
Reconstruction and Supply taken a cent from anyone since I have been in this country. It may be, of course, that I have been fortunate.


Howard Charles Green: Of course that is not the point. The point is that these people have to be maintained by the city.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members must understand that at this stage I cannot permit debates on these questions.



RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: On March 3, as
reported at page 1093 of Hansard, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) referred to a provision in section 9 of the act setting up the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, which provision he asserted would require the tabling of an annual report of the department.
Section 7, to which the hon. member referred, is in the Department of Reconstruction Act, 1944, not in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply Act, 1945. The Department of Reconstruction and Supply was formed by the merger of two departments, munitions and supply and reconstruction, and the former department was not required by statute to table a report. Therefore I state again that the tabling of an annual report on the general departmental activities of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply is not mandatory, since a report, if any, would be required only in respect of those functions originally within the purview of the Department of Reconstruction. Consequently no consolidated report for the department was prepared in the past, and the branches or agencies constituting the department either placed reports before parliament or were reported upon orally by the minister.
These branches and agencies, which I believe numbered ten in 1945, subsequently have been either abolished or transferred to other departments. There now remain only three branches or agencies identified with the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. They are Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, whose annual report will be tabled shortly; the Canadian travel bureau, whose report also will be tabled shortly; and finally the public projects branch, for which a report could be prepared and submitted to parliament if it is felt that the oral reports already given by my predecessor concerning the public projects branch, and the relevant questions which have been answered in this house during this session of parliament, need

Inquiries of the Ministry to be supplemented by such a document. Personally I do not believe it would add anything to what is already on record.


Howard Charles Green: If I may ask a question arising out of this statement, has the minister given consideration to section 6 of chapter 16 of the statutes of 1945, which set up the Department of Reconstruction and Supply? That section provides that all the duties given to the Minister of Reconstruction under the act of 1944 must be carried on by him as Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Clearly one of the duties given him in 1944 was the tabling of an annual report. Therefore it would seem that as Minister of Reconstruction and Supply he should likewise table an annual report for that department.


Robert Henry Winters: That section was given full consideration. As I said before, if the hon. member desires any specific information we shall be pleased to supply it.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wilfrid Garfield Case: In view of the fact that the house committees have been set up, will the Minister of Mines and Resources say whether the committee on Indian affairs will be reconstituted in order to complete its work on the Indian Act?


James Angus MacKinnon: As recommended by the committee on Indian affairs which sat last year, a bill is now before the Department of Justice. When that bill is returned it is my intention to discuss with my colleagues the matter of reconstituting the committee and referring the bill to it.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. King Hazen (Saint John-Albert):: Is
the Minister of Transport in a position to inform me when I may expect the answers to certain questions about the Park Steamship Company, which were passed as an order for return on February 9 last?


Lionel Chevrier: I am familiar with the subject matter of the hon. gentleman's questions, which have to do partly with the maritime commission and partly with war assets, for which I am not responsible. As soon as I get back to the office I shall ascertain the, position in reference to the two parts, and endeavour to assist my hon. friend in getting an answer as quickly as possible.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, when the orders in council referred to in the address passed by the house on Monday, March 7, will be produced? Two of them have now been tabled. May I ask that the others be produced as soon as possible? I should like to have them for use in the debate to take place today and tomorrow.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: For
some time I have been awaiting a return to a question which I asked and which appeared for the first time on page 114 of Votes and Proceedings. May I ask that the question be answered within a reasonable time? I do not know to whom to address a request of this kind.


Colin William George Gibson: shall be glad to have an inquiry made to see what return can be brought down.



INQUIRY AS TO FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: In view of the statements by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, appearing in Hansard for January 31 and February 24, will the minister now say whether there will be a floor price for the 1949 flax crop? If so, at what price will the floor be established?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hope to make a statement tomorrow on the subject of floor prices generally.



DOMINION COAL BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Gillis: Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce been informed that the dominion coal board has been requested to hold sittings in the coal areas of Nova Scotia? If so can he inform the house whether it is the intention of the board to comply with this request?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have been advised that the board has been requested to sit in Nova Scotia this coming summer. I understand that the board expects to be able to do so, but as yet no definite arrangement has been

made. The members of the board will be meeting during April, at which time the proposed visit will be discussed.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question either to the Minister of Finance or to the Minister of National Revenue? Has the attention of the government been drawn to a recent judgment in a bankruptcy court in Montreal citing certain officials of the income tax division for contempt of court, because of their refusal to disclose certain information requested? Is any action contemplated by the government? Is an amendment to the Income Tax Act to alter the secrecy provision in prospect?
Hon J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue): We are aware of the position as outlined by the gentleman who asked the question. As yet no action has been taken.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: May I ask
a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs? Is it the intention of the government to implement a recommendation of the committee on veterans affairs last session with respect to the granting of clear titles to veterans of world war I?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: That question cannot be answered by a yes or no. I shall be glad to discuss what has been done in that direction, either when my estimates are before the house or at some other suitable time.



INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
ask the Prime Minister when the government expects to table the report of the royal commission on prices?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Last week I received a letter from the chairman of the commission informing me that there was a greater delay than he had expected in the printing of the report. Members will recall that on the information I had received I had hoped the report would be 29087-91
Transitional Measures Act tabled by the end of February. Upon inquiry I learned there had been some unavoidable delay in the printing, but the report will be produced as soon as possible.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I understand the government has not yet received the report from the commission.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; we have not received the report, and the chairman of the commission explains he has met with delay in the printing bureau. He is doing his best to get it out, and will have the report before us as soon as it can be completed.



TRANSITIONAL MEASURES ACT, 1947 CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Garson that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations of the governor in council for a limited period during the national emergency arising out of the war.
Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: The last time this measure was before the house, on February 18, the member for Peace River (Mr. Low) put on the record our attitude towards this motion. In view of the fact many days have passed since that time, I should like to refresh the memory of the members of the House of Commons by quoting very briefly some of the things he said. I refer to page 675 of Hansard.
X sincerely hope that the contents of this resolution for the continuation of certain orders and regulations of the governor in council does not constitute the whole of the program the government intends to bring in at this session in connection with the very serious matter of prices and distribution facing the country today.
Further on, he said:
The rank and file of the Canadian people are not asking for more control; but they are asking for relief from the burden of high living costs. People generally are waking up to the fact that the government itself is perhaps the chief culprit in this whole matter of extremely high prices.
The member for Peace River then went on to show how high taxation has raised the price of goods to the people.
In concluding, he had this to say:
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that the people of this country are going to be bitterly disappointed if the government fails to supplement these orders, which are now in the form of resolutions, by positive action aimed at reducing the cost of living. I declare there is no better place to start than in their own taxation structure, especially the iniquitous sales tax.
At a later stage, he said:
-and using the modest subsidies which we have proposed from time to time on selected items used

Transitional Measures Act from day to day by families, which subsidies could be paid for not out of taxation but with interest-free money-
I intend to expand upon some of these points, but before doing so I want to refer briefly to some of the criticisms, made by members of the C.C.F. party, of the statement made by the member for Peace River concerning his trip to England. The member for Peace River referred to the fact that, while he was over in Great Britain, he found a great deal of discontent in regard to some of the controls. He referred to those controls, showing the results that they had had upon the economy of that country. Frankly, I must admit I was amazed at some of the extreme language used by members of the C.C.F. in criticizing that statement. One member even went so far as to describe it is a despicable attack upon Great Britain.
I should like to point out that at no time did the member for Peace River attack either the people of Britain or Great Britain herself. His criticism was leveled against certain controls and the results those controls had had upon the British economy. It seems to me that the main trouble with the C.C.F. is that they regard their type of government as the embodiment of the aims and objects of the people. Hence, they insist that an attack upon that government is an attack upon the people, which of course is another matter entirely. I would say that it is a very dangerous attitude of mind. It is the type of psychology found in men like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, and it breeds intolerance.
Let me ask the C.C.F. this question. When they attack the policies of the Liberal government, as I have heard them do time and again, sometimes viciously, would they agree that when they are attacking the policies of the Liberal party they are attacking the Canadian people or Canada? I am satisfied they would say, nonsense. Then, I would say that in accusing the leader of this group, when he spoke about certain controls in England, of having made an attack against the British people, that was also nonsense.
I should like to refer specifically to some of the statements made by the member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight) which are found on page 692 of Hansard. The member for Saskatoon City suggested that, perhaps, the member for Peace River was not familiar with conditions overseas because he had only made one trip to Great Britain. I hope he will appreciate the fact that I have known England fairly well in the past. I believe I was born in the same year as the member for Saskatoon City and I also happened to come to Canada in the same year as he did. I have been back on many occasions. I spent four years overseas in the first war. I have many

relatives over there, and I carry on correspondence with them fairly frequently. I say that, judging by the correspondence I have had from my relatives over there, I find that their criticism of many of the policies carried on in Britain today is just as severe as the criticism which was made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). May I say that my relatives cannot be considered to be wealthy people; they are just the ordinary middle class, and probably the controls which are exercised in Britain today fall more heavily upon the middle class than upon any other class.
But let me call another witness on this question. I should like to refer to the fact that one of the senior members of the Labour party in Britain has been most critical of some of the control policies carried out by that party. I should like to quote from a speech made by the hon. member for Nottingham South, H. Norman Smith, on Wednesday, December 12, 1945. I shall quote from the official record. He had this to say:
I have been in this Labour party nearly thirty-nine years.
Evidently he was one of the senior members of the party in so far as length of membership is concerned. He continued:
There are very few hon. or right hon. gentlemen on this side of the house who have the length of membership of this party that I have.
Therefore he was speaking with some authority. He continued:
I want, in my turn, to use arguments calculated to bring my hon. friends on this side of the house into the division lobby against these proposals-


An hon. member:: Shame.


Arthur Leroy Smith: because I am absolutely certain that, as the hon. member for East Aberdeen has already stated, these proposals open the way to the influences which broke the second Labour government in 1931. If the house gives effect to these proposals, only a miracle will save the third Labour government from the fate that overtook the second.
By the way, the title of this speech is "Parliament abdicates financial control". Then he went on to mention the fact that in many instances the policies of the Labour government are very similar to the policies of the Liberal party. I noticed that when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) spoke he pointed out to members of the C.C.F. that many of the measures in operation today were measures which were first of all started by the Liberal party. Then Mr. Smith had this to say:
It is a matter no doubt for congratulation to the tiny remnant of Liberals, most of whose party have been swept out of this house, that, though their party is now shattered and almost nonexistent, their ideals are triumphing on the front bench of the Labour party.


Mr. Archibald:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he say that the barter

agreements which Great Britain is entering into are economic Liberalism?


Victor Quelch: I would say that the international financial policies of Britain since the war have been, to a very large extent, dominated by the Bretton Woods agreement, under which she agreed to make the pound convertible into dollars, and as a consequence she lost, or had to reduce, her exports by about $800 million. So far as the barter agreements are concerned, she is being forced into them by economic necessity, but she may not be able to carry them on unless changes are made in the Bretton Woods agreement.	[DOT]
I should like to quote another statement from Mr. Smith. He said:
Never, in the whole of history, was it proposed to give such tremendous power to an authority as is contemplated in the Bretton Woods scheme. Neither Hitler nor Mussolini, at their respective zeniths, not even the Roman emperors in Rome's palmiest days, had such tremendous power as it is proposed to confer upon this fund.
And in order to emphasize the need for maintaining financial controls in the hands of the government of Britain, instead of the hands of international financiers, he had this to say:
The Labour and socialist movement in this country completely failed then to understand that, if there is a class war, it is not between employers on one side and workers on the other, because neither employers nor workers have the real power when it comes to an economic showdown. The real class war is between, on the one hand, the few people who control finance and, on the other hand, the rest of the community, in which category I would include anybody who works for a living.
I quoted this statement to show that fortunately there are members in the Labour party who appreciate the dangers of the control policies of the Labour party today, or at least the extent to which they have relinquished certain financial controls and turned them over to the hands of an international authority.
Apparently the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight) did not like the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River. He suggested that the hon. member for Peace River might have got his information from the wrong sources. He implied that it might possibly have been from Oswald Mosley. I will read what he said, as reported at page 692 of Hansard:
X am not going to suggest that one of the people he saw was Oswald Mosley-but from the opinions he expressed, I should think such opinions might easily have been garnered from that source.
I do not know whether that statement was supposed to be witty or whether it was supposed to have anything behind it; but let me point out-and before I make this statement
29087-91J
Transitional Measures Act let me say quite clearly that I am not suggesting for one minute that the C.C.F. as the national socialist party of Canada is the counterpart of the national socialist party of Germany; but in view of the fact that the hon. member thought it worth while to try to link us up with Oswald Mosley, I should like to say that there is a far greater affinity between the ideas of the C.C.F. as the national socialist party of Canada and the national socialist party of Germany than there is with the Social Credit party. I say that for this reason. Both of these parties believe in centralization. We believe in the greatest possible degree of decentralization. Both of these parties believe in the multiplicity of controls, and we believe that controls should be used only to the extent absolutely necessary to maintain the efficient operation of the economy. Both of these parties believe in a very large degree of public investment. We believe that public investment should be the residual action necessary to maintain the optimum development of the resources of the country. Therefore I say that the hon. member for Saskatoon City would have been far more logical if he had addressed his remarks relating to Oswald Mosley to members of his own party instead of to members of this party.
Then the hon. member wondered whether the hon. member for Peace River had seen the results of public investment in England. Mind you, the hon. member for Peace River had not criticized any of the public investments which had been made in that country; but the hon. member for Saskatoon City suggests that he might have seen the fine houses which have been built, the power development schemes and other investments. The point I want to make is this: just because fine public projects have been carried out in England under public investment, it does not mean that you have to agree with certain control policies that have been instituted in that country.
I was in England in 1938 at the time of Munich, and I spoke to a number of school teachers who had just come back from Germany. They recounted to me in glowing terms some of the public projects they had seen in Germany. They referred to the wonderful roads which had been built; they referred to the public buildings and the development of power. They referred to the reforms which had been carried out in agriculture; but on the other hand they were most bitter in their denunciations of the controls and the degree of regimentation which were being carried out in that country.
I am satisfied that if the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Knight) were permitted to go behind the iron curtain today he would see great development projects on the way,.

Transitional Measures Act projects developed by public investment- power developments, road-building programs, great cities being built in Siberia and across the Urals. But does that mean to say tor one moment that, because he appreciates what is being done under public investment, he must also at the same time agree with the type oi controls and regimentation carried out under the soviet regime today?
Then the hon. member proceeds to state that he deplores this attack upon Great Britain. I have already pointed out that at no time did the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) attack Great Britain. He attacked merely a certain control policy; and I resent bitterly the implication that members of this group are anti-British. Indeed, I think members of the C.C.F. could earn that description to a far greater degree than we could.
The hon. member goes on to say:
The state in which she found herself was that of bankruptcy-a bankruptcy which was caused by her war effort.
Unfortunately that is only half the story, because even if there had been no war she would have found herself in a difficult position today. As proof of that I would quote from the interim report of the European recovery program, sections 26, 27 and 28 of which state:
The long-term problem of western Europe is thus one of maintaining a high standard of living for a dense population, in a world where it is no longer the predominant source of manufactured supplies. Even in 1938, nearly one-half of the world's output of manufactures was produced outside western Europe; now the proportion is much higher. For many years, the problem of paying for these supplies had been growing. Between 1913 and 1939 imports from overseas were increasing but exports were declining; exports of manufactures of the main industrial nations fell by over one-quarter. The market for some of Europe's manufactures was becoming more and more restricted.
Even if there had been no world wars, this course of world economic development would sooner or later have forced a change in western Europe's economic structure. The loss of her predominance in manufacturing would have compelled an adaption in the nature of her exports, and specialization in those types of products where her competitive advantage was greatest. The gradual reduction, in more recently developed continents, of advantages of inexpensive land and labour would have forced Europe to reduce her dependence upon imports of primary products.
Then, referring to the years between the wars, it goes on to state:
But although the position of western Europe in the world, economy has been progressively weakened during this century and particularly after 1913, there have been props and stays which concealed the weakness of the structure. Until 1913 western Europe was a large exporter of capital; its exports and invisible earnings far exceeded its imports. When after 1918 exports failed to recover to the 1913 level, the margin available for investment abroad was reduced. Gradually during the interwar years, the annual rate of foreign investment

decreased further, until by 1938 there was no net investment at all. These trends could not have persisted indefinitely. Western Europe could only have continued to import more and export less by living on capital.
I say that demonstrates clearly that Great Britain's position today is not merely the result of either the second great war or the first one, but is the result of the expansion in industrialization in different parts of the world outside of Europe.
Then the hon. member saw fit to go on as follows:
Everyone knows that. And, if I may say so, that war effort was not exerted wholly on her own behalf. Let us not forget that for many days and months she stood alone.
I would suggest members of the C.C.F. party should be the very last to refer to that matter; because they, and they alone, were the party who in 1939 took the stand that Britain should continue to stand alone, that the C.C.F. were opposed to any military participation overseas. Also they took the stand that assistance overseas should be limited to economic aid, and must not include the sending of any expeditionary force overseas.


Mr. Blackmore:: From Canada.


Victor Quelch: Yes, from Canada. So that we may well say, "Thank God the C.C.F. were not in power in 1939"-or the failure to send the small force we did send might have been sufficient to tip the scales in the battle of Britain, in which event we might very well have a national socialist government in Britain at the present time.
Farther down in his speech, the hon. member apparently thought he should try to become humorous. After referring to the difficulties in which Great Britain had found herself, he said:
And let me say that she did not try to meet her debts with funny money, either,
I always regret to hear members of the C.C.F. echoing the speeches made by reactionaries in this country-because there are many reactionaries in Canada who are trying to make the people believe that the use of national money would be a resort to funny money. The C.C.F. are playing into their hands every time they use that expression either in or out of the house. I am not saying all members of the C.C.F. do that; there are some who understand the need for national money, as much as we do.


John Horne Blackmore: Do they know what funny money is?


Victor Quelch: 
All we have to do is to go back to the years after 1929 when the purchasing power of the dollar hit a new high in this country. In the nineteen-thirties the purchasing power of the dollar was so high that you could buy five bushels of wheat for a dollar, you could buy six pounds of butter for a dollar; twenty pounds of pork and twenty pounds of dressed turkey. I know whereof I speak because those are the prices I got in 1932 for those products. I am satisfied that farmers are not looking forward to the day when the purchasing power of the dollar is increased so that anything like that can happen again. I suppose the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would say that it is not necessary to put the value of the dollar that high; but how high are you going to put it?


Solon Earl Low: If you ever get started you will not be able to stop it.


Victor Quelch: As the hon. member for Peace River says, it is not an easy thing to stop once you have started. Once you start forcing prices down it is hard to put the brakes on. I know that in the past the C.C.F. have advocated rolling back prices to January 1, 1946, but that would mean lower prices for our primary producers. Would the government have been justified in keeping the prices of agricultural products down to the January 1, 1946, level? I say most definitely no, and for this reason. For many years the farmers of Canada had to produce at world market prices which were far below the cost of production, and as a result of that they were driven heavily into debt. The only way any concern that is driven into debt can get out of debt is to receive prices considerably above the cost of production. During the 1930's the farmers took world market prices far below the cost of production, and since 1942 they have been compelled to take prices less than world market prices. In all fairness to agriculture, owing to the fact that we compelled them to carry on under conditions that forced them into debt, they have a right now to expect us to allow conditions to exist that will make it possible to pay for that debt. When you say that the farmers should not be allowed an increase in prices above the 1945 level I say you are not being fair to agriculture.


Mr. Wright:: Would the hon. member not say that the farmers were better off in 1945 than they are at the present time?


Victor Quelch: I would say that they are better off now, unquestionably, and I will tell you why. It is true that in 1945 the farmers could buy for less than they pay today, but do not forget this important point

-it should not be necessary tor me to remind the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) about this because he is a farmer. Farmers only spend a percentage of their income on goods but they get the increased prices on their total production. If they spend 50 per cent of their income on goods, then they are penalized to the extent that the prices of those goods have risen but they receive the increased prices on their total production. For instance, let us take the man who rents a farm. He has to pay one-third for rent and he only has two-thirds left. If you put prices down it is going to make it that much harder for him to pay his rent if he is paying it on a cash basis.


Percy Ellis Wright: The trouble was, they took the ceilings off the things the farmer had to buy but kept them on what he had to sell.


Victor Quelch: That is only partly true, but I think the hon. member for Melfort will agree that on the whole agriculture has not done too badly since 1945. The concern of agriculture today is not about the prices they are getting at the present time. The fear is as to what they are going to get in the future.


Percy Ellis Wright: I agree with you there.


Victor Quelch: The farmers of this country would not demand for one minute that they be allowed the increased prices represented by world market prices today if in return they were guaranteed stabilized prices in the future, but up to date they have not received that guarantee. I notice that the hon. member for Melfort opposed the depreciation of the dollar. I presume the reason he did so was that the Conservative party happened to be advocating the depreciation of the dollar. I was the only member of the house who spoke against appreciating the dollar to parity with the United States dollar. After it had happened, some of the Conservatives objected, but I pointed out that as far as agriculture was concerned it was always opposed to having an appreciated dollar. The hon. member for Melfort criticized the idea of depreciating the dollar, and then went on to say, "look how the farmers suffered during the 1930's when we had a depreciated dollar." We did not have a depreciated dollar in the 1930's. He is so badly mixed up that he is criticizing the very thing he should not criticize. In the 1930's we had an appreciated dollar, and the reason that agriculture ran into the difficulties that it did was the fact that we had an appreciated dollar instead of a depreciated one. The hon. member for Melfort said that the pound would only fetch $3.86. What he should have said was that in those years you could buy a pound for only
Transitional Measures Act $3.86 instead of having to pay $4.85 for it. In other words, it had appreciated approximately 18 to 20 per cent with the result that, when we were paid in sterling in England for our wheat and the pound sterling was converted back to dollars, instead of the farmer receiving $4.85 he only got $3.86 for it. That is an appreciated dollar, which is the very thing that the hon. member was advocating.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: Order.


Victor Quelch: May I conclude with one statement?


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


Victor Quelch: May I conclude with one paragraph? One of the great difficulties that we ran into in the 1930's was the fact that our competitors, Australia, New Zealand and the Argentine, had their currencies depreciated below the pound sterling. We had our currency appreciated approximately 20 per cent above. Therefore those countries had an advantage of about 45 per cent in competing with us for the European market.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in rising-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, is it not pretty well known that the leader of the opposition has already spoken in this debate? Since there seems to be some objection to that statement, may I say that I have no desire to prevent the leader of the opposition from exercising his legitimate rights.


James Arthur Ross: Who else raised the objection?


Gordon Graydon: That is exactly what you are trying to do.


Angus MacInnis: He is not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Gordon Graydon: He is afraid of him; that is all.


Angus MacInnis: So much afraid of him that we object to his speaking twice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. The leader of the opposition has referred before to the rules of this house, and also of another place from whence he came. I suggest that we should abide by those rules. One of them is that a member cannot speak twice in the same debate. While I admit it was a very short speech, the leader of the opposition did speak in this house in this debate on Monday, February 7, and his short speech of about two paragraphs is reported at page 313 of Hansard.

Transitional Measures Act


Gordon Graydon: You are just the echo of the government.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to make a submission, Mr. Speaker, in order that you may have it before you in giving consideration to the point that has been raised. At page 313 of Hansard I rose to point out that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) had not given an explanation of the reason why this resolution was being brought forward. I suggested that was desirable. I think it is perfectly clear that I rose on a point of order as to the procedure to be followed. You do not need to tag "point of order" onto your remarks to make it a point of order. I think the wording of my remarks makes it perfectly clear that it was a point of order. I said in part:
I believe the house should have a full explanation from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) as to what emergency regulations it is intended to continue and what the effect will be, before the house is called upon to vote on this resolution.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I really believe that technically the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has spoken in this debate. Anybody who stands up on a resolution which has been moved-I do not care how long his remarks are-has spoken on that resolution. The only thing that the leader of the opposition said was that he wanted an explanation, that he did not know the principle involved, and that we could not take a vote until he received the explanation. I want to be fair. If we allow the leader of the opposition to speak twice in this debate any other member can ask for the same privilege. I happen to be quite broadminded in these matters. In the last two sessions I have had to lead the house when the Prime Minister has not been here. Since this matter is only at the resolution stage, I would suggest that on second reading of the bill, which will follow immediately afterwards, the leader of the opposition will have an opportunity to speak on the real principle. He will then have the bill before him and he will know exactly about what he is talking. In any speech he may make today he has no more information now than he had when he rose on this matter on February 7. He has the same resolution. Nothing has been added to it or taken away from it. I suggest that the rule should be applied unless the leader of the opposition is given permission with the unanimous consent of the house.


George Alexander Drew: For a reason which will become apparent I do not propose to press my suggestion.


Arza Clair Casselman: I beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin), that this question be now put.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We knew that was coming.


George Alexander Drew: Well, it was fairly obvious. Now I am speaking without any question about the rules, and I will refer to the very few words I said previously. I indicated I believed . it was a point of order to which I had spoken, though that does not need to be debated. I can now deal with what I said at that time. I pointed out that this resolution calls for consideration of the continuance of certain emergency measures, and that before we proceed to consider those emergency measures and the wisdom of dealing with them, this house is entitled to an explanation of what the emergency is and what the reasons are that in 1949 we should be called upon to regard as still continuing an emergency which related to the war that ended in 1945.
On Friday last, when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) pointed out what would be dealt with today, he stated that we would be dealing with a measure which would determine whether there would be a continuance of the controls over housing, and certain other matters. That is not what we are considering on this motion. What we are considering, and the only thing we are considering on this motion, is whether or not there is an emergency which justifies the continuance of wartime emergency powers or whether, if that emergency has passed, other procedures should be followed to deal with those things which the government or any hon. member wishes to bring before this house.
As I have stated already in this chamber, there can be no question but that the government must deal in some way with the housing situation, and must deal with it in a more effective way than in the past. But there is absolutely no necessity to carry forward wartime emergency powers in order that this house may deal effectively with any measure relating to the subject of housing which this house, under any circumstances, can have power to deal with. The time has come for the government to place before parliament a statute dealing with the housing problem, and to provide in that statute clear and unmistakable terms which can be understood by both landlords and tenants so the confusion which exists today may be brought to an end. Moreover the government itself has clearly demonstrated that it no longer believes there is an emergency in relation to this matter which would justify a continuance of the war emergency powers. It seems to me that in putting forward this resolution the government has overlooked the effect of the proposal it made to the provincial governments. This government said to the provincial governments that if they were prepared to request the federal authority to vacate the field of housing the dominion was prepared to aban-

don its emergency powers in respect of housing in such areas. If that is so, by that very act the government has said emphatically that it no longer regards this as the type of emergency which calls for action of necessity by the dominion government; and unless there is such an emergency which compels the dominion government to act, and in which it has no choice but to act, then there is no emergency which entitles it to circumvent the constitution.
Oh, I can almost hear the suggestion being made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that I am back on the subject of the constitution and dominion-provincial rights. Well, I hope that by now the minister has read a very important judgment delivered in Manitoba last Thursday, because that judgment will have considerable bearing on this whole question since it demonstrates very clearly the kind of emergency that justifies the continuance of these powers and the relation of parliament itself to the extension of this arbitrary centralization of what otherwise would be provincial affairs.
By this motion parliament is asked to declare that the emergency arising out of the war still continues. Every hon. member who votes in support of this resolution declares by his vote that in his opinion the emergency arising out of the war still continues. That is a very important question of fact, which calls for the careful consideration and judgment of every hon. member. There is often a tendency to speak of lawyers in rather contemptuous terms; sometimes it is done jokingly, sometimes otherwise. But it must be remembered that there are occasions when lawyers in parliament are very useful and helpful to those who are called upon to be lawmakers, who are called upon to accept the responsibility of passing laws which will affect the lives and daily activities of our people across the whole of this country. A declaration by parliament that an emergency of this kind still exists is a declaration of fact which affects a very wide field of laws which in turn at some time must be interpreted by the courts. In voting on this resolution I submit that it is of the utmost importance for every member to consider carefully what will be the effect of his vote. The law is important. The making of laws within the jurisdiction of this parliament is the responsibility of the members of this parliament. Therefore it is important that each of us ask what the issue is on this resolution now before us.
As I suggested a few moments ago, the issue has been clearly decided by a unanimous judgment of the appeal court of Manitoba, delivered last Thursday. The style of cause is Nolan vs Hallet and Carey Limited. The five judges of that court were unanimous in
Transitional Measures Act their decision, and they have greatly assisted anyone who wishes to consider the law involved in this case. The judgment will merit consideration. Let us see what the issue is as defined by these jurists.
I quote now from the judgment rendered in this case by Mr. Justice Adamson.
It is going a long way to say or suggest that the federal parliament can invade the provincial field without any onus on it to justify such action. The justification must be some matter which has assumed paramount national importance, such as a national emergency of such proportions as to imperil the nation. To say that those who impugn such legislation must bring "clear evidence" of such emergency is to put a great national constitutional matter on the level of private dispute over a contract. A "national emergency," or a matter which has become of paramount importance to the dominion as a whole, which requires "clear evidence" of its existence, is inconceivable. An emergency of the kind required for the dominion to invade the provincial field must of its nature be self-evident, generally known and accepted, and be something of which the courts must take judicial notice. Anything less than this would be a mere pretext.
A little later the same judge said this:
Both the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, and order in council 1292 recite and rely for their justification and legality upon the "continued existence" of the national emergency arising out of the war against Germany and Japan. Order in council 1292 is directed to a supposed economic emergency. The first question, therefore, is to inquire whether there was or was not an economic emergency-
The judgment then proceeds to discuss the type of emergency that should be looked for in this case.
Granting, for the sake of argument, that an economic emergency-except during an actual war-can ever justify an invasion of the provincial legislative field by the dominion: What are the facts and what is the evidence in this case?
In the record there is no evidence whatever of an economic emergency. What the emergency was, was not suggested.
This House of Commons is in precisely that position. What the emergency is upon which we are asked to say that we should proceed with this National Emergency Transitional Powers Act is not even suggested. I submit that the course followed by the government in this respect is an affront to parliament. We are simply told: Here is a resolution this all-wise government has presented; it is your job to vote for that resolution without a word being said in support of it.
Just let me read further from this judgment. There is mention of whether or not there is an emergency such as to justify these powers, and I quote:
' In 1947 (1) the national income was at or near an all-time high; (2) trade was at or near an all-time high; (3) employment was at or near an all-time high; (4) Canadian industry was at its peak; (5) agricultural production was very great and the
1448	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act
income of agriculturists was at or near an all-time high; (6) Canadians per capita consumed more meat, milk, butter, sugar, beer, liquor and tobacco than ever before; (7) there were more new motor cars sold and more motor cars operated in Canada, and more was spent on gasoline, than in any previous year; (8) there was no distress, want or privation among any class or in any section of the country.
Never in our history had we been as prosperous as we were in 1947. Indeed, it is doubtful if any people at any time were as well off and enjoyed as high a standard of living as did Canadians in 1947. Moreover, we were less likely in Canada to be subject to economic distress than any country in the world.
Of course, there were anxieties about the future; but to say that there was an emergency at the date of the order in council such as that described by Lord Haldane, and such as to justify an invasion of the provincial legislative field, seems to me to be without foundation and entirely unjustified.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, when we rose at six o'clock I had been quoting from the words of a judgment dealing with the emergency transitional powers act and an order in council under that act which have a bearing on the resolution which we are now considering. I propose again to quote from that judgment, and to seek to impress upon hon. members of the house the fact that the words that I now quote do indicate the measure of responsibility which must be assumed by those hon. members who are prepared by their vote to declare that there is an emergency of the kind that would continue these very broad and indefinite powers. I quote from the judgment:
Parliament cannot make an emergency In one sphere an excuse or pretext to invade the provincial legislative field in another sphere. To hold otherwise would be to hold that all parliament required to legally trench upon the provincial field was a colourable excuse; and of course that is contrary not only to common sense, but to the principle underlying the "pith and substance" cases.
What I have read from this judgment indicates the extent to which the emergency which would justify the continuance of emergency powers must, in fact, be a real emergency. When hon. members of the House of Commons vote on a resolution which will have the effect of carrying a stage forward the consideration of a broad omnibus bill of this kind, their vote is not only a vote to deal with the particular subjects contained in the various orders that would be continued under this bill; it is an expression of opinion by hon. members of the House of Commons that this is in fact an emergency that justifies the abandonment for the time being of the division of authority between the dominion and provincial governments, which was laid doum in our constitution.

The judgment which I have quoted does not go so far as to declare that the emergency transitional powers act is ultra vires. The fact that it did not so declare in no way alters the effect of each of the quotations which I have placed before hon. members. They were dealing with an order in council which had been passed under this act. That order in council had the effect of taking over the ownership of large quantities of barley in a limited part of Canada, and of providing the procedure by which that barley could be resold. The appeal court of the province of Manitoba held that the order in council was ultra vires of the government of Canada. They did so on the ground that there was no emergency of the kind that would make necessary steps of that kind. The judges of the appeal court made it clear that they were not dealing with the question whether the emergency transitional powers act is intra vires or ultra vires of the parliament of Canada. They did indicate that there is a very clearly established legal proposition that the courts will not decide against a decision of parliament except on very strong grounds; but in this case the judges made it clear that they were dealing only with the order in council, and they expressed no opinion about the question whether or not the act itself was intra vires.
I mention that pow because I would hope that no hon. member would suggest that the fact that this judgment did not deal with the emergency transitional powers act itself, and the question whether or not it was intra vires of the powers of the Canadian parliament, have nothing to do with the responsibilities of all hon. members to assure themselves that there is in fact an emergency before they continue these wide and dictatorial powers.
The fact is that the judgment went so far as to point out that there was no crisis of the kind that would be required to declare an economic or other emergency of the kind; and since this bill is an omnibus bill dealing with many emergency powers, it would only be in the case of a general economic emergency, or a general emergency of some kind, that hon. members would have the right now to declare as a fact that there is a general emergency which would support the many provisions of these emergency powers.
I hope that no one will suggest that any hon. member who opposes the continuance of these wartime powers is opposing rent control or any other provision to meet the situation which has arisen very largely as a result of the activities of the government itself.
I have said before, and I repeat, that if this parliament has the power to deal with any of these measures under this omnibus bill, it has


An hon. Member:: You did not do it.


George Alexander Drew: And some have referred to the fact that I had not done it. Hon. members will recall that this discussion arose at the opening of the sitting in the afternoon; and it was pointed out-and I am not questioning the correctness of the observation, or the statement made-that I was not in order in proceeding at that time. Now I have been asked to name the bureaucrats I will name the No. 1 bureaucrat, and that is the Prime Minister himself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: And I will name the No. 2 bureaucrat; he is sitting right beside the Prime Minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We can name the No. 1 comedian.


George Alexander Drew: And just in case anyone does not know who the No. 2 bureaucrat is, it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


Mr. Abbott:: Is he the well-known Marxist?


George Alexander Drew: I will deal with that at the proper time in my remarks.
I wish to point this out, that before hon. members become so disturbed about the use

Transitional Measures Act of the word "bureaucracy", they should look up the dictionary. There they will find, if they look in the Oxford dictionary, that one of the two main definitions given to the word "bureaucracy" is centralization. And if ever there were a group of centralists in this country, it is the present government of Canada.


George James McIlraith: What about the followers of Marx?


George Alexander Drew: I am glad the hon. member has referred to the doctrines of Marx; because I referred to the basic principles of Karl Marx. And a basic principle of Marx was the assertion of the belief that the best interests of a country were served by the control of the production and of the economy of that country by the government-by the state. That is a basic principle of Karl Marx, adhered to by the socialists, the communists, and those who sit in the government ranks at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Heaven protects the Tories!


George Alexander Drew: And I will go a little further in regard to that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You have been reading
Groucho Marx, not Karl Marx.


George Alexander Drew: And I will go further than that. The indignation of the Prime Minister in regard to what I said in Montreal was really very touching, particularly in view of the speech he made on the following Saturday in that same city.


An hon. Member:: It hurt, did it?


George Alexander Drew: It did not hurt anyone but him. The Prime Minister on that occasion made a political speech, after he had been duly received as Prime Minister of Canada, stating that the Progressive Conservative party was under the control of the financial interests.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has to be right once in a while.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe I should call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Let him go on.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Too good to miss.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The motion before the house is one by the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman) seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin) that the question be now put. It is an amendment to the main motion before the house, which reads:
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following proposed resolution:

Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations of the governor in council for a limited period during the national emergency arising out of the war.
So I would ask hon. members taking part in the debate on the motion to make some remarks which are relevant to the motion.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to Beauchesne, at page 771, where there is a very comprehensive discussion of this type of motion and where reference is made to a discussion which took place in which the main arguments were put forward by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on March 4, 1907. On that occasion it was made quite clear that the motion of the previous question is a motion to stop the introduction of amendments, but that it permits a general discussion of the whole subject. That argument was also put forward quite competently by the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) as reported on page 4347 of Hansard of 1943. At that time the right hon. member indicated that he clearly accepted the principle that the motion of the previous question is a motion that calls for a general discussion of the main motion but prevents the introduction of amendments. I would ask Your Honour to accept that proposition.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree with the leader of the opposition that it is possible for him to discuss, not only the motion that the question be now put, but the other motion as well, but his remarks should be relevant to the motions now before the house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should have indicated more clearly the reasons for the remarks I was making. Assume for the sake of argument that this might be a borderline case as to whether or not there is an emergency. There are reasons why this house should be particularly cautious, in the case of this government, in extending powers to them. After all, there must be some borderline cases where there might be difficulty in determining whether there was an emergency that would justify the continuance of the powers, but I submit that there is no such difficulty here. Even if hon. members felt that there was an emergency, I still think it is essential that they should consider what government will be exercising these powers, at least for a short time. That being so, I was addressing my remarks to the conduct of this government in the exercise of powers of this kind and I was indicating the belief in bureaucracy and in centralized control which I think every hon. member should be aware of when he casts his vote on this motion.
It was in that respect that I was indicating the attitude of the Prime Minister in regard

to matters of this kind and his concept of bureaucracy and his concept of his own responsibilities and of the general situation in regard to matters of this nature. When he made the statement to which I have referred, suggesting that if there was any danger of communism in this country it would come because under the Conservative party there would be subservience to the financial interests, I do think that it is important that the members of this house be fully aware of the background of the man who made such a statement and that they should not be in any doubt as to who that man is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not like interrupting the leader of the opposition, but I would remind him that there will be other opportunities to discuss the question which he wants to discuss. I do not believe that what he is saying has anything to do with the two motions before the house. I hope that with his experience he will act accordingly. I would ask him to discuss the particular motions which are before the house, first, that the question be now put and, second, that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee to consider a certain resolution. It is the privilege of the leader of the opposition to discuss the motions now before the chair, but his remarks should be relevant.


George Alexander Drew: I am not going to debate this, but I am going to submit this to Your Honour. I am seeking to demonstrate that the Prime Minister and this government have no right to a continuance of the powers contained in this motion. I have sought to proceed with the discussion in order to show how unfit the present Prime Minister is to exercise powers of this kind. I ask for your ruling as to whether I have the right to continue along that line.


Mr. Speaker:: I am totally in accord with the hon. gentleman as to his right to discuss whether or not the government should be given the powers included in the motion before the house, but I am not in accord with him in the line of discussion he has followed. His remarks should be relevant to the motions before the house. It is my duty to call his attention to that rule, as it would be my duty to call the attention of any member of this House of Commons.


George Alexander Drew: I am dealing with the question of the exercise of arbitrary powers, which I submit is the very essence of the discussion now before the house. When an hon. member seeks to convey the impression which the Prime Minister has conveyed he is using the tools of the communist, he is using the very weapons the communists use. I think it is
Transitional Measures Act very relevant to know that the man who is using the weapons of the communists is the man who was largely acclaimed when he came into the house in 1941 as a great corporation lawyer who had been serving the big interests very efficiently.


An hon. Member:: Cheap politics.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is envious.


George Alexander Drew: After all, those were the things that were supposed to be to his credit. He was a director of a bank; he was a director of a trust company; he was a director of a packing company.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hope the leader of the opposition will realize that what he is saying now has nothing whatever to do with the motions before the house. I ask him to abide by the rules.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to press the point because I have indicated already exactly what I was trying to convey. But I submit that it is a matter of the utmost importance to this house to know the way these powers have been exercised by the No.
1 bureaucrat in this house and in this country who today seeks this authority. I submit that what I now propose to put forward is very definitely related to the exercise of arbitrary powers of this kind. I raised these matters only briefly a few days ago, but I raise them in more detail now.
When the Prime Minister put on such a stage play of indignation at the suggestion made about bureaucrats in Ottawa, when he sought to leave the impression that I referred to civil servants, who after all are called upon to do what this government tells them to do, he placed himself in a position where it was natural to test what his use of powers had been.


Mr.   Coie@Malapedia-Malane: That is not in this motion.


George Alexander Drew: It certainly is in this motion. The hon. member obviously does not know what motion is under consideration.


An hon. Member:: We wonder whether you do.


George Alexander Drew: The motion that is before the house has to do with the exercise of arbitrary powers by order in council. In the very brief exchange that day I pointed out that there was no man in Canada who had abused his arbitrary powers as the present Prime Minister did when he was Minister of Justice of this country. I pointed out then, and I repeat now, that when he was using arbitrary powers as Minister of Justice he used those powers to lay charges for political purposes, which

Transitional Measures Act charges he did not have the courage to proceed with or the decency to apologize for afterwards.


Loran Ellis Baker: I rise on a point of order. I am a young member who is trying to follow the debate. I cannot understand the leader Of the opposition talking as he is. He is uttering a lot of political nonsense which is quite irrelevant to the matter before the house. I plead that we go on and debate the resolution which is before us.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, today, throughout a considerable part of Europe, countries are under dictatorship because men and women were prepared to believe that the assertion of the right to freedom against arbitrary powers was a silly and unimportant thing. I am now discussing the very meat and substance of the use of arbitrary powers which this house is being asked to continue. It is the present Prime Minister-and after all as Prime Minister he must assume the major responsibility for the arbitrary powers which would be conferred by the continuance of these measures- who, when a particular communication to the then Prime Minister proved to be embarrassing to the government, used the power of censorship to restrain publication. That again is the kind of thing that this country wants to avoid, and avoid in every way it can. Those who believe in methods of that kind are not men who should be entrusted with loose and arbitrary powers.
When this matter came up again-earlier I said a week ago Monday, but I should have said two weeks ago today-and I referred to that abuse of arbitrary powers, the present Prime Minister gave an explanation as to why he was not prepared to agree to the tabling of a letter which I referred to in regard to the Hong Kong episode of some years ago. I am not concerned with whether or not that letter is tabled in this house because every word of it has been published in full. What is important is the fact that on that occasion once more-


Mr. Cote (Maiapedia-Maiane):: I rise on a point of order. I draw the attention of the house to article 479 of Beauchesne-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to resume his seat. I ask the leader of the opposition again to confine his remarks to that which is relevant to the resolution before the house.


George Alexander Drew: What I am pointing out at the moment is that the Prime Minister gave an explanation on that occasion-


Alcide Côté: I wish to draw to the attention of the house article 479 of Beauchesne, which reads:
The debate on the previous question is subject to closure.
IMr. Drew.]
I point out to the leader of the opposition that two other debates have been finished already. I submit that those debates have been closed and should not be brought into this debate.


George Alexander Drew: I can assure the hon. member that this debate has not been closed. I was pointing out the explanation which was given for not permitting the tabling of the document, which again indicates the way that authority is used. The explanation was given that the letter could not be tabled because there would be a breach of confidence. I hope that certain members have read that communication, because if they have they will know there was not an atom of support for the statement then made by the Prime Minister of Canada. I can assure hon. members that, while now departing from that point in this debate, there will be occasions when I will have a good deal to say about The treatment by the government of the Hong Kong veterans after their return.
From the very day the house opened the Prime Minister has seen fit to deal with issues in this house on a political basis.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George James McIlraith: Use your dictionary.


Loran Ellis Baker: According to the dictionary, politics is the science of government.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Little boys should not go on men's errands.


George Alexander Drew: 
Robert Henry Winters: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this is a good demonstration of opposition by misrepresentation and distortion.
Transitional Measures Act


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this is a good indication of the way they dodge the truth. The fact is that the minister of reconstruction handed to the press a typewritten statement which said they had conferred more beneficences upon the riding of Digby-Annap-olis-Kings than any other riding in Canada; and you know what happened there.


Robert Henry Winters: A complete distortion.


George Alexander Drew: The minister himself handed that statement to the press. Then you had the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in a letter to the apple growers of the Annapolis valley, expressing regret that his generosity to the apple growers, from the funds of the Canadian people, had not been duly appreciated at the election which had just taken place. Then we had another interesting example just a few days ago, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the leader of the opposition that the remarks he is making now have nothing whatever to do with the subject under discussion.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking to indicate what the government itself has shown it will do with arbitrary powers, and I ask your permission to proceed to demonstrate how this was indicated in the case of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will realize that it is not for the Speaker to give special permission to anyone. The only thing the Speaker has to do is see that every hon. member abides by the rules, so I would ask the hon. gentleman to keep his remarks relevant to the motion now before the house.


George Alexander Drew: I submit that what I have said was relevant, and I was about to say that when announcing a grant in Trenton the Minister of National Health and Welfare made the very significant suggestion that "we will show our tangible appreciation of this grant." It is in this atmosphere of "tangible appreciation", "beneficences" and "recognition of things done by the Minister of Finance" that we are asked to give these wide and arbitrary powers to this government to go further with their beneficence, their generosity and their tangible indications of support. I repeat that if hon. members here will vote as they have indicated they believe, in statements they have made, this motion will not carry. I hope it does not, because then we will return to the parliamentary system and will deal with the separate acts of parliament related to each of these particular subjects. If that were done of course we would not be
1454	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act called upon to discuss these orders in detail. If we do have to discuss them there will be a great deal to discuss in detail, as to the contents of these arbitrary orders.
I come back to the question before the house, as indicated by the judgment from which I read earlier in my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: This is something, of course, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) would not understand; but I hope he will listen just the same.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wouldn't miss a word of it. It is the funniest thing I have heard for a long time.


George Alexander Drew: You know, when you hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce you just remember how much his word is worth when you look up here and see the lights on in this building. He knows just as much about this subject as he does about hydro electricity. I was referring to that aspect of the discussion which was so clearly underlined by the quotations from the judgment of the appeal court of Manitoba last Thursday night. I repeat one sentence only:
It should be remembered that what Is involved is an invasion of provincial rights.
What is involved here is whether or not we still have a constitution; whether by simply putting a resolution before us the government is going to get rubber-stamp approval from this House of Commons and the parliament of Canada to carry forward its arbitrary wartime controls. Remember, the government did not put forward a single reason why this house should vote for this resolution. Remember, it has indicated no real reason why we should say there is an emergency of this kind. The fact is that it is not an emergency arising out of the war, if emergency there is. The emergency in regard to rental housing is entirely an emergency created by this government. If they want to deal with that, let them do so by a proper bill that will recognize the rights of those who occupy homes and of those who own them, and will permit proper housing plans under the various controls they already have and are seeking to perpetuate.
Mr. Speaker, if one were to go back and see the explanations that were given in 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 by this government, it becomes clear there was the thought that we were approaching the end of these arbitrary powers. I urge hon. members on both sides of the house, particularly those members on the other side of the house who have themselves criticized bureaucracy and the petty czars and dictators, that they vote against this resolution. By doing so they will insist upon proper acts being brought forward and


they will also insist upon the return of true democratic parliamentary procedure in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Garson:: If I speak, I close the debate.


An hon. Member:: No, the motion before the house is the previous question.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: During the last exchange in connection with this same device used by the members of the Conservative party, it was established that the moving of the previous question-


James Arthur Ross: Is the minister closing the debate?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I am speaking to this point of order. It was established on that occasion that the motion that the previous question be put still entitled the member who moved the original motion to close the debate. Inasmuch as he can do that only by speaking before the end of the debate on the motion that the question be now put, he reserves that right. The matter was so disposed of by the Speaker during this session.


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the house that on the motion for the previous question there is no opportunity of speaking twice, as it is not a substantive motion. There is no reply. Is the house ready for the question?


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer a few remarks on this measure. In discussing the measure to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations of the government by order in council for a limited period during a national emergency arising out of the war-I presume that is what this measure is-I should like to remind the members of this house that on September 28, 1943, by P.C. 7942 this government provided that the Canadian wheat board was to become a compulsory agency for monopoly where it had formerly been a voluntary agency. It was to become an agent of the crown instead of the voluntary agent of the producers that it had been in past years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that was not done under the emergency legislation; it was done by an act of parliament.


James Arthur Ross: In 1943?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


James Arthur Ross: Well, that is not the
version of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) when he was premier of Manitoba. I still think I am right and the Minister of Trade and Commerce is wrong. I have quoted the number of the order in council, and if the

minister wishes to dispute that, I stand corrected. In the meantime, he must make a different statement. I maintain my statement is correct and it was supported by the Minister of Justice when he was the premier of Manitoba.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is quite wrong in saying he was supported by anything I have ever said.


James Arthur Ross: I can refer to the copy of the speech made by the present Minister of Justice in which he pointed out exactly the same thing I have said, quoting the same order in council number. At that time, he was the premier of Manitoba.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, speaking to this point of order, my hon. friend is aware, from his experience as a member of this house, that orders in council are passed pursuant to the authority given in certain statutes.


John George Diefenbaker: You have not been here very long or you would not make that statement.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The statement I was making had reference to orders of the type that are under discussion now. As the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) knows, prerogative orders - in council can be passed without supporting statutes, but others must have a statute for a foundation. I think my hon. friend will discover, if he refers to the matter, that the statute under which the order in council in question was passed, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated, is one which was passed apart from this Transitional Measures Act.


James Arthur Ross: This is what the Minister of Justice said on that occasion:
The Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1935 set up the wheat board as the voluntary agency of the wheat producers, charged wtih the fiduciary responsibility to secure for farmers who shipped wheat to it the best price available consistent with the promotion of the sale and use of Canadian wheat in world markets; and until the change made by order in council in 1943 all the business of the board was conducted on this basis.
I am quoting the words of the present Minister of Justice.
During the war, on September 28, 1943, by order in council P.C. 7942 your government provided that the wheat board was to become a compulsory agency or monopoly where it had formerly been a voluntary agency; and that it was to become the agent of the crown, instead of continuing as it had been the agent of the wheat producers.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would the hon. member permit a question? From what is he reading?


James Arthur Ross: I am reading from a quotation-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is this a speech of mine?


James Arthur Ross: Yes.
Transitional Measures Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In Hansard?


James Arthur Ross: It is one I put on
Hansard from your letter of March, 1948.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I suggest that, if my hon. friend wishes to establish something against me, he do so by some other means than reading from one of his own speeches.


James Arthur Ross: I am reading from a pamphlet, published by the present Minister of Justice, of a broadcast he made when premier of Manitoba, which contains certain letters he had written to the present Minister of Trade and Commerce. The quotation is from that letter used in that broadcast speech which he had printed, and a copy of which he was good enough to mail to me as a member from Manitoba. At that time the present Minister of Justice was in disagreement with the Minister of Trade and Commerce-apparently they are still in disagreement when the occasion suits them. Copies of this speech were well distributed over Manitoba at that time, and the quotation is taken from that speech. The minister continued by chastising the government, and made a speech similar to those I have been making for many years on behalf of the farmers of this country. A year ago he took issue with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and it is strange there should be a complete reversal of his position; for we now find him in the role of Minister of Justice, piloting a measure such as this.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He has changed both his mind and his job.


James Arthur Ross: Yes. In 1946, under the War Measures Act, one year after the termination of the actual fighting, the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement was negotiated and signed, without consultation with parliament and during the time parliament was actually in session. After the agreement was signed it was announced in this house on the 25th July by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce. Parliament was never consulted about saddling the entire cost of that contribution on the wheat producers of this country rather than on all the taxpayers of Canada.
I want to mention this because on February 24, 1949, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) announced a further payment of twenty cents per bushel on wheat delivered between August 1, 1945, and July 1, 1950. He said that that would bring the price of wheat to $1.75 a bushel for those western farmers, and that probably nothing more would be heard of it in this House of Commons because it would remind
1456	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act the farmers that they were going to be receiving more for their wheat; at least in 1949 and 1950, than any other farmers in the world. I want to say that I do not know what insight the Minister of Trade and Commerce has into the future, but I do not think that he knows any more about it than I do, and that is very little. I should not say I hope that there is more truth in that statement than in some of his past statements, because some of them have not materialized.
In speaking on March 1, as reported at page 1013 of Hansard, the minister said that he thought we were going to hear less about wheat in the future. Well, on March 9 his parliamentary assistant put a set of figures on Hansard in reply to a question and said that the average price of No. 1 northern class II wheat for 1946-47 was $2.43.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of order, my hon. friend is not speaking on any emergency legislation; he is speaking about the amendment to the wheat board act which he himself voted for in 1945, and he is attempting to discuss that under the guise of discussing emergency legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I again call the attention of hon. members to the fact that the motion which is before the house is:
Resolved that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations of the governor in council for a limited period during the national emergency arising out of the war.
May I suggest to hon. members that if they want to discuss details of the different controls they should wait until they know exactly what is in the bills. They should wait, for instance, until the bill is introduced. Actually it is the duty of the Speaker to insist upon the fact that the debate should be relevant to the motion which is before the house. The motion before the house does not mention wheat; it does not mention any cereal; it does not mention which orders or regulations will be continued. The house will know what is in the bill when it is introduced.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, let me take you back to a few moments before recess when we were subjected to the very absurd tactics of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I raised a point of order which was perfectly valid, so valid that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) in due course agreed with it, and I refuse to have that referred to as absurd tactics.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition asked for certain information. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) rose in his place and said he would answer for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). He told us what would come under this measure. Among other things he mentioned flour and bread. What do you get flour from and what do you get bread from, if not from wheat?


Mr. Speaker:: I hope that the Speaker will not be obliged to intervene too often, as I have been obliged to do since seven-thirty. Hon. members know very well that a debate should be relevant to the motion which is before the house. If the hon. member looks at the motion, I do not think that he will say that it is relevant to speak about wheat. When the house knows exactly what is in the bill it may be relevant to speak about it then, but I do not think the question should be discussed just now. I believe it will expedite the business of the house if all hon. members keep their discussion relevant to the motion.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a point of order. What you have just said, Mr. Speaker, exactly supports what the leader of the opposition said a while ago. Without a preliminary statement from the minister, hon. members do not know what the resolution purports to cover.


An hon. Member:: Including yourself.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) should have placed the matter before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may discuss a point of order, but I do not think it is in order to use a point of order to make a statement against anybody. Hon. members know perfectly well that this is the way a resolution is introduced in the house. I will ask them to keep the debate relevant to the motion which is before the house.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the word "absurd" was not parliamentary, I say now that most of the things I have ever heard him say are absurd. If I have to be disciplined for that, I shall be glad to see that action taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that in answer to the question of the leader of the official opposition the Minister of Finance said, as appears in Hansard of February 7 at page 316, that these extensions will be for rent control; apart from
[Mr. Ross (Souris) .1

that flour, bread, butter, citrus fruits, fruit juices, certain vegetables-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not wheat.


James Arthur Ross: I did not understand that we did not get most of our bread and flour from wheat products. Is that not true now in Canada?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is where the dough comes from.


James Arthur Ross: That may not be the case now. All my life I have understood that we got most of our flour in Canada from wheat produced on the western plains.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And barley.


James Arthur Ross: So I believe. You are sure about that over there, but we on this side of the house may not have the same knowledge.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not so sure about that.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to know whether the wheat agreement was passed by order in council or by this parliament, because that is what we were discussing. Am I not in order to discuss it?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wants to get some information from a minister the right place to get it is in committee.


James Arthur Ross: I am discussing a resolution on the basis of the information given to us by the Minister of Finance at that time and later by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on that same day. The question to which I was referring was the average price of No. 1 northern class II wheat for the 1946-47 crop, which averaged $2.43 per bushel; for the 1947-48 crop it averaged $2.88 a bushel; and for the first seven months of the 1948-49 crop year it averaged $2.36J a bushel. These are the government figures. I am using them because hon. members over on that side have disputed other figures which I have used in the conclusion I have come to on this matter in the past year.
I want to say that the loss on the United Kingdom-Canada contract to date is $392 million, based on these figures. I had predicted back in 1946 that if we received the prevailing prices for wheat we would be able to give these 140 million bushels of wheat, about which the Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke the other day, to Britain for nothing in the fourth year of the contract, and be money in hand. As the situation stands today, we could do that and be $112 million better off in the fourth year of the contract. Added to all this, you have the contribution made by these wheat producers of $70 million for the 1946 crop, $100 million for the 1947 crop, and
Transitional Measures Act $20 million to date for this year for domestic consumption in Canada, making a total of $190 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Again I rise to a point of order.


Thomas Reid: Wheat is not in this resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the point I wish to make.


James Arthur Ross: Tell me how the contract is made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Reference has been made to the statement of the Minister of Finance that the price of flour, coming as it does under the wartime prices and trade board is covered in this resolution; but that does not mean that everything respecting wheat and the wheat agreement with the United Kingdom is included as well.


James Arthur Ross: Where is the point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The point of order is that the hon. member for Souris is discussing the wheat agreement which does not come under this legislation at all, and the hon. member knows it.


James Arthur Ross: How do you know it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit that the hon. member should keep to the subject before the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Speaking to the point of order, I would refer you, sir, to Bill No. 23 passed by this parliament, the preamble of which reads as follows:
Whereas the government of Canada has entered into an arrangement with the government of the United Kingdom for the sale and delivery of substantial quantities of wheat to the government of the United Kingdom annually for a period of four years commencing on the first day of August one thousand nine hundred and forty-six and it is necessary to make provision for the carrying out of the arrangement;
And whereas it is expedient to amend The Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, for such purpose and to make provision for other matters affecting the operations of the Canadian wheat board thereunder; and whereas to ensure an orderly transition it is expedient to continue in force until the end of the present crop year, regulations made under The National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, providing for the foregoing: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:


James Arthur Ross: What date was that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was 1947.


James Arthur Ross: 1947? That is some time after the date I have been referring to. I admit all that.
1458	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: 1 think we should clear this up.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will admit that the Minister of Justice has the right to speak to a point of order, just like anyone else.


Lionel Chevrier: Howl him down, boys!


Stuart Sinclair Garson: A short time ago the hon. member for Souris, during the course of his remarks, undertook to say what I had said. To prove this he read from a speech of his own in which he purported to quote from a pamphlet issued by me. I have now this pamphlet in my hand.
, Mr. Ross (Souris): Is that a point of order?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And I-


James Arthur Ross: Let us have the point of order. I am making the speech.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He will not find it pleasant reading; but if he will contain himself for a moment, I shall read it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Can't take it, eh?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wish to read from-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. What is being said is not relevant to the motion before the house.


An hon. Member:: The minister is making a speech.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is the pamphlet which the hon. member purported to quote, and a portion of which he judiciously skipped. It reads:
During the war, on September 28, 1943, by order in council P.C. 7942-


James Arthur Ross: Is this a point of order, or what is it? The minister is making a speech, but I have the floor.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just showing you up, that is all.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am rising to a point of order, and also on a question of privilege, to correct a statement which was improperly attributed to me by the hon. member for Souris. Now, this is the statement which the hon. member purported to quote in his speech.


James Arthur Ross: He can make his own speech.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It states:
During the war, on September 28, 1943, by order in council P.C. 7942 your government provided that the wheat board was to become a compulsory agency or monopoly where it had formerly been a voluntary agency; and that it was to become the agent of the crown, instead of continuing as it had been the agent of the wheat producers.


Now, that is the part my hon. friend quoted. The next is the part that he judiciously skipped:
Later in 1947, the provisions of this order in council were incorporated into the provisions of the Wheat Board Act where they now appear as section 4 subsection (2) reading as follows:
"4. (2) The board is for all purposes an agent of His Majesty in the right of Canada and its powers under this act may be exercised by it only as an agency of His Majesty in the said right."
This provision is now part of the wheat board act, and is not relevant to this present discussion at all.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with orders in council; and may I add further that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said the subsidy is being paid for flour that is being used for domestic purposes in this country. That is in the same debate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He has only one subject he can speak on; go ahead.


James Arthur Ross: I have another one. But the point I wish to make is this, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Arthur Ross: -was pointing out to the farmers in Canada where they lost, in marketing, in 1943, 1944 and 1945 an additional $409 million, making $991 million altogether.


Mr. Speaker:: I must call the attention of the hon. member-


Thomas Reid: Putting it over very nicely.


Mr. Speaker:: I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that they do not seem to be very interested in observing the authority of Mr. Speaker in the house. I could not fail to see that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was anxious to say more, even after I had risen to keep order-and the good laugh he had with some of his friends.
I would call the attention of the hon. member to the following standing order. Standing order 40(2) states:
Mr. Speaker, or the chairman, after having called the attention of the house or of the committee to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, may direct him to discontinue his speech.
So I would insist that, if the hon. member does not wish to co-operate with the chair, the Speaker will have to apply the rule and ask him to resume his seat. The Speaker can stand much; but, after all, he is human, and he cannot stand everything. And if I cannot have order in this house I will apply the rule. If I have to be severe, I will be severe; but I will try to keep order and decorum in the house.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. I pointedly asked you whether I was in order or not in connection with the wheat contract with Great Britain.


Alphonse Fournier: You were out of order all the time, and are still out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have repeated about two thousand times tonight that hon. members were not in order. Apparently I was too generous. I do not wish to be harsh, but if I am obliged to be I shall be harsh. I would ask hon. members who wish to take part in the discussion of the motion before the house to speak to that motion. If they do not wish to speak relevantly I shall have to ask them to resume their seats.


James Arthur Ross: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), and his citation, have reminded me of young Lochin-var, and the lines I learned in school:
Oh, young Lochinvar is come out of the west, Through all the wide border his steed was the best:
And save his good broadsword he weapons had none ....
He stayed not for brake, and he stopped not for stone,
He swam the Esk river where ford there was none-
Perhaps I will be in order if I refer to another matter which the Minister of Agriculture discussed in this same debate last February 18. I was surprised that, with respect to the handling of rye in this country-and I am referring to the cereal-he admitted rather boastfully the fact that he was the culprit, for the manner in which rye was handled. I believe it was in the fall of 1947 that we had what was termed a legal racket in this country for some months during the autumn. I remember being taken to task at that time because I referred to the fact that funds were being issued for people to go to the United States to buy rye and bring it into Canada, then reship it to foreign countries, where we had made loans with the taxpayers' money. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) himself said in front of the Minister of Finance, right in the house, that when they made those loans they knew they would not be repaid. Those people were making a profit of about a dollar a bushel on that rye which they brought in from the United States, thereby aggravating our dollar shortage. That was a legalized racket.
I put a question on the order paper in December of 1947, and I have all the answers here. One of the largest shipments was to Poland-about 700,000 bushels. The next was 440,000 bushels to Germany. There were fourteen countries to which rye was shipped; and the funds of the foreign exchange control
Transitional Measures Act board were used-the taxpayers' money. The taxpayers of this country will be assessed for that racket of this government by order in council legislation. Reference was made this afternoon to the decision of the appellate court of Manitoba delivered by Mr. Justice J. E. Adamson. I am sure that that case had to do with orders in council, and he points out how illegal these matters are in this country.
Mr. Watson Sellar, the auditor general, who is above this government, who reports only to parliament, has drawn attention to certain irregularities by order in council in connection with the expenditure of public money.
I do not think I should take further time, as Your Honour has not been very clear in telling me whether I am in order in discussing the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement. I certainly shall be able to do that on the estimates and prove to the Minister of Trade and Commerce how much that is going to cost the wheat producers of this country. In those three years of 1946, 1947 and 1948 crops it will cost them $721 million, the difference between the figures his parliamentary assistant put on the record and the price of $1.75 per bushel, basis Fort William.


Mr. John R. MacNicol (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to know whether I am in order in saying something about the housing situation in Davenport riding. I do not want to go on if I am not, because there is no use being interrupted as the previous speaker has been.


Mr. Speaker:: I would say to the hon. member what I have said to other hon. members. I believe it would be much better for him and for everyone if he would wait until the bill is before us so that he will know exactly what controls or orders in council the government wants to continue.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What I have to say has to do with housing controls. I am one of those hon. members who make exhaustive inquiry into matters I am going to speak about.
I want to digress for a moment and refer to what was said this afternoon by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) about the proposed bridge across the strait of Canso. For fifteen years I fought against the proposal to construct either a causeway or a tunnel and I was pleased to hear the minister announce that the bridge for which I have been fighting for that length of time is now going to be built.
I followed the same plan in connection with housing in Davenport riding. I visited many people and found them up against an appalling housing situation. I am glad the minister of reconstruction is in his seat, although

Transitional Measures Act at the same time I am sorry that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is not in his seat at the moment. I expected a great deal of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with housing when he was Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. The Minister of Trade and Commerce should have been able to solve the housing problem if any one could. He was a builder and contractor and as far as I can understand he knew all about building. However, he did not do it. I am not going to say whether the present minister of reconstruction can do the job or not. In any event the problem is not being solved.
First, I want to say a word or two as to what the job is. I fear the minister is not conversant with the vast difference between the housing problem faced by a great city like Toronto and the housing problem faced by any one of a thousand smaller places. The problem is different and different methods are required to obtain relief. He may be able to do it. I hope he is.
I called upon one home where a father, mother and seven of a family, a total of nine people, were living in one room, near where I live. Language cannot describe the conditions that exist in a household like that. Language cannot describe what a father and mother are up against under such conditions. I am not going to blame the minister, I am not going to say who is responsible, but that is the situation. That is only one case in many that I know of and perhaps there are thousands throughout Canada.
I called on another family and found eleven living in three small rooms of a humble workingman's home. The first room was entered off the verandah; the second room immediately behind was a living room, dining room and kitchen, and then there was one bedroom. Ordinary language cannot describe just what parents go through under those conditions. Nine boys and girls had to sleep on the floor or wherever they could find room. I am not going to blame anybody for that, but that is the situation. There are hundreds of cases just like that.
I went to visit many families, and I found one home in which there were nine people in two rooms. These are not spectacular cases; they are quite common. The city has become overwhelmingly congested with people coming in from everywhere and trying to get shelter of any kind. That is the problem. What is the minister going to do about it?
I shall make a suggestion in a few minutes as to what might be done. These are just some cases in the multitude of those that exist.
Here is an example not far from where I [Mr. MacNicol.J
live. A man and wife had lived in a house for 27 years. They have a crippled son who is not able to walk or stand up, and a daughter. There were four rooms in the house. The house was sold over their heads and they could not begin to make a down payment on another house because he was a humble moulder in a company with which I am well acquainted. He never made salary enough to permit him to save money to make a down payment.
The purchaser having purchased the house quite legally waited the legal length of time, which I have just forgotten, and then went before a judge who ordered this family, who had lived in the house all those years, to share the space with the buyer. What does that mean? I saw this myself and I know. It would break anyone's heart to see what those people have to go through. The father and mother, the daughter and the son now live in two rooms on the ground floor while the buyer lives upstairs in the two rooms there. The bathroom is upstairs and is used by both families but in order to go upstairs you must pass through the living-dining room of the family downstairs.
The lady of the house has been to see me many times. She is a humble little woman and her heart is broken because they cannot get accommodation anywhere. They simply cannot afford to pay $1,000 down on a house. These are just examples of the multitude of cases that exist. Many men have worked in plants for most of their lives but have never made enough money in order to save sufficient to pay $1,000 or $1,500 down on a house. That case is a sample of many more.
I know of another case of a young soldier who came back with a good record. He brought a bride back with him from the old country. When he came home his people were glad to see him. He brought a bride with him, however, and the bride had to sleep somewhere. When they arrived home the father and mother took in the bride and the son. There were four rooms in the house. There were the father and mother and four children besides the young soldier and his bride, making eight in all. Things went along for a short time, but human flesh and blood cannot endure those conditions and still have peace and happiness, and it was not long until a family row started with the result that the young man and his bride had to get out. They could not get in anywhere. With not less than 15,000 people in the city wanting to move into other places, there was no place for them. The result was that in the end the young woman, and likely a very fine young woman, became heartbroken, and she left Canada and went back to England. That has an effect on family life.

The Rev. Dr. Mutchmor, who I believe is head of the public relations division of the United church, has stated that such cases as that are multitudinous, and that in not less than twenty-five per cent of such homes family life is being broken down.


Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? The 180,000 orders in council under the resolution concerning national emergency will have to be interpreted, as I see it, by a court of law.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: Only four of them have been before the supreme court, and only one of them has been declared partially legal. Is that correct?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: The
hon. member for Davenport.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would think that whatever the hon. member for Broadview says is correct. I have a very high opinion of what he says, and if he says it is correct then it is correct. Coming back to where I left off, may I say that I would rather help the minister than say anything to hurt his feelings. It does not get us anywhere to do that; it does not help to solve a difficult situation. The examples I have given are illustrations of the situation in a multitude of other cases. What can we do? The hon. member for Broadview interrupted me. Let me refer to what he did when he was mayor of Toronto, and may I say that Toronto never had a better mayor. He was seven times mayor of Toronto, and he was successful because of what he did for the people. He was mayor from 1915 to 1921, and he had all these conditions to contend with. In Toronto they took over land in the city and around the city and installed water, light and gas facilities. They overcame a lot of trouble in that way. There are no more lots, however, in Toronto. I do not know of a lot you can buy at a reasonable price in Toronto today. In the days of Mayor T. L. Church you could buy a fine lot for from $6 to $8 a foot in the part of the city where I live now. That section was opened up by the putting in of sewers, water mains, gas mains, electric light wires and transportation. To a very large extent because of the cheap lots and the services that were provided, the housing problem then was not one-two-three with what it is today.
How can the minister overcome the difficulty? You cannot buy any lots in Toronto. The city bought a block of lots last year and put up a building where the rents are so high that no workingman could rent a place. A workingman should never be asked to pay over $30 or $35, and at the maximum $40 a
Transitional Measures Act month for rent. He cannot make enough to do so. What can the minister do? He could follow the plan that was followed in the days of Mayor T. L. Church. The land around the city of Toronto is built up, but I believe you could go out still further. I understand from the department that last year, through then-boards and other assistance, and through the builders, 80,000 homes were built in Canada.


Robert Henry Winters: Eighty-one thousand.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minimum required today is not less than 250,000, and nearer 500,000 homes. I made a survey in my own riding, which is a workingman's riding. They are wonderful people, carpenters, painters, machinists, moulders, artisans of every description, well-read people. Maybe that is why they always give me such a large majority, and I expect they will do so again. I made a survey of many homes, and what I found- and the minister will find the same thing- is that at the present time the number of people occupying a polling subdivision is approximately 25 per cent more than occupied the same polling subdivision before this crisis arose. That means that, if a subdivision had 500 people living in it, another 125 are crowded in there, or 25 per cent more. That is a staggering difficulty to overcome. These people will all want homes; they will all want to move out and have a home by themselves. All these people living three, four, five and six to a room will want to move out. They should have homes, because the home is the basis of the nation.
I want to suggest to the minister that in the vicinity of Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton -not so much Hamilton-Windsor, where they are fairly congested, Winnipeg and Vancouver, a survey be made to ascertain if it is possible for the department to secure control over large blocks of land in various areas outside the cities. What I have in mind are 200 and 300 acre lots not too far out from the city, but even if they are some distance away that probably can be overcome. I think the minister should then ascertain what it will cost to run water out to those areas, and put in sewers, electricity, gas, schools and so on. I am satisfied that, if that can be done, the average workingman would probably be able to buy a lot for $10 per foot. At the time when the member for Broadview (Mr. Church) was mayor of Toronto the workingman was able to buy a lot for $6 a foot in the vicinity of St. Clair avenue in Toronto. Then these people would have the same opportunity that the people living in my section of the city had when I first went up there. Land was cheap then, and it was the time when many immigrants were coming from the old country. Thousands

Transitional Measures Act and thousands of them were brought in by the former Laurier administration, and they did great things for this country. They bought the lands cheaply and were able to get materials such as lumber, and so on. I have seen them times without number carrying scantling and other pieces of lumber and building material on their shoulders up Dufferin street hill near where I live. I have seen them with parts of plumbing fixtures and other things, and in due course they built homes to live in. It was called shack town, but it was a great credit to the men who came from the old country. They bought the land and built their homes, and today they are all living in nice homes and surroundings. Perhaps we can do the same thing. In any event the situation is nothing short of appalling, and from his close contact with it I am sure the minister must agree with me.


Mr. Macdonnell (Muskoka-Oniario):: If the
hon. member would permit a question, I should like to ask whether he has given any consideration to the possibility of anything useful being done in the way of prefabricated houses.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have. Perhaps I had better continue with what I was saying and come back to that, because prefabrication has been a great study of mine. I would ask the minister to discuss with his officials the possibility of doing something along the line I have suggested. Then I am sure he is aware of what has been done at Three Rivers. I have forgotten the name of the parish priest or the reverend gentleman who organized the opening up of a large area near that city, with homes for workingmen. If they can do it near Three Rivers we should be able to do it near Toronto.
I would particularly suggest that the minister inquire into the matter of services. In Toronto we have no suburban railways. Montreal has, I am glad to say. I am happy that the people of Montreal have insisted on having suburban railways. We have none, so we have no way of running trains out a mile or two or three or four or five. There could be; the northern track would do very well for a suburban railway into York county, where various areas could be built up, each with thousands of houses. I suggest that to the minister in all earnestness. The problem must be solved. It is nothing short of murderous as it is today. My constituency has seventy thousand people in an area four and a half miles long and less than three-quarters of a mile wide, so hon. members will realize how congested it must be. I am thoroughly conversant with conditions there, and I repeat that too frequently they are nothing short of shocking.

My hon. friend asked about prefabricated houses. I do not know why the former Minister of Reconstruction and Supply did not do something in regard to prefabrication, because he was well posted on that subject; he has heard me talking on it before. I saw prefabricated houses on the docks at Quebec, and they were fine little houses too; but we shipped them to France. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the price was about $1,500 per house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, about that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, why can we not have them in Canada? The timber is all here, the stone is all here, the cement is all here. If we can supply houses for France at $1,500 each, why can we not supply prefabricated houses for the working people of Toronto at $1,500 each? I know all about workingmen. I have been with them all my lifetime, served with them all the way from the bottom to the top. I do not have to take off my hat to anyone when talking about labour, I care not where they come from or where they have been, because with hands and head I have worked with labour. They cannot pay the prices they are being asked today. I do not believe any workingman living can pay seven, eight or nine thousand dollars for a home. So why cannot the government, realizing the situation, come forward with some solution? I do not know how they would go about it, but perhaps it would be by means of a big bonus. I would go for that, or for anything to save the health and lives of our people. I know that for want of homes people of my community are breaking down into old men and women long before their time.
Coming back to the question of prefabrication, I have referred to one type of prefabricated house. The former minister will also remember the big plant just east of Montreal, the name of which I have forgotten.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Fairchild.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes. I went there and discussed the matter with the manager, who showed me several prefabricated aluminum houses, which I think were being sold for around $2,000 to $2,500.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; about $3,300.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Even that is far short of seven, eight or nine thousand dollars. We have a young minister now, and I would like to see him make a success of it. He has a very good record, and I would rather help him than do anything else. I suggest that he inquire into the matter of prefabricated houses. You may be able to interest some builder of prefabricated houses. I believe a very good prefabricated house is made in London; but I would not go for the fancy

prices they are asking today. Offer an order for five thousand prefabricated houses; perhaps you will get them at the right price. You have to plan not for five thousand but for five hundred thousand homes. The problem is here. It is not going to run away; it is going to get worse every day. Does that answer my hon. friend's question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, thank you.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Now I want to say a word about our own mayor of Toronto, who has done a very good job and wants to help all he can. I am sure if the minister made contact with him he would find that Mayor Hiram McCallum would be happy to help in any way possible. He is in despair today because he is right up against it. I used to go home every week end, but now I can only stand to go home every three weeks. When I get home there is too much pressure of all sorts, especially in connection with housing. I am too soft-hearted; I cannot stand the tears of the women when they ask me to help them out. What does Mayor McCallum say?
I quote from the Toronto Telegram?
Unless the federal government primarily, and the provincial government secondarily, provide special and specific co-operation for the Toronto area, Mayor Hiram McCallum despairs of solving the housing problem.
He despairs because he does not know what to do about it. Then again:
The fundamental weakness of the government's program, the mayor told the Telegram today, lies in their attempt to apply the same formula to huge urban areas such as Toronto, as in smaller communities.
Why could not the minister come out boldly with some great plan? The public would support him. That is what they want; someone with vision who will come out and say "This is what I am going to do." There would be no trouble getting the money. It might cost $100,000,000, but that much spent in saving the health and lives of the people of Canada would be well spent. I for one would do all I could to help the minister. All around Toronto they are clamouring for houses. We read the other day that the Lake Shore road is clamouring for 2,000 houses. East Toronto is clamouring for 1,500 houses. York township is clamouring for 2,000 houses.
A short time ago I attended a meeting of the Earlscourt legion, one of the largest in Toronto. About five hundred people were there on two floors, both packed. They had been called to discuss the question of housing, and they had invited Major Harvey Lynes, Colonel Finney and Frank Dearlove. Every now and then this government grants
Transitional Measures Act decorations. If I were in the minister's position I would give decorations to all these men. They deserve them for what they have done to alleviate the appalling suffering of many people in that city. I do not know where any government could get a man with the same sympathy and courtesy and who would make such a genuine effort to try to solve problems as Frank Dearlove has displayed during the last few years. How he lives I do not know, because what he goes through is appalling.
A short time ago there came to my notice the case of a young Scotsman who had been in Canada two years with his wife and two children. There were six people in the house and this young man occupied the upstairs. Some person bought the house. I do not know what the regulations are in this connection, and 1 am not going to find fault with controls, the lack of controls, or advocate more or less controls. The problem is too gigantic to be handled in that manner. Every case has to be considered on its own merits. We may have too much control, but I would fear what might happen if we wiped out all control on housing.
As I said, the house was sold over this young man's head. The tenant downstairs was put out. I used my best judgment and kept the man upstairs from being thrown out. I will say that Mr. Dearlove was able to hold off the sheriff until he could place the man at Long Branch, his wife in a room a few blocks from where she had been living, and the two children with some friends. Consider what that meant to that family. Think of the heartburning pain of the mother and father grieving for the children. The problem is big and it can only be solved by big and fearless methods. Let the minister come forward with something big and fearless and I am sure he will receive the support of the house.
When I commenced my speech I said that I depended on my right hon. friend solving that problem, but he did not do it. He could have done it and I wish he had done it. If he had, it would be a lot easier for the present minister. I have stated the situation and there is no necessity for repeating it. I have mentioned the breaking up of homes and the breaking down of health and family life. I have mentioned the heartburnings of the parents all over the city, not only in Davenport riding. I believe 15,000 people have to find homes in the city of Toronto by May first.
Coming back to what I said a few moments ago, I suggest to the minister that he face up to the problem in a big way, much the same as was done years ago. It has been done at
14G4	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act Three Rivers and elsewhere. In connection with housing projects, the government should try to obtain large blocks of land near a big city. Land is unobtainable in the city and no one could pay the price asked for land in Toronto today. A working man can pay $6, $8 or $10 per foot and he can pay up to $2,500 for a home. He might even be able to go as high as $3,000. If you wanted to make it a prefabricated scheme, prefabrication ought to be considered and the plan of the government should be not to build 80,000 homes in 1949, but to build at least 150,000, because we are going to need up to 500,000 before long. I think I have done the best I can, in a pleasant way and in a helpful manner, to present the problem and suggest a remedy.


Mr. John T. Hackett (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short contribution to this debate, possibly more out of habit than for any other reason. I have spoken on this subject since the beginning of this parliament. I have rebelled against the attitude of the government, without much success, and have sought, by such slender means as are within my power, to bring it to a better sentiment.
I was mildly interested a short time ago in turning to the debates of the early autumn of 1945 when this parliament was newly elected and when these post-war emergencies were first thought of as a counter-agent to political crises. I found that I had expressed myself with what seems to have been considered as undue vigour because the right hon. Minister of Agriculture said in reply that he thought a good deal of heat had been generated in considering a measure that was to last but a few months. He made some casual and passing remarks about the spirit of Liberalism which animated his party and which precluded it from pursuing at any length a course of action which would impose controls upon the country.
The right hon. minister said: This bill definitely says what we are doing. It is just what the preamble outlines, namely, asking the house to permit the government to continue in existence the orders in council which were passed during the war and which it is necessary to have continued for a few months after the war. The phrase "a few months" was reiterated a number of times during the minister's remarks, as he went on to recount the achievements of the government. It was pointed out how much more successful the war which had recently come to an end had been waged than the first war and how much more complete had been the discipline in national affairs as a result of the imposition of controls. Some figures were mentioned as [Mr. MacNicol.l

to prices. Since then, of course, prices have soared to such heights that the prices which followed the first war seem almost valleys in the presence of the mountains of the second war.
Be that as it may, here we are four years after the war and we are asked once more to bow our necks to the yoke of controls. I for one cannot do it gladly. I think a reading of history shows us that the general record of mankind has been one of great poverty and that by far the most fruitful method ever developed to make the world richer has been that of leaving men free, within the limits of the civil and criminal law, to engage their energies on their own account and for their own reward. This discovery was made against the instinct of kings and other rulers who, like the rulers of today, found it very difficult, found it very much against the grain, to leave any part of trade or manufacturing free from their interference.
Something was said earlier in the day about the case which was recently decided by the appeal court in Manitoba. I think it should be of some interest to the house, and I think it may serve as a warning to future generations, if we examine briefly this great record, because it shows the development of a state of mind which throws into relief how contagious and how inflammatory is the inclination to dominate and control once it has become the practice of a government or of a party.
Your Honour will recall that legislation was passed which made it incumbent upon the growers of certain grains to sell them to the government. There was a man by the name of Nolan, a rather good name-who unfortunately lived in Chicago-I say unfortunately because I wish that he who had the spirit and the courage to stand up against the government for the first time, and hale it before the courts of the land, had been a Canadian. This is rather a sad sidelight. It shows how soon people become accustomed to this kind of thing, how soon their fibre, if not broken, is weakened, and how independent people soon become accustomed to being jerked around on a cord. In any event, this gentleman by the name of Nolan was a grain merchant; he held some 40,000 bushels of barley at Fort William, which he wished eventually to ship to the United States. On March 17, 1947-and that is another good day-the wheat board demanded that all commercial holders of barley should sell their coarse grains to it, at a fixed price, and barley at sixty-four and three-quarter cents a bushel, and at the same time established prices for the sale of that same com-

modity anywhere from ninety cents to ninety-three cents per bushel, the spread going into the coffers of this government agency.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it did not.


John Thomas Hackett: Of all the holders of barley Nolan was the only one who refused to comply.


James Garfield Gardiner: The spread went back to the farmers.


John Thomas Hackett: The spread went back to the farmers after the government, and the agency which represented it, had chipped off its share of expenses and the incidentals which go with it, and at a time when the government determined it was good to send it back, and it generally is not good to send it back until the eve of an election.


James Garfield Gardiner: And the barley went down to feed the livestock in your district.


John Thomas Hackett: The livestock in my district has been so scantily fed that that portion of it which was not starved to death, because the farmers could not buy feed for the price the government allowed them for their butter, had to be sold across the international border. This has left the farmers of my district in a very sad plight, which I think they will remember for some time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Nevertheless that is what fed them.


John Thomas Hackett: But to continue with Mr. Nolan and what happened on March 17; to make it brief, he contended that there was no emergency and that in consequence the legislation which had been enacted was without binding effect, and that therefore his barley was his to deal with, to trade in and to deliver to whom he saw fit, as up until a few years ago every Canadian thought was his inherent right. He went before the courts; and after making the investigation which was placed on the record this afternoon, the courts came to the conclusion that Nolan was right, that there was not any emergency, that Nolan owned his barley to do with it as he pleased.
At the moment I am not speaking of the finding of the court. The point that I wish to bring before the house is the argument which was advanced by the government; it shows a frame of mind, it shows a domineering attitude that is, in my submission, totally unbecoming to the administrators of a free country.
To defend the Nolan case the government retained the counsel for the wheat board. He represented the federal government, in the case and, as the record shows, he put forward this argument. At the outset he said that the court, in considering the validity of the transi-
Transitional Measures Act tional act, might hear evidence on the question whether there was or was not a national emergency which would justify the passing of the act; and second, that the court might also hear evidence on the question whether, if there had been such an emergency, it had ceased to exist, or whether it was still in existence; and thirdly, he agreed also that the court, notwithstanding the declaration in the preamble to the act, might hold that there was an emergency, or decide that there was no emergency, or that it had ceased to exist if the evidence warranted such a finding. This seemed fair enough, but it was what followed that was most astounding. When he came to the order in council, 1292, he advanced this startling argument. He said:
If the act is within the powers of parliament because there is a national emergency, no matter what that emergency may be. the court might not inquire if the order in council were valid.
That, if one really seizes the significance of it, is, it seems to me, the acme of arrogance. The argument, if valid, would deny the courts the exercise of that judicial power and discretion which are the very point and purpose of the existence of the courts. It would mean that once there was an emergency, for any reason whatever-an epidemic of measles, a flood or a fire-the government would be entirely free to pass orders in council, no matter what their bearing upon or relation to the particular emergency. He urged that it is "not pertinent to the judiciary to consider the wisdom or the propriety of the particular policy which is embodied in the emergency legislation." (
I cite this because it appears in the brief; and it seemed to me to set forth so perfectly the frame of mind which the government has developed. It is impossible for anyone longer to reason with it or to deal with it on a man-to-man basis.
We are confronted again with the fundamental question of freedom. Again we are asked to yield up that freedom which has been ours for an indeterminate period. We are asked to permit others to manage our affairs for us, without any opportunity of restraint or control from us-the people of Canada, and their elected representatives. What we need today in Canada is not more controls, but a government with nerve enough to banish and to abolish controls. We have staggered along for several years under controls; but I for one do not yet know where those controls have succeeded anywhere.
They have broken down in foreign trade. My delightful friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has to make speeches in the house several times a week to pacify
1466	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act the people whom he thought he was benefiting by his controls and who are now out of money and highly disgruntled and dissatisfied with him. We have rental controls; we have building controls; and there is a shortage of housing. There is a dearth of building. We have financial controls and we are short of dollars. I would be most interested to know wherein this whole practice of controls has yielded that meed of relief and good government which I am willing to think those who indulged in these expedients hoped would be derived from them.
The malady is contagious and self-propagating. Having been put into a supreme position the government have taxed and taxed, and found some reason for seeking to manage other people's affairs, on an assumption, which seems to me an illusion, that they have qualities which enable them more successfully to administer other people's affairs than the people whose affairs they are administering.
I am going to suggest that the government reverse its policy. It has tried about everything so far-everything but letting the people manage their own affairs. I suggest that we go back for a short time to those good days when honest and competent people were permitted to look after their own business, and that this paternal government seek other pastimes, and other fields of amusement than attempting to manage the private affairs of the discontented people of Canada.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) upon the masterful way he presented to the house views which I am sure will claim the attention and be the concern of every hon. member.
Emergency control measures in themselves lend a sense of anxiety to those who are delegating to the administration this overall authority to coritrol the welfare of the nation.
I believe most hon. members would agree that some measure of control may be necessary as a result of the present administration's policies, inasmuch as they have sought to control the economic life of the nation, which procedure has resulted in placing Canada in an economic strait-jacket today. As a matter of fact because of the nature of the controls, and the over-all authority delegated to the administration, it is practically impossible for business to plan, with any degree of confidence, for a long period of time. Yet those who have been responsible for the development and progress of this nation have been men who had vision and who were able to plan with some sense of confidence that their plans would not arbitrarily be interfered with.


Yet we find in this measure-the daddy of them all-which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) now seeks to introduce by way of resolution, machinery whereby the government can do almost anything a dictatorial government could do. I suggest the nature of the control measures, which have played such a dominant part in the life of this nation has affected the over-all picture, has been responsible for the labour unrest, for the high cost of living and for all the other ills which are properly charged to the present administration.
This type of control robs people of their incentive, their ambition, and their desire to do those things which would make Canada robust and strong. I can think back to those tragic days of the war when measures of control for national security and safety were necessary. At that time we were concerned with one common objective, and we were able to obtain the help and the advice of the most outstanding men in Canada. It was that measure of co-operation and that desire to make a full-out contribution to a common cause which first placed us in the position in which we find ourselves today.
We have moved a considerable distance from those days, and yet we can picture the psychological effect, not only upon the people whose lives are restricted by these controls but upon the administration itself. They have arrived at the place where they are fearful of entrusting to the citizens of Canada the right to plan and think for themselves with some degree of certainty, the right to govern themselves within the law.
These control measures have added to the cost of government and they have contributed in no way to its efficiency. They have caused the machinery of government to become cluttered up with bureaucrats, and as someone has said, I think quite properly, with those people who go around snooping into other people's business. The time has arrived when an honest man feels that he must adopt some method to avoid being called to task by these government bureaucrats.
As I have already intimated, the effect of taxation has been to increase the cost of living because it has restricted production. It has created a degree of scarcity in a land of plenty. How imbued the government have become with their present authority and their indispensability is evidenced by the statements which have been made by ministers of the crown, particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who has intimated on more than one occasion that they felt it necessary to drain off, from the individual, purchasing power which was rightly his in order that they might seek to legislate still further and

increase the cost of living, which incidentally has had its effect on the volume of production.
We find that one control leads to another. Until this government finds some means of restoring to the people of Canada that sense of freedom which in days gone by we have admired as being one of the great features of democracy, until this government finds some means of restoring the sense of justice which the people expect under a democracy, there will simply be a nullification of their ambitions and desires.
Our concern is to legislate for the people of Canada so that they may not be unnecessarily restricted but rather encouraged to go forward. Foreign capital should be encouraged to invest in Canada, risk capital as it were, so that we may develop our great natural resources. It has been proved conclusively that while capital is willing to risk itself in ventures that may not bear rich fruits, no capital is prepared to risk itself with a government that interferes with individual rights and personal freedom.
Having regard to the statement made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and recognizing as I do that there may be necessity to continue some controls, I submit that it is unfair to members of this House of Commons to bring in a blanket bill. Each control should be presented separately so that it could be debated on its merits and dealt with individually. I sometimes wonder if we are fully conscious of the measure of authority we are placing in the hands of the government of Canada.
I would recall to hon. members that in England today bills are before the House of Commons to nationalize certain industries. It would seem that the government of Canada was seeking to circumvent parliament and delegate to itself authority so broad that, once possessed, they would enjoy the right to nationalize any industry which might suit their purpose. We have plenty of evidence that in the past these powers have been used too arbitrarily, and I fear that they might again be used in that way.
It places in the hands of the administration the type of monopolistic control which I noticed, in reviewing the contribution made by the leader of the C.C.F. socialist party, he hopes will be continued and extended. I say that if there is any one monopoly we have reason to fear, it is government monopoly. Where this type of nationalization has taken place, those who were loud in support are beginning to fear its lack of efficiency and bureaucratic control.
Workers in the old country who clamoured for the nationalization of the coal mines now realize that they are unable to find fault
Transitional Measures Act with the owners because the government owns the coal mines. They are unable to approach anyone nearby to seek better working conditions, because any member of the union who has accepted an official position is no longer a member. The only way they can get satisfaction is to carry their complaint to London, which means sending a deputation under considerable difficulty.
I realize that there are some types of public ownership, especially those having to do with water power and other items of what might be considered a public utility character, which might recommend themselves to hon. members, but even in that regard I think we should go slow and give the matter careful consideration. I submit that the resolution which contemplates the introduction of a bill should be viewed in the light of the representations made by hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party, particularly the leader of the opposition. I would urge the government to accept his advice and break down the resolution into a number of bills so that each matter may be dealt with on its merits. That in turn will provide citizens by law with the right of appeal so that they may enjoy the protection and consideration of the courts of the land. It seems to me that we have arrived at a point where the government is still suffering from a war complex. Controls of a nature acceptable during the war are being continued. Yet we can understand the part controls have played in the very difficult situation we find ourselves in at the present time. Therefore we find the government reluctant to release, from their over-all authority, the measure of control they have been able to exercise over the economic life of the nation, and indeed over the very lives of individual citizens.
Measures of this character, while considered to be for the common good in the first instance, establish a precedent and place the affairs of the nation in grave jeopardy. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, while we may have a great deal of confidence in one another as private citizens, delegated authority of the character which is sought through this resolution, to be followed by a bill, simply makes the administration more conscious of that exercise of authority and restraint which they have practised with abandon, and without regard to the best interests of the nation. It has in the main served selfish interests to a greater extent than it has served the great masses of the Canadian people.
I agree with the hon. member for Stan-stead (Mr. Hackett) that sooner or later the administration will have to demonstrate a
1468	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act degree of courage, and will have to be prepared to relieve the country of all restrictions and give competitive enterprise an opportunity to work on its own behalf, so that it may be capable of competing in highly competitive markets, not only in Canada but in other parts of the world. One of the things we have suffered from most, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many substantial economists in Canada, is the fact that, through authority of this character, the government is able to interfere with the normal level of our currency and exchange. That has indeed robbed our producers, industrialists and businessmen of the opportunity to seek new markets in distant parts of the world, inasmuch as, while the United States dollar was accepted as the standard of value, we had enjoyed a distinct advantage on a competitive basis in all markets of the world, and the productive capacity of the nation had become very great indeed.
We are rich in natural resources, so much so that it is a challenge to the young men and women of this great nation, and a challenge to those who are now seeking to make their homes and earn their livelihood in Canada. This great country offers them an opportunity, but if we rob them of their incentive, if we rob them of their vision, if we rob them of their ambition to toil, in other words, if through centralized authority we encourage them to become leaners rather than leaders, the nation will suffer and we will be the losers in the long run. In the main, man is prepared to accept the challenge of existence as he seeks to improve his own position in the ordinary course of his everyday activities. But if you set up laws delegating to some central authority the right to control your very existence, then it is difficult to plan or to provide the funds and capital that it costs to establish yourself in any particular line of business.
I do not intend to detain the house longer than to urge again that the government break these bills down instead of bringing in what has been referred to as an omnibus bill, a broad over-all authority, all-inclusive of certain control measures which in our own good judgment may have some merit, but also including others which have little or no appeal, and others which should not be there at all. It is unfair to the members of the House of Commons to suggest that, because we are opposed to this bill, we are opposed to rent control. I think we all realize that a very chaotic condition would result if rent control were removed immediately. Yet it is the control of rents and the over-all authority over dwellings generally which has played a great part in creating the absolute confusion which exists in housing today. I 

think a survey would reveal that there are probably more people living as single occupants of dwellings today than for many long years, if not in the history of Canada. The reason for that is that, while a person may have a flat or room and be willing to share accommodation and take people in, such people may prove to be unsuitable, and under the type of controls which we have now it is impossible to get them out. Therefore people are fearful of offering to share their dwellings with others.
I mention that merely to try to indicate that controls in themselves are bad. A regulated control by means of a statute which sets in motion a process of law to deal with these various measures would probably have some appeal. At any rate, if these bills were separated, we would not have to deal with them collectively, but would have an opportunity to deal with each individual item on its own merits. Through this measure our socialist friends feel that we have to a large extent eliminated competition. Competition after all is a regulative force. It fixes the value of things, and without that regulative force you have no standard by which to fix the value of anything. From my own experience I have learned that the more you interfere with natural laws the more difficult it becomes to govern. There is a knack in doing things, the knack of knowing how; but the present administration, with the experience born of years of regulation and control, are reluctant to restore to the Canadian people that measure of freedom our gallant sons and daughters fought to preserve in this country.
Surely the time has come when we must trust our fellow Canadians. Surely we should be able to say that business can be entrusted with the management of its own affairs. The sooner that measure of responsibility is restored to business the sooner we will break what I consider to be the deadlock we are in at the present time, with a regulating state, socialistic in its outlook and indeed restrictive in its results. I simply ask that this House of Commons have restored to it that measure of responsibility which every member came here prepared to assume, and for which he is prepared to answer to his constituents.
How can the government present a measure in omnibus form when, as I have intimated already, it may contain some measures which should be continued and at the same time other objectionable measures which we feel are bad for the general welfare of the nation? It is impossible for us to separate them. We must deal with them collectively and accept them all. It is a take it or leave it proposition which does not appeal t6 me nor, I am sure, to any other

responsible member who wishes to have some knowledge of the extent to which the government proposes to proceed. If they would deal with these matters in statutory form, presenting each measure separately so it may be dealt with on its merits, I feel we could make greater progress. The government would feel more secure because they had restored to Canada some semblance of responsible government, and to the members of this house the opportunity to share in that responsibility.


Mr. C. C. I. Merritt (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, upon this resolution the government hopes to found a bill which will give it authority to continue, during the fifth year of peace, a residuum of five unnatural wartime controls. As the house knows from the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) the other day, these are controls over steel, over the prices of certain commodities, over timber, over priorities and over residential rents.
I think it is obvious to all hon. members now, though until this year it was only obvious to those in this party, that the Canadian people do not want controls. Rather they want ample supplies of those things now apparently in short supply, so that in the opinion of the government, there is a necessity for a continuation of these unnatural controls. Therefore there are two sides to this control measure. The first is: Are the conditions such that a continuation of controls is necessary, and arising out of that, what conditions cause these shortages and create this necessity? Secondly, and to my mind of much more importance, is the question: What is this government doing to stimulate the production of those commodities apparently in short supply so we may be certain of getting rid of the controls the Canadian people do not want? It is to that side of the medal, namely the production side, that I want to address my remarks this evening.
I was surprised that in introducing this measure the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) failed to give any indication of what they were going to do in order to be able to abandon these unnatural controls. They simply came into the house, made short statements indicating what controls they wanted to continue, suggested that they wanted to continue them for one year, and then sat down. In my view it would be very wrong for hon. members to be satisfied with statements like those. You see, Mr. Speaker, if we give this government the powers they are asking for; if we simply pass these control measures on the basis that they are appar-
Transitional Measures Act ently necessary; if we do not demand from the ministers at this time an explanation as to what they are going to do to get rid of their control measures; then we will not have another chance to get at them for another year. At this moment the government is in the hands of parliament. The government is coming into this house asking parliament for a favour. When a government needs authority from the house it is much more likely to listen sympathetically to the views of the members of parliament. When they have the power and can exercise it independently of parliament they can remain in their seats smiling and pay no attention to what members of this house bring to their attention.
Therefore if we as private members of this house-and of course I am referring to private members on the government side as well as on this side-neglect this opportunity of impressing upon the government the views of the people, if we let them get away too easily with their continuation of control measures, we will not have the opportunity again for a very long time. We will not be able to force the government to take a positive view of this control problem. We will not be able to force them to adopt the necessary productive policies so that the dead hand of control may be removed from our free economy.
I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, through you to the members of the house that, before the vote is taken on this resolution, we should hear from the ministers of the government, who are responsible for the production of these articles in respect of which controls are to be continued, how they are going to bring about adequate supplies of these articles so that these unnatural controls can be dropped during the present year. If they do not satisfy us we should not give them the power to continue the control measures, but we should take this opportunity of defeating the government and placing in office a government which will have a positive approach to such problems as steel production and housing. Such a government would see to it that before the year is out there would be no need for controls in Canada.
You see, Mr. Speaker, although this measure is only to be continued for one year, we have been given no indication by the government that it intends to make sure it does not have to come back next year for another helping. As the member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) has pointed out, ever since 1945 we have been told these controls were only necessary for a few months. These measures have been renewed from year to year and we were told that at the end of each year these things



X470 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Transitional Measures Act which all of us except the socialists dislike would be banished from our economy.
Angus MacInnis: You are voting for them. There is no reply to that.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: If the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) wishes to ask me a question, he can rise and ask it.


Angus MacInnis: If you want to refer to this group, speak the truth.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: What is your question?


Angus MacInnis: I say you voted for them.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Perfectly true, Mr. Speaker, and what of it? What I am pointing out is that every year-


Brooke Claxton: Don't your votes count?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Every year the government comes before us and asks for this power for one more year. On this side of the house we have voted for the control measures in certain years, relying upon that promise that they were only required for a period of a year. Each time we do that, the government finds it too easy to sit down and do nothing about production. Each time we give the government the authority it must seek from us, we lose our power over it. This year, for my part at least, I will not be satisfied to give them the authority unless they show me that they propose to do something to make sure there will be no necessity for requesting this authority next year.


John Ewen Sinclair: I take it the hon. member is conceding that this government will be the government next year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not if there is an election.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I should like to say to the member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) that I am conceding nothing of the sort. I am asking him, as a private member of parliament and not as a member of the government, and as one who I feel sure does not believe in controls any more than I do, to defeat the government on this resolution so we will be sure they do not come back next year, or even after Easter.


John Ewen Sinclair: Pardon the interruption, but will the member permit a question? As a Vancouver member, I know that any member who opposes rental controls during this session will not be here at the next session.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I can assure the member for Vancouver North that I am not against the rent control measure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: No responsible person in this country, in view of the chaotic state of housing in the country, could oppose rent control at this moment. It is for that reason I am taking part in this debate on the resolution. I do not believe in perpetual rent control. I want to see rent control discontinued at the proper moment. I want to see an adequate supply of housing for the Canadian people so there will be no need for rent control. From what I have seen during the last four years there is no realization on the part of the government that they have a responsibility for the production of houses.


John Ewen Sinclair: Eighty thousand a year.


Brooke Claxton: Higher than any country in the world.


John Ewen Sinclair: What country has done more?


Brooke Claxton: What country in the world has done more about housing?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I hear the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) say that no country has done more in the way of housing. I will say to the minister that, as usual, he is giving credit to the government for the things done by the Canadian people.


Brooke Claxton: Do you object to those things being done by the Canadian people?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: All the housing produced by this government in the past four years amounts to but a small proportion of the total number of houses that were built.


Brooke Claxton: I am sure the hon. member would admit that is the highest number of houses in proportion to total population of any country in the world.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is it the intention of the hon. member to adjourn the debate?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Yes.
On motion of Mr. Merritt the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will continue the debate on this resolution which has been under discussion today; then, No. 5 on the order paper of today, the Agricultural Products Act; then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, No. 8 on the order paper; then, No. 4, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance; and No. 15, the resolution in the name of the Postmaster General.
At ten-thirty the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed this day.

Tuesday, March 15, 1949