1949-03-15

PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I hold in my hand sessional paper No. 55D, tabled in the house on Friday, March 11. This was brought down in response to an order of the house passed on February 16 of this year pursuant to a motion of mine asking for the tabling of certain documents. I shall try to state my question of privilege as briefly as possible, but there are one or two facts of importance which I must indicate.
Following the passing of the motion I was invited by an officer of the department concerned to go into the office of the minister to examine the file. This was not on a confidential basis. I was told that the reason I was asked to look over the file was that I might indicate any papers which were inconsequential and need not be produced. I did so. I initialed, in accordance with the suggestion made to me, all the papers which were important and which I felt should be produced; and I was assured they would be brought down.
Now that the sessional paper has come down, to my amazement some of the very important documents which I initialed are not included. I could cite a number of them; but to be specific I shall refer to one group, namely, the communications from the regional superintendent of unemployment insurance at Winnipeg to the unemployment insurance commission here at Ottawa-and I may say that there are letters in this sessional paper between officers of various departments and their superiors at corresponding levels. The only difference between the documents produced and those withheld is that most of the documents produced approve the action taken, while those withheld disapprove.
I am sure Your Honour will agree with me, as will the Prime Minister and leader of the house, that an order of the house should be complied with, and that this sessional paper should be supplemented to such an extent as to give the full information required by the order of the house.
Mr. Mitchell:: I think the hon. member said that he had come to my office.


Mr. Knowles:: I said an officer of the department concerned took me into the minister's office to see the file.


Humphrey Mitchell: In my office?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not recall my hon. friend's getting anything in my office in my presence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought I made it clear that it was in the minister's office, but that he was not there. It was an official of the department who let me look at the file.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is important to me- that I was not there. I have no objection to my hon. friend's holding an inquest on me if I am there. The impression I got from his remarks was that I was there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The point at issue is that important documents have been withheld.



COARSE GRAINS


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the house of certain decisions which the government has reached in regard to floor prices for oats, barley and oilseeds. Before dealing with the policies which the government will implement for the crop year 1949-50, I would like to make some general observations.
There has been a general easing of the world grain and oilseed position as production of grains in Europe returned close to pre-war levels, and as substantial increases were made in the production of oils and fats in that area and elsewhere. Supplies of wheat and feed grains in exporting countries during the present crop year are sufficient to meet demand, and, in spite of the prevailing financial position, most importing countries are going to secure supplies of grain which they require. As I shall indicate later, supplies of vegetable oils generally are more than adequate to meet existing demand, and in the case of certain vegetable oils, international surpluses exist today due largely to wartime expansion in production. These are basic factors which the government has had

Coarse Grains
to consider in connection with the crops under review.
I would now like to refer specifically to oats and barley. It is important that producers in the prairie provinces should continue to maintain a sound diversity in the crops which they produce, in order that there should be a corresponding diversity in the grain which this country will have for export during this period of adjustment in the world demand for, and in the world supply of, grains.
As members of the house know, western wheat producers are assured of a minimum price of $1.75 per bushel basis No. 1 northern in store Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver until July 31, 1950. In view of this established level of wheat prices, the government feels that producers should have reasonable assurance in respect to support prices for oats and barley during 1949-50.
The government has decided to support the price of western oats and western barley during the crop year 1949-50 at the same support prices that are in effect for the present crop. These prices are 61J cents per bushel basis No. 1 feed oats in store Fort William-Port Arthur and 90 cents per bushel basis No. 1 feed barley in store Fort William-Port Arthur. As in previous years, the Canadian wheat board will administer the support prices for these two grains. I want to emphasize that these are support prices only, and producers will have the advantage of whatever higher prices prevail during 1949-50.
In regard to oilseeds, the government must take a realistic view of the position as it exists today. Our major contact with the international oilseed position on the export side is through flaxseed. In 1948 flaxseed production in Canada amounted to 17-4 million bushels as compared with an average of 1-5 million bushels during the 1935-1939 period. Nineteen hundred and forty-eight production of flaxseed in the United States, traditionally an importer of flaxseed, is estimated at 50 million bushels as compared with an average production of 11 million bushels during the five years prior to the war. This expansion in acreage and production of flaxseed in Canada and United States has more than offset decreased production in the Argentine. It is now evident that all three countries will have surplus stocks of flaxseed or linseed oil available for export at the end of the present crop year, and of course additional supplies will be available through 1949 production.
I should say a word in regard to rapeseed and sunflower seed. There is practically no demand for rapeseed or rapeseed oil in Canada, and, as a result, this crop is almost entirely an export commodity and is there-
fore affected by the broader oilseed position which I have described. Sunflower seed is in a different position, being an edible vegetable oil which can be utilized in Canada. In my opinion sunflower seed oil will continue to have a good market in this country, and for that reason will not require continuing government support.
Under the circumstances the government is not prepared to encourage the production of oilseeds by establishing support prices for 1949-50. The position will be examined again at the beginning of the next crop year.
The government does not propose to provide specific floor prices for oats and barley produced outside of western Canada. In the opinion of the government, the interests of eastern producers marketing these grains as grain will be protected through support prices established for western oats and barley, which constitute the main stream of commercial supplies in this country.
It must be emphasized that the great bulk of oats and barley produced in eastern Canada and British Columbia is consumed on farms where grown, and does not enter into commercial channels except through livestock and livestock products. Not more than 100,000 bushels of oats and barley in eastern Canada are inspected and graded under the provisions of the Canada Grain Act, which indicates that the purely commercial movement of these grains is relatively unimportant as compared with farm consumption, and of course as compared with the commercial movement of western grains.
To the extent that eastern oats and barley are sold commercially, the producers concerned have a geographical advantage in that their prices are based broadly on the laid-down price of western grains at various points in eastern Canada. This statement is true even after allowing for the free freight policy which has been in effect for some years. There is nothing to indicate that producers in other parts of Canada who have oats and barley to sell commercially will not continue to have a price advantage, owing to the cost of shipping western oats and barley into local markets in eastern Canada.
With eastern production of oats and barley tied in closely with farm feeding, a very serious problem would arise if for some unexpected reason prices fell below a support level made effective in eastern Canada. The only practical way in which the Canadian wheat board or any other agency could implement floor policies in eastern Canada or in British Columbia would be to take delivery of these grains in carload lots in terminal positions. In this case feed grains would have to be shipped to . areas where

required 1 or purchase under a price support program. The results would be to draw off feed grain supplies from areas in which they were required to maintain the existing livestock population. The subsequent redistribution of these supplies of oats and barley purchased by the organization responsible for maintaining support prices would be a difficult and costly undertaking. Should it be found that the floor price policy that I have outlined does not in fact protect the price of oats and barley grown in eastern Canada, means will be sought to remedy the situation.


Mr. Bracken:: May I ask the minister if any change is proposed in the free freight policy with respect to coarse grains?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Government policy in that
regard will be announced in due course.



THE BUDGET


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I wish to inform the house that, barring unforeseen contingencies, I expect to bring down the budget a week from tonight at half past seven.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A half hour earlier in the day than last year.



CANADA PRIZE ACT


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to provide for the payment and distribution of prize money out of prize money presently and prospectively in the consolidated revenue fund.
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. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: May I ask the
Secretary of State for External Affairs when he expects the north Atlantic security pact to be signed and ready for tabling in the House of Commons?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: It had been hoped that a draft of the north Atlantic security pact 29087-931
Inquiries of the Ministry could be tabled this afternoon, and arrangements to that end were being made by the governments concerned. One government, however, has asked for a short delay. It is hoped now that the draft-of course it will not be signed-will be tabled and made public on Friday.


Gordon Graydon: The Secretary of State for External Affairs speaks of a draft pact. It will be the pact that has been agreed upon by the signatory nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will be a pact that has been agreed upon in principle by the governments concerned, subject to any changes they may wish to put forward at the conference which will be called for the signing of the pact. It is hoped that that conference will take place some time in April.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, notice of which I have sent him. Is the minister in a position to inform the house what steps are planned to meet the increased needs of recipients of war veterans allowance?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. I should like to make the following answer.
It has become desirable to augment the benefits payable in certain cases to beneficiaries under the War Veterans Allowance Act, and steps are being taken to do so. In most cases the beneficiaries will be the now ageing veterans of world war I.
War veterans allowance recognizes in legislation the presumption that battle service does or may result in pre-ageing, even when no pensionable disability is incurred. In May, 1930, the act provided $20 per month single and $40 per month married. In 1940 these sums were raised to $30 and $60 respectively. In 1948 they were raised to $40 and $70 respectively.
Evidence before the veterans committee of the House of Commons in 1948 was to the effect that these rates were probably too low to meet the needs of some of the beneficiaries who had no other source of income. It was pointed out that this was a condition which was particularly likely to apply in the cities. During the interval between sessions my department made a survey of the situation. This survey established the fact that a per-

Inquiries of the Ministry centage of urban dwelling war veterans allowance recipients with no other income were suffering real hardship. To meet this problem a substantial sum is included in the main estimates now tabled to be used to alleviate these conditions of hardship. Only those who are in receipt of the maximum war veterans allowance, and without other means of support, and who are unable to manage, will share in this fund.
Regional offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs are familiar with, or will discover, these cases of special need. Reasonable flexibility will be provided by regulation to make the fund operate quickly and effectively. Each case will be dealt with on its merits. Advantage will be taken of the close co-operation already existing between the Department of Veterans Affairs welfare officers and local welfare agencies. Every case investigated will be sympathetically considered in terms of the local situation. Help given may be temporary to meet an emergent condition, or it may be on a monthly basis while the special need continues.
In no instance will the supplementary grant exceed $120 per annum single and $180 per annum married. This meets in these cases the most generous increase suggested by any national veterans organization, that is, $10 per month single and $15 per month married. Regulations governing the administration of the fund are now being prepared. When completed they will be submitted to the governor in council and tabled when approved. It is planned to begin payment at an early date after the item in the estimates provided for this program shall have been approved by parliament.


Mr. Brooks:: I should like to ask the minister a question arising out of the statement he has just made. Will imperials be included who have lived twenty years in Canada? Will those who served in England during the first war also be included in this increase? They are not getting a pension now.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Under this plan only those who are now in receipt of, or who may become in receipt of, war veterans allowance, will be eligible.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to ask the minister if the act will be amended.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Bentley:: May I ask the minister whether these payments, when they are passed by the house, will be retroactive?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the increase be available to widows who qualify under the War Veterans Allowance Act?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


Mr. Wright:: Will all cases of veterans who are now receiving the maximum pension be automatically reviewed by the department? Or will those receiving the maximum pension have to make special application to have their cases reviewed?


Milton Fowler Gregg: If the hon. member will read the statement, I think he will see that I made that clear. If not, I shall be glad to answer his question at another time.


Mr. MacNicol:: Does this provision for increases include the so-called nonpensioned widows, and the South African veterans?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think I partly covered that in my answer to a previous question. The proposed assistance will apply only, when approved, to those who are now in receipt of war veterans allowance and without any other means of support.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If I might ask the minister a further question, will he introduce a bill to amend the act, or will this be done by order in council?


Douglas Charles Abbott: An item in the estimates.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In reality neither course mentioned by the hon. member will be followed. The assistance will be provided for by an item in the main estimates.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Is this not a recommendation that was put forward by the veterans affairs committee last year, when so many members were absent for other reasons?


Mr. McKay:: In view of the statement just made by the minister with respect to increased allowances, may I ask whether he is now prepared to make a statement with regard to the claim of the student veterans for increases?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall be glad to answer that question at an early day.



PACIFIC DEFENCE PACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver South):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Press dispatches yesterday afternoon and today have indicated that John Dedman, Australian defence minister, made a statement in Canberra to the effect that discussions are under

way there among representatives of Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia for a Pacific defence pact similar to the north Atlantic security pact, and embracing the British commonwealth and other countries. Can the minister tell us whether or not Canada will be taking part in this Pacific pact?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have seen the press dispatch referred to. We have received no information concerning any discussions in Australia with regard to the formation of a Pacific defence pact. Certainly this government has not been invited to participate in any such discussions, if they are taking place.


Howard Charles Green: Would Canada be willing to join a Pacific pact?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that is a hypothetical question.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY INQUIRY AS TO ROUTE THROUGH BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, notice of which I sent to his office yesterday. Can the minister say what is the present position with respect to the route of the trans-Canada highway in British Columbia? Can he say whether he will establish a highway commission-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not see any urgency in the question of the hon. member. I suggest to him that he put it on the order paper.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is an urgent question. May I say why it is urgent? I point out respectfully that the route of the trans-Canada highway-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the basic rate for old age pensions is lower than that for war veterans allowances is the minister in a position to say whether or not the Old Age Pensions Act will be amended to provide for an increase such as was suggested?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As my hon. friend will appreciate, all I can say at this moment is
Inquiries of the Ministry that government policy will be announced in due course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will it be announced before the election?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: On
March 11 I asked the Prime Minister a question in regard to the medical examination of immigrants. Further in regard to that matter I should like to ask whether those who have entered Canada illegally and who have been permitted to remain under order in council were given a medical examination or X-rayed before the order in council was passed, or were they X-rayed or medically examined at all?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is not a question for the order paper.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I differ with the hon. member; I think it is a question that could very well be put on the order paper. It is one about which two or three departments would have to confer to prepare an answer, and this is an additional reason for its being placed on the order paper.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Only one department would have to give the answer.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is not the business of the Prime Minister to examine immigrants, and in order to give the hon. member an answer I should have to get the information from others.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Prime Minister brought this up last Friday.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member directed a question to the Prime Minister and he has had his answer. I would ask him to resume his seat.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am not at all satisfied with the answer.



SUPERANNUATED CIVIL SERVANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.

Transitional Measures Act Mr. Fraser: He may not have time to answer you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the Prime Minister meet a representative or representatives of the superannuated civil servants in Quebec city and give an assurance that the request of these people for a cost of living bonus or other supplement would be considered? If so, can he say whether such consideration has been given, and what decision has been reached?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: So far as I can remember, I did not meet any representatives of the superannuated civil servants in Quebec city prior to the session or since the session began. I received a letter in October asking me to meet such a delegation, and my secretary replied stating that I should be glad to consider whatever representations they wished to put in writing. They did make representations to me in writing, and I answered along the lines of the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), as a government statement, in January, 1948, which was repeated in this house on January 28, 1949. For the further information of my hon. friend I may say that if he wishes to see a copy of the letter, I have it available here, and should be glad to send it over to him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was hoping the Prime Minister would be more helpful than the Minister of Finance.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He answers a bedfellow but he won't answer me.



TRANSITIONAL MEASURES ACT, 1947 CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 14, 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.
And the motion of Mr. Casselman:	"That
the question be now put."
Mr. C. C. I. Merritt (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last evening I had pointed out that the government had given hon. members no assurance that they were following policies which would enable them within a year, by bringing about adequate production of the articles under control, to be able to abandon these wartime controls they are maintaining on 
our free peacetime economy. Further I had suggested that this debate gave us an opportunity to require from the government statements as to their production policies in connection with steel, housing and the certain articles of food still under control. As a third point I had asserted that the Canadian people do not want controls over various articles they need, but that rather they want adequate supplies of those commodities now in short supply, and that particularly they want and urgently need adequate housing. These five wartime controls which the government seeks power to continue are not a coherent policy. Rather, Mr. Speaker, these five controls stick out just like five sore thumbs, showing the Canadian people where the government has fallen down in stimulating the production of those things we require. For instance, steel control indicates that the government, which has had absolute control over the steel industry for many years, has failed to ensure sufficient manufacturing capacity to meet our demands and, in the alternative, has failed to obtain from foreign sources the amount of steel required to make up the shortage in the domestic supply.
The remaining price controls are very interesting. They number thirteen; and if you examine the commodities still under control you find that none of them is necessarily in short physical supply. You find that each of these remaining price controls can be traced directly to another government policy and, in particular, to another government control. There is a perfect illustration of how certain controls breed other controls. Of these thirteen price controls, eight are on fruits and vegetables and are the direct result of the government's import restriction program. If there were no import restriction program, there would be no need for any of these controls. As a matter of fact, each of these commodities had been decontrolled and controls were restored when the austerity program became effective.
Of the remaining five, two of the controls are on sugar and molasses. The reason for the maintenance of these two controls is that this government still persists in state trading. We had a debate upon this subject in the house last year in connection with sugar control. We were promised by the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew), who was then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, that it was likely that state trading in sugar would stop with the end of 1948. We find that control still being continued, however, and presumably state trading is still being continued. The people who provided us with sugar for so many years before the war are not permitted to carry out their usual function.

The remaining three controls, namely on bread, butter and flour, are designed to offset shortages which I suggest are not caused by the war, but are shortages directly resulting from the personal control exercised by the Minister of Agriculture over the agricultural policies of Canada.
The two controls on rent and priorities are simply an admission of the failure of the government in the housing field. To a great extent, they are designed to insulate the Canadian people from the administrative failures of this government. I want to confine the remainder of my remarks to the question of rent control and housing production because, as I was stressing last night, the manner in which the government is failing to stimulate the production of houses is going to lengthen the time during which rent control will be necessary.
First of all, let me assert my belief that proper legislation in respect of rent control is still necessary. So long as we have the acute shortage of housing that exists in the country today, and so long as the government's policies are such that people are not encouraged to build rental housing, it would seem to me that the need for control may continue for a considerable time. This does not mean that rent control is good. It does not mean that it is the sort of thing we want to see perpetuated in our economy. It is a necessary evil. Any government which has to request an extension of that kind of control five years after the war has not conducted its housing policies in the way the Canadian people expect. Because such a control may be necessary, Mr. Speaker, that does not preclude criticism of the measure, nor does it make it a holy thing which one must not touch.
Last night the member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) attempted to frighten me, I think, with the bogey that if I was against rent control I would not be re-elected. A threat of that kind, Mr. Speaker, is nonsense. It is not that I am against rent control now. I do not fear rent control at this moment under these circumstances. What I do fear is a government which will sit down on its most important responsibility. This government has put us in real danger of perpetual rent control, and that is the thing I do not want to see. I do not think the member for Vancouver North wants to see it. I am sure there is no one in Canada, either landlord or tenant, and certainly not one of the homeless veterans, who wants to see rent control go on for ever.
I am not raising bogeys when I suggest perpetual rent control. I imagine all the members of this house have received within the last few days a pamphlet which discloses
Transitional Measures Act that France has had rent control since some date during the first war, and has been unable to get rid of it during the many years since the first war. I say the time has arrived in this country when this rent control, which is still necessary to protect tenants, is working great hardships and great inequities upon many landlords in Canada. I think this control is deterring the construction of rental housing, so that the minister of reconstruction will be called upon for redoubled efforts in the rental housing field. I suggest it is distorting the natural distribution of housing in this country, and is putting a price premium on recently vacated or new housing accommodation. The new accommodation is not under control and the result is that the supply is limited and its cost is out of reach of most of the Canadian people who want homes.
Furthermore, this control is creating difficulties between controlled landlords and post-control landlords. I suggest to the members of the house, and particularly to the members of the government, that rent control cannot go on for ever in its present state. Each year the housing shortage continues and the need to protect people in the lower income group remains; each year the injustices against landlords grow. The time is coming, and it will not be too long delayed, when these injustices will be so great there will have to be a revision of this control. Landlords as a class, Mr. Speaker, are not the sinister type of top-hatted individual that many members of the party to my left and some members of the government would like us to believe. A large number of the landlords in this country are entirely dependent upon the earnings of their houses and apartments for their livelihood. A large number of them have sunk their savings in housing accommodation so that they might have an income for themselves in their old age. Many of the people in this class known as landlords, whom one might envisage as rich men, as a matter of fact occupy a suite in their own apartment building and do the janitor work themselves.
From that class of people we have a continued stream of correspondence complaining not simply against low rents but against the fact that the whole burden of this control is being placed on their shoulders, and that they are finding it difficult to make ends meet under it. All these people have been squeezed between fixed rents and doubled costs of fuel, repairs and living expenses and they have found it necessary to defer repairs and to do a minimum of decoration and renovation of their places. Now they are beginning to see new, modern apartments springing up probably in the same districts in which their own

Transitional Measures Act are located, and they are naturally fretting against a control which they see is designed against themselves alone.
It is under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, that the government come in, without a word of explanation of their resolution and without any attempt to recognize and remedy these injustices of which I speak, and ask simply for continuation of this control. I think hon. members of the house should examine the case a little bit more closely than that. The government have offered us no housing production policy, nor, by way of amendment to the rent control measure, any scheme which will preserve rent control to do the necessary work that it must do and yet will ameliorate these injustices of which I speak. The government's policy apparently is simply one of frank admission of failure and a request for the continuation of controls.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Yes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Is the hon. member not in favour of a floor price, for instance, on butter?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The Tory members do not want that off farm butter, or are afraid to say so.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: If the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) will allow me to continue with my remarks, I should like to do so. That question is on a different subject.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The Conservative party do not want to answer, apparently; they are afraid to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: There is a big farm vote.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Here is the situation, Mr. Speaker. The government asks for the continuation of this control for one year. Yet the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters), speaking on January 29, is reported to have said that, if he achieves his target of houses for this coming year, it will not begin to solve the housing problem. Without further explanation that seems to me to be just a warning that this measure is really not for one year, that the government are not on top of the housing problem, and that if we do not require something more from the minister than we have already had we shall be faced next year with the same debate, the same problem and the same injustices.
I want to say to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply that there is only one answer to this vexing problem of rent con-

trol, namely, the production of many more emits of rental housing than he at present contemplates. I suggest to him that the government must not be content just to count as a discharge of their responsibilities an annual increase in an inadequate program of housing. Rather they must set their sights much higher than that. If the minister thinks that on present supplies of material and labour he can see one hundred thousand houses completed in the year 1949, and if that number of houses-even though it is more than last year's supply-will still do little to bring about an adequate supply of housing for the Canadian people, he must set his sights much higher. He must double his target; he must say, if you like, two hundred thousand houses. Then if he fails in reaching an adequate target, he will have measured his failure and he will not have that anchor to windward upon which to fall back, namely, that he has achieved the target that he set for himself.
I do not think that two hundred thousand houses is a target that the minister would be foolish to shoot at. I think that a target like that is one which the Canadian economy might come close to reaching if it were given the proper incentives by this government. I suggest to the minister that he reconsider the target of one hundred thousand houses, that he calls upon industry not to be satisfied with a small increase over last year in their production of building materials, and not to be satisfied with their present plant, but to create new capital plant so that a much larger supply of building materials can be produced.
I suggest to the minister that a larger program would require a much greater supply of skilled labour in the building trades. If he has not in Canada a supply of skilled labour able to meet a much larger program, there is a good way in which he can find those new people. He can find them with their skills already developed and can bring them here; and he can train more under vocational training schemes. If he really wants to do so, he can vastly expand the production of building materials and of houses much over any target he has at present. But if he is to do that, if he is to step up his target to something which would really satisfy the Canadian people, there is one further thing that will be required of him; it is that he give to the construction industry, and to those private firms whom he will be asking to increase their investment in their capital equipment, a feeling of long-term assurance of a sustained demand for housing. If he can do that, and if he can get the Canadian business firms which are engaged in this type of production to believe that this

demand for housing will not be over this year or next but rather that it will go on through the years, I think he will get an adequate response from Canadian business and that he will surprise himself as to the target which he can really achieve.
In order that he may give Canadian business that assurance, all that his government need to do is to stop this policy of a controlled and restricted economy, reverse it completely, and give to private business in this country the assurance that, through all the lifetimes of those who now manage those affairs, there is to be an ever-expanding economy in Canada, with more people, more business and a greater production all through the years. If the government will give to the building trades that assurance of a longterm sustained demand, they will get all the housing they need, and they will get it quickly.
Before taking my seat I should like to make two further suggestions to the government. The first is that rental control and housing should be placed at once under one minister, and I suggest it should be the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters). In my view we should bring the two sides of this housing problem together-the production side and the control side. If the minister who is responsible for the production of housing will accept responsibility for rent control as well, then I suggest we will have one member of the government who really feels his responsibility in respect of housing, with all its difficulties.
At the present time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) administers the dead hand of rent control, and the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply is responsible for housing. There is very little opportunity of bringing home to the Minister of Finance the difficulties in connection with housing, or of bringing home to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply the problems being created under rent control through the failure of the government to attack the housing problem promptly and successfully.
I believe it would be a good thing if the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply had to answer landlords and tenants as well as homeless people, particularly veterans. I believe his headaches over rent control would spur him on to a much greater effort in the field of housing.
The second suggestion I would make is that, even though controls should remain, landlords must be given some immediate relief. If rent control is to be of prolonged duration, if it is to be continued throughout this year and probably next year, then let us bring it out in the open, regularize it and 29087-94
IS, 1949	1479
Transitional Measures Act face up to its problems. The chief of those problems now is that landlords are being required to foot the bill.
I suggest the house has a responsibility toward that class of Canadians as well as toward any other, and must see that landlords are no longer singled out to carry the full burden of subsidizing rentals for the government-because that is what they are doing. Even though I do not like subsidies any more than anyone else, if we are to have them they should be government subsidies, and no single class in the country should be saddled with the whole financial burden of a general public policy. That is the condition now.
Then I suggest that actual subsidy may not be necessary. It might be possible in this year's budget to exempt all landlords who come under controls from income tax on their earnings, and in this way restore them to a position of parity with other landlords. That suggestion I throw out in all seriousness.
Now that we are discussing the continuation of rent controls, a subject which members of the house cannot pass over without giving it careful consideration-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he has exhausted his time.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Tell us about butter; tell us about your party's policy on butter.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I should like to say one last sentence.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


An hon. Member:: Go on.


George Alexander Cruickshank: We are not like Rosedale; go ahead.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which the house is now debating provides 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. I draw attention to the words, "certain orders and regulations of the governor in council."
The only explanation the house has received as to the nature of the measure the government seeks leave to introduce is in the brief statement drawn out of two ministers, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on February 7. In support of a measure as important as this one, we have had very brief statements which were literally wrung out of these two ministers. One of them said in effect, "this is to continue five types of controls", and the other minister

Transitional Measures Act spoke briefly about Ms plans with respect to the controls coming within the jurisdiction of his department.
It is clear from their remarks, particularly those of the Minister of Finance, that the bill is to be one to which certain orders in council will be annexed, and that the house will be asked in blanket fashion to give statutory effect to orders in council. In other words, the method pursued in previous years by the government with respect to this type of legislation-an altogether wrong method-is to be continued again, if the house will submit to it. And I urge that the house ought not to submit to a wrong method of legislating.
There are three obvious features to this resolution. The first is that it contemplates the present existence of a national emergency, and that the orders and regulations should be continued as long as the national emergency continues, within the time limit proposed in the bill to follow.
I do not wish to labour this point, because it was dealt with in such a masterly and comprehensive fashion by my esteemed leader yesterday, and I think it is crystal clear and needs no further elaboration. I simply mention that where one finds controls as varied as those referred to by the two ministers in their brief statements, it is not enough from the constitutional and legal point of view simply to make a general recital to the effect that a national emergency exists. Particularly in view of the latest judicial pronouncement on the subject by the Manitoba court of appeal with respect to establishing the existence of a national emergency in connection with a particular problem with which the legislation seeks to deal, the course the government is taking is not adequate. This judgment holds that with respect to each of the problems referred to it is necessary that the existence of a state of national emergency be established in order that validity may be acquired for the legislation the house is asked to adopt.
The second obvious feature is that the house is simply being asked to continue existing orders in council. It is not being given the opportunity of proceeding in the proper and normal legislative fashion, and of following parliamentary methods through the submission of a bill containing detailed provisions which the House of Commons, in obedience to its duty, would review before giving the bill three readings. The house is not to be given that opportunity.
This inherently wrong method is again being pursued. We will simply have orders in council handed to us and we will be told to approve them, lock, stock and barrel. That

simply is not good enough. If it cannot make up its own mind as to what to do in connection with detailed1 provisions of orders in council, the minimum the government ought to have done was to follow the procedure the house insisted upon when in the 1946 session the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) introduced a bill to give legislative approval in general terms to an order in council having to do with reinstatement in civil employment.
What the house insisted on at that time was that the bill should not be given second reading but that the subject matter be referred to the special committee on veterans affairs. That committee, instead of reporting the order in council to the house, wrote a proper bill. Surely if this government is capable of learning a lesson it should have learned that lesson, and learned it long ago. I shall have something to say about the orders at a later point.
The government is now asking us to continue the vice of delegating power. First, tMs house is being asked to delegate in a sense legislative approval to orders in council, and then the orders in council themselves will delegate great and sweeping powers to certain boards and officials, particularly one board. That is an inherently wrong method. In 1949, nearly four years after V-E day, I submit that there can no longer be any justification for asking this house to legislate in that holus-bolus fashion.
If the house does permit the bill to be introduced in the form contemplated, and I hope it will not, I trust the government is not going to attempt to do what it did in 1947 with the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act. When that measure was first introduced the government did not even set out the text of the orders as an appendix to the bill. Reference was made to them only by number and this house had no opportunity of confirming the text of the orders to which it was being asked to give legislative effect.
The third obvious feature of this resolution is the multiplicity of subjects which is embraced within its scope. We were told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), as reported at page 316 of Hansard, that it is to continue five types of control. First, price control over certain commodities; second, rent control; third, steel control and price control over steel; fourth, timber control; and, fifth, priorities control.
May I recall to the house what happened two years ago when the government introduced a similar omnibus bill which was characterized by the same looseness which characterizes the method being followed by the government in connection with the pres-

ent resolution. At that time the government sought permission to introduce a measure to give omnibus approval to no fewer than fifty-seven orders in council. Thank goodness we are not being asked by this inherently wrong method to give legislative approval to so many orders in council, but nevertheless the same principle applies here. The house must assert its adherence to principle unless it is content to lie down and let this government steamroller things through as it has in the past.
Hon. members will remember the significant words that were spoken in 1947 in the debate on that measure. I hope the house has not forgotten the memorable speech delivered on that occasion by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). He drew attention to the inherently dangerous method of legislating in that omnibus fashion. He drew attention to the duty of the house to scrutinize a resolution of this kind before giving approval to the introduction of a measure to be based thereon. Significantly he recalled the storm of protest which the Liberal party, under the former Prime Minister who was then leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), raised in 1932 to a relatively simple resolution introduced by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Bennett, in which two subjects had been linked together. Those subjects, unemployment and farm relief, were clearly related, but the rafters rang with the indignant protests of the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) at what was said to be an invasion of the rights of parliament.
That same party now seeks to repeat the monstrous imposition upon parliament which was perpetrated by it in 1947. May I recall to you the closing words of the memorable speech delivered on March 20, 1947, by the hon. member for Quebec South, who had this to say, as reported on page 1595 of Hansard of that date:
My last objection is that, by passing this resolution and bringing in the bill, in the shape in which it will be brought in, we are creating an extremely dangerous precedent. We are preparing the way for the time when any government or a government which will not have the same respect for ancient constitutional usages and practices will be in power in this country, and when they come in they will have ready-made at their hand such legislation as will enable them at once to put into effect their theories and the practice in which they believe.
I have said before and said many a time that I have no objection to a great many of their theories. I would like to see many of them put into practice if they could do away with the regimentation that goes with them. But I certainly do not want to be a member of a party which will prepare the way and make it easier for them when they do come into power to carry out what I believe to be false principles in a democracy. In other words, I do not want to be a St. John the Baptist for a socialist messiah.
Transitional Measures Act


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hon. members of the C.C.F. can laugh, but I say to this house that there is exposed in that memorable speech of the hon. member for Quebec South one of the inherent vices of the method now being pursued by this government, a practice and policy which seems so acceptable to their allies, the socialist C.C.F. It is small wonder that on occasions like this the socialist C.C.F. group are ready to rally to the support of the government and applaud the efforts of the government to continue in force, by methods that are worthy only of condemnation by this house, legislation and orders in council which ought not to be dealt with in the way in which this house is being asked to deal with them.


Mr. Probe:: Perhaps the hon. member will explain why the Liberals are supported by the Tories in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There seems to be a loud outburst from the hon. gentleman to my left. If he wishes to indicate his sincere devotion to a principle which is inherently wrong he will have an opportunity in due course.
I drew attention at the outset of my remarks to the fact that the government has not attempted to offer any alternative policies. The government has not attempted to put into force any policies which would eliminate the necessity of dealing with questions of this kind, policies that would get to the root of the matter and deal with the problems. Instead we see an impotent and useless government slithering around the problems in the slipshod fashion that has characterized its continuing adherence to power. The government has always been ready to use existing problems as an excuse for requesting the continuation of sweeping arbitrary powers rather than trying to cure the problems.
That is the fundamental accusation I make. That is the fundamental difference between the Progressive Conservative party and this government in connection with measures of this kind. The government have not attempted to grapple with the problems; they have ignored the problems. They come now to the house and ask to be clothed with arbitrary powers, using these problems as a pretext. The problems themselves should be grappled with and solved by proper legislative practices and administrative policy on the part of the government.
We are told that certain orders and regulations are to be continued. What are these orders and regulations? We have some idea because of the imposing residue, I may say, that remains of the orders to which
29087-94;

Transitional Measures Act statutory effect was given in 1947 by the passing of the Transitional Measures Act, chapter 16 of that year. I wish to draw attention to certain provisions in some of these orders and regulations because I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that, while problems exist related to these questions, the fact of the matter is that the house cannot, if it really seriously addresses itself to its task of reviewing the proposals to which it is asked to give legislative effect, continue powers as sweeping as those that are asked for. Just briefly I draw your attention to order in council P.C. 8528, which is the general order establishing the wartime prices and trade board, and conferring powers upon it. Section 4 of that order confers the most sweeping powers upon the wartime prices and trade board, powers that the government sought to justify when we were in the midst of a war crisis, but conditions today do not bear sufficient resemblance to the conditions that existed then to justify this house in continuing powers as sweeping as those.
Let me remind the house that this order in council to which I have referred does not simply give the wartime prices and trade board power to impose price control; it also gives the board power to impose wage and salary controls. Every member who supports this measure is supporting a continuation of power in the hands of the wartime prices and trade board to reimpose salary and wage controls. For my part I am not prepared to support any measure that would permit the reimposition of salary controls or wage controls.


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: Isn't that sad?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Secretary of State (Mr. Gibson) make his annual one-sentence contribution to the debates of the house. He says, "isn't that sad?" I will tell him that, if he goes into his riding, gives his electors a frank statement, and says that he advocates asking the house to pass legislation that will give power to the wartime prices and trade board to reimpose wage controls and salary controls, he will not come back to this house.


Colin William George Gibson: Don't you worry about him; he will be back all right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He will not be back. I will be saying goodbye to him on the dissolution of the house.


Mr. Garson:: Goodbye to you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He is not the only one to whom we will be sending flowers.
The socialist members to the left, Mr. Speaker, will also have to justify their support of a measure that will give the wartime


prices and trade board power to reimpose wage controls and salary controls.
Let me pass on to section 8, which puts upon the person charged with a breach of the order the onus of proving that he has not committed a breach of the order in respect of the price at which he sells his goods. That is entirely undemocratic. It is just as antithetical as anything can be to the things we are supposed to stand for in this Canadian parliament. I submit to the house that if it has retained its sense of duty and sense of self-respect it cannot possibly approve measures of that kind. One may go through the other orders that will be continued by the bill to follow, if the house permits it.
Order No. P.C 9029 again gives sweeping powers to the wartime prices and trade board to enter any premises, and examine any books of people whom they suspect of having committed any breach of the leasehold regulations. No warrant is needed; they can just walk into premises and take over the books. That is the kind of legislation that the government is asking us to continue under the guise of giving them power to deal with a particular problem. The problem is there, of course it is; but it ought not to be made the excuse for arbitrary and high-handed methods of that kind.
There is a similar criticism of the order on steel control, P.C. 245. With respect to steel that order contains some of the most sweeping provisions that the mind of man could devise. Under section 3 of that order the steel controller can take possession of steel wherever he finds it. He can enter on any land, and into any mine, plant, factory, mill and other buildings for the purpose of inspecting operations. He can enter on, take possession of and utilize any mine, land, plant, factory, mill, refinery, smelter, foundry, warehouse, building, or place that is used or capable of being used for the purpose of producing or dealing in or with steel, and other things in relation to steel. In the year 1949 is this house going to justify the continuation of powers as sweeping as those? The situation that exists cannot, by any stretch of a reasonable mind, be treated as an excuse for the continuation of powers like these.
There is a similar situation with the order establishing timber control, P.C. 1997. The timber controller has power, among many other things, to enter on, take possession of and utilize any land or premises or any plant, building, place, equipment or facilities used or capable of being used for producing and/or dealing in timber. He can produce or deal in timber; he can do many other things. There is nothing in the situation today that justifies a continuation of vast powers such as these.

A similar provision exists in the order dealing with priorities, P.C. 1609. Do the members of the house realize that section 2 of this order gives the priorities officer power to prohibit the making of, or dealing in, construction materials? It does not stop with giving the priorities officer power to control and regulate the making of or dealing in construction material; he has the power to prohibit. Any good citizen who is interested and engaged in the production of these materials should know that it will lie within the power of the priorities officer to step in and to prohibit him from continuing his operation if these orders are continued in force in their present form.
Running through all these orders there is that vice, to which I drew attention earlier in my remarks, of the power to delegate power, to delegate to officials power to do many things under these orders. They are powers that no self-respecting House of Commons can contemplate being conferred by it upon officials.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that these orders mark again the determination of the government to retain power that is centralized at Ottawa, the kind of power that the C.C.F. want to see centralized here. Again, in a measure of this kind, the C.C.F. see eye to eye with the Liberal party. The C.C.F., in the program it laid down at its convention last summer, advocated again the appointment of a national planning board. They want to see the constitution changed in order that power can be concentrated in a national planning board and thus control the economy of the country. They want to see the constitution changed in order that there may be vested in the government power to regulate all trade and commerce. It is all of a piece with the proposals of the league for social reconstruction in the book they put out in 1935, "Social Planning in Canada", when they advocated the establishment of a national planning board of three or not more than five persons to plan the economy, a vision of a super-centralized Canada. To the extent that the C.C.F. can see in this measure the fulfilment of their hopes-and they can see a good deal in it-they will of course applaud it and support it to the limit.
Again, Mr. Speaker, measures of this kind, seeking to continue powers that cannot be justified in the face of present conditions, powers that go far beyond the needs of the government to deal with existing problems, are definitely socialistic. Those are the controls the C.C.F. want to see made permanent, and of course the government is very obliging.
I have spoken about the continuation of wage control made possible by this measure.
Transitional Measures Act This is also akin to the measures which are being foisted on the British people today by the socialist government over there, in the form of direction of labour and direction of agriculture. Mr. Speaker, if any workingman in this country wants to be ordered around, wants to have direction of labour in peacetime, then certainly he ought to vote for the C.C.F. at the coming general election, or for the semi-socialist Liberal party, to your right. If any farmer in this country believes in directed agriculture, believes the government should be given power to tell him what to grow and power to take his land from him if he does not do what the government representative tells him, then certainly he should vote for the socialist C.C.F. or the semisocialist Liberal party.
Then we must not forget the contribution the C.C.F. would make to the solution of our problems. I well recall, as I hope you do, Mr. Speaker, the contribution made to the debates of this house on October 5, 1945, by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), probably the most frankly spoken member of the C.C.F. party in this house. I always give the hon. member credit for speaking frankly, and I wish some of his colleagues would follow his example. Here is what he said, speaking on a very significant subject, at page 821 of Hansard for 1945:
. . . when the war is over, the debt should be cancelled. There is no reason why when they come back and go into overalls, into plants and factories, they should start to pay tribute by way of interest to people who sat back comfortably and secure and invested their money. The national debt, apart from the interest, we owe to ourselves. It is not a liability but an asset.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There you have in very plain terms a demand for repudiation of our national debt. The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe) was one of those who just now said "Hear, hear" to that proposal; so there is at least one other member of that group on record on this subject.
And they talk to high heaven about the virtues of planning. It is a very euphonious term to disguise the raw realities of socialism, and the regimentation which is inherent in socialistic planning. They can dress it up all they like, but it is still the same ugly regimentation.
To be quite clear on this, Mr. Speaker, the system of free competitive enterprise in which this Progressive Conservative party believes is not a system that can be compromised or confused with the kind of socialistic planning these hon. members seek to support. I quote to you a statement from a responsible Canadian businessman, the chairman of the executive of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce,

Transitional Measures Act who recently made this intelligent observation in stressing the differences between this system of so-called socialistic planning on the one hand and the system of free competitive enterprise on the other:
One of the most important factors that distinguishes our system-
That is, the free competitive system.
-from planned economy is not the absence of planning, but that the planning of industry comes from the consumer rather than from the planning board of an all-powerful state.
That is a significant observation.
We want to see an end to the kind of procedure that prevails when more and more powers are vested in the government and they proceed to exercise those powers in secret. There was a significant occurrence in this house last week when a request was made for the tabling in the house of certain papers and documents pertaining to a crown company. A minister of the crown, supported by the C.C.F., rose in his place and said, "No, we do not want to set up a precedent by bringing into this house papers in relation to a crown corporation". That is an example of what would happen under a socialist economy; they do not want to bring into the House of Commons things that this house ought to know about. That is why they like to have things done behind the closed doors of the privy council chamber.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We of the Progressive Conservative party believe that the place to pass legislation is out in the open, not in secret sessions or in the privy council.


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


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh, I suppose so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you. Does the hon. member know what has been the attitude of the government of Ontario, of which the hon. member's leader was formerly head, with regard to the tabling of documents in the Ontario legislature concerning the Ontario hydro? That is a case absolutely on all fours with the matter that came up last week.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not know the particular reference my hon. friend has in mind, and until I do know it I am not prepared to make any statement from memory. What does the hon. member expect? I suppose in the legislature of Ontario at this session there have been fifty speeches on the subject of hydro.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fact is that your leader refused to table documents which were on all fours with the documents that were the subject of the vote the other day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is so interesting to see the hon. member coming to the rescue of the government. How he does love to find himself in bed side by side with the government opposite. All I have to say to him is that he is welcome to it; we want none of it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the time that remains to me I wish to comment briefly on one or two other matters. The subject of housing has been dealt with already by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) in his constructive contribution to the debate. It was made quite clear by my leader in his remarks yesterday that an adverse vote on this omnibus resolution by any member of this party is not to be considered as opposition to rent control, a proper statutory measure of rent control. That has been made abundantly clear by the observations of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) at pages 1446 and 1448 of Hansard yesterday, so let there be no misunderstanding of the attitude of the members of this official opposition, of which I think we had a veiled suggestion last evening in the question asked by a member to your right, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of rent control. It has to be a proper measure; it has to be a measure in proper statutory form, not something hidden in an omnibus resolution of this kind.
The government has made a sorry botch and failure of housing, which was the subject of some of those juicy promises on which they got themselves elected in 1945. May I here express publicly to my esteemed and hon. friend the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) my profound sympathy, in that his admission to the charmed government circle should have been on the basis of his acceptance of such a lemon as was fobbed off on him by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). That minister, having made one of the most lamentable failures in Canadian government history in dealing with this housing problem, now passes it off on the unsuspecting Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. I wish to say to the minister in all sincerity that in anything I have to say on the subject of housing, either in this house or elsewhere, I shall have due sympathy for the unhappy position in which he now vicariously finds himself.
Not a word has fallen from the lips of a member of the government this session as to how they are going to cope with the housing crisis. When I spoke in this house on February 3 during the debate on the speech from the throne, I quoted figures indicating that according to statements made by leading government officials the housing crisis in Canada is just as serious today as it was three years ago. Our net progress in three

years under this administration has been absolutely nil. Put that fact, Mr. Speaker, against those juicy promises which the government held out to the people in 1945.
What are they doing to encourage the people who have accommodation in the form of one room or two rooms that they would be prepared to rent if it were not for the freezing controls which apply to shared accommodation? What are they doing about that? We argued this question at great length two years ago. We asked the government to eliminate the freezing controls from shared accommodation as applied to tenancies thereafter created. The government, of course, turned a deaf ear to anything in the form of a constructive suggestion. Apparently, they are content that the problem should continue.
We will never see a solution of this housing problem, of such critical proportions in this country, so long as there is manifested on the part of this government such a smug and self-complacent attitude as was exhibited in this chamber last night when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) crowed about eighty-one thousand houses. I should like to say to him, and to any other member of the government who shares his smugness in the face of the critical housing situation, that the people of Canada know the government has made absolutely no progress in three years, with all its boasting and blustering, and has failed lamentably in the discharge of its duty to the people of Ganada.
In the short space of time that remains I cannot say all I had intended to say. I shall close with this observation. There are many things the government could do to meet the problem of inflation, because we have inflation in Canada. One of the things that is so obvious, and to which the government closes its eyes, is the matter of money supply. Taking the last issue of the statistical summary of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Speaker, one can see that within the last four months the money supply in Canada, which is controlled by the Bank of Canada, is higher than it has ever been in the country's history, $4,500 million. All through 1948 the money supply has increased out of all proportion to the rate of increase in industrial and commercial activity. Is it any wonder that all through 1948 the dollar has gone down in value and the price level has risen? There is something to which the government could address itself, if it had the courage and energy to do so.
There is one place where the government could make a most effective and constructive contribution towards meeting the problem of the Canadian consumer, the high cost of living and the higher scale of taxation; but will the government do anything? They have
Transitional Measures Act turned a deaf ear to the pleas that have been made for tax relief, pleas that have been made on behalf of the suffering Canadian people. The government has chosen for itself the role of oppressor of the Canadian people by continuing its extortionate taxes which cannot be justified in times like these.
We know it is part and parcel of the communist strategy to foment a depression in the free western countries wherever it is possible. It is part of their scheme to bring about chaos by the advent of the depression. They have been working for that, Mr. Speaker. Did it not shock you then to see a statement recently made by the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well), which is quoted in the Montreal Gazette dated December 31, 1948? This dispatch reads as follows:
Ottawa, December 30: C.C.F. leader M. J. Coldwell admitted here tonight that there was little possibility that Canada would have a "democratic socialist" government in the immediate future unless the dominion entered a period of economic distress.
You know now, Mr. Speaker, who wants to see economic distress in this country because of the political advantages it would give them. It is the duty of the members of this house to assert that they will be true to their responsibility to the Canadian people and work in this house for such proper and constitutional measures as will contribute to the lasting prosperity, happiness and freedom of the Canadian people.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I know that this is not the place to have a discussion on the measure now before the house. It is really a resolution asking for the right to introduce a bill. I have sat here now for the better part of two days and listened to seven Conservatives stand in their places and sing the same swan song. I think it is time the tune was changed. In my opinion, the tactics being employed are designed to stop the introduction of the bill. Every argument they advanced, from the leader to the last gentleman who spoke, this little merchant of the spoken word, it was the same story. It has been a straight argument on behalf of big business and the protection of capital. The basis of their argument is that capital has a prior right over the rights of the human being. The government has no right to enter the picture to protect the rights of the little people.
The hon. member who just spoke went out of his way to antagonize people. I think it is unbecoming, you know, because I like him. At one time, I told him that if I were ever being tried for murder, he would be my lawyer. He asked me why, and I said, "For the simple reason that I would die of old age before the case reached the jury." I do not

Transitional Measures Act like to see him disillusioned. The way he carried on this afternoon, I would not be sure when he went in the courtroom on whose side he would be. I was rather surprised at his arguments because none of them were valid.
First, he says we are giving the government these wide powers. I wish we were, but we are not. The fact of the matter is that all the government is requesting in the bill that will be introduced, because it is similar to the bill we passed last year, is this: They want to give statutory protection to the little fellow who is renting a home today but who will be on the street a week from Monday if this measure is not passed. There are hundreds of people in this city who are renting apartments and who are in fear and trembling lest rent control is abolished. I talked to some people last night and if this measure is not passed they will be on the street with nowhere to go. When this bill becomes effective, in so far as rent control is concerned, all it means is that those who are renting accommodation, who have not a home of their own, will not be evicted for one year. There are thousands of people across this country in the larger cities who will be on the street on the 1st of May if rent control is not continued.
My hon. friends have argued that should be done.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, they have not.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, you have.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Not on rent controls.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, you have; you cannot backtrack on that.
What are the other measures that are going to be retained in this legislation? A few price controls, not half enough, are being retained. There is the control on flour, citrus fruits, and odds and ends of that sort. The thing to which I object strenuously is that there is not enough control. Too many controls have been removed. The arguments we hear from this side of the house are ridiculous. My hon. friend quoted something I said in 1945, and I am glad he did. I am glad he took the position he did on that matter. I said in 1945, and I reiterate it now, that we had no right to send the young men into the air, on the sea and on the land with a rifle in their hands to fight a war and then, when they came back, put them in plants and factories to assist in production and tax them in order to pay interest on the bonds that were sold during the war-to fight the war-to people who stayed at home and made money. I say that should not be done. Those young men had already made their maximum contribution. My hon. friend takes the position now tMr. Gillis.]
-and I hope that is the position of his party- that they are quite satisfied that the boys who fought the war, who won the war and made it possible to maintain the institutions we have on this continent, should now be taxed in order to pay tribute to the bondholders, the bankers and the coupon clippers. I say that should not be the situation. Those boys made their maximum contribution.
Another error made by the hon. member was this. He spoke about the wartime prices and trade board. He waved his arms; he would have made a good evangelist.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is not too late yet.


Clarence Gillis: He said that the wartime prices and trade board, with their sweeping powers, had the right to fix wages and salaries. But they did not. The hon. member is in error there. That was done under order in council P.C. 9384, and was administered by the labour department.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is in black and white.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member did not have his glasses on. Going that far with what my hon. friend had to say, I really do not like to quarrel with him. I realize where he stands. His party believes in the right of capital.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the Liberal party.


Clarence Gillis: He believes in the right to protect big business.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the Liberal party.


Clarence Gillis: He believes that ninety per cent of the people of this country should be exploited by the other ten per cent.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the Liberal party again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Clarence Gillis: I did not interrupt my hon. friend while he was speaking. If he wants to ask a question, let him wait until I have finished.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not asking a question.
I am asking that the hon. member's last remark be withdrawn. I refer to the remark to the effect that I believe that ninety per cent of the people should be exploited by the other ten per cent. That remark is clearly a breach of the privileges of this house.


An hon. Member:: Ninety-five per cent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member said that either I myself or those with whom I sit believe that ninety per cent of the Canadian people should be exploited by the other ten per cent. That remark is a breach of the privileges of the house and it is utterly untrue.


Clarence Gillis: I have the floor, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I ask that the remark be withdrawn.


Clarence Gillis: I never say anything without carefully considering it, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. member meant the Liberal party.


Clarence Gillis: I listened to several Conservative speeches in a row.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remark be withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand that the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) is saying what he believes to be the stand of a certain party. I do not see that there is any reason why his remarks should be withdrawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And Your Honour agrees with them.


Clarence Gillis: As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, I never say anything without carefully considering it; and I listened for a long time before I came to that conclusion. I think it was a conservative estimate. I think perhaps I could have gone higher than that. But that is my interpretation of the speeches I heard here on this particular measure. I came to the conclusion that my hon. friends are concerned for the protection of capital, and that they are not particularly interested in anything else. I am not taking anything back on that score.
What is the position in this matter of controls? Practically all the controls are off. All of the controls that mean anything are gone. I am quite prepared to continue what we have for the sake of the small amount of protection there is in them, particularly in the matter of rent control. The wartime prices and trade board is gone. I could name a whole list of controls that are gone, but I shall not waste the time of the house in doing so. For a few moments I wish to direct the thoughts of hon. members to this matter of controls. Have we now controls outside of this house?


An hon. Member:: Surely.


Clarence Gillis: The answer is, definitely yes. Who are these controllers, what are they controlling for, and whom are they controlling for?


An hon. Member:: Whom are they responsible to?


Clarence Gillis: That is a question we must answer for ourselves. What effect have these controllers on the legislation that goes through this House of Commons?
The economic set-up in this country is this. If hon. members will examine the records they will find it to be true that about eighty-eight directors of the chartered banks-
Transitional Measures Act


Mr. Skey:: Here we go.


Clarence Gillis: I hear the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Skey), I think it is. He says "oh". Every time someone tramps on their feet and it hurts them, they groan.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: It is the same old story. We hear it over and over again.


John Oliver Probe: It is still the same old story.


Clarence Gillis: If you follow through the directors of the chax'tered banks, in their ramifications, you will find they are connected with practically every industry in this country.


Mr. Jackman:: That is why they are chosen.


Clarence Gillis: He who controls finance, fairly well controls the country. When that control goes back into your industrial set-up, the tie-up is complete.


Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Save it for the folks back home.


Clarence Gillis: This is good for my hon. friend too.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Gillis: The control within is such that all of the economic processes of the country, by means of which the people live, are in the hands of one small group. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), who is a farmer-and T have seen him stand up and wave his arms- knows that the price of practically everything produced on a farm today, from milk right down, is fixed by the packing companies of this country from coast to coast. That is price fixing. They make the money. They milk the farmers. That is price control; that is irresponsible control from the outside, responsible to no one. Who fixes the price of fuel?


An hon. Member:: Who set the price of wheat?


Clarence Gillis: Is it fixed by the government?


An hon. Member:: John L. Lewis.


Clarence Gillis: Certainly it is not fixed by the government. It is fixed by Dominion Steel and Coal in the east and by Canadian Collieries in the west. They will charge you, and you pay through the nose. You have no say in what you pay. That is price fixing. That is control from the outside. That situation ramifies through the whole economic set-up. Pressure from these groups can force your government into doing the things they want done. In both the provincial and federal fields, I am reasonably sure that from time to time cabinets are in the position of wrangling with these pressure groups against certain proposals that are not in the best interests of the Canadian people. That is control; that

Transitional Measures Act is the kind of control that my friend the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) wants. I am not surprised, because he does not come from the stratum of society where he has been up against that kind of stuff. But if he ever becomes a cabinet minister he will know what it means. Or if he ever works for one of these corporations, comes to a conference table, and attempts to negotiate wages, he will know what is meant when it is said that there is no humanity in industry. I have been told that. I have been told that figures on the right side of the ledger are what count, that this is a business proposition. The corporation will use you as long as they can wring profits out of you. That is the kind of industry that I have been hearing about in the last seven speeches. I have been hearing a plea for these poor fellows who today actually have in their hands all of the power in this country.
When I hear hon. members in this house talk about democracy, and Saving our democratic set-up I am afraid that, if they do not smarten up and try to re-establish democracy in this country, they may do what has been done in Europe-that is, pull the house of cards down over their ears. That is the kind of thing that has happened in Europe. What we have in this country today is not the democracy that was established by confederation. What we have is a managerial form of society. The government is managed from the outside, and that would be much more the case than it is today if my hon. friends to my right were over on the opposite side. I believe however, that those on the opposite side today are really trying to struggle against that sort of thing. At least they are going this far; they are saying: "We are going to maintain rent control so thousands of people in this country will not be evicted". My hon. friends sitting to my right say "Take them off, and let them be evicted".


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: That is not so.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You are dead wrong.


Clarence Gillis: An attempt is being made to maintain some price control on flour, citrus fruits and other things of that kind. But my hon. friends to my right say, "Take them off; let flour go up. We stand for the milling companies, so that they will make more money."
Then, in the matter of housing, the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) gets up about every second day and wants to know where he is going to get nails.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And I am still wondering where I am going to get them. If that is a priority of the government, under controls-


Clarence Gillis: But when we had controls the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply could get up every once in a while and tell him where to get them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No, no. I have the priorities as to where they went.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Clarence Gillis: But today, under private enterprise-no nails.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is government misdirection.


Clarence Gillis: Then, has not housing been in the hands of free enterprise since the end of the war?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: No; it is under national housing.


Clarence Gillis: The government set up some machinery. They took more responsibility than they should have taken when they were not handling it themselves. The fact is that the government guaranteed the money to the lending companies, established the National Housing Act, and placed it in the hands of the insurance companies in the matter of administration-and we get no housing. Then hon. members to my right scream at the government because they are not getting houses. Why? Because free enterprise cannot produce. They are not building the houses. Let me repeat what we have said on a good many occasions, that we will never have houses in this country for the low-income groups until subsidized housing is established; and they will never be built until they are built through the municipalities and towns, where they can do the planning for themselves in their own communities, and where they have the administrative machinery to do it. And unless it is taken out of the hands of the insurance companies which want to make money out of it, we will not have any houses.
Then what is the position of free enterprise in connection with steel production? Someone will say there is steel control. That is true, to some extent. If there were not, I do not imagine we would have much steel in this country. The government provided for the extension of plants, and pleaded with free enterprise to do something about it. But free enterprise did not do much. Then the government came along with a fifty-fifty proposition, whereby it would provide half the capital. Still not much was done about it.
There is an example of the failure of free enterprise, where it had failed to supply the necessary quantities of steel in this country- something basic to our whole economy. I say that, when controls were taken off the whole structure they should have been

retained for at least some years, until we got back to a peacetime economy. That was a wrong procedure, and is responsible for the condition we face today.
I do not think the people for whom hon. members to my right have been pleading are suffering much. I happened to pick up the Ottawa Journal this morning and I find that International Nickel reports a. net profit of $5,604,938 higher than last year. The article states:
International Nickel Company of Canada, Limited, had net profit in 1948 of $39,108,404, up $5,604,938 from 1947.
This is after setting aside $3,000,000 for contingencies and is equal to $2.55 a common share, compared with $2.16 in 1947.
Of the profits, $29,156,338, or $2 a share, was paid in common dividends and $1,933,899 in preferred. Balance of $8,018,167 was retained for future requirements of the company.
One could look at the records of any corporation in this country and get the same kind of figures. But if one stands in the House of Commons and says, as in the case of International Nickel, that the man who went down into the mine at Sudbury, threw his body against nature and sweat that wealth out of the ground, is entitled to an equal share of what he produced, and that capital has no prior right over him, one is branded as a socialist or a communist-or dangerous, as one of my colleagues has suggested.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or it is regimentation.


Clarence Gillis: I was listening to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) who, I notice, has now left the chamber-and I do not blame him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He can't take it.


Clarence Gillis: After reading about these International Nickel profits, having some idea of what the men who go down in the mine are up against, and after listening to this accusation of socialism and communism, and what have you, I happened to pick from my files this document which, it seems to me, is an answer to this nonsense one hears spoken about socialism. This is humanitarianism.


Mr. Marlin:: It is Liberalism.


Clarence Gillis: With a small 1. I just happened to pick this up while the hon. member was speaking. It states:
Labour is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruits of labour, and could never have existed if labour had not existed first. Labour is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
Where do you think that came from? If I were to ask that of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Skey) he would likely say it came from "Who Owns Canada", or some other C.C.F. publication. Abraham Lincoln
Transitional Measures Act said that in December, 1861. We see just how far back my hon. friends are. The language we talk today Abraham Lincoln was talking away back in 1861. That is the right of the human being to share in the wealth he has produced; the right to a home and all it stands for.


An hon. Member:: Jesse James.


Clarence Gillis: He was a gentleman; at least he took a chance.
I had not intended taking part in the debate, until the hon. member for Eglinton provoked me. I should like now to conclude, in the hope that we may get around to the bill and make a study of it. I hope it contains much more than it did last year, and that the government is reimposing many of the controls which were taken off. I suggest they ought not to take too seriously much of what they hear from the official opposition, my Progressive Conservative friends, because the official opposition is not talking the language of the people of this country. There is one thing the people understand today, and it is that the government took them through the war by a process of planning the economy of the country. They protected the income of the people by means of price controls and subsidies. Through excess profits taxes a fair share of profits was taken from industry. If the government were to reimpose these controls tomorrow it would be backed by 75 per cent of the people of this country. I suggest that serious consideration be given to that before the next election takes place.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, now that my good friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has disposed, at least to his own satisfaction-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of the Tory party.


Howard Charles Green: -of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and other members of the Progressive Conservative party, I would ask the patience of the house for a few moments while I deal with what seems to me to be the fundamental question raised by this debate. I suggest the question is this: Is Canada in 1949 to have parliamentary government or emergency controls? The resolution under discussion reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation of certain orders and regulations of the governor in council for a limited period during the national emergency arising out of the war.
This measure is the great-grandchild of the War Measures Act. As hon. members know, that act permitted the government to take almost any step by order in council during the war. There was no serious quarrel

Transitional Measures Act with such a measure under war conditions. Then in 1945, when the fighting had ended, the government brought in what was called the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. That act gave to the government much the same powers that had been exercisable under the War Measures Act. I think the act of 1945 was continued in 1946 and then in 1947 we had introduced what was called the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act. I would ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to correct me if I am wrong in this outline.
The preamble of the act of 1947 referred to the fact that it was to be temporary. It was mentioned in the headnote also that the powers were to be for a limited period only. Instead of giving the government over-all powers in certain fields, the act had fifty-seven orders in council as a schedule. Your Honour will recall that it was called the Heinz bill, because there were fifty-seven varieties of order in council. In 1948 this act was extended for a period of one year so that it has remained in effect until the present time. Today we are considering its successor, the Transitional Measures Act of 1949.
This great-grandchild was ushered into the world the other evening rather apologetically. The Minister of Justice, who is sponsoring it, had nothing to say at all; he just threw the resolution on the table and sat down. Later in the debate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) got up and explained that he was to be responsible for some of the orders in council which were to be continued under this new measure, and his statement will be found at page 316 of Hansard.
He referred, first of all, to rental control. He explained that he had been trying to palm off rental control on the provinces but had been unsuccessful. He said he was now sponsoring it in this bill. He mentioned also the wartime prices and trade board and said that the price control powers granted to that board would apply only to twelve commodities. Those commodities were flour, bread, butter, citrus fruits, imported canned citrus fruit juices, certain fresh vegetables, imported onions, certain fresh fruits including imported apples and imported grapes, domestic canned vegetables, imported canned fruits, molasses and sugar. It will be noticed that over half of those commodities are imported.
Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) took over and explained that he was responsible for the other three orders in council which were to be retained by this bill. First was steel control, for which he 
put up quite an argument. The second was timber control, about which he was very halfhearted. He said that that control might be needed for a few months, but he was very lukewarm about it. I understand from British Columbia that the timber control is now of little effect and it would make practically no difference if it were dropped. The third was the priorities control and, like the timber control, the minister said that it would probably be required only for a matter of a few months.
I think members of the government realize that they are not on very firm ground in asking for a continuation of these emergency powers. That may be one reason why so few members of the government are speaking in this debate. Another explanation may be a statement which was made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Jean) last November. I have here a press dispatch reporting an interview given by the minister in Quebec on November 24. It was carried by the Canadian Press and reads:
Order In council rule era ending.
Solicitor General "hopes" no need now for cabinet's wartime power.
Quebec, November 24-(CP)-Solicitor General Jean said here Tuesday at a press conference that possibly the last use of procedure by order in council under Canada's emergency transitional powers act has been made by the federal cabinet.
Mr. Jean said he is due to present in Ottawa today his final report as head of a committee on application of the emergency powers.
He said he hoped there will be no further necessity for cabinet orders under the legislation designed to ease the country from a war to a peacetime administration footing.
Mr. Jean made the statement during a meeting with newspapermen.
His discussion of administration by order in council was in reply to a question whether the Liberal party was concerned about criticism that the authority of parliament had been supplanted by the cabinet.
Mr. Jean said he happened to be in charge of a committee appointed to take charge of the question of returning to parliament administrative power which during the war had been assumed by the cabinet.
It is quite obvious that even last fall the Solicitor General realized the weakness of trying to maintain these emergency powers, but apparently he has been overruled. This resolution is clear evidence of the failure of the cabinet to shake off their wartime mentality; it shows quite clearly that they still have an order-in-council hangover.
The problems to be dealt with by this measure are important and they are difficult.
I admit that they are very serious. I think those problems might be summed up as the rental problem, the prices problem and the steel problem. They are much too important to be trifled with, to be left to order in council and regulation under a minister and controllers, deputy controllers, assistants and so-

on. They are much too important to be dealt with on an emergency basis. They are really much too deep-seated to be solved by temporary measures. After all, this bill must be considered as a temporary measure whereas permanent remedies are required. The fundamental error in the government's planning has been that it is basing the legislation on war emergency.
Let us take the rental problem first. That problem arises out of a great shortage of housing. There are many reasons for a shortage of housing. In the first place there was a failure to build homes during the 1930's. Then, of course, there was a failure during the war, and we have had a great increase in population since the war. Many thousands of people have come to Canada from abroad. Another reason is that there has been a movement from the farms and rural areas to the towns and cities. I am quite sure that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will not contradict me when I make that statement. I believe that the shortage of housing is growing worse each year; in other words, that buildings are not being put up as fast as the demand arises for new homes. Obviously, therefore, the problem will be with us for many years, and it is one of the most serious facing Canada today.
I must say that I think it is also obvious that rental controls cannot be lifted at this time. Such action would result in great suffering, particularly in the cities. Certainly in the very large cities of Canada that would be the case. There should be a clear-cut, definite policy on rental control set out in statute form. If that were done responsibility for the measure would be placed directly on the members of the house rather than on controllers and wartime prices and trade board employees across the country. If rental control were set out in statute form it would give certainty where there is none today for either the tenant or the landlord.
As hon. members know, control today is by order in council and regulation, subject to chopping and changing. Every so often a change comes out. One change benefits the tenant, the next change benefits the landlord, and neither the tenant nor the landlord is sure of his rights. I think the present situation is unfair to both of them. They both have to run to the rental control officers. Lawyers very often do not know what the regulations are, and there is great uncertainty.
I think the greatest uncertainty of all is caused by the fact that no one knows, either in this house or across the country, whether the government intends to stay in the rental field or to get out of it. Apparently the government tried to get out last fall. Now is the time for the government to decide. If it
Transitional Measures Act intends to vacate the rental control field a year from now, in 1950, the decision should be announced in order to give the provincial governments an opportunity to pass legislation establishing provincial rental control should they feel that is wise, and also to set up the administration to look after those provincial controls.


Mr. Sinclair:: They have had that chance already and did not care to take it.


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) is not quite right in that statement. The government said in effect, "if you want to take over rental controls we will get out of the field", but what provincial premier would walk into that trouble if he did not have to? I am sure if the member for Vancouver North were premier of British Columbia he would not be in a hurry.


John Ewen Sinclair: I would think that the premier of Quebec and the former premier of Ontario, who are so exercised over provincial rights, would have gladly moved into that field.


Howard Charles Green: That is really not a question; it is a speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Ewen Sinclair: They want all the privileges and none of the responsibilities.


Howard Charles Green: The point I am making is this. If the government intends to get out of the rental control field in April, 1950, for goodness' sake make that announcement now, or very shortly, so that proper steps can be taken by the provincial authorities. There is another reason why the position should be made clear. Old age pensioners, in British Columbia at least, have been very hard hit by rentals. One of their main problems is to get a house for which they can afford to pay the rent. There are now different service clubs helping to build homes for the senior citizens, which homes rent for a very small fee. They should know well in advance if the control is to be taken off so that plans to help in the construction of these homes can be speeded up.
On the other hand, if the government is not going to vacate the rental control field, then permanent legislation should be passed bringing rental control in line with the dominion housing legislation, tying it in with the present legislation designed to increase the number of homes.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What about butter
control?


Howard Charles Green: In any event, no matter what stand the government takes on rental control.

Transitional Measures Act certainly leadership should be given by the dominion in setting up a low-rental housing scheme for Canada. The initiative for such schemes must come from the dominion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: What about butter
control?


Howard Charles Green: Just about a month ago the premier of British Columbia was reported in the Vancouver Sun as follows:
The provincial government will take part in a joint dominion-provincial-municipal conference to be held this year on a plan for low rental housing projects, Premier Johnson announced in the legislature.
I was very pleased to read that announcement, but a few days later a question was asked in the house by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), and the reply he got from the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) was to the effect that there would be no such dominion-provincial-municipal conference, but that the dominion would be willing to talk the question over with individual provinces, and I think he also said with municipalities. That is not good enough; that is not going to bring about any low rental housing schemes.
I am afraid that the difficulty is the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) towards the question. He was quoted on October 28, 1947, as having said in Montreal: "Subsidized housing threat to democracy"-St. Laurent.
The dispatch reads:
External Affairs Minister St. Laurent said Monday night "no government of which I am a part would ever pass legislation for subsidized housing." He was replying to a question during a speech to the McGill university Liberal club. Affable, pleasant and apparently happy as he discussed the rise and flowering of Liberalism in Canada, Mr. St. Laurent leaped to his feet during the question period with his answer to the problem of how soon subsidized housing would make its appearance in Canada.
"Not while I am there," snapped the minister as he cut off the hardly-heard questioner. He declared he believed it unconstitutional and a threat to democracy.
Much the same attitude was taken by the Prime Minister a few days ago in his speech in "The Nation's Business" series on the radio. He is reported on March 4 this year as having said with regard to subsidized housing:
I am very definite, however, in my belief that the initiative in providing low-rental housing for civilians should be taken either by the provinces or by municipalities empowered to do so by the provinces.
That does not show much of a tendency to take the initiative in bringing about a low-rental housing scheme. Actually since 1935, when the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett placed the Dominion Housing Act on the statute books of Canada, the housing legisla-
tion has been taken to include low-rental housing schemes, and I repeat that the initiative should come from the dominion.
So much for the rental problem. Now I should like to say a word about the second matter to which I referred; that is, the prices problem. The wartime prices and trade board is now practically gone. It is to be given power only over twelve commodities. So whether we believe or do not believe in that board, the fact is that to all intents and purposes its effectiveness has ended, and certainly it will be quite unable to keep down the cost of living during the year that lies ahead. I think the wartime prices and trade board is to be used largely as a bluff in an attempt to keep prices down; in fact I think that has been the main function of the board in the mind of the government during the last year. Many of these commodities which are to remain under the jurisdiction of the board are imported, as I said a few moments ago, and control over those articles can be maintained by virtue of the export and import permit legislation, which is permanent.
Here, too, on the question of price control, there is need for a long-term policy; and I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) should study the possibility of setting up adequate control over such things as illegal combines. The government seems very slow in carrying on prosecutions under that act. The machinery provided by that legislation does not seem very effective. Another direction in which thought should be given to permanent legislation is that of keeping the flow of goods at all times free in Canada. We have such things as the withholding of new patents. Improvements are being made; yet under our patent laws it is possible to keep those improvements off the market. That is a field in which the Department of Justice could do a great deal of good, and I think it could do much to keep down prices. In Canada various other unfair practices are indulged in by a minority, not by a majority of the people. The vast majority of Canadians are honest and trying to play the game with their fellow citizens, but I think we do need a tightening up in such legislation.


Mr. Herridge:: Such as monopolies.


Howard Charles Green: Yes; where there are unfair monopolies they have to be dealt with, too. There is a field for permanent legislation, and I suggest the Minister of Justice should be giving attention to matters of that kind.
The third matter I mentioned was the steel problem. That is not a war emergency. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) explained on January 28 of this year how the steel prob-

lem arises. At page 67 of Hansard he used these words:
The defence of Canada is a matter of federal jurisdiction at all times; the defence of Canada requires watchfulness and preparation at all times. Steel is an indispensable material for the proper organization and maintenance of those forces which it is the responsibility of the central government to keep in existence.
He based the proposed actions of the government in connection with steel on national defence. Really it was worry over a third world war rather than an emergency arising out of the second world war. And there is to be legislation on steel. I point out to the Minister of Justice that the speech from the throne promises:
-legislative provision for governmental assistance by loan to the producers of basic steel for the purpose of increasing production.
Why cannot the minister include in that steel legislation the provisions required for steel control, instead of leaving them in order in council form? If that were done parliament would be given direct control over steel. The order in council which this measure will keep in force gives to the steel controller and all his henchmen absolutely dictatorial power over the steel industry, including such things as the mining of iron ore. I would refer hon. members to the interpretation clause of that order in council, which defines "steel" to include all steel products, iron ore, iron metal, alloys of iron and carbon, with or without other metals, any raw materials and minerals excepting coal and coke which go into the making of steel and also any scrap metal. It provides further that the minister may declare in writing that any article, commodity, substance or thing may be included or excluded from "steel" for the purpose of these regulations. The order in council also gives the controller this power:
To enter on, take possession of, and utilize any mine, land, plant, factory, mill, refinery, smelter, foundry, warehouse, building, or place or any equipment used or capable of being used for the purpose of producing or dealing in or with steel and to deal in or with or take possession of any vehicles, cars, ships, locomotives, or other equipment deemed by the steel controller to be required or useful for the operation of any such mine, plant, factory, mill, refinery, smelter, foundry, warehouse, building or place and/or for producing or dealing in steel or equipment-
And "equipment" is very widely defined.
-provided that any order of the steel controller made under the powers vested in him by this paragraph shall be subject to any conflicting valid order of the transport controller appointed by the government on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport.
The widest possible power that can be expressed in the English language is given in that steel control order; and I suggest to the Minister of Justice it is now time that we
Transitional Measures Act had these provisions in statute form, and further that it is time for a permanent steel policy.
Finally, our main objection to this measure is the fact that emergency powers are continuing. Emergency powers are dangerous. Surely the ministers must realize that. Such powers give the persons who exercise them delusions of grandeur. They forget they are the servants of the Canadian people, not their masters. I need only quote from the article by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) in Maclean's magazine of February 1, 1947, entitled "What's Wrong with the Liberals?" No one knows better than the hon. member for Quebec South what is wrong with the Liberals. Here is what he said:
During the war years we all drifted away from democratic ideas and principles. The condition was not peculiar to the one party. It cut across every element in the nation. I believe most Canadians were in accord with the process invoked to fight the war-the extraordinary steps taken, the controls, the censorship, the security powers, the bypassing of parliament, what was tantamount to government-by-decree.
And he went on:
Undoubtedly speed, efficiency, expediency and secrecy were essential in wartime. But there is no need for any continuing sacrifice of cherished liberties or democratic principles today.
Then he went on to say:
Extraordinary power does something to the people who wield it.
That sets forth our views on these emergency powers. There is a further reference contained in the book "From Smoke to Smother", by Douglas Reed. He is the author of "Insanity Fair", the book which was written before the war and which showed us so clearly what was going to happen. At page 174, he is dealing with the United Kingdom government's emergency powers, and he says this:
Under "emergency powers" power becomes irresponsible, like a high-tension cable cut loose. When individual ministers may do this or that by signing a paper, without submitting it to parliament, the doctrine of collective governmental responsibility collapses and the limits of departmental authority become blurred.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, since the opening of this session a very clear example of the dangers of emergency powers has come to my attention. Some members will recall that I raised a question in this chamber concerning what is known as the Fraserview project in greater Vancouver. That is a veterans' housing scheme under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The objective of the scheme is worth while. It is to establish homes for eleven or twelve hundred veterans. The corporation expropriated a certain area in the southeastern corner

Transitional Measures Act of the city of Vancouver for this scheme. In that area there were between two and three hundred home owners. Instead of dealing with those home owners individually and attempting to see that they were not upset, the corporation simply expropriated the whole property, including the homes.
The expropriation plan contained a complete change of streets and lot boundaries. The corporation told these people they could have no more than about a forty-foot lot. If one had more than that, even though it was in garden or being used for chickens, it was taken away. If a person had a vacant lot in that area, that was taken too. There was in my office yesterday a man who bought two lots back in 1910. He is a Saskatchewan railroader who went out to Vancouver and selected these lots. He paid taxes on them from that time until today, and yet he was told the lots were being taken from him but he would receive compensation.
I have a letter from one man, the first letter I received about the project. I am going to read it to the house because it sets out the picture very clearly. It is dated the 4th February, 1949, and reads as follows:
Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter which 1 received on Friday of this week.
The letter to which he refers is from an officer of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
This letter from my correspondent continues as follows:
It was quite a shock to me when about two weeks ago I returned home from work and my wife said that somebody had been into my place with a tractor, doing damage to the rear of my garden. I found out that the men were working for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I went in to see Mr. Walker, and asked him why they were working on my property, and he said, "They had taken it over as of December 20, and it was not mine any longer, as they had expropriated it," and that they would compensate me for damage done, if any.
As I have a clear title to my property, which consists of a house, and lot 80 feet by 275 feet, which is in garden and orchard, all improved, I objected strongly to their attitude in trespassing on private property. Mr. Walker said I would get a notice later on, to say what they were doing about my place, and the enclosed letter is apparently a vague notice from them that they are taking part, and they don't say how much, of my garden.
Is this country that I have given nearly nine years of my life in two wars to fight for, and is now submitting to such things, a free country any more? Is my home safe, or will I get notice tomorrow that they want my house as well? Who gave the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation power to expropriate homes, land, etc., just to build more homes as a money-making scheme?
My correspondent is not correct, of course, about the money-making scheme.
I am only one of hundreds who have to submit to this unheard of robbery. The war was over three years ago, and these emergency measures should
rMr. Green 1
have been scrapped as soon as the war stopped, so that one's home should be safe.
We don't mind the company building new homes on vacant land, but we do object to them cutting up improved lots and gardens.
Mr. Walker says my lot 80 feet by 275 feet is too big for one person, even though it is all in garden and fruit and helps to make a living for the home. Who is he to judge the size of a person's lot and garden?
I came out to this country in 1911, to the Okanagan, where I lived until, being discharged from this war, and, being physically unable to work a farm any more, I bought a place here. Now I am told I have to give up half of it. I object very strongly to being confined to just a house with no garden, and I intend to fight this thing through as long as I am able to.
I hope you will be able to do something to bring this injustice to light in parliament, and stop the company from turning people out of their homes, just to build new homes for other people, so that they can make money out of it.
The latter statement, of course, is hardly correct.
Make them leave the improved property alone. There is no such emergency to steal a person's garden, when there are millions of vacant acres all over the province.
The following is the relevant paragraph from the attached letter from an employee of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation:
On December 20, 1948, an expropriation plan was filed which covered a considerable area in South Vancouver including the property above referred to. In accordance with the new plan which is proposed for the area, your buildings will remain as they are presently located, but the size and shape of the lot will be somewhat altered and that part of the lot which will not be appurtenant to the buildings on the new plan will be retained by the crown and used by it for its Fraserview project.
This clearly indicates he was going to decide how much land anyone could have. Since the question was raised here Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been trying to clear up this situation. It shows the dangers of these emergency powers, Mr. Speaker. There is no place in the Canadian system of government for powers of this type.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the hon. member a question? What have the emergency powers to do with the expropriation of land for housing in Vancouver?


Howard Charles Green: I cite that as an example of the dangers inherent in these emergency powers, and the attitude the emergency powers must, of necessity, breed in the minds of the people who have to administer them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The power of expropriation for federal purposes is as old as Canada.


Howard Charles Green: The minister missed the point about which I am complaining. I am complaining about Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation simply walking in and taking

away the homes and gardens of these people. Some of these men were earning part of their living by using the land.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That has no place in the discussion of emergency legislation. Emergency legislation is not involved in that.


Howard Charles Green: It is that sort of power about which we are complaining.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We would have to repeal the Expropriation Act.


Howard Charles Green: I say the emergency powers are of that type. I would repeat that the main question to be decided on this measure is whether we are to have in Canada parliamentary government or emergency controls. This party and I, personally, stand for parliamentary government.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask the member a question? Are you in favour of floor and ceiling prices for butter?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know what that has to do with this subject.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He is afraid to answer because of the farm vote.


Howard Charles Green: I am not afraid of any question the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) can ask or the heckling remarks he makes. Most of his remarks in the house are heckling, unfortunately. I believe that measure has been passed by legislation in this house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Are you in favour of the floor price?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I do not
intend to say very much, but I should like to inform the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) that the reason we are not saying much in this debate is due to the fact that we know we are right. We can afford to keep quiet. I remember when rent controls came into effect some people were not wise enough to raise their rents when the rent was too low. Some of these hardships were rectified, perhaps most of them. I do not want to see rent controls lifted until there are enough houses to satisfy the needs of all our workers. But the effect of the lack of housing has not been all bad. We know that the building business has connected with it more allied industries than perhaps any other. As long as there is a need for housing and building there will be a need for cement, for lumber and for nails, as I am sure somebody will agree. As long as we have need for building and construction, we shall have good times. I am strongly in favour of keeping the controls until there is enough of the commodity to
Transitional Measures Act satisfy the need or until there is more of the commodity than there is money to pay for it.


Mr. G. S. White (Hastings-Peterborough):: wish to speak briefly, Mr. Speaker, on the resolution before the house, which is to continue certain so-called emergency controls under the guise of the national emergency.
When the order in council was passed in November, 1941, P.C. 8528 which set up the wartime prices and trade board, its preamble contained the following words:
. . . the wartime prices and trade board regulations were made and established to provide safeguards under war conditions . . .
Under that order in council we in Canada for the first time had an octopus which controlled the economy of this country. This original order in council conferred most sweeping powers on the officials of the wartime prices and trade board. I imagine that few people in Canada, apart from lawyers, have during the war years and to date fully read the many orders in council, regulations and orders passed by the board and by the administrators and officials under the board who had delegated authority. A mere glance at many of these orders and regulations would show that the most sweeping powers are conferred upon the board.
During the time that this board has been in existence it has been a law unto itself because, under these original regulations which are still in effect, the powers granted to the board could be delegated. Certain officers of the board were given authority to issue orders and regulations, which orders and regulations would have the force of law. These officers to whom these powers were delegated have, through the years, issued hundreds and hundreds of various orders and regulations which all have the force of statute law. In many cases these same officials have interpreted their own orders and regulations.
In the resolution before the house there is a slight change in the wording from that contained in the original order in council which set up the wartime prices and trade board. The original order was "to provide safeguards under war conditions." The resolution before the house refers to "the national emergency arising out of the war." Yesterday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), when speaking on this resolution, pointed out clearly that the government to date has not offered the house any explanation or any evidence as to why any of these controls should be extended, with the exception of rent control, which must be continued because of the sorry mess and muddle into which this government has got all housing. I think the government and the responsible minister should explain clearly to the members of this house why it is necessary to
1496	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act extend these controls in an omnibus bill vhich is about to be presented to the house.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.
George Stanley White: Mr. Speaker, just before the dinner recess I was dealing with the remarks made yesterday by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) when he read certain extracts from a judgment of the Manitoba court of appeal. Some of the extracts he read showed that the court had analysed the matter and had set forth its opinion as to what constitutes a national emergency. They came to the conclusion that there was no national emergency in the case at bar.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the responsible minister to indicate to the house full information as to why these so-called emergency controls-with the exception of rent controls-are still necessary. A mere glance at the original orders in council clearly indicates the very wide powers given to the wartime prices and trade board. I should like to indicate briefly some of the extraordinary and in my opinion somewhat arbitrary provisions of some of these orders in council, as set out in the office consolidation of these rental regulations for February, 1949. At page 6 I find the following extract:
The board shall have power from time to time to enter any premises, to inspect and examine the same and any or all books, records and documents in the possession or control of any landlord or of his agent, and to require any such person to produce such books, records and documents at any place before it or before any person appointed by it to investigate, and to take possession of any or all of such books, records and documents.
And at pages 7 and 8:
The board may exercise its powers by order and may from time to time delegate to any person and authorize him to exercise from time to time such of the powers of the board on such terms as the board deems proper; and the signature or countersignature by the chairman of any order purporting to have been made by such person under authority of the board shall be conclusive evidence of such authority but nothing in these regulations shall be construed as requiring such signature or countersignature.
Then, in the same book, a severe penalty is set out whereby, upon conviction, an accused is liable to a fine of $5,000 and subject to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years. At page 10, under the general provisions, there is this very interesting regulation:
Every provision of the Interpretation Act shall extend and apply to every order published or printed in the Canada Gazette or Canadian war orders and regulations or statutory orders and regu-


lations or in any extra thereof or extract therefrom purporting to have been printed by the King's Printer for Canada, but nothing herein contained shall be construed as requiring such publication or printing.
I would point out the significance of the last few words, "but nothing herein contained shall be construed as requiring such publication or printing." It seems to me that under that provision an order of the board could be passed and some regulation made by the administrator which would be binding; and it would not be necessary to have it published in the Canada Gazette or under these other provisions.
While those regulations are severe enough, I should like to refer to some of the regulations under P.C. 8528, in the office consolidation of that order in council, which deals with the immunity of all persons employed by the board. Section 15 states:
No member of the board and no administrator or other person employed or appointed by the board or acting on behalf of or under authority of the board shall be or become liable to any person for or in respect of any act or omission of himself or any other person in the exercise or purported exercise of any power, discretion or authority or in the performance or purported performance of any duty conferred or imposed by or under these regulations or any regulations for which these regulations are substituted or otherwise conferred or imposed by the governor in council.
And section 15 (2) states:
No proceedings by way of injunction, mandatory order, mandamus prohibition certiorari or otherwise shall be instituted against any member of the board, administrator or other person for or in respect of any act or omission of himself or any other person in the exercise or purported exercise of any power, discretion or authority or in the performance or purported performance of any duty conferred or imposed by or under these regulations or any regulations for which these regulations are substituted or otherwise conferred or imposed by the governor in council.
It seems to me that nowhere under any dominion statute or under any provincial statute in Canada will one find such wide and sweeping powers given to any board-a board which has authority to make orders and regulations which have the force of law, a board which has authority to delegate powers to make orders and regulations- and then, as the crowning indignity of it all, in section 15 (2) to provide that no person shall have any right of any action against any official of the board, no matter what he or she may do.
It seems to me it will be most difficult for any members in the house to vote for the continuance of such autocratic powers. I would point out that at least in Ontario there has been a wide difference of opinion as to the meaning and legality of many of the orders and regulations passed by the

board. Not only is there the judgment of the Manitoba court of appeal referred to yesterday by the leader of the opposition, where it was decided that there was no emergency, but also in Ontario we have the recent decision of the Ontario court of appeal in the McGinn case, in which it found certain provisions of the wartime prices and trade board regulations were invalid. And any Ontario lawyer who follows the law reports must have been impressed by the wide difference of opinion between judges of the county courts and justices of the supreme court as to the meaning of these various orders and regulations.
I would refer to the Ontario Weekly Notes of February 18, 1949, page 95, where a justice of the Ontario court of appeal, giving the judgment of the court in a rental appeal case, made this very significant statement:
I confess to having had much difficulty in trying to understand that section, particularly subsection 2 thereof.
In the judgment of the court of appeal the judgment of the court below was upset. In my opinion that shows, as I said, that there is a great difference of opinion among members of the judiciary as to the exact meaning of these orders and regulations.
In another Ontario case reported in the Ontario Weekly Notes of January 14, 1949, a justice of the supreme court of Ontario, giving judgment in a rental appeal case, made this significant statement, as it appears at page 4:
Looking at the matter apart from authority, one must realize even now, and despite the changes which have come about as to the extent of government intervention in private affairs, that order No. 294 is a somewhat extraordinary and arbitrary invasion of what was formerly regarded as the private business of the ordinary citizen.
I ask you to note the words of the justice where he states that the order is an extraordinary and arbitrary invasion of what was formerly regarded as the private business of the ordinary citizen. I agree entirely with what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said yesterday when he asked the minister to bring in separate bills for each of the controls he is now asking to have continued. I think it is only reasonable that we members of this parliament should put into statute form those controls which it is found necessary to continue so that the Canadian citizen will know exactly what are his rights.
When consideration is given to the far-reaching and arbitrary orders and regulations that have been issued by this board; when consideration is given to the wide and sweeping powers conferred on the board with the additional authority to delegate those powers to other persons; when consideration
Transitional Measures Act is given to the complete immunity of the board no matter what its actions may be, I wonder how any hon. member can vote for this resolution and persuade his own conscience that such powers are in accordance with well known, well defined and well established Canadian legal procedure.
On many other occasions I have referred in this house to the manner in which the wartime prices and trade board have carried out their duties. This board has sent snoopers around the country to harass and embarrass merchants. Where one merchant will be prosecuted, the next goes free although he is guilty of the same offence. In the face of such tactics I wonder how the board can expect the Canadian citizen to respect the methods under which these regulations and orders are administered.
We have heard a lot about tenants. As a country lawyer I have had much to do with both tenants and landlords. I should like to point out that landlords as well as tenants have certain legal rights. From my own personal knowledge of many cases in my own county I have come to the conclusion that the landlord might just as well have stayed at home rather than attend the hearing for all the benefit he received.
One is perhaps inclined to forget that in the average small municipality the total revenue is derived from taxation on real estate. Taxes, replacements, repairs and everything else in connection with rental property have increased greatly. So far as labour and materials are concerned, the increase is anywhere from 50 to 100 per cent. Taxes have also increased greatly, but the landlord has been allowed an increase of only 10 per cent.
I can readily understand why the socialist C.C.F. will be ready to vote for the resolution. The socialists are all for controls and if they saw their way clear they would regiment the entire economic life of this nation. In my opinion no government can make a nation great by planned economy through controls. The sooner these socialist controls are removed, the sooner we get away from a paternal state which feels that it has to spoon-feed the Canadian people, the better it will be for the'general public.
In his short but effective speech yesterday the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) summed up the whole matter in the concluding paragraph, which is to be found on page 1466 of Hansard and which reads:
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

14SS
Transitional Measures Act business and that this paternal government seek other pastimes, and other fields oi amusement than attempting to manage the private affairs of the discontented people of Canada.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Mr. Speaker, I did not think I should let this debate go any further without putting on the record some extracts from a document which to me appears to be one of the most significant that has come into the hands of members of parliament. It reports on the experience of France where property was placed under rent control in 1914; and from that time up to the present French property has been subject to rent control. Recently there has come into my hands a document written by a Frenchman by the name of Bertrand de Jouvenel, entitled "No vacancies."
Before I put this on the record I should like to refer briefly to what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said yesterday when referring to this matter, as reported on page 1454 of Hansard. I quote:
The emergency in regard to rental housing is entirely an emergency created hy 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.
There cannot be an urban member in this house who is unaware of the problems that face his constituents arising from the government's rental control policy. Property owners are being disfranchised to some extent and tenants are being made uncomfortable. In most cases tenants are unable to look forward to finding alternative accommodation. There cannot be an hon. member of this house who does not want to see the right solution found that will permit the landlord to have reasonable control over his own property and permit the tenant an opportunity to seek alternative accommodation at reasonable rental.
Mr. Bertrand de Jouvenel, as I said before, has written this significant pamphlet. I think I should begin by quoting his final conclusions which are to be found in a short paragraph entitled "Road to ruin," which reads:
Possibly the French example may prove of some interest and use to our friends across the sea. It goes to show that rent control is self-perpetuating and culminates in both the physical ruin of housing and the legal dispossession of the owners. It is enough to visit the houses in Paris to reach conclusions. The havoc wrought here is not the work of the enemy but of our own measures.
That is his concluding paragraph. In the foregoing pages he sets out the whole bleak history of what has happened in his country under rental control. It would be very unfair for me, Mr. Speaker, to take a stand for my

party that would not be in line with what my leader has said. I would be the last one to want to do that, knowing of the position that tenants in my city find themselves in today, but I do feel that it is my duty to call the attention of the house to this history which is written so clearly, because I know there is not a member here who wants to find the same thing happening in our country that has happened in France.
Here is a quotation entitled "Bootleg housing", which reads:
In short, rents are very low but there are no lodgings available. Nor are any being built. And practically none have been built for the last twelve years.
Here is another quotation entitled "Parisian plight", which reads:
To go into sordid details, eighty-two per cent of the Parisian population have no bath or shower, more than half of the population must go out of their lodgings to find a lavatory, and a fifth do not even have running water in their lodgings.
Here is another example:
To take an example of a very common situation, here is a lady who owns three buildings containing thirty-four apartments, all inhabited by middle class families. Her net loss from the thirty-four apartments, taxes and repairs taken care of, is $80 per year. Not only must her son put her up and take care of her, but he must also pay out the $80. She cannot sell; there are no buyers.
This is a man who has no axe to grind in our country, and in this document we can read the record of what has happened in France. That is why I should like to place myself on record as being in full agreement with the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) when he said this afternoon that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) should have under his jurisdiction both sides of the problem, not only the housing problem, positive action to obtain homes for Canadians, but also the negative side which is the controlling of rents. Only by having them both under his administration can the whole problem be seen in its proper perspective by one minister of the government.
I should like to change the course of my remarks for a moment and refer to the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). It was an amusing and interesting speech, but I do not believe that the theories which he advocated would be of any use in this country. He was talking straight socialism. As far as socialism is concerned a documentary record is being written for us today in another land across the Atlantic, Great Britain. I should like to refer the house to a few of the things that have been said in Great Britain so that those who read Hansard will have on record the other side of the question.


Mr. Archibald:: Especially the by-elections.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Perhaps we had better wait for the general election to know more about that. Back in 1947 Mr. Churchill described the socialist administration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I called the attention of members of the house very often last night to the fact that their remarks should be relevant to the subject under discussion. I again ask members to see that their remarks are relevant to the motion which is before the house. I point out to the hon. member that there is nothing whatever in the motion that has any reference to socialism.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I shall bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I would-


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I would say-


Stanley Howard Knowles: A little louder.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Speaking of controls, we are discussing the socialist doctrine. Perhaps I should say the doctrine of "controlism" rather than socialism, but really they are one and the same thing. They deal with restrictions. Mr. Churchill is speaking of the type of controls which we are debating under this motion. Mr. Churchill refers to them thus:
By their restrictions they make scarcity; and when scarcity comes they call for more restrictions to cure it.
I contend that is what controls are doing in Canada, and that is what they will continue to do. In August, 1947, he describes these controls in England as crazy theories.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: What about 1933 in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: It may be very clever for the hon. member for Trinity to phrase his remarks in the way he has put them just now, but he should not discuss controls which are imposed in Great Britain. I would ask him to keep his remarks relevant to the motion.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: On a point of order, in view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, may I say that in any sort of forensic effort in any arena anywhere comparisons are always relevant to the subject. All the member for Trinity is doing at the moment in his discussion of controls is making a comparison with the exercise of controls in another country. With the greatest respect and deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the comparison is entirely relevant. No one can discuss a motion in this house and be confined merely to the wording of something that is given us by the government. We must go outside by way of comparison to bring truth, whether it be in favour of or against, to bear on the measure before the house at this or any other time. With the
Transitional Measures Act greatest respect and deference, sir, I submit that these remarks are entirely relevant to this subject.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I need not go through a long story, but perhaps I can make indirect reference to the effect of these controls in Great Britain. No one was happier than I to learn by today's newspapers that Britain has balanced her exports and imports. I do hope that is the result of a little sanity creeping into their control and socialist theories. However, they have been described as leading the country into bankruptcy and disaster. The man who has control of food in Great Britain, Mr. Strachey, was met by a mass of women pickets outside the House of Commons and subjected to their very evident wrath.


Mr. Thatcher:: They keep voting for them.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Well, wait until the end of this year, or 1950; perhaps there will be another story to tell then.


John Oliver Probe: You still believe in democracy, don't you?


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I certainly do.


Arthur Leroy Smith: He does, but you do not know what it is.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I can tell you something in which I do not believe. A little earlier I was referring to the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). On June 24 of last year, at page 5822 of Hansard, 1948, he was dealing with wage controls, and was interrupted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) who asked this question:
Do I understand the hon. member correctly, that he believes there will have to be a restoration of direction of labour?


Clarence Gillis: Absolutely.
That is something I do not believe in, and I do not think the trade unionists of this country believe in it either.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: What did R. B. Bennett do?


Lawrence Wilton Skey: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the trade unionists of this country believe in that doctrine. Certainly I do not believe in it, and never will. I should like to tell the house what the Northern Miner of September 16 had to say about it:
Trades unionism is essentially an outgrowth of the system of free enterprise. It is part of the machinery of checks and balances which hold our economy level. It has no place in the socialist state where the interests of any particular group must be subordinated to what the governing body considers to be the interest of the state itself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Now the hon. member is discussing trade unionism. Again I would ask him to confine his remarks to the resolution under discussion.
1500	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act Mr. Smilh (Calgary West): Again, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when you permit interruptions and questions of the kind we have heard tonight, are you going to rule that the hon. member who has the floor has not the right to answer them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At different times I have suggested to the hon. member that I thought his remarks were not relevant. I am sure his last words were not, so I am asking him again to abide by the rules. That is all I am doing.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With the greatest respect and deference I would point out that the last remarks of the hon. member were in reply to interjections and questions coming from the socialist party immediately to my left. If you are going to rule that he cannot answer them, then you must rule that they should stop this nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not ruling against anyone; I am simply asking the hon. member to abide by the rules.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I am sorry I appear to be infringing upon certain rules of this house.
I do not mean to. I am endeavouring to discuss objectively the doctrine of controls. This is a control bill; controls are an essential part of socialism; and I have referred to the treatment of labour and the control of labour and its effect on trade unionism because I believe this is very important. As you know, the Northern Miner is one of our finest newspapers. It provides a great service for northern Quebec and Ontario and is intimately connected with the mining communities and their trade unions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I call the attention of the hon. member to standing order 40, which will be applied if I have to rise again because of his remarks:
Mr. Speaker, . . . after having called the attention of the house, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct him to discontinue his speech . . .
If the hon. member does not wish to abide by the rules of the house I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I have done my best to abide by the rules of the house, Mr. Speaker, and I find it difficult to see where I have infringed upon them. Therefore I must conclude my remarks.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Smith@Calgary West: Will this conclude the debate?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I understand not.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I hope it will not be said that I made a speech. I merely asked a question.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Am I correct in my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that this will not close the debate?


Mr. Speaker:: I stated yesterday that the motion that the previous question be now put is not a substantive motion, and that being so there is no reply.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That answers the question of the hon. member for Calgary West.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: How does it answer it? Do you close the debate?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.
I rise to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, because several of the allusions that have been made by members of the Conservative party to the subject matter have seemed to me so erroneous as to reflect a misconception of some of the facts and legal principles involved in this matter. However, I should like to congratulate all of those, with the possible exception of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, who have taken part in this debate today, on the excellent relevancy which has been preserved and in some cases even upon the force of their arguments. They were all arguments made by adults for adults, and in this respect quite different from those offered by the members of the same party in the debate yesterday. I can think of nothing which would have been more useful to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) than to be in the house this afternoon and hear the speech delivered by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). He would have learned much about how a case should be presented to this house in a matter of this kind.
From this I would not wish it to be inferred by any means that I agree that the arguments presented by the hon. member for Eglinton were sound. Before resuming my seat I hope to deal with most of the main arguments made, by him and his colleagues. In the meantime I think the time would not be wasted if we gave some attention to the legal aspects of the question now before us.
The resolution we are considering is intended to lead to the introduction of a bill to amend the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act of 1947. The first two recitals of the preamble of that act are quite relevant to this discussion, and I should like to read them:
Whereas parliament, in view of the continuation of the national emergency arising out of the war, by the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, conferred upon the governor in council certain transitional powers, pursuant to which the governor in council has continued in force certain

orders and regulations made under the War Measures Act and has made other orders and regulations; And whereas the national emergency arising out of the war, in certain aspects, has continued since the unconditional surrender of Germany and Tapan and is still continuing . . .
When we amend an act introduced by a preamble of that sort, by substituting another section 7 providing for its termination approximately a year hence, we in effect import that preamble into what we are doing in this piece of legislation. In other words, as the leader of the opposition quite correctly stated yesterday, this house takes it upon itself to declare that in certain aspects the war-induced emergency which gave rise to the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, 1947, then continued and is still continuing today.
That act of 1947 was quite short, containing only seven sections. The first set out the short title. The second provided that the orders and regulations set out in its schedule would continue in force. The third section provided for the employment of the necessary persons to administer it; the fourth, that the governor in council may revoke in whole or in part any of the regulations named in the schedule to the act; the fifth, provided for the publication of these orders; the sixth, the coming into force of the act; and the seventh, which we are now amending by the bill before us, the duration of the act. From the beginning, it has been on a temporary basis, renewal from year to year. It does not, therefore, present any of the dire consequences such as those envisaged by the last speaker in the case of France or Britain because the nature of this legislation from its commencement has been of an emergent or temporary character. The language is designed to carry out that idea.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Are you quoting from the new bill or the old one?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The bill we are now seeking to introduce is a bill which substitutes a new section for the old section 7 in the Transitional Measures Act of 1947. When we put in that new section 7-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We have not got that bill.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Which bill?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The bill about which you are talking.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The resolution we are discussing is preliminary to the introduction of the bill-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister is not in order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In any event, I have no more to offer on that aspect of the matter. I think hon. members who were very much con-
Transitional Measure.* Act cerned today, one of whom was the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), as to what orders in council are still in effect under this bill we have before us-


Mr. Pearkes:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have no bill before me. It has not been issued.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, to this resolution which is before my hon. friend, the orders in council under the Transitional Measures Act of 1947, are exceedingly relevant. The member for Eglinton, if I am not mistaken, had the consolidated office copy before him and read from it from time to time. He based his argument on it and no person on this side of the house thought it proper to question the relevancy or propriety of any of the remarks he made.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That was all right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) is now taking a position that is the very antithesis of the position he took about five minutes ago when he was raising points of order, that it is not possible to refer to any of these orders in council. It would then be quite impossible to answer any of the arguments of the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) because it would be impossible to refer to the orders in council to which he was referring.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On a point of order, my question was, are you reading from the new bill or the old one. That is the only question I asked.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have passed that part of my argument in which I was referring to them.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then do not say
that my present position is the antithesis of something else because I have not said anything since I asked that question.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Very well, Mr. Speaker, if it will make my friend any happier I am quite prepared to withdraw my remark that his present position is the antithesis of his former one.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am very happy and I thank the hon. member.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There has been some attempt, or if there was no attempt it was an accident, to convey the impression to the members of this house that the orders in council and controls were increasing rather than diminishing and that, as in France, they threatened to destroy real estate values as well as the liberty of the subject. Actually, a great deal of progress has been made towards diminishing the number of orders in council.

Transitional Measures Act
The member lor Vancouver South (Mr. Green) referred to the fact that there were fifty-seven orders in council. He said it was the Heinz bill because there were fifty-seven orders covered in the schedule. He is quite correct in saying that there were fifty-seven orders in the bill as it was presented to the House of Commons, but before the bill reached the final stages the number had been reduced to fifty. Out of those fifty, we are now concerned with carrying on in force only twelve. I should like very briefly to go over the orders in council contained in the schedule to the act of 1947 and indicate, by subject matter, those which have already been revoked, as indicating the very great extent of decontrol which has already been effected by this government. I should also like the privilege, Mr. Speaker, if hon. members will accord it to me, of putting on Hansard, for their convenience, the whole text of this list of the orders in council contained in the schedule to the Transitional Measures Act including both those which have been revoked, and those which are still in force.
The first of these was P.C. 5424, the agricultural food board regulations, respecting the recovery of subsidies. The next is P.C. 6759, respecting the repayment of subsidies and regulations on agricultural products. Then there were five regulations dealing with the civil service commission and relating, for example, to the appointment of ex-service men to the civil service, to veterans preference, and like matters. Then, under the Department of Finance, there was P.C. 394 dealing with the importation of anthracite coal and exempting it from customs duty. P.C. 8042 dealt with coke made from coal and exempting it from war exchange tax when used as fuel for cooking or baking foods or for heating buildings. Then there was P.C. 9058 dealing with bagging material, the importation of which Li exempt from customs duty. Next there was P.C. 9781- which dealt with 'well-drilling machinery and the tariff treatment accorded to it.
Then, under the wartime prices and trade board, P.C. 9870, authorizing the incorporation of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, has been revoked, as well as P.C. 5518, the repayment of subsidy order. The next one was P.C. 6497 which created ration coupon banking.
Under the Department of Fisheries, there was P.C. 6289, regulations for control of salt fish and appointments thereunder.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Was that the regulation of salt fish and appointments thereunder?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Regulations for the control of salt fish and appointments thereunder.
[Mr. Garson.)


Arthur Leroy Smith: Under the fish or what?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Then, under the Department of Labour, the wartime labour regulations which, as we know, control wages and salaries-


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, labour relations, not wages and salaries; that was P.C. 9384.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am giving the number of the main order in council in each case. Amendments made by other orders in council I am not going to refer to because there is such a large number of them.
During the debate this afternoon the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) argued that this bill which we are now seeking to introduce into the house would permit wage control. He did not explain how he arrived at this extraordinary conclusion and, personally, I am at a loss to understand how he could arrive at it because my information, obtained from reliable sources, is that all the orders in council dealing with wage and salary control have been revoked, the board disbanded and the machinery dismantled. Moreover, section 2 of the bill which it is now sought to bring before the house, limits the authority-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister is not allowed to say it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: All right. I will not say it. I will leave it to my hon. friends to make their erroneous allusions to these matters out of the wisdom of ignorance upon which they draw so heavily from time to time.
Then under the Department of Labour- and I am still dealing with decontrol; these are controls that have been taken off, as some people in Canada would argue perhaps too rapidly-P.C. 7355 dealt with financial assistance to voluntary repatriates to Japan and for liquidation and transfer of their assets to Japan. Then under the Department of Mines and Resources, P.C. 7167 reserved to the crown radioactive substances in the Yukon territory and P.C. 7167 reserved to the crown radioactive substances in the Northwest Territories. In the Department of National Defence, P.C. 6638 provided post-discharge benefits to members of the armed forces serving in an interim force; P.C. 3617, naval, military and air force estates regulations; P.C. 349, regulations respecting claims by or against the crown involving members of naval, military or air forces (overseas); P.C. 363, consolidated regulations respecting salvage services of His Majesty's Canadian ships. Then under the Department of National Health and Welfare, there were four separate orders in council dealing with old age

pensions. Under the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, P.C. 9439 dealt with emergency shelter regulations; by P.C. 7502, emergency shelter regulations were transferred to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Under the Department of the Secretary of State, P.C. 1665 dealt with administration by custodian of property of persons of the Japanese race; and P.C. 469 transferred to the custodian the property of Japanese evacuees. Then under the Department of Transport, P.C. 133/510, compensation to seamen (war damage to effects) regulations, 1939; P.C. 2245, to authorize the chairman of the board of steamship inspection to relieve any ship from the obligation to comply with any of the provisions of part VII of the Canada Shipping Act, excepting those provisions of the said part relating to radiotelegraph installations on ships and two other provisions as well.
All of these orders in council have been revoked and will not be continued in this legislation which is now sought. In addition to this, there are two other orders revoked by an order in council passed in 1948 which will take effect as from April 1 next. One is in the Department of Fisheries dealing with the prohibition of fishing licences to persons of Japanese racial origin and one in the Department of Labour with regard to the evacuation and relocation of persons of the Japanese race in Canada.
Out of fifty orders in council that were covered by and appear in the schedule to the bill of which we are now seeking an amendment, that leaves only twelve.


An hon. Member:: What bill?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am not talking about the provisions of the bill. I am talking about the act of 1947 which we are now seeking to amend. I think it is perfectly proper to refer to it in those terms because that is the basis of the resolution which we are asking the house to pass. That means that we have now retained, as being continued effective by the legislation which we now seek, only twelve out of the fifty-seven Heinz orders in council that were referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green).


An hon. Member:: That is why the cost of living has gone up.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Those are P.C. 8528, the wartime prices and trade regulations; P.C. 9029, wartime leasehold regulations; P.C. 7475, regulations of Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, which now exercises only a residual function; it is gradually completing its work. P.C. 34/4433, Government Employees Compensation Act extended to
Transitional Measures Act employees of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation; P.C. 3122, consolidation of supplementary regulations; P.C. 328 dealing with the Canadian Sugar Stabilization Corporation Limited.
Then there are two orders in council in the Department of Justice that have no substantive significance-one, P.C. 4600, authorizing, in cases involving breaches of wartime regulations, appeals through the provincial courts of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada rather than to a county court judge where constitutional issues are involved; and another P.C. 6223, calling for notice to attorneys general of Canada and of the provinces in certain cases under these regulations which involve constitutional questions.
Then under the heading of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, there is P.C. 1609, establishing construction materials regulations. There is P.C. 3, covering wartime industries control regulations; P.C. 245 the steel regulations, and P.C. 1997, the timber regulations.


George Randolph Pearkes: Will the minister permit a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: Did I understand the minister to say that there was an order in council by which there was to be revoked the prohibition against Japanese getting fishing licences on the Pacific coast, which would become effective by April 1? Does that mean that by order in council, after April 1, the Japanese will be able to get fishing licences on the Pacific coast?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In the forty minutes at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with an extremely complicated question-


Angus MacInnis: These are the people who are opposed to controls.


Gordon Graydon: You are the people who want it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -and I would refer the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) to the order in council for the reply to his question.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and, I believe, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) this afternoon, and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) yesterday, put forth this argument which, on its face, seems to have some merit. They say this. If it is desirable that these controls should be continued, why not bring before this house a statute setting forth, in terms that the members of the house can check, the provisions for that control? My reply is this. We are proposing to the house that it should continue the existing orders in council because it is hoped that the control
1504

Transitional Measures Act thereby provided is temporary and therefore it is not desirable to put the law into the form of a permanent statute. More than that, we are here dealing, and through the years have been dealing, with a situation which is not only temporary in its duration but which changes in its character quite substantially from time to time in a quite unpredictable way; and it is impossible, under a statute, to get the degree of flexibility and adaptability of administrative regulations and the like which are appropriate to deal with a problem of that kind.
During this period of economic stress or emergency resulting from war and from the shortages occasioned by war, the regulations passed under the authority of the statute of which we are now seeking the amendment required constant and frequent revision and adjustment. To have this subject to statute, which would require amendments to be brought in and passed by this house from time to time, would involve a rigidity which would be wholly inappropriate in dealing with matters of that sort. For example, since March, 1948, on this very subject of rental regulation, commercial accommodation, as we know, has been decontrolled; landlords who need their homes for their personal residence have been permitted to give to their tenants six months' notice to vacate. Any landlord, no matter when he purchases a house, may apply for exemption, based upon grievous hardship to him because of his inability to occupy the residence himself. A public institution may apply for exemption if it needs the accommodation for the extension of its public endeavours. And maximum rentals were increased from 10 to 15 per cent. This is an example in just one field alone which can be matched by similar changes in the regulations in others. To say to the people who are to be affected by regulations of this sort that no change could be made until the House of Commons was called together and passed an amendment to the statute would, I suggest, be very unacceptable to public opinion in this country.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) said this afternoon he had read in the speech from the throne that the government was introducing at this session a bill dealing with steel, and he suggested that the proper way to deal with at least steel regulations would be to incorporate them in this bill.
Now, sir, as I read the allusion in the speech from the throne-and I confine myself to that, for fear I might infringe upon the sensibilities of hon. members across the way, on a point of order, that I do not reveal any of my inside knowledge about bills which may be coming down later-
[Mr. Garson.l


Arthur Leroy Smith: Don't worry about us. It is Mr. Speaker you have to worry about.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: At the instigation of my hon. friend. Now, this allusion in the speech from the throne was to legislation to provide for a loan to a steel concern in Canada. I suggest that the making of a loan to a corporation in the steel business, and the matter of the general control of steel, are subject matters so incongruous to each other that it would be highly improper to combine them in a single statute. And if it were desirable to bring down for steel regulation a statute to this House of Commons it would be much better to have the lending statute on the one hand and another statute governing steel regulation on the other hand, separate from each other. But for reasons which I have already given in the case of rental control, regulations of the sort I have indicated, which deal with a situation which is changing and fluid from time to time, are not in an appropriate form in a statute.
In view of the discussion which has taken place thus far, I do not think it is necessary to review the statements which have already been made by my colleagues the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), that these twelve orders in council still in force cover, first of all, commodities subject to price ceilings, second, rental controls, third, steel control, and fourth, timber control.
One of the arguments made by our friends of the Progressive Conservative opposition is that they oppose the continuance of these controls upon the ground, among others they put forward, that it is unconscionable for members of the House of Commons to declare that the state of emergency which formed the basis for the act as it was originally passed still continues.
As hon. members will recall, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said that we must understand the terrible burden we take upon our conscience of declaring that there was an emergency in the country, as we must declare if we are going to pass this bill. Well, I agree entirely with my hon. friend. We do declare that the emergency still continues, because we are putting a new section 7 in a statute which has that declaration in its preamble. And when we put the new section 7 in, we do in effect make that declaration.
But surely, sir, such a declaration as that should not offend the conscience of any intelligent, reasonable and well-informed member of any legislature. I should have thought it was apparent to everyone that one of the results of every great war in history has always been inflation; and after the

greatest war in history, one in which there has been by far the greatest destruction of property, and by far the greatest outpouring of money in the war effort, inevitably in every country after a war of this magnitude under even the best of fiscal management there is a great increase in the amount of money in circulation, on the one hand, and a tremendous destruction of goods and services - upon which that money could be a claim, on the other. And that in any language spells inflation, basic inflation. To say as did the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) this afternoon, that he had noticed from one of the government publications that there was more money in circulation now after a great war than there had been before, and that therefore he immediately jumped to the conclusion that the Bank of Canada was in some way at fault, is to give an indication that my hon. friend simply does not understand the fiscal consequences of waging a great war.
If we have that condition of inflation then, sir, we have the type of economic emergency with which we are concerned in the resolution now before the house, and in the bill to be introduced. And, sir, that war-induced emergency has persisted after every war in history, and it certainly persists at the present time, and can be seen in various forms in every country of the world, civilized and uncivilized.
In the face of that emergency with all its maladjustments and dislocations, a necessity arises to introduce matters such as steel control and rent control, not as a matter of improvidence, stupidity and injustice but as a matter of prudence and good sense and in fairness to all the people of the country and particularly those who are not so well able to look after themselves.
From that I suggest that, far from its being a difficult thing for any man of conscience to affirm that we have in Canada today a war-induced emergency still continuing, I believe that the majority of members in the House of Commons will agree with me that the continuance of this exceptional condition of emergency, certainly at least so far as the matters which we seek to control in the measure now before us are concerned, is so self-evident that it is not subject to dispute at all.
In that respect I am most happy to have a very substantial measure of agreement even from members of the Progressive Conservative party. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) rose in his place in this debate and gave a most excellent description of an emergency-a most excellent description indeed. It was well described, well worded and graphically portrayed, and his whole 29087-95i
Transitional Measures Act argument supports the position of the government. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) has taken part in the debate and he dealt with three matters in particular, one being steel. This is what he said about steel, as reported on page 320 of Hansard:
In so far as steel is concerned, steel is in great demand. Steel undoubtedly requires some measure of regulation.
The hon. member admits that it requires some measure of regulation.
For what reason? The reason is that projects of great magnitude-
Listen to this for a fine description of the type of emergency for which controls should be devised:
The reason is that projects of great magnitude, so far as this little country of Canada is concerned, have been held up for a great variety of reasons. To my mind, some of these reasons are patriotic. We had a war. We were told not to use steel while the war was on. We were told to forget, until the war was over, about our building projects requiring steel. The war consumed a tremendous amount of steel. Those charged with the responsibility for new construction requiring steel, realizing that a war requires a great quantity of this product, delayed their projects five years-yes, six, seven and eight years. The blueprints, however, were on the table. Those blueprints were worrying those who were directing the affairs of different organizations such as, for example, banks and office buildings.
Could you have a better description of the kind of situation arising out of a war in which it is advisable to declare an emergency and bring into effect the same steel control?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the minister say that we need more big banks? Is that his argument?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, not necessarily to have more big banks, but perhaps to see that the limited amount of steel that was in supply would go to the building of hospitals rather than big banks.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Why did you not do it? You
have not done it for five years.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Rosedale.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend is going to do what he did before and get up and call my time, may I say that I wish he would let me have my time for myself while I am speaking.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Which point?


Colin William George Gibson: What point of order?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I have not had a chance to state my point of order. I want the house to know that when I called the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) to order the other day-
1506	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act


John Lambert Gibson: That is not a point of order.


Alphonse Fournier: The time the hon. member is taking now should not be counted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no point of order.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The point of order is the allusion to which the Minister of Justice-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I hope this time will not be taken out of my time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Rosedale will call it on you.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The minister's time is taken up by the yapping of ministers to his right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In addition to the very excellent description of that emergency by the hon. member for Danforth, I should like to refer to the statement made by the minister with regard to accomplishments under the steel control. Perhaps in so doing I may satisfy the curiosity of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) who is asking me to show what has been done. The minister stated, as reported on page 317 of Hansard:
At the present time we are moving surplus primary steel, or semi-finished steel, from the Algoma Steel Company to the finishing plants at Hamilton, to the amount of about 18,000 tons per month. We are also moving semi-finished steel from the Dominion Steel and Coal Company at Sydney to Hamilton, to the extent of about 10,000 tons per month. That 28,000 tons of steel, which cannot be finished at Algoma or at Sydney, would ordinarily go for export and be finished in other countries.
I presume, to be used in other countries.
That was the pre-war history of the surpluses of those two plants. By moving that steel to Hamilton 28,000 tons per month of additional basic steel are turned into finished products.
In reply to the hon. member for Rosedale, who asks what we are doing, I say that that is what we are doing. The minister continued:
To end steel control abruptly at this time would, I am sure, reduce the production of finished steel from Canadian plants and Canadian foundries by as much as 20 per cent.
In the face of these facts, what sort of mentality is it that will result in an hon. member of this house getting up and saying that it disturbs his conscience and his intellectual honesty to be asked to declare that there is an emergency which warrants these controls?
During the course of the discussion the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) intro-


duced among other and irrelevant matters a recent decision of the court of appeal in my own province of Manitoba in the case of Nolan and Hallet and Carey versus the Attorney General of Canada. In replying to a question yesterday, the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that the Department of Justice had instructed counsel to appeal this judgment. That is entirely correct. Therefore I do not think that it is proper for me, any more than it was proper yesterday for the leader of the opposition and for the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), to comment upon a case which to all practical intents and purposes is sub judice. Certainly for me as Minister of Justice to attempt to analyse a judgment from which we are taking an appeal would be, in my opinion, improper in the highest degree and I have no intention of doing any such thing.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why would it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: However, I do not think it would be improper for me to point out that I agree entirely with the leader of the opposition when he says that the decision of the Manitoba court of appeal did not hold that the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act was ultra vires of the dominion parliament. Unless it so held it is difficult to see what relevancy this citation has to the discussion that is now being carried on. If it did not affect this matter we are dealing with, if it did affect something else-I hate to use the vernacular but ... so what?
Moreover, it should be pointed out that the order in council involved in the Nolan case does not appear anywhere in the schedule of the act in its original form in 1947. It was not one of the fifty-seven varieties. That being so, it is difficult to see what bearing this judgment has upon the matter before us.


Mr. Harlcness:: The order was relevant to the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Stand up.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid that certain assertions and contributions by various members of the Conservative opposition, and I include the interjection just made by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), may be quite misleading to hon. members of this house when they either hear or read them subsequently in the absence of a statement of one or two cardinal legal principles that have a bearing on this matter.
The first of these principles is that there can be no doubt that the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, the first of the series, was intra vires or within the power of this parliament to enact at the time

it was enacted. The privy council has so held in the Japanese case, 1947 Appeal Cases, 87, which followed and applied the Fort Frances case, 1923 Appeal Cases, 695. In the Fort Frances case the privy council considered the constitutional validity of the War Measures Act, 1914, and certain orders in council made under the War Measures Act during the war for the control throughout Canada of the supply of newsprint paper by manufacturers and the price of newsprint. They also considered the constitutional validity of further dominion statutes, 1919, chapter 63, which were passed after the cessation of hostilities for continuing war control into the post-war period after the first world war.
Upon the point as to the continuance of the authority of parliament to pass laws dealing with matters arising under the war emergency after the cessation of hostilities, Lord Haldane in the Fort Frances case said, at page 706:
It may be that it has become clear that the crisis which arose is wholly at an end, and that there is no justification for the continued exercise of an exceptional interference which becomes ultra vires when it is no longer called for. In such a case the law as laid down for distribution of powers in the ruling instrument would have to be invoked, but a very clear evidence that the crisis had wholly passed away would be required to justify the judiciary, even when the question was one of ultra vires which it had to decide, in overruling the decision of the government that exceptional measures were still requisite.
Very clear evidence would have to be given to overrule the decision of the government that exceptional measures were still requisite. In the Japanese case-that is the one after the last war-the privy council considered the validity of three orders in council made under the War Measures Act relating to the deportation of persons of the Japanese race and the revocation of their Canadian nationality. The orders in council in question had been continued in force by P.C. 7414 made under section 4 of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act. The privy council held that the orders in council were intra vires and that the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act was intra vires and also, by implication, that P.C. 7414 was intra vires.
With respect to the power of parliament to legislate as to an emergency arising out of the war, Lord Wright said at page 101:
On certain general matters of principle there is not, since the decision in Fort Frances Pulp and Power Company versus the Manitoba Free Press, any room for dispute. Under the British North America Act property and civil rights in the several provinces are committed to the provincial legislatures, but the parliament of the dominion in a sufficiently great emergency, such as that arising out of war, has power to deal adequately with that emergency for the safety of the dominion as a
15. 1949	1507
Transitional Measures Act whole. The interests of the dominion are to be protected, and it rests with the parliament of the dominion to protect them. What those interests are the parliament of the dominion must be left with considerable freedom to judge.


Mr. Hodgson:: What are you reading from?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend had been listening he would have heard me state that this is the judgment of Lord Wright.
Again if it be clear that an emergency has not arisen or no longer exists there can be no justification for the exercise or continued exercise of the exceptional powers. The rule of law as to the distribution of powers between the parliament of the dominion and the parliaments of the provinces comes into play, but very clear evidence that an emergency has not arisen, or that the emergency no longer exists, is required to justify the judiciary, even though the question is one of ultra vires, in overruling the decision of the parliament of the dominion that exceptional measures were required or were still required.
These clear statements of judicial opinion, as applied to the facts of the case now before us, require that we, in the exercise of our judgment with regard to the passage of the resolution now before us, need to satisfy ourselves merely that, with regard to the need for rental regulations, steel control, timber control, and the control of commodities which are under price ceilings, the state of war-induced emergency still continues. That is all we have to find.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have only one more sentence to finish. In the face of a large number of facts-


Harry Rutherford Jackman: By permission.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -that are so clear and plain- well, I will sit down.
Table of orders in council referred to by the Minister of Justice:
Orders in Council Contained in Schedule to the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act
1.	Orders in Council Revoked: Revoking Order in Council.
Department of Agriculture
P.C. 5424 14/7/44-Agricultural Food Board Regulations respecting recovery of subsidies-P.C. 5040 8/12/47.
P.C. 6759 6/11/45-The Repayment of Subsidy (Agricultural Products) Regulations-P.C. 5040 8/12/47.
Civil Service Commission
P.C. 8541^ 1/11/41-Preference re appointments to Civil Service ex-service men of present war-P.C. 4632 12/11/47; as amended by P.C. 4320. 20/6/45.
P.C. 15/1647	9/3/45-"Veterans Preference"-re
appointments to Civil Service-service on the high seas in a sea-going ship of war-P.C. 4632 12/11/47.
P.C. 16/1647	9/3/45-"Veterans Preference"-re
appointments to Civil Service not applicable certain classes in Naval Forces-P.C. 4632 12/11/47.
P.C. 20/6173 21/9/45-Civil Service-War Service preference-certain persons excluded-P.C. 4632 12/11/47; as amended by P.C. 29/1046, 22/3/46.

Transitional Measures Act
PC. 30/7500 29/12/45-"Veterans Preference"-re appointments to the Public Service-P.C. 4632 12/11/47; as amended by P.C. 19/3727, 5/9/46. Department of Finance
P.C. 394	20/1/42-Anthracite coal-importation
exempted from customs duty-P.C. 5085 11/12/47; as extended by P.C. 3472, 28/4/42.
P.C. 8042 9/9/42-Coke made from coal exempt from War Exchange tax when used as a fuel for cooking or baking foods or for heating buildings, etc.-P.C. 5079 5/11/48.
P.C. 9058 6/10/42-Bagging material etc., importation exempt from customs duty-P.C. 5085 11/12/47.
P.C. 9781 24/12/43-Well-drilling machinery etc., tariff treatment-P.C. 5079 5/11/48.
Wartime Prices and Trade Board P.C. 9870	17/12/41-Authorizing incorporation
Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation-P.C. 457 3/2/49; as amended by P.C. 5863, 7/7/42.
P.C. 5518 16/7/43-Repayment of Subsidy Order- P.C. 457 3/2/49; as amended by P.C. 3039, 27/4/44, P.C. 7460, 28/12/45.
P.C. 6497 17/8/43-Ration Coupon Banking-P.C. 498 10/2/48; as amended by P.C. 626, 3/2/44.
Department of Fisheries P.C. 6289 6/8/43-Regulations for control of salt fish and appointments thereunder-P.C. 4976 3/12/47.
P.C. 4112 30/5/44-Enacting the Pelagic Sealing Regulations-P.C. 4910 27/10/48.
Department of Labour
P.C. 1003	17/2/44-Wartime Labour Relations
Regulations-Sec. 72 (1) of Chapter 54 S.C. 1948 Proclamation 1/9/48; as amended by P.C. 6893 1/9/44, 690 1/2/45, 3220 30/7/46, 125 14/1/47, 302 30/1/47.
P.C. 7355 13/12/45-Financial assistance to voluntary repatriates to Japan and for liquidation and transfer of their assets to Japan-P.C. 5638 27/1/49; as amended by P.C. 268 23/1/47.
Department of Mines and Resources P.C. 7167 15/9/43-Reserves to the Crown radioactive substances in the Yukon Territory-P.C. 5282 30/12/47.
P.C. 7168 15/9/43-Reserves to the Crown radioactive substances in the Northwest Territories-* P.C. 5282 30/12/47.
Department of National Defence P.C. 6638 23/10/45-Post-discharge benefits to the members of the armed forces serving in an interim force-P.C. 5085 11/12/47.
P.C. 3617 27/8/46-Naval. Military and Air Force Estates Regulations-P.C. 5005 8/12/47.
P.C. 349 31/1/47-Regulations respecting claims by or against the Crown involving members of Naval, Military or Air Forces (Overseas)-P.C. 5005 8/12/47.
P.C. 363 31/1/47-Consolidated Regulations respecting Salvage services of H.M.C. Ships-P.C. 5005 8/12/47.
Department of National Health and Welfare
P.C. 6367 9/9/47.	10/8/43-Old	Age	Pensions-P.C.	3644P.C. 8341 11/12/47.	28/10/43-Old	Age	Pensions-P.C.	5085P.C. 3377 9/9/47.	29/5/44-Old	Age	Pensions-P.C.	3644P.C. 6500 11/12/47.	18/8/44-Old	Age	Pensions-P.C.	5085
Department of Reconstruction and Supply P.C. 9439 19/12/44-Emergency Shelter Regulations -P.C. 5889 23/12/48; as amended by P.C. 1173 22/2/45, P.C. 4408 20/6/45, P.C. 1811 7/5/46, P.C. 389 31/1/47.
P.C. 7502 23/12/45-Emergency Shelter Regulations transferred to Central Mortgage and Housing Corpn. -P.C. 5889 23/12/48.

Department of the Secretary of State P.C. 1665 4/3/42-Administration by Custodian of property of persons of the Japanese race-P.C. 5638 27/1/49 as amended by P.C. 2483 27/3/42, P.C. 2541 30/3/42, P.C. 3213 21/4/42, P.C. 946 5/2/43.
P.C. 469 19/1/43-Transfer to Custodian of property of Japanese evacuees-P.C. 5638 27/1/49; as amended by P.C. 271 23/1/47.
Department of Transport P.C. 133/510	26/1/44-Compensation to seamen
(war damage to effects) Regulations 1939-P.C. 498 10/2/48; as amended by P.C. 127/1111 21/2/45, P.C. 109/2100 28/3/45, P.C. 148/5045 18/7/45.
P.C. 2245 23/3/42-To authorize the Chairman of the Board of Steamship Inspection to relieve any ship from the obligation to comply with any of the provisions of Part VII of the Canada Shipping Act, excepting those provisions of the said Part relating to radio telegraph installations on ships-P.C. 5271 17/11/48.
P.C. 4306 17/6/41-To provide for permission to Canadian registered ships to clear on a voyage with Masters, Mates or engineers not holding appropriate certificates-P.C. 5271 17/11/48; as amended by P.C. 8995 18/11/41.
P.C. 3396 9/8/46-Merchant Seamen Out-of-Work Allowances Regulations-P.C. 4939 3/12/47.
2.	Orders in Council Revoked as of April 1, 1949 by
Order in Council P.C. 804-2/3/48
Department of Fisheries P.C. 251 13/1/42-Fishing licence-prohibited to persons of Japanese racial origin.
Department of Labour
P.C. 946 5/2/43-Evacuation and relocation of persons of the Japanese race in Canada-as amended by P.C. 9743 24/12/43, P.C. 5637 16/8/45, P.C. 5793 18/12/45, P.C. 5973 14/9/45, P.C. 270 23/1/47.
3.	Orders in Council retained in Schedule: Department of Finance
P.C. 8528 1/11/41-Wartime Prices and Trade Regulations-as amended by P.C. 8762 10/11/41, P.C. 8837 13/11/41, P.C. 9030 19/11/41, P.C. 5092 15/6/42, P.C. 5109 16/6/42, P.C. 10277 10/11/42, P.C. 11595 22/12/42, P.C. 3206 22/4/43, P.C. 6808 30/8/43, P.C. 6242 18/8/44, P.C. 8910 24/11/44, P.C. 385 18/1/45, P.C. 4410 22/6/45, P.C. 60 7/1/47, P.C. 392 31/1/47.
P.C. 9029 21/11/41-Wartime Leasehold Regulations-as amended by P.C. 3366 24/4/42, P.C. 8973 1/10/42, P.C. 3207 22/4/43, P.C. 7570 1/10/43, P.C. 6234 8/8/44, P.C. 386 18/1/45, P.C. 4409 22/6/45, P.C. 5234 23/12/46, P.C. 391 31/1/47.
P.C. 7475	26/8/42-Regulations of Commodity
Prices Stabilization Corporation-as amended by P.C. 39 6/1/44, P.C. 5273 26/7/45, P.C. 390 31/1/47, P.C. 1711 29/4/47.
P.C. 34/4433	10/6/44-Government Employees
Compensation Act extended to C.P.S.C. etc., employees.
P.C. 3122 27/7/46-Consolidation of Supplementary Regulations.
P.C. 328 28/1/47-Canadian Sugar Stabilization Corporation Ltd.
Department of Justice
P.C. 4600 7/6/43-Authorizing appeals in cases involving breaches of wartime regulations as amended by P.C. 6713 25/8/44.
P.C. 6223 6/8/43-Notice to Attorneys General of Canada and of provinces in certain cases.
Department of Reconstruction and Supply P.C. 1609 23/4/46-Construction Materials Regulations established-as amended by P.C. 337 31/1/47.
P.C. 3 4/1/44-Wartime Industries Control Regulations-as amended by P.C. 6355 11/8/44, P.C. 346 16/1/45, P.C. 897 13/2/45, P.C. 7156 29/11/45, P.C. 477 7/2/47.

P.C. 245 23/1/46-Steel Regulations-as amended by P.C. 520 15/2/46.
P.C. 1997 21/3/44-Timber Regulations.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, in the event that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) did not finish his speech, may I ask that he be permitted to do so?


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: His own party says no.


Arthur Leroy Smith: He spoke for over an hour, but I promise you I will not occupy that much of the time of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I do not know what an hour is since we changed our dinner hour. He spoke for over fifty minutes. That is what I had intended to say.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend is going to say that I talked for over an hour then I think I may as well get up and get my money's worth. If I am going to be accused of speaking overtime I may as well do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary West.


Mr. Reid:: He started at 8.07.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With great respect, one's money's worth is a peculiar thing. To the man who is selling something it is very often an entirely different thing than it is to the man who is buying.


Mr. Grant:: You have nothing to sell.


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I say with respect to the gentleman who just interrupted me that his remark neither adds to nor lowers the gauge of his natural stupidity. It remains just the same. This has been going on for four years, Mr. Speaker, so you will pardon the roughness of my remarks. As to this whole question, it seems to me of interest that the resolution was introduced by the Minister of Justice and explained by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). So it has gone on its way. I listened very carefully to the very good speech made by my friend, the Minister of Justice, and from the beginning I endeavoured to find out just where he was heading. Some lines occurred to me. I think they were probably written by a great man, but when the Minister of Justice was dealing with these controls, which they want to hang on to and cling to so tightly, these lines came to my mind with respect to government controls.
There is no death. What seems so is transition.
That is the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act which they have before us at the present time. In saying that, I then
Transitional Measures Act follow the argument last made by the minister which was with respect to the Free Press case-I am glad he is familiar with it- which went to the privy council almost before he was born. To put it simply, the law is as he said it was. The Nolan case he is talking about at least went so far as to hold that the question whether or not there was an emergency was a matter of proof before a court.
On this matter of decontrol, I am very happy to say that I think the members on the government side, the members of our party, and the members of the Social Credit party all are anxious to get rid of these controls as soon as they can be got rid of and as soon as the economy of the nation will permit. I believe that is a fair statement. It does seem to me that our socialist friends over here do not want to get rid of these controls, because that is contrary to their doctrine. Their whole scheme of things is that everything and everybody should be under their control. That is the basis of their philosophy. I give them credit. They have said so in this house and, as I have said previously, the position is arguable and I do not want to change what I had to say on another occasion with respect to that. Discussing controls, however, I was very interested in the C.C.F. convention held in the city of Winnipeg, which was broadcast over the radio. One of the debates to which I listened, away out where I live, when my friend the whip of the party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), was chairman, concerned the private chartered banks of Canada. The subject of that very interesting debate was whether the country should own the banks or merely control them. The people who urged control, which was the idea advanced by the central council at that convention, finally succeeded; and I listened with great attention as my hon. friend said, "I want everybody to know that we are now practically unanimous; there are only two votes against it", though I heard a good many more than two speeches against it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am enjoying the hon. member's reference, but just to keep the record straight the occasion when it was unanimous but for two votes had to do with another matter, namely ERP.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then I apologize; I thought it had to do with the matter of the banks. You will find me ready to quite frankly admit it when I am wrong. However, I did hear many of the speeches made at that time. I do not want anyone to be offended when I say that debate dealt with two excellent examples of this sort of thing. The Russian system is one of ownership; the

Transitional Measures Act German system under Hitler was that of control. That is the difference between the two philosophies which operated at that time in Germany and Russia.


Mr. Coldwell:: Do you really believe that?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I certainly do believe it and can prove it. That was the difference between what was advocated in that debate. May I add that I am not for a moment suggesting that anyone who took part in that debate is a Hitler or a Stalin or a follower of either. I do not indulge in that sort of thing; but that was the subject matter.
Now turning again to the Minister of Justice and his references to this question of emergency, he read from the judgments of Lord Haldane, I think it was, or Lord Wright of the privy council. I was interested in hearing again some of those judgments on which I cut my teeth twenty or twenty-five years ago; I think the Free Press case was about 1923, or something like that. But I want to ask the minister this very simple question. Can one, by any statute or order in council, find the same emergency calling for a price ceiling on butter that calls for control on steel? To mention the thing, sir, is to show the complete absurdity of the whole business. Nor can one equally justify a dealing in coarse grains, we will say, and a dealing in lumber, saying that the same reason exists which one would use to prove an emergency.
I must make this exception. In time of war we had the War Measures Act, when it was just and right that the people of the nation should give up their individual freedom in order that as a whole they might maintain freedom. But those arguments have no application whatever at the present time.
Now I put this question. We had the War Measures Act, which gave complete power to the central authority. Then we struggled along with what we called the transitional powers acts, I think from 1945 on. I have often wondered why the government did not simply continue the War Measures Act. Let it be admitted that I am one of those who would have argued against that; but the same arguments are open to me today in saying that the orders we are continuing go altogether too far, some of them even further than the War Measures Act itself went. I do say that in time of peace there can be no justification for carrying things that length. With the greatest respect and some considerable admiration for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), I should think he would be better pleased without such wide powers as he, or some other members of this government, or members of the staffs of this government, have under those orders.
[Mr. Smith (Calgary West).l
I make this suggestion in that regard. The government have said so often that they do not like continuing under order in council government. We learned from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that only twelve of these orders are left, and if I heard him correctly he said some of them are quite unimportant. It does seem to me that we as a parliament should pass a statute declaring an emergency, if there is an emergency, and then state what is to be controlled. The Minister of Justice complained that a statute did not have the elasticity of an order in council. It has. All you have to do is say so in your statute. All you have to do is put in the statute the subject matter, leaving the regulatory matters to such authorities as those presenting the statute see fit. It has been done time and time again. To repeat the illustration I used a moment ago, it does not seem to me you can find the same emergency to justify ceiling prices on butter that you may to justify control over the output of steel mills.
Now then, what does all this mean? It means this, that it may be there are some things that require control. I am a little bothered about the legal aspect of the matter. With respect to rental control, and this will please my friends on the opposite side, I am not quite sure that, if we do pass this proposed statute and continue the order in council, it will be worth a nickel in a court of law. These matters belong to the provinces and it will be open to anyone, if he cares to take the trouble, to find out whether or not there is in fact an emergency in that connection. I do not think it would be very difficult of proof. It seems to me it would necessarily be proven.
With respect to some of these other matters, I am going to say that the question of the emergency is one upon which I have very great doubt. Some day, as in the Nolan case, it will be submitted to our courts for a final decision.
I promised, sir, I would not be long, so I am going to close with a suggestion that these matters be embodied in a statute, so that he who sows may reap. Surely with the experience the officials have had from 1945 to 1949, it should not be difficult to write into a statute these regulations which are needed now. It is not a large undertaking for any draftsman who is worth his salt, considering the experience the various departments have had in the operations of these orders under this nebulous transitional powers act. I think it could be done with respect to some commodities-let us take butter, if you will, as one product, or the cabbages we are now getting from Florida and which we could not get until a few days ago. The point I am

making is this. If we do put our imprint of approval upon these various orders, then at some time someone should do more than quote the speech of the member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) with respect to steel. All he said was that there is a lag because our steel was used for war purposes; that is all he said, and that is the only authority quoted by the minister to prove his emergency in connection with steel.
I do not think it is too late yet, Mr. Speaker, to put these things in the form of a statute. Then, everyone who has been sent here by the people may vote one way or the other on that statute. He could go home, then, and be responsible for A definite act for or against the government. It would not permit anyone to say we approved or disapproved of this nebulous thing which may be interpreted in a hundred ways by five thousand people or two thousand people, because at least that many people will be interpreting these orders to the people who sent us here.


Mr. F. S. Zaplilny (Dauphin):: I have no desire, Mr. Speaker, to hold back the passage of this measure before us. I refrained from speaking until some members of the official opposition this evening made statements about the C.C.F., Great Britain and socialism generally which, if not answered, might go out to the public as bearirig some modicum of truth.
The last speaker, in his humorous way, referred to the C.C.F. convention held last summer at Winnipeg and told us about a certain debate he heard at that time. I was present at the convention from the beginning to the end-


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Some hon.
members have been requesting the member who has the floor to speak louder. If there were not so much talk in the house, the hon. member who has the floor could be heard.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: In discussing the philosophy of the C.C.F., the last speaker attempted to draw a parallel by saying that Hitler, and by that I assume he meant nazism, believed in control. I think we agree on one thing, that Hitler did stand for stringent control. Furthermore, I think we agree on the point that Hitler and his party did not believe in public ownership.
Taking that as our text, the hon. member may be surprised to find that a leading member of his own party, who narrowly missed being leader of the party, expressed himself on that question as far back as 1942 in these words when he was speaking to the Conservative businessmen's club in Toronto:
The Conservative party must meet this challenge that comes to it and show the people that our economic system shall continue to be one of free enterprise under stringent control-
Transitional Measures Act
I am not going to accuse the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) of being a follower of nazism or an admirer of Hitler, because I know he is not.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That was during the war in 1942.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes, but the hon. member did say that the Conservative party must persuade the people to believe that they are the party that believes in stringent control, which is the very thing the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) said Hitler stood for.


Arthur Leroy Smith: If you will read further, you will find he was dealing with monopolies.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Certainly. Why don't you give it to us straight?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I will be very glad to do so, and if my hon. friend had listened further to the radio broadcast to which he referred, he would not have made the mistakes he made in trying to interpret what happened at that convention. He was a long way from the point. If the hon. member means to imply that because the C.C.F. has favoured controls in the house during the past four years, and we have no apology to make for that, that because we were trying to serve the best interests of the people of Canada, we were in some way undemocratic or did not believe in the democratic system of government, I want to tell him right now that the C.C.F. is far more democratic than the Conservative party ever was.


Gordon Graydon: Of course, that is an unprejudiced judgment.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Entirely, and I want to be perfectly fair with the hon. member. I suppose he wants an unprejudiced authority for that, and I have it in my hand. I expected he would make that remark so I have it here. I am going to quote from the constitution of the Progressive Conservative party dated March 29, 1946, in which one finds this amazing phrase while discussing who can be a member and what power a member of that party has:
Aside from the executive membership provided for in this section, there shall be a general membership of the association which shall consist of all those who pay the annual membership fee which shall be fixed by the executive officers of the association. They may attend meetings, take part in deliberations and receive information, but may not vote.
The basic thing in any democratic organization is that those who pay membership fees should have a. vote in that organization

Transitional Measures Act to decide the policy of that organization. Surely a party that has a constitution of that nature-


Arthur Leroy Smith: From what were you reading?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I was reading from the constitution.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You are lifting parts of it from the context.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I did not interrupt the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) or any other member when he was putting his views on the record.


Gordon Graydon: Do not try to misrepresent the situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Gordon Graydon: That is a misrepresentation, and I do not mind telling you that right here on the floor of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The rest of it would make it worse.


Gordon Graydon: I know what is in it.


Angus MacInnis: That is why you do not want to hear it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must insist that hon. members address their remarks to the Chair.


Gordon Graydon: He is misrepresenting the situation.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I want to be as kind as possible to my hon. friends, Mr. Speaker, because I have nothing in a personal way about which to criticize them. As members of this house they are delightful people, but they say some queer things in this house; and they direct their criticism to the C.C.F. when they are discussing a government measure. That in itself is a strange procedure. One would have thought that we had introduced this measure into the house. They directed their criticism against the socialists, against the C.C.F. and against the British government. Now when I have the opportunity-


Mr. Harris (Danforth):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, what has this to do with the question that is before the house?


Major James William Coldwell: As much as what was said by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) last night.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) has pointed out to me that he does not see what relation the remarks of the hon. member have to the resolution before the house. I would ask the hon. member to direct his remarks to the resolution.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Why did
not the hon. member for Danforth interrupt his own members?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall be glad to do as you ask. At the moment, I was directing my remarks to the remarks made by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). If his remarks were unrelated to the subject under discussion, I stumbled into disorder by following his example. I wish merely to finish the sentence by saying that I have been accused by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) of trying to misrepresent the position of his party.


Gordon Graydon: As you have.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have in my hand the constitution of the party. I read a whole paragraph from beginning to end, not taken out of its context. It comes under the heading "general membership." The next paragraph has to do with something entirely different.


Joseph Henry Harris: Which I submit, Mr. Speaker, has nothing to do with the question before the house.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The hon. members may be ashamed of their constitution, but that is not my fault.


Gordon Graydon: It is a democratic constitution, and the hon. member knows it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you ever read it?


Gordon Graydon: I had something to do with drafting it.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: According to the hon. member's standards of democracy, it may be a democratic constitution.


Joseph Henry Harris: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Danforth has risen to a point of order. There are so many interruptions, with hon. members speaking to one another and to the hon. member who has the floor, that it is absolutely impossible for me to follow the debate. I will make a ruling that speeches at this time must be relevant to the resolution which is before the house.


Major James William Coldwell: That ruling is rather late in the debate, Mr. Speaker.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The subject under discussion, Mr. Speaker, has been controls, and I presume it still is.


Arthur Leroy Smith: You found out something.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Although the resolution in itself refers to the bill, which is to come before the house, to give permission to the government to continue certain regulations

that they have exercised for a number of years, to me the basic thing appears to be price control and controls generally. In discussing this matter I believe we should try to separate, for our own benefit, the two matters that have been more or less confused in this debate. First of all, there is the question of controls as such, and then there is the question of the abuse of powers. The critics of this resolution and of the government have been confusing those two issues by pointing out all the abuses-and there have been some; there have been enough for the government to have earned plenty of criticism-and using that issue as a measuring stick for deciding whether controls as such are desirable in this country at this time.
I do not think there is any member in this house who would condone any abuse of the power given to any government; and if the government or those to whom they have delegated powers under the wartime prices and trade board have in any way abused their powers or gone beyond the authority given to them by this parliament, I have no objection to anyone's exposing them and criticizing them in the strongest possible terms. We in this party believe that the powers delegated by parliament to the government, or by the government to any board, should be used for the purpose of serving the best interests of the people of this country. As long as that power is used in that way, we have no criticism of it. If it is used in any other way, or if it is abused in its application, we are just as critical as any member of this house.
The question has arisen whether price control or any other control is now necessary, in view of the question whether there is now an emergency or not. I do not intend to take up the time of this house to discuss at great length what an emergency is or whether we are now in a state of emergency. We could discuss that subject for a long time without coming to any conclusion, for this simple reason. When we speak of an emergency, we do not always speak of the same people. Let us remember that in this country today there are people, and there have been for many years, for whom the state of emergency has never passed. They have always been in a state of emergency. During the 1930's when we had mass unemployment in this country-


An hon. Member:: What do you know about it?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I wish you knew half as much about it as I do. During the 1930's when we had mass unemployment there were thousands-yes, hundreds of thousands of people-who for ten years were living in a 29087-96J
Transitional Measures Act state of emergency and the government did not do anything about it. There were many people then who would have thanked a government that took the trouble to pass some legislation to help them to find jobs and to give them a decent standard of living. They were not worrying about the government having too much power or doing too much. They were critical because the government was not doing enough. I think most hon. members in the house realize that now.
On the other hand there are today in Canada, and there have been for many years, people who have never felt the state of emergency so far as their economic lives are concerned. Now that the war is over those who find themselves in comfortable economic circumstances feel that there is no emergency. Naturally it depends on whom you are speaking for. If you are speaking for the class of people who thrive at a time when prices are skyrocketing or who are in a position to profiteer from the state of affairs in this country, as they have been for the past few years, then of course for them there is no emergency. For them there is a harvest to reap. But if you are speaking for the people who are obliged to pay the profits and who are the victims of exploitation, then for them there certainly is an emergency.
I wish now to refer to the charge that has been made and repeated so blithely this afternoon and evening by hon. members to our right to the effect that the C.C.F. is the party of control; that we should like to see the people controlled at all times, and that we should like to control everything. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Those who believe in the philosophy of public ownership or co-operative ownership are the very ones who can save this country from permanent price control. Under the present economic system this country will never get away from controls because the very way in which the present system operates invites controls. As long as you have an economic system which is based on profit, on the philosophy that the strongest should win and that the weakest should be trampled underfoot, then if there is to be even rough justice of any kind you must have a system of price control and other controls to keep the economic affairs of this country under some semblance of order. But if we change the economic base of this country to one of co-operation from one of competition, we shall slowly start to emerge from the position where controls are necessary. We shall emerge into a time when production shall be for use and when service shall be at cost. Then it will not be necessary to control prices because the customer and the producer will be the same person, as will be the distributor.
1514	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act
When, in any economy, you get to the stage where the people produce for their own use, distribute among themselves the goods of their own production, and enjoy the fruits of their labour without having to hand tribute to any profiteer, you will not need control. That is the reason the C.C.F. has advocated and advocates today, not a permanent system of price controls as a solution of our problem, but the extension of public ownership into legitimate fields, and the encouragement of co-operative ownership in all the fields in which it can be properly worked, thus letting the people of Canada work out their own economic solution.
Let us take our co-operatives as an example. There is no finer example of institutions which lay out their own destiny, so to speak, than the co-operative organizations. They are the producers, the distributors and the consumers, all at the same time. There is no reason for them to raise prices against each other, because it would be senseless to try to profiteer from yourself.
Therefore for hon. members to say that the C.C.F. is the party which wants permanent controls is simply to show that they do not understand the philosophy of this party. If we reach the point in this country where we are willing to admit that human rights have priority over property rights, and that human welfare in this country should have first priority at all times, then it will be possible for us to build our economic system to suit human welfare, and not try to twist the human element in our society to fit our economic system, as we are trying to do it today. That is the reason we must have price controls now.
The suggestion has been made by several members that, instead of administering these controls by order in council, they should be put into statute form. We have also heard from the same people that these controls appear to be self-perpetuating. Well, if I judge aright the temper of the government of Canada, and its actions in the past few years, it would be useless at this time to attempt to put into statute form what is left of their price-control program, as they themselves have announced it.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) took great pains this evening to try to prove to the official opposition that this is a decontrol measure he is placing before the house, rather than a measure of control. In other words, he suggests that the government have no intention of bringing about any comprehensive system of price controls, and have said so on several occasions, and that they are following out their philosophy in the present instance.

There is no basic difference on this question between the approach made by the government and that made by the official opposition. Let us not be fooled by the shadowboxing which has been going on in the house for the last few days. Both those parties believe in private enterprise and in letting people go ahead and make all the profits they can. That is what happens in practice, regardless of what they say. And I have no more faith in what the government pretends to do today, than I would have in the official opposition if it were sitting on the government benches.
What we are told is that they have left twelve orders in council controlling a number of things. We are given the list of the things still under control, so far as prices are concerned. An examination of the list would show that it all consists practically of either agricultural products or primary products, with the exception of steel and timber.
That is not a policy of price control. It is only a pitiful attempt at trying to appear as if they are controlling something. The government has gone down the road of decontrol. The Progressive Conservative opposition should be applauding what the government is doing, because it is the same thing they believe in. The government has destroyed the price stabilization system of this country by the process of decontrolling prices at a time when prices were still going up. Today they find themselves in the position where they are the ones to blame for the high cost of living. And they will soon be the ones to blame for the primary producers in this country being unable to obtain even the cost of production of their primary products.
In the face of that, however, the government is decontrolling instead of attempting to build a system of prices which would have some sort of relationship with each other, and which would have some sort of relationship between the prices received by the producers of primary products and those received by the ones who manufacture goods for sale to the primary producers.
Until some effort is made in this direction, it will be useless for the government to talk about controlling prices. It is not doing that; and it would be equally useless for the official opposition to attack the government or the C.C.F. in the matter of controls. Thus far the Progressive Conservative opposition has been attempting to show that the Liberal government is following certain socialist proposals. They might as well forget that approach, because it is becoming more evident than their speeches can make it from day to day that the affinity between

the Liberal and the Progressive Conservative philosophies for the private enterprise system is far stronger, and in practice shows itself in the coalition which we have out west.
The C.C.F. party in the House of Commons, in attempting to bring about a modicum of justice for the primary producers and consumers, has stood out, over the years, pleading for the government to maintain the price stabilization program they started during the war. If we have not been able to persuade them to do it, at least we will be able to stand on our record showing that we have fought for the benefit of the people, and that the combined parties have beaten us down.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that the C.C.F. was also a member of the Manitoba coalition?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have heard that old chestnut once before.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Is it not true?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: No, it is not true.


Gordon Graydon: It is true.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have heard that old chestnut shot out in the house several times, and I might as well deal with it now.
At the time the C.C.F. participated in the government of Manitoba it was specifically stated at that time by the premier of that province, who now sits in this House of Commons, that it was a non-partisan government, and that he objected to the word coalition being used.
He stated also, publicly, through the press and radio, that it was a temporary set-up in order to help the war effort. It was on that elevated basis that the C.C.F. entered temporarily the non-partisan government of Manitoba. But it was not long before the C.C.F. found its good faith was being violated and found that it was not a non-partisan government, and that the motive behind it was to bring about coalition in order to maintain itself in power. There was only one thing to do; the C.C.F. did the honourable thing and withdrew from the coalition. But the other two parties found the necessity for clinging together in the interest of selfpreservation even greater than the necessity of preserving the public interest.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in the debate. However the official opposition has been carrying on for the last two days, and their arguments are getting so thin -they were not very good to begin with- that I felt something that really mattered should be said. During the past day and a
Transitional Measures Act half they have spent most of their time in criticizing the attitude of this party toward controls.
I am not much concerned as to whether the present control bill passes or not, because there is so very little of useful control left, that is, control for the benefit of the common people of Canada, that perhaps a little heavier load would not be much harder to bear. As a matter of fact, if controls are removed altogether it will likely bring home to them all the sooner who are their friends and who are their enemies.
There are and there have been two schools of thought with regard to controls. There is one school, those who live by exploitation and who do not favour controls. Then there is the other school, the little fellow who is exploited and who favours controls because they are his protection. The little fellow was never protected to the extent he was when controls were in effect during the war period. Never in his life was his standard of living so high, and never was he so secure. For that reason he believes in controls. And who can blame him?
But neither the official opposition nor the government believe in controls. The government found that they operated well during the war and I think they were prepared to carry on with controls until supply was sufficient to meet demand, but they were continually being pushed by the official opposition to remove controls.


Gordon Graydon: And the farmers.


Angus MacInnis: The farmers today want controls. If the hon. member will read the report of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture he will find there the strongest demand for controls ever made in Canada. The C.C.F. is not in favour of controls just for the sake of controls. We are in favour of government controls because we are convinced that if we do not have government controls we will have some other form of control. Let me demonstrate to the house what happens when government controls are removed.
As soon as a government control is removed another control takes its place. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is not at the moment in his seat, last August wrote to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in regard to the allocation of newsprint. In the letter that the hon. member received from the minister appeared these words:
As you may know, the authority for the control, of allocation of newsprint, formerly vested in the wartime prices and trade board, was rescinded as of December 15, 1945 . . . The Newsprint Association of Canada, Sun Life Building, Montreal, now has; complete control of the allocation of newsprint.

Transitional Measures Act
Are my friends opposed to that kind of control?


An hon. Member:: No.


Angus MacInnis: That is the kind of control they want. They want big business to control the lives of the people of Canada. I am being generous and am willing to assume that the government do not want that situation, but they have willingly or unwillingly allowed themselves to be pushed into the position of having to do that.
Only a few months ago there was an investigation by the combines investigation commissioner into the price and distribution of bread. It was found that the very staff of life of the people was controlled and is being controlled today. It was found that prices were set and that the bakeries had their own police to see that those prices set were adhered to. Are hon. members going to tell me that there is no control? Of course there is control. We believe that it is much better to have control by a government or an agency responsible to the people than by an agency not responsible to anyone but itself.
What has happened during the past few years through the removal of controls? The removal of each control has resulted on each occasion in an increase in the cost of living. Every increase in the cost of living has made it that much more difficult for the low-income people of this country to live. I have pointed out already that the standard of living of the low-income people of Canada, the old age pensioners, persons in receipt of war veterans allowances, those on superannuation and the like, is much lower today, despite the fact that in 1948 we had the highest level of production we have ever had in Canada, than it was during the war years.
What is the reason? The reason is that when the government removed controls those who were controlling prices allowed those prices to soar, or they put up prices and took away some more of what the little people had left. At one of the sittings of the royal commission on prices last autumn Mr. H. R. MacMillan of the MacMillan lumber interests was on the witness stand. When he was asked the reason for rising prices he said:
"We found that selling to the retailer at lower prices than other mills was having the effect of increasing the retailer's profit without doing anyone any good.
"My experience is that in the open market when the price is going up you can't stop it."
Just because you cannot stop it without controls, the little fellow is being squeezed to death while the big fellow is prospering as he never prospered before. There can be only one end to a society where squalor, misery, want, poverty and privation increase

at the bottom while wealth and luxury increase at the top. That is what is happening in Canada today.
My hon. friends of the official opposition say that four years after the war there is no need for controls. If there is no emergency now, why all this talk about military pacts? If there is no emergency now, if we are living in such a safe world, why have the defence estimates for this year been increased considerably over what they were last year, or the year before that, and the year before that? Let us talk sense. The world is on the edge of a precipice today. With that situation confronting us, hon. members to my right day after day have obstructed the work of this parliament.
Today the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) referred to certain things that had been done by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the development of a housing project. I agree that they did not use that discretion in regard to property rights that they should have. There were, however, only some twenty or thirty properties involved. My information, obtained from letters received from some of the people concerned, is that the situation has been settled fairly well since the matter was taken up with the minister of reconstruction and the chairman of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. But I remember that when 23,000 people in British Columbia were despoiled of their property, the efforts of a lifetime, the hon. member for Vancouver South never raised his voice in protest.


Howard Charles Green: When was that?


Angus MacInnis: When the Japanese Canadians were uprooted from their homes and scattered right across this country from one end of its 4,000 miles to the other.


Howard Charles Green: Your own C.C.F. leader advocated moving them.


Angus MacInnis: My own C.C.F. provincial leader did not do anything of the kind, and even if he did not have any democracy in his make-up my friend the member for Vancouver South cannot take that as an excuse for not having any himself.


Howard Charles Green: Do you think they should not have been moved?


Angus MacInnis: They should not have been moved, but if they had to be moved then their properties should have been protected. The government of the country should have acted as their guardian and not as their despoiler. That is what should have been done. There is no democracy in a country unless there is democracy for everybody, democracy for those you do not like as well as for those you do like. That is the only democracy that is

worth while. That is the only democracy that I stand for or will have anything to do with.


Gordon Graydon: My goodness, you are worked up.


Angus MacInnis: Why shouldn't I be worked up when I see people around me who just talk for the mere sake of talking, who talk for the mere sake of making an impression on the country?.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, I realize the hon. member has worked himself up into a fine state.


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would suggest-


Angus MacInnis: Will my friend please sit down? I have the floor.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would suggest that this has nothing to do with the resolution. I ask for your ruling on the point, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has raised a point of order that the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East do not refer to the resolution. I ask him to direct his remarks to the resolution.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the matter I was just referring to involves one of the orders in council referred to this evening by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), and it is in the resolutions that are going to be dealt with. My friends on the right, the official opposition, are very fond of criticism, but they cannot take it when it is directed at them. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the matter before us is of very great moment to the people of Canada outside of rent control, and I am bound to say that rent control is not an unmixed blessing. It works to the disadvantage of some poor people although it benefits others. The question that is before us now is whether my friends in the official opposition want to see this legislation pass in order to protect the very few that it can protect now, or whether they want to see this legislation expire and these people have no protection whatever. They should say exactly what they want to see happen, and then the house can govern itself accordingly.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: This resolution has caused a great deal of heat and a great deal of discussion on matters that were hardly germane to the question of the continuation of the controls that are left from the old wartime control order. Housing is such a problem in the riding of York West that if I thought the proposed measure of the government would assist in
Transitional Measures Act the alleviation of the situation, believe me, Mr. Speaker, I would support it. On the subject of rent control there are a number of questions which we must ask ourselves, and on the answers to those questions judge its effectiveness. The questions are:
1.	Is rent control producing an equitable distribution of available housing?
2.	Does rent control result in the construction of an adequate number of houses for rent?
3.	Does rent control ameliorate substandard living conditions?
4.	Does rent control assist veterans to obtain houses, or other suitable living places?
5.	Does rent control channel building materials and building labour into residential housing rather than into commerce, entertainment or business premises?
On an entirely impartial survey of the housing situation in Canada today, Mr. Speaker, I think that the answer to all five questions must be no. It is for that reason that I believe that a statute with regard to housing should be enacted by parliament after consultation with the two other levels of government which are so intimately concerned with the whole matter. The control provided is not satisfactory, and that is why a statute is needed as to housing, and for these basic reasons.
In most Canadian towns the proper planning of a residential area is made impossible by the fact that approximately eighty per cent of all new houses do not pay sufficient taxes to cover the cost of municipal services supplied to them. This causes an urgency to compete for the location of industry at whatever social or locational cost; the gross overzoning for industrial land use, resulting in the enforced location of housing in industrial areas; the need for suburban municipalities of township size in order to spread taxation; the consequent inhibiting of the socially desirable small, compact communities; the imposition of excessive restrictions in "well planned" communities in order to exclude houses of low assessment; the refusal of municipalities to accept current federal offers of subsidized rental housing owing to the tax burdens which their acceptance would cause; the inequality of school standards as between school sections; and generally to make physical planning appear futile. No such complete study exists, although it is basic to planning and housing practice.
Those are the problems we face today in the housing or re-housing of our population. They are problems which cannot be solved or cured by a mere control act such as that
1518	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act envisaged in this measure. These are problems which have to be worked out with the provinces and municipalities; and if there were no other reason why a dominion-provincial conference should be called, it is to solve this vital and pressing problem.
I want to give an example of what I mean. In the riding I represent there is a desperate shortage of houses, houses for veterans or low-rental houses of any description, and there is gross overcrowding and substandard conditions of living. The problem is acute. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation offered to build some two thousand houses in the metropolitan area of Toronto, of which a large number would be in the riding of West York. They wanted to build houses in groups of two or three hundred, the most economical way to construct a planned housing project, because in that way the contractor can move onto the land, set up his machinery, his sawmills and other manufacturing processes, and by this means a house can be built for much less than an individual house here and there, which is not mass-produced. The estimated cost of these houses was in the neighbourhood of $6,800. They would rent for $37.50 a month, a reasonable and justifiable price and a rental within the capacity of the average industrial worker in West York.
But let us look at what happened. Let us look at the problems involved in establishing one of these 300-house communities, and let us look at the impact of such a community upon the municipality. In an ideal community each of these three hundred houses would have an average of one and a half children of school age. For such a community this would mean 450 additional children in the school section. Assume there would be an average of fifty children per room, though I say this number is far too great. The present cost of constructing a school in the Toronto metropolitan area is around $33,000 to $35,000 per room. This would mean that if these three hundred desperately needed houses for veterans were constructed, the community would immediately have to face a capital outlay of over $300,000 just for schools, exclusive of such things as sewers, water, street lighting and all the other essential services. No municipality in Canada can withstand the impact of a shock as great as this. No municipality can exist without going bankrupt, if this sort of thing is to be allowed. A recent conference of mayors, reeves and municipal officers of the municipalities surrounding Toronto pointed this out to the officers of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and said they could not permit the erection of these houses unless some solution could be found 

to the school problem. That is a basic economic problem, and until it is solved you will get no low-rental housing where it is most needed.
I say this control measure does nothing to solve that problem. This control measure merely continues a pious hope that was effective before the shift of population caused by war industry, and the subsequent movement of industry into large metropolitan areas. The control measure has completely failed to give us an equitable distribution of the housing and the living space now available, and it has failed also to assist in the building of low-rental houses.
Now I want briefly to deal with this question of planning, but before that I want to say something about the corruption of the English language. "Planning" is one of the words that have been so basely corrupted. Because of the socialist insistence on over-all planning for the state, such things as town planning or planning for communities have a tinge of socialism they do not deserve. A modern community must be zoned and it must be planned. Other words have been corrupted as well. The word "home" has been corrupted. Instead of meaning, as it did in the early days, one's hearth, the place where one lived, the word "home" has been corrupted to mean a sort of jerry-built house, constructed for speculative sale. I think it is a pity that such excellent old English words should be corrupted by advertising in this way.
I want to mention the problem of the low-rental house. It may amaze this house, and I think it will interest the country, to know that, despite the protestations of the Prime Minister, this government is actually subsidizing housing to the extent of approximately $2 million a week. About one hundred million dollars a year is going into subsidized houses. If that were producing a solution for the veteran who cannot get a house, if that were producing a solution for the industrial worker who is moved from pillar to post and is living in cramped and very frequently in unsanitary conditions, if that money were really being effectively put to work, I for one would not complain. This is not the case and the situation has not improved. The men on the waiting list, the veterans with two and three children who are living in deplorable conditions and who are on the books of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, are just as numerous today as they were a year ago. Unless a trigovernment agreement can be made, there is very little hope that the situation can be improved.

With rental control we have developed a hatred between the landlord and tenant. I thought a letter which appeared in the press the other day was rather interesting in that it expressed this feeling which has grown up because of rent control. This is the letter:
The majority of landlords are not wealthy people -but today a landlord is apparently a despised citizen, classed with gangsters and criminals, all because he happens to have a house for which he has worked and saved and which somebody else now wants to occupy, all at his expense-namely, the tenant. The law gives it to him because there are more tenants than landlords and that means more votes.
I have had literally dozens of letters from the owners of small houses in my constituency. The owners of these houses have been unable, until quite recently, to live in their own houses and frequently the tenant is leasing a room or two for the amount of rent paid for the whole house. That is a grave injustice, Mr. Speaker, and it is one of the faults of an over-simplified control measure. It is for reasons such as these that I believe the whole problem of housing should come before a dominion-provincial conference, and the municipalities should have representation at that conference.
Whatever the constitution may be, conditions have made it necessary for the question of municipal taxation to be brought into the arena of dominion affairs. Following the first great war an intolerable condition developed, similar to the one which exists today. The sudden development of small houses mushroomed into the suburban municipalities surrounding the major cities. Eventually this resulted in demands for the necessary municipal services which, in turn, resulted in the bankruptcy of a large number of Ontario municipalities. This is an intolerable situation, Mr. Speaker, and a situation which we cannot permit to develop again. It is a situation, however, which we are doing everything possible to bring about by this very control order that is on our statute books. That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is a problem that requires, not a blanket order but the attention of the best brains in all three levels of government.
We are not producing houses. Certainly we are not producing houses for rental purposes, and therefore we are not improving the conditions under which our people have to live. If this government, if any government, produced a workable plan, I would certainly support it. Having seen the operation of this present measure, having seen the conditions forced upon the people in my constituency, I do not and cannot support the measure as it is. It does not do the things it is supposed to do. It does not control rent. It does not provide low-rental housing and it
Transitional Measures Act does not allow the veteran to obtain the shelter which he deserves.


Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: I do not wish to prevent a vote being taken tonight, Mr. Speaker, and for that reason I will confine my remarks to four or five minutes. I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to one clause in the resolution as amended. As I said on February 7, there are 180,000 of these orders in council. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are some people who are taking advantage of that because the Supreme Court of Canada has been the court of last resort. Only four of these orders in council have gone before the supreme court, with the result that only one of them has been held intra vires, by a vote of 4 to 3. There are some people who are taking advantage of that fact. The courts do not know what the law is.
I agree with what has been said. There is in the city of Toronto no land available for housing. If we only had a steam suburban service around the city, the housing problem could be solved satisfactorily. In the olden days we had the advantage of having in the city land at $6 and $8 a foot. Today out in the township of York, in the counties of York, Ontario and Peel, the city is giving a service by buses and electric cars, but we have no steam suburban service in that area. If we had the advantage of that service I think we should be able to solve the housing problem. Other large cities like Montreal have a steam suburban service.
In conclusion I want to say this about these orders in council. Nobody can know the law until it is finally determined. There are some people who have been put in jail illegally. I know of one case in which the man owns his own house. He is a soldier. I have seen some of the tenants who put electric stoves in cupboards away up in attics, and who do a great many things that a desirable tenant would not do. I believe there should be some control over them. I have seen some of the houses of soldiers and others and they cannot get into them. I believe there should be some change in the system. Some magistrates and county court judges in our city, and all over Ontario, are sentencing people illegally. I have been calling the attention of the house to this matter on several occasions. I do not wish to obstruct the passage of the resolution, because I should like to see it adopted. As I say, if we had the steam service that I have described furnishing transportation out to the townships, we would then have a method which would solve the housing problem in the way it was solved in the first great war.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: It may be said generally that we who belong to the
1520	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act Progressive Conservative party are against controls unless those controls seek the betterment of our people. Unless the case can be proven that the control will, of necessity, make for better living conditions, then the control should not be put into operation. I should like to bring to the attention of the house again the point which was made by my colleague the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith), who said: How can the government show any reason for emergency powers, on which this legislation is supposed to be based, when the government combines under the resolution such diverse things as butter and steel? How can there be any relation whatsoever between the control of butter and the war? It is now nearly four years since the armistice, although we have not yet had a declaration of peace with regard to some of the enemy countries. But for all practical purposes the war has been over for nearly four years.
In place of there being a butter shortage and in place of there being some danger of butter going to untoward heights where a ceiling of seventy-two cents a pound or some other level is necessary, I am sure that the government must be far more concerned with the floor under butter rather than with a ceiling. Surely a floor is not an aftermath of the war. On the other hand, a ceiling might have been. So where does the government stand on that matter?
Then, again, I should like to refer to the question of oils and fats. At the moment there is in the world a great surplus of vegetable oils. If that is an aftermath of the war, then surely it is an aftermath which we

gladly welcome; and certainly it does not call for any controls of the nature of those proposed by the government at the present time. On the other hand, steel may indeed be something which requires control, because in the long years of the war steel was in such demand for war purposes that little or none was available except for the most urgent civilian uses. There may be a case to be made for the allocation of steel under government supervision. But how can any administration say that butter on the one hand, and steel on the other, provide an argument for the reasonableness of the legislation proposed under this resolution? It would seem to me that if the government wish to carry the people of this country with them they should set out the reasons for the proposed legislation and not put it in an omnibus resolution as they are now trying to do.
On motion of Mr. Jackman the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Drew:: May I ask whether it is intended to proceed in committee when the motion is disposed of?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes. The moment the motion is carried we shall go into committee on the resolution, have first reading of the bill and second reading the next day. Then we shall take up resolutions Nos. 5, 8, 4 and 15 on today's order paper.
At ten-thirty the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on March 14, 1949.

Wednesday, March 16, 1949