1949-03-16

ST. PATRICK'S DAY SUGGESTED ADJOURNMENT AT SIX O'CLOCK ON MARCH 17

Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege. There appears in this morning's Ottawa Citizen a Canadian Press dispatch from Quebec city which states that the Irish employees of that city will have a holiday with pay tomorrow, St. Patrick's day. I am sure that all members who are imported Irish, as well as those who are of Irish descent, and their friends, would enjoy a holiday tomorrow evening. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will move the adjournment of the house at six o'clock on Thursday the 17th so that we can enjoy the holiday.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I am sure it would give much pleasure to all members of the house if something were done to enable them to celebrate St. Patrick's day. But the fact is that I shall have to move tomorrow, as appears from the notice in Votes and Proceedings, that the house begin its sittings at eleven o'clock in the morning and continue under that arrangement until such time as we shall have disposed of the four resolutions mentioned in that notice. I am afraid it would look a little out of the ordinary to ask the house to begin its sittings at eleven o'clock on Friday morning and at the same time arrange to have the house rise at six o'clock on Thursday evening. However, we will see what progress has been made in the meantime, and if it is such as to convince everybody that we have earned an evening off, perhaps it can be agreed that we take it.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Williams:: What sum of money was collected as excess profits tax for each year such tax was in operation from each of the individual firms in the Ontario cities of Port Hope and Oshawa?


Mr. McCann:: I should like to answer this question orally. In accordance with the secrecy provisions of both the Income War Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, the taxation division is not permitted to divulge incomes or income tax assessed or collected from individual taxpayers.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Isnor:: Has a directive, or any instructions, been issued to clothing manufacturers in Canada, to divert their efforts to the manufacture of materials or clothing for use of navy, army or air force, in preference to civilian clothing?


Mr. Belzile:: No such directive is in effect at the present time.



PRICES AND TRADE BOARD


Mr. White (Hastings-Peterborough):: 1.	How many (a) investigators; (b) other officials, officers and staff, are now employed in the office of the wartime prices and trade board at Belleville?
2.	What amount has been paid out for (a) salaries; (b) fees; (c) expenses, in respect of such employees in each of the years 1947 and 1948?


Mr. Belzile:: 1.	(a) Three investigators are now employed in the office of the wartime prices and trade board at Belleville.
(b) Two stenographers are now employed in the office of the wartime prices and trade board at Belleville.
2.	1947	1948(a)	Salaries	
$ 7,097.01	$ 6,992.66(b) Fees	
Nil	Nil(c) Expenses	3,379.79	1,645.48



BROADCASTING


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	What was the amount paid to the Manitoba government in connection with the sale to the C.B.C. of radio station CKY, and withdrawal of the Manitoba government from the operation of commercial radio?
2.	What additional capital costs have been incurred to date in connection with the establishment of radio station CBW?


Mr. McCann:: 1. $200,000.00.
2.	$407,272.43.

Questions



DAIRY INDUSTRY


Mr. Bertrand (Prescott):: 1.	What price per pound will be paid by Great Britain for cheese in 1949?
2.	How many pounds of cheese has Canada exported to Great Britain, each year, from 1936 to 1948 inclusive?
3.	What average price was paid, per pound, for milk fat produced each year from 1936 to 1948 inclusive, without subsidy, used in the manufacture of (a) butter; (b) cheese; (c) powdered milk; (d) condensed milk?
4.	What has been the amount of the federal subsidies per hundred pounds of milk or per pound of milk fat produced for each year, from 1936 to 1948 inclusive, used in the manufacture of (a) butter; (b) cheese; (c) powdered milk; (d) condensed milk? This question not to include the quality premium paid on cheese.
5.	From 1936 to 1948 inclusive, what was, in pounds
and by province, the yearly production of the following:	(a) butter; (b) cheese; (c) powdered
milk; (d) condensed milk?


Mr. McCubbin:: Oct. 1/44-April 30/45 (2)___
May 1/45-Sept. 30/45 (2)____
Oct. 1/45-April 30/46	
May 1/46-Sept. 30/46	
Rate of Subsidy
6c	per	lb.	bf.	10c	per	lb.	bf.	8c	per	lb.	bf.	10c	per	lb.	bf.	10c	per	lb.	bf.	10c	per	lb.	bf.	10c	per	lb.	bf.	30c	per	100	lb.	of	milk ...20c	per	100	lb.	of	milk . ..20c	per	100	lb.	of	milk ...30c	per	100	lb.	of	milk . ..40c	per	100	lb.	of	milk . ,.25c	per	100	lb.	of	milk . ..30c	per	100	lb.	of	milk . ..15c	per	100	lb.	of	milk . ..30c	per	100	lb.	of	milk . ..15c	per	100	lb.	of	milk . .30c	per	100	lb.	of	milk . .23c	per	100	lb.	of	milk . .
Paid under direction of



AFB, P.C. 2709, April 2/43 AFB, P.C. 2709, April 2/43 AFB, P.C. 1082, Feb. 24/44 AFB, P.C. 6/1731, Mar. 14/45 AFB, P.C. 2150, May 30/46
AFB, P.C. 7142, Sept. 9/43 AFB, P.C. 1082, Feb. 24/44 AFB, P.C. 6/1731, Mar. 14/45 AFB, P.C. 2150, May 30/46

AFB, P.C. 1/2590, Mar. 31/43 AFB, P.C. 7142, Sept. 9/43 AFB, P.C. 1082, Feb. 24/44 AFB, P.C. 1082, Feb. 24/44 AFB, P.C. 6/1731, Mar. 14/45 AFB, P.C. 6/1731, Mar. 14/45 AFB, P.C. 2150, May 30/46

5.
1937
1939
1941
1943
1945
1947
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
Production of Cheddar Cheese in Canada by Provinces, Year 1936 to 1948 inclusive
(000 lbs.)
Prince
Edward
Island
New
Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan Alberta
British
Columbia
296	419	25,375	88,457	2,140	511	1,451	470461	597	30,362	93,867	2,923	343	1,838	231449	552	28,569	87,593	3,344	419	2,451	590459	557	27,526	89,968	3,492	345	2,196	928671	627	35,641	100,004	4,546	390	2,705	750702	773	39,021	103,446	3,670	390	3,140	7191,082	1,852	65,275	128,348	5,147	440	3,908	879781	971	50,555	106,132	3,360	445	2,563	7181,111	1,149	62,995	106,815	3,910	587	3,712	8321,052	1,194	61,519	115,200	3,858	368	3,985	748737	970	43,195	95,269	3,178	376	3,230	689658	737	23,430	87,482	3,456	328	3,079	533728	667	12,940	66,506	2,365	266	2,566	438Production of Creamery Butter in Prince Edward Nova New	i Canada by Provinces, Year 1936 (000 lbs.)	to 1948	inclusive	BritishIsland	Scotia Brunswick Quebec Ontario	Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta	Columbia2,068	5,754	3,502	74,487 86,705	23,011	24,097	25,491	5,8132,131	5,874	3,623	74,557 81,396	24,343	23,571	26,323	5,2342,557	6,716	4,521	79,758 87,754	25,703	23,524	31,242	5,5681,937	5,681	3,987	80,235 88,010	26,524	25,400	29,749	6,0861,984	5,870	3,923	74,084 87,278	27,289	28,306	29,796	6,1892,644	6,540	4,542	76,266 86,242	31,106	37,126	35,316	6,0623,523	6,660	4,981	73,109 81,025	31,641	41,306	36,985	5,3574,301	7,660	7,016	85,532 82,023	33,922	47,721	38,656	4,8744,014	7,142	7,089	82,194 75,074	31,553	48,264	37,806	5,6394,317	7,392	7,425	88,061 77,610	27,004	41,074	34,692	6,2053,895	6,987	6,920	85,355 69,145	26,058	37,025	30,743	5,3313,660	6,617	6,908	97,527 77,030	26,265	36,330	32,068	4,4364,465	6,248	7,109	95,960 74,166	25,101	33,982	32,404	4,339
Total
119,123
130,625
123,971
125,475
145,338
151,865
206,935
165,527
181,117
187,928
147,647
119,703
86,476
Total
250,931
247,056
267,347
267,612
264,723
285,848
284,591
311,709
298,777
293,782
271,464
290,841
283,774
1524	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions

Questions
Production of Dry Milk and Condensed Milk (000 lbs.)
.	tCondensed
*Dry milk	milk
1936	
21,264	79,0601937	
23,947	102,7251938	
32,132	114,9501939	
31,921	124,4561940	
32,840	150,3051941	
34,837	190,5691942	
37,392	213,5031943	
39,884	205,0161944	
46,063	218,7621945	
50,275	230,6901946	
58,180	223,4451947	
69,911	241,1231948	
82,238	270,196
includes dry skim milk and dry whole milk.
tlncludes evaporated and sweetened condensed milk.
It is not possible to give production by provinces, as such information is not available.



INDIANS


Mr. Archibald:: 1.	Who is the building inspector of the additions to the Miller Bay hospital of the Indian department, at Prince Rupert?
2.	What is his salary?
3.	What are his qualifications?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Theodore Norton Youngs, clerk of works, grade 3.
2.	$2,880 per annum.
3.	The manager of the unemployment insurance commission at Prince Rupert stated Mr. Youngs had the necessary qualifications and he was employed through the local office of the civil service commission. He is a graduate of the university of British Columbia (mining engineer). Mr. Youngs designed and built the assay building and offices, and supervised the construction of mills. The district resident architect of this department finds him a capable clerk of works for the class of work he is supervising for the department at Prince Rupert, and states that he is very attentive and careful in his work.



COMMISSION TO REVISE THE STATUTES

[Stage Direction]
Mr Viau:
1.	What are the names of the persons employed, under section 2 of chapter 67. 11-12 George VI (1947-48), to revise the statutes of Canada?
2.	What are their qualifications?
3.	What salary or remuneration are they receiving?
4.	What are the names of those employees who are bilingual?
Mr. Garson:: 1.	(a) J. C. Martin; (b) Leonard J. Ryan;
(c)	Stanislas Dery; (d) Samuel Quigg, K.C.; (e) Chas. G. Riley; (f) Marcil Plante; (g) Joseph G. deLorimier; (h) Emily Bradfield; (i) Mary Lefebvre; (j) Monique Lafontaine; (k) Carmen Renaud; (1) Pearl Edey.
2.	(a) Barrister; (b) Barrister and secretary; (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), Barrister; (h), (i), (j), (k), (1) Experienced secretary.
3.	(a) $5,000 per annum; (b) $4,000 per
annum;	(c)	$5,000	per	annum;	(d)	$5,000	perannum;	(e)	$4,500	per	annum;	(f)	$4,500	perannum; (g) $4,000 per annum; (h) $225 per month;	(i)	$225	per	month;	(j)	$225	permonth;	(k)	$225	per	month;	(1)	$225	per
month.
4.	Stanislas Dery, Marcil Plante, Joseph G. deLorimier, Mary Lefebvre, Monique Lafontaine, Carmen Renaud.



ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS, WINE AND BEER   CONSUMPTION, 1945-48

Mr. Gauthier (Porlneuf):: How many gallons of alcohol, wine, and beer have been consumed in Canada during the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 (a) in Canada as a whole; (b) in each province?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: (a)
Table 1. Apparent consumption of spirits, beer, and wine in Canada, fiscal years
1945-481.
Spirits	Beer	WinePf. Gal.	Gal.	Gal.1945	
3,719,918	110,223,815	3,712,4561946	
5,863,512	130,086,099	4,575,5771947	
6,543,173	146,980,904	5,584,3981948	
7,320,388	165,742,842	5,213,608
Estimated from production, warehouse releases, and trade statistics.
(b)
Table 2. Sales of spirits, beer and wine, by provinces, provincial fiscal years 1945-48. (Source: Provincial liquor control boards).
Spirits	Beer	WineNova Scotia-	Gal.	Gal.	Gal.1944-45 ..	348,740	4,422,997	113,2641945-46 ..	422,088	5,080,029	164,1511946-47 ..	404,502	4,449,253	175,8621947-48 . . Not yet New Brunswick-	available.	1944-45 ..	Not available.	1945-46 ..	Not available.	1946-47 ..	322,510	2,928,217	214,3851947-48 ..	Not yet available.	
Questions
Spirits	Beer	WineGal.	Gal.	Gal.Quebec-	1944-45 ..	1,927,469	32,246,478	1,255,0581945-46 ..	2,014,039	35,386,960	1,251,9391946-47 ..	2,369,140	38,208,908	1,655,7221947-48 ..	2,171,527	45,510,853	1,283,133Ontario-	1944-45 ..	1,518,067	47,182,168	1,624,1721945-46 ..	2,661,034	51,050,030	2,138,6461946-47 ..	2,990,248	58,907,572	2,222,8841947-48 ..	Not yet available.	Manitoba-	1944-45 ..	214,608	6,771,811	176,2931945-46 ..	326,870	8,346,718	194,1301946-47 ..	361,136	7,843,365	245,3531947-48 ..	Not yet available.	Saskatchewan-1944-45 ..	164,790	3,853,394	251,8941945-46 ..	252,929	5,853,054	263,5751946-47 . .	309,636	5,360,619	407,0441947-48 ..	287,946	7,316,840	335,360Alberta-	1944-45 ..	244,529	7,253,700	137,9001945-46 ..	346,320	8,352,000	130,0001946-47 ..	411,593	10,900,000	275,0001947-48 ..	407,089	11,103,000	310,000
British Columbia-
1944-	45 .. Not available.
1945-	46 .. Not available.
1946-	47 .. Not available.
1947-	48 .. Not available.
Note: In Prince Edward Island the sale of alcoholic beverages was prohibited except for medicinal purposes. Such sales are not available in gallons. Government control of liquor sales was adopted following the plebiscite of June 28, 1948.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	At what locations are relay transmitters in operation?
2.	When did each relay transmitter commence to operate?
3.	To what station is each a satellite?


Mr. McCann:: 1. CBRA, Revelstoke, B.C., Oct. 22, 1940, satellite of CBR; CBRN, North Bend, B.C., Sept. 11, 1942, satellite of CBR; CBRF, Fernie B.C., Dec. 14, 1942, satellite of CBR; CBRR, Cranbrook, B.C., Dec. 17, 1942, satellite of CBR; CBRK, Kimberley, B.C., Dec. 18, 1942, satellite of CBR; CBRM, Creston, B.C., Dec. 29, 1942, satellite of CBR; CBRQ, Quesnel, B.C., Aug. 9, 1943, satellite of CBR; CBRG, Prince George, B.C., Aug. 10, 1943, satellite of CBR; CBRL, Williams Lake, B.C., Aug. 11, 1943, satellite of CBR; CBRT, Ashcroft, B.C., May 16, 1948, satellite of CBR; CBRP, Princeton, B.C., May 18, 1948, satellite of CBR; CBRD, Field, B.C., Dec. 2, 1948, satellite of

CBR; CBLS, Sioux Lookout, Ont., June 13, 1943, satellite of CBL; CBLN, Nakina, Ont., April 27, 1944, satellite of CBL; CBLH, Horne-payne, Ont., Nov. 23, 1944, satellite of CBL; CBLD, Dryden, Ont., April 24, 1948, satellite of CBL; CBAM, Edmundston, N.B., Oct. 18, 1942, satellite of CBA.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	See answer to No. 1.




Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	What was the capital cost (giving reasonable particulars) of establishment of relay transmitters at (a) Dryden, Ontario, and (b) Sioux Lookout, Ontario?
2.	What was the operating cost to the C.B.C. in 1948 (giving reasonable particulars) for maintenance, repairs, line company fees, or other expenses with respect to the relay transmitters at (a) Dryden, Ontario, and (b) Sioux Lookout, Ontario?


Mr. McCann:: 1.
(a) Antenna	 $ 483.00
Technical equipment	 950.00
Total	 $1,433.00
(b) Antenna	 $ 618.00
Technical equipment ..."	 1,475.00
Miscellaneous ....	* 343.00
Total	 $2,436.00
2.
(a) Line connection charges, space heated and lighted, attendance and use of antenna
site	 $ 969.08
Power	 72.00
Miscellaneous	 158.92
Total (approx.)	 $1,200.00
(b) Line connection charges, space heated and lighted, attendance and use of antenna
site	 $ 969.08
Power	 108.00
Miscellaneous	 122.92
Total (approx.)	 $1,200.00



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Campbell:: What steps have been taken by the Department of Mines and Resources (Indian affairs branch), to build day schools, this year, on the reserves in Saskatchewan at Sweet Grass, Poundmaker, Red Pheasant, Stony and Thunderchild?


Mr. MacKinnon:: Sweet Grass reserve: Plans have been prepared and an item included in the estimates

for 1949-50 for the construction of a one-room	Indian	day	school	with	attached
teacher's residence. It was hoped that a start on the construction of this school would have been made in the current fiscal year, but difficulty was encountered in securing a satisfactory site with adequate water supply.
Poundmaker reserve: Plans have been prepared and an item included in the estimates for 1949-50 for the construction of a one-room	Indian	day	school	with	attached
teacher's residence.
Red Pheasant reserve: There is at the present time a one-room school in operation on this reserve. A considerable sum was spent recently to repair the foundation and to insulate the building. Consideration is being given to providing an additional classroom.
Stony reserve (Mosquito reserve): A survey is being carried out to determine the educational needs for this reserve. At present some fifteen of the children are transported daily to the school on the Red Pheasant reserve.
Thunderchild reserve:	The contract has
already been let for the erection of a modern two-room school on this reserve. It had been planned to erect the building last fall, but the contractor was unable to proceed on account of the cold weather.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING ACT

Mr. Wright:: 1.	What co-operatives have operated under the provisions of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act. 1939, and chapter 19 of the amended act in 1940?
2.	What products have they handled?
3.	What have been the total advances to each by
years?
4.	What have been the repayments by each?
5.	What were the terms and stipulations under which these advances were made to each?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1 and 2:
The following listed co-operative organizations or agencies have operated under a co-operative plan under the provisions of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, 1939, since its inception May 19, 1939:
Saskatchewan Honey Producers Co-operative Association, Honey 1939/40/41.
Manitoba Co-operative Honey Producers Limited, Honey 1939/41/42.
Alberta Honey Producers' Association, Honey 1940/41/47/48.
Saskatchewan Alfalfa Growers' Co-operative Marketing Assoc., Forage Crop Seeds 1939.
Saskatchewan Registered Seed Growers Ltd., Forage Crop Seeds 1939.
Questions
Saskatchewan Forage Crop Growers Cooperative Marketing Assoc., Forage Crop Seeds, 1940/41/42/43/44/45/46/47/48.
The Ontario Onion Growers' Co-operative Limited, Onions 1939.
Pelee Island Co-operative Association, Corn 1941.
Le Syndicat des Producteurs de Patates de Shipshaw, Potatoes 1945/46.
The Canadian National Silver Fox Breeders' Association, Fox Pelts 1939/40/47/48/49.
The Dominion Silver Fox Furs Ltd., Fox Pelts 1939.
Charlottetown Fur Sales Ltd., Fox Pelts 1939.
L'Association des Eleveurs de la Province de Quebec, Fox and Mink Pelts 1939.
Dominion Fur Auction Sales Ltd., Fox and Mink Pelts 1939.
Sanduck Fur Auction Sales Ltd., Fox and Mink Pelts 1939.
Edmonton Fur Auction Sales Ltd., Fox and Mink Pelts 1939.
Little Bros. Fur Auction Sales Agency Ltd., Fox and Mink Pelts 1939.
Victor Fox Foods (Western) Ltd., Fox and Mink Pelts 1940.
Syndicat Cooperatif des Producteurs de Fourrures, Fox and Mink Pelts 1940.
Ontario Fur Farmers Co-operative, Fox and Mink Pelts 1942.
The British Columbia Mink Breeders Association, Fox and Mink Pelts 1942.
The Quebec Fur Breeders Co-operative, Fox and Mink Pelts 1942.
Prince Edward Island Fur Pool Ltd., Fox and Mink Pelts 1939.
Maritime Fur Pool Limited, Fox and Mink Pelts 1939.
Western Canada Fur Pool Ltd., Fox and Mink Pelts 1940/41/42.
Prince Edward Island Fur Pool Ltd., Fox Pelts, 1947/48/49.
Maritime Fur Pool Ltd., Fox Pelts 1947/ 48/49.
Western Canada Fur Pool Ltd., Fox Pelts 1947/48/49.
Hudson's Bay Co. Fur Sales Dept., Fox Pelts 1947/48/49.
Quebec Fur Breeders Co-operative Assoc., Fox Pelts 1947/48/49.
Nova Scotia Silver Fox Breeders' Assoc., Fox Pelts 1947/48/49.
L'Association des Producteurs de Fourrures de Nicolet, Fox Pelts 1948/49.
Northern Pelt Market Co-operative, Fox Pelts 1949.
3,	4 and 5:
Under the act, which is designed to promote orderly marketing, no advances are made and thus no repayments are necessary. Orderly marketing is promoted by the government guaranteeing initial payments which are paid

Orders for Returns
by the organizations to their primary producers, thus permitting primary producers to receive part payment for their products whilst awaiting market returns from the sale of their products under a co-operative plan. In addition to the guarantee of the initial payment, operating expenses of the organizations, such as actual processing, carrying and selling costs are also guaranteed. Accordingly the government only becomes liable to the organizations when the average wholesale market price of the products falls below the value of the initial payment plus the operating expenses. Under the act the government has successfully guaranteed initial payments and operating expenses to the organizations since its inception in 1939. No payment has been made, under the act, to date with the exception of agreements pertaining to the marketing of fox pelts of the 1946-47 season. Due to the softening of the fox pelt market, some liability on the part of the government has been realized. Claims covering the marketing of these 1946-47 fox pelts are now in the process of being settled but until such time as all claims are received and audited the total government liability cannot be accurately determined.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	Did the government receive a resolution from the lake shore erosion conference held in Toronto in March, 1948?
2.	If so, has the government made a survey of the erosion on the great lakes and has a report been prepared with any recommendations for a remedy?



CANADIAN NAVY


Mr. Cockeram:: 1.	How many officers were recalled for service from January 1, 1947, to date, in the Royal Canadian Navy?
2.	On what dates were they recalled?
3.	What were their (a) names; (b) rank; (c) and
age?


Mr. Baker:: With reference to this question and the two which follow, I should say that no officers have been recalled for service since January 1, 1947 to date in the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army or the Royal Canadian Air Force; consequently these three questions in their present form would have to be answered "None." In conversation with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Cockeram), who asks the question, I find that he would like to have the names, rank, ages and date of appointment of former officers, of the rank of major or equivalent and above, who were appointed

to the active forces for full-time employment after January 1, 1947. With this explanation the questions will be answered and I would ask that they be made orders for returns.



CANADIAN ARMY


Mr. Cockeram:: 1.	How many officers were recalled for service from January 1, 1947, to date, in the Canadian Army?
2.	On what dates were they recalled?
3.	What were their (a) names; (b) rank; (c) and age?



R.C.A.F.-OFFICERS RECALLED FOR SERVICE

Mr. Cockeram:: 1.	How many officers were recalled for service from January 1, 1947, to date, in the Royal Canadian Air Force?
2.	On what dates were they recalled?
3.	What were their (a) names; (b) rank; (c) and age?



VETERANS PENSIONS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many applicants for service pension, by provinces, have been denied pension in each of the years 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949 to date on the ground that disabilities complained of are or were of preenlistment origin?
2.	Of such applicants, by provinces, how many were enlisted in the armed forces as being in "A" category?


Mr. Gregg:: The records of the department are not maintained to show statistically the category in which applicants for pension were enlisted in the armed forces. The answer to part 2 cannot be secured until after the cases referred to in part 1 have been identified, when each file would require to be drawn and examined individually, thus involving a great amount, of time, labour and cost. The hon. member who asks the question has agreed that, if the cost should be found to be substantial, part 2 of the question may be answered by stating that statistical records do not reflect the information. Subject to this reservation, the question may pass as an order for return.



C.B.C. NETWORKS  AFFILIATED STATIONS

Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	During each of the last ten years what privately owned radio stations were added to C.B.C. networks?
2.	Where is each station located?
3.	With which network did each station become affiliated and was the affiliation (a) as a "basic station"; (b) on a "sustained basis"; (c) on another basis?
4.	Which privately owned radio stations are charged by C.B.C. an annual "line charge" for network affiliation and what is the annual charge in each case?


James Joseph McCann: Return tabled.

Motion for Papers
GOVERNMENT-OWNED VESSELS-MERCHANT	EXPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY IN HURDMAN'S
SEAMEN	BRIDGE AREA, OTTAWA


Mr. Young:: 1.	How many ships were owned by the Canadian government on August 31, 1945?
2.	How many such ships have since been sold by the Canadian government to non-commonwealth owners?
3.	How many such ships have since been sold to commonwealth owners?
4.	How many such ships have since been sold to Canadian owners?
5.	How many vessels purchased from the Canadian government by Canadian companies since August 31, 1945, have since been resold to nonCanadian owners?
6.	How many Canadian-owned vessels formerly owned by the Canadian government are now registered under foreign flags?
7.	How many Canadian merchant seamen were employed during 1945?
8.	How many Canadian merchant seamen were employed during 1948?
9.	Are there any statistics available on the number of Canadian crews which have been paid off from Canadian vessels sold to foreign flags in the year 1949?



W. E. MACKIE, LIMITED

Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	During the calendar year 1948, what services, if any, were rendered to the dominion government, or any department or agency thereof, by W. E. Mackie, Limited?
2.	Were tenders called for in connection therewith?
3.	How much has been paid to W. E. Mackie, Limited for each of such services?
4.	How much is still owing to W. E. Mackie, Limited, for each of such services?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Blair:: 1.	How many clinical psychologists are employed on a full-time basis by the Department of Veterans Affairs: where are they located: what are their academic qualifications and from what universities did they receive degrees in psychology?
2.	What arrangements are made by D.V.A. to ensure that the best available techniques are employed, and what steps have been taken to ensure adequate training of these psychologists while in the government service? Does such training go beyond sending some of these psychologists on short courses to the United States?
3.	Is an adequately trained clinical psychologist employed on a full-time basis by D.V.A. to coordinate techniques, and to ensure co-operation with psychiatrists and other specialists of the medical profession?
4.	How much time do part-time consultants in psychology to D.V.A. spend on such work?
5.	Who are these consultants; with what institutions are they connected: how much money have they been paid in fees and expenses in the past two years; on what basis have these fees and expenses been paid, and what is the basis for their selection?
6.	Have any of these same consultants been employed during the past two years by federal departments other than D.V.A.?


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Under what authority is property, presently occupied for residential purposes, being expropriated in the Hurdman's bridge area?
2.	Have specific recommendations for such expropriation been made by the federal district commission?
3.	If so, what are the details of such recommendation?
4.	Have the projects so recommended been approved by the governor in council?
5.	If so, has any appropriation been authorized by parliament?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Pouliot:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The question is, how long does it take to give the touch of history to any public paper? I shall make myself clear. This motion refers to a paper that dates back nearly thirteen years. Is this a sufficient lapse of time to enable it to be called an historical document? What period of time must elapse before a public paper may be given to the public?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but there is no motion before the house. If the hon. member wishes to speak on a question of privilege, of course that is a different matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would Your Honour be kind enough to put the motion to the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Pouliot moves that an order of the house do issue-
For a copy of the transcript of the shorthand notes of the report of the dominion-provincial conference, 1936.


Mr. Abbott:: I find that a similar motion was made five or six years ago; it asked for the production of the transcript of the shorthand notes of the proceedings of the dominion-provincial conference of 1936. My predecessor pointed out at that time that the shorthand notes of the proceedings were to be taken for the purposes of a confidential record of what took place. A press statement was issued each day following the meetings of the conference. In view of the arrangement between the dominion and provincial representatives at the conference, I feel it would not be appropriate to produce the transcript of the proceedings.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise again on a question of privilege. Apparently no one can understand why this report should be secret when the reports of all other dominion-provincial conferences have been published. Many years have elapsed since the predecessor of my
1530	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry genial friend the Minister of Finance refused to table this document. The other day I voted reluctantly against the request of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) for the production and tabling of certain orders in council. They were not historical documents then, but a few days afterwards they became historical documents and were tabled in the house. If it only took a matter of days to table the papers asked for by the hon. member for Lake Centre, I do not see why many years are not enough to make other papers of historical value.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but motions for the production of papers are not debatable. If the hon. member wishes to rise on a question of privilege, I would ask him to state his question of privilege. Otherwise I shall have to put the motion to the house, because such motions are not debatable.


Jean-François Pouliot: I agree, and I do not intend to discuss the motion at all. I rise on a question of privilege, and it is one which would affect all requests of a similar nature.
I am lured by mystery, and mystery surrounds us here. We are told a thing is mysterious, and we cannot know about it. We cannot even learn about the tenders for post office contracts at Riviere du Loup. They are secret; there is a mystery attached to them, and there is mystery attached to this matter too. I will now tell you why I will not insist that the motion be proceeded with.
I will tell the house why it has been made mysterious. It was precisely at the time of that conference that Mr. Dunning went to see Mr. Duplessis of Quebec and said to him, referring to certain words in the transcript: "Would you like to delete this?" He said, "No; I will leave it as it is." What Mr. Dunning referred to was an offer of co-operation from the premier of Quebec to the dominion government as to the settlement of all difficulties, and it is because the premier of Quebec refused to delete those words that the whole thing has been kept secret. Now everybody knows it.
Motion dropped.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
PROVINCIAL CO-OPERATION On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence or, in his absence, to one of his assistants. Is the new system of grants to police and fire departments, announced by the attorney general of Ontario, which he said was part of an overall plan of improving national defence, being 

undertaken in co-operation with the federal Department of National Defence? If so, will the minister make a statement in the matter and say whether the same co-operation is expected of or being arranged with the other provinces?


Loran Ellis Baker: I shall take note of the question. I noticed the newspaper article to which the leader of the C.C.F. party has referred.



JAPANESE GOODS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver South):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether proposals have been made to the government by the United States or any other source that Canada should extend mostfavoured-nation tariff treatment to Japanese textiles or other Japanese manufactured goods. Further, is the Canadian government contemplating any such action?


Douglas Charles Abbott: We have had intimations that such a request may be made, but none has been received officially. As to what would be the attitude of the government, of course I am not in a position to say until some such proposal is put forward.


Howard Charles Green: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? Will the subject of extending most-favoured-nation treatment to Japanese goods be under discussion at the international trade organization conference to be held in France next month?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not sure, but I should think not.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon City):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, arising from the fact that sessional paper 176, which I received yesterday, is not complete. In the original question there were eight parts; in the return I received yesterday, only four were answered. The others are marked to be answered by another department, but they have not been answered at all. I would ask the Secretary of State to be kind enough to look into the matter.


Hon. Colin Gibson (Secretary of Slate):: I shall be glad to bring the matter to the attention of those who were concerned with the preparation of the return.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Will the Prime Minister oblige hon. members by saying when it is expected that the house will rise for the Easter recess, and how long the recess is to be?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I still hope it may be possible for the house to rise on the evening of April 8 for the week preceding and the week following Easter. There are some matters of urgent importance that might make it inadvisable to take so long a recess, but I hope that will not be so.


Mr. Knowles:: Shall we be coming back?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes, we shall be coming back.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James Sinclair (Vancouver North):: Is
the Minister of Transport yet in a position to announce what departmental work can be allotted to the shipyards of North Vancouver?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: In order to assist in relieving the
unemployment situation in Vancouver I have arranged for the construction of a lighthouse tender and buoy vessel for the Department of Transport at Burrard dry dock at North Vancouver. The contract for this vessel was originally let to Yarrows Limited of Victoria. This change will not involve any loss of employment in the Victoria area, as I believe another order suitable to the Yarrow yard will be announced shortly. There will be no delay in putting the work in hand in both yards, and the change has been made with the consent of both companies in the interests of economy and efficiency and for the purpose of maintaining a maximum amount of employment in the shipyards on both coasts. These arrangements have been made on the recommendation of the Canadian maritime commission.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, based on the statement he made yesterday with respect to the increase in war
Inquiries of the Ministry veterans allowances. I asked whether the board would automatically review the cases of veterans now receiving the maximum allowance, or whether they would have to make special application to have their cases reviewed. The minister replied that if I read his statement the answer would be evident, but this is the only sentence I can find which refers to this matter:
Regional offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs are familiar with, or will discover, these cases of special need.
The only way they can discover them is by investigation. Does the department intend to make the investigation itself, or are the veterans to make application?


Milton Fowler Gregg: After reading Hansard I realized that I did not complete the answer to my hon. friend's question of yesterday. The answer is that many of the cases referred to, coming under the plan proposed yesterday, are already known. The review with respect to others will continue to be carried out; but any veteran who feels that he should come under the plan when it comes into operation may make application.


Mr. Pearkes:: In view of the statement made yesterday, may I ask whether a veteran who is in receipt of war veterans allowance and who also draws a disability pension will be eligible for the increase?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The circumstances under which a veteran may become eligible under the plan announced yesterday are exactly the same as those which now prevail with respect to a veteran who may be getting a small pension supplemented by the war veterans allowance.


George Randolph Pearkes: But the words are, "without other means of support". That would not include a disability pension, then? The words "without other means of support" leaves some doubt in the minds of many veterans.


Milton Fowler Gregg: May I answer in this way? If a man were receiving full war veterans allowance and, say a $5 pension, but was not in receipt of other income, he would be eligible to apply.



SEED POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Just prior to coming into the house I received a telephone call about the new permit regulations covering the shipping of Prince Edward Island seed potatoes to the United States. I

Inquiries of the Ministry did not have time to acquaint the Minister of Trade and Commerce with the subject matter of my question, but it is this: Will the minister make a statement with respect to the new permit regulations, for the benefit of shippers and producers? If he is unable to answer today, will he please take this as notice and answer on Thursday?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall be glad to look into the matter.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: Will the Minister of Public Works indicate where in his estimates he has hidden the proposed public expenditures for Saskatchewan this year? I cannot find them. I wonder if he knows that Saskatchewan is still in the Canadian confederation.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: If the hon. member will look in the book he will find everything we intend to do in Saskatchewan this year.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Less than one per cent of the total.



CHILD WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: May I be permitted to answer now a question asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) on March 10 last, concerning the alleged traffic in babies for adoption?
The first consideration in regard to this problem is that jurisdiction in child welfare matters within the provinces, and particularly in adoption matters, rests with the provinces themselves. Consequently the Department of External Affairs is concerned with this question only in connection with the issuance of passports for young children who are leaving the country under guardianship arrangements. In such cases it is the responsibility of the department to try to ensure that all the requirements of the provincial laws have been met before passports are issued. I can assure the house that officials of the department have continued to co-operate with provincial authorities in the issuance of passports in this category. Whenever there appears reason to question the propriety of issuing a passport on behalf of a child who is leaving the country under guardianship arrangements, the passport is not issued until the matter has been clarified in consultation with the provincial authorities concerned.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbalier (Lake Centre):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, arising out of a return made yesterday, being sessional paper No. 6B. It has reference to the administration of the prairie farm assistance allowance. The questions which I asked were as follows:
Was payment made of the prairie farm assistance allowance to any persons in 1948 who (a) for a major portion of the year did not live on the land farmed by them; (b) had an occupation or carried on business additional to farm operations?
If so, how many cases are there in each of said categories?
The answers given to those questions are not answers at all, in my submission. The answers read as follows:
1.	In dealing with prairie farm assistance claims, no record is kept of the number of farmers who do not live upon the land farmed by them nor of the number of farmers having an occupation or business in addition to farming. The act and regulations do not require that a farmer, to be eligible, must live on his land, nor does having another occupation disqualify him, provided that farming is his primary occupation.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
These are not answers to the questions I asked. It is suggested there is no record kept of the number of farmers who do not live upon the land. Whether or not there is a record kept, that fact is stated on every application that is made. In view of the fact that in the administration of this act in Saskatchewan one farmer is receiving payment and another under similar circumstances is being denied it, I think parliament has a right to an answer so that it may be determined whether certain farmers are being discriminated against.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The only thing wrong with that answer is that it gives more information than was requested. It is not debatable, either.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture says the matter is not debatable. After all, the administration is required to answer questions, not evade them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am required to answer questions on my estimates, and I am prepared to do so. This question, however, has been answered.


John George Diefenbaker: Now, sir-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must realize that I cannot permit a debate on the subject. On a question of privilege the hon. member should state his question.
I gave him all the time he could possibly

need to enable him to do so, and he received a reply. I believe he should be satisfied.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would draw the attention of all hon. members to the fact that it is for the Speaker to decide whether or not a member is in order.


John George Diefenbaker: Sir, you are the custodian-


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


John George Diefenbaker: I doubt whether you will be able to get order from the group opposite, Mr. Speaker. I am rising on a question of privilege. You, sir, are the custodian of the rights of members. I ask you to examine that answer and report to the house whether in your opinion the right of members to information has been satisfied by it.



TRANSITIONAL MEASURES ACT, 1947 CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 15, 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 this question be now put".
Mr. Harry R. Jackman (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, last night when the debate was adjourned, this side was endeavouring to find out from the government just what the reasons were which, in their mind, dictated the fact that a national emergency arising out of the war was now obtaining in this country. We did not receive a satisfactory answer, nor have we received a satisfactory answer from the few ministers of the crown who so far have taken part in the debate on the resolution. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) did say that we did not need to fear that permanent shackling might take place if the executive were given discretionary powers because, first of all, we had the War Measures Act. When that act expired, the government changed the name to make it more palatable to the people and it was called the Transitional Powers Act. Today we have before us another softening of the language, and the title of the resolution upon which the bill will be based is, the continuation of the Transitional Measures Act.
Transitional Measures Act
No longer do we call it "powers"; we call it "measures". In other words, the people of Canada are supposed to be getting used to this control of their powers in the hands of the executive in Ottawa and the "powers" now simply become "measures". In any event, the Minister of Justice, who is piloting this resolution, gave no clear indication, beyond a bare, declaratory statement, that an emergency did exist. We on this side, and certainly the people we represent, wish to know just how it is that all the various measures which are embraced in the resolution find their origin in the fact that a national emergency arising out of the war still exists.
On this side, Mr. Speaker, we are not necessarily against controls where those controls are in the interests of the people of Canada. Unless those controls can be clearly shown to advance the interests, welfare and happiness of our people, then we are not of that experimental nature that we should wish to fasten controls on the people and perhaps end up in a situation such as we saw in many European countries before the war. Today we see a similar situation in countries such as Russia and her satellites. Where it can be shown that controls will work towards the welfare of the people, the Progressive Conservative party is favourable towards controls. One objective we have, and I will not say that it is not the objective of other parties, is the welfare of our people.
If we have economic controls throughout our whole system-and I am not suggesting that the present batch of controls under the resolution before us gives us economic slavery, nevertheless the tendency is there-we must be assured that there is ample justification for them. For where economic controls get into the hands of an executive or a small clique, then you can be sure that freedom of conscience and freedom of the individual will be taken from us. I do not think that any members of this house believe in control of salaries and wages. We had that control to some extent during wartime, and we were glad to get out of it. We do not want controls of that nature in peacetime. Nor do we want such controls as are in existence in the United Kingdom today under the title of the control of engagement order where a young man entering a business or a field of livelihood is told where he shall go or where he shall work. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, freedom and liberty of the individual was once the keystone around which the whole doctrine of Liberalism was built; that fact, however, has long been forgotten by the party which forms the government of this country today but which still calls itself Liberal.

Transitional Measures Act
It is not my intention today to go into the merits of the various controls. Ample opportunity will be afforded when the bill itself comes down. We shall then have an opportunity of examining the particular measures affecting each of the fields of activity. But we still seek from the government benches some justification for the resolution which is before us, by means of which we are to legislate on all these controls, or perhaps to legislate on some and not on others. I shall endeavour to point out the lack of justification.
The only source of jurisdiction which the government claims is the fact that a national emergency arising out of the war still exists. It would be much simpler for us if, in place of having an omnibus resolution, upon which I assume an omnibus bill is to be based, the government would break down the various controls into their separate entities so that we could examine each one and not be called upon to vote holus-bolus for a resolution which may contain some good, such as rental controls, and some bad, such as some of the other controls which I shall mention later. We and the people of this country should like to see the various controls in statute form, so that we shall know exactly what the people must conform to and not be under some general omnibus law where the terms exist chiefly in the mind of some minister or of some controller.
What is happening in this case is what we in this house have seen happen so frequently; and this applies particularly to the Department of National Revenue and to the Department of Finance. We find that the laws are made to suit the administrators, not to suit the people. As long as ease of administration is obtained, then the rights of the people and the consequences to them are given little consideration. So it is in this resolution before us now. We shall find that the bills will give the controllers all kinds of power to cover not only any possible emergency but any peacetime contingency, which would not in itself give the government jurisdiction; and the rights of the people will be forgotten. For example, in the steel control measure, as it exists today, there is the right not only to go into the premises of any steel manufacturer but, if necessary, to take over the plant and to direct its activities as the controller sees fit. That measure goes quite as far in the way of control as does the steel nationalization bill in the United Kingdom which is rocking the industry of that country from stem to gudgeon. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we should like to see these matters in clear statute form so that we shall know exactly where we stand on them, and shall know that powers without limit will not be given to the various administrators and controllers.


Under this resolution a great variety of matters is dealt with. The wartime prices and trade board comes under it. Butter, fruit, vegetables and other matters will be dealt with. Then we have rentals, sugar, steel and timber. In considering these various matters, what I have been looking for is some common thread which runs through them all. I have been trying to find the least common denominator which these matters have, but I cannot find much relationship between them. Yet the government seems to find jurisdiction to legislate on all of them in the national emergency arising out of the war.
Last night I endeavoured to compare the problems with regard to butter and the problems with regard to steel control. With regard to butter, there is today no necessity for a ceiling of seventy-two cents which exists; but if butter slides much further we shall be under the necessity of putting some kind of floor under the butter producers. That is the problem there. The nature of these problems changes quickly. But for the life of me I fail to see how the butter problem has anything to do with the national emergency arising out of the war. Surely the government must concede me that point. Butter today can have no relation to any problem arising out of the war. Yet we are asked here to admit that the government should have jurisdiction on this particular product when they cannot prove their case at all in the matter of jurisdiction. It is not a matter whatsoever for the dominion government.
For the benefit of my friends in the C.C.F. party I might point out here that not so long ago we heard about rather large and fancy inventory profits being made on butter. I for one would not deny that those profits must have been made by somebody; because between the season when butter is easily made-that is, the summer season-and the next season when the cows are freshened, there is no butter production in Canada, and someone must store butter. If we must have butter in storage, and the price fluctuates, someone must get the profit; or, as in the present case, someone must get the loss. So I should be pleased to hear from some of my friends in the C.C.F. what they intend to do now with those who are suffering the loss on the butter which is being carried over from one season to another, just as we heard from them when there was a profit. As to that profit, may I say here that it was not all gain to the co-operative creameries or to the dealers in butter; because if there was any profit on it there was a thirty-five per cent corporation tax which went to the dominion government. Now when there are staggering losses there is no dominion government to

come to the rescue of those who must suffer the inventory loss. In other words, Mr. Speaker, what I want to point out is that these controls sometimes work hardships on the people. The fact that we had on butter a control of seventy-two cents may have been all right for the producer of butter at that time, but when he is faced with the losses, either in the production or in the handling of it, whether it be by a co-operative or by a privately-owned company, he Is not left with much fat on his bones with which to carry him over the lean period. In other words, every time we interfere with the natural working of our economic laws we find that there are repercussions which we hardly expected.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he tell us what the natural working of economic laws is?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: In the limited period of forty minutes at my disposal I am afraid I would not be able to do that.
Last night the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) referred to the fact that my colleague, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris), spoke about steel, and he endeavoured to extract from my colleague's remarks the fact that steel should be controlled. I am not going to say yes or no, whether steel should be controlled. I think perhaps the allocation of steel is necessary in many cases, but I do think that the argument made by the Minister of Justice was anything but sound. We are now discussing problems which arise out of a national emergency because of the war. As I recall it, the Minister of Justice said something about lessening the production of steel, and that we are still in an emergency arising out of the war. Well, we use our own steel in Canada. We have always been an importer and never a heavy exporter of steel. Let me point out that in 1939 the steel production of Canada was 129,000 tons. That, apparently, sufficed for our ordinary peacetime economy at that time. In 1948 it amounted to not 129,000 tons but 280,000 tons, an increase of 117 per cent. We had a relatively small gain in our population, but notwithstanding all this our increase in production because of the war leads us to the fact that today we must have controls. I fail to see it.
The Minister of Justice pointed out that it would be highly improper to embody in the same statute, if we had used the statutory form, a loan to a corporation in the steel business, and the general control of the steel industry. It might indeed be highly improper to embrace all these matters even though they deal with the common element of steel. But how much more highly improper is it to
Transitional Measures Act embrace not only these two things but a multitude of other things in the same bill and in the same statute.
Still talking about steel, the Minister of Justice went on to say that he wanted to see that the limited amount of steel that was in supply would go to the building of hospitals rather than to big banks. That was interesting, Mr. Speaker, because for some years now, as a member of the Progressive Conservative party, I have been endeavouring to get the government to put into force some form of building permit controls. Everyone realizes that if you want to put your finger on something that does arise out of the war in the way of a shortage, it is the housing shortage. The reason that we have this housing shortage, in this peculiarly acute form, is that hundreds of thousands of our young men were overseas at a time when they might have been acquiring some sort of a house in this country. When they came back no houses were available. They had all been taken by people who had moved into the cities, or by the natural growth of the population. There were no houses for them, and we have not yet begun to fill up that gap; therefore we have a national emergency arising out of the war, and it is housing. We have had it for four or five years, and yet the Minister of Justice has the effrontery to say that we should have controls now in order that steel shall go into hospitals rather than into banks. I have pleaded all along for years that we should have this very thing, and yet the party which he represents, and whose sins he must bear equally with his colleagues, have refused to put in any form of control in relation to building during all these years, and we have on our hands today this very sorry mess in regard to housing. The reason we must still have some controls over housing is the failure of the Liberal government over the last five years.


Mr. Garson:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he arguing for more controls?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If the minister had listened to me today, or listened to me the other day when I had some remarks to make, he would understand that I believe the proper way to overcome this housing difficulty is to have some controls from Ottawa, not through the municipalities, because one municipality competes with another. Until we break this log jam in the housing field we shall not have houses. If the minister lived in a riding such as mine, which is part of a great city, he would have some understanding of the conditions under which many of our people live. Many of these people have the effective means of paying for a house if they could
1536

Transitional Measures Act only get one. Certainly I am for controls when it is for the betterment of the people. The minister's government has been sadly derelict in its duty in the last five years.
Let me point out to the Minister of Justice that I am for controls when controls better the condition of our people. If the Minister of Justice had the privilege of living in some of the hovels in which some of my constituents have to live, because of this government's inaction, he would not feel quite so happy about it. In 1947, 7 per cent of the construction which went on in the city of Toronto proper was for housing units; 93 per cent was for everything else, commercial and industrial building. In 1948, the amount of construction that went into housing units was only 11 per cent, but still it was an increase. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) when he had control of housing said: "You cannot show me a large plot in Toronto where you can have an extensive housing development." I readily admit that you cannot put 500 houses on any one spot in Toronto, but you can put up apartment houses and multiple-dwelling houses. He might just as well have said to me that no more money will be spent in the political confines of Toronto in the future on housing because there are no large lots available. Yet we find that in 1948 the proportion of housing construction going on in that city was 11 per cent as against 7 per cent the year before.
I can tell the Minister of Trade and Commerce that hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent in the city of Toronto in the years to come on apartment buildings and on multiple units. It is inevitable. Because of the failure of this Liberal government to have any control over housing construction, we find that all the materials and many of the available workmen are being used in the building of commercial and industrial buildings in the city of Toronto. In fact we have so many moving picture theatres in the city, costing anywhere from $500,000 to $2,500,000, that one wonders whether they will ever be able to justify themselves on a dollar and cents basis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Private enterprise.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That may be so, but a lack of control has been the compelling reason. Do not think for a moment that when you have a war on you must not have controls of a very severe nature. You must have them because the whole economy is thrown into a different gear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are in a different gear.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: You cannot function unless you offset the claims of industrial and commercial building and thus remedy the housing

deficiency. A director of one of the large motion picture companies in the United States visited Toronto, where they have interests, and remarked that in no comparable city in the United States had so many motion picture theatres been constructed as in the city of Toronto.


Mr. Mitchell:: May I ask my hon. friend who issued the permits for the construction of those theatres in Toronto?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If the Minister of Labour had been listening he would have heard me say that it was no use for the federal government to pass over the control of permits to the cities because if one city would not grant a permit another one would. It was necessary to have a central control here if it was going to be made effective.


Humphrey Mitchell: I cannot understand my hon. friend, who seems to be going around in circles. In one breath he is for centralization and in the next breath he is against it. In one breath he is for controls and in the next breath he is against them.


An hon. Member:: It is just taking up time.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I think my statement is very clear. Where there has been a continuing need for housing, such as there has been for the last five years, there should have been some control here in Ottawa. I shall not go on to describe some of the conditions that have been brought about and the hardships that have been created because of the failure of the government to act. They are not going to be able to get away from rental controls for some time, because they have not done anything yet to break the jam. They have failed to produce houses for our people. According to the minister who is looking after housing, last year 83,000 houses were erected but 80,000 new family units were created, which meant a net gain of only 3,000 houses. Everybody knows that there is a need at the present time for 200,000 or 300,000 houses, and yet this government does nothing. Let us get ahead with housing so that we can get rid of rental controls. The people want to get rid of them as soon as they can.
I suggested the other day that the way to solve the housing problem was to produce more builders' supplies and other materials going into housing. The immediate shortage is not labour, it is materials of one sort or another. At that time I suggested certain methods which might be adopted. I had a few remarks to make about steel but time will not permit me to go on in that particular field except to say that the powers which exist today in the hands of the bureaucrats are too loose and undefined. If we are to protect the liberty of the subject, not neces-

sarily under this present government-you can trust some people with your fortune, but there are other people you do not want to trust, whom you cannot trust-laws should be made that are workable, no matter who is working them.
I have a few things to say about sugar, which is one of the items covered by this particular bill. I wonder what the reasons are for including sugar and molasses in this control measure? What is the national emergency which arises out of the war? I fail to see any emergency in that connection. I ask hon. members whether the government has demonstrated that any sugar emergency has arisen out of the war.
Let me mention just a few facts in connection with sugar. The price is down to a reasonable figure. I have not heard of any complaints in that regard. The large sugar producers in the tropical countries got about five cents per pound last year but in the present crop year they will be lucky to get four cents per pound. I believe the last price mentioned was $4.15 per one hundred pounds. It certainly is not an expensive commodity. All the sugar companies are having a difficult time just now. Let me read just one item in reference to molasses, which is still under control. This appeared in the Wall Street Journal and has reference to the South Porto Rico Sugar Company. It reads:
The market for blackstrap molasses, a sugar byproduct which contributed substantially to profits last year, has collapsed, and revenues from this source may prove nominal. South Porto Rico reported it realized an average of 21 cents a gallon on its blackstrap sales last season. The indicated market price today is about four to five cents a gallon.
What is the reason for continuing the control on sugar and its by-products? Is it that we are being dictated to by the United Kingdom from whom we are buying our sugar? Is it that they are insisting on state trading? Most of us in this country are against state trading. When I present facts such as these I think the government, and particularly the minister in charge of the resolution, is called upon to answer them, if not to refute them.
The wartime prices and trade board is another item which comes under this omnibus resolution, and fruits and vegetables are included, certainly the imported ones. I should like to know how those commodities are linked up to a national emergency arising out of the war. It seems to me to be difficult to find any connection between them. Certainly one cannot find a connection through the foreign exchange control board, because we are now in a reasonably satisfactory situation in regard to our holdings of gold and United States dollars.
Transitional Measures Act
We had a committee on prices which had to justify its existence. That committee found that once the embargo was put on fresh imported fruits and vegetables some wholesale dealers and others in the trade made what might be considered exorbitant profits. No doubt they felt that they should get what the market would bear for the stocks they had on hand, because soon they would be able to get no more imported goods and would perhaps be out of pocket. Rightly or wrongly, they took advantage of what they could. But the government felt that they had to find some little wheat in the investigation; and, as far as I can see, the only reason for keeping on fruits and vegetables controls is to create some justification for the great expense to this country of the prices committee and the royal commission which followed it.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) had a few remarks to make about inflation as a result of the war and the need to control prices and other things until all the inflation had been squeezed out of the sponge. Let me point out to him that we are all perfectly aware that there has been inflation since the war. I suggest to him that we should be very unhappy if much of the inflation does not remain with us as a permanent condition. Whatever situation we may be in now, if we go too far the other way, if our commodities such as wheat, butter, livestock and other things go down in price, we shall find ourselves in a sorry mess indeed.
How does the minister expect that we shall ever be able to support our present national debt unless we have fairly high price levels? We cannot go back to the 1939-equals-one-hundred days because since 1939 our national debt has increased from $3,000 million to $13,000 million. We must have some increase in our 1939 price level, for we only have twelve million people to shoulder the debt, and it is a very substantial amount. By the same token, how does the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) expect to pay for all the social services and all the other extraordinary costs of government that we have today? If he looks at the revenue for 1939 he will see that it was a paltry $500 million. How far would that go? Family allowances are $300 million. If we return to price levels anywhere near to what they were in 1939 we are going to have in this country problems which neither the Minister of Justice nor I would care to face. As against revenue of $500 million for the government in 1939, today we have $2,500 million, five times as much. You cannot support that with the same population unless you have vastly higher price levels.
1538

Transitional Measures Act
I should now like to say a word or two about the foreign exchange control board. That was a measure of control which was enacted to control exchanges, and yet we find how easy it is for bureaucrats to deviate widely from the original purpose. When the foreign exchange control measure was put through, the Minister of Finance said that it would never be used for anything but exchange control. We found in very short order that it was being used for price control, and it was like using a fine chisel to do the job of a woodsman's axe. We also find that the foreign exchange control measure is used to control trade, and not just to control our exchanges.
May I point out another matter of some interest to the taxpayers of Canada who must bear the burden of all these costs? The Foreign Exchange Control Act is a measure to control exchanges, and if you want to let it go further it can control these other things I have mentioned, control prices and control the direction of trade, et cetera; but it was never meant to be a taxation measure. Once you put this great power in the hands of bureaucrats, what becomes of it? They do exactly as they please; the more revenue they produce the bigger they can expand their departments, and the more important they can become. Just think of a Minister of Finance who has a foreign exchange control act on the books which is to do a simple job of controlling, and yet when the controller comes to him at the end of each year he reports profits like these, in 1941, $8,900,000, and then $9,200,000, $11,200,000, and last year $10,832,697 by way of profits from the operation of the foreign exchange control board. It is not as if these profits were just pulled out of the air.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, is it proper to discuss the operations of the foreign exchange control board under this resolution in view of the fact that there is on the order paper another resolution on that matter?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did not understand that the hon. member for Rosedale was discussing the foreign exchange control board. He was using it as a reference.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: As to what happens when you give power to these various boards, they distort the purpose for which they were originally intended and place additional burdens upon the backs of the taxpayers of Canada. In 1939 the total personal income tax was only $50 million.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. N. J. M. Lockhart (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to elaborate at any great length-


An hon. Member:: Collaborate?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: If you will take the wool out of your ears you will hear some of the things that are being said. I want to make a few remarks arising particularly out of a return that I received in the house a few days ago dealing with the matter of housing. As housing is one of the controls which are being included in this omnibus resolution, I want to make specific reference to the return that I received. I want to refer to the specific questions in this return before I make my general observations. The questions I asked were:
1.	How many persons are employed by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	Are there any persons employed outside of the city of Ottawa by this corporation?
3.	If so, at what points?
4.	What was the total amount paid out in salaries and traveling expenses to employees of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during the year 1948?
5.	What are the names of the principal officials of the corporation?
6.	What salary does each receive?
7.	What were the travelling expenses of each such official during the year 1948?
8.	Have any increases in salary been granted to the employees of the corporation since it was set up?
9.	If so, to whom, and what increase to each of them?
The answers can be found in the return to which I have referred. The answer to question No. 1 shows that there are around 1,800 people employed. The answer to question No. 2, under which I wanted to know whether any were employed outside of the city of Ottawa, was yes. Then a detailed list is given of where these persons are employed. The answer to question No. 4 shows that the total amount paid out in salaries was $3,698,218.49, and total traveling expenses are given as $247,460.32. In question No. 7 I asked about the traveling expenses of the officials during the year 1948. That is where I take exception to what bureaucrats can do. The answer to question No. 7 is that this information is not available from government records. After being given the total traveling expenses of the officials as $247,460.32, I cannot get the information that I desire about these traveling expenses because it is said to be not available from government records. In other words, I am not given a breakdown of the traveling expenses.
Question No. 8 deals with increases in salary. Then in question No. 9 I asked to whom increases were given and what they were in each case. Again the answer I

received was that the information was not available from government records. I doubt whether you can find in the annals of the house an instance where more bureaucratic answers have been given to a simple return. It is a matter about which I am being asked time and time again. I have received further letters today asking me about the situation.
I am glad that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) is in the house because I could not get this information.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I rose in the house last Monday-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should point out to the hon. member that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not come within the present resolution. I understand rentals do come within it; but a general discussion of the corporation to which the hon. gentleman is referring would not be in order at the present time.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: They put up rental housing.


Mr. Fraser:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Central Mortgage does come under the matter of controls, because Central Mortgage has absolute authority over priorities for building projects. If a municipality issues a permit for the construction of a theatre or any other building it must get its priority certificate from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That is the only way they can build, and that is why there is a shortage of cement, nails and everything else required for veterans' houses. That should be and is under this control act; therefore it can be discussed under this item.


Mr. Fleming:: May I add that one of the orders sought to be continued by the measure the Minister of Justice is asking leave to introduce is the order under which priorities are issued by the priorities officer.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Speaking to the point of order, while the observations of the last two hon. members are quite correct, as I understood them, the hon. member who has the floor was not discussing the application of any of these priorities by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He was discussing the internal administration of the corporation-


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I was leading up to priorities.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -which comes under a statute of its own. That discussion would be quite irrelevant to the matter now before the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe what has been said by the hon. member for Peter-
Transitional Measures Act borough West (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) is correct; but as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has pointed out, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) was not discussing these priorities. He was discussing the whole question of the internal management of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which does not come within the scope of the resolution. As a matter of fact it is a corporation which is responsible to another minister entirely. I think I have made my point clear; and the hon. member for Lincoln has stated that he is going to lead up to the question of priorities.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I do not want to transgress against any ruling you may make, nor do I want to transgress against the rules of the house, but I am following along the line of what my leader said so definitely in this house in regard to bureaucratic controls, and I want to point out that this is one of the things which are causing considerable concern under those controls.
I have attempted to show the nature of the thing about which I am complaining. I am not blaming the minister for this, because probably he is only repeating what someone else has told him, since he has just come into the department. However, yesterday I asked if it would not be possible to get answers to these questions, to find out what were the traveling expenses-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend persists in following a line of argument which I think is quite inadmissible on this resolution.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: We are being asked to continue these controls, and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is building rental houses in my city at the present time. I am showing the procedure that is followed under the bureaucratic controls that are in effect today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understood the hon. member was discussing the management of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the cost of operating the corporation, the salaries paid and so on. I do not think that could be considered by any stretch of the imagination to come under this resolution;. I would not object if the hon. member made passing reference to what is being done by the corporation, but I do not think it would be in order to have a detailed discussion on that point at the present time. That may well come up on a subsequent occasion.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to pursue this matter, but will conclude with my own observations in regard to what

Transitional Measures Act has happened. Rental houses are urgently-needed but, as the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) has said, materials are being diverted to the construction of hospitals, bank buildings and so on. I say in all fairness to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) that in the cities of Welland and Niagara Falls, where houses are so urgently needed, it will not appear very well to see an item in the estimates of a quarter of a million dollars for a public building in one city.


Humphrey Mitchell: I can only say to my hon. friend that I hope we get the public building.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Go ahead and get the public building for the quarter of a million dollars, if you wish; there is still a terrific need for houses. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is one of the crown companies responsible for the production of houses, but they have not advanced at all in the last year or two.
I have spoken of bureaucratic controls. I have asked the minister for the information I required, but he tells me I cannot have it. I merely recite this to show the type of bureaucracy that seems to be developing more and more in this country. Here we have an omnibus resolution covering things which have nothing to do with a war emergency; yet we have to submit to this sort of thing. I am just asking the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters) why I cannot get information the people of my constituency are requesting. This resolution will continue control over such things as fruits and vegetables. With all these matters brought under an omnibus resolution I do not know where this will ever end. So I say there is only one thing to do and that is abandon the sort of control we have at present, except in extremely emergent cases.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Oh, they have done that now.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: A little more wool-gathering. I will not pursue this point further, but I should like the minister to be good enough to explain why this information cannot be made available. The minister has suggested that the report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is responsible for a great deal of housing construction, may be referred to some committee, and that when this is done I may be able to get the information I have requested. However, I would ask the minister to give me that information now.
Motion (Mr. Casselman): "That this question be now put", agreed to.


Mr. Dickey:: I was paired with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
(Translation):


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Chapdelaine:: Mr. Speaker, I was
paired with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Lapointe). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
(Text):
The house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


Mr. Drew:: Will the minister now explain the extent to which any of the twelve orders are to be varied or changed in any way?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: During the course of my remarks in the debate yesterday it was pointed out to me by the hon. member for Peterborough West and the hon. member for Nanaimo that at this stage it was improper to refer to any of the provisions of the bill, and that that could be done only when the bill was brought down. It would be difficult for hon. members to follow any argument until the bill is brought down. Subject to that difficulty, may I say that the intention is not to effect any modification in any of the existing orders in council. I think that is what the leader of the opposition means. When the bill is brought down it will be seen that it goes somewhat further than that. If I may
Transitional Measures Act be permitted a slightly improper allusion to the bill not yet before the members, may I say that it will provide that not only will the orders stand as they are but also that, notwithstanding anything in the act, the wartime prices and trade board shall not exercise any powers with regard to the fixing of prices or with regard to the launching of prosecutions with respect to any goods and services other than those which are already referred to in existing orders in council. Therefore, not only will these orders in council not be changed but it will not be permissible, under the terms of the bill, to pass any more orders in council or board orders dealing with goods or services other than those under control when this bill becomes law. Perhaps that answers my hon. friend's question.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, except to the extent that if there are any other changes-


Mr. Blackmore:: Speak louder, please.


George Alexander Drew: Information could quite properly be placed before the committee to indicate the extent to which any of these orders, as distinct from the bill, are to be changed or amended in themselves. I am not now referring to the extent to which the act may limit the exercise of powers in relation to these matters. I want to know whether we may take it that the twelve orders referred to in the explanation of the Minister of Justice last week are to be put forward in the same form as they were last year, subject of course to any interpretative provisions which might be in the amended bill itself.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I would say the bill being introduced applies to the orders in council in question in the form in which they were last year. But what I would suggest in that connection is that the bill be printed and distributed, and that we then lay before the house, if it so desires, a text of the orders in council to which the bill will apply. When these are laid before the house hon. members will see, if they wish to make a comparison, that there has been no change of any substance in the orders in council along the lines indicated by the leader of the opposition's question.


John George Diefenbaker: When the minister spoke the day before yesterday he mentioned the prerogative powers that permit of the issue of orders in council. I was quite interested in the statement he made, and I should like to ask him how far the crown now possesses the power to pass extraordinary and prerogative orders in council outside and above those particularly covered in this resolution.

Transitional Measures Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder if my hon. friend would make clear before I answer his question whether he refers to prerogative powers with respect to the subject matters covered by the bill before the committee. If he refers merely to these subject matters I apprehend just offhand that there is no intention to pass any prerogative orders in council, seeing that our powers have been determined by parliament to be covered by the statute, of which the present bill is an amendment. If his question is not confined to the subject matters before us, then I would object to the hon. member's question as irrelevant to the present discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to bring in anything irrelevant. Perhaps I can put it this way. I was wondering whether or not the matter of emergency might apply in this case to which I would direct the minister's attention. There is a motion on the order paper to permit the sittings of the house to start in the forenoon. This is to be referred to tomorrow. Naturally any motion such as that gives rise to speculation. Then again the budget is to be brought down on March 22. I was wondering whether or not under these emergency powers it is considered by the Minister of Justice that once the budget has been introduced, without its being passed by parliament, the emergency powers of an order in council could make effective its recommendations. Would that come within the emergency powers or within the prerogative powers exercisable under the emergency legislation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have been in the legal profession now for some twenty-five years odd, and I have never yet acquired the habit of answering like a slot machine questions of the type just asked by my hon. friend. If my hon. friend wishes an opinion on that I shall be glad to confer with the law officers of the crown and produce it for him, but I regret that I cannot feel responsible to produce it at a moment's notice at the present time.
However, I might say this, if it does not offend my hon. friend's professional sense. As a lawyer I think he knows that, when parliament has provided in the Transitional Measures Act the power for the executive to pass orders in council, certainly, following the usual process, the executive would confine itself to the powers so granted when dealing with any of the subject matters which are within the limits of the legislation. That being the case, and the hon. member being a lawyer, I think he should be as able to read the statute and draw his own conclusions as I, also being a lawyer, am to draw them.
IMr. Diefenbaker.]


John George Diefenbaker: I think the allusion to a slot machine is about the best thing I have heard in reference to orders in council. When I think of the thousands that have been turned out, the slot machine allusion is most applicable and pertinent. But still that does not answer my question. The experience in the past has shown that this government has not been too careful about exceeding its powers when passing orders in council, even when those powers are granted under a statute passed by this parliament. It was because of that fact that I asked the question, and the uncertainty of the reply gives me the answer that I was endeavouring to get.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I think there are certain points that should be put forward at this time in regard to the matter now before the committee and which have been emphasized by the reply made by the Minister of Justice to the hon. member for Lake Centre. It is very noticeable that on the part of many hon. members, particularly some of those in the government ranks, there is an attitude of impatience, not to say annoyance, that the wisdom of the government should be challenged in any way as to the necessity for the continuance of these extraordinary powers.
When the Minister of Justice indicates his reluctance to act like a slot machine, he is obviously announcing on behalf of the government a new policy which it is hoped will actually bear some fruit in the future. It is obvious that this is a new declaration of policy as of today, but not as of last night, because in some of the comments the minister made last night on this subject he was certainly following the slot machine process and not paying very much attention to what he had learned during his twenty-five years in the practice of law.
There are a great many points that come up in this house that are not matters calling for special legal consideration, but there are also many matters which call for the practical attention of those who because of special knowledge can express the most expert opinion. But when it comes to matters that relate to the constitution and to the division of authority between the governments of this country, that relate to the powers and responsibilities of this house and of parliament as a whole, then it is wise for every hon. member to have some regard for the legal effect of the measure before the house. The decision made by hon. members is going to have a profound effect upon the opportunity of our courts to protect the rights of the people of Canada in relation to many

of their ordinary occupations and their ordinary rights which are disturbed by arbitrary powers of this kind.
Last night the Minister of Justice stated that he did not think it was proper to refer to the judgment given last Thursday in Manitoba. I do not know by what process he came to the conclusion that the mere fact that there may be some further action precluded the possibility of comment upon the latest decision of the courts in interpreting the judicial attitude toward any matter of this kind. That was the latest judgment dealing with the emergency transitional powers act which the government seeks to continue by the bill which is to follow this resolution. Therefore, it was most proper to examine what that court found and what was the opinion expressed by the five judges of that court in regard to an order in council passed under the broad provisions of this act. The judgment was one of great importance, not merely because of its effect upon the broad issue with which it was dealing but because of the fact that it made an important observation in regard to the type of emergency which should be present before it is possible for anyone to say that there was such an emergency as called for a decision to that effect.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) said that in this case the emergency is one which is apparent to everyone. It was not apparent to the judges of the supreme court of Manitoba, and in a very powerful statement one of the judges pointed out that, far from being a general economic emergency, the situation was precisely the contrary. After all, that was only stating what reason and common sense would assert in any case without the necessity of going to that judgment for an interpretation of the proper attitude towards emergency controls of this kind.
The Minister of Justice is asserting here that every member of the house can see for himself, without any argument or anything to substantiate it, that there is such an emergency as makes it possible for the members to declare that this omnibus bill should be passed which covers twelve different orders that are carried forward from the period of war emergency. There can be a general emergency or there can be a specific emergency relating to a particular condition or a particular subject. I submit that the distinction between those two types of emergency should be in the mind of every hon. member of the house before making the very important decision to declare by his vote that there is an emergency of the kind which the government argues in this case.
Transitional Measures Act There have been a number of cases in the past where a specific emergency was declared and legislation presented to the house and ' dealt with by the house in relation to that specific emergency. The circumstance which has undoubtedly caused the most extensive legal consideration of this point was the passing by the Canadian parliament many years ago of the Canada Temperance Act. That was an act dealing with a specific emergency. I do not know that there is in the house anyone who, from his own recollection, can recall the condition which was regarded as a national emergency of that nature at that time. In fact, it is apparent that there is no one who remembers the conditions which led to the passage of that bill under something approaching recognition of a national emergency. It was only in the light of the recognition of something of that nature that it would have been possible to have dealt with the situation. There is, of course, the fact that the provinces at that time had not provided their own liquor control acts, and this device was apparently necessary if there was to be a general supervision of the use of spirits.
I only mention the Canada Temperance Act to point out that there can be a specific emergency which becomes the justification for the passing of a bill to deal with that subject. It may well be, and in fact I assert, that there is an emergency in regard to certain matters under consideration in the broad purpose of this bill. It is very noticeable that some of those to the left who believe in controls for the sake of controls-


Arthur Henry Williams: That is nonsense.


George Alexander Drew: -are extremely caustic in regard to the very positive statement that-


Arthur Henry Williams: On a question of privilege, the privilege of refuting the statement of the leader of the opposition, who is merely making-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. That is not a question of privilege. The hon. member will have an opportunity to reply later on.


Mr. Graydon:: Let the government speak for themselves. They have spokesmen everywhere.


George Alexander Drew: I was just saying that there are those who are very caustic when the statement is made that there should be controls over certain matters during a continuing period of emergency in respect to certain subjects. It is strange how people will accept the general extension of powers, and the continuance of those powers to the point where ultimately they seem to forget how

Transitional Measures Act wide those powers are, and how dangerous the principles are that are involved in them. When a perfectly sound and logical proposition is put forward that these matters should be dealt with in the proper, parliamentary way of having separate bills to deal with the specific emergencies that are alleged, there are those who try to convey the impression that a submission in regard to a constitutional position of that kind means that those who assert it properly, and with due recognition of the rights of parliament, are opposed to any measure of control over any of these subjects. I hope it will not be necessary outside of this house to call any hon. gentlemen by a short and descriptive name afterwards, but I for one will certainly reserve the right to do so if any hon. member suggests that I-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Threats.


George Alexander Drew: -, or any other member of the party with which I am associated, have expressed opposition to rent control, or to any other specific question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: It seems that I shall be given the opportunity and duty of using a very short but expressive word.


An hon. Member:: What a farce.


George Alexander Drew: Here you have the mechanism of dictatorship right in front of you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Here you have men drunk with power, and of course I am not referring now to the Canada Temperance Act.


An hon. Member:: Cocktail bars.


George Alexander Drew: Here you have men so convinced of their own rightness that they simply say that the war was over four years ago, but you must not suggest for a moment that anybody should be told what the emergency is as to any of these particular subjects.


Arthur Henry Williams: You have had a chance to do that for two days.


George Alexander Drew: Then when you have placed before the house an argument which is in keeping with what every real Liberal would have asserted, and asserted most vigorously, in the past, you have nothing but empty laughter from the government benches. Last evening the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) quoted from a judgment of Lord Wright in one of the more recent and leading cases on this subject, and referred to what has been also accepted generally in other cases. He quoted these words:
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.
The important words in that quotation from Lord Wright were "in overruling the decision of the parliament of the dominion". This matter is now before the House of Commons, as the first stage in obtaining a decision of parliament as to whether in fact there is an emergency now; and the very wording of that quotation from the judgment of Lord Wright emphasizes the fact that everyone here is being called upon to make that important decision of fact. No hon. member has a right to make that important decision unless he knows there is a general emergency which will justify an omnibus bill of this kind as distinguished from a specific bill dealing with an important subject.
Those who are not in this house-of course I am not referring to those who are here, because they have heard this before-may be unaware that the government was urged to introduce specific bills dealing with the particular subjects they wish this house to consider, and in those bills to define the rights of the people, to make it possible for the people to properly assert their position before the courts and to bring an end to this sort of arbitrary power in the hands of controllers, priority officers and others who are utterly irresponsible under these orders which are still being brought forward. The powers conferred by these orders were granted at a time when this country was in the midst of war; when the energies of the people were directed to the war, and when the activities of the government were concentrated upon that consideration. Even though sound arguments were advanced then against the extent of some of the orders that were adopted; even though very proper considerations were put forward as to why there should be some restraint on many of these controllers and officials who in turn are given power to delegate their authority to anyone without protection for those affected in the conduct of their affairs; nevertheless it was indicative of the spirit of this country at that time that the people were prepared to grant even the widest powers during the period of the war so that the actual conduct of the war effort might not be limited or impaired in any way.
In every country one of the greatest problems arising since the war has been to remove those measures and powers which, even if they can be justified in war, can only be justified under such extreme emergency. Once again I urge every hon. member to read those

orders that have been in effect under the omnibus bill which has been law and which by this resolution the government seeks to continue in an amended form. They will find powers conferred on individuals which are absolutely contrary to our ideas of a parliamentary system under which the elected representatives of the people determine the rights of the people by laws which the people themselves can understand.
Rent controls have not been effective in helping the tenants, any more than they have been effective in dealing with the housing situation. One reason that is so is that these orders relating to rentals are loose and undefined, and it is extremely difficult for anyone to know exactly what his rights really are under these orders. I said before and I repeat that the government still has the opportunity to deal with this in the parliamentary way. Bring before this house a rent control bill that will really deal, with the rights of tenants and the rights of landlords, and really establish the rights of our people generally; and the government will find support from every part of this house.


Alphonse Fournier: What about provincial rights? How could we pass that? You said we did not have the authority.


George Alexander Drew: Apparently the hon. gentleman is quite ignorant of what has been said. Doubtless he was out while some of the statements were made. I have just said, and for his benefit I repeat, that there has been no question at any time but that there is power in this parliament to deal with a specific emergency if it can be established that there is a specific emergency. That was settled in law long ago. I have already referred to the Canada Temperance Act, which has been interpreted over and over again. If the hon. member will read the decisions under that act he will find that the law was established many years ago and has been confirmed through the years since.
I see the Minister of Finance is leaving.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Your repetitive argument is too good; I cannot take it again.


George Alexander Drew: My hon. friend could not understand it, anyway, so perhaps it is just as well that he goes out.
This bill seeks to carry forward the wide emergency powers relating to a whole field of subjects in respect of which no pretence of emergency has been asserted by the government; and any hon. member who tries to convey the impression that, because anyone in this chamber opposes these wide omnibus powers, he is opposing any specific power, is dishonest and untruthful in that assertion.
Transitional Measures Act


Mr. Lesage:: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question? Does the leader of the opposition agree that there is now an emergency arising out of the war?


George Alexander Drew: I most certainly do not agree that there is a general emergency arising out of the last war, and that is exactly the point every hon. member should understand. There is a great difference between a general emergency and a specific emergency, and that is precisely what was under consideration in the case decided in Manitoba last Thursday. If hon. members will examine that judgment, no matter whether or not the dominion government intends to appeal the case, they will find some very illuminating explanations of the difference between specific emergencies and general emergencies.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: May I ask another question, and it will be the last one. I am asking the permission of the hon. member, and if he does not wish to give it to me, I will sit down, but I believe he does. If there is no emergency arising out of the last war, how can the leader of the opposition have any constitutional ground for asserting that this parliament should pass a law for rent control?


George Alexander Drew: Obviously, the member was not in the house when I was speaking earlier.


Mr. Berirand (Prescott):: The hon. member was here.


George Alexander Drew: I regret that the hon. member-*


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I regret that the hon. member failed to appreciate the distinction between a specific emergency and a general emergency. The distinction has been drawn very clearly.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Not by the courts, but by the leader of the opposition.


George Alexander Drew: The distinction has been clearly drawn by the courts. There is no person capable of reading the judgments of the courts who is not capable of clearly interpreting the distinction between a general emergency and a specific emergency.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I have practised law, and you have not.


George Alexander Drew: The situation in this case is that the government must assert a general emergency to justify omnibus powers of this nature. If there is such a general emergency as would justify the adoption of an omnibus bill of this nature, then there is an emergency which would permit the dominion government to invade any field of provincial rights
29087-98a

Transitional Measures Act at this time. A decision to that effect would have precisely that result.
If it is a fact that there is a general emergency, and apparently the hon. member who has just spoken must believe there is, then there is no aspect of provincial jurisdiction which this government could not invade under the general powers available to it. The member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) has, in fact, raised a point which should be in the mind of every member. In asserting that proposition he is asserting a proposition which this government could carry forward in other emergency measures dealing with a number of subjects that affect the constitutional position in this country. At a time when this government has refused to carry out its solemn undertaking given during the war to return the taxing powers to the provinces, every member in this house should be extremely careful about accepting the proposition that the parliament of Canada has the right to invade the field of provincial authority under a declaration of a general emergency.
Let there be no mistake about it. The view just expressed by the hon. member is an indication that he believes there is a general emergency, so do not let the government suggest they are not asserting there is a general emergency. Obviously, they would not be able to carry the conviction of the hon. member with them if they did. A general emergency, such as is asserted now, would be a general emergency which would go far beyond this omnibus bill. It would go far beyond the agricultural bill, the foreign exchange control bill, or any other bill that has been brought forward in this house. The government seems very unwilling to admit that it believes in wide bureaucratic powers. Yet this house should recognize the extent to which this government has gone in introducing new bureaucratic powers under new devices. A discussion of this is directly relevant to the way in which wide powers of this kind could be used if the parliament of Canada asserts that there is a general emergency of the type that would be necessary to cover the field included in this omnibus bill.
Let me illustrate the kind of power taken by this government which goes beyond the necessity of asking parliament to declare an emergency. This government introduced a device giving it the power to enter the field of industrial development by placing in the estimates substantial sums which are not covered by statutory authority. It is done under the broad assertion of the right of the government to appropriate moneys for any purpose. They appropriate large sums of 
money for the purpose of giving to a minister of the crown undefined and uncontrolled rights to take part in the expansion of particular industries at his discretion. The adoption of the estimates by the house has the effect of statutory authority. Consequently, in that loose and slipshod manner, many millions of dollars are made available for expenditure under a procedure which is not covered by any statute of this house.
Then what happens? The government, having entered the field of industrial activity, asserts the right to hide the details of the use of that money. A perfect example of the way this government creates bureaucratic authority by new and utterly irresponsible methods is provided. A few days ago we were given an example of the manner in which this government felt it should be permitted to continue that type of business behind closed doors. A question was asked about the Polymer Corporation, which is one of the corporations in which the government has been taking an active interest under these loose powers. The question concerned the contracts that had been made by Polymer Corporation for the supplying of energy to various bodies in the area it serves. The position taken was that this was something upon which the government was not prepared-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. That question was put to the house and was voted upon. There is a rule that hon. members must not reflect on the proceedings of the house, except for the purpose of rescinding them.


George Alexander Drew: I would draw a distinction between reflecting on the proceedings of the house and explaining the result of the decision of the house in relation to the present conduct of the government.


William Ross Macdonald: I should remind the hon. member that he cannot refer in the present session to a debate on a matter not now under discussion, which has been decided during the present session. It is against the rules to have a debate twice on the same subject.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am not debating that resolution. I am stating, as a matter of fact, that the government has refused to give information in regard to the operation of a corporation into which it has put public funds. This house, by a majority vote, supported the government in its declaration that the house is not entitled to that information. It is to that decision I am referring. I am not in any way questioning the decision; I am simply saying that the decision has shown the extent to which the use of these moneys is put beyond the inspection of the members

of this house. The principle asserted by this government applies to several other companies, and I am now asserting that their broad declaration is that this money, appropriated in this manner and advanced to these corporations, can then be spent at the discretion of the minister without the ordinary supervision of the elected representatives of the people.
If that is not bureaucracy carried far beyond even the wartime measures, then I do not know where one could find an example. The hon. members of this house have a duty to recognize that many of the powers asserted under these general provisions have been challenged and have been dealt with in the courts. There was another case that has been referred to on a number of occasions here; that was a decision in Toronto only a short time ago, again referring to this act and again holding that those charged with the responsibility for carrying out the details of the provisions carried forward under this act were exceeding their authority. In case after case there has been clear demonstration in the courts of this country that the loose powers conferred in these regulations are being abused by the bureaucracy operated by the senior bureaucrats of this government.
Let us examine, for instance, the powers conferred in regard to some of these things that have no relation at all to the question of the emergency which is alleged, and which undoubtedly exists in regard to some of the specific subjects. Take, for instance, timber and timber control. Under that wide power the government have the power now to deal with the control of the standing trees and the processed wood, as well' as all the other things-subject, of course, to what they may withdraw from that at the present time; and they have given wide powers in regard to that matter. There are powers in regard to steel, supplies and priorities which will undoubtedly be defined and discussed in various ways. But unless the government introduce specific acts of parliament to deal with subjects of this nature we shall be going on, during a period when the emergency cannot possibly have been declared to exist, with the bureaucrats ranging loose in every field that is covered by the whole of these twelve orders.
In the United States, over some period of time, a committee under the chairmanship of former President Hoover made a most useful and illuminating examination of autocratic authority and of mounting government extension of powers. The findings of that committee are illuminating to the extent that they disclose how power builds on power, and how
Transitional Measures Act the building of that power creates new groups of minor officials who constantly add to their own authority, to their number and to the cost of operation of all these controls. As recently as March 3 Mr. Hoover made a most interesting speech on this subject in New York, based on his experience arising out of the work of that extremely important committee, which has its lessons for us in Canada as well as for the people in the United States.
I quote from the report dealing with this speech.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: Which paper?


George Alexander Drew: I quote from the report dealing with his speech in the New York Herald Tribune of Friday, March 4:
The former president, chairman of the commission on organization of the executive branch, told the New York state chamber of commerce, during its monthly meeting at 65 Liberty street, that the increasing "bureaucracy" in Washington has been caused by three factors.
1.	Because of the natural instinct of federal bureaux to "exfoliate in their desire to improve the lot of man."
2.	Because "our people, under the illusion that money from Washington is pure manna, are selling right and left their birthright as free men and their responsibilities in a free man's government in order to get it."
3.	Because "there are those who are impatient with the slow process of local reform and who conceive that all may be good if the federal government would only pass a law, set up a bureau, and make an appropriation."
Mr. Hoover, recalling that "the original idea" of the American republic was that the federal government was to have limited powers, said "the founding fathers seemed to have a notion that a bureaucrat might be more responsive to the will of the people if his head office were down the street instead of 3,000 miles away in some pentagon building."
Those words, Mr. Chairman, apply to the situation here with just as much force as they do to the situation in Washington.


An hon. Member:: Tut, tut.


George Alexander Drew: In fact, they apply with a great deal more force, because in the United States there is a constitution which cannot be challenged by this loose appeal to the emergency which is available here under such an act as is now before this House of Commons for consideration. The members of this house are called upon to decide whether they believe these things can best be dealt with by an allpowerful bureaucracy or whether they can best be dealt with under ordinary statutory provisions which will be interpreted in the usual way in our courts. That is the basic distinction which should be in the minds of the members who are called upon to vote on this resolution or on the bill at any of its stages. If this government can establish that there is a specific emergency in regard to any one of the twelve subjects mentioned
1548	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act here, then it can pass an act which makes it possible for the man or woman, in any part of Canada, who is affected by this act, to go to his or her own court in his or her own vicinity and have his or her rights determined by those who live in the place where he or she is affected by the operation of such acts, and where his or her affairs are not being decided by some distant bureaucrat three thousand miles away who does not understand the local problem but who nevertheless is called upon to determine it by loose orders that are not subject to revision or consideration by the court unless there is a case that can actually be made of complete failure to comply even with the loose provisions of this act.
When Mr. Hoover pointed out that the founding fathers in the United States had an idea that the federal system was of value in that country, he was only saying what the people in this country should say a good deal more than they do. When I hear some hon. members talking in derision about the constitutional rights in this country, I say it is time that they examined what has happened in every country where the constitution has been disregarded and the democratic processes have been abandoned.
The founding fathers of Canada, the fathers of our confederation, decided that this country should have a federal system, in which there was a division of authority between the federal and the provincial governments. They decided also that it would be only in the case of an extreme emergency, such as war itself, or a condition approximating war, that the terms of that constitution should be abandoned. If we disregard that basic consideration today in an effort to make shortcuts such as have produced the great bureaucratic expansion in the United States, as well as here, then we are paving the way to a complete loss of that democratic freedom which has been at issue at all times since we received our constitution in 1867.
The statement that it is not possible to do these things within our constitution, and that it is not possible to obtain the desired results, is not borne out by any evidence which is before this house, or before anyone who will read what is written down in plain and understandable language in the record of the meetings of the governments which took place here in Ottawa in 1945 and 1946.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is where I came in.


George Alexander Drew: Some hon. members seem to think that this is an old subject. It is an old subject which started in 1867, but which leeds to be re-emphasized for the benefit of 

hon. members who seem to think that it is an old subject which should be forgotten.
In answer to a question in this house a few days ago the Prime Minister said that it had not been possible to proceed with the health and social security measures because it had not been possible to obtain agreement at the conference. That statement left the impression that there had been resistance to the advancement of health and social security measures. There is no person who understands the language of the record who can honestly say-and, I repeat, honestly say-that there was not a declared desire by every government attending that conference to advance health and social security measures. When the Prime Minister says that there was no indication of a willingness to take whatever steps would be necessary to carry forward those health and social security measures, I challenge him or any hon. member in this house to point-


Mr. Marlin:: I rise to a point of order.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Peter Francis Martin: On the right occasion, and when this matter is properly in order, I shall certainly challenge that statement; but I rise to suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this trend of argument is wholly out of order.


George Alexander Drew: We are called upon to extend wide and arbitrary powers, and no hon. member has a right to cast his vote in regard to the extension of those powers unless he examines how arbitrary powers have been used by this government. When the appropriate time comes to deal with another subject I shall deal with some of the absurd statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in regard to what he has done for health in this country. As I said on another occasion, one would think that Canadian health had been discovered only when he came to office.


Peter Francis Martin: I am perfectly willing to meet the hon. gentleman-


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Don't take it too hard.


Mr. Martin:: I am perfectly willing to meet the hon. gentleman at a time when our discussions will be in order; but I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that what the hon. gentleman has said in the last fifteen or twenty minutes is wholly out of order.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I am sure that the leader of the opposition will relate the remarks he is making at the present time to the resolution.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to relate them to the point at issue. The point at issue is very clear to any hon. member who understands our constitution.


Mr. Cleaver:: That is one man in the house.


George Alexander Drew: There are of course many hon. members who obviously do not, and it will be helpful if some of those will try to learn something about it by listening to a discussion of the subject.
Progress reported.	.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I wish to announce that the first order of business tomorrow will be the resolution which is No. 4 on the order paper of today, dealing with the bill to extend foreign exchange control powers. If there is anything that can be done after that has been under discussion, we shall come back to the resolution which has been considered in the committee of the whole this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 17, 1949