1950-03-24

Mr. Karl A. Eyre (Timmins):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I should like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the house the fact that sitting here in the south gallery are eighteen members of the Porcupine Combines junior hockey team and their executive. They are the junior champions of northern Ontario. Sixteen of these boys were born, raised and educated in Timmins and the north country. For seventeen of them this is their first trip to Ottawa, and naturally their first trip to see the parliament of Canada. I hope that they take home with them a good impression.


Mr. Graydon:: They look like Progressive Conservatives.



ANSWER TO QUESTION AS TO TABLING OF STATUTORY REPORTS

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I have been informed, Mr. Speaker, and through you I should like to pass the information on to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that all reports have now been tabled. I have been handed a copy of the printed list made up under standing order 84, and opposite each item there has been written in the date when the report was tabled, or the comment "nil", which I am told means that there is no report under that heading.


Mr. Fleming:: Will it be printed in today's Hansard for convenience of reference by hon. members?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It consists of fifteen pages.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It would be convenient for hon. members to have it.


Mr. Abbott:: It costs money, too.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will get a copy for the hon. member.


Mr. Knowles:: Don't forget one for me.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. McCulloch (Pictou) presented the first report of the special committee on railways and shipping, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I desire to lay on the table the following reports in English and in French: Annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ended December 31, 1949, and the auditors' report to parliament for the year ended December 31, 1949, in respect of Trans-Canada Air Lines. These reports are being distributed today.
By leave of the house I move:
That the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year ended December 31, 1949, and the auditors' report to parliament for the year ended December 31, 1949, in respect of Trans-Canada Air Lines, tabled this day, be referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.
. Motion agreed to.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 24, 1950
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, Friday, the 24th March, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General PRIVATE BILLS



FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Doris Joan Guest Rigg.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Cora Elizabeth Jamieson Southam.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Audrey Brenda Holmes Burnett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Barbara Edna Brownrigg Johnson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Aili Katriina Salokannel Martel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Velma Elizabeth Buchanan Lowson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Gladys Harriet Hassall Thom.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Elisabeth Mavis Cann Jousse.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Eric Lacate.-[DOT] Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	27,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Margaret May Harris McCormick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Sigrid Denston Day.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Beatrice Campbell McClay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Catherine C. Goodrow Rogers.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	31,	for	the	relief of Miriam
Roberta Weir Caryer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	32,	for	the	relief	of	Marjorie
Frances Murphy Cozzolino.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Mary Thomson Cadieux.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Veronica Pearl Faulkner MacKenzie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	35,	for	the	relief	of	Elizabeth
Hampshier Atyon Reilley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Sybil Elliott Karr Boulanger.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Mary Kennedy Dunn Anderson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Albert Ernest Curtis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Annie Swales Barber.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Rebecca Catherine Pitts Duquette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Edith Mary Stone Ryan.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Pearl Greenspan Abramovitz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Harry Rudner. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Dorothea Joan Lawrence Gamble.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Walter St. Andre Bawn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Alison Hamilton Brown Weldon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Hazel May Wilkie MacLeod.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of William Gordon Cascadden.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Romeo Lefebvre.:-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 50, for the relief of Kathleen Veronica Thompson Davidson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Joseph Arthur Winsorlow Brisebois.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Margaret May Tuck Reicker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Mabel Kearley Budgell.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. J. Henry (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is it a fact that Toronto city council has requested the Minister of Justice to take steps to ban the importation of certain stilettos, or spring knives, on the ground that such stilettos or knives are offensive weapons and not likely to serve any useful purpose? What action, if any, has been taken by the government in connection with the matter?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his question. The answer to the first question is yes. As to the second question, I think that having regard to the fact that the request came as a letter from the city clerk of Toronto, I should simply read into the record the reply which I sent to that gentleman. My letter to him reads as follows:
Thank you for your letter of March 8 advising me that your city council at its meeting held on March 6, 1950, decided to request us to consider the placing of a ban on the importation of "spring knives or stilettos" on the grounds that they are considered offensive weapons.
I understand that what you are referring to by the term "spring knife or stiletto" is an article which is known as a spring stiletto. This weapon is similar to a spring knife except that it has no cutting edge, the blade when open being 31 to 4 inches in length. Mr. L. H. Taylor, the secretary of customs, informs us that stilettos are refused entry into Canada by virtue of an order in council passed under the Customs Act prohibiting the importation of certain offensive weapons without a permit, and no permit is given for stilettos, including stilettos of the spring type such as the one referred to in your letter.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence of which I have given him notice. In view of today's press reports, quoting a statement of the Minister of National Defence in regard to

the new four-engine prototype transport aircraft which is to be delivered shortly to the Royal Canadian Air Force, will the minister inform the House of Commons as to the date on which the Canadian Commercial Corporation was advised that the Royal Canadian Air Force required this aircraft?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: As the leader of the opposition has said, he was good enough to give me notice of the question, but I happened to be at a meeting until a very late hour this morning, and I was not able to obtain the information that he desires. However, I can tell him that this aircraft was ordered to replace a North Star aircraft that was lent to Trans-Canada Air Lines, in consideration of a rent, in June, 1947. That aircraft was destroyed while in operation with T.C.A. on August 12, 1948. There was only one possible source from which to replace the aircraft, namely, Canadair Limited, from which it had been obtained, and which had the jigs and designs and so on. Negotiations continued steadily with regard to that aircraft. I have not been able to verify the exact date on which the Canadian Commercial Corporation was advised that we would want the aircraft replaced by Canadair, but certainly it would have been shortly after the date of destruction, because there was only one source of supply.
While I am speaking on this subject I should add that the press reports which appeared yesterday, and resulted in my making a release myself, follow an announcement which referred to this matter on May 18, 1949.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the answer given by the minister, will he arrange that I be notified of the date, when he is able to obtain it?


Brooke Claxton: The Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for Canadian Commercial Corporation, will, I am sure, be glad to give that information on Monday.


Gordon Graydon: This is the first time anyone has ever spoken on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Before the budget is brought down on Tuesday of next week, will the government reconsider the matter of allowing trade union dues as a deduction for income tax purposes?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Bradette:: Why?


Douglas Charles Abbott: The government will be giving consideration to many matters before the budget is brought down on Tuesday, and no doubt this one can be included in that consideration.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have received a telegram from the miners' union of Drumheller, Alberta, stating that the loss of coal contracts is creating an extremely serious-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is a rule in the house that telegrams must not be read when a question is being asked before the orders of the day are called.


Charles Edward Johnston: Can the minister tell the house what policy the government has in mind, if any, to relieve this very serious unemployment situation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any serious situation. There was a good deal of talk a month or so ago about the serious shortage of coal in western Canada. I have not been advised of any surplus production going unwanted. However, I shall be glad to look into the matter.



NEWFOUNDLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. What is the situation in regard to the tax agreement with Newfoundland?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I returned to the city only at noon today, and I am afraid I cannot give the most up-to-date information. The last information I had, however, was that they were on the eve of complete agreement. There were some technical details to be arranged. However, so far as I am aware, it will be completed shortly.



OIL AND GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Vancouver Sun in an editorial of March 22, headed "British Columbia betrayed"-
1088	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the rule must apply to the hon. member who has the floor, as it applied to the hon. member who spoke previously. Telegrams or newspapers must not be read when asking questions before the orders of the day are called.


Tom Goode: There is a feeling in British Columbia that there have been discussions between the government and United States interests regarding the disposition of natural gas. Have there been any discussions in this regard?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know of no discussions having to do with the export of natural gas to the United States in return for the export of natural gas from the United States to any other part of Canada. I can say positively that no such discussions have taken place.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Almost a month ago I asked whether any relief was to be given to members of the army who were ordered to report for duty in the capital city of Ottawa. I asked whether they would be receiving relief because of the exorbitant rents they are now being compelled to pay when they arrive here with their families.
I have received no reply to my question. This is a serious matter-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I would interject this one point: One young member of the army-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked his question.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Will something be done immediately by the Department of National Defence to aid members of the army in the matter of accommodation when they are ordered to report to Ottawa for duty, so that they will not have to spend about $700-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the rather complete answer the hon. member received when he asked the question the first time.
TMr. Goode.]



ANSWER TO QUESTION AS TO MAKING CHURCHILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) asked me a question with reference to the port of Churchill and its status as a basing point under the international wheat agreement. I have now obtained particulars from our representative at the international wheat conference in London. The port of Churchill is not a base point under the international wheat agreement, but arrangements have been made with the international wheat council that will enable Canada to utilize this port.
The arrangements are covered by resolutions passed at the twenty-third meeting of the executive committee held in London on January 31, 1950. The resolution adopted reads as follows:
That No. 1 Manitoba northern wheat in store port Churchill, Manitoba, be designated* a description* of wheat under article 6, paragraph 4, and that the advisory committee on price equivalents be requested to advise the executive committee on appropriate maximum and minimum price equivalents for such description of wheat, it being understood* that if Canada is requested to deliver wheat at maximum prices and/or if Canada requests importing countries to accept wheat at minimum prices the Fort William-Port Arthur prices basis should apply.
In accordance with this resolution Canada may negotiate and complete sales under1 the international wheat agreement for Churchill shipment at prices in line with c.i.f. prices at destination as compared with St. Lawrence shipment. If such sales can be made, Canada would secure the advantage of cheaper overall forwarding costs as the result of using this port. However, if Canada is called upon for wheat at the international wheat agreement maximum price or desires to put wheat at the international wheat agreement minimum price, we can only deliver wheat from Churchill at the Fort William-Port Arthur basic maximum or minimum prices as set out in the agreement.


Mr. Smilh (Calgary West):: Very simple, isn't it!



TRANSITIONAL MEASURES ACT. 1947 CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, 1947, to provide that the act shall expire on the 30th day of April, 1951.


George Alexander Drew: Explanation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Now, or in committee?


George Alexander Drew: Now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, the bill to be founded upon this resolution is a comparatively simple one. It will provide for the extension of the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act until April 30, 1951-that is, for .thirteen months beyond the present expiry date.
While no other change is proposed, I should state that during the past year all the orders contained in the schedule to the act have been revoked except those relating to price and rent control. The government does not intend to invoke the limited powers now granted by the act to reimpose controls already lifted. Therefore the practical effect of the proposed bill is to continue the authority to control rentals only, for a further period. Thus we have arrived at the final stage in the difficult task of removing in an orderly way the controls introduced during the wartime emergency.
As the house is aware, the supreme court, by unanimous decision, has given its opinion that the wartime leasehold regulations are valid. I shall not refer at length to the reasons given by the distinguished members of the court in support of their opinion. I do wish, however, to draw particular attention to one general theme that is common to all of them, and for that purpose I shall quote from the opinion written by the chief justice:
There is no doubt that under normal conditions the subject matter of rents belongs to the provincial jurisdiction under the head of property and civil rights, in section 92 of the British North America Act. There is equally no doubt that under abnormal conditions, such as the existence of war, parliament may competently assume jurisdiction over rents. The fact is that, as a consequence of the last war, 1939-1945, parliament has taken over the control of rents. The Fort Frances case supra is authority for the proposition that, notwithstanding the cessation of hostilities, parliament is empowered to continue the control of rents for the purpose of concluding matters then pending, and of its discontinuance in an orderly manner, as the emergency permits, of measures adopted during and by reason of the emergency. It follows from the different orders in council and acts of parliament, recited in the order of reference, that the exceptional conditions brought about by war, which made the wartime leasehold regulations necessary, are still continuing, that the orderly transition from war to peace has not yet been completed, and that, in such circumstances, parliament is entitled and empowered to maintain such control as it finds necessary to ensure the orderly transition from war to peace. The judgments of the judicial committee of the privy council in the Fort Frances case supra and in Co-operative Committee on Japanese Canadians v. Attorney General for Canada (1947) A.C., 87, are conclusive on this point.
Transitional Measures Act
Then, after referring to the chemicals refer ence, the chief justice concluded:
In this instance, parliament has decided that the wartime leasehold regulations should be kept in force to a limited extent and to that extent, where necessary or advisable, to ensure an orderly transition from war to peace; and that, if they were abandoned abruptly and suddenly, unnecessary disruption would result.
There is nothing in the facts in the order of reference which would justify this court in deciding otherwise and thus supersede the opinion of parliament; and, in the circumstances, this court may not doubt that parliament may competently maintain the regulations it has adopted to meet the emergency and its continuance. Therefore, the wartime leasehold regulations are not ultra vires either in whole or in part.
With some differences in emphasis and point of view, all the other justices make the same point, that the court would require strong evidence, which was not forthcoming, to justify it in superseding the declared opinion of parliament.
While this unanimous opinion enables the government to proceed with confidence in asking parliament to renew the authority for rent control for a further period, it does not in any way alter the declared policy of the government to bring federal rent control to an end with the least possible delay. Time after time, and on every possible occasion, this policy has been made clear and, as the house will recall, fairly substantial further relaxation of rent control was in fact announced simultaneously with the reference to the supreme court.
The government considers that it should not ask parliament to continue its emergency authority any longer than is absolutely necessary. These are extraordinary powers and they should be exercised with great discretion. As the chief justice has said, "There is no doubt that under normal conditions the subject matter of rents belongs to the provincial jurisdiction under the head of property and civil rights, in section 92 of the British North America Act." The federal government has never disputed this, and has in fact, over the past two years, offered to vacate the field to any province that desired to assume responsibility; and one province, Saskatchewan, has already arranged to take over on April 1, 1950.
For these reasons, the government does not intend to ask for a further extension of the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act beyond April 30, 1951. It is the government's view that over the next thirteen months the operation of the relaxations now in effect, combined with additions to the housing supply, will have permitted enough adjustment to take place so that any problem

Transitional Measures Act which may remain can be dealt with adequately-and with closer regard to local conditions and needs-on a provincial basis.
The house will appreciate that it is not usual for a government to give notice so long in advance as to its intentions respecting future legislation, but the government has decided to do so in this case in order that any province which may consider it desirable to assume some measure of rent control may have ample time to take such steps as may be deemed appropriate.
The date-April 30, 1951-has been selected because it coincides with the earliest expiration date of the leases entered into in return for the eighteen and twenty-two per cent increases permitted a few months ago. Incidentally, hon. members may be interested to learn that from reports of rental officials in the field it is estimated that seventy-five per cent of landlords of self-contained accommodation took advantage of the permission to obtain an increased rental in return for a lease expiring not earlier than April 30, 1951. Not all of their owners, of course, could or did raise rents to the full extent permitted. I mention this high percentage of leases because it shows that if the supreme court had found the federal regulations to be invalid, a very high proportion of tenants would have had secure tenure in their present dwellings for more than a year regardless of any action taken by the provinces.
Notwithstanding this further extension of federal rent control, I wish to make it perfectly clear, so that there can be no misunderstanding of the position, that the government does not now, nor has it at any time, disputed the right of any province to enact legislation dealing with rent control, and that it stands ready to withdraw the federal regulations in any province the government of which makes a formal request to that effect.
If any provincial government believes that it could administer rent control more equitably or more efficiently, the federal government will be pleased to withdraw its regulations in that province on a date to be fixed by the province, thus removing any possible conflict of laws. In addition, subject to parliamentary approval, the government is ready to continue its previous offer to pay the cost of provincial rent control for one year beginning not later than April 1, 1950, up to an amount equal to the cost of federal rent control in that province during a recent twelve-month period to be agreed upon.
Before I sit down, perhaps I should say a word as to the policy to be followed in the administration of rent control during the remaining thirteen months before the federal regulations finally expire. In previous years I


would have been most reluctant to say anything more than that the policy of orderly and gradual decontrol would be continued. Since only thirteen months remain, however, at the end of which time some provinces may wish to assume some measure of local rent control, it has been decided that no further adjustments will be made in rental ceilings or in the conditions affecting security of tenure, except in individual cases as permitted under the regulations as they now stand, or minor amendments to the regulations that may be found necessary. In short, there will be a standstill in rent control. The process of decontrol will, however, continue, as dwellings become vacant and thus free from con- ' trol and as landlords who have not already done so, take advantage of permission to enter into yearly leases in return for higher rents.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the matter now before the house relates not only to the principle of rent control but also to the way in which rent control will be carried on. The fact that the Supreme Court of Canada found that it is not ultra vires of the power of the Canadian parliament to exercise a continuing measure of rent control does not dispose of the question whether rent control can best be dealt with by arbitrary powers that are undefined, or by an act of the parliament of Canada which will clearly establish the legal rights of both tenants and landlords.
I do not think that many, if any, hon. members will seriously question the claim that during a state of emergency such as war there are many things that must be dealt with in a way that would not be acceptable in time of peace under our principles of parliamentary supremacy and responsible government. The fact that during a period of war emergency powers were invoked to cover a very wide field of activities of the people of Canada in their daily lives is no argument in favour of carrying that device forward into the years of peace, even though there is good reason to exercise controls over some of the same subject matters that were under consideration at that time.
During the war years and the years immediately after the war a wide measure of control was exercised by parliament and by the government as the executive branch of parliament. The Transitional Measures Act of 1947 was, as the name implies, intended to carry forward certain wartime controls through the transitional period from war to peace. Now we have reached the point where it is intended to carry forward only the controls over rent, the other emergency powers having been allowed to lapse. The question arises, then, whether the further

control of rents should be under emergency powers of this kind, or under an act of parliament which will state in clear and explicit terms exactly what the rights are of those who would be affected by its provisions.
This question is not being raised today for the first time. Last year the same measure was before the house. At that time there was some discussion relating to the course which would best meet our requirements, but the consideration which was given then did not relate to rent control alone. It related to the broader field of tbe transitional powers that were being carried forward at that time. The record will show we strongly urged that a bill should be introduced dealing with each of the subjects that the government of Canada thought should be dealt with under continuing measures of control. We pointed out that if the emergency powers could be carried forward in their existing form it was equally within the powers of parliament to enact legislation which would define the rights of those affected. It was contended that under the emergency powers the rights of tenants as well as landlords were not clearly defined, and that no one who would be affected by the continuing emergency powers could know definitely in advance what decision might be made.
On behalf of the party which I lead I urged a year ago that a bill should be introduced dealing with rent control, and that if such a bill were introduced it would receive the support of those sitting on this side of the house. I went so far as to express my own belief that a bill which properly defined the rights of tenants, landlords and all others affected, and provided a just measure of control, would receive the support of everyone in the house. Of course I was not in a position to speak on behalf of all hon. members. I still believe, however, that if a measure that fully protected the rights of tenants, landlords and all others concerned had been introduced at that time, it would have received support throughout the whole house.
Since that discussion took place a year ago we have received convincing evidence that there was reason to express concern about these loose and undefined powers exercised arbitrarily at the discretion of the government by order in council, without considering the views of members of parliament. I am not suggesting of course that the government exceeded the powers which were conferred upon it by the extension of the emergency powers dealt with under the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, which was extended last year. Then there was the substantial extension of rentals under the regulations which were announced in this house by
Transitional Measures Act the Minister of Finance last November. It will be recalled that at that time there was an increase of from twenty to twenty-five per cent in many rents, but the basic increase over a very broad field was twenty-two per cent. It is true that the increase was a pei-missive one, but it is also equally true that when landlords receive such permission it is in keeping with human nature that they should avail themselves of the invitation thus extended by the government. Whether there was any suggestion of justification or otherwise, that was the result. Therefore, by a measure which did not express the opinion of the house or of the parliament of Canada, rentals in Canada were greatly increased.
The war ended in 1945; this is 1950. There can be no reason for continuing rent control under arbitrary measures of this kind during the thirteen months which will be covered by the present extension suggested by the government. We certainly have now reached the stage of return to the ordinary peacetime procedure of parliament, when any measure of control affecting the daily lives of a large percentage of our people should be under a law of parliament enabling any Canadian to say: This is my right, and the courts of the land will protect me under that law. There is no sound argument in favour of the continuation of these emergency powers in this form. There is every argument in favour of the introduction, between now and the 31st of March, of a rent control bill which will deal fairly and justly with the rights of Canadians who will be affected by this legislation. I am confident that, entirely apart from any consideration of party point of view, any legislation which is just and affords proper protection to those affected, and which is enforceable by our courts under clearly defined terms, will receive the support of most members of the house.
If these emergency powers are extended in this way, there can be no assurance whatever that, without any advance knowledge on the part of hon. members who have been elected to carry on the business of the people of Canada, further orders may not be announced which will create additional hardship on many people throughout this country.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Except the assurance the minister just gave.


George Alexander Drew: And what assurance was that?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Shall I read it?


George Alexander Drew: I should like to know what assurance the minister gave that is any different than the assurance he gave last year, except as to the discontinuance of controls.

Transitional Measures Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid my hon. friend was not listening very closely. I said:
Before I sit down, perhaps I should say a word as to the policy to be followed in the administration of rent control during the remaining thirteen months before the federal regulations finally expire. In previous years I would have been most reluctant to say anything more than that the policy of orderly and gradual decontrol would be continued. Since only thirteen months remain, however, at the end of which time some provinces may wish to assume some measure of local rent control, it has been decided that no further adjustments will be made in rental ceilings or in the conditions affecting security of tenure, except in individual cases as permitted under the regulations as they now stand, or minor amendments to the regulations that may be found necessary.


George Alexander Drew: I was fully aware of what the ' minister said, but we have had too many examples of what can be done under those exceptions to be in any doubt as to whether or not the government would avail itself of them to the widest possible extent if in its discretion it decided it was wise to do so. That, after all, is not suggesting that the Minister of Finance is not seeking to convey to us in good faith his own appreciation of the situation. Without repeating to an extent that may seem to many hon, members an excessive return to the same subject, may I point out that a government that is able to stretch its conscience as it did in the suppression of the combines report is not a government that should be entrusted with this arbitrary power.
We have to remember that when these things are done we cannot even find out the basis on which that action is taken. To go back to the combines report, which establishes a pattern in other cases, we have to remember that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has informed us of those cases in which he received advice to prosecute; but in the case where he is not prosecuting he refuses to tell us what the advice was. There is not an hon. member of this house who does not know that if the minister had received advice not to prosecute, that would have been one of the first explanations we would have been given. So we can all draw the conclusion, which I am sure is the right one, that he received' a report recommending prosecution, and there is no other reason why he has not told us.
What I am pointing out right now is that a government which will follow that pattern in relation to a matter affecting the daily bread of the people of Canada will avail itself of the widest possible interpretation of every exception, such as those which have been just stated, if in its judgment it thinks some change should be made with respect to controls of this kind. I recall very well that last year the Minister of Finance, under whom this arbitrary authority is exercised, was ' 
unwilling to listen to any argument in regard to a change in procedure, but I suggest that he might still give consideration to a return to ordinary parliamentary procedure in this fifth year after the war and place before parliament a rent control bill which will contain in statutory form the assurance he has just given. If it is in fact the intention of the government that there shall be no change in the rental ceilings or in .the regulations as they now stand, the simplest way to remove from the minds of hon. members of this house the slightest suspicion that advantage may be taken of this exception would be to incorporate these provisions in a bill which when passed will become the law of the land and be binding upon the courts as well as the government.
As to whether those measures in themselves would be adequate and satisfactory, that would depend upon the way in which they were set out in statutory form. Surely, however, if it is the intention of the government to allow no change in the levels now established, if it is the intention of the government to prevent further rental increases, that can be simply stated in a bill which could be quickly drafted and presented to this house for consideration. What we are doing now is carrying forward wide, loose and arbitrary powers under which no Canadian affected by them knows what will be the situation. The minister says: Oh, you have my assurance, with qualifications. No matter how much we may be prepared to accept that assurance in its exact terms, we must remember that the government as a whole is in a position to decide, and that in certain cases the government as a whole in making decisions has availed itself of every latitude offered by the qualifications previously expressed.
I do not think the government would have any difficulty drafting such a bill. Every hon. member who has been in this house during the discussion of this important subject recalls the number of times the government has stated that it would be an easy thing for the provinces to deal with. I cannot believe this government feels that the provincial governments are so superior in intelligence that they could draft rent control bills which it would be beyond the competence of this government to present to this house. The very fact that they believe the provinces could deal with this question so readily is surely the best evidence that they believe it could be dealt with by a bill, because it must be remembered that the provincial governments could not deal with it by any arbitrary measure of this kind. They could deal with it only under a bill passed by the legislature.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, once again I urge upon the government the importance, not only from the point of view of security in the minds of those affected but also from the point of view of returning to sound parliamentary procedure, of not continuing this emergency power, but of the government presenting to this house immediately a clear, understandable and workable rent control bill.
Mr. J. W. Nose worthy (York South): Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today, notwithstanding what we have just heard from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), I am sure will find a great deal of support in this house. The fact that it is sponsored by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will assure its passage here, regardless of the merit of the resolution itself. The circumstances leading up to the introduction of this resolution have created a great deal of public interest in the country.
There is today a great deal of public interest in both the resolution itself and the bill that will follow it. The bill that will follow this resolution will mark the culmination of the government's policy of wartime controls. All that is now left of those government controls is this little bit of rent control, a sort of relic of the former controls that were exercised under the Transitional Measures Act in the years since the war. One might question whether there is enough rent control left in Canada today to warrant all the trouble the government has gone to in order to establish its right to maintain that rent control. One might question whether this anaemic control will even outlive the next twelve-month period. As hon. members know, all the newer buildings which have been built since January 1, 1947, and all the newly-occupied houses and apartments since November 1, 1948, are already decontrolled and are unaffected by this resolution or the bill that will follow it.
Following on that was, of course, the government's permission for the increase of rents granted last fall which has already raised rents to just about all that the traffic can stand. There is not much particular merit in the statement made by the minister in his speech, giving the assurance that there would be no further changes in rents or no further increases during the coming year, since rents have already gone beyond the economic ability to pay of most people who rent homes.
' Even though this bill may not mean much to the people of Canada and even though its passage is assured by the large government majority back of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), I still think that something should be said with regard to the condition of rental housing at the present time. First of all, I
Transitional Measures Act should like to register again my protest, and that of the party to which I belong, against the government's callous indifference to and utter disregard of the problem which hundreds of thousands of tenants across Canada are called upon to meet as a result of the government's increased-rental order that was made last fall. The government have shown a flagrant disregard of the problems of these peftple who, in such large numbers, placed their confidence in them in June, 1949.
There is today an acute housing shortage. I am going to assume, Mr. Speaker, that one cannot very well talk about rent without talking about houses, since it is with the rental of houses that we are concerned in this resolution and the bill that will follow it. There is nothing that the government has done for housing during the last four or five years which can be considered as being particularly creditable. Today the housing shortage is more acute in Canada that it has ever been in our history. On January 1, 1946, the backlog of housing units needed at that time was given officially as 648,000. In 1946, 1947, and 1948 fewer houses were built each year than were required to meet the current need or to keep up with the current demand; 1949 is the first year in which the number of houses built exceeded the current need for that particular year. Whereas there was a backlog of 648,000 houses needed on January 1, 1946, there was on January 1, 1950, a backlog of 711,000. In other words there has been an increase of nearly 10 per cent since 1946. The general housing shortage is more acute today than it was four years ago. The backlog is greater than it was four years ago. The deficit is worse than it was four years ago. Overcrowding, particularly in our large cities, is worse than it was four years ago or at any other time in our history. Slums and substandard housing have scarcely been touched during those years. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in a brief submitted to the Massey commission last September, makes this statement:
The housing needs of the Canadian people have never been more critical than they are today.
If I may, I should like to review briefly the government's record in this respect because it is the government's failure over the years to meet the need that renders it necessary today for the minister to introduce the resolution that is now before us. The National Housing Act was first introduced in 1938. We were told then that its purpose was twofold: first, to provide home ownership through longterm federal loans at a low interest rate; and second, to provide homes for low income families through loans made to municipalities so that they might enter the field of building low-cost rental housing.

Transitional Measures Act
In the first three and a half years during which that National Housing Act was on our statute books, and at a time when there was a backlog of 500,000 houses needed, a sum total of 15,000 loans were made. Just think of it: 15,000 loans made to meet a backlog of housing units which at that time was estimated at 500,000. During those three and a* half years, because of the conditions which would attach to the lending of money to municipalities, not a single municipality in Canada took advantage of that part of the act which was designed to enable them to enter into an agreement with the federal government for the building of low-rental housing. In three and a half years not one single municipality felt itself able to avail itself of the benefits which were supposed to accrue under that act.
Then in 1944 the act was revised. Again the emphasis in the act was placed on the provision of homes built for sale, but particularly for the middle and upper class income families. For those in the lower income brackets, in 1944 the government sponsored an insurance company scheme for the building of low rental houses. Housing Enterprises Limited was established and was supposed to build 5,000 houses a year, which were to rent from $35 to $40. Housing Enterprises Limited was established in 1945. In 1947 Housing Enterprises collapsed. In the two years in which it had been in existence it had started, though it had not completed, not 5,000 houses a year, but 3,276 houses in the two years. It discovered that the rental of those houses was no longer $35 or $40 a month but anywhere up to $70. As an enterprise to meet the needs of the low-income group of people who want houses for rent, it is generally agreed that Housing Enterprises was a complete failure.
If we look at the National Housing Act during those years from the standpoint of providing homes for the low income group, we find it proved a failure. The only people who benefited under the National Housing Act were those in the middle and upper income groups, and the finance companies which provided the money.
In the field of slum clearance, the act provided a measure whereby the federal government would pay 50 per cent and the municipality 50 per cent of the cost. Something like $20 million was set aside for that purpose. Up to date only one project of slum clearance has been undertaken under that regulation, namely, the Regent Park project in Toronto. Another section of the National Housing Act provided for assistance in the building of farm houses, houses for rural people; and from the date on which the National Housing Act was first put on
TMr. Noseworthy.]
the statute books up until December, 1948, one lone farm house in all Canada had been built. Therefore I would say that for rural housing the act was not particularly successful. In the field of co-operative housing the act again just did not work.
Last fall, when speaking on the amendment to the National Housing Act, the minister himself admitted the act was ineffective in so far as co-operative housing was concerned. Today, even with the amendment to the act which we passed last fall, it still does not meet the need of those people who want low rent houses.
I have discovered that in Toronto no one earning less than $3,000 a year, which is approximately $60 a week,' can get a loan under the amended National Housing Act, to purchase a house. I hold in my hand a list of names and addresses, and the cost of the house, the monthly payment, and the income of the applicants. Application after application has been refused because the applicant himself was not in receipt of $3,000 a year. To apply for a loan in the city of Toronto the applicant must first get a statement from his employer showing how long and how regularly he has been employed. He must have a certified statement regarding what his annual income has been, and in every single case that I have examined where the income was less than $3,000 the applicant had been refused a loan. I have an instance of a husband and wife, both working, whose income together was well over $4,000. Yet the application was turned down because the man himself was earning only a few dollars below the $3,000 mark. Therefore for a purchaser to avail himself of a loan under the National Housing Act today he must earn at least $3,000 a year. That large group of wage earners, particularly in our large cities, who are not receiving $60 a week, or anything like it, are automatically excluded from the benefits of the act; and to date there is very little evidence that there are likely to be many, if any, projects undertaken in which the federal government and the provinces co-operate for the building of low rental houses.
A few days ago I asked a question when a notice appeared1 in the Toronto daily papers to the effect that the premier of Ontario had announced that his government was going to enter into an agreement with the federal government under the section of the National Housing Act which permits that co-operation in the building of low-cost rental housing. I inquired of the minister as to whether any agreement had been reached, or any negotiations carried on with the federal government, or whether

that was the accepted policy of the federal government. The answer in each and every instance was that there had been no agreement, that there had been no consultation, and that it could not be accepted as the present policy of the government to enter into that kind of agreement.
So that the situation in which we find ourselves today is that while there is a particularly acute shortage of general housing, that need is greatest of all in the field of rental housing. In 1941 we find that 58-9 per cent of all the houses occupied in Canada were rented. That is what we find from the census of that year. In the larger urban centres, with populations of 5,000 or more, the percentage of rented houses was then 65-8 per cent. At that time it would have required well over 100,000 houses to prevent overcrowding in those larger centres.
In other words there were about 1,250,000 rented houses in Canada at the time of that census, or between 4 million and 5 million Canadians in that year of 1941 who were living in rented accommodation. So that this question of rentals, the increase permitted last fall, and the whole matter of rental controls can be said, under present conditions, to affect about 5 million Canadians, or more. On the question of rentals the booklet called "Mortgage Lending in Canada", published in 1948 under the authority of the national housing administration, had this to say concerning the operations of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation:
The operations of the corporation indicate clearly that the housing need is much greater in the rental field than it is in the home ownership field. The supply of new rental housing, even including that built by the government, is only about 30 per cent of all residential construction. It is evident that many purchasers of new houses would have preferred to rent rather than purchase.
On the question of overcrowding, I think there is no one who will gainsay the remark that the housing emergency today is most acute for the poorest section of the nation, and that overcrowding is worse among the low-income group.
In 1941 we find, according to the census figures for that year, that 29 per cent of the entire population was living in overcrowded conditions. With the increased urbanization that has taken place since that time, and with the increased shortage of housing, that percentage would be much higher today than it was at that time. Even then, of those in the income bracket of $1,500 or less, there were at that time 40 per cent living in overcrowded conditions.
That was the condition in 1941, and certainly it is much worse today. The ordinary worker in these days just cannot buy any of
Transitional Measures Act the houses being built-certainly none of the houses built from loans made by the national housing administration. Last year the average cost of a dwelling unit, built with the assistance of loans from the housing administration, was $8,056. The average in cities is much higher than that. For instance, in Toronto it is impossible to buy even a one-storey bungalow of three and a half rooms- including the bathroom-for $8,000. Today accommodation of that kind ranges anywhere from $9,000 to $10,000.
On the assumption that the purchaser should not spend more than 20 per cent of his income on housing accommodation, there are only two or three groups of industrial workers who could possibly buy any of the houses being built. On that basis the only people who could buy even the very cheapest houses built with the aid of national housing administration loans are some who are working in the western coal-mining industry, the metal-mining industry, the steam railways and the pulp and paper industry.
Industrial workers in all of the nine leading industrial groups in Canada, including those engaged in manufacturing, iron and steel production, the automobile industry and building construction, receive incomes which, on the basis set forth by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, would preclude any of them from buying even the cheapest houses built.
Therefore there is today a great need for housing accommodation among people in that class. Of the 711,000 houses needed in Canada today I believe I would be correct in saying that by far the greater percentage of them are needed by those in income brackets which do not permit their buying at current building costs.
The bill that will follow this resolution will bring relief to that section of our people who are still living in rented houses that have not been decontrolled. As I have pointed out, large numbers of rented houses in this country have become decontrolled at various stages, but I understand that there is a fairly large section that will be affected by the bill to follow this resolution. I am quite sure that many hundreds of thousands of Canadians will breathe a sigh of relief when they read the minister's statement of this afternoon that there will be no further increases in their rents until April, 1951.
However good this legislation may be, it does not go far enough toward dealing with the root of the rental problem. Unless the federal government takes the initiative of entering into negotiations with the provincial governments whereby projects may be undertaken to provide low rental housing for the

Transitional Measures Act masses of our people whose income is less than $3,000 per year we shall still have reached no solution to our housing problem. It is that that I urge upon the government during this debate.


Charles Henry: Mr. Speaker, in rising for the first time this session I deem it necessary to thank two great men in Canada for the opportunity of representing the constituency of Rosedale in this house. It is well known to hon. members that this riding returned to the Liberal party after being represented by members of the opposition for some fifty years. I have to thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for the excellent leadership which he and other members of the government gave during the election campaign of June, 1949. I have also to thank the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) for the manner in which he conducted his campaign and the attitudes he adopted at that time. As a result of these attitudes by way of a secondary reason, I am here today. I noticed a display of these campaign attitudes here today in this debate.
I note that in this debate as in others the attitude of the opposition seems to be, "We in the opposition agree with what the government is doing, but we think the government is doing it in the wrong way." The people of Rosedale objected to that general attitude on the part of the leader of the opposition and I think that was a factor in their turning to the Liberal party after many years of absence therefrom.
I think rent control has the approval of all hon. members in so far as the principle is concerned. Even as a newcomer to this house I recognized the necessity of bringing to the government's attention the need for the continuance of rent control, particularly within the Toronto area. As early as October 20, 1949, I drew this to the attention of the government, in a public way. I am pleased to see the continuance of rent control by this legislation now before us.
Last fall I received certain representations, many of a serious nature, from groups and individuals in my constituency objecting to the increases in rents which were permissibly made under the regulations. As a matter of duty I brought those to the attention of the government, but the permissive increases were put through notwithstanding. The inability to please all areas and groups arises from the administration of this measure at the national rather than the provincial level. It may be that greater satisfaction would have been achieved in the Toronto area if the provincial government had taken over rent control in the fall of last year when it was

offered to them by the federal government. However, there seems to be apathy on the part of the provincial government in this connection and if the present housing emergency does not subside it may be that the provincial government will have an opportunity after thirteen months have passed of doing what perhaps they should have done in the fall of last year.
Positive steps have been taken by the federal government to solve the housing shortage. It is notable that during the last general election the housing shortage in the Toronto area was a critical issue, if I may put it that way, raised by the opposition parties and answered by the government candidates. The jury of public opinion in Toronto during the last federal election gave its decision in a definite manner. The result was most emphatic because today there are several Liberal members in this house which indicates the confidence of the people of Toronto in the government of the day.
Prompt action was taken at the last session in connection with housing. A total of $300 million was allotted under the amendments to the National Housing Act. It is only fair to say that that allotment of money has enabled the government of Ontario to go on with low-cost rental housing projects in the London and other areas, all of which will become a reality in the near future. I have not a copy of the verbatim report of the debates in the legislature of Ontario, but it is apparent from the press reports that the premier of Ontario intends to take advantage of the provisions of the National Housing Act and proceed with projects which will make available homes with a down payment in the neighbourhood of $500. This will be the result of co-operation between the dominion and the province of Ontario.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) seemed to belittle the efforts of the government in connection with large scale land clearances and the low-cost subsidized housing that would result therefrom. In the lower part of Rosedale riding is located the Regent Park housing development which is an example of what can result from co-operation between three levels of government, dominion, provincial and municipal. I am frank to state that the plausible, good-natured and well respected Tory mayor of the wartime period, Robert Saunders, came to Ottawa towards the end of the war and was received gladly by the minister then in charge of the National Housing Act, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). There arose out of their cordial conversations the Regent Park scheme.

I should like to give you a few details to show what has been done in this case where there was good will on all sides. The Regent Park project consists of a housing development within six square city blocks in the lower part of Rosedale riding. The land was expropriated by the city, and there are to be constructed thereon apartments on a low-cost-rental subsidized basis. The share of the dominion government is put forward for clearance of the land and the substandard houses are removed on a basis of 50 per cent payable by the dominion government and 50 per cent by the municipality. Under the proposed scheme the share contributed by the federal government is $1,150,000. This constitutes a sum which, if capitalized over the fifty year "lifetime" period of the scheme, at three per cent represents a contribution on the part of the federal government of $33,000 per year.
The citizens of Rosedale constituency in Toronto can consider that during the lifetime of the scheme the federal government is in effect contributing towards low cost rental housing in the area the sum of $33,000 per year. As I understand it, the government of the province of Ontario has to date matched the contributions of the federal government dollar for dollar. Ownership of the project is in the name of the city and it contributes the balance of the cost of construction. You may ask, what of the rents under this low-cost housing scheme? I have to tell you that the rents are based on an equitable rule, namely, "one week's pay of the family income for one month's rent." There are sixty-five apartment units erected to date and the average rent is $52 per month. It is noteworthy that the plan of rent is such that if the family income falls through unemployment, then the rent comes down, and presumably if their income rises then the rent goes up. This is a most equitable method of establishing subsidized low cost rental housing in the area.
I have been in these apartments and they are of the finest construction. It is noteworthy that citizens from outside the six square blocks telephone me and ask how they may procure an apartment in the Regent Park development scheme. So far one-third of the apartments planned have been the subject of a contract, and further action is being taken. In the end there will be 1,056 apartments. A group of 3,000 people are housed in the area now but when the project is completed there will be 4,000 there. Accommodation will be provided for 1,000 more people, and I know it is welcomed by the people of my constituency. It is not unfair to suggest that this notable effort in the field of housing was made by the federal government for the
Transitional Measures Act constituency despite the fact that, at the time it was instituted, the constituency was represented by a former member of the opposition.
I should like to point out to the minister before I take my seat that the housing problem in my constituency is not confined to the southern area only. There is a residential section of some thirty-five to forty years' standing north of Bloor street which is known to residents of Toronto as Rosedale proper. The need for housing in Toronto during the emergency of the war was great, and in that area there were many large homes containing up to twenty or thirty rooms each. Automatically they became establishments for the housing of certain troops and other people on wartime duties. Then the guest home movement increased in the area, and it was found necessary as a war measure to pass order No. 200 of the wartime prices and trade board which in effect superseded the residential bylaws of the city. It is one of the orders which will be renewed under this statute which we are discussing today. In the area there are not less than 200 to 300 guest homes housing upwards of 3,000 people who can be said to be for the most part white collar office workers. Order No. 200 of the wartime prices and trade board in effect legalizes the living conditions of the 3,000 people living in these guest homes. When the order is lifted, or the time comes when the government does not have the power to keep order No. 200 in effect, there are the bylaws of the city which prevent the existence of guest homes on a legal basis and the occupancy thereof by the tenants. It is recognized by the city that time marches on, and that perhaps the character of the area has changed. It is recognized that something should be done to protect the proprietary investment of the people who commenced operation of these homes during wartime, and also to protect the housing accommodation of the guests living in these homes.
I recognize that this is primarily a municipal matter. Nevertheless I think that the experience of the wartime rental administration of the government as it is recorded might be given to the municipal authorities for their guidance and benefit when they come to consider what provisions it may be necessary to change in the municipal residential bylaws. I say to the minister that if the city so desires it-and I think they would be glad to have it-he should make available to them the recorded information available in the rental administration of the wartime prices and trade board. I would also ask him to make available the services of his law officers when and if it becomes necessary. I think
1098	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act that is the least we can do because this problem will arise for solution on the municipal level sooner or later.
I conclude with this thought. Legislation having to do with rents and housing comes within the category of "must" legislation. It is a fact that until this government was returned at the last election the operation of this legislation was hampered, and that our housing legislation could be found just around the corner of interprovincial disunity. I commend the premier of Ontario for his spirit of co-operation, and in particular for his attitude toward the amalgamation of the city of Toronto and the outlying municipalities in that area. The mandate given candidates in the federal election was clear. National unity is the order of the day; and I believe that at the bar of interprovincial public opinion we are most fortunate in having the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and his colleagues in the cabinet, because they are without peers in this matter of national and interprovincial unity. I look forward to great things in future from our housing legislation and its administrative bodies.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I followed with some interest the remarks of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry) and the obvious satisfaction he took from the fact that seven Liberal members were returned from Toronto ridings at the last general election. In the view of the hon. member that seems to be quite sufficient to permit him to sit back now with complete complacency and behold with satisfaction the present state of affairs. If I am not mistaken, among the plethora of promises made by Liberal candidates in Toronto, which they hoped would help them to be elected, one made by the hon. member for Rosedale was that if he were elected he would see the housing problem solved, to use his own words, "before the snow flies".


Charles Henry: I deny that, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I accept the hon. member's statement, of course. I did not bring the file here with me, and I said I thought it was the hon. member who had made that statement. He denies it, and I do not intend to question his denial; but I am going to have a look at some newspaper files on the subject. At any rate that statement was made by one of those candidates, whose election no doubt was thereby helped.
If hon. members can contemplate housing conditions in Toronto and elsewhere with satisfaction, I am afraid they either do not know or are not concerned about the conditions under which many people are living. If housing conditions are so satisfactory it is


probably unnecessary for hon. members to engage in the discussion of any legislative needs; but I was interested in what the hon. member had to say about the Regent Park development. The suggestion or inference the hon. member invited us to draw from his statement was that this Regent Park development was made possible only through assistance given by the federal government. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of some personal connection with the planning of that development in the first place, when I was a member of the Toronto city council, that the contribution by the federal authority to that housing undertaking was very small indeed. That is the one instance, as far as I am aware, in which a slum clearance program has been undertaken in Canada. It was a matter of satisfaction to us that when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) went to Toronto last year and saw it, he acclaimed it as an eye-opener. From that many of us hoped the government would be prepared to make some show of generosity in helping to bring about the elimination of such slum conditions that exist in many of the urban centres of Canada.
What actually happened? I have mentioned that in this case the contribution of the federal authority was very small. Actually it amounted to only one-half the cost of land acquisition under section 12 of the housing act. After the Prime Minister's visit and the way he lauded the development, which was made possible largely by the enterprise of those concerned in the municipal government in Toronto, one might have expected that this sort of enterprise would be encouraged elsewhere. When the amendments to the housing act were brought down here last fall, however, we found that not one cent more was provided for reconstruction projects of that kind than was available previously. We still are limited to section 12 of the housing act, under which the federal authority contributes only one-half the cost of land assembly; and the amendments of 1949 do not help at all in the case of reconstruction projects.
I brought this to the attention of the house when we were in committee of the whole on those amendments. At that time I pleaded with the minister to extend the provisions, or to put upon the amendments an interpretation which would make those provisions available to assist in reconstruction projects. The minister had this to say, at page 2447 of Hansard for November 29, 1949:
I think it is clear, Mr. Chairman, that where there is a section already in the act, namely section 12, providing for the redevelopment of land, it is not intended that this section should apply.

That was the new section contained in the amendments. That is the situation; and if the hon. member for Rosedale sees merit in the Regent Park development would you not have thought he would welcome the opportunity to rise, as I think I invited him and all Toronto Liberal members to do on the occasion to which I just referred, when these amendments were under discussion on November 29 last, and give some support to my request that the amendments be extended to include redevelopment projects? But the voice of the hon. member, along with the voices of the other Liberal members elected from Toronto, was silent. They did not have a word to say in support of the suggestion that assistance should be given to slum clearance by way of more generous contributions on the part of the federal authority to reconstruction projects.
I propose to speak very briefly on the resolution before us today.


Mr. Sinclair:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can be longer if my hon. friend continues to encourage me.
I believe the statement my leader made today has put our position on this matter so clearly that no elaboration is required. I wish, therefore, to dwell on only two, or at the most three, points.
My leader called for a proper bill to put into correct legislative form the statutory enactments necessary to continue rent control, and urged that this subject, which is of such great importance, should not be left in the clumsy form in which the government asks that it be continued. The minister has stated that the powers conferred by the bill to be founded on this resolution are confined to price and rent control. He said all the other powers provided by the bill had disappeared except those concerning price and rent control, and indicated that it is not the intention of the government to make any changes in general in the present scheme.
Sir, if the bill is to have as confined an effect as the minister suggests, then the case for a proper rent control bill is stronger than it has ever been before. A year ago when this measure was under debate, the government indicated that there were twelve orders in council whose effect was to be continued by the bill. The minister has not given to the house today the particular orders that are to be continued by the bill. I take it that there are at most probably only two or three; probably they are P.C. 8528, P.C. 9029 and P.C. 5518. Those are the general orders in council which are to be continued, as I understand his statement, although on this point we shall ask for more information when we are
Transitional Measures Act in committee on the resolution. But, sir, the fact that, according to the minister's statement, the scope of these controls is to be confined now to rent control emphasizes, to a degree not hitherto present, the fact that it is quite unnecessary now to carry on this remaining hodgepodge of orders in council which will be continued if the measure before the house remains in its present form.
On the other aspect of the minister's statement I have one or two observations to make. My leader has already commented upon the statement of the minister, who said that it is not the intention of the government to interfere with the present rent ceilings or the present freezing regulations, except in certain cases. If the government's intention is so simple, sir, simple legislation now would suffice for the purpose without carrying on this hodgepodge of orders in council and the sweeping powers that are reposed in the government under the Transitional Measures Act.
What is the effect of a statement made by the government? We in the official opposition had some complaint to make in times past about the weight attached by the government to statements emanating from the government. What are these statements of intention? Are they binding assurances? If they are binding assurances, there should be no hesitation on the part of the government in writing them into the text of legislation. But the government does not seem to be anxious to see those statements of intention written into legislative form.
Let me give one or two illustrations of the weight attached by the government itself to statements of the kind that it has made in the house; and in this connection I ask hon. members to bear in mind the situation in which great numbers of people in this country found themselves at the beginning of last November when, without any warning whatsoever, without any reference to this house, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) simply announced sweeping changes in the rent ceilings, changes which affected hundreds of thousands of people whose protests, incidentally, were completely unavailing because parliament had no power to interfere.
The legislation was there, and the government exercised the power by order in council. As long as parliament is going to repose in this government powers by order in council to interfere with the contractual relationships between landlords and tenants on the scale on which those relationships were interfered with by those orders in council early last November, sir, the parliament of Canada will be completely by-passed. Parliament will not be consulted. Parliament will even have to sit by while the government

Transitional Measures Act takes measures that will interfere with the rights of the people and affect those rights far more than anything that will be done by direot action on the.part of this parliament. That, sir, is a fundamentally wrong method; and I submit that it is high time parliament made up its mind that it will not any longer countenance such things. Where measures are required, as in this case they are, in respect of rent control, this parliament should take that responsibility; and parliament should reserve to itself, and to itself alone, the right to change, modify or terminate those measures. It should not be left to the whim of the government.
The minister invites us to accept, in lieu of or as a substitute for proper legislation, in a matter of high importance to the people of Canada, statements of intention on the part of the government. Let us consider the history of some such statements in the past. Sir, you and I well remember the statement made in this house in 1946, found at page 2547 of Hansard of that year, in which the then minister of finance, Mr. Ilsley, in relation to a measure then before the house with regard to foreign exchange control, said:
We have no intention of using this exchange control legislation to restrict anything but certain types of capital movement.
That certainly was a clear statement on the part of the government. What was the result? When it suited the government in November, 1947, to use powers in defiance of that assurance given to the house, powers which they purported to find in the very measure which was then under comment by Mr. Ilsley, they exercised those powers and, if you please, did it by radio decree without the slightest consultation of parliament. In a matter of such paramount importance to hundreds of thousands of Canadians, is it to be assumed by this house that the statement made by the Minister of Finance today will be given any higher regard or effect by the government when it suits their purposes at some future time to qualify it or to disregard it entirely, or that they will pay any more attention to it than was paid by the same government to this strong statement made by Mr. Ilsley in 1946?
You will not have forgotten, sir-and 1 am sure the house will not have forgotten- that when the present Minister of Finance was pressed in the house about that statement made by his predecessor in the same portfolio, an assurance that he himself was simply throwing overboard and was in effect completely repudiating, his answer was that it was only a statement that Mr. Ilsley made; he said that it was not a binding undertaking given to the house, but only a statement.


In the face of that experience, the same minister today asks us? to accept, as a substitute for proper legislation, a statement on his part of the intention of the government in relation to circumstances as they appear to him to exist now. I say to you, sir, that this parliament cannot accept that statement made by the minister today as any substitute for proper legislation.
Then, sir, the Minister of Finance is not alone in the estimate that he places upon statements or assurances emanating from the government. I well recall that in this house a year ago, when a statement was made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) in which he announced that it was the policy of the government to ask the house to approve a loan of $4 million to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the development of television in Canada, I rose and asked him this question, as reported at page 2837 of Hansard:
Will the radio committee have an opportunity of reviewing this policy and reporting to the house before the house Is called upon to approve the loan of $4 million.
The answer of the minister was:	"The
answer is definitely yes." You will find that recorded in Hansard. That was a direct and categorical statement, one would have thought. If statements by the government are treated seriously by the government, one could not have asked for a more categorical statement than that one. But what happened to that statement? In December of last year it suited the purposes of the government to ignore that promise completely, to repudiate it, and to push through this house the same loan without the radio committee having been appointed or ever having had the opportunity to make the study which it had been promised that the committee should make before the government would ask the house to approve this loan of $4 million to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for that purpose.
Now, sir, there are other instances. I think those two are sufficient to indicate the estimate which the government puts upon its own statements to the house. And if the house or the country, in the face of the repudiation of those statements by the government when it suited their purpose, chooses to attach to the statement made by the Minister of Finance today some efficacy in substitution for proper legislation, then, sir, the responsibility will rest on those who are prepared to put in jeopardy the rights of Canadians by hundreds of thousands.
I say to you, sir, that parliament in a matter so important, must not continue the hodgepodge of sweeping arbitrary powers contained in this act. It dare not ignore its responsibility to enact clear legislation that

will provide protection to those whose rights will be thereby affected, and who are entitled to know what their rights and liabilities are. If this parliament ignores that duty and chooses to accept ministerial statements which in the past have been treated so lightly by the government, then, sir, the majority in this house must accept the responsibility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the people of my province of Manitoba, and of my city of Winnipeg in particular, have a double-barrelled grievance in connection with this whole matter of rent control. They have been misled twice within the past year. It is not yet a year since the federal election campaign was under way, when security for our people in every form was a Liberal propaganda item, when our people were led to believe that by returning Liberals to power they could get all of the security, all of the protection that was in the C.C.F. program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am interested in the laughter that I am hearing from the Liberals on the other side of the house. It turns out now that in their opinion it was quite a joke that was played on our people. There was no notion in the minds of the people of Winnipeg, or the people of Manitoba, last June, that within four or five months after a sweeping Liberal victory action would be taken such as that on November 3, of permitting a further drastic increase in rent, which this legislation will not correct, since it merely keeps in effect for another year the ceilings established at that time.
Despite the fact that our people were misled in that way last June, they went through the same experience again in Winnipeg and in Manitoba last November. It was on November 3 that the Minister of Finance rose in his place in this house and announced the increases that were to become effective as at December 15. A provincial election was under way in Manitoba at that very time. Candidates of all parties, especially in the city of Winnipeg, realized what a burning issue it was, and they literally tumbled over each other trying to get in there first. Candidates of all parties promised that they would do something about it. The promises varied from one offer to another. Some of them were going to take over rent controls in the province right away. Others were going to press the federal government to retain -the ceilings where they had been, and others of course would just have the matter looked into. But that promise to do something about rent control was made, as I say, by both Liberals and Conservatives in the coalition, and by the members of all parties
55946-71J
Transitional Measures Act in that election campaign, including at least one cabinet minister that I know of, if not more.
I was aware of that during the debate on rent control in this house on November 8 of last year, and made a statement just two days before that provincial election, bearing on what was happening there. I said, as recorded in Hansard at page 1562:
I hope the people of Manitoba realize they are now being handed the same kind of half assurances that they were given by the Liberals prior to the 27th of June. Once the 10th of November is past, any thought that the Manitoba government would take over rent control in that province is just as far down the drain as is the promise-


Mr. Martin:: What is the hon. member quoting from?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am quoting from an expert in these matters, namely, the member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Argue:: Hear, hear.


Mr. McCann:: This must be your birthday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no. I continue with the quotation I was giving:
Once the 10th of November is past, any thought that the Manitoba government would take over rent control in that province is just as far down the drain as is the promise of the federal government that they would protect the health and the living standards of the Canadian people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to support what I said a moment ago about that quotation being from an expert, and to make it clear that I was not just patting myself on the back, but that what I said was an accurate forecast of what would happen, I call the attention of the house to the issue of the Winnipeg Free Press dated March 22, just two days ago, the main story of which relates to a debate in the Manitoba legislature on the question of rent control. The official opposition in the legislature, which is the C.C.F., presented to the Manitoba house a motion condemning the provincial government for not taking over rent control and operating it on a provincial basis. What happened? The government moved an amendment to that motion expressing its complete confidence in federal rent control, thus sidetracking the real issue before that house; and a good many of the members who were candidates in the election and had promised that they would see to it that rent control was taken over voted for the government's amendment and thus defeated the proposal which called upon the provincial government to take over rent control as the Minister of Finance is urging them to do. Therefore the people of Manitoba find that they have been fooled twice, first on the 27th of June and again on the 10th of November, so far as rent control is concerned. They were led to believe on both

Transitional Measures Act occasions that by voting Liberal their rental situation would be protected. They now find that these promises have again gone down the drain, just as I indicated in my remarks on November 8 of last year.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, no one can vote against this measure. There is not much to it, but anything less would be unthinkable. All this measure does is to continue in effect the high ceiling on rents that is now in effect. It does not give to the people of the country any relief from high rents. It does not roll them back to what they were last December.
I could point out, as the minister said, that one province, facing up to its responsibility, accepted the minister's offer and agreed to take over rent control starting on April 1. That is the province of Saskatchewan. The result is that most rents in that province are still at the level which was in effect last December.
The people of Manitoba wanted something similar done in their province, whether by the federal government or by the provincial government. But they find that, despite the credence they have given to Liberal promises and Liberal assurances, they are not going to get it either way. The government in the provincial legislature moves an amendment expressing confidence in the federal administration of rent controls, and that meaningless motion carries. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) rises in the house and reads from a supreme court judgment, of which he approves, saying that this whole business is really a provincial matter, and makes it very clear that within thirteen months it will be thrown back to the. provinces, in its entirety. What a hope!
It so happens that the constituency I represent has in it a large number of tenants who are affected by rent control. I can tell the minister and the house that during the two days I was home last November, when this issue was being fought out in the provincial election campaign, the protests over what was taking place were literally legion. Since then, next to the interest people have shown in the removal of the means test from old age pensions, this has been the question which has been the greatest concern of the people I represent.
I feel strongly about this. I feel that ever since the war the whole attitude toward rent control on the part of the government has been one of callous indifference to what has been happening to the Canadian people, particularly to workers who are tenants, who have had their rents raised time and again, making it extremely difficult for them to get along. Old age pensioners and others on


small fixed incomes have had it very hard, too.
I agree with the position taken today by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) when he states that this matter ought to have been put in proper legislative form long ago. It seems to me that one of the things this parliament must somehow put a stop to is the way in which the government constantly arrogates power to itself which it can exercise without any reference whatever to parliament. We should have matters like this in statutory form so that we can approve or disapprove of them at the time they are being enacted, and so that we will know where we stand.
This method of legislating has given the government far too much power. The minister may say it has given them power at times to impose controls, which power they exercised during the war. But the only way they have exercised it since the war has been to continue to permit these increases.
I am not the only one in the house who is aware of the misery and suffering this brings to our people. Liberal members are aware of it, too. Indeed, they were very much aware of it last November, at the time the minister made his announcement; and my guess is that they have been getting just as many letters in the last few months as I have about the increases that have been taking place.
So we are in this position, that we will vote for the measure before the house because it will keep in effect what little control now obtains. But it is a pretty sad story, this whole business, the way this question of rent control has been handled. It has not been rent control at all; it has been rent decontrol, with many anomalies which have created all sorts of difficulties with complete unfairness to the people of this country as a whole.
There is something further I should like to say about this matter. Frankly, I do not like to be a suspicious person. I do not like questioning assurances given to me, particularly when they are given across the floor of the house.	.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: You had better get to like it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is something to the humorous interjection just made by the hon. member for Souris. I have been here long enough now to become sceptical of assurances. Far too often positive assurances given to us have not been kept. Today we have it again. We are given an assurance the keeping of which need not worry us too much, for the assurance is that a ceiling which is just about up to the sky will not be raised any higher during the next thirteen months.

However, this raises the whole question of parliament's being asked to satisfy itself with ministerial assurance rather than with clear-cut legislation put on the statute books.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) pointed to a couple of cases, and I shall point to several more, where ministerial assurances have been broken. One of them relates to a statute placed on the statute books, but one which contained an escape clause-just as there is an escape phrase in the assurance given by the minister today. And when it suited the government it used that escape clause, not just in a few instances of emergency, but used it 100 per cent.
The case I have in mind relates to the government's policy with regard to civil aviation. Hon. members here in the parliament before last will remember the present Minister of Trade and Commerce laying it down as firm government policy that within a year after the end of the war in Europe all railway companies were to be compelled to divest themselves of the ownership of any air lines. Not only was it laid down as policy in speeches delivered by the minister and in assurances given to the house-a policy which, by the way, was opposed bitterly by the official opposition; so that it cannot be said that it was non-contentious-but it was written into a statute.
I have here the act in question, to be found in the statutes for 1944-45, chapter 28 of which is an act to amend the Aeronautics Act. Section 12 (2) of that act states:
No such licence shall be issued in respect of a commercial air service, owned, leased, controlled or operated by any person who is engaged in the transport of goods or passengers for hire or reward by means other than aircraft unless the governor in council is of opinion that it is in the public interest that such licence be issued.
And then turning to section 14, which is lengthy, we find it states-and I summarize- that every licence then in effect was to expire within one year after the end of the war in Europe.
So there, in statutory form, it was laid down that all of these companies, such as the air lines owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway, were to be separated from ownership by railway companies, and no further licences to railway companies to operate air lines were to be granted.
Time went on. We reached a point one year after the end of the war in Europe. Then we got into the second year, at which time I began asking questions about it. What did we find? We found that, first of all, the government by a minute of council-a quite improper procedure-decided that that one year was to be treated as two years- in violation of the act-and then they
Transitional Measures Act further got around the act by letting all licences to aviation companies then in existence expire-every one of them. Then they .reissued the whole lot under the terms of that emergency clause in section 12(2).
How do hon. members expect us to accept with complete assurance the statement made today by the minister, with an escape phrase in his statement, when we have had experiences such as the one I have described?
Then I think of some other assurances we have been given. During the session of 1948 I was a bit of a bother to the government over the question of its aviation policy in the Pacific. I had heard rumours that it was going to change its clearly-stated policy, namely that T.C.A. was to fly the Pacific. So I asked question after question, in one form or another, and was given the assurance that there was no change in that item of clearly-stated government policy. The session ended, and we went home. Within a week or so an announcement was made of a change in government policy, to the effect that flying the Pacific for Canada was being turned over to Canadian Pacific Air Lines.
I remind hon, members of what happened in August 1946 when there was before the house a motion calling upon the government to reconsider its announced intention of taking the second subsidy off milk. An amendment to a motion to go into supply was carried by the house. By a majority vote the house called upon the government to reconsider that matter. We asked the government what it would do about it, and were assured that the matter would be reconsidered. Then in a few days parliament was prorogued. A couple of weeks later the result of that reconsideration was that the subsidy was taken off, contrary to the expressed wish of parliament, and the price of milk went up.
Another instance that comes to my mind occurred on June 30, 1948. At that session we had had quite a bit of discussion about government annuities. By order in council the government had changed the basic interest rate upon which the annuities are based. As a result of protests from all sections of the house the promise was finally made by the government through the Minister of ' Labour (Mr. Mitchell) on June 30, 1948, that a special committee would be set up at the next session to go into the whole matter. When I asked at the next session, and the next, when that committee was going to be set up I was unable to get a satisfactory answer from the minister. The plain fact of the matter is that the promise was ignored; another assurance was broken.

Transitional Measures Act
A few days ago the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) read from Hansard of April, 1945, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) introduced t his white paper on post-war employment projects. My colleague read the specific statement that was made as to committees that would be set up, the money that would be voted, the way in which the government would implement that clear-cut assurance. Now the whole business has gone by the board.
When we were arguing last fall with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) about the McGregor report the minister assured us- although I certainly did not accept the assurance-that the report which he had received the previous December was really not in final form until October, 1949. In other words, the minister then-this was not his first answer; it was one of his subsequent answers-assured us across the floor of this house that he had kept the law, that he had tabled the report within fifteen days of its being in his hands in final form.
However, on March 22, just a couple of days ago, the same Minister of Justice in answer to some questions put on the order paper by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) let slip this bit of information, namely, that that report was referred on July 11, 1949, to J. J. Kelly, K.C., of Winnipeg for a legal opinion as to whether or not prosecution of the millers should be gone ahead with. It so happened that Mr. Kelly was subsequently appointed to the Court of King's Bench-that would be on the recommendation of the same Minister of Justice-and the matter was referred to another lawyer, T. N. Phelan, K.C., of Toronto, on September 20, 1949.
There it is in black and white that the report was in complete form so that the government could refer it to counsel for an opinion as to whether or not to go ahead and prosecute, and yet last fall the minister got up in this house and gave us his assurance that he was keeping the law when he knew as well as the rest of us did that he was not.
It is instances of that sort, and we are having far too many in this parliament, which make me sceptical about the statement the minister made today. The only reason that I can see for one counting on today's assurance being kept is its substance. The ceiling is now so high that the government could hardly push it any higher. If the ceiling were lower I am afraid the assurance would be in the same category as some of those we have had before.
We will have to support this measure to keep in effect for another thirteen months


such federal rent control as we have, but I felt that I should take the time to register once again the protests of the people I represent against the way in which they have been fooled in connection with rent control. I felt also that I should take time to document the contention which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and others have put forward as to the value of government promises. The government must get away from these ministerial assurances and get down to more clear-cut statements, which should be put down in black and white-in proper legislative form- so we will know where we stand.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold up this measure and I shall speak for only a few minutes, but there are a few things I should like to say. In fact what is before the house at this time is nothing. There has not been any rent control for some considerable time. All the minister proposes to do is to extend something that has not existed for quite a long time.
I look upon this matter of retaining rent control very seriously because it has been a long-drawn-out controversy in this country. It is in connection with this measure that I ran into the greatest amount of apprehension in all sections of the constituency that I have the privilege to represent and in all parts of the country that I was able to visit after the election was over. When it became apparent that the federal government were desirous of getting out of rent control various bodies like the Canadian Legion and the Canadian Congress of Labour were sufficiently interested to take the matter to the courts in order to test its validity. Those two bodies represent a large section of the people of Canada that requires either housing or the control of what housing there is.
This afternoon I think the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) put an excellent case before this house in the matter of housing. He definitely proved, largely from government statistics, that housing leaves much to be desired. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has assured the provinces that he is willing to hand over rent control. I understand Saskatchewan has passed an act but I do not know whether it has been proclaimed.


An hon. Member:: April 1.


Clarence Gillis: I understand also that Alberta has stand-by legislation. If we are really honest about this matter I think we will have to admit that what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said this afternoon-I very seldom give him any credit for anything-is absolutely correct. If we are going to have laws, they should be made by this parliament and they should be given effect to by the

courts of the country. The minister is asking us to pass a bill that will give the cabinet the right to make any change and throw the law around at will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As they have done.


Clarence Gillis: Certainly, as they have done. I think it is unreasonable to ask the provincial governments to take over rent control because you would then have ten different types of legislation across the country. I do not think the maritime provinces, including Newfoundland, would touch the thing at all and the result would be no rent control in that end of the country.


William Joseph Browne: Newfoundland has its own rent control act.


Clarence Gillis: I am glad to hear that. The whole policy of rent control has proved ineffective and disturbing, so much so that a lot of money was spent by the two large organizations I have mentioned to take the matter to the courts. The courts have ruled that it is within the power of the federal government. Why could we not pass a basic act in this parliament which would clearly set out for all time where the landlord and the tenant and those affected stood, and leave the administration in the hands of the provinces? In that way we would have uniform legislation.
Some control is necessary because housing is still in an emergent condition. While the war is over the emergency in housing has not been taken care of. In my opinion it is much worse now in the larger centres than it was in 1940. I know there is not much use beating the air. I have filled pages of Hansard about it, and I am very much disappointed with what the minister is doing. I thought this afternoon he was going to tell us that, the Supreme Court of Canada having decided that the government had jurisdiction-


James Sinclair: Jurisdiction to decontrol.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Jurisdiction to continue to control also.


Clarence Gillis: The question before the court was not whether they should decontrol or whether they could. As I understand it, the question before the court was whether the government had jurisdiction to administer rent controls in the circumstances. As I understood what the minister said, the decision was that they had that right, but they were going to continue to exercise it only up to April, 1951. If that is all that is going to be done, then as I said when I started to speak we are really beating the air about nothing. The minister stated this afternoon that 75 per cent of the landlords have taken advantage of the opportunity to increase rents. Those people who have been taxed an additional 20
Transitional Measures Act or 25 per cent by way of rent have already had that done, so we are not going to cure anything there. The remaining 25 per cent of the landlords who have not taken advantage of the provision are probably housing unemployed. Rent control offices have practically folded up across the country. I think the sensible thing to do is to pass a basic bill in this house, have the provinces administer it, and settle the question once and for all so that we may get on with housing. In the final analysis the answer to the whole problem is a good, low-rental housing program, and we have not got that at the present time. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I had to make you come back to your chair, but I thought I should make these few remarks.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Benidickson in the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the parliamentary assistant tell us precisely what orders in council will be continued, and if those orders in council include price control as well as rent control will he tell us to what extent price controls are in effect?


James Sinclair: The actual list of controls which will still be in effect will appear as a schedule to the bill, but so that hon. members may have the information in advance perhaps I should list them here. Perhaps I can give the list to Hansard later, but at the moment reciting the orders themselves the first group of four orders which will remaiij in effect are the ones under the wartime prices and trade board. They are P.C. 8528, P.C. 9029-perhaps I should tell you where you can find these fairly easily. P.C. 8528, and its amending orders, because it is an order made in 1941 which has been amended fifteen times, can be found on page 18 of the consolidation of orders in council passed under the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act of 1947. The king's printer prepared that publication. P.C. 9029, the wartime leasehold regulations, can be found on page 29 of the same consolidation. Those two of course are rental orders.
P.C. 34/4433 is the order in council which extended the Government Employees Compensation Act to employees of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation, which has almost finished its work. It can be found on page 45 of the consolidation. There are only eight or nine employees left, but until the corporation is completely wound up we have to cover these employees under the Government Employees Compensation Act. The last of the four wartime prices and trade board orders is P.C. 3122, consolidation of supplementary regulations, which can be found at page 46.

Transitional Measures Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Consolidation of supplementary regulations of what, of the wartime prices and trade board?


James Sinclair: Yes, of the wartime prices and trade board. There are two orders in council of the Department of Justice, P.C. 4600, which appears at page 68, and P.C. 6223 at page 69.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which deal with what?


James Sinclair: One authorizes appeals in cases involving breaches of wartime regulations, and the second one provides for notice to the attorneys general of Canada and of the provinces in certain cases. Then there are the orders in council which will be revoked as of March 31, 1950, although they will still be in effect until that date. I can list them now or perhaps it would be just as convenient to have them appear in Hansard. There are six of them. Therefore that will leave under this act only the six orders in council which 1 first mentioned. With the permission of the house, we might have these two schedules printed in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Sinclair: The schedules are as follows:
Continuation ol Transitional Measures Act chapter
16 of S.C. 1947-amended by chapter 5 of S.C.
1947-48 and chapter 3 of S.C. 1949
Schedule to the Act
1. Orders in council still in force
Wartime Prices and Trade Board
P.C. 8528 1/11/41 Wartime Prices and Trade Regulations
as amended by P.C. 8762 10/11/41 8837 13/11/41 9030 19/11/41 5092 15/ 6/42 5109 16/ 6/42 10277 10/11/42 11595 22/12/42
3206	22/ 4/43 6808 30/ 8/43 6242 18/ 8/44 8910 24/11/44
385	18/ 1/45 4410 22/ 6/45
60 7/ 1/47 392 31/ 1/47
P.C. 9029 21/11/41 Wartime Leasehold Regulations as amended by P.C. 3366 24/ 4/42 8973 1/10/42
3207	22/ 4/43 7570 1/10/43 6234 8/ 8/44
386	18/ 1/45 4409 22/ 6/45 5234 23/12/46
391 31/ 1/47
P.C. 34/4433 10/6/44 Government Employees Compensation Act extended C.P.S.C., etc., employees
P.C. 3122 25/7/46 Consolidation of supplementary regulations

Department of Justice
P.C. 4600 7/6/43 Authorizing appeals in cases involving breaches of wartime regulations as amended by P.C. 6713 25/8/44
P.C. 6223 6/8/43 Notice to Attorneys General of Canada and of province in certain cases.
2. Orders in council revoked as of April 1, 1950 by order in council P.C. 1270, March 14, 1950
P.C. 7475 26/8/42 Regulations of Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation
as amended by P.C. 39 6/ 1/44 5273 26/ 7/45 390 31/ 1/47 1711 29/ 4/47
P.C. 328 28/1/47 Canadian Sugar Stabilization Corporation
P.C. 3 4/1/44 Wartime Industries Control Regulations
as amended by P.C. 6355 11/ 8/44 346 16/ 1/45 897 13/ 2/45 7156 29/11/45 477 7/ 2/47
P.C. 245 23/1/46 Steel Regulations as amended by P.C. 520 15/2/46
P.C. 1997 21/3/44 Timber Regulations
P.C. 1609 23/4/46 Construction Materials Regulations as amended by P.C. 337 31/1/47.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The first one the parliamentary assistant named, P.C. 8528, is the one which established the wartime prices and trade board.


James Sinclair: Wartime prices and trade board regulations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I understand it correctly that was the overriding board, and rent control is in effect a branch of the wartime prices and trade board.


James Sinclair: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are the regulations of the wartime prices and trade board being kept in effect merely to provide for rent control or are there some other price controls still in effect?


James Sinclair: There are no other price controls that I know of. The only one having any reference to price control is P.C. 34/4433, and that is because the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation was a price control and subsidy organization. There is a complete list of the main orders. You will find them all consolidated in this list I have given so that you can study them and ask these questions when the bill is up for second reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The regulations that will be carried forward will not themselves be printed in the bill?


James Sinclair: No, but the schedule to the bill will show the orders in council and amendments which are being carried forward.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize that perhaps this is a matter for the minister rather than the parliamentary assistant, but I hope he will bring this suggestion to the attention of the minister. It seems to me that when you are passing legislation of this kind it is not satisfactory merely to have a notation as to where you have to go to hunt for all these matters. It would be far better to have a schedule attached to the bill setting forth the actual regulations referred to.


James Sinclair: I thought I was being helpful. This is the first time that I know of where actual information as to orders in council has been given at the resolution stage like this. You will find it very little bother to turn to page 18 of the consolidation to find this particular order in council.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary assistant may have tried to be helpful but he seems to think it is perfectly satisfactory to pass legislation that does not include all its details, and that we should be very grateful to him for telling us where to find those details.


James Sinclair: This is not legislation; this is only the resolution stage. In order that members may have warning of what is coming I hope I am giving you ample information by putting the schedule in Hansard before the bill is given first reading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But nothing more than the schedule is going to be in the bill; not the details of the orders.


Mr. Pouliot:: It will be a book of numbers.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Fournier, Hull (for Mr. Abbott) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 56, to amend the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, 1947.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Prairie Transmission Lines
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1950.
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1951.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Beni-dickson for the second reading of Bill No. 9, to incorporate Prairie Transmission Lines Limited, and the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East): "That this question be now put."	.
Mr. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments that remain to me tonight to speak on the bill which is now before the house, namely, the bill to incorporate the Prairie Transmission Lines Limited, I should like to review the point that I made when I last spoke on this matter as to the great concern felt by the people of the interior part of the province of British Columbia at the prospect that the pipe line may not be built through that area, but may be built in the greater part through the states of the United States, particularly Idaho, Washington and Oregon.
I have placed before you, sir, and before the house, a number of resolutions and telegrams that I have received from boards of trade and chambers of commerce throughout that entire district. Over the week end I have received several more, including, it might be noted, a copy of a resolution passed by a junior chamber of commerce of Burnaby, supporting the stand we are taking, that the pipe line must be built through British Columbia.


Tom Goode: Will the hon. member permit a question? Did he say "Burnaby"?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Tom Goode: Would he mind placing on the record to whom it was addressed?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not got it with me, it is in my office. I will give it to the hon. member when I finish speaking in this debate.


Tom Goode: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that it be placed on the records of this house.

Prairie Transmission Lines


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall be glad to do that.


Mr. Cruickshank:: He has an opportunity to speak if he wants to.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall be glad to do that if it meets with the approval of the house, or I could give it to the hon. member privately, if he prefers it that way.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: Put it on the record.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a fact that I have that letter. It seems to me that that indicates there is a widespread feeling throughout our province that some assurance must be given that this line will be built through Canada before this bill shall be allowed to pass. It is on that basis that I want to conclude this evening, by appealing to hon. members who understand the position which those of us from British Columbia have taken in this matter.


George Alexander Cruickshank: That is some of us from British Columbia.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: A monopoly, a complete monopoly.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Not Jacques Cartier or Alexander Mackenzie.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I must say, Mr. Speaker, it does seem that this debate arouses a good deal of interest, although many of the hon. members prefer to make their contribution by way of interjection rather than by speaking so that we could know their stand. If they are so interested in the bill I suggest strongly that they should all take part in the debate so that we could know what their point of view is.


George Matheson Murray: We are opposed to the Tory monopoly.


Mr. McLure:: Rubber stamps.


Mr. Ferrie:: Filibuster.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is significant to consider the petition which is now before the other place from the company which is seeking this incorporation here tonight, where one finds that they have been applying for incorporation in order to build a pipe line on a route lying through the United States. The route has been fully described as that route which leads just across the southeast corner of our province; then it proceeds through the states of Idaho and Washington to the Pacific coast, where it splits into two branches, one going south to Oregon and the other going back up north to Vancouver.
I should like hon. members who disagree with our position to consider carefully the merits of their suggestion that we should allow this bill to go through, since, it is said,


all that is sought here is the incorporation of a company, and that we should let the Alberta government decide on the route of the line, or let the board of transport commissioners decide it. Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking as a legal or constitutional expert, although I have given some study to the matter, but I believe that a very good case could be made out for the contention that neither the Alberta government nor the board of transport commissioners has any legal or constitutional authority to control the export of gas from Canada. The Alberta board is concerned primarily with assuring that sufficient supplies of gas are in that province to meet the foreseeable requirements of Alberta over the next fifty years. Once they have satisfied themselves on that score, they will consider granting licences to export gas; but I submit that if the Alberta board were to refuse to license the export of gas merely on the ground that the proposed line crosses the international border, their decision would be declared ultra vires, because that would be an interference with interprovincial and export trade. I submit they will have no authority to refuse to license on those grounds. In the same way, if hon. members will consider carefully the main oil and gas Pipe Lines Act under which the companies must apply to the board of transport commissioners for authorization, they will find in that act that the question of whether the line goes to the United States is not a consideration to be taken into account by the board in granting or refusing their application. You will not find any authority for the board to take into consideration the question whether or not the line has to be built into the United States. There is no authority, expressed or implied, for the board to refuse their authority merely because the company propose to build their line across the border. I submit that, in the same way, it would be ultra vires the board of transport commissioners to refuse to grant their authority to build a line merely . because it is proposed to send it through the United States.
Indeed I would presume this matter has been given some consideration by those who are now applying for incorporation, because we find they have laid down the route they propose to build, and it shows clearly that for the greater part of its length it is to be through the United States. If they thought that the board could refuse or might refuse their application because of that fact they would not have included it in their petition. Therefore I say the only way we can be certain that the policy of building the line through Canada is followed is to insist upon the assurance being given by the sponsors of the bill before we pass it. If it is the desire

to cut short this debate, and if it is desired by hon. members who say that they believe in the policy of Canada first, if it is desired to ensure that we shall have the line through Canada, then I suggest that the way to do it, and the way to cut short this debate, would be to amend the main Pipe Lines Act to provide that the board shall not grant authority unless the line is built through Canada. If that were done, then certainly I would cease my opposition to the bill, and I believe I can safely say that other hon. members who have been opposing it would cease their opposition; because then we would find that the line would be built through Canada, and we would be content to grant incorporation to as many companies as wish to build the line through Canada first.
However, until that assurance is given, or until the Pipe Lines Act is amended so that we may have the line built through Canada serving Canadian cities, and serving this country, with the benefits of the enormous cost of construction and the employment which will come to Canada-I say until that is done we must continue to oppose the incorporation of these companies because, in our view, it would be a great disservice to Canada and a negation of the principle that we must now build up our economy to provide opportunities for employment and expansion here at home.
On that basis I take my stand squarely in opposition to the bill.
(Translation):


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker the purpose of the bill now before the house is to incorporate a certain number of people under the name Prairie Transmission Lines Limited.
These persons are seeking permission to build and operate pipe lines for carrying gas and oil from - sources in Alberta to certain points both within and outside of Canada.
The bill, however, carefully avoids any description of the route along which the promoters intend to build their pipe line. No map is attached, as is usual when railway companies seek incorporation.
The matter before the house has been discussed during at least two sessions. I do not think there is any precedent on record of such a lengthy discussion on a private bill.
So far more than thirty members have spoken for or against this measure. Two party chieftains, the leader of the opposition
Prairie Transmission Lines (Mr. Drew) and the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) have taken part in the debate and voiced strong opposition to the bill.
At first, representatives of the provinces concerned, Alberta and British Columbia, were the only ones to show their interest in the matter by taking part in the debate, that has been rather bitter at times. But today, members from all parts of Canada, even from Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, have spoken on the bill, an indication of the importance of this measure. It also goes to show that the more we talk about it in the house, the more significant it becomes.
We must conclude, from what we read in the newspapers that it is a most vital question. We surely have grounds to wonder why it is so important and why it receives so much attention in the house.	[DOT]
In my opinion, members of the opposition took part in this debate because it dealt with the nation's natural resources and because it is in line with the "Canada first" policy, always practised by my party.
A nation's natural resources are its most valuable assets. It is the duty of every Canadian, whatever his home province and whatever the issue at stake, to see to the conservation of our country's natural resources and to their development in the best interest of our people.
If such is the duty of every citizen, I believe that the government, on whom rests so many responsibilities, has the dual obligation of considering the matter and making sure that the interests of our people as a whole are fully upheld.
Since confederation and especially since the beginning of the 20th century, this country has known an industrial development unparalleled in its history. From 1900 onwards, our lumber industry, our mines, our waterpower have been developed as never before.
Unfortunately, in several provinces, natural resources were, in most instances, developed only for the benefit of certain foreign companies and, very seldom to the real advantage of our people.
Let us consider, for instance, the forests in my province. Since the turn of the century our forests have been worked on such an extensive scale by pulp and paper companies that, to a certain extent, they have become depleted. At that time, there were no regulations to restrict their activities and, human
1110	HOUSE OF
Prairie Transmission Lines nature being what it is, these people, whose appetite was never curbed, possessed themselves of all these assets and developed them for their own benefit only, meanwhile forgetting that they were laying waste one of the country's natural resources, one which might take centuries to rebuild.
Fortunately, the Quebec government, in the past few years, realizing this danger, has adopted legislation to save our forests. They have in this way required all those who work our pulp and wood resources to manufacture these products in Canada and to export them in a manufactured or finished state. In doing so, this government showed national consciousness.
This example was followed in several provinces. New Brunswick and Ontario among others, have followed suit and passed similar important legislation. This logical step had been taken for the sole purpose of protecting our forests, the government of the day realizing that they were a national treasure belonging to the population as a whole.
Natural gas is no doubt a different problem but nevertheless we have the power to study a charter which will allow us not only to develop a natural resource but also to export it.
The place we hold today among the exporting countries of the world is incomparable. However we can keep this rank only if we always proceed carefully, if we use our natural resources so that the products of our soil are developed at home and if we apply the principle of Canada first, in this case as in others.
As the leader of our party said the other day, the main reason why we oppose this bill is because we believe in the principle of Canada first. The members of our party were accused of filibustering, and of lengthening the debate but I sincerely believe that when they take such an attitude they are really anxious to carry out their mandate. I am personally glad that they have thus risen in protest and that, as representatives from all the province in Canada, they have put aside any selfish feelings to come to the aid of the people of British Columbia by helping them to secure an adequate and sufficient public service before a group of capitalists export these products to the United States.
The bill before the house provides for the development and export of Alberta's natural gas and petroleum resources. Protests were bound to come from members of the opposition
[Mr. Balcer. i

Prairie Transmission Lines
I shall read, with your permission, the *description of this route. Among the powers requested by the petition in favour of the company, there are these:
To construct, maintain, own, operate and exploit one or several pipe lines to transport natural and artificial gas, and oil, within the province of Alberta and within the province of British Columbia, from a point in the vicinity of the city of Calgary in the province of Alberta to a point in the vicinity of Blairmore in the same province and thence to another point in the vicinity of Kingsgate in the province of British Columbia-
And here is the admission:
-and thence to the United States, leaving Canada at a point near Kingsgate in British Columbia and entering it again in the vicinity of Blaine in the state of Washington, and thence in a northerly direction towards Vancouver.
This shows the real intentions of the sponsors of this bill. The truth is now before us; that seems to me perfectly clear.
Those members who are anxious to conserve our natural resources and see to it that they are used to the best possible advantage of our people must oppose this bill. I am happy to notice that all the members of my party who have so far taken part in this debate have based their opposition to this bill on the same principle: Canada first and our friends afterwards.
I feel that the government, instead of protecting foreign interests by such a bill, should take the necessary means to allow the people to profit by the development of this natural resource.
Personally, since it is a matter of public utility, I feel that once these pipe lines are built and have reached a high degree of production the government should take them over in order to see that the people get all the natural gas they need. The users of these pipe lines will find the supply continuously decreasing. We therefore request the house to consider this viewpoint.
Canada, especially during the last ten years, has witnessed important discoveries. In the province of Quebec we have discovered the world's richest oxide and iron deposits. And the province of Alberta, one of the two provinces we are concerned with at this moment, has witnessed a discovery, a development and a marketing of petroleum which are truly unequalled in the whole world.
Well, I ask this house not to repeat the mistakes which were made at the beginning of the century when we allowed our natural resources to be exported without considera-

tion for the people, without planning for the future and without making sure that future generations could use them.
In a country such as ours, where there is a sufficient quantity of these great natural resources, we shall not allow the people to go without that to which they are entitled. Before taking any action which may be regretted later on and in order to avoid, in regard to the natural resources which were discovered during the last few years and which our people will undoubtedly develop before long, the mistakes of the past, I air glad to state that I belong to the party which opposed this bill and which did so out of patriotic feelings based on the policy of Canada first. Such is the policy of the party to which I belong and I do not know of any better policy.
(Text):


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I fancy my intervention in this debate may be the source of wonderment to some hon. members, because I suppose no place could seem more remote from Alberta than the province of Newfoundland. But when we consider the many uses to which petroleum products are now put, when we consider the way those uses are being continually extended in the household, in industry and in transportation, I think it will be agreed that any hon. member of this house would be justified in speaking upon such an important matter. If we approach this as we should, as men having vision to look into the future as men had vision when they planned the construction of the transcontinental railways, I think we must regard these matters, and the work that has been done already in the oil development in Alberta, as only the beginning of a tremendous industry.
Many hon. members have knowledge of the importance attached to the oil industry in the United States. I believe it is not going too far to venture the assertion that this industry in Alberta may develop to the same extent. In the United States they regard oil as something more than an industry. I should like to call the attention of hon. members to a remark contained in the preface to a book called "A National Policy for the Oil Industry" by Eugene V. Rostow. This book was prepared by professors in economics and law at Yale university; in that preface the editor says:
Oil is more than one of the largest of American industries, in terms of the money, steel and men engaged in producing and selling it. Oil is an essential weapon of modem war, and oil policy must be judged ultimately from the point of view of national security.

When we apply that statement to the new oil industry in Alberta we may feel that the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) was right when he spoke of the importance of keeping these pipe lines within Canada, from the point of view of national security. If any further justification were needed for an hon. member, no matter from what province he may come, to take part in such an important debate, I think I could find that justification in two short articles I culled from the Gazette of March 21 of this year. The first is a column written by Frank Francis and headed "Trends, Talk and Trade". The subhead is, "Pipelines, Canada's wonder issue, still soaring," and the article goes on:
Textbooks say good news usage eschews superlatives, adheres strictly to simple facts. Well, one can adhere to simple facts but it is impossible to resist the urge to use all the superlatives in the book in describing what has happened to International Pipe Line 4's.
These were four per cent bonds issued by the Imperial Oil Company through one of its subsidiaries, in connection with the pipe line.
Yesterday this issue was quoted at 263-267. Probably these convertible debentures are worth this much. Some think they are. But the Street has long since given up trying to guess how high this issue will go.
The point is that this quote is up about 55 points over the week-end.
That was on a Monday, and over the week end it had gone up $55 on a $100 bond.
It will be recalled that it was originally offered at par last fall. Its rapid rise since that time has had no parallel anywhere, so far as is known.
Truly it can be said that this is and is likely to remain Canada's wonder issue from the standpoint of what has already happened in so short a time.
There was a message from Calgary published in the same newspaper on the same date, of which I shall read only part:
Crude oil and natural gasoline production in Alberta in the week ending March 13 increased almost 500 barrels per day to set a new all-time high of 74,123 barrels per day.
And then it goes on to list the accomplishments in the Redwater field and the various other fields where oil is being produced, and it continues:
The new record is almost 16,000 barrels more than the production a year ago at this time, all of which has been accounted for by the Redwater field.
Which is a comparatively recent discovery.
At the end of the new record week, a total of 1,335 wells in Alberta were capable of being operated.
Last year at the same time only 771 wells were capable of being operated. This is an increase of nearly 600 wells in one year. I believe those figures will give hon. members some idea of the extent to which this industry may yet develop.
Prairie Transmission Lines
I hope that what I have to say-and of course I do not know whether it will-will be a source more of illumination than of heat. I have listened to the debates on this subject this session and last session and I realize that this bill is now being introduced for the second time. I must confess that I did not understand it very well. Perhaps I do not fully understand it now. I am sure I do not. But I have made an attempt to do so because, as all hon. members will agree, we may have to vote on this measure. I am sure that other hon. members will agree with me that it is desirable to try to understand what one may have to vote on.
Whatever emerges from this discussion, I am sure that we are all in agreement that the province of Alberta is on the road to becoming fabulously wealthy.
I can remember, when I was a student at Toronto university many years ago, first hearing the magic name of Turner valley when it first came into prominence, and the great hopes that were then held for its future. Unhappily, however, we know that the province of Alberta did not realize the hopes which were engendered thirty-five or thirty-six years ago when Turner valley first came into production.


Mr. Harkness:: They still got a lot of oil.


William Joseph Browne: Yes, and they are still getting a lot of oil out of it.


An hon. Member:: A lot of heat.


William Joseph Browne: We are all
familiar with the financial stress which the people and the government of Alberta went through during the thirties. We in Newfoundland are especially sympathetic with the people of Alberta and rejoice in their prosperity at the present time, because we were going through financial stress in those same thirties. While the government of Alberta adopted social credit as a solution to their problems, we adopted commission of government. The province of Alberta has since fallen on good times but, I am sorry to say, Mr. Speaker, since we got clear of the commission of government prosperity is not as booming as it was down there in Newfoundland while the commission of government was in existence. I trust-and I am sure we all agree on this-that the great wealth that Alberta now enjoys, and which seems to be without parallel in the history of any of our provinces, will bring happiness to her people and that that province will be the centre from which prosperity will spread to other parts of Canada and to other parts of America as well. To us who come from Newfoundland, your new province, where men are accustomed to work so strenuously and often to

Old Age Security
work so long without any reward whatsoever, the stories we have heard sound like dreams. We want to see these great blessings which Alberta enjoys used for the benefit of all the people of Canada; and we hope perhaps that even our fishermen, who often labour for months with no return from their labours, may be able to get some indirect benefits from the prosperity of this industry in Alberta.
Judging by the report of the Imperial Oil Company last year, much of their effort was unprofitable. The manager said that they were disappointed but not discouraged. Not so the government and the people of Alberta. I do not know if it is correct, but I have been told that in some places Alberta natural gas is so cheap that it is more economical for the municipalities to let the gas burn all day in the streets than to engage someone to turn the lights out and to put them on again.
It is possibly a good thing that the government of Alberta is in the hands of such earnest men as those who compose the Social Credit government, men like those we have here in this house. But I feel sure also, Mr. Speaker, that any visitor who comes to this house and looks down upon the hon. members will be able to distinguish the members from Alberta from the members who come from any other province, owing to the fact that they have such a carefree way about them. They do not seem to have a care in the world because their province is now so prosperous that they have little to worry about; whereas we who come from the other provinces, especially those of us who come from the tenth province, have many cares to burden us.
As it is nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker, may I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, the house will now proceed to government orders.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin:
That a joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to examine and study the operation and effects of existing legislation of the parliament of Canada and of the several provincial legislatures with respect to old age security; similar legislation in other countries; possible alternative measures of old age security for Canada, with or without a means test for beneficiaries, including plans based on contributory insurance principles; the probable cost thereof and possible methods of providing therefor; the constitutional and financial adjustments, if any, required for the effective operations of such plans and other related matters;
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West) .1
That 28 members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the joint committee on the part of this house, and that standing order 65 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the committee have power to appoint, from among its members, such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable or necessary; to call for persons, papers and records; to sit while the house is sitting, and to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee for the use of the committee and of parliament, and that standing order 64 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.
Jean-François Pouliot: In
resuming the debate, Mr. Speaker, on the motion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) to establish a joint committee of both houses to give further thought to the social question, I wish to congratulate him again on that move, which will be most helpful to the country. At the outset, I must say that the minister has taken the greatest care to improve health conditions in this country since he has assumed the functions of the head of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I shall try not to repeat what has been said by my colleagues who have spoken on the matter, and I shall also try to consider the whole matter from a human rather than a political point of view. I am assuming, in the first place, that every hon. member of this house desires the well-being and good health of his fellow citizens. That is natural. Let us suppose that a Canadian left this country twenty-five years ago and returned today. He would be astounded at the progress that has been made in social legislation. Twenty-five years ago there was no old age pension; there were no family allowances; there was no pension for needy mothers-


Mr. Noseworthy:: Good old days!


Jean-François Pouliot: There was no unemployment insurance, and the age of the hon. member for York South was much less than it is now, and it is the same with all of us. There are many social advantages that the people who lived a quarter of a century ago could not benefit from. Now we have made progress in that direction, and although it is impossible to expect perfection in the field of social security, Canada is one of the leading countries in that regard because of the efforts of the Prime Minister and the members of his government, and particularly the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin).
Twenty-five years ago there were government annuities, but they were contributory.

There were some pensions for railwaymen, but they were also contributory. In these last years some benefits have been given that have been non-contributory in order to help the most needy.
I am very much interested when I hear a discussion about contributory social measures. In many instances those who are supposed to benefit from them have not the means to pay any contribution, and there are those who have been deprived of the means of paying any contribution. All hon. members of parliament must be familiar with some of those cases, which are due to poverty and ill health. Now we have the suggestion that a pension be given to invalids. There are hospitals where many invalids could be looked after: those who are fortunate enough to be able to pay for their hospitalization and care, and those who are not so fortunate, and those who through public assistance may go to the hospital and be looked after.
The people of Canada have a natural sympathy for invalids, all those who suffer, particularly and especially disabled persons. But we should not conclude that because a person is disabled he is needy. I knew the greatest lawyer who ever argued before the courts of the province of Quebec. He was disabled; he was a hunchback; nevertheless he was acknowledged as one of the brightest legal minds of Canada. Down home in Riviere du Loup the manager of a furniture factory was also a hunchback, but he had ample means and was the employer of quite a number of people. It is not only the disability that should be the reason for a pension. It should be the disability and the need because of some unfortunate circumstances that are difficult to establish.
It is very difficult to make a distinction between a disabled person who is needy and one who is not. But if the state is to consider these cases, each case should be considered individually. It is impossible to establish general rules in that regard, and probably that is one of the reasons why the disabled have not received a pension.
To what degree is a person disabled? That is the question that must be asked before granting a pension. But nevertheless the disabled deserve our sympathy, whether they are in a position to earn their own living or not. I know well a family where there are five children who are disabled and invalids. The five children are in one family. They are grown up now. They are hunchbacks. They are between thirty and forty years of age. They have been brought up without any help from the state, and I can only admire their parents for having taken care of them for such a long time. They could have gone to hospital
Old Age Security
and they would have been received there, and the cost of their hospitalization would probably have been paid under the public assistance legislation; but the mother and the father loved their children. The father was working to earn their living. The mother was taking good care of them and wanted to have them at home to look after them herself. 1 find it admirable. When it was suggested that they go to the hospital and be looked after by other people, just as is done in many other cases, the mother positively refused, and the children refused. They wanted to be together at home. Well, now, in very pitiable cases such as these it seems to me that these unfortunate people should be granted the same pension that is given to old1 people. In the case of old people it is age. They have the need on account of their age. That is the reason for the means test. The younger people who have suffered a greater disability than those who are old deserve the same consideration; and it would be much cheaper for the state to pay such a pension than to pay for their hospitalization. Considering the wages and the salaries that are paid in hospitals, the medical costs, the fees, the cost of treatment and so forth, it is impossible to look after an invalid and the disabled in a hospital as well as it is done in their homes and at the same cost. It would be much more expensive to look after them in hospitals than in then-homes, if they are given the pension. This is the pension that has been requested for them.
I wish to be fair with those people. I do not tell them that they will have a pension- although I hope they will. I tell them I will never miss an opportunity to bring their cases before the House of Commons so that all hon. members may be made familiar with the circumstances under which they live, and the troubles they have.
In each individual there is an aspiration for justice, and there are cases which strike the imagination of all. We realize that there are family allowances for those under sixteen years of age, and pensions for the blind from the age of forty-


Mr. Marlin:: It is now twenty-one.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, it is twenty-one now; and I congratulate the minister upon that. We realize that there are old age pensions and that there are pensions for needy mothers with children under sixteen years. This last-mentioned provision is made provincially, through a provincial organization.
Those who suffer disabilities which prevent them from earning their own living look at those people-and not with either envy or jealousy, because people who suffer are as a rule kind. But they will say, "How is it

Old Age Security
that those people who are in no worse condition than we are receive indemnity, while we are deprived of it?" That is the point they consider.
I am deeply concerned when an argument of that kind is advanced by one who suffers. They may be living in the woods or in the back country, far from the railways. They may live alone, deprived of the amenities of life; but they are deserving of our sympathy.
I am not complaining about social legislation, because I realize it was needed. After the exploitation of the forests ceased to be what it was during the war, there were many families who relied upon social welfare grants for their living. A poor woman, the mother of twenty children, wrote me one day stating that, as the mother of twenty children, she was thankful for the establishment of family allowances by the government. That whole family must depend on family allowances. I will not say that this is generous, because in most families the amounts received for family allowances are used in the education of the children, and to dress them comfortably so that they may attend school. All this is in order.
But there are some other cases-and if there were not so many it would be easier to deal with them-who, because of illness, a lack of work or because of some other circumstances, find that they must suffer. There is no reason at all in a country like ours for people suffering from a lack of clothing, or from undernourishment.
I do not wish to discuss this point at length, but during the war I found that there were Canadians who did not have much money, and some of whom were settlers in the back country who did not have sufficient money to buy warm clothing for their children during the winter. The result was that the children had to stay in their camps, instead of going out to play in the snow and to breathe the fresh air. I suggested that secondhand military clothing should be given to them. It was not expensive, and it was at hand, and had been used. For a time I succeeded in getting some of that clothing. I obtained some long overcoats and tunics, the only condition being that they were to be dyed.
On New Year's Eve one winter, in Riviere du Loup, just at the outset of the war, I distributed three hundred of those garments, and sent packages to the back country settlements. But this was stopped by Colonel Ralston and his associate minister under the pretext of economy. What happened? While the white men could not have any more of those garments, the Indians were permitted to have them; and quantities of that clothing were sold at 241 cents a pound to rag pickers.
[Mr. Pouliot.l
Those who were in charge of the colonization offices could not buy them at any price. I tried to buy some and I was told that an order in council would be required. I bring this to the attention of hon. members to show once again the stupidity of some people, and their lack of heart. They did not understand that it was better to give to good Canadians those clothes that had been bought with the money of the Canadian people, and at least as many to whites as to Indians. Instead of that, only the Indians were served, and quantities were sold to rag collectors. Shame!
This was a simple way of furnishing warm clothing during the winter months so as to decrease the discomfort and poverty of certain areas. It is not necessary to have a complicated system and to consult the learned economists and the great social masters about what is done in this or any other country. Perhaps we may learn something from what happens in other countries, but we must consider first what happens in Canada. Those who contend that everybody in Canada is rich cannot be right, because twenty centuries ago our Lord said, You have the poor with you always. I have compassion for the crowd, because that is a condition of existence in this world. Conditions cannot be changed completely but they can be improved. That should be our aim without political partisanship. We should join hands to try to improve the condition of the rather small number of Canadians who need help so that they will be more contented to live in this country. I want my fellow citizens to be happy. These people are not exacting; they do not ask for much. All they are asking for is a kind thought and the consideration that they deserve because they are not able to enjoy the amenities of life that most of us do.
When I meet these people I feel great sorrow and I regret that I am not rich enough to help them. This cannot be done by the individual, it must be done by the state. But if the state does it it means that the money must come from the taxpayers. Those who receive gifts from the state should bow to the taxpayers in thanks. This applies to the youngest child in receipt of family allowances as it does to the centenarian who receives an old age pension; each one should bow to the taxpayer for what is being done for him, and at the same time should not forget that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is his best friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He should bow too.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am glad that this step is being taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A committee will be set up and hon. members will be able to submit their suggestions, if not personally at least through those

members of their party who will be on the committee. It is hoped that the committee can come to satisfactory conclusions as to how to improve the conditions of the poor, of the sick and of the disabled. There is no question but that we have prosperity in this country, but some sore spots still remain where people must suffer.
I would suppose that there are from 150 to 200 people in each constituency who suffer from disabilities that prevent their earning a livelihood for themselves and their families, '^ach hon. member should have a list of those -pedal cases in his constituency which could be submitted to the committee. I had one prepared by the health unit in my constituency and it was found that there are from 150 to 180 cases deserving special consideration.
This is not a contentious matter or one in connection with which hon. members might use unpleasant expressions or proclaim that they are the only ones who are willing to do anything for their fellow citizens. That would not be true because we all want to do something. I am sure that the committee will do excellent work as soon as it starts to sit and I hope this motion will be passed tonight.


Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few observations I should like to make on this motion, and they will be brief and frank. Since coming to this house I have heard old age pensions discussed at some length. Amendments were moved by the oppositions to the speech from the throne at the last session and at this session condemning the government for failure to abolish the means test in connection with old age pensions. The supporters of the government were asked to support those amendments because it was claimed that in the election campaign we promised to do away with the means test. The government of the day has one supporter who did not make that promise during the campaign. I said that I was not in favour of the removal of the means test until the needier cases had been given assistance.
There seems to be one party, or at least one member of a party, who seems to forget that the supporters of the government are just as willing and anxious as he is that the needy people in Canada should be granted assistance. He would have readers of Hansard believe from the remarks of this hon. member that the rest of us are inhuman, that he is the only spokesman for the less fortunate people of our country. To hear him talk you would think that he was put on this earth for the sole purpose of looking after the needy people, and he was the only one capable of doing this.
Old Age Security


Stanley Howard Knowles: One could not ask for a better purpose.


An hon. Member:: Whom are you talking about?
#


Mr. Lennard:: Good advertising for somebody, whoever he is.


John James Smith: I am not a
preacher nor a teacher and I have not had a university education. But I can speak on this subject from some practical experience. Since I was a young man I have been dealing with social services, not at the top level of government but at the lower municipal level. I was elected as a councillor and after serving two years in that position I was elected reeve of our municipality. I served as reeve for six consecutive years before coming here. According to the municipal records of Saskatchewan I was the youngest man ever to hold that office. I do not boast about that, but I am rather proud of it.
While I was municipal reeve I signed thousands of dollars' worth of cheques for social services, to help those who were not able to pay their hospital or doctor bills, to provide supplementary payments to old age pensioners and to those who were getting social aid. This idea of removing the means test in connection with old age pensions would be all right if the needier cases were looked after. I am thinking of those who are crippled, physically unfit, and through no fault of their own not able to look after themselves. I think they come first. Until they are taken care of I believe this talk of removing the means test from the old age pension is nothing but a lot of window-dressing and lip service.
If I may, I should like to refer to a case in my own constituency: In doing so, may I say that I am sure all other members of the house have had the same experience in their constituencies and also in almost all communities. When a municipal official collects taxes, just as the federal government does, to deal with social services, through taxation, they collect the money, make payments to those who are in need, and are never criticized if, in doing so, they provide, with a means test, money for social services to those who need it. It is possible that I might be a member of this house and not be very bright. There are many people who, I believe, are elected to the federal parliament possibly because the organization of the party put them there. But when a man is elected to a municipal council year after year he is running on his own steam.
When I was home at Christmas a man in my constituency asked me to witness a will. I knew him very well, and in speaking to him he brought up the question of the old age

Old Age Security
pension. I said to him that I did not think he needed the old age pension and he said, "No, I don't need it, but I would take it." I do not know exactly how much money he has% but I would suggest it is somewhere around $50,000 in bonds and cash. I said to him that the old age pension would not be any good to him, that he would get it and then he would have to pay it back in income tax. He said, "I am not paying any income tax now; I get enough from the interest on my bonds and the cash to keep my wife and myself." Anyway, he said the income tax would not take much of it.
Then there is another man in my constituency-and there are many such cases- who is a returned soldier. He has a small family and has purchased a farm under the Veterans' Land Act. He is paying income tax. That is all right, but at the same time this returned veteran is keeping his crippled mother. She was paralysed shortly after he came back from overseas, and his father died about the same time. She is bedridden or else in a wheel chair. He is supporting his mother, who is around sixty years of age, and as yet the state has not recognized its obligation to give that woman anything to keep her. I wonder if we would be justified in imposing more taxation on that veteran in order to give pensions to old people who really do not need them. I would like to see the means test broadened. We might get away with it in this house, but if a member of a municipal council handled social services in that way, he would last about as long as a snowball would last in a hot furnace.
I am not going to speak a great deal longer, but there are a few things I should like to say further. Let us keep our social services as a social service. The old age pension is a social service. I commend the minister for introducing the motion to set up a committee to investigate this matter because I think it needs investigation. I am not too surprised at the attitude of the C.C.F. party. They have always advocated something for nothing, but I am a little surprised at the Conservative party and the stand that some of their members have taken on this question. To hear the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew) speak on this subject you would think it was as simple as one, two, three; and the same applies to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). I do not know just why they take that stand.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Oh, oh.


John James Smith: I have the floor. I listened to a lot of your speeches and did not interrupt. The premier of Ontario takes a little different stand. I heard him say over the radio, and it was reported in

the press, that old age pensions were the No. 1 problem of the Dominion of Canada. If it is the No. 1 problem, then it is not as simple as one, two, three. I am rather glad to note that there is at least one man in the Progressive Conservative party who is still speaking with common sense. If anyone is in doubt about where I stand on the question of old age pensions I hope I have made my position clear. My political opponents, if I have any, do not need to worry about the people in my constituency. I will see that they get my speech. A lot of people are worrying about how they are going to answer these .little papers we received from newspapers. I am going to send them a copy of* my speech and let the chips fall where they may. If anyone wants to insult me that is fine. They can say anything they like about me. They can say that I am an enemy of the old people but this is not true. My mother taught me when I was young to respect the aged and I have always done so. I am always mindful of the aged and am perfectly willing to help them any time I can do so.
I am not a poet, but there is a poem, part of which I remember from my school days. I will tell you the story leading up to it. The poem was in the Saskatchewan reader and possibly some members may have read it. There was an old lady who was trying to cross the street. Every time she went to cross the street she had to back up because of vehicles coming along and stopping her. There was a gang of boys farther down the street who were laughing at the old lady and joking about her plight. According to the poem one boy said:
She's somebody's mother, boys, you know;
I will help you across, if you wish to go.
I always remember that any time I am in a crowd. I am most mindful of the aged, and when I have a chance to help them I do so. I am not boasting, but I am rather proud of the fact that two weeks ago Sunday, when we were through curling, my desk-mate let me off at the Chateau Laurier and I was waiting for the bus. I was standing in a crowd of some twenty men and women. I was not out in front. A little old lady came along, passed by some and said to me, "Son, will you help me cross the street?" I said, "Lady, I will be glad to do so." I do not know why she picked me. I do not think I look so kind, but I was watching, and I always do, for some aged person to help if I can.
There always has been a means test with old age pensions, there is now, and there always will be. The minister has introduced

this motion to send the matter to a committee and I hope that the result will be successful. Regardless of whether or not it is on a contributory basis, we will always have a group of people whom we will have to help further and there will always be a means test. There has been a lot of talk about public opinion. I do not think public opinion is too strong on this issue. I believe the people of Canada realize that the government-our friends in the opposition will say it was under pressure, but let that pass- has recognized the fact that we must look after the unfortunate; that, as the saying is, the strong must carry the weak. That will always be the case; but in regard to having this free and that free, or getting something for nothing, I believe this idea is petering out.


Angus MacInnis: think we can say one thing for the hon. member who has just taken his seat; that is, he has the courage of his convictions. I have before me excerpts from speeches made in the House of Commons and the Senate-I suppose I should say "the other place"-in 1926 and 1927 in which I find thoughts very similar to the speech to which we have just listened. Perhaps I might give one quotation. I shall not name the person who made the speech, but it is taken from Senate Hansard for 1926, the year the old age pension bill had passed the Commons and was turned down by the other place:
If this bill passes, the obligation of the children to look after their father and mother and grandmother and grandfather goes by the board ... Is it judicious for us to impose upon our country such socialistic legislation as this-because it is nothing else-when there is no call for it?
The only difference between what this gentleman was saying in 1926 and what my hon. friend said tonight is that this is 1950, and the world has made considerable social progress since 1926. In 1926 many people called the old age pension act socialistic legislation and put the blame for it on the two labour men who were in the house at that time. Tonight, however, there are very few members who would get up in this house and call old age pensions socialistic legislation. Perhaps the prime minister of that day had a better understanding of the social implications of a measure of this kind than the member who has taken his seat. The prime minister at that time was Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, and this is what he said in introducing the measure:
There is need for society to assist in the protection of its members against a condition which simultaneously places burdens upon the worker whose day's work is done, and on the worker whose
Old Age Security
day's work is just beginning. If the young are to be given a fair start in life, the care of the aged should not be their first responsibility.
I think most people would agree with that statement.
Coming to the resolution before us, I am sure it must be very disappointing to a great many people in Canada. The matter of old age pensions has been before the people of this country ever since it first became an issue in 1926, and it became law in 1927. Since I came here twenty years ago there has not been a session when we have not debated this question. It was debated at considerable length in 1931, and if I had time I should like to put on record some of the statements made at that time. This will be a disappointment to a great many people in Canada because they have been looking forward, not to a committee to investigate the abolition of the means test but to the abolition of the means test itself. As a matter of fact the country came very close to having the means test abolished in 1945, when it was included in the proposals made by the federal government to the dominion-provincial conference of that year. I shall read just a short paragraph which appears at page 37 of the proposals of the government of Canada:
As part of the general proposals now put before the conference, it is proposed that the federal government would establish a system of national old age pensions entirely financed and administered by the federal government, and paid at the uniform rate of $30 per month regardless of means to men and women aged seventy and over in all parts of Canada.
Nothing could be clearer than that proposal. The government of the day, a Liberal government, was prepared to abolish the means test for those seventy years of age and over, and there was no question of where the money was to come from. They knew all about that. They knew, because during the war they were able to find all the money required to pay for our war needs. If we can find money to buy guns surely we can find money to look after those who built up this country, the fathers and mothers of those living in this country today.
I have three or four objections to the resolution now before us. In the first place I regard it as merely a stalling action on the part of the government. This idea occurred to the minister himself, and he referred to it. It would be strange if it had not occurred to the minister, because it is a tactic or manoeuvre with which this government is very familiar. In the session of 1943 and 1944 we set up a parliamentary committee to consider a draft bill providing for national health insurance. Perhaps that bill was not brought before the cabinet, and certainly it never received the endorsation of the cabinet, but

Old Age Security
program, financed by contributions based on ability to pay. That is our position. Let me say further that we are opposed to the insurance principle, where each one takes out according to what he puts in. I am opposed to such a system because it is impossible to put it into effect. I am also opposed to it because, out of the incomes the great mass of the Canadian people are receiving individually today they cannot put by, either voluntarily or compulsorily, sufficient funds to take care of the various contingencies, including old age, which they will have to meet sooner or later. They have never been able to do that, and they are not able to do it now.
Let me draw to the attention of the house just a sentence from the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada to the minister of finance of that time on the operations of the bank for the year 1944. In this paragraph the governor was referring to the sale of victory bonds, five or six issues of which had been sold at that time. This is what he said:
For many Individuals victory bonds and1 war savings certificates purchased during the war period represent the first significant backlog of savings they have ever been able to build up-
That is not the end of the sentence, but the other part is not as important, and each could be a sentence in itself. The other part is:
-and it is apparent that some high-pressure promoters of dubious or worthless securities are attempting to exploit these savings.
We will leave that part out for the moment, and consider the first part of the sentence, where Mr. Towers makes it clear that never before the war were the great masses of our people in this great and rich country able to save anything worth while. But they saved during the war partly because there was full employment, and, partly, because they could not buy certain consumers' goods and, besides, because of compulsory saving.
If the national income were distributed equitably, a contributory system might work; but, as I said before, its administration would be extremely expensive. But the income of the country is not distributed equitably; and any attempt by compulsion to make people who are already living below the standard of health and decency to provide through compulsory contributions for their old age will only intensify their poverty now, and means will have to be taken to make up for the income taken away.
Let me draw to the attention of the house the present position, so far as savings are concerned. The great mass of the people in Canada who had war bonds and war savings certificates have them no longer. The only other savings they have will be
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
cash in savings accounts in the chartered banks. Every year a statement of loans and deposits, both savings and current, as at September 30, is tabled, and every hon. member has access to it. That return gives the number of accounts in the various categories. Those categories are five in number, and constitute (1) deposits of $1,000 or less; (2) deposits over $1,000 and up to $5,000; (3) deposits over $5,000 and up to $25,000; (4) deposits over $25,000 and up to $100,000; and (5) those in excess of $100,000.
I have the figures for 1948 and, with the exception of the fact that the total amount in the savings banks was greater in 1949 than in 1948, there is very little difference. We find that there were 6,605,952 persons who had savings accounts in our chartered banks, to a total amount of $4,048,535,319.
It looks pretty good, when we see that 6,605,952 Canadians have savings accounts. But the savings accounts of $1,000 or less numbered 5,718,549 and aggregate deposits totalling $953,101,895, or about $166 each.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Most of them must have about a dollar and a half.


Angus MacInnis: While 5,718,549 persons had $953,101,895 in savings accounts in the banks, we find that 887,403 persons had $3,095,433,424. If those figures mean anything at all, they must mean that the great bulk of the Canadian people have never been able to save enough to take care of a rainy day- and never will, under our present system of distributing wealth.
I said a moment ago that what we should be discussing now is not whether we have old age pensions on a contributory basis, on an insurance basis, with a means test, or without a means test. We should be considering an over-all social security program.
A large number of our unemployed are not covered by any benefit fund. Sick people are not covered; invalids are not covered; medical services are not provided; nor are hospital services, except in one or two provinces.
We have considerable social security services in the country, and it would be folly to deny it. But what we should seek to do is to integrate all of these under one scheme. The reduction in administrative costs alone would justify our doing so. I appreciate that this would require constitutional changes; but we have made constitutional changes before, and we should be prepared to make them again.
In the few minutes left, let me touch upon the question as to how we are going to provide these social services. During his speech the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MARCH 24, 1950
Martin) was good enough to refer to a statement I made in the house last year. If I may do so without seeming to place too much value on my own opinion, I should like to quote four lines from the excerpt read by the minister. They are these:
When we provide social services of any kind we are providing material things such as food, clothing, shelter and services of one kind or another, which must be produced by those who are working.
I think most hon. members will agree with that-that what we are providing for our old people is food, clothing, shelter and certain services. All of these things that our elder citizens will consume in 1950 will be produced in 1950. What they consumed in 1949 was produced in 1949. You cannot save eggs when you are twenty-one to eat when you are seventy. Nor can anybody save anything else. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) put that point quite clearly when he spoke in this debate. I am prepared to go along that far with the hon. member for Peace River and his party, but I cannot stay with them when they maintain that we can transfer the ownership of commodities from one person to another by merely issuing money.
Let us understand our economic system. The various parties to production have claims of ownership on the total value of the production. If all of the production cannot be consumed it is not because there is not enough money put into circulation in the production process; it is because, as I pointed out in the case of the savings account, some people receive more than they are able to consume while a great many receive much less than they are able to consume. The providing of social services is a means of equalizing the distribution of the national income. That cannot be done without taking from those who have more than they need and giving to those who have less than they need. I do not think anyone should be ashamed of taking part in organizing a measure that will perform that service.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) spoke on this matter. I do not see him here tonight but I wish to thank him for the kindly reference he made to myself. When he tried to tell the house how these measures could be financed I felt that either one of us, to use the language of the street, was "nuts". Because of the kind things he said about me I am not prepared to say which one.
I see you are getting uneasy, Mr. Speaker, and I shall relieve your uneasiness right away. May I say to the minister that this resolution is unworthy of this house.


An hon. Member:: In your opinion.


Angus MacInnis: And a very good opinion it is. What we should be concerning ourselves with
Old Age Security
at this time is how this great and wealthy country can provide for its people so that no Canadian will be in want. Either we should do that or we should stop boasting about the greatness and the wealth of our country. Unless we do what I propose we are not making proper use of our wealth.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am rising for the first time during the debate on this motion to deal with certain points that have been raised and particularly because of some comments which have clearly indicated a misunderstanding of the position taken by this party in regard to old age pensions. One of the hon. members who spoke this evening saw fit to take me to task for what he thought was my position in regard to old age pensions. I do not blame him for his error because I would be surprised if he had not absorbed some of the propaganda which has been employed to create an impression which has no relation to the realities of what the situation has been and is today.
The thing that is most disturbing to me with regard to this motion is not the subject matter of the motion or the fact that information will be obtained in this way; it is the indication that has been given in advance of the motion being dealt with that the government has receded from the position it took so definitely in 1945 and in fact on many occasions since then.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If that is the situation.


George Alexander Drew: I am demonstrating clearly that it is the situation and that there is good cause for alarm and concern in the indications we have had as to the position of the government in connection with these immensely important requirements for the care of the aged people in this country.
During the course of this debate the suggestion has been made that with a contributory old age pension plan many of our old people would be deprived of the pensions they require because they would not have had an opportunity to pay into the fund an amount that would provide for proper pensions. That is absolutely contrary to every suggestion that has been made in regard to contributory plans.
After all, it is the same thing as unemployment insurance. The amounts are fixed, the contributions are fixed, but in order to qualify for the amounts provided by the statute it has never been stated that it is necessary for a person to have contributed a capital amount necessary to provide the payments. I want to make it quite clear that at no time, either in any suggestion of mine or in the suggestions put forward by this government at a

Old Age Security
time when they were putting suggestions forward without any qualifications in regard to old age pensions without a means test, was there a suggestion that these pensions would not be payable as a matter of right in accordance with the stated amounts. The question whether a pensioner might have had time to make full contributions in order to provide for his pension was never the subject of consideration.
In any remarks that I make about a contributory system of old age pensions I wish to remove any possible doubt that the pension should be payable at the stated amount to every pensioner, no matter how long he has been contributing. I say that now so that it cannot be subsequently suggested, as has been suggested, that the contributory plan we are proposing is one which would leave a number of our older people without provision for their old age, and in other cases would provide only a limited amount of pension. I have said that there was some reason to be concerned about the change of the position of the government as to this matter. There is not any question about it that in the submissions to the dominion-provincial conference in 1945 the dominion government proposed a plan of old age pensions without a means test. That was not a conditional proposal. It was not a proposal that was put forward with any suggestion that the dominion government still had to call in a lot of expert advice to find out whether or not they could do it. It was a definite and positive proposal, and I can say, as others here can say, that the provincial governments there represented discussed it with the understanding that the proposal was definite and would be carried out.
The explanation for not carrying out that provision was not that the government did not have the information. That is only a new discovery. The explanation that was given was that they had not been able to get agreement with the provinces, and consequently these beneficent provisions have not been carried out.


Mr. Mutch:: That is a statement of fact.


George Alexander Drew: It is the kind of fact that some of the members of the government and their supporters have been repeating without any relation to reality or truth.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You should recognize better than anyone else if that is the truth.


George Alexander Drew: Of course I recognize that the hon. member who has just spoken now does not agree with the plan that was put forward in 1945 anyway. I am talking about the statement put forward by the government and

which enunciated principles that have been roundly condemned by the member who has just spoken.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: That might be an honest opinion. I was not talking through my hat.


George Alexander Drew: I do not question that it was an honest opinion. It is a very comforting thing to find an honest opinion expressed once in a while on that side of the house. The point I am making is that the speech the hon. member made in Toronto to a group of businessmen, and which he repeated in the house with certain explanations and amplifications, was a speech that took issue in a very clear and understandable way with the principles enunciated at that time by the dominion government. Those principles were stated without reservation, and perhaps the hon. member may have also noticed that, when I said that the explanation given by the government was that they had not been able to carry this out because there was not agreement with the provinces, immediately the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) nodded their approval of that statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What statement was that?


George Alexander Drew: The statement that the reason the government had not been able to carry out the program that they put forward in 1945 was that they had not obtained agreement of the provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that not right?


George Alexander Drew: No, it is not right, and it has never been true at any time. It has never had an atom of truth behind it, never at any time.


Murdo William Martin: Mere assertion is not argument.


George Alexander Drew: No one knows that better than you do because you have been asserting this for years without any relation to what the facts are. In a few minutes I will demonstrate by actual quotations from different members of the government just how far the government has moved. This was the statement of Mr. Ilsley on June 27, 1946, in regard to this very matter, to be found at page 2914 of Hansard of that date:
Nor can it introduce the over-all plan-
He was speaking of the government.
-of social security we had contemplated without at the same time reaching a satisfactory financial agreement with the provinces. Several of the major objectives of the comprehensive dominion proposals which were announced last August must therefore be held in abeyance for the time being. They remain, nevertheless, an essential part of the program of this government.

That was old age pensions without a means test. There is no question about that. They did not have to inquire at that time whether they should or should not have old age pensions without a means test. On June 24, 1947, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare had this to say at page 4596 of Hansard of that date:
My hon. friend knows that in the proposals which the government made to the provinces, proposals which were our policy in 1945 and every day since have continued to be our policy, this government is prepared to bring in legislation once it can get agreement with the provinces on fiscal matters.
He did not say that they had to find out from a committee which kind of old age pensions they were going to have. They were prepared to bring in legislation without asking anyone else to tell them what they could do. That has been the position that has been stated by members of the government. Then the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on March 9 last year said at page 1302 of Hansard:
The proposal for contributory over-all social insurance was one of those put forward by the federal government at the last dominion-provincial conference and about which it was not possible to reach an agreement. There has been no indication of any change since that time in the attitude of the representatives of the provinces who were opposed to the proposal put forward by the federal government.
The provinces did not oppose that proposal at any time, and I challenge any member of the house to find one place in the record of the dominion-provincial conference where the proposal for old age pensions without a means test was opposed or challenged by the representatives of any single provincial government in Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will meet that challenge right now. The proposals with regard to old age pensions put forward by the government in 1945 were a part of a pattern including proposals for health insurance, public investment and a whole series of matters. As my hon. friend knows, the proposals could not be taken singly. They had to be viewed as part of a pattern, and that pattern was opposed. My hon. friend, who was premier of the senior province at that time, was one of those who headed a government that was not prepared to enter into a fiscal agreement with the dominion government, which was a condition precedent to the whole proposal put forward by the government.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the applause that followed that wholly inaccurate statement is merely an indication of how little members know of what took place.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: The people of Canada all know that you sabotaged that conference, and you know it.
Old Age Security


George Alexander Drew: You see, Mr. Speaker, we are merely receiving further demonstrations of how otherwise sensible men are misled by propaganda regarding things they do not know anything about at all. I intend to remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who was not one of the representatives at that conference, that the government of the province of Ontario never at any time opposed this proposal, never once. I remind the hon. member that the conference considering these proposals adjourned on May 3, 1946, with the statement by the then minister of finance (Mr. Ilsley) that they needed time to consider the various proposals then before them; and on that day the conference adjourned sine die with the clear understanding, stated by the minister, that the conference would meet again when those plans had been examined.
The financial measures to which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is referring were not financial measures settled in a conference. Those financial measures were terms stated in June, 1946, without consultation with the provinces. They were terms the provinces were told they could take or leave; and they had no relationship to these general proposals put forward in the summer of 1945. Those proposals did not enter into the financial arrangements in any way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Well, of course, that simply demonstrates the ignorance of hon. members in regard to what did take place. The financial proposals put forward in June dealt with the financial arrangements the dominion government alone was prepared to offer in return for the provinces vacating certain tax fields. That was all. There are no other terms in that proposal; not one reference in those agreements to health, social security, construction or anything else.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: We got tired waiting for them.


George Alexander Drew: I could not help hearing that interjection. The government did not get tired waiting for them. The conference adjourned on May 3, 1946, with the statement by the Minister of Finance that they required time to examine those proposals. Then, without waiting to reconvene the conference, they said, "Take these, or else."


James Joseph McCann: They never promised to reconvene the conference. I was there at that very time.


George Alexander Drew: The minister who has just spoken was not a delegate at that conference.

Old Age Security


James Joseph McCann: No; you were the outstanding delegate.


George Alexander Drew: I remember very well who the delegates were, and the minister was not one of them.


James Joseph McCann: No, I was not a delegate; but I was a listener.


George Alexander Drew: If the hon. gentleman was a listener and wants to find out what actually did take place let him read the verbatim record. He will find that just before the motion was put the present premier of Nova Scotia, who was also premier at that time, said, "I take it this does not mean that the conference will not meet again?" Immediately following those words the question was put, and the conference adjourned on that understanding.


James Joseph McCann: But there was no answer to that question.


George Alexander Drew: No answer to that question? Any honest man-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Joseph McCann: They are all dishonest but you.


George Alexander Drew: Any honest man certainly would have raised some question himself if that had not been the understanding in the mind of everyone present. It was the understanding upon which the conference adjourned, and it was the understanding which led to a continuing demand for that conference to be reconvened.


James Joseph McCann: Why did seven provinces enter into agreements if that was the understanding?


George Alexander Drew: I realize, of course, that at this hour on Friday evening the minister may find it a little difficult to contain himself; but I wish he would do so for a short time, because he might learn something of what took place at the conference at which apparently he was present but did not listen.


James Joseph McCann: My recollection is as good as yours.


George Alexander Drew: The proposals put forward by the dominion government were not the only proposals put forward at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: The loud laugh bespeaks the vacant mind. They were not the only proposals. Every province had proposals to put forward. The province of Ontario had printed proposals, which can be examined today in

addition to the verbatim record. This is what the province of Ontario said in clear and unmistakable terms about old age pensions, as it appears at page 35 of its official submission:
It is recommended that old age pensions should be paid to all citizens over sixty-five without a means test.
That is definite enough. That was the position we took then and the position we have continued to take. That indicates that, quite contrary to there being any opposition, the province of Ontario had clearly and definitely stated what it wanted in regard to old age pensions.
That position should not be so difficult for some members of the government to accept. When one of the members of the C.C.F. party offered the suggestion that at that time the dominion government had proposed that old age pensions should be paid without a means test, sharp objection was taken. In making this statement I say very definitely that our proposals have always been for a contributory plan, but I recognize the fact that the C.C.F. party has taken a different position. I do want to say very definitely that the hon. member of the C.C.F. party was quite right when he said this had been put forward by the dominion, and that old age pensions would be payable not as a contributory plan in the ordinary way but by the dominion government co-operating with the provinces. However, they were going to charge a special tax to everyone for the purpose of these measures; and that was definitely one of the things to which the government of Ontario raised some objection.
One of the proposals of the dominion government was that there should be a poll tax, estimated at $5, for everyone in the country sixteen years of age or over, whatever their income might be. We did say definitely that we did not believe the poll tax was a proper system of taxation, and I certainly have no regrets at having expressed opposition to a plan of that kind. I notice that suggestion has been dropped ever since that time, and it is not now proposed that any plan of this kind may be financed by a poll tax. That poll tax, I may add, was disguised. It was not called by that objectionable name, but was called a registration fee. But it was to be paid by everyone sixteen years old or over; and the Ontario government was by no means the only government to object to that proposal.
When the suggestion was made that the C.C.F. member who raised this point was quite wrong, I could not help recalling a speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who is reported as having said at Armstrong on May 20, 1949:
Our objective is health services for all at the expense of the state.

That is clear enough. That was a positive statement, which I presume was supposed to be taken seriously at that time. I grant that most of the other ministers did not go quite that far. On June 16, 1949, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) was reported as saying:
The government will do away with the means test for old age pensions.
I emphasize those words. He did not say, "We will appoint a committee to find out if we are going to do away with it, or if it can be done away with." He said the government would do away with the means test. Then on May 28, at Nelson, British Columbia, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew), as reported by the Canadian Press, had this to say; and there has been no subsequent amendment of this statement:
Provision of hospital services for the people of Canada and compulsory contributory superannuation are measures expected for the next session of parliament if the Liberal government is returned.
No committee, no inquiry, no doubts! The government knew what it was going to do. May I read it again:
Provision of hospital services for the people of Canada and compulsory contributory superannuation are measures expected for the next session of parliament if the Liberal government is returned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the second session.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, yes; that, of course, referred to the last session.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are getting closer over there.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, it might be a long time-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; I meant the two groups were getting closer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, old age pensions are not getting closer?


George Alexander Drew: Of course, it is not so many months ago, as time goes, that we were told that socialists were only Liberals in a hurry. I hope the hon. member has not forgotten that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That the Saskatchewan people were Liberals in a hurry.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, yes.


An hon. Member:: Get it straight.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no. I have the text of that.


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


George Alexander Drew: Then naturally we should be interested in what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) had to say. On June 8, speaking at Oshawa, as reported
Old Age Security
in the Toronto Daily Star of June 9, the Minister of National Health and Welfare had this to say:
The Liberal government plans to call a dominion-provincial conference to discuss the establishment of a contributory scheme for old age pensions to start at sixty-five once the election is over and the political heat is done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is exactly what this government is doing.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no.


Mr. Pearkes:: It is taking them a long time to carry it out.


George Alexander Drew: That is exactly what the government is not doing. That is exactly what the government is failing to do. Instead of calling a dominion-provincial conference to put into effect a contributory old age pension scheme at the age of sixty-five without a means test, as stated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on June 8, they are appointing a committee to find out whether they should even suggest a plan of this kind. That is exactly what they are now proposing. They want to find out from a committee whether or not what they said then should really be put into effect. Oh, no; it is not the same thing by any manner of means.
This is not anything new, Mr. Speaker, because in 1945, which was the year in which the conference to which I have referred met, in an election which had taken place earlier one of the statements published by the national Liberal committee, in an advertisement put forward under the heading "Just Plain Sense!" is this one, which is No. 9:
9. Contributory old age pensions-higher pensions, lower age limits, no "means" test.


An hon. Member:: Read the one on the back.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: They deny that one.


George Alexander Drew: No; the one on the back did not deal with old age pensions.


An hon. Member:: No, it did not.


George Alexander Drew: It did not. You are quite right. That was another Liberal advertisement. These were all positive and definite statements. It is not the intention of this party to vote against the setting up of a committee if that is the only way the government will proceed. Certainly if the government is not prepared to carry out these undertakings and the undertakings put forward by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to call a conference to put this into effect, then obviously-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is there not going to be a conference in the fall?
1128	HOUSE OF
Old Age Security


George Alexander Drew: Oh, there is to be a conference in the fall because the financial agreements come to an end at the conclusion of this coming financial year. That is the only reason there is going to be a conference in the fall. Let there be no suggestion that this is a virtuous proposal by the dominion government. They waited until the last minute. These agreements are running out. There is to be a conference; and the only reason they are calling a conference, which has been demanded ever since the adjournment of the conference in 1946, is that they are obliged to have it in order that there can be new agreements. There is no other reason for it; and no one need expect anything else from them.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Whom will you convince?


George Alexander Drew: Not you. I recognize that fact. After all, I am speaking for those who are prepared actually to judge the facts and to devote some reason and understanding to the problems that are before us.


George James McIlraith: And who did not see you in the earlier conference.


George Alexander Drew: As to this proposal, the only thing that could be done would be for the government still to call a conference together immediately to deal with this subject. If they did that, and if the dominion government had the information which it claimed to have in 1945, this conference could dispose of this problem before this present session finishes, and the necessary legislation could be passed by the parliament of Canada so that the result of the conference could be interpreted in effective legislation before we rise some time a few months from now.
I see that it is eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: On Monday, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)

will move the motion that appears in his name in Votes and Proceedings of Thursday, March 23, and which reads as follows:
That on Monday, the 27th of March Instant, and on Wednesday, the 29th of March instant, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all business except the introduction of bills, questions and notices of motions for the production of papers.
Without this motion we would spend the day on pipe line bills. On Monday we shall call Bills Nos. 16, 17, 56 and 54. Those are the four bills with regard to which motions were passed yesterday and today; two of the bills are sponsored by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), one by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), and one by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. May hew). I understand that if these bills are not passed by both houses of parliament and sanctioned before March 31 the statutes will lapse.
If we were fortunate enough to complete this work we would take up the motion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the motion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), that is, the motion on which the debate was just adjourned and the motion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to refer his estimates to the committee on external affairs. If we were a little more fortunate we would take up resolutions No. 4 and No. 9 on today's order paper.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the bills be called in the order named by the minister?


Alphonse Fournier: Bill No. 16, to amend the Agricultural Products Act, and Bill No. 17, to amend the Agricultural Prices Support Act, will be the first ones called. I really think the next one will be the bill to amend the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, 1947; and the fourth will be the fisheries bill.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 27, 1950