1950-03-29

Mr. C. D. Coyle (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, we have with us today in the gallery to our left a number of the members of the Holstein breeders association of the county of Elgin, which happens to be the county I represent. Through you I should like to extend to them a cordial welcome and to express the hope that they have an enjoyable time while they are in Ottawa.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: Mr. Speaker, on March 8 the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked me if I intended to table the report being prepared by Messrs. J. D. Woods and Gordon on the organization and business practices of the national film board. At that time I had not received the report, and while I did not give a definite answer, I indicated that I expected to table it.
The investigation was undertaken at my request after consultation with Right Hon. Vincent Massey, chairman of the royal commission on the arts, letters and sciences. The terms of reference under which the investigation was conducted were discussed with Mr. Massey, who informed me that they would serve his purpose as well and that the resulting report would be useful to him.
The report has now been received, and I have given preliminary consideration to its recommendations, some of which are along lines on which the government and the board have already been proceeding, others of which will require special consideration by the film commissioner, the board and the government.
Meanwhile, I feel that it would be of advantage to make the report public so that hon. members and others interested may also have the opportunity of considering its recommendations and the reasons given for them. I would accordingly ask the leave
of the house to table a copy of the report. In offering to table it, I should emphasize that it is not a governmental document which there is any obligation to table, and that I should not like my action in this case to be construed in the future as a precedent which would prevent the government from securing confidential expert advice in dealing with administrative problems.
In the present case I think there is something to be gained by discussion of the problems set forth in the report and of the solutions suggested.
I am gratified, and I am sure most hon. members will be equally gratified, by the tribute paid by these experienced business consultants to the achievements of the board and to the high level of service of the board's employees.
The report indicates that where there are weaknesses in the organization and methods of the board, they are in most cases the natural outcome of a rapid period of growth under the exceptional circumstances of war. The situation was aggravated by the obviously inefficient arrangements for housing the board's activities, which were, in turn, the inevitable result of the space problem all government agencies have faced during and since the war.
I shall not attempt today to indicate how far and how rapidly the government will be able to implement the recommendations, some of which incidentally do not call for immediate action. Since I asked Messrs. J. D. Woods and Gordon to make the investigation, Mr. W. Arthur Irwin has been appointed government film commissioner, and, as the report itself suggests, the commissioner should have ample opportunity to review the organization and activities of the board before final decisions are made.
I should like to take advantage of this occasion to say a word about another matter relating to the film board. The screening of the national film board, undertaken last year in conformity with the government's established security regulations, has proceeded to the point where it was possible for me on February 21 to direct the commissioner to inform all government departments and agencies concerned that the board was in a position to undertake work of a secret nature. This of course applies to the Department of

National Film Board
National Defence, and on the same day I advised the Minister of National Defence accordingly.
The screening of all employees of the board has been completed. Action has been taken in the case of a very few employees about whose trustworthiness the board was unable to feel any definite assurance. I hope no hon. member will press for details in the house about these matters, at least not until he has discussed confidentially with me any case that may be giving him concern. The reason is the one I gave the house on December 7, and which I should now like to repeat, namely that:
It would be a grave injustice to such persons- against whom there is no charge of wrongdoing, but merely the absence of satisfactory evidence of trustworthiness-to proclaim their names publicly and thereby injure their reputations and their chances of alternative employment. What I wish to emphasize is that it is not the government which would be hurt by publicity but the men and women whose reliability and trustworthiness are under examination; and nobody wants to be unfair and unjust to individuals.
I think I should make one other point. The process of screening of government employees is a continuous one. There is the usual turnover, with new employees being taken on; but it is the earnest hope of all who have been concerned with this matter that the number of cases of untrustworthiness in the future will be as rare as they have so far proved to be.


Mr. Fraser:: I should like to thank the minister for tabling the report. I think it is in the interests of the welfare of the national film board for the present and the future. I hope there is more than one copy of it; otherwise members will not have a chance to go through it.


Mr. Fleming:: I do not want any of the details that the minister suggests should not be asked for, but would the minister care to indicate the number of the cases to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Graydon:: How many ministers are there over there?


Mr. Martin:: Twenty-one.


An hon. Member:: More than there are on your side.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I should tell the house that during the course of the screening there were some 580 odd files examined, and as a result thereof, and for reasons which could be attributed to the security screening, there were three separations from the board.


Mr. Coldwell:: I should like to ask a supplementary question, as to how the screening

was carried on in connection with the three employees of the film board to whom reference -has been made. Were they given a hearing before their employment was terminated? What opportunity did they have to meet the charges, if we can call them charges, that were made against them? Was any such opportunity afforded?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I said the persons concerned were given every consideration. As I have said before, it is a question of trustworthiness, and in that connection I would refer to what Mr. Ilsley said in the house in 1948, that there are no precise tests by which one can judge the matter of trustworthiness.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Were they transferred to
another department, or just let out?


Robert Henry Winters: There was a separation from the board. I have not followed the cases since that time.



OLEOMARGARINE


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement. Last night, in the course of discussion of Bill No. 17 in committee, the. hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) asked some questions as to the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) answered and said that the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada was better than 3 million pounds per month, making an approximate total of 40 million pounds for the year 1949. Some exception was taken to this statement, and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) asked that the matter be laid over, and requested that I make a statement today.
The total amount of oleomargarine manufactured in Canada last year was 73,958,000 pounds, and owing to the manufacture of oleomargarine the consumption of butter decreased in 1949 compared with 1948 to the extent of three and one-half million pounds per month, making a total of 42,345,461 pounds. It was this figure that the Minister of Agriculture used in his reply to the hon. member for Souris. The remainder of the oleomargarine either went into increased consumption or took the place of lard or shortening.
There were other questions asked by the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton). Unfortunately I have not received yesterday's Hansard yet, and I am not sure of the exact questions. I will try to answer them later.


Mr. Drew:: As a matter of information, from what source does the parliamentary assistant obtain the figure of the decrease in consumption of butter in relation to the consumption of oleomargarine?


Robert McCubbin: This is a statement given to us by the dairy officials of our department. I am only taking the figures of the amount of butter used in 1948 compared with the consumption in 1049.


George Alexander Drew: After all, a statement of this kind is only useful if the basis upon which it is given is understood. The parliamentary assistant confirmed the earlier answer that was given as to the production of oleomargarine, namely, that 73 million odd pounds were manufactured last year. He went on to explain that the resulting decrease in butter sales amounted to something over 3 million pounds a month. I think it would be helpful to know how that figure can be determined.


Robert McCubbin: Mr. Speaker, it is just as I have said. I can give to the leader of the opposition the figures indicating the consumption of butter per month in 1948 and the consumption in 1949, in which year there was a decrease compared with 1948. We take the stand that the 73 million pounds of oleomargarine represents what consumers ate, or what was used in place of lard or shortening.


Mr. Cardiff:: In the statement just made by the parliamentary assistant, he said, as I understood him, that some 70 million pounds of oleomargarine had been used. I think he meant manufactured, did he not? Did he say "used" or "manufactured"?


Robert McCubbin: I said that some 74 million pounds were manufactured, and that between 71 and 72 million pounds had disappeared.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Do I understand, then, that in 1949 we used 72 million pounds of oleomargarine?


Robert McCubbin: We know how much was manufactured last year and we know what disappeared, by being used as a spread or made into lard or shortening; and some may be still in store. That quantity has disappeared, however.



PRECIOUS METALS MARKING ACT


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 83 (from the Senate), to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act, 1946.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Questions



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Bryce:: 1.	How many T.B. free areas have been established in Canada, by provinces, up to and including 1949?
2.	What percentage of the cattle population, by provinces, would this represent?
3.	How many areas, by provinces, are being tested this year?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	Number of restricted areas for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis by provinces, established by orders in council up to December 31,	1949:	Newfoundland, nil; Prince
Edward Island, 3; Nova Scotia, 18; New Brunswick, 15; Quebec, 70; Ontario, 52; Manitoba, 94; Saskatchewan, 169; Alberta, 28; British Columbia, 3; total, 452.
2.	Percentage of cattle population by provinces in accepted areas: Newfoundland, nil; Prince Edward Island, 100 per cent; Nova Scotia, 100 per cent; New Brunswick, 100 per cent; Quebec, 83 per cent; Ontario 97 per cent; Manitoba, 76 per cent; Saskatchewan, 52 per cent; Alberta, 16 per cent; British Columbia, 34 per cent.
3.	Number of areas tested or under test in fiscal period 1949-50: Prince Edward Island, 3; Nova Scotia, 6; New Brunswick, 2; Quebec, 35; Ontario, 44; Manitoba, 32; Saskatchewan, 39; Alberta, 5; British Columbia, 1.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Sinnott:: 1.	How much equipment is held by the Department of National Defence at Macdonald, Manitoba?
2.	Can any of this equipment be bought for public use?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	2,250 units of engineering, technical and armoured service equipment including personnel and load carrying vehicles.
2.	No. These are required by the Department of National Defence.


NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE    ESTABLISHMENT AND STRENGTH
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What is the present actual strength of officers and men respectively in (a) the Royal Canadian Navy: (b) the Canadian Army; (c) the Royal Canadian Air Force?
2.	What is the authorized full establishment of officers and men respectively in (a) the Royal Canadian Navy; (b) the Canadian Army; (c) the Royal Canadian Air Force?

Questions
3.	What Is the present authorized ceiling for recruitment of officers and men respectively in (a) the Royal Canadian Navy; (b) the Canadian Army; (c) the Royal Canadian Air Force?
4.	What are the same figures as asked for under questions 1, 2 and 3 respectively, for the reserve navy, army and air force?


Mr. Blanchette:: (As at February 28, 1950)
1.	Actual strength:
Officers Men Total
(a)	Navy	
1,292	8,029	9,321(b)	Army	
2,756	17,966	20,722(c)	Air	
3,127	14,141	17,268Total	7,175	40,136	47,3112.	Authorized establishment:
Officers Men Total
(a)	Navy	
1,399	7,648	9,047(b)	Army	
3,019	20,015	23,034(c)	Air	
3,490	14,788	18,278Total	7,908	42,451	50,3593.	Ceiling for recruiting as at present:
Officers Men Total
(a)	Navy	
1,584	8,016	9,600(b)	Army	3,019	17,981	21,000(c)	Air	
3,490	14,310	17,800Total	
8,093	40,307	48,4004.	Actual strength:
Officers Men Total
(a)	Navy	
906	2,660	3,566(b)	Army	
5,985	36,584	42,569(c)	Air	
1,103	1,674	2,777Total	
7,994	40,918	48,912
The above numbers do not include 1,153 students in the university naval training division; 2,698 in the Canadian officers' training corps; 693 in the university air training plan; and 309 attending the services colleges, of whom 87 are navy, 131 army and 91 air force.
Reserve establishment for long term planning purposes:
Officers Men Total
(a)	Navy	
2,925	4,575	7,500(b)	Army	
12,600	77,400	90,000(c)	Air	
8,120	6,380	14,500Total	
23,645	88,355	112,000
Target fixed for 1950-51:
Officers Men Total
(a)	Navy	
1,784	2,716	4,500(b)	Army	6,750	38,250	45,000(c)	Air	
1,147	4,598	5,745Total	
9,681	45,564	55,245


CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM BACON CONTRACT
Mr. Bryce:: 1.	For how many pounds of bacon was the 1949 United Kingdom contract?
2.	How many pounds did Canada supply up to the 31st of December, 1949, on the 1949 contract?
3.	How many pounds did Canada send this year on this 1949 contract at the 1949 prices?
4.	How many pounds has Canada supplied on the new contract up to the 1st March, 1950, at the 1950 prices?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	160 million pounds.
2.	Shipped and in cure as of December 31, 1949, for 1949 contract, 100,484,314 pounds.
3.	Balance of bacon put to cure in 1949 and cleared from Canadian seaboard in 1950 on 1949 contract, 27,971,592 pounds.
4.	Shipped and in cure as of week ending March 4, 1950, for 1950 contract, 3,254,368 pounds.


MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Mr. Argue:: 1.	What boards or agencies have been granted authority by the governor in council, under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, to regulate the marketing of agricultural products in interprovincial and export trade?
2.	What products are being handled by each board or agency?
3.	What regulations have been passed by the governor in council under section 3 of the act?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	The Nova Scotia marketing board with respect to apples; the British Columbia fruit board; the British Columbia coast vegetable marketing board; the British Columbia interior vegetable marketing board.
2.	The Nova Scotia marketing board authority is granted in interprovincial and export trade with respect to marketing apples only.
The British Columbia fruit board authority is granted with respect to marketing apples and tree fruits generally.
The British Columbia coast vegetable marketing board and the British Columbia interior vegetable marketing board have been granted authority with respect to marketing potatoes and other vegetables.

Questions
3.	No regulations other than those included in the orders granting the authority for each board to extend specific powers in interprovincial and export trade have been approved or are in effect under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act.


COLD STORAGE SUBSIDIES
Mr. Smith (Queens-Shelburne):: 1.	How many applications were received for cold storage subsidies under the Cold Storage Act, 1907, during each of the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949?
2.	In each of these years, how many such applications were (a) approved; (b) refused; (c) under consideration?
3.	In the province of Nova Scotia, to whom, and in what amounts were subsidies paid in each of these years?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	1946, 25; 1947, 15; 1948, 32; 1949, 18.
2.	(a) approved: 1946, 21; 1947, 10; 1948, 25; 1949, 13.
(b)	refused: 1946, nil; 1947, nil; 1948, nil; 1949, nil.
(c)	still under consideration: 1946, 4; 1947, 5; 1948, 7; 1949, 5.
3.	United Fruit Companies of Nova Scotia, Limited:
Canning:	1946, nil; 1947, nil; 1948,
$42,830.87; 1949, $19,987.74.
Coldbrook: (1) 1946, nil; 1947, $38,082.06;
1948,	$17,771.63; 1949, $10,155.22.	(2) 1946,
nil; 1947, nil; 1948, nil, 1949, $37,009.59.
Middleton: 1946, nil; 1947, nil; 1948, nil;
1949,	$36,626.90.
Musquodoboit Valley Co-operative Ltd., Middle Musquodoboit, N.S.: 1946, nil; 1947, nil; 1948, nil; 1949, $1,083.41.
ACA Co-operative Association Limited, New Minas, N.S.:	1946, nil; 1947, nil; 1948,
$8,198.88; 1949, $3,826.14.
Scotsburn Co-operative Creamery Limited, Scotsburn, N.S.:	1946, nil; 1947, nil; 1948,
$4,812.24; 1949, $2,245.71.


MATTHEW HALTON
Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouih):: 1.	Is Matthew Halton an employee of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	If so, when was he first employed by the corporation?
3.	At what Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stations has he been employed, and for what period at each of them?
4.	Where is he presently employed, when was he appointed, and what are his duties?
5.	Does he express views held by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	He is employed on a retaining fee basis.
2.	June 15, 1943.
3.	None.
4.	He is based in London, England. He was retained in 1943 as a war correspondent. He is correspondent and commentator.
5.	No.


C.B.C. PROGRAM &quot;CITIZENS' FORUM&quot;
Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouih):: 1.	Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, over its trans-Canada network, carry a program known as "Citizens' Forum?"
2.	If so, what is the purpose of this program?
3.	Who arranges the programs, and who selects the speakers?
4.	Has there recently been, on this program, a discussion concerning pensions for industrial workers?
5.	If so, were there representatives of (a) workers or labour unions; (b) management?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes.
2.	To bring to Canadian listeners an exchange of views on public issues and to stimulate discussion among the listening audience.
3.	The program is arranged by the C.B.C. in co-operation with the Canadian Association for Adult Education. Speakers are selected by the C.B.C. in consultation with a large number of organizations and individuals.
4.	Yes.
5.	Different participants spoke from labour and business management points of view.



COAL MINING


Mr. Shaw:: 1.	Has the government provided any direct financial assistance since January 1, 1940, to establish coal mine operators in Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia, for improvement in efficiency of their operations through rehabilitation or mechanization?
2.	If so, what are the names of all such operators, and what was the nature and amount of assistance granted in each case?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Apart from assistance paid to various western coal mine operators as a war measure and defined in the report of the royal commission on coal, there have been no payments by government of any direct financial assistance to coal mine operators in Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia for specific improvement in efficiency of operations through rehabilitation or mechanization.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL HEALTH LABORATORIES

Mr. Ross (Hamilton East):: Is there any duplication in the work carried out by the laboratory of hygiene and that carried out by the provincial public health laboratories?

Questions


Mr. Marlin:: No. The laboratory of hygiene provides special services to the provincial laboratories which they are unable to supply for themselves, that is, investigation of outbreaks of virus diseases, laboratory diagnosis of virus infections, et cetera.
The provincial laboratories conduct certain routine diagnostic tests on specimens which, though primarily the responsibility of the federal government, would be difficult, if not impossible, to ship to the laboratory of hygiene.
Any possibility of duplication is prevented by the close collaboration and consultation afforded by the technical advisory committee on public health laboratory services. This committee is composed of the director of each provincial laboratory and representatives from the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of National Defence, under the chairmanship of the chief, laboratory of hygiene, together with technical consultants as required.



STEEP ROCK IRON MINES


Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Is the federal government subsidizing in any way the production of iron at the Steep Rock iron
mines?
2.	If so, what is the rate of subsidization, and what has been the amount of it paid in each of the last four years?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1. As a protection against the possible shortage of iron ore to meet war requirements, the government entered into an agreement with the Canadian National Railway Company in 1942 to assist in the development of this iron ore deposit, under which the government agreed to:
(a)	Assist the railway to reduce the freight rate between the mine and Port Arthur, on the first 5 million gross tons of ore handled to the extent of 20 cents per gross ton, to be paid by the government to the railway.
(b)	Assume the cost of construction of a railway spur from a point on the Canadian National railway line, approximately 1-5 miles west of Atikokan in a northerly direction to the mine property, a distance of approximately 3-3 miles, and an ore dock at Port Arthur, Ontario, together with storage and connecting trackage to handle the ore shipments.
The Canadian National Railway Company agreed to:
(i)	Manage and operate the properties constructed by the government at their own expense.
(ii)	Pay the government 6 cents per gross ton on all ore handled over the Port Arthur

ore dock to be applied in amortization of the cost, without interest, of the spur, ore dock and track facilities.
(iii)	Establish a rate of $1.32 per gross ton for the transportation of the first 5 million gross tons of ore from the mine to Port Arthur, which includes switching and handling charges; $1.12 per gross ton to be paid by the mining company and 20 cents per gross ton to be contributed by the government.
2. Payments by the government of 20 cents per gross ton towards reduction in the freight rate:
Fiscal year
1946-	47	$165,829.951947-	48	
240,536.921948-	49	
136,553.431949-	50	
226,419.33
Payments by the government covering the cost of constructing the spur, ore dock and track facilities:
Fiscal year
1946-	47	$380,818.571947-	48	
43,668.251948-	49	
197,397.331949-	50 (to date)	
22,170.55
Recoveries by the government under the amortization clause in the agreement, being 6 cents per gross ton on ore handled over the Port Arthur ore dock:
Fiscal year
1946- 47	$ 47,749.00
1947-	48	
72,161.081948-	49	
40,966.031949-	50	
67,925.80



CIVIL AVIATION


Mr. Whitman:: To what extent does Canada follow the United States, the United Kingdom and the international civil aviation organization in the system of selection of civil pilots from the point of view of physical and mental fitness to assume flying duties?


Paul Joseph James Martin: While the Department of
Transport is charged with the actual licensing of all civil pilots, the Department of National Health and Welfare advises, by a set medical examination, on the physical fitness of all civil pilot licence holders. Through the Department of National Health and Welfare the civil pilot medical examiners are kept up to date on new advances and requirements in aviation medicine and are given a brief but intensive course in the theory and practice of aviation medicine. Physical fitness standards for civil pilots in Canada are no less strict than those in the United Kingdom and the United States, but are probably more effectively administered as Canada is the only country that has yet given training in aviation medicine to civil pilot medical examiners.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What was the total amount paid cut in family allowances from April 1, 1946, to March 31, 1949, or during the nearest three-year period thereto for which records are available?
2.	What was the total cost of administration of family allowances, not including payments covered by question 1, for the same three-year period?
3.	What percentage did said total cost of administration bear to the total amount of allowances paid out?
4.	What was the total amount paid out in old age pensions, including the federal and provincial portions thereof, from April 1, 1946, to March 31, 1949, or during the nearest three-year period thereto for which records are available?
5.	What was the total cost of administration of old age pensions, not including pensions paid as covered by question 4, but including both federal and provincial administration costs, for the same three-year period?
6.	What percentage did said total cost of administration bear to the total amount of pensions paid out?


VEGETABLE OIL IMPORTS
Mr. Hatfield:: 1.	What quantity of vegetable oil per month was imported into Canada in the year 1949?
2.	What countries was this oil imported from?
3.	Are there restrictions against the importation of vegetable oil?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Return tabled.



OLEOMARGARINE


Mr. Hatfield:: 1.	Do the importers of vegetable oil for the manufacture of oleomargarine require a permit from the import branch or finance department?
2.	What amount of American dollars was furnished to the manufacturers of oleomargarine for the importation of vegetable, oils?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of all reports in the possession of the unemployment insurance commission, dated since September 1, 1949, having to do with unemployment in Canada.


Charles Delmar Coyle: If my hon. friend is willing to allow this motion to be amended by excluding any interdepartmental or privileged papers, we shall be prepared to let it pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the parliamentary
assistant explain what he means by privileged papers in this connection?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: I took a good deal of time in the house last week, on a motion similar to this, to explain what was
Inquiries of the Ministry involved in the departmental papers, and I do not think I should repeat what I said at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion as modified?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: should like to ask a question which I believe should be directed to the Minister of Resources and Development, though I am not sure. In view of the housing shortage, why are the tenants of a federal government property at 50 Argyle avenue, Ottawa, comprising some fifty adults and one hundred children, being given notice of eviction on June 15 in order to provide, it is alleged, further conveniences for the Supertest Petroleum Company?


Robert Henry Winters: This question is directed to me, and I have received notice of it. The answer, so far as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is concerned, is that the administration of the buildings in question ii the responsibility of the city of Ottawa.


Major James William Coldwell: The city of Ottawa has them under some lease from the government?


Robert Henry Winters: I cannot say.


Major James William Coldwell: Can the government not intervene and stop these evictions, in view of the housing shortage?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: On March 23 I asked a question of the Minister of National Defence concerning the evictions which were to take place from the emergency housing accommodation at the R.C.A.F. Sea Island station. The minister said he would take up the matter with the Vancouver authorities. Can the acting minister give me an answer now? I understood they were to move out by April 1.


Hon. Hugues Lapoinie (Aciing Minister of National Defence):: I shall take notice of my hon. friend's question and look into the matter immediately.



TRANSITIONAL MEASURES ACT, 1947 CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott
1350	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act for the second reading of Bill No. 56, to amend the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act, 1947.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned last evening I had pointed out that in addition to the powers conferred by the continuation of the wartime leasehold regulations, which were known as P.C. 9029, very wide powers were carried forward by the continuation of P.C. 8528. I further pointed out that those continuing powers went far beyond the continuation of the board that is necessary for the administration of the rent control regulations and that the continuation of this order provides authority to deal with most of the activities of our people in this country, including their personal services. Last night I said also that it was possible for the government to remove any uncertainty, because the government could, by order in council, revoke any part of P.C. 8528 which is not necessary for carrying on the rent control provisions.
I believe such a provision is contained in the act to which assent was given on May 14, 1947. In section 4 of that act we find these words:
The governor in council may revoke in whole or in part any order or regulation continued in force by or made under this act.
Other hon. members have put forward the argument, as I have, Mr. Speaker, that we should not be dealing with the continuation of this wartime rent control order, but rather with a rent control bill which would clearly define the rights of tenants as well as of landlords. I am sure that proposition is sound; I am sure it is consistent with our established principle of parliamentary responsibility. Nevertheless we are confronted with the inescapable fact that, by virtue of the delay of the government in presenting this measure to the house, there is now no possibility of dealing in a practical way with the alternative legislation which should have been put before us. We cannot fail to bear in mind that this control measure, unsatisfactory though it is, will terminate at midnight tomorrow night. For that reason it is certainly not my intention to oppose the passing of this bill, recognizing, as I do, that unless it is passed there will be no continuation of rent control.
Having said that, however, I do not think that the necessity for continuing the rent control measure in this unsatisfactory form should justify the continuing of measures under a wartime order in council, which places the whole of the human activity of Canada under arbitrary control if the government should choose to exercise it. Last night I expressed the hope that the government would take the simple steps necessary to remove


any uncertainty, and revoke every part of that order except the part which sets up the board. It is still possible for the government to follow that course before this bill receives final reading.
Many hon. members do not seem to believe there is any occasion to question the existence of wide powers such as these. They seem to feel that until something has actually been done under orders of this kind, there is no reason for anyone to be greatly exercised about them. Merely by way of illustration, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out something that has recently been done under other powers, which illustrates the danger of permitting the government to use these loose powers for other purposes than those which were intended.
Doubtless every member of this house has seen reports in the press to the effect that a number of Canadians have been recently denied the use of the mails. This is a matter of greater significance than may appear on the surface. An explanation of what had happened was given by Mr. Turnbull, the deputy postmaster general. The explanation was as follows: Complaints had been received that certain people were using the mail for the purpose of soliciting the purchase of securities of various kinds. According to press reports, Mr. Turnbull explained that upon receiving complaints and examining these circulars, which related to oil development in Alberta, inspectors had been dispatched to examine the properties described. If it was found that what they saw at the property did not conform with the description in the circulars, the department took the step of denying the use of the mail to the people who had been sending those circulars.
This raises an extremely important issue, Mr. Speaker. It is clearly illustrative of the dangers of loose powers of this kind. In effect, what is being done by the postal authorities is the setting up of a securities commission in Ottawa, without any member of this house having given approval to that course. Do not let anyone suggest I am in any way seeking to prevent most effective steps being taken to restrain those who would sell securities, or anything else, by improper methods, or by circulars containing, information which does not conform with the facts. But let us see exactly what has happened in this case. Someone has complained that the circulars do not correctly describe the properties or the ventures in relation to which securities are offered to the public. Then, acting as though it were a securities commission, the Post Office Department sends someone to ascertain whether, in his

opinion, the property actually is in accordance with the description. The reason that this practice is so objectionable, Mr. Speaker, is this. There are laws dealing with matters of that kind. The Criminal Code clearly provides severe penalties for the use of circulars which improperly describe a property or ventures in relation to which securities are offered to the public. If circulars have been issued which do not correctly describe the properties or ventures which are referred to, and are therefore misleading the public, charges should be laid under the Criminal Code. I think every hon. member in this house would hope that charges would be laid. In my own opinion, charges are long overdue in regard to a number of the circulars which have been issued with respect to certain properties. But no member of this house has been called upon to say what kind of securities commission he wants set up. No member of this house has been asked to express his opinion as to how wide those powers should be. No member of this house has been told how a securities commission in Ottawa is going to relate its activities to those of securities commissions in the provinces. In fact, no member of this house and no member of parliament has authorized the Post Office Department or any other department to act in this way.


Mr. Sinclair:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.


James Sinclair: What relation have these remarks to the actual bill that is now under discussion?


George Alexander Drew: In view of the fact that last night, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary assistant seemed to be wholly unaware of the dangers of such procedures, I was trying to illustrate to him exactly the dangers that are inherent in loose powers of this kind.


James Sinclair: That is most thoughtful of the hon. gentleman.


George Alexander Drew: I am giving this information which, I admit, may not greatly help the parliamentary assistant, because it is quite obvious that he has not informed himself- or had not up until last night-in regard to the legislation which is before us. It is for this reason that I am hoping that, by an illustration of this kind, hon. members may be made aware of the dangers of loose powers exercised without the authority of parliament.
I return to the illustration I was giving. Since this is a current illustration, it should be the very kind that would help hon. members to understand why we should be exceed-
Transitional Measures Act ingly careful to see to it that the authority of parliament is respected. I think it must be of some interest to hon. members that these orders restraining the use of the mails by certain Canadians happened to coincide with similar orders made in the United States; it seemed to be a remarkable coincidence that our Post Office Department had acted at the same time as the United States, and in relation to the same people.
So far as I am aware, this parliament has not yet authorized anyone to act under instructions of the securities exchange commission in the United States; and I hope the time will not come when this parliament will ever authorize any Canadian official so to do. By all means let us co-operate to the very limit in preventing the issue of fraudulent circulars or fraudulent documents of any kind. But let us remember that in the United States there are procedures which have no place in this country under our legal system. Let us remember that the United States have a practice of issuing in a loose way orders which deny certain rights to citizens and which do not bear any resemblance to any procedure we have. In Canada we insist that our citizens be able to have their rights determined before the courts. In this particular case the Post Office Department, doubtless believing that it is acting in the best interests of the public, is exercising powers which were never extended intentionally by parliament, and is doing indirectly something that I am convinced parliament would not authorize.
I give that illustration because it indicates exactly the sort of thing that can happen under the wide powers granted and continued under this act, not in relation to rent controls but in relation to other matters-in relation to the control of personal services, the handling of goods, and other activities. I can only repeat that the government should not leave these powers in such a position that they can be put into effect by anyone and that Canadians may find themselves being dealt with under a procedure which denies to them the ordinary access to the courts.
I am not going to introduce an amendment, for the simple reason that, because of this confused procedure being followed by the government, we are dealing with an act which merely continues an order in council that could be revoked this afternoon. Consequently it is almost impossible, from the practical point of view, to deal with this particular subject. It is like dealing with quicksilver. This afternoon we might introduce an amendment dealing with a particular aspect of this matter, and it could be disposed of by order in council, as it should be. I present

Transitional Measures Act these arguments merely in the hope that the government, before this bill is finally dealt with, will remove from this continuing P.C. 8528 all those powers which do not actually relate to the setting up of the board which is necessary for rent controls.


Major James William Coldwell: shall not detain the house for more than a few minutes, Mr. Speaker. For reasons that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) gave in his speech yesterday, and for some of the reasons which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has placed before the house today, I believe that we should be considering a statute in which the powers relating to rent control would be clearly set out. Nevertheless, for the reasons the leader of the opposition gave a few moments ago, and because of the pressure of time-although there is still time for the government to reconsider its position in this respect-we propose to vote for the bill as introduced.
What I really rose to do, sir, was to pursue a question that I asked this afternoon of the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), because it comes under the head of housing accommodation and rent controls. I have now a more complete written answer from the minister, which was handed to me a moment ago by a page boy, upon which I wish to make one or two comments. After all, rent control is a minor matter when we consider the need for housing accommodation. In his answer to the question I asked today with regard to the eviction from 50 Argyle avenue in this city of some fifty families and one hundred children, the minister said that the responsibility for the administration of emergency housing at 50 Argyle avenue, which was erected during the war on real property leased to the crown by a petroleum company, is in the hands of the city of Ottawa. What I wish to do is to comment on the part of the answer that the minister did not read, and which states:
At the conclusion of hostilities the Argyle barracks was leased by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the city of Ottawa for use as an emergency shelter accommodation.
Consequently it appears that this property was leased by the crown during the war and again was leased after the war by a crown organization, namely, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. What I am anxious to find, out is how long this lease lasted; is it still in effect; and why, in view of the rental and housing conditions in this city, a piece of property housing fifty families is being returned to a petroleum company which, according to the information I have, merely desires to turn it into a parking place for automobiles. It seems to me that the need of

the people to park themselves and their children is much more urgent than the parking of automobiles.
I appeal to the government to look into this matter, to reconsider it, and to see that while the housing shortage lasts in this city, both emergency accommodation of this kind and ordinary accommodation for rent are made available to hard-pressed families and not handed over to a petroleum company for the parking of automobiles.


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


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: No.
Now that it is apparently clear that the government is prepared to disregard-indeed I might say treat with studied contempt

the serious legal argument which was put before this house last night by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), I should like to say a word or two about it.
I must confess I hoped that the matter would not have been dealt with in this way. In the last parliament, when the majority was not so great, it would not have been dealt with in this way. But now we are getting used to the experience of having this house treated with what I think it is no exaggeration to characterize as studied contempt.
I just wish to point out that this argument was made last night in what seemed to me to be a cogent way. I do not propose to repeat it; I just wish to draw the attention of the house to what happened. Was the argument answered by any of the eminent gentlemen of legal talents who occupy the government benches? No, it was not.


James Sinclair: They have not had a chance.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You have that chance today. That is why I am making the point.


James Sinclair: The hon. gentleman knew I wanted to rise. He rose first. I gave him the courtesy to go ahead.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry; I did not know the hon. gentleman was going to rise. I waited until the Speaker was on his feet. I suggest he might have escaped this speech, which he may not altogether like, if he had been a little more prompt in rising. I waited, as I say, until I thought everyone was through, until the Speaker was on his feet. If I had any reason to suspect that the hon. gentleman was going to speak-


James Sinclair: I want to tell the hon. gentleman that to get ready for my speech I spent all morning in reading over the

speeches of the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Drew), and that was no pleasure, I can tell you.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Two Rhodes scholars ought to be good.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We will listen with interest to what the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) is going to tell us. But with the array of legal talent that we have on the other side, it seems to me that we might be entitled to have someone speak who has been legally trained-not that I am trying to exaggerate legal training entirely. I had a little myself once, but it has mostly faded away. It may be of course that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano was going to read us an opinion from the Department of Justice, which, if he does, will qualify what I have to say.


James Sinclair: I will not.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If we are
going to have merely the opinion of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano in answer to what was said here last night, all I can say is that it will have as much value as my opinion on how best to construct the bridge which I understand recently fell into difficulties in the constituency of the hon. gentleman who is going to speak next. But I will say this for him: whatever he says he will say with that tranquil consciousness of effortless superiority which endears him to us. He is probably familiar with that phrase; I did not invent it.


James Sinclair: It was invented thirty years ago in the Oxford union; it has a beard on it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to say one or two things. I shall be brief, because I am looking forward very much to the speech of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. I am only sorry that I got ahead of him purely by accident. I would never do it wittingly; but I just want to make two points.
First of all, the leader of the opposition has made clear beyond peradventure the danger that there is with power lying about loose. I am sorry if the hon. member for Coast-Capilano did not understand the illustration given. In case he did not understand it, he can easily get one by looking back over the proceedings of this house. If he will look at Hansard of December 16, 1947, he will find a reference there to action taken by the Minister of Finance of this very kind, namely, powers exercised that this house had been assured were not residing in the legislation, and which to the surprise of everybody, apparently to the surprise of the ministry itself, were found to reside there,
Transitional Measures Act and were used, as the hon. member will recall, with great effect.
The second thing I want to say is this: This kind of treatment is part of a pattern that we are growing used to. I give one illustration; it has been in my mind ever since it happened, and I shall never have a better opportunity to get it off my mind than now. When this house opened in February the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in a nonchalant way, undertook to invade one of the traditional privileges of this house, namely, the priority of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The leader of the opposition, in what I thought was a quiet, cogent, well reasoned speech, suggested that he should not have done that. In the course of his speech he also quoted some cogent phrases from the former prime minister of this country, whose opinion at one time was highly regarded by hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the house.
I am not really complaining primarily that the views of the leader of the opposition, or of the former prime minister of Canada, were not followed; what I am complaining about is that that argument was not answered. All the Prime Minister said in reply was that he thought it was more convenient to proceed otherwise, and he did not deign to answer the argument which I thought any fair-minded man would say was a cogent one.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is part of a pattern; that is the kind of thing that we are getting used to in this house, and apparently we have to go on being used to it as long as there is this huge majority which will vote right. The only other thing I have to say is that I am very sorry I had to make this speech without the benefit of hearing the speech of the member for Coast-Capilano. I presume we shall now hear from him.


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, the last two speakers have started off by saying that their remarks were to be brief, and their remarks were brief. I, too, would have made my remarks brief except for a few things that happened last night. The Liberal members of [DOT] this house have been put in an unfortunate position by the pressure of government business. Because we have no desire to stop the passage of these bills, which must be through before the end of the month, we have sat here in silence, a silence which has apparently passed for assent. At the same time the members of the opposition, as is their parliamentary right, have made long and protracted speeches about many things, working many things into many bills, as for example the leader of the opposition worked section 7(b) of the Postal Act into the act on transitional measures.

Transitional Measures Act
Last night at about ten minutes to eleven the leader of the opposition had just about concluded his remarks. I indicated to the house leader that I would try to finish the bill out in ten minutes, in which event it would have been over to the Senate today. However, the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman) made some remarks to the leader of the opposition which encouraged him to continue for the ten minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Sinclair: I am going to give proof of this.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Take it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we shall listen to a number of extremely remarkable statements, but that is the most remarkable that I have heard yet, and one that has no relation to the truth.


James Sinclair: The few hon. members who were here last night will recall the circumstances, as will the house leader and the leader of the opposition. I have brought in a little documentary proof, because I know from long past experience that the leader of the opposition generally substitutes a flat assertion for argument. If he takes Hansard -Hansard is not yet out-I went up to the Hansard office to get the manuscript-he will see that after concluding his main remarks from ten minutes to eleven until eleven o'clock he regaled this house, with obvious personal relish, with excerpts from his old speeches, a peculiar form of narcissism to which he is frequently addicted.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What about Mr. Mackenzie King?


James Sinclair: May I tell my hon. friend that I spent all morning reading his many speeches, all really the same speech, but I shall come back to him in ten or fifteen minutes. The first thing I should like to do is to speak to the bill which is now before us. I should like to give a short history and some reasons why after eight years we are asking for the last thirteen months continuation of the few measures which are still in effect.
This bill really stems back to the War Measures Act which was passed in 1914 by the Borden government. That was a most necessary measure and gave the government of that day wide powers and the ability to act speedily and with flexibility on the very grave and pressing problems which occur in wartime. Then at the end of the war, in 1918, the Conservative government of that day did not repeal the War Measures Act, but continued to use it-it was a matter of


judgment-to enable them to hurdle the transitional period which always comes after the end of every war. The War Measures Act remained on the books then for 20 years and it was again made effective on September 1, 1939, when a state of war with the German reich was declared by this government although the actual declaration of war awaited action by parliament.
Looking back I think it was very useful that the War Measures Act had remained on the statute books of Canada for that period. The government of the day had the power to take action quickly. Under the War Measures Act as it was reinvoked in September, 1939, the government had wide powers to deal with the many emergencies which promptly arose. One of the first, of course, was the great dislocation in the ordinary economy of this country caused mainly by the artificial shortages which had occurred from the channelling of labour into the armed services and into war industries which resulted in shortages of materials and supplies. Therefore, it was necessary to impose controls which we would normally regard as unjustifiable in a free economy, controls to ensure that our economy would remain on an even balance, controls to ensure that everyone in this country would have a fair share at a fair price of what goods there were.
I think the system of price control built up by the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley and administered by Mr. Donald Gordon was the -best in the world and it certainly won the admiration of the Canadian people; not perhaps all those who are professional politicians, but the little people of Canada who were protected by these controls.
In 1945 the Liberal government of that day, unlike the Conservative government of 1919, did not continue in effect the War Measures Act. On the other hand, they said that the time had come to come back to parliament for further authority, which they did in the fall session of 1945 after winning a really democratic vote of confidence of the people of Canada in their conduct of measures like this. I should like to read the preamble to the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, as follows:
And whereas during the national emergency arising by reason of the war against Germany and Japan measures have been adopted under the War Measures Act for the military requirements and security of Canada and the maintenance of economic stability; and whereas the national emergency arising out of the war has continued since the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan and is still continuing; and whereas it is essential in the national interest that certain transitional powers continue to be exercisable by the governor in council during the continuation of the exceptional conditions brought about by the war-

This is the important part of the statement: -and it is preferable that such transitional powers be exercised hereafter under special authority in that behalf conferred by parliament instead of being exercised under the War Measures Act;
So we had the first of the transitional powers acts coming forward, as hon. members who were here will recall, in the fall session of 1945. It extended the powers for one year because even then the government was hopeful that the transitional period would pass quickly and did not ask for any longer extension of time. By 1946 conditions had improved to some extent as far as the free flow of goods was concerned and added relaxations were possible. A further extension was needed and the government of the day came to parliament and asked for an extension of one year.
Then in 1947 a large-scale revision was made. We were then two years away from the war. The hundreds of orders in council and directives which were in force during the war were reduced to fifty-seven and they were appended as a schedule to the bill. There was discussion in parliament at that time on every one of those orders in council and because of the action of members of parliament the number was cut from fifty-seven to fifty. When some hon. members say loosely that parliament has not seen these orders in council, may I remind them that every one passed in detail through this house as a schedule to the bill of 1947. The only changes made since that time in any of those orders have been by means of amending orders to restrict the powers given to the government under that bill.
In 1948 a further revision was made and there was an extension of time again for a year. Most of the wartime controls had now gone by the board. At that time the Conservatives were saying that we were too slow and should do what the United States was doing and eliminate most of the controls. At the same time the C.C.F. members were crying that we were going too fast, that we should hold on to the controls. We took the middle course and once again the people of Canada showed their approval of that course in the general election of 1949.
In 1949 we came and asked for one more year. At that time the hundreds of wartime orders in council which had dropped to fifty in 1947 was down to twelve. We asked for a time extension until March 31 of this year. This whittling-down process of controls and rationing continued as goods came into ample supply on the market.
We now come back to parliament in 1950. Last week the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) stood in his place and told parliament that this would be the last time extension we would ask for. This bill provides for a thirteen months extension to end the few
Transitional Measures Act controls which are now in effect. More than that, the number of orders in council is to be cut to six after April 1. We are in sight of the end of our policy of orderly decontrol.
The people of Canada realize this. The change in this country has been quite uniform. Some people may say that certain controls were taken off too rapidly, but in looking back at the whole picture I think that we have conducted our policy of orderly decontrol, trying to get back to the old free relations between buyer and seller, in sound fashion.
Both the putting on of controls and the carrying on of orderly decontrols took courage. The people of Canada have often paid tribute to the great courage and the high integrity shown by the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley and Mr. Donald Gordon in the matter of building up and administrating the wartime prices and trade board which did this great job. I do not think that enough recognition has been paid to the less glamorous but equally difficult job which has been done by the present Minister of Finance and Mr. K. W. Taylor in carrying out our decontrol policy. Today we have cut down from 6,000 employees, which was the peak, and many hundreds of orders in council, to the present six orders in council and 750 employees, of whom 500 are in rental control in the field and 250 are dealing with rental control problems and in the import quota branch here in Ottawa.
Another interesting thing has been the great change-in the attitude in the house toward this matter. Only five hon. members in all have spoken on the two stages of the resolution and on the motion for second reading of this bill, and since last Friday the department with which I am associated has received not one single letter as a consequence of the announcement on decontrol then made by the Minister of Finance. Hon. members will recall that when previous controls were taken off alarms were stirred up in this house and it was said that the government had lost the confidence of the people. That is what happened at the end of every rationing or other control. Yet six months later things had levelled off and the country had taken one step more back to what we regarded before the war as being a free economy, and members had forgotten their original unfounded fears.
I can remember being alarmed myself once and how I caused quite a bit of trouble to the minister in connection with the decontrol of commercial accommodation which occurred a year and a half ago. I was sure that that was a most premature step, and spoke strongly against it. Yet as a consequence of this action, within six months new office buildings had been built across the country and good space was available. Landlords who had been
1356

Transitional Measures Act getting exorbitant rents for old space because nobody was building new space or stores were having their rents hammered down to what they should be as decent space became available. Today we hear no demand across the country for a return to commercial rental controls.
I finish by saying that all this bill is is a last step in this eight-year program of necessary economic control which was a consequence of vur entry into the war. Each year since 1945 we have been whittling away at these orders in council. It is true that we had great powers under the War Measures Act; it is true that we had the considerable powers given to us in the first transitional powers act of 1945; but these powers are now almost all gone and twice since that time we have gone to the real court of last resort, the people of Canada, for an indication of approval of those policies, in 1945 and 1949. I want to tell hon. members-


Stanley Howard Knowles: A minority vote both times.


James Sinclair: -that there is no part of the entire government program which came closer home to the little people of Canada, the people of my constituency because I represent an industrial riding, the worker and his wife who are trying to raise a family. It is these people whose confidence in this government's policies was responsible for the return of the government with the greatest majority since confederation, for the reduction of the Conservative party and the almost total obliteration of the C.C.F.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A minority vote both times.


James Sinclair: I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is most anxious to get on his feet. In my notes, which I am sure the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) will concede I did not write in the moment or two he was speaking, my next heading is "Knowles". I must start off by making an apology to the hon. member which I hope he will take in good faith. I have already spoken to him privately on the matter. The other evening when the minister handed me the bill there was attached to it a mimeographed sheet from the privy council office headed "Schedule to the act". After all, as the hon. member for Greenwood pointed out, I am not a lawyer and I naturally assumed it was the schedule to the bill now before the house. It is actually what remains of the effective schedule to the act of 1947. In past years the courtesy has been extended of having the actual remaining orders in council placed on Hansard. I thought I was also extending a courtesy although it has not been very gratefully received by the hon. member. I want to point out, however-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. I am quite prepared to accept in good faith the apology the hon. member is making, but he had better make it in good faith and admit that he did not just say the other night he would place it on Hansard but that it would be a schedule to the bill.


James Sinclair: 
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member permit one comment? I want to make it perfectly clear that the only thing I had in mind was that the parliamentary assistant last night undertook to answer a purely legal question. I am not sneering at all at his knowledge of the general situation. My comment was directed to the fact that he undertook to disagree with competent lawyers on a purely legal question.


James Sinclair: The hon. member has misunderstood the point I am making. Last night, in commenting on what the hon. member for

Winnipeg North Centre had said, the hon. member for Greenwood said that often the officials in the rental offices do not know all the law. I am pointing out that if everybody in Canada knew all the law, certainly if the ordinary layman could pick it all up from the law books, read them and understand them, there would be no business for lawyers, and that might be a good thing for Canada.
The next point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was that the people of the country are going to be left high and dry in 1951 with the end of federal rent control. I should like to remind him that the problem of rent control can be properly handled by the provinces, and I was going to say his own province, but the province of his heart's desire, Saskatchewan, has taken such action.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell me what they do in my own province of Manitoba.


James Sinclair: I want to say more than that. If further decontrol is necessary over the next thirteen months then the bodies which can do it best are those governments which are closest to the people, the provincial governments. In my own riding of Coast-Capilano there are two areas, north Vancouver and west Vancouver, where rental control is certainly still necessary, but there is a great area from Horseshoe bay to Powell river where there is no need for rent control today. After all, the provincial governments are closer to the people and to local problems, and if they desire to do so next spring they can move into the field and perhaps institute the process which is the reverse of the one we have commenced, that of partial decontrol, only in the necessary areas.
The hon. member also mentioned the complexity of these orders in council and he reeled them off. Actually the whole trend is the other way. Not one of the amending orders in council which I put on Hansard, no amending order after 1945, was an expanding order. Every one was an order stripping away and restricting power. Therefore, rather than being more and more complex, these orders are continually diminishing. Of course that is the whole intent of the policy of orderly decontrol. Finally he asked-and I think rather naively-why we did not put the whole thing in one act in simple language that every layman would understand. It may be heresy, but I had to consult a legal authority on this question. He immediately pointed out that today the whole problem is not entirely our problem. It is complicated by the landlord and tenant laws of every province, and even if we had the right to do so we could not produce a simple understandable law effective in every province which every 55946-87J
Transitional Measures Act [DOT]layman would immediately know designated his rights as to the entire matter of rents. As-I pointed out, every tenant who is affected by these orders in council today has been affected for at least three years, and most of them for eight years. They certainly know their rights, and they know where to go if they need further information.
Let me turn to the remarks of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). I hope he will pardon me if I do not spend very much time on them for the reason that we have heard the same speech for the last four years. I did not quite realize how similar his remarks were until I spent this morning in. the library thumbing through the debates on this measure in 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949. I picked out a few of his words which he has used in every speech, lovely words such as "centralization", "dictatorship", "bureaucratic invasion", "unwarranted invasion of provincial rights", "sweeping totalitarian powers", and this lovely one, "assassination of the constitution". The funny thing is that when the hon. member works himself into a frenzy of indignation in the house he is never amusing, but it is very amusing to sit in the quiet of the library four years afterwards and read how the act of 1945 was going to' assassinate the Canadian constitution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Which 1945 act do you mean, the act that was passed or the bill that the government introduced and then withdrew under a storm of protest?


James Sinclair: Let me turn to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I take considerable pleasure in analysing his remarks. I notice that he is busy writing but I know he is also listening. His was the old, old thesis that we have heard so often in the short time he has been in the house. He says that what we are doing is the right thing but we are doing it in the wrong way. I am sorry that we have not all received yesterday's Hansard, but I have the manuscript. Last night the leader of the opposition said there was no disagreement about the purpose of the things we are doing, and then he went on to sayr
But there should be disagreement on the part of every member of this house with the procedure-that is being followed . . .
Let us look at the procedure now and see-whether we are doing the right thing but in the wrong way. He makes his usual tacit assumption of course that the only right way to do anything in Canada is the way George Drew wants it done. The people of High Park and the people of Canada showed most distinctly that they do not want things done the way George Drew wants to do them, but do want things done the way this government has done them since 1935. His suggestion at
1358	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act this time is that what we need is a new bill, a complete bill covering the present rental control, so everything will be clearly stated, in orderly language. He wants a new act of parliament. I am going to refer to a legal authority, and I hope the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) is listening. This is not the Department of Justice, but an authority that I am sure even he will respect. It is the Supreme Court of Canada, which passed on this very problem by reference on March 24, 1950. The opening clause of the judgment, of course, is familiar to all. The chief justice 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.
Then he goes on and discusses various leading cases, and then comes to the summation of his opinion and that of the other justices:
.... in the circumstances, this court may not doubt that parliament may competently . . .
Then listen to these words:
. . . maintain the regulations it has adopted to meet the emergency and its continuance.
Notice the words "maintain the regulations".
And listen to this:
Therefore the wartime leasehold regulations are not ultra vires either in whole or in part.
Again, that is the present regulations Which have worked so well for the last eight years.
Suppose at this eleventh hour, after eight years of satisfactory administration under this series of acts, we had brought in a new act this session. Hon. members on this side of the house and in the other corner know what would have happened. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) would have risen and thundered with all his eloquence that here the shilly-shallying government had changed its mind at the eleventh hour. He would ask, what was wrong with the old way? It had done well for years. But the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) would be in a much better position; after five years he would have something new in his speech. He would say we are not only deceiving the people of Canada, we are not only deceiving the parliament of Canada, but now we have tricked the supreme court because we gave them one set of regulations and as soon as they said they were intra vires we whipped in here and passed a new bill, which would be permanent.
I think it is necessary to have a return to reality, a return to the people of Canada. The laws of this country are not made for


lawyers; they are made to serve the people. The people have been well served by the policies of the wartime prices and trade board since 1941, operating under this act. The people know the policy of this government has been one of orderly decontrol, and it has been successfully carried out. The people know also that we are rounding out that policy, and this bill is now only asking for an extension for thirteen months of these six remaining effective orders. If the Conservative party wants to delay the passage of this bill beyond tomorrow night, and end all rent control, the people of Canada will know that, too.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Duration of act.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the parliamentary
assisfant give us more information, or at least clarify the information he gave us during his oration a few moments ago, in regard to the number still in the employ of the wartime prices and trade board. Perhaps he can tell us again the total number, and then how many of those are engaged in the administration of rent control and how many are engaged in matters that come under other regulations.


James Sinclair: The information I have is that the total number is approximately 750, of whom 250 are here in Ottawa either engaged in rental control work-though that is a minor matter here-or in the import quota system, which also comes under the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Taylor. The other 500, which is a round figure that changes as the work decreases, are in rental offices across Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those in the rental offices across Canada, the 500, are concerned only with rental control?


James Sinclair: That is my information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I take it there are no employees who could administer any of these sections in the wartime prices and trade orders in council that are being carried forward in dead letter form? .


James Sinclair: This is perhaps not relevant to the section, but I am glad to give the information. One reason everything does not relate solely to rents is the fact that we still have a few carry-overs, such as appeals and convictions, under the prices board. Under the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation there are some appeals from the refusal of subsidies, and some of the employees-not across Canada, but here in Ottawa-are still engaged in that work.

That is why it was necessary to carry forward those orders, not to impose new controls or grant new subsidies but to clean up the odds and ends of that work that still remain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was one other question. In replying to my remarks the parliamentary assistant dealt with the argument I had put forward that an attempt should be made to put into this statute a boiled-down form of the law as it now stands with respect to rent control. It seemed to me that he argued two ways. On the one hand he argued that it was too complex to put into a statute, and on the other hand he told me that most of the subsequent orders in council and board orders had been for the purpose of lessening the regulation and control and thus making the situation more simple. If his latter argument is so, surely it would be a simple matter to put it into statutory form. He knows as well as I do-and both of us may be grateful that we are not lawyers-that there are such things as office consolidations. In fact office consolidations are in existence now as far as these rental regulations are concerned. There is an office consolidation of P.C. 9029, which is the basic rent control order in council. That office consolidation sets out P.C. 9029 in the form in which it would be if you worked into it all the subsequent amendments. Board order 800, which I believe is the basic board order with respect to rent control, has been amended by subsequent board orders, and there is in existence an office consolidation of that. I am not suggesting it is necessary to change the rent control law to bring in something different from what was approved by the supreme court, but would it not be possible to produce what in effect would be an office consolidation of the law as it now stands and write that into this statute so people could see exactly what the law is?


James Sinclair: I cannot add anything to the argument I made. My argument on the complexity of the rental law was based on the fact that we have ten provinces with different landlord and tenant laws which also would be involved in any complete analysis for a layman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the situation now.


James Sinclair: That brings me to my last point. For the last three years the tenants and landlords of Canada have been working under these very regulations. Why should we, in the last thirteen months, go to the expense, if you will, or have the innovation of introducing a further consolidation? If this were an expanding control of course we would do that, but it is a control that has been constantly whittled down so that now it consists of only
Transitional Measures Act six orders, all of them now in effect and all well known to the people who have been affected by them for the last three years. Neither I nor the members of the government can see any real purpose that would be served.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary assistant and I represent constituencies in which there are areas where rent control is of concern to the people. He says that is so in only part of his constituency, but it affects the people in all parts of my riding. In view of the fact that the federal government is going out of this field in 13 months, does the parliamentary assistant recommend that his provincial government in British Columbia and the provincial government in my province of Manitoba get ready to take over the matter?


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, there is an excellent rule about minding your own business. I believe that is the course I would follow so far as the provincial government of British Columbia is concerned. The hon. member can govern himself accordingly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member saying that he minds his own business so far as the provincial government of British Columbia is concerned?


James Sinclair: I certainly do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought he fathered it.


James Sinclair: You never saw me on a coalition platform.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to bring the parliamentary assistant back to some of the simple aspects of the argument advanced by the leader of the opposition and myself last night, and which the parliamentary assistant has completely overlooked today.


James Sinclair: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have been through the resolution stage and second reading of this bill. We are now in committee on the one clause of the bill which says the intent is to change this one date to April, 1951. I suggest that to be in order the hon. member must say it should be one month, twelve months, or thirteen months. On this clause, he has not the right once again to wander over the entire field, and give us the latest version of this four-year old speech.


The Chairman:: The hon. member must direct his remarks to the clause under consideration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is precisely what I am doing, Mr. Chairman. While the parliamentary assistant was putting on this interesting matinee performance, he ignored the fact that unnecessary but very sweeping powers continue, and that statutory effect

Transitional Measures Act will be given to those orders in council. He has said that these six orders in council are part of the schedule to the 1947 act. One does not find the text of them there, so he was completely astray of the mark.


James Sinclair: There is a list of them there.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But one cannot find the text of them in the 1947 act. All one finds is the number of the order, the title of the order, and the date of its passing.


James Sinclair: So what?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If my friend can restrain himself, with effort, for a moment, then we shall get on with this problem. I should like to put some questions to the parliamentary assistant designed to elicit from him such information as may be in his possession. He has assured us he has all the information the government possesses concerning the necessity for some of the provisions in at least one of these orders in council referred to in the schedule to the act.
The effect of the section now under consideration will be to extend, for a period of thirteen months, this Transitional Measures Act. Will the parliamentary assistant turn to this important and sweeping order P.C. 8528, which was passed to meet the war emergency when it was at its height. I am going to invite him to direct his attention to section 4 of the order, subsection (1), paragraph (a):
4. (1) The board shall have power
(a) to investigate, of Its own motion or on complaint, costs, prices, profits and stocks of goods and materials of any person engaged in the manufacture, importation, exportation, production, storage, transportation, supply or sale of any goods or services or any alleged or apparent offence under these regulations, and for the purpose of any such investigation the board shall have all the powers of a commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Inquiries Act;


James Sinclair: Will the hon. member repeat the section?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Section 4 (1) (a) of order 8528, appearing on page 22 of the consolidation that was used in 1947, but is not part of the statute.


James Sinclair: I am informed that this is actually the section to which I referred in my speech, and to which I referred in answering the member for Winnipeg North Centre. Certain claims for subsidies under the stabilization act have been made, and if this section were removed there would be no authority to pay those claims, or refuse those claims for subsidies paid by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation. That corporation, of course, had to have the power to investigate the books of these companies which applied for subsidies to make quite sure the companies had obeyed the price regulations.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is an extremely interesting answer. You see, it has nothing whatever to do with rent control. The amazing fact is that, while the whole case built up for the continuation of this order in council was the necessity for continuing rent control, when one specifically examines these sweeping orders, one is given an answer indicating this important provision has nothing whatever to do with rent controls.


James Sinclair: The hon. member will remember that the minister told him that when he made his statement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it is the rule, Mr. Chairman, that only one member at a time should be on his feet. We are told now that this measure has something to do with subsidies, something completely foreign to the statement made by the minister and by the parliamentary assistant in relation to this bill; very interesting indeed, sir.
Let us now turn to the next one to see what that has to do with paying subsidies. I ask the parliamentary assistant what necessity there is for continuing this sweeping power in the wartime prices and trade board. I quote paragraph (b):
To enter any premises and to inspect and examine any or all books, records and stocks of goods and materials in the possession or control of any person and to require any such person to produce such books and records at any place before it or before any person appointed by it to investigate, and to take possession of and remove any or all such books and records;
What is the necessity for continuing that sweeping order for a further period of thirteen months?


James Sinclair: If the hon. member will just settle down, he will realize that the answer to this question is exactly the same. The minister in his statement pointed out, as I did, that, whereas the principal purpose , of this order in council is for rent control, nevertheless there is this cleaning up process as well. There are still 7 or 8 employees of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation who are engaged in that task of paying out the last claims, the challenged claims, for subsidies under the price control policy. If we did not have this authority to continue the investigation, then those claims could not be paid.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Again, a very interesting answer, read in the light of the statement made in this house by the minister last Friday which can be found at page 1089 of Hansard, March 24. He said:
Therefore the practical effect of the proposed bill is to continue the authority to control rentals only, for a further period.
Perhaps if we go farther we shall obtain a little more information about some other

powers besides rent control that the government is proposing to retain in favour of the wartime prices and trade board. Let me read paragraph (c):
To require from time to time any person who manufactures, imports, exports, produces, stores, supplies, sells, buys, acquires or accumulates any goods or services to furnish in such form and1 within such time as the board may prescribe written returns under oath or affirmation showing such information as the board may consider necessary with respect to such goods or services;
I ask the parliamentary assistant, what is the necessity for continuing that sweeping power for a further period of thirteen months?


James Sinclair: The answer to the hon. member is the same as that which I just gave. It is necessary for the cleaning up of these odds and ends of our policy of price control and subsidies. It was'mentioned by the minister in his opening remarks when he said that the only control power we are keeping is that of rent control.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Where is that found?


James Sinclair: At page 1089 of Hansard. The minister said:
Therefore the practical effect of the proposed bill Is to continue the authority to control rentals only, . . .
But he does mention there are these other odds and ends to be cleaned up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Where does he mention them?


James Sinclair: Not controls on prices, not added subsidies, but to finish up the payment of these few challenged subsidies which are now outstanding.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I challenge the parliamentary assistant to point out any place in the speech the minister made last Friday where he said anything about its being necessary to clean up the odds and ends of price control. Earlier in the same paragraph of the minister's speech, we find this;
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.


Mr. Gibson:: The practical effect.


An hon. Member:: What does price control mean?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I fail to see the possible relevancy of that question to the matter before us, when the minister has said that the practical effect is to continue the authority to control rentals only. Surely that is quite enough. But apparently that was one of those mere statements of intention by
Transitional Measures Act which the government does not consider itself bound. Let us turn to paragraph (d), which reads as follows:
(d) to make public its findings or report in the case of any investigation or to withhold such publication if it considers the public interest would be better served by such withholding;
Let me ask the parliamentary assistant again what justification there can be for continuing this sweeping power for another thirteen months. It cannot be needed to clean up any questions of the payment of subsidies or adjustments of them.


James Sinclair: If the hon. member will allow me to come forward again, I will get back to the earlier observation he made. I would ask the hon. member for Eglinton to read slowly the minister's words which are as follows:
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.
All price controls have, of course, been lifted. However, with regard to price control, we will remember that when we held down prices to below the cost of production so that the consumer could have the benefit of fixed prices, we had in fairness to subsidize the producer, whether it was the producer of milk, clothing or anything else. There are still such claims outstanding. The minister mentioned price control there and at the same time mentioned specifically that we were not going to reimpose any controls lifted, and of course all price controls had been lifted^ nevertheless there is still need to have this authority to wind up the last claims for subsidies under the stabilization program.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the parliamentary assistant to the minister any opinion from the law officers of the crown to substantiate his last contention?


James Sinclair: The answer is yes, that Justice has so informed us. I understand, of course, that the hon. member for Greenwood will not regard that as a final authority. But that is the only authority I can go by.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think the hon. member for Greenwood questioned any statement made by the law officers of the crown. He questioned the opinions being bandied about the-chamber by the hon. member. I should be much interested in having some further information about that statement attributed to the law officers of the crown. I do not think the parliamentary assistant should have any hesitation in giving to the committee, on
1362	HOUSE OF
Transitional Measures Act a matter of this importance, the benefit of the opinion of the law officers of the crown. I am interested particularly in knowing if it goes the full length of saying that the retention of all these powers-not only the one to which I have thus far referred, but the ten or more in the subsections following-are necessary to complete the demobilization of price control as the parliamentary assistant now argues they are. Personally, I have only this observation to make: On the statements he has made today, the purpose in retaining these powers is limited to the matter of adjusting and paying some remaining odds and ends of subsidies. I am prepared to affirm that half or more of these powers are totally unnecessary for that purpose, if it is as limited in its effect as that. I therefore invite the parliamentary assistant to give the committee the benefit of that opinion of the law officers of the crown so that the committee will know whether the opinion goes so far as to say that the retention of all these sweeping powers is necessary to accomplish the limited purpose that the parliamentary assistant has just described, namely, the completion of some odds and ends of adjustments of subsidies.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, not carried.


James Sinclair: The hon. member for Eglinton is of course anxious to have me relay legal opinions. I merely want to point out to him that in the drafting of this legislation the Department of Finance's own counsel was present and also they had the advice of the Department of Justice. On the first three sections he has mentioned, my assistant here says that the Department of Justice was consulted and did give their opinion. As to the remaining six orders in council, I would point out that as the need ends for any of these powers to wind up subsidies and payments, then these sections or these orders can be revoked. That has been the policy of the government since 1945; and it is certainly the policy of the government today.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is an interesting statement. The parliamentary assistant says that has been the policy since 1945. There is not one of these sections of this order that has been revoked yet by any order in council. The only revocation was the limited one introduced by section 2 of the 1949 amendment to this act, the limited one as applied to section 4 (1) (f) of the order. So let us not be led astray by sweeping statements of that kind.
As to this matter of the reference to the law officers of the crown, I am interested in pursuing that a little further. We know, of


course, that before legislation is introduced into the house it is passed on in a general way by the law officers of the crown, as to whether it is within the competence of parliament or not; and I have more than a suspicion that that is all the legal opinion that was ever passed on this measure. Of course it is within the competence of parliament to pass this measure. In the light of the advice tendered to the government by the Supreme Court of Canada, in the recent reference to it, it is quite clear that this legislation is within the competence of parliament. But that is not the question I raised at all. The question I raised was this. What is the necessity for continuing these sweeping powers? What justification remains for the provision that the wartime prices and trade board should continue to possess these vast, sweeping and arbitrary powers? The parliamentary assistant has not yet argued that one of these powers is necessary for the maintenance and continuance of rental control. He knows better than to argue any such thing, because all the powers that are needed for the maintenance of rent control will be found vested in that board under the rent 'control order P.C. 9029. The parliamentary assistant therefore knows quite well that the only basis on which he can justify the retention of these sweeping powers is by going outside of anything that has been said on behalf of the government in this debate to date. And so he brings in these so-called odds and ends of subsidies. Let the parliamentary assistant come out firmly and say to the committee what he has invited the house to believe in a previous statement this afternoon, namely, that the law officers of the crown have advised that the retention of all of these powers is necessary and essential to the completion of the so-called adjustment of odds and ends of subsidies. Let him say that. Let him produce the opinion.


James Sinclair: The hon, member is getting quite excited and is trying to put words into my mouth. He asked me whether the first three sections in connection with this legislation had been drafted after an opinion from the Department of Justice.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, I did not.


James Sinclair: I informed him that was so. Then he extended his statement and asked whether everything in all of these orders in council had been referred to the Department of Justice, and then a moment later said that I had said that. I replied that in the drafting of this legislation we had the advice of our own treasury counsel and we had the advice of the Department of Justice. On this ground I stand. I can do nothing else. Once again

getting back to this matter of the feeling of the people of Canada and these phrases which he has used such as "sweeping powers", and "arbitrary powers" may I ask what abuse of power there has been. Here is an orderly decontrol policy being carried to its logical conclusion, and once again the hon. member is flailing the air with these "sweeping powers" and "unwarranted powers" accusations,


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is about as adroit a sidestepping of the issue as we are likely to see in this committee in some time.


James Sinclair: That is a compliment, coming from the hon. member.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact of the matter is that I have challenged the parliamentary assistant to produce any opinion from the law officers of the crown to the effect that the retention of these powers in the wartime prices and trade board is necessary for the only purpose that he has assigned for the retention of these sections, and he has not done that. I will now put to him the same question with regard to these remaining powers. If there is any justification for them, let him give that justification. Certainly by no stretch of the imagination can this power be said to be necessary to adjust any so-called odds and ends of subsidies. Listen to this:
(g)	to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which, and the manner and circumstances in which, any goods or services may be produced, manufactured, extracted, refined1, processed, stored, transported, purchased, sold, offered for sale, supplied, assembled, installed, constructed, distributed, exhibited, advertised, delivered, used, or dealt in or with, either generally or by specified persons, and to prohibit transactions and acts not in accordance therewith;
(h)	to require any person to obtain licences or permits from the board or from any person specified by the board; to prescribe the terms and conditions under which and the manner and circumstances in which such licences or permits or amendment thereof shall be obtained; to issue, re-issue or refuse to issue licences or permits or amendment thereof to any persons; to grant general licences or permits; provided, however, that the issue to any person of a licence or permit shall not be deemed to affect the liability of such person to obtain a licence or permit as required by, any other statute or law of Canada or any province thereof;
(i)	to amend, suspend or cancel any licence or permit issued or granted;
(j)	to prescribe the quantities of, the manner in which, and the terms and conditions under which, any goods or services may be bought, sold, supplied, distributed, delivered or used within prescribed periods of time and to prohibit purchase, sale, supply, distribution, delivery or use except in accordance with such prescription;
(k)	to require any person owning or having possession, control or power to dispose of any goods or services to deal with, use, dispose of or supply any such goods or services, in such manner as may be prescribed by the board; and no use, disposition or supply of any such goods or services
Transitional Measures Act in accordance with such manner shall constitute infringement of any mark, design or other private or proprietary right;
(1)	to require any person producing, manufacturing, extracting, refining, processing, storing, transporting, importing, supplying, assembling, installing, constructing, purchasing, selling, distributing, delivering, using or dealing in any goods or services to produce, manufacture, process, extract, refine, store, transport, supply, assemble, install, construct, purchase, sell, distribute, deliver, use or otherwise deal with any such goods or services, in such manner and in such priority to any other business of that person as may be specified by the board.
There is not one of these powers that is necessary for the continuation or enforcement of rent control; because, as I have already said, rent control order 9029 vests in the wartime prices and trade board all the powers that that board requires for the maintenance of rent control. Surely no sensible person is going to rise in his place and argue that powers as sweeping as those are necessary for the adjustment of the so-called odds and ends of subsidies, the settlement of a few claims for subsidy. Hon. members should realize this because I suspect there are not very many, certainly on the government side of the house, who have taken the trouble to read these orders in council or to appreciate the scope and breadth of their provisions. Today parliament is being asked to give to these orders the force and effect of legislative enactment for a further period of thirteen months. Let any hon. member rise in his place and say that those sweeping powers are necessary for the adjustment of the so-called odds and ends of subsidies.
Mr. Chairman, what the house is being called upon to do is an insult to parliament. What we are enacting here, on the invitation of this government, is simply a travesty.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: There are one or two questions that I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant. They have to do with the submission made to the Supreme Court of Canada in reference to the continuance of emergency powers. The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada was one of the most striking ever delivered. It is one that peculiarly affects the constitutional set-up of this country. I say that because it is the first judgment on so important a matter passed by the supreme court since it became the supreme court. I use the word "judgment" advisedly, even though the chief justice properly pointed out that what the court was in fact doing was merely answering a question submitted to it as to whether or not the emergency powers in connection with rental control were continuing, and as such were within the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.
I want to find out first whether any appeal has been launched against the submission and

Transitional Measures Act the answers given by the supreme court. Second, if an appeal has been launched, by whom has it been launched, and in the normal course of events when will it be heard? This happens to be one of these matters that niay still be appealed to the privy council. At the moment I am asking for information as to whether or not the privy council is going to deal with this matter.
No judgment has been handed down in years that indicates and emphasizes the responsibilities of the federal parliament as does this submission or reference which I am discussing; for in effect it says, as I interpret it, that when and if parliament declares the existence of an emergency, arising out of either war or insurrection, or in any other manner whatsoever, then the court will be bound to agree, unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary, that parliament had the right to invade the jurisdiction of the provinces.
As I understand the import of the judgment, it means that if we in parliament make the declaration, irrespective of the provisions of the British North America Act with regard to division of powers under sections 91 and 92, the court will be most loath not to uphold the declaration of emergency. It is the judgment on the reference which indicates just how far this parliament could go in invading provincial rights, unless the House of Commons and the Senate were most careful to ensure that there was in fact an emergency before making such a declaration in the preamble.
I notice that the parliamentary assistant pointed in the general direction of the Minister of Justice. I feel sure that the Minister of Justice will make some extended reference to this submission, which is one of the most outstanding in Canadian constitutional history.


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the first point raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre, may I say that, so far as we in the Department of Justice are aware, up to date no appeal has been entered against the judgment in question.
With regard to the other observations made by my hon. and learned friend, I would very much prefer not to deal with a matter of this importance in the extemporaneous manner'in which it has been raised today. But I think I should say that the point which the hon. member makes is not borne out by all of the judgments of the judges of the supreme court. Just taking at random from the judgments which I sent for only a

few moments ago, when this matter seemed to be imminent, Mr. Justice Taschereau states in his judgment:
In the present instance,-
That is, in the case referred to the court.
-no evidence of any kind has been submitted to show that the emergency had disappeared and that normal conditions are now prevailing. On the contrary, common knowledge, to which it is surely permissible to appeal in a case of this kind, and the very valuable exhibits in the record which I have usefully consulted to test the accuracy of the statements, lead me to the irresistible conclusion that an emergency still exists as an aftermath of the war.
That is a judicial finding, not a legislative assertion, of an emergency. Then I quote again from page 13 of the multigraphed copy of the judgment as follows:
It follows that if there is unmistakable evidence to make it clear that there is no emergency, the courts are duty bound to intervene.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that still Mr. Justice Taschereau?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. He continues:
Otherwise, we would reach a conclusion that is not justified by the British North America Act. Under the guise of "Peace, order and good government," it would be possible for the parliament of Canada to enact colourable legislation, and wrongly assume powers that belong to the provincial legislatures. Confederation has been erected on more solid foundations.
But such is not the case. The war has created an emergency that justified the governor general in council to bring the War Measures Act in operation and pass regulations to meet such an emergency. Parliament then enacted the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act (1945) and the Continuation of Transitional Measures Act (1947) because in its opinion the emergency that arose out of the war was still existing, and for the express purpose of decontrolling, and to complete the orderly transition from abnormal to normal conditions.
The regulations that were passed to reach that aim are essentially of a temporary character, and the laws from which they derive their validity are in no way permanent. They will come to an end with the emergency.
I mention that judgment simply to indicate that it is rather dangerous to generalize in the way in which I understood my hon. and learned friend did as to the nature of the judgment. I think I am right in saying that a judgment was delivered by every one of the judges who sat on the case and necessarily the reasons were not all the same. Reasons were given by Mr. Justice Taschereau to the effect that if there were a clear case of parliament attempting to declare, as a foundation for its jurisdiction, an emergency which did not in fact exist, then the jurisdiction would not stand.


John George Diefenbaker: How many judges concurred with Mr. Justice Taschereau in his view on the question of the emergency which the minister has just enunciated?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As my hon. friend knows, on most occasions when judges concur with another judge they do not write judgments of their own, they simply say, "I concur in the judgment of Judge So and So."


Mr. Si. Laurent:: They each must write a separate judgment on a reference of that kind.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In this particular case each judge did write a separate judgment, and as the Prime Minister points out, on a reference of this kind each judge is under the necessity of so doing.
Another observation was made by my hon. friend with which, even on an extemporaneous basis, I think I shall have to take some issue. If I understood him correctly, he made a proposition to the effect that this judgment established some new principle of constitutional law.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I 'am glad to hear my hon. friend say that he disagrees with that view.
I think on reading the judgments of the various members of the bench he will say that they all followed closely two or three leading cases of the privy council.


John George Diefenbaker: The point I was making was that this is a landmark because the Supreme Court of Canada is actually making this declaration in regard to the constitutional separation of powers and the right of the parliament of Canada to invade provincial jurisdiction when an emergency exists.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend says it is a landmark. It may be a landmark in the sense that it happens to be the first judgment of the new supreme court since ultimate appellate jurisdiction for Canada was conferred upon it, but not in the sense that it failed to follow in any way the other landmarks made by the privy council in the Fort Frances case, the Japanese reference case, and I think in a third case. I think I am correct in saying that almost every one of the judges in rendering his judgment referred, to a greater or less extent, to these judgments of the privy council. I think this is the limit of the extemporaneous contribution that I should make at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Fisheries) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 54, to amend the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944.
55946-881	~ ~J
29, 1950	1365
Fisheries Prices Support Act


Mr. Higgins:: Is the parliamentary assistant going /to make a statement?


Mr. J. W. MacNaughl (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: I did not intend to make a statement at this time because I understand there is no serious objection to the passage of this measure. I believe that some hon. members have a few questions to ask and I suggest that the bill be allowed to pass its second reading so that we can get into committee where I could answer the questions in an informal way.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, before acceding to the suggestion of the parliamentary assistant I have a couple of comments I should like to make. I assure the house that I am not going to delay the passage of this bill because I approve thoroughly of the principle behind it. As I understand it, the purpose of the bill is to make permanent the provisions of section 9 which outlines the powers of the fisheries prices support board. Under the former legislation there was a time limit but this bill will make the powers of the board permanent as long as the act is permanent.
I should like to refer to Hansard of the time this act was passed, for two purposes. There are some short excerpts I want to read. My purpose in doing so is to refresh the minds of hon. members because I believe that to a large extent fish is not a subject which attracts a great deal of attention on the part of hon. members. I should also like to refer to them for a purpose which I will outline as I proceed. When the original act was first introduced in the house the minister at that time was Mr. Bertrand. At page 5800 of Hansard for August 2, 1944, in speaking on the bill the minister said:
But, Mr. Speaker, although we do not know exactly all that we are going to do, we know exactly what we are not going to do; that is, we are not going to let the prices fall to the low levels to which they fell in 1920, and again in 1932, 1933, 1934 and a few other years.
Further down the same page there are these words:
First there is, under section 9, subsection 1(a) and (b),-
Those are the present subsections of the act. -provision that the fisheries prices support board may prescribe prices at which they will be prepared to purchase such commodities as may be named by the governor general in council. This, while not being exactly a floor price, will have the effect of ensuring to the primary producer the prices which the government is going to set for certain commodities . . .
At page 5801 of Hansard of the same date the then minister said:
The second device, under section 9, subsection 1(c), is what we call a deficiency payment. The deficiency payment has already been in use under

Fisheries Prices Support Act the salt fish board in 1939 and 1940 and was found to be workable. The feature of the deficiency payment is that under this scheme there is no* interference with the natural fluctuations of price brought about by the laws of supply and demand. At the end of the year or of the season the board determines what the average price is to the producer of the fish on which a price has been set. If that average price is deemed to be too low to support and reasonably maintain production, the board, with the approval of the governor in council, sets a value on the unit commodity which in its judgment will bring sufficient return at this price to the producer . . .
Further down on page 5801 the minister said:
This is the policy of the bill. At the end of the year, as I said, there would be a calculation made as to the average price, and if the unit commodity has been sold below that average price the difference is paid between the average price and the price at which it should have been to give a fair return to all those who have sold this commodity.
Then there is an excerpt from the speech of the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew), to be found at page 5825 of Hansard of August 2, 1944. In speaking on the bill at that time the minister said:
I did not take part in the debate on the other bills, Nos. 161 and 168-
They were agricultural prices support measures.
-but I want to say a word on this, because I think that, of the three classes it is the desire to help, fishermen have probably suffered more than any other. They are in a very hazardous occupation. When they leave our shores to go out to fish they do not know what kind of weather they will encounter; they do not know whether they will have a catch or not, and when they come home they do not know what prices they will obtain. Therefore I think this measure is a timely one. It is hardly a coincidence that bills Nos. 168, 169 and 161 come in together and are all, in my opinion, aimed at the relief of the small man, the man who is unable to take care of himself.
He concluded his speech by saying:
I do not think any government will be able to withdraw it;
He meant the legislation, they will have to improve it and bring it more in line with developing needs, and make it permanent. If it does not work, of course, the more temporary it is the better. So that I welcome the fact that it has been introduced at this time, and I do not deplore so much the shortness of the term, because I am quite sure that once it is in effect it will not be possible to withdraw it.
At page 5829 of Hansard of the same date the then minister of transport, Mr. Michaud, said by way of an official pronouncement:
By this legislation we say, "So far as this country is concerned, we will take care of the products of your industry and will assure you a return which will enable you to continue in that industry and at the same time maintain a decent standard of living." That is what this measure is designed to accomplish, and nothing more.
Further down on the same page he said:
After all, what the fisherman and those engaged in this basic industry want is an assurance that
IMr. Higgins.]
whatever may be the condition outside Canada, this country will see that they get a fair return, no matter if that must be accomplished by a violation of the economic law of supply and demand.
At page 5830 he said:
Section 9 (c) of the bill maintains the principle which was established by the salt fish board. During its operation that board worked to the advantage and benefit of the fishermen, because the great bulk of the exports could not be exported at a profit or even at the cost of production.
He ended his remarks by saying:
I submit that this measure will go a long way toward relieving a situation which has been deplorable and which has concerned all governments for many years. They had tried to solve this problem but unfortunately have been unable to do so, owing partly to public opinion and partly to conditions over which they had no control. Now, however, we are establishing a principle whereby those who are willing to help themselves will be helped, and I am sure that this measure will be of great assistance to the fishing industry.
Those are the main excerpts I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members. My reason for reading them is to clarify members' minds as to the situation at the time the legislation was passed. As hon. members will realize, Newfoundland members are particularly interested in fishing, but that interest also extends to a large section of Canada. It is my submission that the act was put on the statute books for the purpose of making possible a floor price for fish in times when it might be necessary. In case there may be any doubt about that, and as to the excerpts which I have quoted, on the 21st of March last in a radio address over the trans-Canada network the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated:
Another thing we are asking parliament to do at the present session is to review legislation to provide floor prices when they are required to give a measure of social security to our farmers and fishermen.
I presume that is the highest authority on the matter to whom we can refer at this time. Taking the words of the Prime Minister, I believe I am safe in assuming that this particular measure does give the government the power to set floor prices on fish. That being so, I want to draw to the attention of the house a particular situation existing in the newest province of Canada. Last night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) stated'in his budget speech:
But I think it is fair to remind1 the house that during the past year and over the next few years the accession of Newfoundland to Canada has imposed and will continue to impose a considerable net burden on the federal treasury.
I was very glad to hear those remarks because it gives us great hope that things will continue in the way that the minister outlined. We have a situation as to Labrador fishing that I feel I must bring to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries. Probably it has been

done before, but certainly I would like some pronouncement from him on this matter, because the situation has become extremely serious. I have here the St. John's Daily News of March 20, which has a large black headline, "Labrador fish outlook is grim." I am going to read a few excerpts so the minister will understand the position of this committee of fishermen who called on the premier of Newfoundland concerning this problem. In this article Captain Malcolm Rogers, who was a member of the delegation, if not chairman, said:
"We are discouraged and disappointed men. We cannot possibly supply for the fishery if a price of at least $10 per quintal is not guaranteed beforehand.
We are determined not to go fishing until the situation is clarified to see if there will be a reduction in price. All we ask, if we are fortunate enough in securing a good voyage of cod, is sufficient money to be able to feed our families.
We have to go home now and tell our men that there is very little hope for the coming season's fishery. And apart from that there is very little hope of other employment . . .
We were told that our methods of fishing have been long outdated and that we might as well face the fact that new methods must be adopted. Speaking for myself, I have spent a lifetime building up fishing property. Now it is all of no use. I must put it 'on the mud to rot.'
When the proposed new methods are formulated we are willing to adopt them, but we are wondering what our industrious fishermen will do in the meantime to provide for their families."
That arises from the meeting of this delegation with the premier of Newfoundland, who is reported as having said at that time:
The premier held out no hope for the Labrador fishery this year, if present market conditions continue to exist. He frankly admitted that he did not expect one Newfoundland fishing schooner to go to the Labrador fishing grounds this summer.
There would be no difficulty in marketing the 1950 catch, but at a price which would not make it profitable for the fishermen to operate.
However, it is understood that negotiations are now being conducted at Ottawa in an effort to relieve the situation. And it is hoped that conditions will show some improvement.
That is my principal reason for rising at this time. I thoroughly agree with the principle of this bill, but again I would point out the situation that exists in Newfoundland. The procedure followed in preparing for the fishery is perhaps not known to hon. members, but it amounts to this. Prior to the beginning of the fishing season those who are going to engage in the fishery approach the local merchants in the various little settlements and arrange with them to obtain the necessary supplies of food, fishing gear and anything else they require. If those arrangements are not made and the fishermen do not get supplies, then of course there is no fishery. The situation now existing means that unless the merchants are guaranteed a price of at least $10 per quintal,
Fisheries Prices Support Act as Captain Rogers says, they will not supply the fishermen, and then we will have no Labrador fishery.
I realize that this is a very small matter, when we look around at the members of this house and consider the important matters that are being conducted and the amounts of money that are being made, but I can assure you that unless this situation is remedied those people in Newfoundland who normally engage in the Labrador fishery will suffer very real distress. Therefore I would urge upon the minister and his assistant that they take all these facts into account. They might also discuss the matter with the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley),, who unfortunately is not here at the moment, but in whose district many of these men reside, and Who is fully cognizant of the facts. The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay (Mr. Ashbourne), who is not here either, should be familiar with this situation as well.
Very sincerely and honestly I urge the' minister that action be taken immediately. Otherwise many men will have to go on unemployment insurance, which will mean that many independent people who do not want to ask for help will be required to' do so.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Coming from the town of Selkirk, Mr. Speaker, I am interested in this fish business, because when our fishermen are prosperous it means a great deal to our town. It was only about a year ago that I was worrying the minister to do something for the fishermen in Manitoba. I was not the only one; the situation was so serious that the government of my province were writing to him, along with the various fish organizations of northern Manitoba, in an attempt to get some support for the five-million pounds of fish that had accumulated at different points on the lake.
As most people know, the winter fish taken, through the ice normally are sold by the fishermen to local agents, who in turn sell to* Winnipeg exporters. Usually the fishermen are financed during the season by these agents, and a final settlement is reached after the fish is sold. The trouble here is that, like: the other support act, we have no formula. The Department of Fisheries did a wonderful! job last year, but 1 cannot get away from the-feeling that that job was done because an election was coming along. The more I study these matters the more convinced I am of that fact; and I am sure the minister would' not want anything like that to be in the public mind. That could be altered by putting some1 formula in the act. As I look at this, if the-Minister of Fisheries-not the present minister, but a future minister-is in a bad humour

Fisheries Prices Support Act when some outfit from the Pacific coast or the Atlantic coast or the prairies comes along, he can say the figure will be 50 per cent. If an election is coming he can say it will be 80 per cent. If things are really bad and there is a by-election in the offing, he can say 100 per cent. I think we should do something about that.
These prices are paid at the packer level. The man this government wants to help is the man producing the fish, the primary producer. Instead of that the help goes to the man who has bought the fish. I want to quote briefly from the second annual report of the fisheries prices support board, for 1948-49:
The Winnipeg dealers were holding heavier stocks than usual, of fish they had purchased, and especially of fish reaching them on consignment from the lake. They had recently discontinued buying. Manitoba fishermen had thereby sold less than half their last year's quantities. The surplus fish was threatened with spoilage, unless action was taken to buy and move it from the lakes into cold storage warehouses in Winnipeg.
A few days later the Department of Fisheries said they would buy 5 million pounds of frozen fish, including whitefish, saugers, pike, pickerel, trout and tullibee, at prices approximately 80 per cent of the going price for frozen fish. I do not object to that; that is all right. Further down in the report it is said that this price would be paid at the cold storage warehouses in Winnipeg. At that stage, the fish have passed into the hands of the packer, who can pay anything he likes for the fish to the man we are trying to help. I object to that. I want to see the primary producer get the benefit of this good legislation which has been put on the order paper, not the packer, who can look after himself quite well.
I said before that I supported this bill last time, and I am going to support it again. I should like to move an amendment-
Mr. MacN aught: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but I think he is creating a wrong impression. All the cheques for those fish went to the individual fishermen, and not to the packers.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not think that is right, sir. I know that all the packing companies that held fish were paid for the fish. This money was not paid to the man who caught the fish up at Norway House-


John Lambert Gibson: Perhaps they were on consignment.


William Scottie Bryce: They were only partly consigned, Mr. Lumberman. When I asked about this matter, the return I was given showed where the money was paid, and where the fish went. They went to Canada Packers at a cent a pound to be made into fish meal.


John Watson MacNaught: That is where the fish went after they were bought.


William Scottie Bryce: Yes, but the packers were paid for it. The fish companies in Winnipeg were paid, and I could put their names on the record. The primary producer is the man who goes out on the lake and fishes. He is the man who suffers all the hardships, and then has to take what the other fellow is willing to give him.
I am going to move an amendment, Mr. Speaker, which reads as follows:
That Bill No. 54 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the introducing of legislation to amend the Fisheries Prices Support Act so as to provide that floor prices should be established at such levels as to guarantee to those engaged in the fishing industry a price-cost relationship not less favourable than that prevailing in the period 1944-48.
This amendment is seconded by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). I believe it will improve the bill, and it is for that reason I move the amendment.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment. I do not think very much needs to be added to what has been said by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce). I come from a constituency on the Pacific coast in which a great many fishermen reside. The men who are engaged in taking the fish out of the sea are fairly well organized, and can generally get a fair deal with the packers and others who buy their fish. In eastern Canada I understand the fishermen are not so well organized, and are not in as good a position to get a fair share of the value of the product they help to produce.
I think we should pay attention to the point made by the member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) that on the east coast, where fishing is so hazardous an occupation, when the fishermen undertake to go through the hardships of bringing the fish to shore, they never know what they are going to receive for their fish. As a matter of fact, they have little control over the price they receive. Consequently, whether the fishermen participate directly or indirectly in the monetary benefits of price support, they should know before the fish are taken out of the sea what they are going to receive for their labour. As was said in the debate on the agricultural bill, it should not be left to the whim or caprice of a fisheries minister or a cabinet to decide what the price support may be.
I appreciate this bill. I see that it is to be continued for an indefinite period, but any amendment we may make now relating to the price relationship would not of course

remain permanently. It could be amended in the same way that other sections of the bill are amended, if any change took place in the cost of living. Then another period could be taken to determine the price relationship. I suggest that this amendment does not hold up the bill. The bill could be passed with the assurance that the fishermen and those engaged in that industry will know exactly what price support will mean in actual practice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the amendment carry? Those in favour of the amendment please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those against will say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the amendment lost.
Amendment (Mr. Bryce) negatived.


Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: I should like to make a few observations in support of what the member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) has said. I represent a constituency a portion of which, outside the city of St. John's, is principally concerned with the fishing industry as a means of livelihood. In St. John's West, the principal people engaged in this trawling business are established. It must be realized that we are principally concerned about the salt codfish industry in Newfoundland. It has always been a matter of great concern to the fishermen of Newfoundland to know what price they are going to get for their fish. As my hon. friend has stated, this business being conducted on a credit basis and not on a cash basis, in the spring of the year the fisherman generally goes to a merchant, locally he is called a supply merchant, and takes on supplies. He would like to know then, not six months after that, what he is going to get for his fish. Otherwise he does not know how the price he is paying for his supplies is going to relate to the price he is going to get for his fish.
Over one hundred years ago a law was passed that made it obligatory for the merchants to set up the prices when the men went to look for supplies, so that they would know what was going to be paid for the fish; and at various times since it has been found necessary. It is certainly desirable that as soon as possible, at the earliest part of the season, in August, the fishermen should be told what the price of fish is going to be.
In our country at the present time we have a fisheries board that has been in operation for about five years. At various times we have had various measures to help the fisherman.
29. 1950
Fisheries Prices Support Act I remember in 1933 the merchants would not supply the fisherman, and the government had to come forward and give a guarantee that they would compensate the merchant if the fisherman was not able to pay for the supplies he got. I think it can be easily seen how important this business is in Newfoundland. There are 28,000 fishermen and through the various ramifications the number of people who are concerned with the successful progress of the fishing voyage is greater than that in any other industry in the province.
At the present time, in the month of March, the first fishermen begin to go to the Grand Banks from the southern portion of the island. They are engaged in trawling on the Grand Banks. As can be imagined, that is a strenuous life at this time of the year. As my hon. friend has said, it is the fishermen who go down to Labrador who are now the most concerned. In my constituency last year the chief trouble we had was that the people did not catch any fish. I do not know whether anything can be done for them except what was done by putting them on relief work initiated by the provincial government.
But as to the price of fish, of the two measures envisaged under the continuation of this act, one is that the government will buy the fish that cannot be sold. I should like the minister or his parliamentary assistant to tell us if anything will be done in Newfoundland this year with regard to that. We had some difficulty in disposing of the catch. I do not know whether it is all disposed of as yet. One of the things that saved the situation down there was that the fishing was not as great as it is normally. One of the purposes of the act is to see that there is a fair relationship between the return from the fisheries and that from other occupations. That purpose was stressed when the bill was introduced in 1944 and I hope it will be kept in mind for the future.
Last year the minister, speaking with regard to the fisheries, told us that he was going to set up three committees, I believe: one dealing with marketing, one dealing with technical services, and one dealing with consumers' services. I do not know whether he has been able to make any progress in this matter since then; but if he has been able to do so, I hope he will tell us what he has done.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) has pointed out the situation with regard to the Labrador fishermen, and in some respects what he said applied to other fishermen. It is desirable for them to know the price. That is why it is important that a floor should be set under the price of fish. It is important for them to know at as

Fisheries Prices Support Act early a date as possible what is going to be paid for the fish, so that they will know whether it is worth while for them to go into it or not.
I do not intend to speak at any length. I just want to refer to this point. The amendment that was moved here, it seems to me, would not suit at the present time because there has been a decline in the price of fish and the fishermen have had to accept a lower price for fish than they were getting up to last year. But nevertheless there is a point beyond which we cannot allow the price of fish to go or, as in the case of the Labrador men, they will have to give up the fishery and they will not be able to go down there at all. The same thing may apply to the shore fishery. I am sure that the intention of this act is to prevent a large body of people from being put out of employment. I hope the minister will be able to give us some information on these matters.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: I just wish to make a few brief remarks in connection with this resolution. I believe that I am perhaps as greatly interested in the fishing industry as any other member in the House of Commons. It is only a day or two ago that I heard the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) make the statement that the farmers of this country were the only people who were ever asked to sell their products at less than the cost of production. I did not contradict him at that time, but I should now like to say that I myself, on many occasions, have sold fish below the cost of production. I am greatly interested in the fishermen being protected to the extent that they will be able to make a fair living. At the same time I realize that even with this resolution we shall have many problems to face.
I have listened with interest to the hon. members from Newfoundland who have spoken within the last half hour, and from my experience I should like to assure them that it would be utterly impossible for the fishermen in Newfoundland to find a market for their fish in Canada. They will have to look to the same markets they have had over the years in order to dispose of their catch of fish. We in the maritimes have found it utterly impossible to sell any volume of fish in Canada. I have made the statement on the floor of the House of Commons on several occasions that some particular lines of fish that we produce are sold 100 per cent in the United States. That is the natural market for fresh fish, lobster, and all kinds of shellfish. In the dried-fish industry you have a different market that goes farther south. If the fisherman in Newfoundland expects to sell

dried fish during the year 1950, I am convinced in my own mind that he will be obliged to seek a market in that same country.
There is a problem which arises in connection with price control and which has been discussed to a great extent down on the Atlantic coast. As I have stated, we sell practically all we produce in the United States, in competition with fish that are caught in the state of Maine. When this prices board was set up in 1944, all the papers in the state of Maine and along the New England coast line took it up immediately. The great worry among the fishermen in those states at that time was that we in Canada would be selling fish, the price of which was supported in Canada, in competition with Maine fish. They were bitterly opposed to Canadian fishermen having that advantage.
When the time comes, and if it is found necessary to support these prices, I believe that we may find a good deal of opposition in the state of Maine, in trying to compete with those fishermen there. I believe there is some way by means of which the fishermen may be helped to the extent that they can at least sell all they produce at the cost of production. Prior to the war, those engaged in the fishing industry had had many years of distress circumstances. Anything that might be done by this government to assist the fishermen down in that section would certainly be appreciated. But I know that we shall find that opposition from the fishermen in the New England states. I realize that it may be quite a problem and in the final analysis it might be responsible for a duty being placed on Canadian fish going into the United States. If a duty were placed by the United States on any of the fish that we produce, it would practically kill that particular industry down there. I just want to put one set of figures on the record again to indicate the extent to which we depend on those people for markets.
A few years ago-as a matter of fact, in 1948-I obtained the figures from the lobster company in the town in which I live as to the volume of their business transacted in the United States. In that particular year they did $4 million worth of business in lobsters. Of that total 96-4 per cent of the lobster was sold in the United States. Less than 4 per cent was sold in Canada. We have other industries down there-smaller ones I will admit-where 100 per cent of the production is sold in the United States. Legislation that may in any way interfere with the market we have enjoyed over the years would be very harmful to the fishing industry in that section. I am hopeful that this legislation

may not bring about that condition, but at the same time I realize that we certainly will have a lot of opposition from fishermen in the New England states.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Coming into force.
John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Chairman, when the house was at the resolution stage, the hon. member for Selkirk asked a question, and I promised that when we were in committee on the bill I would answer it. I have the answer prepared. It is rather lengthy, and if I have the unanimous consent of the committee I will put it on Hansard.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Has the hon. member
unanimous consent to put the answer on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Watson MacNaught: 
William Joseph Browne: I notice from the report of last year of the fisheries support board that research activities were carried on in the Gaspe peninsula and on the north shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence and the Magdalen islands in 1948 to find out the relationship between fishermen's incomes and the factors affecting them. I wonder whether any work of that kind was done in Newfoundland during the past year.


John Watson MacNaught: Yes; similar work has been done in Newfoundland, and is going on all the time.


William Joseph Browne: By whom?


John Watson MacNaught: By officials from the
fisheries research board.


William Joseph Browne: At Ottawa?


John Watson MacNaught: Yes, from the prices support board in Ottawa.


John Lambert Gibson: Are any applications to the fisheries support board being considered at the present time in relation to any commodities? If so, where are they?


John Watson MacNaught: There is one.


John Lambert Gibson: From what district?


John Watson MacNaught: One application came in for consideration a short while ago. It is from British Columbia and has to do with dogfish oil. Last week the board considered one from Newfoundland. It had to do with the salt fish situation.


John Lambert Gibson: No decision has been arrived at yet?


John Watson MacNaught: No.

Fisheries Prices Support Act


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Would the same support apply to the fish that is exported as it does to the fish that is consumed or sold in Canada?


John Watson MacNaught: I understand that it the fish is to be subsidized it will not be exported.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I may not have got the answer correctly to the question asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Did the parliamentary assistant make a statement with respect to price support and the setting of a ceiling price on fish? Will the minister make a statement on that now?


Mr. Mayhew:: I did not hear the hon. member's question. Will he repeat it?


Gordon Francis Higgins: I understood from my colleague that the parliamentary assistant gave an answer to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni with respect to an application from Newfoundland to the prices support board. I did not hear it.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The parliamentary assistant said that there was an application before the board for a floor price on cod liver oil. That has been considered, but no decision has been rendered.
There is also under consideration what we might do to help the salt fish situation in the province of Newfoundland. No decision has been reached on that, although a recommendation is going forward.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The minister has had a request, has he?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes, we have had a request. I do not know whether it is an official request, but the problem of the Newfoundland salt fish industry is one that has been carefully watched ever since the exchange situation developed, and we are giving it every assistance we possibly can. I think we would have greater success if there was less said about a surplus. You are creating a situation for yourself that makes it very difficult in Newfoundland when you tell the world that you have a long surplus of fish. I would like to tell them now that you have not got a long surplus, and let these people know who are looking for bargains that they are not going to get them.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask the minister who in the house has been making statements about surpluses in Newfoundland?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Everybody who rises in his place.


An hon. Member:: You have.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I have not.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I had not intended to say anything on this matter because the parliamentary assistant was handling it. The hon. member for Selkirk implied that we had paid the money to the wholesalers rather than to the fishermen for the fish that were taken in Winnipeg last year. We obtained the names of the fishermen from the wholesalers who brought them in, and the cheques were sent to the individual fishermen, not to the wholesalers. We paid the cold storage people for the storing of the fish. Necessarily we had to bring them in, and they were on consignment there. We had to pay for the storage, but for the fish themselves the cheques went to the individual fishermen.


William Scottie Bryce: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister another question. These cheques that went out went to the men that collected the fish, not to the men who took the fish from the lake?


John Lambert Gibson: What is the difference?


William Scottie Bryce: There is a big difference.


John Lambert Gibson: It was a poor buy, anyway.


William Scottie Bryce: It was not a poor buy at all. I am serious about this. Hon. members can laugh at me as much as they like; I do not care. I would not rise in my place and tell the hon. gentleman he was wrong if I did not know that I am right. I am positive that I am right, because I have been there and I have seen it myself; the men who actually drew the fish out of the lake did not get paid. The men who collected the fish skinned them, passed them on to the packer who got the cream off it. I have another question.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


William Scottie Bryce: I do not want to be heated about this, but I am going to be asked these questions when I go back to Manitoba.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I will give the hon. member all the information if he asks me in a proper way.


William Scottie Bryce: The minister employed a technical consultant three months under the Fisheries Prices Support Act. What was his job? Who was he?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That is a question that could be answered when our estimates are before the committee. I should be glad to give the information then. We will give all the information. We shall tell you to whom the cheques were sent and how they were distributed.


William Scottie Bryce: Will you take the question as notice?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I asked the minister a question a short time ago but he did not answer me.
I should like to have cleared up the suggestion that some hon. member on this side of the house, meaning either the hon. member for St. John's West or myself, has been talking about the fish held in Newfoundland, and that if we did not talk too much about it there would not be so much there. I want to know if the statement was made either by the hon. member for St. John's West or myself.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Joseph Browne: I think the minister should be allowed to answer.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There has been a delegation here in connection with fish and that has been known to everybody. You have all said that you are in a difficult position, although probably that was not said in the house.


Gordon Francis Higgins: We are.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That is all I was talking about.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
29. 1950
Fisheries Prices Support Act
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will take up the motion under the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to set up a committee to deal with old age security. Then we will try to have the estimates of the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to the standing committee on external affairs. We will then revert back to government notices of motion and take up the motion of the Minister of National Revenue to set up a committee on radio broadcasting. If we are successful in getting that through we will take up the motion of the Secretary of State to set up a special committee to deal with amendments to the Dominion Elections Act, 1938. If we have any time left there are a few other resolutions to be dealt with.


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

Thursday, March 30, 1950